
## <a name="the-reduction-of-materials-and-computing-in-electronics-and-the-typewriter-wordprocessor">The Reduction of Materials And Computing In Electronics and The Typewriter/WordProcessor</a>

*400 Wanattomians, Thursday, September 4, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 

Computing | Livelihood | Frugal Living 

Currently I'm exploring additional options for simplifying my computing platform and productions process. One way I've been looking into is the reduction of computing hardware to what is more inexpensive, including moving to microcontrollers, and the use of free or nearly free energy. Some of this work is simply to become more independent, and some is to lighten the weight in order to work in the field while camping with less energy needs and less to carry. This strategy will dwindle my electronics and electronics costs approaching what I've done with paper. With paper my main strategy is to write on just three sheets wrapped in a single simple tape covered cover, using pencil that is erased again and again. That requires no power at all, and I like to joke with seriousness that the paper has a battery that does not run out. Between the paper and the current solution with electronics I have a very good system for use while hiking and camping, and while traveling more generally, but I want it to be lighter and more simple still.

With these and other aims in mind I have begin work on saltwater batteries, work on the pico microcontroller with plans for other microcontrollers, and work with soldering and wires and sheet metals. The battery bank with the salt water was proven viable recently with the second stage of development completed. In the first stage I was able to power two lights and measure 5.5 volts with an aluminum anode and copper cathode combination. The goal is to use seawater and oceanwater, both well suited for battery electrolyte, but in the meantime I'm using table salt which works well too. For stage two I incresed the size of the electrodes and cell containers and was able to produce more current, and 5.5 volts, to power ten lights, with the view that likely I could have powered many more. Without a reliable way to measure current, and without more lights to use, I could not test capacity and current further, but I have a multimeter that will allow for current testing in a few days. I anticipate that I'll be able to power a microcontroller without issue after I am able to do my next tests, on a third battery bank, with even larger aluminum anodes.

Yesterday and today, as I was preparing for an initial packaging of my first microcontroller solution, I noticed that nail polish and sheet metal are adequate for wiring. Having both copper sheet metal and aluminum on hand, and a newly purchased bottle of black nail polish, I noticed that my supply of wire is much greater than if I bought wire specifically. This is because the width and depth of the wire is very small compared to the quanity that would be cuttable from the sheets of metal I have. The mass of the aluminum foil and copper plate is greater than what is within the wires. So I simply have much more copper and aluminum wire if I stick with making my own from the plate and the sheet, and that is done really easily at less cost. It makes me wonder a bit why people do not already work this way, but certainly some few probably do.

I even imagined the possibility of making a computer circuit cutout from a sheet of aluminum or copper plate. Doing some research, I found that it wasn't until recently that computers did not use aluminum for connections between transistors. The slight conductivity increase in using copper was eventually preferred. More research is required but nothing was mentioned about gold. My tentative conclusion is that this should indicate that aluminum foil alone is more than adequate for wiring of all components in my computer system, since even an advance system used the same materials. This includes storage in microcopmuters in the 21st century in very recent times, and not only in older computers.

Now I'm finishing with initial steps of work with the pico microcontroller, and then I move to using other less expensive and even more minimal microcontrollers to do my typing work.

I noticed recently, that the work that my system does, which is most of the work I would ever need for any writing, web site creation, and book printing, and any writing related work needed for clients, that the computer does not appear to be necessary at all for the post system automation efforts. Most of the software does the work for me. I'm only needing to type primarily nowadays. Needing only to type, and not to process information much, and to store it, I realized that microcontrollers and plain circuits would do the work. My efforts now are trending towards using the smallest microcontrollers to simply type to storage, and later I want to have my own computer circtuit that is small and portable that will do the work. For now and for the forseeable future, however, I'm very happy with working ona  minimalistic setup with a very portable microcomputer and pico microcontroller, soon with saltwater battery as the energy source. It will be perhaps a few years before I have a circuit of my own design allowing me to store information on a storage device, likely a small SD card. The one part of the system, interestingly, that I need to retain from a manufacturer, that I cannot make on my own, is not the microcomputer, they keyboard, or any of what constitutes the computer system. It's just the external storage attachment, that keeps whatever work I actually did. Without that the work is pointless and the goal of all the computing has nothing to do in my case for the most part with the computing but with the results of production. If I did digital art, what is most important to me is the art stored. Since most of what I do is writing, what I'm most interested in is the writing stored. The storage matters most. Interestingly, for text creation, now much more of a circuit is needed than what exists already in a typewriters mechanical design, considering the logic mainly and nearly the implementation, and the same with the digital word processor. While I'm not very old myself, I did work on an actual typwriter and a digital word processor before I had a desktop computer of my own. It turns out a keyboard with storage and perhaps some visual display is sufficient for my system in large measure. Some of the writing I've added to the thoughtstream here already did not have any visual feedback. I typed it into a blank screen, the equivalent of having none, and published it to the site. This demonstrates thinking into book ready publication and also thinking into storage. It shows that I could just have a keyboard or some electronic buttons, even one button, to type what I think ,and have it appear in my book or on my website, or just in storage.

Such a system, not having an interface is one that is lower voltage. Writing on paper is zero voltage or the voltages of you doing the writing. In your body. Otherwise, we think of it as requiring no voltage. But the computer typically consumes a lot of power. Laptops consume less, and that was part of the goal to make them smaller for a while (they got larger lately). My system I'm using now is a raspberry pi zero with a 2.8 inch display. It's very tiny, about one quarter of the screen of y phone. It runs a very long time on a companion 5 volt battery. By reducing the screen I reduced the power needs. Movign to the microcontroller I will have no screen. I will have some feedback initially, but that will just be a buzzer and a very small light. This extremely low voltage system can run for days without needing recharge on a very small battery. This has enabled me to be able to walk out on hiking excursions that can be very long with the expectation that there will be no need for recharge. This is not yet tested, and not all is complete, but nearly this is ready. This is also if the device is left on. A reminder though, is that the print setup requires none of that still, and I will keep that along with me as a backup. The current system is to use the very small computer I am typing on now, to test the pico microcontroller, and to write on paper.

Soon it appears I will be able to make a large portion of the system from more basic components, the microcontroller, foil and sheet metal, with nail polish. My main computer soon will be a microcontroller smaller than the pico. Initially it will be a hybrid system, and what I write on that will be transferred into this system for longer term storage and distribution. Not only will it last for very long periods of time without a need to charge, I expect that my charging will be done with saltwater batteries only. This is assured too, although I have not yet reached the scale needed. The scale required requires some weight of aluminum and copper to be carried, but not so much as to be impracticable. With it I have unliited energy if near the seaside.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="gestures-and-not-speaking-during-travel-and-otherwise">Gestures and Not Speaking During Travel and Otherwise</a>

*400 Wanattomians, Thursday, September 4, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 

Relationships | Linguistics and Language | Environments | Outdoors and Adventure | Travel

My interest in language acquisition with the exception of what I learned in school, Latin and Spanish, and afterwards, Korean, was for simply enabling travel ease. After many travels, I consider and have considered myself a dabbler of languages, someone who learns a bit here and there, for utility and for occasional interest, but not to master or become fluent. This latter interest is not one I find desirable, realistic, or real in many ways. I do not wish to have a split mind, with the best thinking in one language, that cannot be shared in another, that I claim I've mastered, and I do not believe in the cognitive benefits of language learning. i think that the bias of a stupid indoctrinated person now. What I do care about, sometimes, is learning what I need, if I really can't find an alternative.

There is a book I've had interest in, called "The Loom of Languages", that presents a strategy and a word list, that can be used to learn more powerfully the basics of two sets of language more rapidly. It is mostly designed for the English speaker to quickly learn both Romance and Teutonic languages, with simplified vocabularies, in a shorter period of time. This, I thought to myself, wiill aid and improve on my occasional interest in learning some basics of other languages for travel purposes primarily. But now even this interest has waned.

Now, I have come to the realization that speaking is not needed almost at all. What is needed is simple gestures, occasional assistance, and transactions using money. After much time traveling this year, to about 18 different countries, I have spoken hardly anything, and when I did speak, it was almost always English. People understand some English everywhere. But even the English I spoke was truly not needed! I only needed smiles, physical movements, and hand signals. Now I think it likely, that almost anything that is needed can be conveyed using creative gestures and probably drawings. At one point I had a book that had numerous icons which were to be used to universally signal to others what needs a traveler would have. But if one can draw, such a small book is not needed and searching is eliminated. One simply draws the pictures, and *any* picture, not just what was in someone's book plan.

Gestures seem to be appreciated. The focus shifts from what is said without looking, to seeing the other and feeling and sensing what they are trying to convey. Somehow it feels more kind, and the result is gratifying for both parties. More simple and childlike. Maybe more helpful feeling, and more mutually akin to basic co-learning.


As I shifted my attention to gestures, and simply saying nothing at all sometimes, which conveys too, that I understand less and less needs to be said, and only about what is needed and nothing more typically, I believe I discovered that language is hardly needed at all. There may be emergencies when it is helpful, but even then, less speaking may be desirable, with lawyer support potentially. Alternatively, one can simply say less through translator applications, and in my case, less would stil consist of elaborate sentences, succinctly stating intelligence along with needs.

I am not sure how much language is really needed, even in one's home territory. I was imagining to myself, how weird it is, being abroad for so long, to imagine myself at a subway, where other English speakers are, but there is no difference from all the other subway systems I was just at, in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Istanbul, Greece, and many other locations. People stand separate, looking, but saying little. Thinking to my experience "standing" at a metro in the United STates, I felt less that I would be with my kind, and more that I'd be with anyone around here or elsewhere, with a difference only being, that they speak English, when they speak. But they feel foreign now too. I misspoke when I said that they're my kind, really they are an eclectic bunch of randoms, I've spent no time with even there! What are these languages, even English, that I'm not needing.

Here I converse with nobody.

What I develop upon however, is my own mind, and for my own mind, I still have a strong enjoyment and concern for my verbal language. But I'm increasintly unconcerned about its use in public, and I think if my gestures are universal in utility, and drawing pictures would easily aid when needed, I can simply avoid speech and learning any language, including dabbling in languages. There was a time without technology, when simple language learning was more helpful than now, and those few times when langauge was really needed, were times of more powerful need. Now it is needed much less. Technology is my guide and does my translationa nd even speaking for me. It creates a record if I use auto translators in some messaging tools, like that used for my hotel bookings. These provide legal support. My current host does not speak English, and this has not hindered either the booking or the interaction in any important way, and perhaps it made it impossible to find areas of disagreement or difference. So instead we focus on the transaction, don't try to learn each other or become friends, and find ease in simply doing what everyone already knows. We follow rules of etiquette and transaction.

I'm writing this today, despite having thought about it earlier, because now I think I want to really begin to act on this view further, making it a personal habit to simply not say anything to anyone, and use the fewest quantity of gestures and writings to communicate.

I said gestures and pictures can reduce com, but I did not commit to using many of these instead! No, I want to use less of these too!

Less transactions is also part of my goal, such that the bulk of my shopping, is at the grocery store. At the grocery store, I count costs, look at a number ot pay, and match that number slightly higher. Then I see change. At no time do I need numbers in another language.

Somewhat unrelatedly, I thought to myself the other day, about how it seems that numbers should have already become universally translated. They are too simple to have a refusal, to not use a common lang for all, committed to by everyone. Since numbers are simple, they may be a favorite for learning in another language, but that strategy is foolishness, if what is learned rapidly is simply the same. These synonyms that we pretend made our minds improved. We wasted effort on the same numbers to please someone we cannot converse with using our more sophisticated minds. And we gave up on actually speaking partly the same langauge for real. This strategy shows humanities disingenuousness at wanting to know each other, and to solve language concerns. Since it is so simple, it is known that what has happened is really sophisticated international pretense at mutual care, or motionless good intention.Disturbing and disgusting. So I am not wanting to know the numbers, even if those are easy to learn. And in any case, I have the ease of writing them down, or seeing them digitally, on simple digital displays.

How far can one go with not speaking to others. Perpahs all the speaking that would be had with others can be shifted here to writing, or simply to none of it, unless worthwhile enough.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-circle-of-life-identified-with-circular-reasoning">The Circle of Life Identified With Circlar Reasoning</a>

*399 Wanattomians, Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 

Humans Are Animals | Relationships | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings 

I recorded this idea into the contents last night, but did not want to write it until this morning, the very next morning instead. This is noted in the date above which differs by one day than in the contents.

There is some humor to this parallel, the circle of life and circular reasoning, and I have somewhat forced them together, to see what might come of trying ot blend them. The inspiration though concerns the very poor reasoning that exists in the rationalization or pretend explanationing of the decision to have children. There is a poor reasoning which does at times have circularity, and of course, it falls within the repeated cycle of birth. The repeated cycle of birth and life includes all thinking. So that is circular and concerns thinking, but also, the thinking is used supposedly to justify and decide upon new births, which contains the birthing within the thinking.

It appears then there is not a forced interrelating of these things, and that my intuition, however brief, not entirely trusted (rare), and untested, still tests correct.

The cycle of birth and life does not require reasoning for its justification, and this I already argued about before, and it is clear enough in animal life all over and not only in human animal life. But within human life, people think they can and do decide about child having. This reasoning is clearly defective. There are logical circularities too, that I will need to identify. But what is also repetitive, for each new birth and life, is the poor logic. Poor logic about birth and life can be tested concerning its existence, and pervasiveness. Here for me it is an assumption, an obviously true one, but if we wanted to scientifically explore this further, we would observe, that since the beginning of animal life, including for all animals up to human animals, decisioning and thinking about having new children was hardly extant, and when it was, it was poor in quality ad served more for excusing behavior, and preserving one's stories about one's greatnesses.

If we were to rentitle this, it might be, circular reasoning and poor reasoning within the circle of life naturally since life's beginning.

There may be some counterexamples in non-human animals, in marine life, like with large marine mammals, but we are unaware about their thinking at present.

Circular reasoning and cyclical happenings are not quite the same but there are relations here too of interest, and room for play.

A repetitive cycle appears to relate to the awakening of a species in aggregate. Each animal is born, and is told nothing real about he plans for their birth from their mothers. Their mothers have and had no plan, are aware of this, and are aware te none have provided them plans, and decide to instead pretend to have plans. Pretending to have had plans is normal in the culture. Since it is normal in the culture, it follows that the culture actually expects and teaches to pretend to have plans around children rather than to actually ahve plans. But given other moral views that clash with this, there is still a feeling of absurdity and guilt occasionally. Also there is some institutionalization of disallowing teaching about what parenting consists of. Secrecy amongst parents is normal, and details about what parenting entails is kept from children, who also are not supposed to know because parenting includes active manipulation methods against them. If they knew these methods they would be less effective. Anyway, to proceed, a child then develops with a false perception that there were plans for them or that their parents had plans or made a real decision to have them. Their birth related to a positive decision and rational plan. Initially youthts are encouraged not to have children of their own, but then suddenly and rapidly they are encouraged to have children themselves. This appears partly due to jealousy, the urgin of children to have children of their own, and some pleasure that would be gotten after reealing to them what parenting really did consist of. Notice this is even while they were not going to be told what parenting included while being educated. The character of the encouragement is not to make a decision or a plan to have a kid rationally, it is simply to move foward to open the possibility which inevitably does result in having a dhild. Like encouraging not using sexual protection, contraceptives and so on, and to have *any* steady relationship that is *good enough* to simply start having kids.

After opening the possibility or accidentally having a child, the parent learns some of what was not known, and has the same desire to pretend to have had a plan, to have made a positive rational decision, and to simply pretend it as culture seems to require. However there was no plan, no rational decision, and they couldn't have had one, because what parenting consisted of was kept away from them, as part of the manipulation requriement and partly because culture encourages lying about it and of course parents prefer to pretend that they were rational about their sexualities.

This process simply repeats. There are a number of conjoint conditions that assure that this will repeat. Firstly, it's prevalent in the culture, and since in the culture, it is expected that each new birth will conform. If it is in the culture, it is in the aggregate. Secondly, it is driven by sexual desire in ignorance, with the process of having children being due to accident and "opening the possiblity". This ensures births will happen without any decision or plan. The wya that nature makes births happen is not a process that includes decisions that would be rational. Usually there are no decisions or plans at all, and not even traces or beginnings of decisions.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-Meanings-of-primitive-and-modern-just-change-with-time-and-this-makes-it-less-interesting">The Meanings of Primitive And Modern Just Change With Time And This Makes It Less Interesting</a>

*389 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 24, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 

Human Shortcomings | Relationships | Technology | Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts

An idea here I was already aware of relates to the issue that modernity doesn't really make sense. We had the idea of modern society, then some created the phrase post-modern, but what was trying to be said by those who stated that things were modern was that they were more civilized and technologically able than in the past and somehow, what was current, was a more final state. This was incorrect. If it was unspoken that this was the thought, it was nevertheless a component of it, because in those thinking it and stating it, there really was a lack of conception of an extremely distant futurue. We were together at the time modern and it couldn't get much better than it was. We were at the culmination of humanity, and there was not any progression that would make this false. To me, however, it seemed obvious that what would come later would be what others again would want to call modern. What is modern then is not only now, but something later. We'll keep saying we are modern. This then just means we are always modern as we are still alive, and are in a more developed state. This perhaps would be different though, if there was a major collapse reversing our civilization, putting it into an earlier state, both in mind and technology, for which the earlier time periods really do have something better and wanted. Progress lost.

Knowing that we have a vast expanse of time ahead of us as has already passed behind, not only will there be humans in the distant future who are vastly different, they will progress beyond being humans any longer, and the animals that exist will not resemble the animals that exist today. Nothing that's alive will be the same, although for some species that seem to change less, there will be more similitude, with what is very ancient. Nevertheless animal and botanical life will be different. The configuration and crust of the Earth's surface will differ. Elements will remain similar but will have changed positions.

Sometimes I think, nowadays, that things that are current are primitive. This kind of thinking occurs in the realization that what was taught or conveyed as modern, does not any longer appear to be modern with age. Also, many problems and defects in thinking, and omissions in everyday mind in the populace, indicates definite ways in which the world has not progressed collectively. More and more seems to seem primitive.

But the idea that these things are primitive is also mistaken although the thoughts I mentioned above are a part of personal development. Just like with modernity, nothing now is really modern in an absolute sense. Likewise, nothing is primitive. Any place there can be an advancement, is a place where the current state is unadvanced. Likely much advancement can be had. In that case for many things our advancements and modernizations are already known to be primitive. This identifies primitiveness with modernness. It seems to me that planes, while they still seem modern, will be extremely primitive in the future. I don't think it will be much like it is today in the future. That thought is an odd one, that an aircraft like a jet plane could be something seen later as a strangely primitive way to travel. Even a forgotten way, if it doesn't last too much longer. Perhaps not the method of flight in general, but specificially how it happened and existed. The whole experience of flying on planes as we do today could simply be erased from history and memory. That seems inevitable from my perspective.

For now the conclusion I'm wanting to self-develop upon is just that we live within a period that is completely saturated and pervaded by what is primitive and modern. I'm not sure what is touched or untouched by this idea. I think all is touched, because if we also include what was stated about the advancement and changing of life, this includes life also. Advancements can be regressions in life's composition. Before I was updating away from the idea that we are moderns, and adding more that I thought was primitive, but lately I am seeing so much that is primitive that I wanted to grow that idea further to make it more extensive. This thinking appears to be more advanced still but the way of applying it is not yet clear to me. In the least it can be used for bias removal. I will discover more applications as I work with the idea later.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="using-probability-to-determine-what-a-meritocratic-or-naturalistic-leadership-ought-to-look-like-contrast-it-with-present-state-and-use-it-to-identify-and-remove-the-corrupt">Using Probability To Determine What a Meritocratic or Naturalistic Leadership Ought To Look Like, Contrast It With Present State, and Use It To Identify and Remove The Corrupt</a>

*386 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 21, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 

Relationships | Law and Government | Livelihood | Evaluative Concepts 

Thinking about traits and their probabilities one can determine roughly the probability that certain traits desirable for leadership would exist given the total population, and populations of certain regions. One needs to know which traits to look for, know their probabilities, and then find the probability of their combinations. While there may be some disputation about what combinations should exist, that such a determination can be in the future made appears to be something without question. Notice that there are some necessities we expect of leadership, that they have good kind natures and that they have certain thinking characteristics including good intelligences. They also need to have knowledge requisite or be able to get the experience fast enough to be able to do the job well. We also are aware that what they do is a job, and that their job performance ability matters. How excellent are they at performing a job?

Using this information we can estimate how many people could be good leaders, then build a picture of what the pool of talent looks like for having these leadership roles. We can take what we know about how we estimated it, and contrast it with the pool of people that the current leadership would have come from. We can use other pieces of information including that information to estimate if it is possible if certain leaders would have come from that pool or would have those traits.

A picture using probabilities could be used to determine to what extent it appears existing leadership is not meritocratic. What is the number of leaders there are, versus the talent pool?

Should the leadership match the talent pool?

That last statement appears to indicate that perhaps the leadership and degree of power should somehow match up with the traits of the talent pool that exists, and that some power should be allocated to every person, in the least with respect to information supplied for decision making. The actual strategy that is best may not look like this, but there is this idea that society is strengthened with utilization of human capital. Maximization of human capital would be mining of existing resources. Mining of existing resources for improved government might imply the leadership that is the the actual talent is best and extent of leadership would relate to powers of those in the leadership. The concept of leadership would vanish somewhat because it would be a leadership pyramid involving the population as a whole, and there is no part that is not a leadershiping. This would also diffuse attention to avoid fixation on individuals.

This is a separate subject now tho9ugh.

The ideas here that seem very important are that probabilities alone can be used to determine extent of corruption and to create a method for comparing what an existing good state should for comparisons. If it were found that probabilities mismatch severely, then it would be known for certain that government is far more corrupt than it should be. Since that is not the standard meaning of corruption, I'll translate also to the idea of non-meritocratic arrangement. The probabilities can be used to detrmine if the existing arrangement must be a non-meritocratic arrangement.

More can be determined without a direct way of examining than may be thought. So one does not have to have complete 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="people-were-never-given-a-way-to-plug-into-batteries">People Were Never Given A Way To Plug Into Batteries</a>

*386 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 21, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 

Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Technology | Attentional Architecture

Working on some microelectronics today, and using a breadboard, I decided to instead of programmatically control an LED, to simply plug it into the 3.3v output and ground. immediately, as expected, it lit up.

What is the significance?

I realized, that a computer can simply havea  power output for two wires. If a computer can have a power output for two wires, why not a battery. Small electronics are very very cheep and empowering. A small LED costs nothing, maybe less than 10 cents. But we are sold tiny flashlights for more. If we had outlets to computers, phones, and batteries themselves, that were just wire based, then we could easily plug small fans, leds, and other electronic parts into batteries, so we have usable things that are very inexpensive.

Of course I could take and led, a pair of wires and electrical tape to connect it all. But not having a way to plug things into the battery with wires changes what we think is possible or not, and instead of thinking we can wire things to batteries in easy ways, we think we have to plug something into a usb-c or usb port, or other port. Notice if you think about using a flash light, you don't think to plug it into some energy source. You even think sometimes you have to have something new, that combines the battery with the electronic part.

It seems very obvious to me now, that it costs nearly nothing to provide a simple way to connect wires to batteries by plugging them in, and it must be the case that this was never done this way, to enable a market that increases consumer spending.

You put batteries into things, and not things into batteries.


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="becoming-everyday-gurus-and-common-parental-information">Becoming Everyday Gurus and Common Parental Information</a>

*386 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 21, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 

Relationships | Generals, Hierarchies | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism 

In the early period when I initially studying and working on moral philosophy, I thought to myself about how almost nobody would be wanting to accept any kind of expertise from me later, once mastery was achieved, because everyone tends to think themselves expert advice givers and expert moralists already. I knew at that time, that they didn't only think they knew who the better experts might be, they thought themselves really to be the experts.

There is one explanation that makes sense of that strange phenomonon (among other explanations), and that's that each person is acting according to their most recent brain states, or their most updated thinking. Whatever decisions they would make, and whatever advice they would give, it could only be given with the state of mind they have, that really is comprised of the solutions they've had to date. 

But why would that explain why they think themselves gurus? The best advice givers, master of morality? Well, let's think about it. If in your life, you think you have the best information you could have regarding your own personal guidance, or else you'd be thinking about how to correct what needs correction, don't you feel that what you know is really best, and not only for yourself? If there is some better information that would be advice for someone else, and you could tell it was better than what you knew already, you'd change at that time to update to the new information in some way, or you'd be provoked to feel that you have to think about it. Perhaps you forget about it later. But in any case, what happens after hearing that information is an update of some kind to feel that one has then attained the best information, or one forgets and one simply reverts to thinking that the bst information is what one already had.

Something we know well about is that people are unable to think clearly about what their ignorance really is. They seem to go to self-satisfaction regarding what they already think. And I do this too actually. It is a definite human shortcoming to overestimate competence. While it might be possible to remain more often aware that there is information out there that is better to have, regarding moral advice, and moral self guidance (simply having the best information and decision strategies and habits, and training  to act with) they don't seem to use that information.

Why does it seem they don't use this informaiton.

Yesterday I had the idea that I did not record at the time that ignorance can be quantified and it would be shown that ignorance is quite huge compared with what is known. This is obvious, but notice people have not quantified it. As I was thinking about this subject, I did feel an urge to justify my own level of thinking and my confidence in that thinking, and I already did justify it before, and I recalled that justification related to pattern knowledge and more general thinking that is cross domain. There are other justifications. But as I was thinking about this, I was still feeling a bias and a desire to resist thinking about this large ignorance and what it might still mean for me. There is a feeling that there is a vast space of unknown, that when re3vealed would dwarf current knowledge. Oddly, when we hear that this might be true, I think most agree immediately! It is strongly felt that this would be the case. But then people still revert to thinking that their most current brain has the best information for self and others.

I don't think I was very successful explaining that last feeling but I'll dwell on it longer and report back here my feelings and thoughts about it. I don't think I'm too far from forming a solid conclusion regarding it.

Since starting on my path to become a moral philosopher I have become expert, and of course this very large book and journal is a result and undertaking reflecting this mastery. But in the above I really did admit that I'm also being confident in my most current brain. I'd reject earlier brains that were mine, and I'd reject them again and again historically, and so probably this brain is a reject brain, compared to my future one. Despite this, there are solid patterns of thinking that existed from when I began my work, and these are definitely to be preserved and have been tested along the way, so in many ways I actually greatly admire my earlier self. There were already many superiorities in thoughts, perspectives and actions at the time, but many developments of discipline, habit, and knowledge were needed. Much experience improved me.

Who does not feel this way about themselves in a lot of ways?

As a definite advanced thinker in this subject, there are ways I'm strictly similar to the beginner or just anyone on the street. And I just now recalled why this would be and why the inclination to think one has the best information isn't entirely insane. It's because what information one has really is often very usable. If you look around, people are doing very well living, even when they think they are not. They keep themselves comfortable for the most part. They know how to socialize, get food and drink, money if necessary, and do all sorts of other activities that they need to do to satisfy objectives. Obviously, they have competencies. These competencies relate to what they tell themselves to do. Their most updated competencies are their current selves oftentimes. Since there is the human shortcoming that they cannot use their ignorance, mentioned above, they don't attend to it. That's a void to them. Ignoring the void is even a heuristic, to ensure one has something to focus on. In some ways people do act in the world as if they are the only one their and in their mind and thoughts and feelings, of course they don't have anyone else inside, like having miniature twins living in their brainds and bodies. When I write this I don't have another twin mixed into my brain with things to say. Being one's own brain, with none others included (we're not covering relationships or socialization for the moment), one sort of has the best information one can have. Deterministically. To say otherwise is to say somthing like "I have another brain that's not my brain additionally". The reality is I have just this one brain that can thinkt these thoughts. Learning has a rate, relating the internal mind to changes in the external world that are detected. There is also the undetectable that makes up the ignorance. Detectable differences happen over a long period, so all that cannot be detected right now, or tomorrow, or forever, is also void. As I sit here I'm in a learning void except what my brain thinks to itself and tries to build from its internal experience. Thoughts like these do a lot to explain why humans and even animals are focused on themselves and feel competent and complete, and maybe smarter than others around. They are actually unable to compare well, and if they did find a difference, it would then be outside the detectable but only in the future void, and in the immediately detectable, and one would update by learning, and the learning would be small and would result in removing the difference. Since that was the only difference perceived at the time, superiority is felt to be re-established (I don't think parity). Sometimes there are perceptions that others are vastly stronger or more intelligent (in my observations of others but not myself), or more experienced (something I do detect sometimes in some domains), but I think these are short and involve the ignorance void. There is an unusability about it. People then revert to superiority. The superiority consists in thinking their inofrmation is maximally up to date, which somewhat assumes nobody can have anything that shows they are not up to date. Which means everyone else is not up to date!

I think some revisions to the above are needed to be more precisse, but largely the trajectory is towards clear truth regarding this it appears.

People think they are moral gurus on their own and people are out giving advice even if they are not the most competent. After studying moral philosophy a very long time, I'm extremely aware I'm vastly more competent than the average person, but I'm aware they can never know that really. I even started my work undrstanding this. But oddly above, I've admitted somewhat, that I cannot really perceive that people in the future really would be better than me at this, particularly if they learned from me, but that will be true eventually (seems likely if progress of civilization simply continues without any serious situations going the other direction. In that case, my thinking will become inferior only with patterns for children to learn that are very good remaining). Current civilzation becomes the babies teachings later.

I did spend some time explaining why it is somewhat reasonable for people to think they are good at advice giving, but the reason I brough it up is closer to the reason I originally thought of it, which is the disturbing part. I was aware that what I would be trying to become expert in is something nobody can ever admit exists. They will admit doctors exist, chemists exist, and physicists. They admit superiority of those people regarding what they know, and they make sure to keep it narrow. But what they will not allow is for a moral expert to have general domain mastery. That is what they think they have! Nobody can really be accepted as a moral expert.

There are people within religion accepted as expert in the cult setting. But this is for figures who are pushed into the supernatural or domains of impossibility. After I was to become expert, I would just be a guy who knows stuff and behaves well. People being those who think themselves expert already would not take some ordinary guy to be more expert than they are. Unlike various fields in which expertise can be celebrated and used to increase social standing, this did not seem to be possible for moral philsoophy where people think themselves more expert than anyone already.

Consider parenting. All think themselves competent as parents when they are parents, at least as they compare themselves with other parents. Parents don't appear to think they will be successful critiquing or criticizing other parents. We do not hear of mutual argumentation often or ever in entertainment or in the media between parents. It's as if all parents are lauded to be good parents quickly, and that each is not to be much criticized. All are competent in advising the youths. The way of giving youths advice is not very different in many ways from advising older people or peers. Parenting also may give people nearly universally the view that they are already experienced mentors. Experienced mentorship and teaching is general. Since it is general and is about anything in particular, it does have near identity with moral teaching. It's not that moral teaching is mixed in, it's that it is moral teaching entirely. For this one would have to read more on my conception of what morality is, but it involves personal conduct and choices. What do parents advise children about. Everything they ever teach is supposed to aid their thinking and conduct. It's all moral but people have the idea that morality is a separate topic, getting closer to legalsm. Some communities of the very religious are more aware that morality is in everything, and this is why these religious people seem to be mixing their religion with everything they do. For them it's not a topic to suddenly just start thinking about and discuss periodically, it's mixed into everything. This is how I think about morality, although the way I think about it isn't quite like the religionists thinking. I think about it without commitment to traditions. I think about it more about being high quality thinking, planning, strategy, and behavior and habits. With the best thinking, there is mixing of that with all of life. So if one has a powerful morality one already knows it mixes with everything, but one simply has not concerned too much with historical figures, traditional heritages, religions, specific groups of people, one's own ancestry and so on. All of that is fairly strikingly absent from my own approach. It's not that I don't appreciate learning from history and various civilizations, and writings of individuals from tradition, I do appreciate that greatly, but what I value most is what I learn concerning how to think and act, and not *that I learned it from this or that source*. It's like learning to become a scientist, and then improving how to be a scientist to have good results, while not overstating the importance of university living 30 years later. University was over, and had many problems too. In a way, religion is like taking university way too seriously when one can move on and do better later. They aren't allowed to graduate in a way.

From thinking well, there is no graduation, or final enlightenment, but there is a diminishing return on thinking. Diminishing return of thinking seems somewhat at odds with this interest in ignorance, but I'll think that over for later. For one's own life, there really is a rise to the best self, and then a deterioration. There are advancements inside the deterioration. I think an old person would probably get annoyed here and tell me that they would reject their old brains like I said above. But they wouldn't reject their healthy old brains that were potentially very moral even as there were intense pleasures and excitemetns. The brains abilities do deteriorate, and overtime one cannot know it. I admit growths even as there is diminishment however, and these can be immensely important. So one might be 70 years old and wonder when enlightenment would be, but really there is a better earlier self (if not at 70, it would be said at 110), some learnings underway that are better in various ways in thinking, worse in others, and an admission that there is no final completion.

But if one did really well, there would have been a competency and pattern attainment that would relate to diminishing return on thinking and its justification ("learning more doesn't really help much..."), which means one did culminate regarding one's own self given the limitations on mind and longevity.

More on this subject matter later, because I have to cover the negative consequences about everyone thinking they are an expert guru including parents, and what it means for how people want to use their time socially, and for how people will inhibit potentially growth in ethics.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="Arts-are-allowed-with-provocative-and-immoral-or-criminal-communications-not-because-they-are-disguised-but-because-given-the-social-and-governmental-organization-bad-behavior-is-largely-contained-to-those-thought-low-quality-already">Arts Are Allowed With Provocative And Immoral Or Criminal Communications Not Because They Are Disguised But Because Given The Social and Governmental Organization Bad Behavior Is Largely Contained To Those Thought Low Quality Already</a>

*375 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 10, 2025, Rome, Italy* 

Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Music and Art | Aesthetics

Recording for now, to return to later.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="that-brain-scores-well-and-maybe-better-but-rationally-i-could-not-update-to-it">That Brain Scores Well And Maybe Better But Rationally I Could Not Update To It</a>

*375 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 10, 2025, Rome, Italy* 

The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Psychometrics | High Range Intelligence Testing | Intelligence Societies 


Recording for now, to return to later.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="a-maxim-that-must-be-a-sentence-may-be-if-i-can-do-it-at-home-so-can-many">A Maxim That Must Be a Sentence May Be, If I Can Do It At Home, So Can Many</a>

*374 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 9, 2025, Rome, Italy* 

Livelihood | Learning | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Constraint and Determinism


There are many jobs that those performing them can and do think to themselves that they can do them at home. People have jobs they think they can easily do outside of work. They learn the jobs easily at work, and then do those same jobs at home.

This is not a new observation I've had. Before I thought, obviously a housekeeper is someone who also must housekeep at home for themselves. A nanny is someone who can be a mother. Today I was reflecting again on how I would cut my own hair; but thinking myself to be a barber, it would mean I can do my job at home with ease. A cook or chef can do theh same at home. It really follows that a huge quantity of occupations simply can be performed at home, and if one can do it, it implies many others can too, and if many people can do it, it is appearing the occupation is not really somethign that should be esteemed as it is.

What must change about perceptiosn of jobbs from this?

Robotic replacement of these jobs seems less of an intrusion on the job market as people will pretend that is. Jobs that most can do easily at home, are not special when one goes out and does them elsewhere. Having a robot do them instead is not unlike knowing people simply are automated things that could do those jobs easily anyways. What a simple robot can do for you, some simpleton like yourself could already do it for you.

There are few jobs that cannot be done at home.

Let's enlargen the topic, to include alternative kinds of homes.

Now it is the future, and homes are more complex. I have a home that is as large as a college campus, and it includes all labs and equipment. Now, whate3ver was done at the university, can be done at home, because that is what homes look like. That's how they are used.

Now, I do all that can be done in a college campus at home. All jobs that exist there, I do those jobs. Now let's imagine, I am to go to work. Where do I go to, that will have more than what my home offers? Will I go somewhere to do tasks at some place that has less, with less for me to do? That is someewhat like my real life in some ways, go to work to do something more simple, and less important. But with this style of thinking it becomes clear, that wherever I go, and wherever I work, and whatever I work on, seems like it is less complex. But there are many jobs to choose from, and so the reader can still point out other jobs that do not seem to be those that can be performed at this house that is campus like.

If someone were to complain with this, however, there is a simple thing missing. Why does the reader not understand what this conversation is about yet? Obviously if I've enlgargened my home to be a college campus, I can enlargen it to any scale whatsover. I can imagine my backyard is a mine, and from it I get minerals of all kinds, for which I can do manufacturing in my plants. I can even mint at home. There is nothing then I cannot do at home. Add in virtual reality, possibilities of the future, and so on, my homee grows to include all that civilization has, and I can do anything that civilization can do, while at home?

We act as though there is this thing called cvilization, in which I can participate and do all these things, with expansive freedoms.We call these places "home", but clearly things do not function this way. For the sake of imagination and analyses, then, we use this example, and take from all of civilzation what it pretended to offer our lives, and put them into our households, where we can really use them completely. 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="my-next-step-in-holism-will-chnage-the-shape-of-my-brain-entirely">My Next Step In Holism Will Chnage The Shape of My Brain Entirely</a>

*374 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 9, 2025, Rome, Italy* 

Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Neuroscience

Despite earlier writings, I do think a trend towards *more holistic* thinking is deisrable and true, and it does relate also to personal culminations and the diminishing return on thinking. I have given reasons for thinking blending of senses and of other systems reveals that there cannot be holism ultimately it seems. A humanistic perspective, recognizing some unchangeableness of the human brain, is agreeable to this view, and oen must consider, the morphology of hte brain, related to brain function, does not change markedly enough, to believe any gigantic transisiton to one-mindedness. This also makes sense given the delta growth that happens in brain development as a result of learning.

In short, my brain won't become a sphere as a result of increasing holism ujntil thought isn't as useful to me. It will still be shaped like a brain, and will have those defects that relate. But, there would be some portions that would have greater network interconnectivity and relation to the world, and perhaps there is a true growth culmination that is possible for the human brain and to me it appears someewhat like it trends in that direction (but not exactly with a real end, just in that direction). But the growth culmination is not anything that results in complete holism, and looking at the brain before and after any growth, it resembles the same brain.

There is not anything I can even do to try to make it another shape.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="when-should-you-stop-reading-my-writing-because-every-moment-you-should-have-my-head">When Should You Stop Reading My Writing, Because Every Moment You Should Have My Head</a>

*373 Wanattomians, Friday,  August 8, 2025, Rome, Italy* 

Some might ask "Why Should I read these writings of yours?" to which I would respond, as I said in the heading, "You should have my head instead of yours, which entails thinking the writing as it is written, and reading and thinking more in addition without stopping".

When should one person be another person?

When should one person become a better person? When was one worse?

When should one use the thoughts of another instead of one's own in substitution, or be modified by those thoughts?

It appears that one seeks to have a new head later, and to have parts of the head replaced with parts from others.

Can I have your neurons? Can you have mine?

Wanting a new head is what people really are thinking, in some kind of translation, when they think they want to become much better than they are already. To be much better means one has had many learnings, in oneself and from another, resulting in a many-part change of hte brain. The whole brain did not change, but to have all the changes, the whole head would need to be different.

You will swap heads with your future self in a way.

Much of this is to sound funny although most has a seriousness that relates to the actual truth of the statements. Modifications would be required but what is stated is largely accurate. Exaggerations add to the humor and silliness, and extremity.

Being "Equal to other people" as some think in this period and periods before, one might be willing to have the head of another person. The reality is though, they think to change themselves, they need to believe somethign is better in what the change would provide. They want from other minds what can be had that is better then their own. They read to hear the thoughts of the better minds.

If one knows here the thoughts are better than most minds and certainly the mind reading, then one would have much to take and self-replace with.

Having a new head means having those thoughts that are better, along with those thoughts that come alongwith. So as one reads the many thoughts I share that are better than thoughts had, one might think "When do I stop reading? Because all these thoughts are better than mine, and, what comes alongwith the mind is what is part of the head, like my own head, but this head is better and has the better thoughts."

There is an interesting decision the reader must face, of when to stop reading my writing, because they prefer to have my head if they could, or most of my head, with some parts retained of their own. Which parts to keep. When to stop reading? 

These are funny questions bet an intelligent reader will see within this serious science and philoosphy, and this stimulating and provocative way of talking should lead to yet better thinking later. So it is not merely funny and provocative. I hope the reader can see the multipurposeness of this communication.

Human Shortcomings | Reading | Editing | Bibliography, Citing and Referring | Acknowledgements | Is-Ought-Should


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="concepts-as-foci-rather-than-representative-words-and-both">Concepts as Foci Rather Than Representative Words, and Both</a>

*373 Wanattomians, Friday, August 8, 2025, Rome, Italy* 

Language | Human Shortcomings | A System of Thinking | Constraint and Determinism 

Sometimes, concepts that allow one to separate out parts of a subject for separate analysis, do not appear necessarily to designate actual divisons in the world, making it so that the division of analysis is corresponding to a natural division. There might be clean divisions and less clean divisions. Clean divisions might be those that are most representative of natural separations. Less clean divisions might be those in which there are some confusions or some level of ignorance about the actual divisions that exist. These latter conceptual divisions, like the former, would serve to create a focus of attention for separate analysis that is getting closer to what is focused on, regardless of the representativeness of the concepts. Sometimes, not using concepts that are clear can be very damaging to subsequent thinking and analysis, so I'm not stating, that foggy concepts that are not sufficiently targeted to natural divisions are always more useful than they are harmful; what I'm saying instead, is that they do always seem to create focus, and that focus is what happens to be needed, for any mind to go into deeper examination of a particular area of the natural world and its phenomena.

This idea is germane both to the study of language, of philosophy of science, of methematics, and of the subject from yesterday. The subject from yesterday would be an instantiation of a focal area which would fall under the umbrella topics in which the above conversation would be useful. This particular posting, on the use of the word crust, versus say "biosphere" or "ocean" or "animal", has within it an intention to rethink the natural division that is thought to exist in the words. Does a "biosphere" exist cleanly in natural, and is it a real natural division, more so than considering it crust, or is it more helpful and beneficial to think of it as the latter? Is the intrumentality of whether it works better as one or the other a test as to the representation truth-value? The idea of a biosphere, to me, thinking through this subject, does not appear to be one that is as clear as people believe it to be, even if there is a good instrumentality, and even if scientists use it and believe in it; I too understand why it would be accepted and what it's value is, as much as scientists would, but what I am thinking here is different and maybe, maybe, more advanced than what others are doing, given their assumptions are not inclusive of answers to these questions and they are not typically making the same kinds of analyses. Not that some would not occasionally do similarly. Given these statements a reader would not tenably state that there is some ignorance in wantint to challenge the idea that there is a biosphere apart from a crust and atmospphere. Defenders of a view like the one I'm exploring for analysis are those that might take holism or a kind of universalism more seriously. They might be unwilling to entertain divisions as being real even. I'm inclined to think a total system does cause one to have cause to question divisions, but I also think that there is a structure to the world such that there are representative demarcations that seem to have truth-values which would be pleasing to those who think like a scientific realist. I think structure is actual and sometimes language is involved in representing it well. Also, quickly I am thinking relatedly, that the brain structure, both verbal and visual, can be trusted to an extent, to represent, and that representation of course, builds up something akin to a growing model towards a greater partial picture of the whole that feels more inclusively holistic in what is relevant. Otherwise the langauge and visuals would not serve to function to allow for a growing understanding of the world. So it does seem to me that language and its divisions which include conceptual divisions and categorizations do serve to model reality well, and increasingly well as civilization and minds progress. But the mind of a human is not devoid of illusions and errors; it ascribes concepts to things that do not exist, and names things and categorizes before enough analysis has happened to more clearly map the language to real structure, even at a surface level. So sometimes, there are real ambiguities. But the ambiguous concepts still permit focus or attempts at focus. If I name something or categorize something poorly, I am still oriented towards it and not something else. It appears then that this way of dividing language with concepts precedes getting it really right. But sometimes early on naming is done well too. In parallel, as people and civilization develop, I think there is a mixture of clarity and ambiguity in the structure of concepts as it relates to the world, and our experience of a two part combination of satisfaction and frustration with language illustrates this. We have clarity and ambiguity. But what is interesting here is the ambiguity still appears to have orientation and focus.

I leave out for now concepts that relate to plainly false things, like dieties, ghosts, and false objects. This is where the mind goes towards falisty, delisuion, hallucination, psychosis and insanity. And religiosity in the wrong way.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="humans-and-other-animals-as-earths-crust">Humans and Other Animals As Earth's Crust</a>

*372 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 7, 2025, Rome, Italy* 

Humans Are Animals | Constraint and Determinism | Death Plans

Recently I have found some interest in thinking about humans and animals not as animate life forms but instead as parts of the physical crust of the earth, as temporarily motile crust-forms. The earth required for human life is plant-crust, soil-crust (which is more obviously crust), and liquid-crust (water). Humans ingest crust and become moving crust, excrete crust, and become crust for a much longer period than they were alive.That is, if anything happens to be preserved, and very often, skeletal remains do continue to exist. Since there was no skeleton before one was born, and no other crust except that which was already external or ready to be ingested, and transformed, there was nothing of the person-animal-crust. After one dies, there is clearly though, a large skeleton, that may last a long time. If mummified or fossilized, a skeleton may last more than just a few hundred years or more as it may be for buried humans, and may last millenia and perhaps millions of years. Actual fossilization of human remains seems improbable, however, but we do have some examples. These examples are animal-human-crusts of our ancestors that greatly outlived the living motile crusts existing during their lives.

Someone may read such statements and think there is somnething obtuse in the conversation, and if there were not serious benefits I expect from the alteration in thinking I may agree, since there is a departure from science, and it seems like, the excess usage of the word crust and insistence upon crusting things may seem childish or juvenile. However, the objective is to get a better idea of how human and animal life fits into the earth's natural history and departing from ordinary divisions into biosphere, crust, atmosphere and so on may give insight into both animal life and larger systems. From space, a terrestrial animal and human really is indistinguishable from crust. A long time ago they would have moved very slowly over the earth, and would have remained with nearby crust on which they fed and contributed. Animals typically blended in life and death, in their total existence with the crust of their environment, and as I said, sometimes, their deathly contribution of their remaains would exist a long time. This somewhat confuses the role of humans and animals in the environment, and creates additional roles in the long term, and to a very large extent, makes the timeline of the contribution of aninmals coextensive with crust. Crust moves, changes, stratifies, and is composed of numerous ingredients. the period of time in which a human's skeleton exists within the crust is a period of time that has demarcations of change coinciding with the same period. Furthermore, the entire history of human life is an accretion to the crust, with an epoch of crust existence having a start and and depending on the start and end of animal life. Similarly with plant life.

What death entails for an animal and human may be altered by such a perspective, and I particularly find it comforting that my skeleton, remains, and feces/urine, have some benefit to the world. If not interpreted in terms of benefits, which does require justification, physical fit with earth's history is interesting. As a determinist, it further explains the causality of earth's history and human history, and the place of human and animals within that history.

There is some argument to be had, that if there is a physical explanation of all phenomena, including non-animal inanimate life, and animate life, that there isn't so much of a difference as we might want to say there is. In many ways, I can see my own existence as being deterministically physical with only a little contributeion of nervous system. I don't experience much of my body or mind at any time, and much that is experienced by the nervous system is related to earlier recordings upon it, which depended on much that was physical, and inanimate, happening within the body. Much that is animate in the body, that is cellular, functions in a way that is not really thought to be life-like, although all that is in biology is often classified as life science. I don't see the operation of my cells as being particularly life-related. Rather, I see it more as thoughtless motile physical processes. What remains that is living after these observations. I'm not sure. But I do already think my life totally caused. It creates some comfort to think that the idea that there was life was somewhat confused, although I would agree that there is some use in it nevertheless. There are obvious differences between dead animals and living ones, and the distinction in talk is useful, and we would need this distinction, to talk about it. But underlying the distinction is a similarity in that physical processes predominate and pervade the entire nature of things.

Much of what I said earlier that may seem inconsistent with this view appears to me to be consistent. The view that death is happening while one is living or that one cannot tell which parts of the mind are dead because what is inactive may have been stroked from life, is consistent with this way of thinking, and both I find comforting. There is more still to relate than just this subject that I covered before, but I'm confident there is a consistency amongst these views.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="liars-deliberately-doing-the-same-lies-as-those-using-them-without-knowing-it">Liars Deliberately Doing The Same Lies As Those Using Them Without Knowing It</a>

*368 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 3, 2025, Rome, Italy* 

Truth and Honesty | Human Shortcomings 

Criticism of those who lie concerning activities may require some consideration, depending on situation specific, of who the others were, who lied the same way, without knowing they were lying.

There is an anger and animosity that must exist against fools and stupid people, and others, who lie without knowing they are lying. They are especially annoying, because, after their lies are pointed out to them, they deny that they are lies. They cannot know they are lies. They repeat the lies indefinitely.

Someone who has relation to such a person may be the other who lies similarly with the intent to remedy somehow damage from another who is a fool or perpetual liar, who doesn't know they are a liar, or perhaps, pretends to not know they are lying.

I knew a fool once, who told obvious lies, then acted like they were a fool who could not know, or a fool who forgot, or a fool who could not do that, but that person, still, simply knew they lied. And like the person who didn't know, simply planned to continue doing it.

The person who lies knowingly and is discovered may need some analysis concerning whether their lie has a remedy-expectation (even if also foolish), relating to the behavior of someone who is, or is akin to, the liar that doesn't know they lie.

This is part of the more general analysis of manipulation and dishonesty with the objective of arriving at what excellent and virtuous behavior looks like more clearly. It is known already that virtuous and excellent behavior includes definsive and offensive warfarism, at the micro and macro scales, doing war against what's near and afar. This means the excellent and virtuous have another relationship to manipulation and virtue than others. But what this relationship is more specifically is unclear. What is certain is that this relationship makes it obvious that lying and dishonesty themselves are not "wrong", and to any person who is intelligent and intellectual this is obvious. But it has not been communicated why that is true, for the benefit of civilization. The normal routine among the intelligent is to utilze that lying is morally wrong, and then occasionally employing intellect to state it is false that lying could be all wrong on all occasions. They have not done more to move civilization to a greater understanding.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="lists-versus-using-time-for-recollection">Lists Versus Using Time For Recollection</a>

*367 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 2, 2025, Rome, Italy*  

Planning and Visualization | Life Categories 

Sometimes using lists is excellent for when tasks to be performed are not those likely to be recalled. A simple written list is a good choice for when mnemonics are unreasonable or suboptimal. However, when mnemonics are facile, they seem a better option than lists. There are times when this is not clear, and still, often for these times, choice of mnemonics is better, to keep the mind practiced, and able to continue to use the powers it has, or expand on those powers. But the use of simple written lists remains a good tool, and is not forgotten or put into permanent disuse.

A time in which mnemonics may be better, is when simply waiting or letting time elapse will result in the sequential or non-sequential reloading of tasks or items results in a recreation of the list needed. This is a kind of mnemonics that would not be immediately recognized as such. It is simply recognizing that for some particular set of items, or list of tasks to be accomplished, that while all those items are not easily recalled at once, are predictably recalled over a period of time. This is even how people are able to live. They simply recall what they need to do (if unsupported by others with reminders) over a long period of time. They don't know their living list. They just remember or are prompted to remember what they need after a long time. This is still a mnemonic technique. While many do not consciously "choose" this method as such, they really could if they knew that is what it is.

Here I'm suggesting that this kind of list is a good option for a range of interesting applications. I have not considered all that might fit into this category. What to eat seems to use such a list and can benefit from its alteration and deliberate use. The reason I thought of this, apart from other mental preparations that relate, is that I was considering if it would be better to write out a list of tasks related to computer setup from hardware to a suitable environment should be done for later re-use, or if I should use this idea that letting time elapse for me to do it is better. I am aware that if I get new hardware for a computer, I will predictably always arrive at my desired setup or something acceptably similar. This means I have a mnemonic strategy I can use. This means I do not need a writen list, and I do not need to store that list, and know I can find it later. This has been a wasted effort many times in my life, and I'm certain others do similarly. There is a goal of having re-usable lists, but the lists go unused, or it is discovered, they are unnecessary. Sufficient experience seems to lead to the ability to use time as described here, even though I'm aware most don't really dome to this conclusion in this way here written.

If I have a task list for computer setup, it may reduce the time it will take to have a similar system, and I may be more consistent in my environment. The best is if I can build from code, and have robots buy, assemble, and set up my system, but I cannot yet procure the robots for this. So instead of having robots who can do this, I can only rely on a list making myself robot like with the instructions, or simply rely on memory and time, like a less sophisticated robot. Less sophisticated in one way, more in another. But I'm aware there are some robots who do not need stored code.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="women-are-unable-to-provide-a-large-or-massive-list-of-revelations-about-women">Women Are Unable To Provide a Large Or Massive List of Revelations About Women</a>

*364 Wanattomians, Wednesday, July 30, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 

Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings 

It is surprising that women do not appear to be capable of making large revelations. There is an obviousness to the idea that they are extremely different than men. The degree of the difference must be quantified, ande explained both genetically, behaviorally, and intrapsychically, but a simple comparison with other species makes it clear that females have interesting commonalities, as is the same with males, and that males between species may be more simimlar to each other than to females of their own species. It depends on what i sunder comparison. We hare about the possible percentage of shared DNA between chimpanzees and humans for example, but we do not hear about the amount of shared DNA between men and women. A very cursory research revealed that there are claims that make it appear that genetically there is a bigger difference between males and female than between male humans and male bonobos.

Given this degree of difference that might exist, historical claims as to differences between sexes, and apparent belief among women of specialness and important difference, what are the *revelations* which are to be conveyed and how large is this list?

If the list of revelations is not large, there may be some confusion about genetic contributions to animal experience.

How does a difference in genetics work out to difference perceptible in experience? If a chimpanzee could speak as well as we do, I think the chimpanzee would reveal many intersting differences from humans. Would we exaggerate this difference? It could be that perceived visual differences contribute too greatly to ideas abotu what is different. Maybe experience is more similar than we think. My expectation though, is that for any Chimpanzee who can speak as well as I do, that they create a canon of Revelation about Chimpanzees making it clear to me that I don't know what being a Chimpanzee is like (before learning at least).

Women, being as different and special as they are, have not provided any such major doctrine of difference, and it has not been recorded in the history of civilization, hardly that there are differences. The differences are so minute, that in modern times, equality is considered between the two. No comparisons have been made to arrive at this assessment, that males and females, have the same value, or could be equal in actual characterisitcs, but notice, that none have too vocally dismissed the idea, and none have produced a differential that reveals to men, how wrong they have it what females are, and all those things that they could not have known, unless women told them. Rather, it appears, there is little to share, and nothing would seem too much of a great revealing.

Where is this large list of differences? What women speaks well enough to produce it? To experience what a woman is really, very fully, and then to state it well? 

How does the lack of having such a thing, relate to ideas about similarities between men and women? Untenable ideas about how sexes are similar or different? How foolish are we for not having this as an evolved animal? Or is it insignificant information?

Could women be unable to experience self well enough to know the differences, that do exist genetically? Unable to speak well, compare well amongst themselves, or with males? Why not record the traits, mental and physical, in the experience, introspectively, and create a lexicon where needed?

If they did not do this, then are they not horrifyingly foolish, for not having done it yet. They do not speak of the need, or combine together collectively, to talk of any ignorance about them. There are no speaking tours, No entertainment about. No workshops for men, to slowly try to "see what cannot be well known to them", with slow esoteric readings of another kind, and gradual learnings to see both what women are like and why they cannot know. This sounds dumbish, and that is because there is even the assumption, that being told, the man should know. But we do not expect that they would know what being an Orca whale is like, if the orca explains how they think. Spikders would have more strange things to say. These women, having such special information about themselves, being so different, as chimpanzees genetically, should be able to say things impossible to understand at first, and only able to be understood a little after practice. The men must practice being woment to start to get it.

The humans, those ones out there around me, and in the distance, must be extremely ignorant, to not know what of the paragraphs above are even true or not!

How absurd is it, that I can think of no way, that someone would answer this question. They wouldn't know where to start even if expert. That is my expectation.

It's my expectation they cannot even think about it well.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="rethinking-formal-rules-in-programming-and-relation-to-namespaes-naming-of-variables-and-vocabulary-in-language">Rethinking Formal Rules In Programming, and Relation to Namespaes, Naming of Variables, and Vocabulary In Language</a>

*354 Wanattomians, Monday, July 21, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 

Programming | Moral Technology | Learning | Evaluative Concepts | Another Ethic 

Some might be surprised to discover that a software architect such as myself does not really conform to taught formal rules of programming and design. I'm aware of the rules (many rules), can employ those I know and teach/recommend them, but I do not think they are as important as those in the profession or education think they are.

If we examine programs in a number of languages, from different industries, we will find different naming conventions and approaches to naming, and disorganization regarding dogmas about how to name and not name. As a software architect I was aware, the the most important influence regarding this particular convention was to have one for a team, and secondly, if one existed, to conform to what existed. I wasn't too concerned if what was used would be judged negatively by some outsider coming from some other group or background, or some other industry. If they were observant of their behavior, and history, they would see their preferences did not relate to universal rules. There is no moral rule that is accepted by all concerning what might be better or worse regarding naming conventions in programming for all types of programming in all langauges.

Using my thinking, finding an agreeable solution with a team or conforming to an existing solution doesn't require a lot of persuasion and most are relatively satisfied. Usually the decision relates to conforming, and simply not forgetting to have some uniqueness in names and some "name spacing".

Namespacing simply refers to some method in which a new name is grouped with other names, so as to ensure there is a uniqueness and separation from other names that exist or could be created. This is similar to taxonomy, in that if we name a bird a pigeon, we know that what we have is some sort of bird-pigeon in the full name including upper animal categorizations (with omissions of names for simplicity), and that the pigeon name is made more unique and is separated from reptiles. If a reptile was named pigeon, it would have the more full namespaced name "reptile-pigeon" and therefore would be distinguished from pigeon. In programming names have to be different from each other, or the code won't work as expected. Likewise, in the use of words in real life, we cannot have the word pigeon meaning both squirrels and bird-pigeons, in a context full of squirrels and pigeons.

In that last statement one might get the intuition, as I do, that one can have a lot of things named the same thing and still function well in the language anyway. I sense I can have the same word for squirrels and for pigeons. Probably, we can call all things globs, as I'm known to do, and still function well. But there are issues that will really come up if squirrels are pigeons, especially if we are limited somehow in the ways we can make communication clear, if the same words are used. I wrote this paragraph though because it seems clear we can still function using the same words for many different things.

And we do, because if we look in the dictionary, we have numbers for different meanings for the same words. It would perhaps be more optimal, if each and every word, designated just one thing for what it is defined. This way each word has one definition. I do think this is better, but this is not how language develops and dictionaries have to reflect the real use of language as people have built it up. People really do use words confusingly to have many meanings, and this does result in miscommunications, and probably this issue is so prevalent, that we are not well communicating in a huge percentage of our conversations. But communication *does* occur well too. It's a matter of degree and part in the communication.

Notice that while we have some number of alternative definition of words in the dictionary, each word is expected to have no more than some number of other meanings. This seems to imply that we hit a memory and knowledge limit on what we can know about words and their uses, and that we cannot expect others to understand if we have more definitions than this limit. The limit is not the same for everyone, but for civilization, we have some limit based probably on some balancing of the needs of the larger population and the abilities of the few who know most, who use dictionaries more often. So for each word we have something like one to ten meanings. I'm not certain what the average is, and belief that there are alternative meanings is related to the extensiveness of the recordings of differing dictionaries (we can also say that each person has their own meanings). Anyway, simple dictionaries might have an average of two meanings a word, and advanced dictionaries may average like 8 meanings. Words may average some number of unrelatedness of meaning. Without looking, I might say there is an average of 2 unrelated meanings per word (I expect this will be incorrect, but it will be lower than total alternative meanings).

In real life, we have a concept of name spacing as I said before with taxonomy. But departing from the idea of name spacing, and formal rules of naming in programming, I want to share with the reader, that in real life, we don't even have such a rule! I was saying we have the hierarchy of categories in a taxonomy such that we can choose out bird and pigeon to form the namespace and unique word bird-pigeon. But this is not what vocabulary and naming is really like in English, and even in the sciences leaf nodes, and leaf nodes near parent nodes are used for names, like "homo sapiens". We didn't name the entire lineage to use the full name for human animals. "Homo Sapiens" is like saying "Bird Pigeons" though. Typically we simply use instead unique words (that have some different meanings), that are sufficiently different from others. Like the word "Person", or "Ocean".

The point here is we go for uniqueness. We just need new words. The new words are disorganized! They are just simple chunks that must be different. Or vocabulary is not namespaced, and does not follow the standards created for programmers.

This indicates within programming we will function well without namespaces! We would simply be using the normal human approach to naming and using words.

So in programming, one already knows, because one is a person, who uses language, that one can remember enough words to keep them separate, and can create enough unique words to satisfy all needs. Thus there is no need whatsoever for structure and namespacing of names in programming. I'm still favorable to structure, and representation of the world, and naming that is more directly identifying, and representative of reality in a natural way, than simply making sounds, that map to objects. What I am wanting to communicate is that both do work. In natural language I just said we have scientific taxonomy *and* the dictionary words. So in programming there is an option to do both, or do one or the other. If one has a good enough memory, it may be that all words for all things can simply be unique words without classification! I'd prefer it that the names include the classification myself, so that knowing the word, knows the relations (If that's done well/right and has some flexibility). But what if one already knows the structure or is fine with referring to that, again like with natural language. I don't know what we call a hammerhead shark in scientific latin or greek, but I do know roughly how they fit into the animal kingdom, and I can easily refer to the scientific classification diagrams, which is nearly the only way people really use those diagrams. This indicates it really is possible to use only unique words for all programming, so long as structure can be known separately. If some work without a need for structure, then they can too. And once again, we know that humans before they had science, had words for things, and were able to use them with good skill.

For simple programs, we would have supposed experts in programming, tell us we "must" do some specific naming convention or must "never" do another. There are some strict rules in naming, as some names and symbols are reserved and the program will break. But really, using plain words for variable names, and making sure they are longer and unique is adequate and will really work *forever*.

Notice longer words are statistically self-namespacing. We get the similar effect of namespacing just by increasing the size. It is unlikely, I will name a new object, such as a subatomic particle, an "encyclopedia". But I might call it a "fink". Notice I'm unlikely to call it a fink too. I'm unlikely to name it the letter "q". It appears short names are adequate for many programs, and oftentimes, variable names *are* renamed as shorter lettered names, to make programs more concise. This is done sometimes deliberately and manually, or with computer programs that simply rewrite what was already written.

The simpler the program, the more assured it is, that plain words suffice.

The more complex the program, it may feel disorganized, if the structure is not learned by some members of the team.

For large programs with lots of structure, the longer names will surface the structure, but will make the programs harder to maintain.

Thus plain vocabulary is often better for maintenance.

Thinking about my own programs, I pretended too long as to sophistication. Later, I discovered, using namespaces was not useful. In fact, I even use single letters for global variables. We are told they would conflict with variables of other programs. I find on my OS this *never* happens. Not even for single letters.

This last comment actually reveals that many programming instructors, are inadvertently liars. Conflicts seldom happen. When they do happen, they are not really hard to discover, if they were hard, still changing nothing would be justified by seldomness. Could always add a new letter and make it two letters instead of one. Or use longer names but it appears that

longer names actually are like doing an excess of protection given the risk.

When is the third letter needed and how often? How about the fourth? From a simple study, it may be surfaced that never is more than four letters needed. And that is about my maximum length I use for preferred aliases. I have some longer aliases but I used those when more lazy. Most are four or less, and even one.

If one is smart, one can manage vocabulary easily, one way or the other.

This point may seem insignificant, but what it means, with the context of all else above in mind is, the expert isn't teaching anything useful in forcing naming conventions. You would do well with any approach nearly. Consistency matters, but how many consistent approaches exist in the above permissiveness? Hundreds or thousands of ways are made plausible.

Also, for any system in which such a consistency is created, a new hire such as myself, as an architect, or someone as an engineer, would do best simply to conform. All people on the team conform, and it works out just fine. But it is known that what is conformed to is unique to that context. So no team member emerges from the work, master of names in programming.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="typing into-deletion-or-pretending-to-type-what-will-be-stored-or-typing-just-to-keep-typing">Typing Into Deletion, Or Pretending To Type What Will Be Stored, Or Typing Just To Keep Typing</a>

*353 Wanattomians, Sunday, July 20, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 

ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Enterprise Content Management | Creativity Management | Archiving | Living Autobiography | Reading | Bibliography | Editing 

For those who do a lot of writing, it would be known, that simply beginning to write stimulates one of the preferred ways of thinking. Thinking may seem smarter, clearer, more rational. The discussion, or conversation, alone or imagined with an audience, is one that is expected to be of a higher quality. There isn't small talk, or conversation that is less significant. One is focused on what might matter more, what one can use, or what is important for others to hear about. Something more important for meditating upon. There are lots of reasons to write, but usually these reasons involve higher goals and objectives one has, and the behaviors associated with the writing habit, lead to preffered states of mind.

Since this Book and Journal began in May, 2016, or near that date, I considered the whole to be a mandala. This is written someplaces within the Book and Journal. I had thoughts, that much of my efforts in life must be manadala like from the time I learned what a mandala was, so long before that date already, I expected that much that I would do, write, and think about would be deleted. While I work on ways to improve archiving of life and ideas, and of evidence of life, I still maintain the perspective that deletion is most likely. In the extremely long term, it is assured, (even if there is retaining of information there is too little interest or inclusion potentially, billions of years from now), that all will be vanished. On more recent reflections, I think mostly everything starts to vanish more immediately during life and right after death. Even what is believed to be preserved has largely disappeared or meaningless as it is retained, and what is retained is changing, erroding, and becoming something different. What was originally had is disfigured or eliminated. Several thousand years from now even the best of what we thought we stored well goes through the process of degredation and deletion, and what we thought was stored well often is discovered later, to have had insufficient detail, precision, fidelity, etc... We discover what we thought was well-kept wasn't even meaningful. It was deleted at the time of recording in a way.

"I said my living autobiography and photographed it wrong, and so already it was eliminated"

Since I have this background in thinking, and developed on it, my recent work is more aware than less that it will be a mandala. I can strive for improving the durability and value of the work, but it will be a mandala whatever I try. I expect I will make some contributions to archiving (perhaps in minor ways if not major ways), but those contributions would merely create improved durabilities but not any ultimate durability. Not even good durability on astronomical time. Negligible to none in expansive time. This way of thinking will explain why I am considering the following ideas.

Writing creates a better frame of mind, and writing is a recording that is expected to have some later use, but what if some writers, such as myself, venture into simply keeping the writing habit going, to create the frame of mind, and allow for the mental improvement, without the fuss of recording, because as I said, it will be deleted ultimately. This would be making it a mandala right now.

Making thinking a mandala now is akin to thinking. Thinking and what happens immediately after is the sensatiln that those thoughts were just earlier and more comes later. A quiet destruction of a message, sent into internal space, maybe slightly outward, but evaporated right outside and inside the head. Thinking does record too, as the verbals and visuals extinguish over and over, so it is known that what has been thought will include some memories and changes that will be useful for later and perhaps in highly significant ways for the remainder of life. The brain will dissolve, disintegrate, and be consumed and gassified at death. Thus the thinking-writing definitely gets eliminated, during the thinking and afterwards.

The writing is odd, because it is doing this thinking still, but also, at the same time, trying to create a second recording, apart from whatever neural storing is going on.

For many things thought, thinking back does not recover them for thinking again, but the system is changed, and parts are rethought. Some is influenced. The writings and influence are contained. There is some generality, depending. For writings written, sometimes there is no reading about it later.

Do you read your writing later?

If you don't read your writing later, who does? Was it for you, or for someone else? Was it also for just recording what you thought, not to go back? What if others read briefly, or not at all, and it is just recorded, and none returned?

In that case, it would be the same as thinking the thoughts that were thought worthy of recording and letting them go immediately after.

Strangely, I think typing these thoughts down into my Book and Journal isn't so different than if I sat here and typed with nothing appearing on the screen, or words appearing on the screen that will fail to get saved.

The experience of writing creates the improved mindset that creates better feelings, rationality, and realization of goals. It creates a better mind for later. But would it do that, if it didn't actually record?

This is similar to if one wrote much, learned much along the way, but then had one's archives destroyed in an emergency? Did those efforts not improve the mind.

Given it is a mandala already in the long term, what about right now?

Is it already a mandala in the short term and I'm thinking it has more value than I think it does as I record it for later use?

There is much I know that is of value and I do re-use quite a lot, and there are many reasons to keep the book and journal, but I think I do need to admit that a huge part of the effort is vaporeal.

As strange as the idea might appear, I may try sometimes to type without recording anything. I'll sit here, with my devices turned off, and I'll type on my keyboard my thoughts, without it ever doing anything but increasing my mental qualities as I do it. I will utilize my keyboard, as the initiation of a drug induced state. Writer's euphoria! Keyboarding to writer's euphoria with some expected self-help and self-improvement included.

I know I'll continue my efforts but I *will be doing this exercise too*. Or I will combine them. Type as if it doesn't record! Forget it does! Think of the keyboard and computer or phone as off! Never to return, never to re-use. Never to think back and re-reflect in my mind exactly the same thoughts, just the afterthoughts or unexpected side effects of thought instead!

In practice I don't yet know how I will be doing this, or in what way how often, but I do know I will be doing much of the above in different ways until I determine which long term way of behaving seems to be best or most advantageous.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="where-do-images-get-inserted-in-my-speech-and-thought-to-myself-and-others">Where Do Images Get Inserted In My Speech And Thought To Myself and Others</a>
  
*353 Wanattomians, Sunday, July 20, 2025, Spain, Torredambarra* 

ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Enterprise Content Management | Creativity Management | Archiving | Living Autobiography | Reading | Bibliography | Editing 

Speech to oneself and to others does not include locations in which to insert images. One can think of images at certain times while thinking, and even in parallel to thinking and saying words. There is no rule as to where to place and when to think these images, except naturally, one tends to think them relevantly within a period of time in which the thoughts are being had. Sometimes this causes sudden thinking of images and words later, when the brain, having been doing some work after having thought about it earlier, notifies or reminds (another word would be better) with newer information. This is when the thoughts are irrelevant to the occasion but are relevant to what was discussed earlier. In ordinary conversation, this is approved of. One can bring up a modification or addition to an earlier conversation had. This is building on conversations anyway. There is also some level of randomness or uncertainty around how and when the same topic is discussed again versus some other topic, with it to be more expected if it was more recent or related to another new conversation than if it was much later or at the time of another conversation that is seemingly very unrelated. Importance also plays a role in whether it is accepted.

When speaking to others, there isn't any specific place to put an image. You don't hold up an image, or a video, of a certain size and duration, at the time that you speak something for which its relating would be useful. This seldom happens, but does occur during presentations, times people are teaching, and so on. More preparation is required. If one is talking to a friend, and one discusses one's vacation, one might have images to share on the phone. Most frequently in conversation though, there is no utilization of images or videos. There is no rule of insertion. There are smooth approaches to making images and videos more easy to include, and those experienced doing that would be able to, on reflection, come up with methods and techniques that are pproved of or enjoyed, and probably provide ideas about what to avoid. But there aren't really any accepted rules, or even an easy way to talk about the rules, as they might relate to regular conversation.

Unlike with conversation, speaking, and thinking, our civilization is closer to having rules for itself regarding the presentation of images going along with text. In books, articles, and so on, the rules would be found within what are called sometimes style requirements. If one conforms to those style requirements, one meets the expecations of others. If one does not, one sometimes presents images in ways they will not like. This is somewhat akin to following and breaking of social rules. Rules such as these and guidelines are not as clear in speech as they are in writings. In both speech, thinking, and writing, there do appear to be comforts and discomforts, expectations and prohibitions, and aesthetically pleasing and unpleasing things. Attractions and unattractions, repulsions, and so on. What exists more in the domain of writing versus common speech with friends appears to be the level of sophistication in the written codification in elements of written style. In communication, in the media, and in various domains like acting, and visual productions, there are certainly rules that can be found as well I'm sure. But in standard everyday conversation within family, among friends, and between strangers, there is less of an understanding about inserting images into conversation. It is less known and less codified.

In thinking it is even less codified, and there would be sensitivity about judgement between people. But if one looks into one's own mind, and considered what I said above about relevance, timeliness, and so on of thoughts, and later reminders/notifications, one will see a mind that is not dysfunctional. This will sound to many others like a well organized and well working mind, compared to one who might describe alternatively, stating that their minds are more filled with much that appears irrelevant, with images being pressed into consciousness without clear connections, or timeliness, and with less of a distinction between images coming up during conversation that discusses what is in those images and random intrusions of thought and images. One can determine what is less normal or common, and what is pathological from the degree in which it departs from the above. Before anyone reacts too negatively to these sentences, however, it is important to realize, that one's experiences may still represent much of what others experience too, even if there is an unwanted deviation from the cleanliness and orderliness of what I described. ADHD is common for example. What is missing from this discussion is the overall study and datum of the rest of human thinking and speech behaviors. Either way there is a sort of idea identified in the above.

How do we know this would be a sort of ideal. One way we can know that this would be a kind of ideal is that it is how a computer system would need to function, that it already resembles how we design computer systems partly, that it represents an ideal of the design of computer systems, and that it would indicate good functioning of a humanoid or thinking robot. This is not to say there would not be other ways to design a robot, but that this organization would be one that would indicate very good functioning. It thinks about things as they are relevant, accesses images and videos when they enhance thinking and discussion, and bring things up later when important thoughts intrude, to give opportunity for further processing. This is similar also to when important events come up that relate to efforts underway that are affected by those events. I intuit that there are many ways that this is useful and perhaps would share more on this in the future. It seems that this process is not only useful for thinking things but potentially for inanimate or machine processes as well. Imagine a machine that takes feedback and updates on the basis of the feedback in deterministic ways, and that the feedback relates to earlier feedback or earlier operations.

The idea that initiated this discussion is about the fittingness of including images in writing. The consideration of the lack of codification of the use of images in regular speech, and in thinking, may indicate that the codification in writing is incorrect. Additional thinking about codification or rules of image and video inclusion in thinking seems important also. We need it for thinking, for transactional thinking in speech and in non-verbal movements, and also in writing and in videos. I am unaware of any writing that I would have had to be exposed to in order to utilize any rules socially that has a complete discussion of each of these domains. Instead, we have as I said, elements of style in writing. But what if we use what we have discussed about speech, given it is strange perhaps, to insert images as one talks. If one says a few sentences, and holds up a photo, then says it is a figure depicting something relevant, then puts it away, one is behaving oddly. It may also be that in writing this is a strange but admittedly pleasing way to share, but this may be due to how we were trained and educated.

Consider this option. Instead of ever holding up an image, or inserting it in writing right after a paragraph, or beside some text, we asked the reader to think of it by file name. Now imagine, that when the thinker thinks of the file name, it is injected into their visual cortex by outside source, like a computer system that is networked to the brain. This then would be more like saying something to someone, then having them think of an image they know to be relevant, or, them imagining something with some reality that may relate. In this case, reading doesn't require strange inclusions of images. Images mixed with writing, is somewhat strange. The way images are handled in computers, versus text, makes for a strange combination in the presentation in single documents, and the way the system operates with one or the other is different. A similar point can be made about the division in the human mind, between verbal and non-verbal. If someone thinks of an image as they think of something verbally, it seems very natural, if the source image is from their own mind. It is strange to think an image coming from someone else's mind. But that is also similar to if someone shows an image. A difference though is seeing what is shared from another mind in one's mind as one uses it is closer to what is already acceptable within their system and may *not* be as strange as someone holding up a rectangle after saying a few sentences.

Here I am not recommending for this manner of including images in writing. I am using this to make it more clear, that having an image presented after a paragraph of text, or within a paragraph of text, is stranger than it may seem, and this strangeness does seem to be made clear by how people really think and transact verbally. This behavior is largely absent in these to areas. Above I indicated there cuold be a modern alternative, even to thinking images into someone's mind and vice versa, to communicate more effectively. It is not assured that such communication would not be comfortable. Already they share images to each other, and sometimes what is shared is unwanted! This does go into the head!

My interst does not make me want to go much further in this direction at present, because what I want to talk about is the plausibility of removing images from all text presentations. This would be beneficial in computer systems and in print publications because of the strange differences that exist between these two kinds of information, text and image. Audio too is strangely different, and adds more to discuss. What may be more appropriate, is the simple referencing of images in the text, like what I was talking about with the filename to insertion in the visual cortex. But instead of doing that, for now, in a much more rudimentary approach, I'm thinking of simply having images separate from text. The reference simply points to images that are someplace else. They could be in print in the back of a text, or in an image section, but my current interest is more towards a larger division, in which they are stored simply in a separate place that is more appropriate. Like if you had a book that were distributed with a way to view the images that was separate from the book. It seems this would solve many problems I have not here discussed, but could bring up later. About storage, delivery, presentation, printing, and so on. Images with the text is an odd and strange coupling. Much design work has been done to a point of ultimate non-satisfaction I think. The epitome of images in text, in a book, seems to be one that is immediatly pleasing. As I imagine it done well, it sounds very nice. Even among the better experiences life has to offer. But coming from the perspective of the maker of texts, and systems doing presentations, and design and so on, I think the pinnacle of this practice *does not* achieve a harmony wanted, and disharmony is present. To what extent is this disharmony a cause of the mental division of verbal and visual, and the same in computing? My mind is not holistic regarding the synthesis of these domains, and they stand separate. What if the solution is more separate is better? There appear to be grounds for thinking this may be true. I need to resolve this more to my liking for my furtherance of my efforts in publishing.

My efforts are increaingly including video. Images, video, and text, into the filmographic, may better be accomplished with a dual delivery approach. Made synchronized with the right relevance.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="recognizing-more-totally-areas-of-faults-and-veracity-in-statements-behaviors-and-thoughts">Recognizing More Totally Areas of Faults And Veracity In Statements, Behaviors, and Thoughts</a>

*328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Abandoning Equality | Higher Order Attention

Since I was young, if I hears some argument that I disagreed with, or found faults with, the faults I found were too numerous to really have a chance to explain fully all that could be wrong with it. Many arguments are simply error ridden. This is why some complain about the effort to counter false thinking sometimes called "Bullshit" because there are so many issues it takes too long to go through every fault. Also, the speakers often do not care about any fault even though one alone may be falsifying, among others that are also falsifying as well. Collections of faults are found for many statements and arguments. Sometimes I can build a large set of mistakes for things said. A good example that is taken very seriously for which there are too many errors to communicate them all is the Ontological Argument used by some old religionists. But outside of attempts at logical arguments the same can be done for things said all over the culture, including what is found in media and entertainment, in advertisements, and in what friends an family say.

Historically, people wanting to refute arguments, have been wanting to refute using less. They want to find one or two areas in which to damage an argument in order to show that the arguments are false. This is a way to really completely falsify arguments. However, I never really liked that approach. It leaves too much unstated. If an argument is a poor one, and I see many defects in it, I don't wan to seem to rely on one point or another to counter it; instead, what I liked, was having a preponderance of counterarguments to show that collectively and individually it all shows the arguments are false. This is a much more powerful approach but it is seldom used. At this moment I'm considering developing an approach to doing it a consistent way closer to my way of thinking so that for any argument I only damage it more totally instead of with little counters.

So when an argument is wrong, I will be able to quickly state the logical fallacies, scientific areas missing proability, confirmation, self-confirmation, areas of coginitive illusion, personal defects in the writer showing habit of simply stating false (would work in advertising for example, where as a rule, what is shared has false elements), show that there are mathematical failures of analysis, that there are verbal illusions, that what was stated was too short to articulate what was desired to be articulated, that subsequent work shows a trajectory towards confirmation bias, etc... Also, the idea is to do this well, not simply list too many things to deal with. The idea is to list well all that is faulty in an argument or communication, so that it can be seen *the extent to which it is false, has lies or truth-related malintent, and so on* and not that ther is just some serious flaw, that should be persuasive.

A reason why I did not like this former logical approach is because it is more persuasive internally to me in my own thinking to use all against an argument instead of some, knowing all that is false and not just part. This is more persuasive to me, and if one *could* communicate all that is wrong with somethign to someone, they see the fuller truth of it, and they are more likely to be persuaded themselves.

Now that I think about it, this explains quite a lot in my life. Trying to work so much harder to be persuasive rather than using less. But it is not successful both ways.

Knowing there were issues with communication using such an approach, I still did not ever stop using it. And I'm glad I never stopped using it. Nowadays, it feels like if something comes up, all are often gullible to what I see as having huge quantities of obviously false qualities. It is obviously better to be the opposite of being that gullible, to be more aware of all that is wrong with something, than to think it is right, or to only see that something small is wrong.

And now I see an issue with the scaling of gullibility.

"I've seen what is wrong with it" may hide from others that the speaker is fooled on everything else.

This is a matter of size of awareness and more full and complete application of intelligence to something.

Gullibility is like being unaware to all that is wrong with something. But it scales. Most are partly gullible.

The part of the discussion I'm omitting here for now is when one has rejected something completely but one has not been aware of all aspects of an object. That takes time, and tends to be faster for the intelligent. Doing it incompletely is the only way too.

I will have to discuss this relationship to eliminate vagueness. Having more awareness is related to knowing the faults, if one cannot be aware to find the faults one is still gullible in the social usabe, but gullibility seems to combine multiple aspects I've now found and am separating. 

Anyway, naturally I have a good capacity for finding faults in a number of categories for which an object can be analyzed and in which one can be aware about it, and using alternative perspectives, but I have not created a framework approach yet for which one can do the analysis.

This relates to the framework in development for Human Shortcomings. Because the human shortcomings can be identified in what people are doing and that is part of the intent of that work.

Knowing what I know, there is an incipient framework, which has vision good enough to consider it a bit of a framework. Like when someone has accumulated martial arts expertise but did not organize the aspects into a communicable system. If the vision and ability are good enough and the person is aware enough there may be an incipient system, or internal system, but that is more rare than I like so I don't like to speak that way so much as to mostly state that the framework has to be in writing already.

However, the conjoint life-categories, work in human shortcomings, recognition of errors by category, including knowledge and immediate use of lists of error types (like using each fallacy type), and having more to add in addition, there is a system in vision. It does have to be written down though. Framework wise, if one has a good tax, categorization, and set of lists, that one can use truthfully and honestly, and it is representative of the sitatuion and condition (all this represents human error and correction and truth depiction, etc..), then one does actually have a framework or system. The idea of a framework or system in a basic format is thought about here, and I would want to relate this to my work "Methods of diagramming and visualization" which should say somethign about what minimally should exist for one to claim one has a system or framework approach. I'm not aware of anyone who has done such work and clearly it is important.

So a goal of mine will be tactically to use an even more in-total approach to fault finding, which is truth establishing and clarifying, and to write down the framework or system such that others can use it, and this will partly be in Human Shortcomings, partly in Higher Order Attention, and partly elsewhere as well (it relates to many of the Life Categories).

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="forever-falsifying-statements-of-other-people-is-more-useful-than-it-might-seem">Forever Falsifying Statements of Other People Is More Useful Than It Might Seem</a>

*328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality | Attentional Architecture 

Continuing the last posting, with a new subject matter, I will discuss the falsification of other people's statements as being permanent and not only temporary.

Let us consider, that when one discusses a subject with another person, and a good quality criticism is stated in response to some claim, that if the claim requires update in relation to additional work, that we can expect socially that the work will never be performed.

Another way of saying this, is that when someone makes a statement that requires some effort akin to scientific efrort, they will never do it.

One may want to disagree with this, but I assure, counterexamples will be too few. The fewness of counterexamples, would include all those efforts that were made, all the work examples for refutation, that could be compared with all those examples in which that effort was not made. The number would be so few, that using probability, if a strong criticism is made of another person's statement requiring them to do the work to demonstrate (assuming it really does damage what they are saying if they don't do it), then it may be assumed they will never do it and the statement can be treated as permanently false.

A humorous thing is that if it is known that the statement is likely false on locial grounds, or like with the heuristic in the last posting, or mathematical grounds, we also already know it was permanently false. What the person was going to have to do, if they did the work, was revise what their statements were, but make them more accurate. This means their statements were already false. False is "permanently false".

So now we have a permanently false statement, *and*, we know they will never do the work, in which case we can disregard what they were saying.

That they were never going to do the work relates to they *never could* do the work. That they never could does imply they were probably using false authority. There is a solid line of argument there I can envision. But also because they could never do the work, it seems to follow they could never have the data from any source including from themselves.

Let's work with an example. Suppose someone stated, that they were aware, that the COVID-19 vaccinations, included other biological material used as a single time opportunity to test reactions in the populace. There are some ingredients, that were undisclosed, that were required to be given to most of the population, just to see what their reactions are, so that they have good data that people are not adversely affected. These biological materials would be used in other drugs or would be used to advance studies for the creation of other drugs. The main claim made by this person, is that "6 billion people were administered a set of additional bio-materials with their vaccinations during the Covid-19 epidemic".

Now let us consider that statement. Firstly it is instantly false using the earlier heuristic. The number is round and is huge. The size of the margin of error could be massive. Using my approach at absurding it to highlight lack of margin of error provided, the figure is off by 5.763.9 billion. That leaves 236,100,000 remaining. This number is too different from the 6 billion so the 6 billion is immediately false. Using the related list in the last posting, we also know it is probably false for reasons apart from the roundness, although we already rejected it on those grounds. So we reject it on other grounds entirely a number of times using the list. This is like in the legal system, giving the statements "Many life sentences to a crime or set of crimes". In the United States, if a murder kills say, 10 people at once with a machine gun, and they are found guilty in trial, they may be told they have to serve 10 life sentences, or the equivalent of 700 years in prison, so that those killed get sufficient justice (so we are to believe from these Judeo-Christians). Just like this, humorously, a single false statement suffers many falsifications and many deaths, past the final death for each. Each one is a final death.

Notice in scientific studies, entire studies are rejected instantly if they don't have statistical significance. We don't use that concept in regular thinking but it is the equivalent of immediately rejecting someone's views if they didn't do their study right.

If someone's thinking didn't do their study right, science immediately rejects it. Therefore their thinking is rejected. Another grounds for immediately and permanently rejecting statements of others as permanently false. Notice that if they didn't do their study right it is thrown out. They have to do a new study.

People claim to be scientific themselves. They are not scientific insofar as they do not conduct studies. I argued before, that people only pretend to be scientific, using social alliances. They believe themselves socially allied to earlier scientists, and scientists actively working, and merely pretend they too are scientific, if they like those scientists and some elements regarding methods in the procedures they use. Notice though, that when they start "making arguments using their background as scientists" they do not routinely discard their own thoughts for not being good scientific papers, and totally act differently than real scientists. WE know from this they are really not scientists, but might be "science enthusiasts" like people who watch Star Trek. This is much more damning than it may seem like it is regarding most of their thinkign, because they would want to reject their own thinking if they were scientific, doing it the way scientists do, but they don't. Further, they never did.

Returning to the statements receiving many deaths including total real death in actuality, we can consider joining with the above, that no person has been a scientist who was not a scientist, and that they would need to be a scientist for whatever thinking they were doing, for that to have the scientist rationale. Since none were like this, and even scientists failed outside their narrow scope (oftentimes), it seems true that a huge number of statements made by most people (since most think they are aligned to science), suffer many deaths over and over. Collectively each statement dies many deaths, then all in total many deaths. So one must wonder, what is the point of talking to these people who are all around.

Connecting this with the recent discussions on quantifying veracity of others, and quantifying veracity of reactions, it appears there is a very great devaluation of people happening in this writing that is true and nearly universally true. I would still need to work on estimating values. But now that it appears that people would need to over and over reject their mental papers, which are their thoughts, statements, and reactions, known in advance to be largely false, and not connected with scientific research, it seems irrefutable.

I do reject science in many ways, and the ways that I reject it opens people to think using methods which do allow for personal life development on an honest trajectory. Later, if those were incorporated into science, then science would be redefined, and some of the above would become untrue, but only where people make their thinking logical in the ways I would indicate, that agrees with what some other thinkers have stated in the sciences and in philosophy. Much is new, but I think most is obvious on inspection, or obvious post indoctrination. But it has to be recognized that nobody knows anything about this kind of thing, and they really walk around thinking they can loft political arguments as scientific, without having any idea about what science woudl be accepted to an academic journal. If they knew, they would not only have to reject their own thoughts over and over, but they'd have to tell everyone else they are a risk to others.

These thinkers are risks to others now, and using their own thinking. 

So now we have more reasons to reject interacting with others, and rejecting utterly statements when we interact with them.

This may seem untrue, but I think the way I can move forward with this, is take samples of paragraphs from the writings of others, randomly considered, and show the many ways in which they are false. I am aware already I can do this logically alone, which is one reason why I took so seriously the study of reasoning before, learning about logic and science and related demonstration techniques at University. Methods required for sound reasoning are not especially well-known. Seldom known. So thoughts have not yet been updated to these methods, and they have not been taught to kids. It follows it will be several hundred years very likely given how long it takes to educate that there would be a large population of people who can think in logical ways largely really truthful and more immune or correctively responsive to good criticism. Since most thinking does not use the logic it requires it really is easy to find mistakes all over. Good thinkign requires quite a bit more than people think, and so most thought is found to be defective. But it can approach a good level of truth. But all that I stated above, is atop this issue, that is pervasive, making it more obvious that almost all thinking really does have charactaristics making it most quickly rejectable. It depends on who you are somewhat too. Mining other peoples incorrect statements to find nuggets of truths I am already aware of or find "neutral" is not worth the time. I'm finding more reasons to reject the thinking rather than reasons to find anyone at all to discuss things with having an expectation of getting truth apart from any fun or enjoyment that is largely mindless. I do enjoy fun childish time with others though, just less than before.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="given-slave-trade-secrecy-international-confict-trend-of-false-bookkeeping-and-so-on-old-records-may-not-be-trustworthy">Given Slave Trade, Secrecy, International Confict, Trend of False Bookkeeping, And So On, Old Records May Not Be Trustworthy</a>

*328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

History | Truth and Honesty | Constraint and Determinimism | Human Shortcomings 

Reading the history of Portugal, I enountered lines stating that in Brazil, there were 2 million slaves taken from Angola, and in the mid 1700s there were "over 1 million slaves" living there. It was stated that slaves on average lived 8 years. My assumption interpreting that is that they would reach a slave-worker's age, then on average they would die after 8 years, living perhaps to their early twenties. It was also stated that it was prefered to have male slaves, indicating to me that there must have been a breeding method in which only male children were purchased from those who were doing the breeding.

I find it hard to believe any of this information because of a few issues. Firstly, I tire of hearing round numbers related to millions and hundreds of thousands. People repeatedly state that some number of millions were killed in war, were abducted and trafficked, were sold into slave trade, etc... but never are there any demographics to go along with these numbers, and since the round numbers were already chosen, I am certain they are false and that estimates served to support arguments or existing assumptions.

I also discover, repeatedly too, the people fail to understand the "round number" heuristic for falsification. If round numbers were chosen, it is already known they are false, particularly if those numbers are large. The part that's in question after the falsification, if any thought additional is provided the subject, is how false. You can use a round number for how false it is, given they accept and use round numbers, and estimate. So if it is stated that some 2 million slaves were taken from Angola, I can say that estimate is off by 1 million. That brings the figure into incredibility.

The larger the round number, also, the more false it would be. Not only because the error would be larger, but because the bookkeeping and demographic studies required to establish them require more work. And Since more work is required, it is more likely it never happened. This also explains why round numbers are used.

What is interesting too, is that *anytime* this is done, it is already false. It doesn't matter the subject matter, or the groups it's about. If I'm told 12 million Russians sadly passed away in WWI, it's false already, and maybe my 11 million in my estimation. That brings it round to a false 1 million. But that's round, so let's agree on 700,000. The person speaking to you when this convesation comes up has no demographics, so they have *no methodology to use to recover* and disprove your statement. However, *you did* have the heuristic above to disprove theirs, and theirs is instantly disproven. So there is simply no knowledge about the claim that 12 million sadly died. Sadness doesn't support it either. 40 million died in Ireland. That was sad, but it was false. During WWI, there was an "event" we're told is called the "holocaust". This is just WWII. During WWII we were told 6 million jews died. That is instantly false, even if there were sad deaths.

Relating this subject matter to the title line, there are a lot of reasons why these pieces of information are not trustworthy. Do you trust slave traders? Do you trust slave trade business men? How about human trafficking businessmen? How about war adversaries and their numbers? All of these are incredibly untrustworthy. When you have no demographics, and no accounts, it is extremely dubious any of these claims about large numbers. Additionally, the numbers have to come from those keeping the information, who are untrustworthy, or else they came from people who did not have access. 

This isn't an investigation into any specific claim being made, just that in advance, it is already known, that round figures, untrustworhtiness of sources, and other pieces of information about patterns of human behavior indicate the information cannot be assumed and must be criticized and rejected. When someone invents numbers, it is not recoverable, *unless* they come back with data. As a rule they never do. So really, most are falsed *permanently* regarding their round number claims relating to areas of contention, where dubious information might be used.

In addition to the above:

- There are good reasons opponenents falsify information going into and coming out of conflict.
- There are reasons why companies and organizations falsify records, even if they are *reputable businesses* to avoid taxes and other beaurocratic issues, and this is *more true and not less if the group is criminal or nefarious*. "Drug traffickers reported today that they have 1 million slaves in their network extending accross Latin America and Africa" is a claim that's immediately false.
- Getting information from another group requires inside access, that nobody has.
- Assumptions include that records are intact and are really "discoverable".
- Official demographics are not extremely trustworthy, including what nations report regarding total populations. These still relate to grand strategy in the military, and a country wants to show good numbers regarding GDP figures, and fake their own prosperity. One trust one's own nation, but then other nations do this, but then one forgets one assumed one's own nation has it correct. A simple thinking exercise about what is required to have numbers right regarding demographics would reveal figures have a very large margin of error just from informatio collection problems.
- Confirmation methodology is unknown, there for there is effectively no confirmation from one's position of visibility and one will not check either.

Looking away from this writing, and transfering to reading the same book, I encountered the word "slave raiding". This also immediately shows, that one could not trust raid demographics.

I think one can go very far in arguing extensively why scientifically this approach is even required by a rational mind. Once a round number is used for large figures (but for small ones too), the margin of error is required to know if the estimate has any value, and if that is not available, it is only false, and since the margin is unknown, it could simply have been invented.

Let's talk about invented figures. Consider the claim:

"In World War II, 11 million Germans were killed in battle." 

In order to know if this is true or false, you would have to do a lot of work, as someone who started out as just a listener. But stating this, I didn't provide anything that is trustworthy yet either. In fact, the listener, can use that. If I didn't supply any work, and I just stated this without any support, even if I claim to have authority behidn me, I still didn't have anything. That's pretending to have something. That can be used when one is pretending to have authority that was invented too. Or where authority earlier was invented, and people simply believe it is authority later. A statement like this simply isn't really different from statements made by people who are relaying history. Someone says 5 million were killed in WWI in North Africa. That actually is as easily invented as the quote above and I did in fact invent it just now.

But the easier approach is simply to use the heuristic I mentioned. A large round number is already false, and this heuristic is used in conjunction with the list above, to simply falsify it and move on. Not even require work for the person making the statement. It cannot be trusted they'll do that work, and as a rule they won't, so it is usually forever falsified already.


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="heuristic-determiniation-of-what-is-likely-false-in-advance-for-quick-rejection-and-attention-management">Heuristic Determiniation of What Is Likely False In Advance For Quick Rejection, and Attention Management</a>

*325 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 22, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture | Heuristics in Morality | Another Ethic | A System of Thought | Relationships | Com

The posting about the falsity that exists in reactions, and the posting about the quantification of veracity in human behavior and thinking, together give us a direction for quickly evaluating or "sizing up" others for false information. If the quantity of veracity is as low as I think it is, and the amount of reactions as false as I think they are, then one can use this to prune experience to make what one is exposed to more honest. More accurately, it controls one's input a bit more, to exclude what is false, and include what is true.

A heuristic method or tool is one that is known to have some flaws but a small enough margin of error to enable good utility. If one is hearing or sensing in reactions and behavior excess falsity, one can simlly learn to omit that form experience by ignoring or automatically dissolving input. One can also habitually and quickly redirect from one input that is false to another. The falsity that is existing, is coming from people and from recordings. It seldom comes from animals (in ways we are concerned about) or from nature and its objects. If we redirect attention to nature, we will as a rule, almost always, transition from what *could be false* or *probably contains too low veracity*, to what is immediately providing truths. If I'm sitting at this coffee house, and a group sits beside me, to discuss religion in politics, I can redirect my attention from their low levels of veracity and high levels of falsity, to simply feeling the breeze and sunshine, feeling my handds and feet themselves, or the things around, or just look at the detail and reflectiveness of the tiled streets. The lights against the castle up on that hill over there are not going to lie to me, or send me distortions, or provide me a vision that isn't what it is. My brain does come with illusions and so maybe I'll fail to see something correctly due to my blind spot, but that mechanical correction is insignificant especially knowing its there, and particularly in this sighting. Maybe a spot is off, but what I'm seeing is not falsifying my existence.

This is very persuasive, even with myself as the thinker, to consider how much more I would benefit from simply ignoring humans and other digital inputs to just focus on natural things, memories of natural things, and plans about natural things, and what I might think further using natural things!

Reading, and other cultivated stimuli are what I also want to include in my world, and that involves messages from others and recordings. Since I said these are cultivated stimuli, there is a plan with my attention, regarding what to include, implying also, that there is much that will be exluded! All else! What else to exclude but what is quickly perceived to be low on veracity? Whatever is rich in veracity is to be included.

Hopefully one thinks well, and that is a danger of the media, of traditionalism, and of religion! One wants to think one's thoughts that are also of high veracity. Unfortunately, these untruths and falsities do come from other people. They speak about religion, and make advertisements, trying to trick and fool, into buying items that are not as useful as they tell. They have trouble with logical thinking and are deceptive. Here is where an audience might want to defend people, but religions have made them vile needing correction from "above" and from supernatural beings. Envy, greed, lust, and trickery are ineradicable we're told. Obviously these infect what is thought by others, spoken by others, and shared by others in recordings. So one's attention is largely to detect and avoid what is false about others.

Already I avoid falsity, but I think here is the beginning of a method that will be used more rapidly by the nervous system to simply omit lies and falsities from attention. I've been avoiding advertising this way for decades now. When ads to pop into my world, which is more rare, I diable them or mute them or ignore them rapidly. Otherwise I used the approach from my book Imagination and Filtration, also known as Higher Order Attention, to route myself away from sources of ads, and to use television and media to such a low extent that I'm hardly exposed. I want to take this further into the domain of automatic attention filtering other people who are in my immediate environment, who I'm just exposed to as I try to remain minimally social in public locations, and from within cultivated stimuli that are thought to better but still include falsities. If I encounter Christianity and Judaism in books I read, I cross out religious words and cancel them from my mind. This is in an effort to continue the reading but with my own cleaning of it.

A heuristic approach of quickly canceling external stimuli that is perceived to be "maybe" false is needed. There just has to be sufficient probability that what is heard or sensed is false or low on veracity and then it is canceled. Additionally, another thing I've been actively working on, is simply ignoring and filtering out anything that is neutral, because why listen to what one knows already, and why listen to what is trivial? I stated before in an earlier writing that much that is overheard in one's environment is predictable. People are simply saying the same kinds of statements over and over. One is already not in these other conversations, but these conversations, (and ones you might be involved in) include sentences that AI at this point woudl easily fill in before the people stop speaking. Autocomplete of minds, thoughts and communications, like what exists in email. The more predictable it is, the more repetitively horrible it can get, although one does not always need to see it as horrible, as it is also just natural behavior. Like birds flapping. But there is a nuissance to it too. The nuissance of repetitively hearing what one knows and has heard before can be canceled too in addition to what happens to be false. This makes what one is experiencing in sensory life more inclusive of what will be exclusively true, new or interesting, and removing all else.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="open-activism-and-public-assembly-as-providing-leadership-and-elites-with-scientific-datum-ensuring-control-and-knowledge-that-such-activities-are-not-very-fruitful">Open Activism and Public Assembly As Providing Leadership and Elites With Scientific Datum Ensuring Control and Knowledge That Such Activities Are Not Very Fruitful</a>

*325 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 22, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Relationships | Com | Government | Activism and Voting 

Reading a book on the history of Portugal, I saw a line on a riot by women in Porto, against the increased taxation on linens. This made me think a bit about the long history that must exist of group assembly, protest, activism, and so on, by members of the public, to obtain miscellaneous changes in government. This author soemtimes uses terms that place modern ways of thinking into the past, so I'm not certain the extent to which such protesting resembles current day protests. This story was from the 1600s. Are protests today like those at that time, and are they like protests in Rome, ancient Greece, or other locations earlier? What kinds of protests were allowed. Obviously, people would have been able at times throughout history to complain en masse as a group. Thinking about it this way, current day protests are primordial, and notably current day protests still lack good organization and method. It still appears a simple group, whatever size it happens to be, an dhte complaints would probably be similar to those of more ancient times, perhaps with more modern signs when those are used. Maybe the silly signs were used in prehistory?

Open protests over such a long period of time, or even over a hundred to two hundred years in the modern semblance recently, is enough to show that open information has been shared again and again by the population to leadership. This means the leadership has had something akin to polls, giving them information they need, to estimate concern and to estimate corresponding unconcern or opposition. For every gathering, are those who did not gather or who oppose who are usually more numerous. The information gained, would also provide something akin to open scientific data, that can be used to show the futility of the population, their forgetfulness, their misestimations as to progress, the degree of their personal effectiveness, and humorously, their belief in their heroism. Leadership can use it to see, over and over, that the groups have little power, and that they can give them, very minimally, something that will cause them to believe themselves successful. They can take it back later after they've become forgetful or changed opinion. Leadership then has information about the repeated effectiveness of their own approach contrary to public gatherings, but also including public gatherings, which is part of their design. They credit themselves for the gatherings, and for kindly providing people the opportunity to have them. They are aware also, after so much time has passed, that people really are controlled this way, that they cannot discover it, and if they do cannot do anything about it, because those who discover it cannot convince the others, who are too eager to get mutual attention for it, too eager to believe themselves involved, and too wanting to think themselves heroes as I said. People are aware, that in recent times, people will call themselves heroic, for doing things like undergoing health treatment. People call themselves heroes not knowing what heros are, thinking the metaphor apt for actual description. Civil rights activists then are called heroes too, for joining entertainment with risks. Leadership is aware they are deluded and supports the delusion, and does very little and often nothing after protests. The people can be given little and they think themselves successful, but it has been shown as often, that they can give nothing, kill them, or police them, while giving nothing, and the people still believe themselves effective, amazing, and they will continue to do it again. Doing it more often ensures they have not discovered something more useful to do to win their objectives; instead, they do the same. It appears joining in riots, being attacked by police, and joining violent protests, that are thwarted, still results in the participants feeling that they were laudible just for fighting for their beliefs. The continued existence of opposition creates an enemy for them, and the existence of that enemy gives them value. Oddly, their enemy is the same as their own governement, which in contradiction they value, for giving them the chance, to do the fighting?

This has happened so often, with people grouping in such large numbers, with known results, such that we can scientifically confirm that they are not very useful and are contrary to their interests. Public activism seems to support governments and leaders in controlling populations. Notice that with all this joining, people still like their governments as I said and think they are "good" for letting them assemble. This really does indicate that the population voluntarily and happily has more than cooperated with the design of their own control. It appears to offer the population a convenient way to self-praise, feel active in government, and maybe even keep things the same as before. Slow progress is wanted because it keeps things mostly unchanging. Thwarted advances do the same. The combination of enjoyment, increased self-estimation, and "inclusion" creates an inability to see what is happening. Scientifically it appears this is verifiable. It has been verifiable because it has been *open*.

The openness of public activity provides some leaders and elite figures a way to observe the population as subjects, as scientific experiment participants. Once the people are involved, their reactions to what happens next can be seen. What seems to motivate their group activity seems to be available for sight in dissection. Several million people joining in some political gathering, or protest, would allow people to see why they are there, what they get out of it apart from their mission, allow them to estimate the degree in which the members know what the goals are, that they are those impacted or not, or if they are helpers, and to see afterwards, if anything happens when they are given nothing. It is irrefutable that this has happend many times in the last decades in many nations. It seems to confirm that people will join as helpers, as people who have other reasons for joining, like getting excitement, and confirming self-valuations, and as the entertained, will do nothing if they get nothing. In fact, they can party again if they get nothing.

Protests against actions in Israel in recent current events have been numerous and have included millions of people who have gotten nothing in return but enjoy the thrill obviously of protesting again and again. People may think this is not the case, but what is the cause of their continued interest, given their efforts have no result? Is it to repeat an approach that is conservative in its recurrence, to do what others did before, *even if* it won't have a result? Or is it due to reasons I mentioned above. I do not think there are not people joining who have good intentions, but this is not about intentions but about the extent in which such behavior has provided leadership a way to manage people, ensure they get little or nothing, while making them feel they are *making the world better* somehow. Meanwhile, the entire futile cycle is part of the design, that is actually confirmable due to the quantity of open data they've put out for the last several hundred years, and if protesting is as it was in Roman and Greek times, and in other nations throughout history, it is incredibly well confirmed, that the design is control and not progress. People claim to learn from history, but claiming that this process is effective is like thinking the worst of all business types is a good one. Activism does not have a useful organizational form that results in obvious "profits" or "revenues" for expenditure, and if human effort and activity is made part of the expenditure, it is shown very obviously that the gains are nearly null by comparison with the costs and investment. Has anyone ever heard of a business person who invested in a protest? They wouldn't because they know there is no reward (except advertising), and they also know, that people do it for free to get nothing. They haven't calculated their hourly wages in the protests! Humorously still, they did not compute both these hourly wages in protest, and the hourly wages in payments to the party they cannot move. The rewards of convincing government officials would result in activities they also paid for. It's like consumers showing up to a business to pay for food or goods, and then pay for the salaries of those who are providing those goods with separate money!

More on this subject in the near future.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="measuring-attention-received">Measuring Attention Received</a>

*324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture | Relationships | Com | Mathematics

Here there are issues as to using logic and mathematics as elsewhere and perhaps these writings can be used to build a case of the failed application of mathematics more generally. Mathematics has not been applied where people are most needing, and instead, is applied to more technological solutions. Mathematics has failed to become ethically interested enough. These writings will make this obvious over time.

How are we to approach the subject of attention given to use without using any mathematics whatsoever? Such an approach is the common way, which is not an approach, but thinking the same way about it again. We enjoy when someone gives us compliments, but we don't know the size of the compliments, what they apply to, their duration, and we even exaggerate how often we received the compliment. Just one flattering compliment can feel it provides our total estimated value for all people. But a more mathematically minded observer, who uses that math actually, would want to break the subject into contsituent parts and analyze. 

I've been fond lately of the utilization of sets. How much of a person who flatters you with a statement that you are good looking is a part of that person's existence, and how much of that transfers over to you, and what is the duration, and what is the longterm meaning. This involves thinking of people as sets, and thinks of time as also having sets of durations. Event sets fall on a time line. This is not the onlly way to analyze and obviously there are many mathematical areas that can be here applied, but simply knowing the reduced chunks of the situations to analyze reveals extreme ignorance regarding the normal approach to thinking the subject over.

Here I am wanting to push forward to a culmination regarding the proper estimation of the value of attention from others, given the behavioral need to break habits of thinking, that stem from unreflective and delusional socialization. There are a few assumptions I want to use from earlier postings. Firstly, there is an assumption that for people who are more intelligent, there are fewer interactions that provide value, and many interactions are too repetitive, meaningless, obtuse, or unnecessary. For those that are more intelligent, it would be found, that useful conversations are still rare even when had with others of similar abilities, and that the shortness of conversations, non-overlap of interests, failure of one or both parties to develop the conversation to to recalle earlier conversations for lack of sufficient interst, and for sometimes being harmful, because socialization itself is often harmful, there is still not so much value to attention as one would like. What is gotten, occasionally, through good interactions, is a very short exchange of value. The value has some durability, and typically this relates to fun, kindness, and learning. If one looks closely, these exchanges of information of value with some durability are still *short transactions* compared with all else one does in life. These transactions are overstated to respect socializing, and relationship building. To make it short, most conversations have transitory value and using math we can see the chunks are infrequent mainly, and apply to only a small amount of brain tissue per occurrence. The overall trend in development of attention through becoming famous is to give people a greater knowledge of oneself. I don't think it's much the other way around. I don't think it is very frequent at all that someone wants to have full knowledge of another person. They more greedily want to have attention for who they are and they want total estimations that they are excellent and free of defects. This was covered plenty earlier and I think it's certain that this is the case. Famous people of international repute when aging, losing their fans, seem to look as if they want more, they want to retain their fans, and now they want to be known permanently, forever, and hear good things about them, before death. This is all insane and undiagnosed, and certainly relates to never using math for this subject!

Moving towards a better perception of the quantities relating to attention and sets will provide a way to better estimate the value of attention in one's life and to update one's behavior to lessen the value. The direction is *only towards reduction* of the estimated value. Even people who would benefit from more socialization would overstate the value of attention. The objective to arrive at what is closer to an actual valuation.

I'll here make a very brief attempt at developing towards a framework for understanding how to proceed. Let's begin by thinking about what a single instance of attention happens to be, using the context of social media. Suppose one prepares a recording of a video to share on social media, from a vacation experience. Say one has taken 30 videos, and one wants to talk a little on video about one's travels and what one did in a special location visited. 7 videos are selected to trim and create clips. These are uploaded to a social media account and combined, or are edited in separate software in advance. Voiceover is added atop the videos to talk enthusiastically about the experience. Captions are added. One finds some music to accompany the video. It takes 1 hour or less to put together, which is long, but the experience is enjoyable. The video taking took quite a lot of preparation, because is related to the objective of travel and sightseeing, to see and also to have videos and share. The trip itself has others in mind (who is just a pool of unknown people, and family and friends. The videos are taken oftentimes with the excitement to capture something others would like. Total work is some large amount of time, but we'll just keep that information in the back of our minds, and instead focus on the single hour. After posting the video, which might be 60 secons or less, there is an interest in seeing who liked it, commented on it, and so on, and one is prompted again and again to check, and to think about it. Now, oftentimes, depending on who one is, and the social platform, and a lot of causes one is not aware of, one might get 10 likes, 110 vies, and 2 comments. Or, one might get 900 likes, 2,500 views, and 80 comments. It would be more rare to get more comments, but does happen for select people.

Now let's think this through. If one watches analytics, the results might be scary. The video might have had 90% of viewers watch 8 seconds and like it, and others 30 seconds, and some small number of completions. This would be in percentages that are fairly consistent even for large quantities of views but there is variation. It is normal that people look at it fast, provide little attention, like it, or provide a comment, then move on. Each user may see 50 - 200 postings on social media. The user quickly forgets what they liked or commented on, and they would be surprised sometimes later, to see that there is a comment on their comment. This means little attention is needed for them to feel they like or dislike someting or to comment on average. They also quickly forget it, and forgot even their own engagement. Now we have to think about sets and ingredients we would use for quantification. This would involve time of attention, levels of attention, interest, etc... and type of interaction. I'm not wanting to spend too much time on this for the moment, so let's say quickly the average view was 7 seconds, most likes were unreflective likes partly automated, and one in a span of 700 milliseconds after impulse to do it, within 3 seconds of viewing. Let's say comments took 12 seconds on average, and half were negative in intent, half were neutral or positive. Two comments seemed to have durable avlue, being more positive, but your interpretation of them was that they were about you more as a whole, and that the value was misattributed to you from your vacation sights. One comment was positive about your appreance and this seemed more durable because it indicates you may actually be somewhat generally attractive, but overall, there are many people who would disagree with the estimate, and maybe those disagreeing would be 60%.

Notice that the trend is towards wanting more time from others, wanting them to have a better understanding of who you are, and wanting them to have better total estimations regarding your total excellences. Irrational or not this is the trend most people have, that I'm trying to avoid for myself. I do a fairly good job of controlling for this and have very low expectations, but I think I'm well trained nevertheless to want this and it does form part of my interest, internally in ways I'm not entirely aware of, for seeking out any attention on social media. What is actually gotten for the effort is a very transitory set of micro reactions. Perhaps there is a better way to talk about this kind of attention. Pico-moments of perception. We are to understand people are complex and have lots of life and experience, and thinking that way, these likes, views, and comments, particularly as described above, quantify to nearly nothing in the overall experience. They also aggregate to nearly nothing, and we perceive this too, when we wonder why we are still doing social media after many postings. Perhaps it is like gambling; one gets some positive feelings even as one is losing, or not really gaining as much as one would hope.

I do not feel here I've arrived at much of a framework so much as a way to simply start measuring honestly as a technologist would do. Someone involved in analytics. What I didn't mention either is that on social media many reactions are fake, there are fake accounts, and while it's harder for people to fake in real experience face to face, people have a hard time noticing that too.

There are few kinds of reactions that seem more rewarding. I think they relate to attractiveness and maybe to cogneniality of personality, if it doesn't go so far as to make people know you. Your level of gravity in relation to getting any microattentions. If it relates to attractiveness, and one is not crazy, one can clearly perceive that that is what the cause is. If you walk down the street and you notice women are reacting sexually, with great interest, or with involuntary interst, then you have very durable traits and the attention confirmed it. You don't need that much of that kind of attention to get something positive about it, but sustained attention to it doesn't provide much more feedback to create that learning experience. Somehow people are greedy concerning this kind of attention even after they got something of durable value that they should have learned. This is a strange irrationality, although it does indicate one can "get what one wants now" if one wanted it. I don't think this way, but it is a starting point at understanding why people would continually like this interest. It's not too unlike giving interest to nice looking food. Tomorrow and for years you will look at foods and let them know about your involuntary interest in devouring. The food can have you again and again if it wants.

To move foward on this to have a better total picture to work with I'd need to start to show how this relates to the range of kinds of interactions. I wasn't thinking to include sexual relations, but that may be worth including too. I have the desire to reduce the complexity to more general socialization that ranges from likes on social media to brief comments from others in person and online, to longer intellectual conversations. That's more of where my interst lies.

This subject should be combined with the non-truthfulness of social reactions discussed below. The quantification of veractiy in thinking and behavior. We'd have to add in how much veracity exists regarding the specific tissues of the people who are providing us "attention". Attention here clearly is a kind of misnomer too, although it has its utility. By attention is any kind of interaction that relates to you in your presence or with yoru awareness, but also includes when you're not present too. If you include what thoughts are when you are not present, including whatever attention that went unrecorded in social media, as one hated you with likes you received, and sarcastically made you think you did well in a video with a comment, then you discover the measured value of attention is lower. Using non-wanattomian arithemetic it could be negative.

I see now this may be a good opportunity to begin an initial text on relationships, which was begun as a very early draft but not seriously pursued yet.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="thoughts-have-more-characteristics-of-discontinuity-than-continuity-making-thoughtstream-a-less-apt-metaphor-and-unlikens-thinking-to-motion">Thoughts Have More Characteristics Of Discontinuity Than Continuity, Making ThoughtStream A Less Apt Metaphor, and Unlikens Thinking To Motion</a>

*323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="there-may-not-be-a-strong-relationship-between-the-reactions-of-others-and-truths">There May Not Be A Strong Relationship Between The Reactions of Others And Truths</a>

*323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Relationships | Com | Reactions | Facial Expressions | ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality | Constraint and Determinism

Facial expressions made, including those made quickly and reactively, are unplanned, just earlier, in the person having and making them. People sometimes act things out in advance, and practice facial expressions, but as with their streams of consciousness, their sequences of thoughts verbal and visual, they quickly arise at the time had and are not known in advance. People have trouble seeing this point introspectively but it is true. Thoughts and feelings arise, and one doesn't know the next ones coming. They don't know which faces they'll have next either.

Thoughts, Feelings, Faces Made, Gestures, and so on, can be thought of as constituents of the stream of thinkgin and acting, but they can also be considered self-reactive and other-reactive as this stream goes along. People think, then react to their thinking, then react again, then then then. They hear and see others in motion.

Faces had in reaction to self and others is a bit of a facestream, and humorously I would think to myself observing women especially, "When do you plan your face?", "Here comes another face?", and "Why did your face change?" They really have unplanned sequences of self-reactive and other reactive face changes, that are oftentimes very manipulative. Since people are post-facial-expression interpreters, like when people think they are happy after they smile back at someone, they often make these faces that are unplanned then think they feel and think like those faces. This makes sense too in an important way. If a woman or man makes a face that indicates a certain thought or emotion, they tend to defend it (there is a lot here I'll have to think about and write later to establish clear relevance). They are therefore irrationally post-face interpreting and defending, even though they didn't know what face they'd have, and didn't know what emotion they would think they had as they interpreted it. If I make a sad face I pretend I was sad, but it can be decoupled. But if a girl makes a sad face suddenly, and manipulatively, I think they'll actually feel somewhat sad, and will defend that they are sad too. Else they are liars, but their faces just reacted.

This is a very interesting area to explore more and it surfaces that people are highly irrational, and predetermined otherwise than they think.

It may be true that people are predetermined otherwise they can use.

This writing was intended to focus on reactions and untruth, falsity or lack of truth. From the above, we can see how facials (what I sometimes call these facial transitions, while I humancan others), are often manipulative, untrue, not self-knowing or reflective, or are lies. They are usually and often uncontrolled and unplanned. Don't believe me? Make a planned face now and compare? "I'm going to look angry right now". It will feel really not the usual. Those who feel it is more usual, are more manipulative and maybe more reliant on planned expressions. This would be true of unfeeling psychopaths for example, or those who are autistic and had to act out social gestures. They smile and laugh without being happy and without humor (not all, some).

As with facial expression reactions, other reactions are often false. I am writing this at a coffeehouse (only drinking water, however), and I noticed as people were reacting to things, that they seemed to include falsities. What is the extent of reactive falsity. Well we already said faces are often have falseness, thinking includes falseness and is reacting and reactive with what it knows how to do logically and honestly, which means that dishonest or illogical people will react more falsely with their thinking, but also other gestures, noises, things spoken quickly, are included too. Involuntary and even automated reactions without awareness have falseness, and this would be exhibited in psychiatric patients.

This conversation is very inclusive and comprehensive, and I think it may create an avenue for the quantification of falseness and veracity in all human movement. I believe there to be significant novelties in this statement, and this would constitute dense dissertative opportunity.

We would need this for quantifying human veracity. We would need this for self-improvement regarding veracity, and to know what shortcomings exist in a ultimate and surmountable ways, for human advancement. Thinking about the post interpretation of faces and reactions and related dishonesties, it appears systemically there might not be a complete solution to make it all honest. Here's a reason why, to know what one feels in an actualy human way, one behaves as a human does, making a face and interpreting it afterwards, which means that the understanding of the sequence requires thinking about happens later to understand what happened earlier, but what happens later falsifies. Probably untruth is built into the system here. We might want to interpret using the normal interpretations to say things like, well even with this interior untruth, the exterior total presentation amounts to honest feeling. I think that's incorrect. I cannot think of a way to eradicate this kind of untruth without subtracting out faces and emotions related to them. This will need more analysis at a future time.

Who has felt, they have been able to eradicate the untruths from these kinds of experiences that are formal sometimes, or are expected socially? Even if one has not interpreted as the above, on does sometimes feel too much lying is mixed with smiles, even when one also feels there is an honesty about it. Is this inner falsity ineradicable?

An ethical understanding of the analysis may result in a betterment of the approach to behavior while admitting that a falsity exists systemically, and that leaving that is preferable on other grounds. This would be like my argumentation earlier regarding the need to have concepts of militarism and manipulation mixed in with ethics, otherwise forever people won't understand this situation. One will feel maybe guilty about the interior systemic untruth caused by brain behavior reaction sequence, but if that cannot be altered, one goes by exterior considerations more than the interior ones taking the interior ones to be still important for further consideration later. Humans may have better abilities later or different ways of interacting and emotionally thinking.

I think I can arrive at a very lucid way to explain this but for now think there is some good clarity despite an initial attempt to collect and organize relevant and required analytical objects.

This subject is weirdly dependent on timing of behaviors. In another posting, I talked about how one cannot perceive gaslighting of oneself introspectively when time elapsed is too short, and that it is often short, because, well, thinking involves brief moments. This I think is another subject where what is really happening with one's experiences depends on timing and sequence. What has prepared me a bit for this thinking, apart from a propensity to think this way when young, was studying psychology in college, and additional reading in psychology. That is where I was exposed to the truth that people really make faces before they know what emotion they are experiencing is and think it is what face they made. Believe it or not, that is actually useful. Because sometimes I'll make a face, and know that is not my emotion now, because I am aware that first I have the face and then the emotion, so I cancel the interpretation. But before I would have the emotion and think it was real. It is real and it is not, depending on how one looks at it. But consider that if you make a sad face right now, you'll feel slightly more sad. Sometimes the prompting of a facial expression has nothing to do with what one is feeling at the time or just before the expression, the face is prompted then one sort of "really pretends" to have that emotion. This is part of the cause of the psychologists recommendation to simply smile more if one wants to be happier. One will smile, fake happiness emerges, but you feel happiness too, and so live more happily. Bizarre, but not paradoxical. I just need to clarify meanings of happiness in both cases, and honest/dishosty. It is false in the way it is created, but seems true as one experiences it. But this relates to timing!

To move further on this subject, I will need to take samples of experience as I am observing human animals, and see what reactions they have seem to be true and untrue and when, and how it relates to timing, that can be seen and that can be perceived only introspectively.

What would be really interesting, is if one can be out, among a lot of people (as I am right now, at an outdoor seating area at this coffee house, in Rossio Square area of Lisbon, where many pedestrians are enjoying themselves), and quickly percieve truth and falsity in each behavior seen quickly, and what reactions are had and the types, and what the timings probably are. It would be like quickly understanding how humans are generally and to estimate the level of veracity existing in everyhing being done.

This would be a quantification of veracity as it exists, but coming to perceive it regularly too. What if it is possible to teach kids to have an extremely acute sense for veracity in others, seeing them individually and seeing them together.

I perceive the reactions in stadiums to have many elements of unveracity. Having the skill would help for collective activity planning.

"This is a counter-educational stadium of dictatorial staring!"

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="uplifting-music-and-music-do-not-relate-to-religious-brands">Uplifting Music and Music Do Not Relate To Religious Brands</a>

*323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Religions | Making Your Own Religion | Another Ethic | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings 

A complaint of mine for a long while has been that relgious music, particularly Christian pop music, is excessively repetitive in it's attempt to be "uplifting". This seems to have crossed over into non-christian pop music as well, where music has highly similar characteristics. One can listen to a Christian channel, accidentally, and hear again and again, the same music as if it hasn't been ever turned off or changed.

Out for a jog today, in Lisbon, from a metro station to a coffee house in Rossio Square, I was listening to some electronic music, that is ambient, or as some call, "synthwave", and there were parts that were also uplifting, although not in precisely the same way. Listening to it, with the separation from the usual pattern existing in Christian music, I was feeling that it was non-religious, or did not have a religious interpretation. It was just music. Suitable for background sound, enjoying nature, sights, and exercise. Also pleasant for simply listening to while reading or spending time at home. Good music that would go well in films.

After listening to this music, I realized that music in general does not have a religious interpretation or necessarily any interpretation relating to one's chosen beliefs separate from the music. Creators have different intents, and sometimes want to artistically create music that sounds a certain way, or creates a kind of feeling. People doing the art are international in their backgrounds, and there is plenty of diversity in motivation and intent, and this ensures for certain that music itself does not favor any particular religious worldview and much music is absent of religious thinking even where the creators themselves are religious. Some want to create good experiences, music for nightclubs, music for driving, or music imitative of others who are well-received who do not themselves have any religious intent, but even if such an intent existed, it does not mean it is known in the emulation.

Uplifting music, does not have a religious interpretation, and instead, religious try to adapt or take possession of music, in order to brand it, blend it with their experiences, and use it to gain converts. Pop music itself, is not Christian for sure, and obviously most nations have their own pop music. But the most famous pop music has been sourced and spread about from the more powerful media, which grew in the United States mainly. Since there are many Christians there are fairly zealous, they have actively pursued making Christian pop and Rock Music to compete with what exists, to spread Christianity more widely, and to have something that is religious so they can feel they do not need to exit their religion to have what they want. There are other reasons too but these are important ones to mention. Since Christianity has adapted pop music this way, and since any uplifting song can be so adapted, it is obvious that the religious component is separate and separable from the music, which can be enjoyed very easily while religious thinking is out of mind.

Can one enjoy one's music while one is not in a religious frenzy?

Obviously one enjoyes music while one is thinking nothing.

Have no religion mixed in and you enjoy it more like I do, although I do think ethically while I enjoy music too.

How weird is it to think that one must be having ethical thoughts to enjoy the creation or listening of such music.

Uplifting music, it is clear to me, is unrelated to religiosity and religion, but I can see too that religions do not seem to understand this. They'll continue thinking that there is a relationship, between a rising intensity and pitch would relate to communication with a diety. It simply results in a feeling people tend to enjoy and favor, and what is common to all people who do enjoy the music in all the diversity, is the feeling without any additional layer of interpretation.

I wonder now to what extent I should strip all music of religiosity, excepting those cases where the person who wrote the music had religious intent for sure (and not just potentially, as with Bach (they need to placate to escape religion as they pursue intellect)), and the music has writings that are religious. For those I'll largely ignore, so as to not be advertised to with falsity.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="having-a-loaded-mental-network-of-anything-militarily-strategical-one-knows-for-improved-ethical-analyses">Having a Loaded Mental Network of Anything Militarily Strategical One Knows For Improved Ethical Analyses</a>

*323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Human Shortcomings | Military Strategy | Another Ethic | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture  

Recently I was recalling the potential value of bribes. Bribery is not something frequently on my mind, because, firstly, it is not something I would normally think is instrumental and I wouldn't do it, and secondly, because it isn't really considered moral behavior. But that is clearly a mistake, and I do link this to what I've written about earlier concerning military strategy, which is needed for a clearer total view of ethics. Without an understanding of military strategy, at least some understanding, there would be serious errors in one's ethical system discovered as one reacts to conflict, and plans for it later. Ethics gets blended with military strategy and military strategy with ethics, and unfortunately because people don't know this, they just have military strategy in the upper echelons with ethics subsumed within it, as a secondary consideration. Ethics clearly is the overarching concept that includes the other, not only because *we might want it that way*, but because as I've described elsewhere, ethics is the justification of behavior and organizational proceeses and activities. Without a proper view of ethics, one does not know that one needs a military strategy, and this makes sense if you think about the mental development of children. At first, they do not know they need as much defense or aggression in all the ways it's needed, and have less control of any aggression they have. Later, when they have conflicts with new people, they discover they need to problem solve regarding what to do with the new information. This is like learning that one's ethics do not yet include conflict resolution sufficiently including defense and aggression, and therefore warfare at a small scale.

Most are not aware that these topics need to be blended, and the above may provide something useful for readers who may have not yet considered it. Here though it is an assumption, and for this particular posting, we're wanting to move along to improve our own ethics to understand the subject matter of ethics more clearly, and to improve our perspectives regarding interactions with others. Isn't it strange, if one thinks about social life that one's had, that obviously communication itself, also includes a need to consider military-like strategy, manipulation, and how to incorporate that into ethics?

There is a weird side effect of not having blended these considerations that people defend themselves aggressively or use manipulation out of a feeling of necessity, and feel guilty about it afterwards, feeling they need to apologize or have "forgiveness" for what was justifiable? This is because their ethics and religion does not incorporate into it a proper strategy for knowing when these behaviors are recommended, and not only forgiveable, and their ethics and religion is supposed to know how to handle conditions such that difficult decisions become easier, and those that still seem harder, when well acted upon, are laudible. Feeling proud about a war effort is very different from feeling guilty! The guilty ethics that thinks unwanted behaviors are still necessary is an extremely faulty system, and this is largely what Christianity is.

A strategy I'm going to try to utilize to expand on my own ethics, and improve my analyses is to simply keep easily recollectable a list of related concepts of military strategy and manipulation, so that when I'm thinking about anything related to war or conflict, I am *able to* relate that to concepts that are usually out of mind. Also I want to be *aware*, when I'm thinking about ethics, that ethics always has within its toolset, these concepts too, before I forget, that ethics is only peaceful. Machiavellianism is really close to the result of this effort where it is rational, and those who claim that this writer's consultative recommendations and writings were somehow not ethically upright, simply did not understand the requirements of life, leadership, and what ethics includes. This author had a strong awareness of more higher level analyses of situations for decision making. I am not saying his works on military strategy, and "The Prince" are self aware, about this kind of ethical direction I'm talking about, but his style of thinking is certainly not deserving of negativity now associated with the word "Machiavellianism" which used to mean deceitful or ambitiously power craving. When read his works do not have characteristics that calls this to mind, so very likely this use of the term was due to earlier liars who simply didn't want his works to be well known or respected. In this way it is somewhat like Darwinism, and a reading of Darwin reveals intelligence and kindness, and a deep concern for human welfare, although those in religious communities act like he is an antithesis to human goodness.

I do not yet have a list to load again and again into awareness, and in my history, I've simply been quick to connect the subject matter, being knowledgeable about the interconnections. I did not yet create a conceptual web to rapidly use for faster thinking while studying ethical topics. Here is a simple list that is a beginning on this effort. 

These concepts are relevant to both ethics and warefare in interesting ways, and this list is not exhaustive:

- Bribery
- Lying, Dishonesty
- Aggression
- Offense
- Defensive Aggression
- Preparations
- Fighting
- Killing
- Murder
- Manipulation
- Punishment
- Ending Unwanted Actions
- Re-education
  - Notice this is just education
- Guns, Weapons, Poisons
- Things As Weapons, Turning Innocuous or Good Things To Weapons
- Trespassing
- Refusal
- Ageism (We kill opponents of all ages)
- No Civilians (Everything is Grand Strategy Militarism)
- Sacrifice
- Consumption
- Exploitation
- Slavery
- Grand Strategy

I will grow this later but this is a good list. Each of these have a good place in an ethical life, and they are actually required for better clarity. Grand Strategy is especially interesting. This is where basically everything is included within military strategy somehow including education, the financial system, economics, and even enjoyment is mixed in. People in upper echelons of military who are aware of grand strategy may want to be fit partly to be ready for killing or doing military work, which means health, nutrition, and fitness are included. Social life is included and so is child rearing and plans for children since to be successful in war we need kids to sacrifice. I would not approach the subject as many would, but one can tell that they really do think these things in practice, if one has simply listened to what people say during one's life. Grand strategy means the military really is controlling our lives in all ways without us knowing about it wherever we are not temporarily unconstrained. Even our thinking is influenced by this. Our educations came from post war and wartime system arrangements. Even the way we eat in cafeterias relates to wartime methods. Canned foods, and the way we were fed, relate to agricultural processes that were to feed soldiers, their families doing important work (their work while soldiers were abroad were related to military), and agriculture itself is militaristic. This is not something we think about, and that is a defect of the people running countries supposedly. You and the others and myself do not of course, but I'll remind that people think they do. For people who are "masters of religion", "saved and ready to go to heaven", who "run their governments", who aren't aware of this is absurd. They are both ignorant about it and unaware, to make them aware would require putting all the thought ingredients together thusly, so if one agrees with the above, you'll notice that points of agreement do not constitute the right combined awareness, to have any awareness about the theses under discussion.

"I can think of ways that something from regular life relates to military strategy"

The above direction, while not intending it, thinking more about having a better overall ethical way of thinking, also seems to be counter-government. This is because very obviously it is not something people bring up, and it does appears something others would want to quash. Squashes (I just wanted to say "squash"). This thinking makes it very clear that military is much more involved in the minutia of planning than one thinks about, and if one thinks about it, one might really get fascinated and want to pursue being aware of it. Knowing that others may not find this subject discussion appropriate it seems that society may not want to understand what their governments are really like, because they enjoy stories about Democracy.

Which things from normal life does the military decide upon and touch?

If one keeps this list in mind, as I intend to do, one will have a more sophisticated vision, and will eventually have better ethics, if that is one's objectives. I want to incorporate this into my thinking, to find the ways each is usable and appropriate within ethically excellent behavior. Awareness, and improved analysis, should result in better completeness and comprehensiveness, and quick experienced judgement later. If one is asked when lying is good, they simply cannot answer. This is because, again, they just prohibit it, but use it anyways, when it feels needed, but for some with regret, and for others with perhaps a growing distrust or unconcern about what ethics is. I don't want people to think they need to do "bad things" because ethics is incomplete. But it is incomplete. So people will continue to lie without having an understanding of what virtuous lying is. I think I first wrote about this on Quora around 2018. It takes time to get through all sorts of analyses and I admit I have not done a comprehensive analysis of lying yet. I'm just more aware, as I think, about when it appears it is justified or good, but that is inadequate compared to having it known in advance schematically.

Knowing what is ethically better in advance is extremely incomplete (read "unstarted), if it does not include clear considerations about each point in the list, instead of simple prohibitions. Everyone has always known that prohibiting murder is insufficient, since when one signs up for the military, one suddenly has a "duty to kill" which is the reverse. I say this while being aware that since people have not blended militarism with ethics, they will often narrowly really think the prohibitive way on one day, then think it is good to kill on another. They are self-contradictory masters of ethical and religious judgement!

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="alternatives-to-making-false-statements-using-specific-names-and-we">Alternatives to Making False Statements Using Specific Names and We</a>

*322 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 19, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Logic | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Errors of Natural Language 

Using specific names of people when talking about groups, and using the word "we" without being specific about what that means, is the way humans often speak falsely. The extent and use of the issue relates not as much to the average person's inability to craft sentences aright to speak logically as it does to the errors of natural language, and speaking with any language, because in each there has not been devised a clear way to talk about sets. The severity of the logical errors range from relatively unimportant and ignorable, to causing divides between humans who will war with each other. Historical writing, and writing about current events, is especially error prone here, because so much that is unders discussion involves groups, talked about in non-specific ways, or with names of people in their place.

In a recent earlier posting, I suggested that a common issue with this type of error involved two key things, failure to specify exactly the members of a set being discussed, and secondly, failure to state the rule that would allow for actual segregation of members of a group into a new group, to be that group that is discussed. 

Another severe issue must be added, of subdivision of individuals, so that whole individuals are not grouped with other whole individuals apart from those parts of them that agree with the set generating rule. Liberals who have a specific view in common, would be a set of parts of people. Tissues being more precise, and only a small quantity of tissues. The remainder of their tissues, and brains would be potentially irrelevant, and show differences between them, that would result in other groupings.

Since the objective to arrive at an alternative usage that does actually result in truth, it does need to go down to the tissue level. One does not have brain imagery to find analogies between people adequate to generate groups, but one can use language and behavioral information to surmise reasonably that corresponding tissue exists and in a certain amount, with a good analogy between people resulting in a reasonable group.

If two people served in the military together, and in the same occupation within the military, as employees doing the same things, for many years, and both state similar beliefs about the occupation such that a grouping is possible combining the beliefs and behavior with a set generation rule, then one has a group with these two members in it, but not both of them whole, just a good amount of tissues. The tissues would be a larger quantity than if people simply said they were both conservatively inclined in politics, knowing nothing else, assuming knowning nothing else, that the similarity is probably superficial. Having the extent of similar experiences visuospatial, verbal, mechanical, and social, for years in the same environment, actually guarantees analogues of brain matter. If one remembered a particular thing they were working on, with images, the others images, would correspond to those images and in some ways would match. Even if both were foggy, there would be a good analogue. This is very differen then comparing both to medical doctors or people working as chemists, in Iran, speaking arabic, if that wasn't the military job I was talking about (having some fun). Also, there would not be good comparisons between this experience, and those of aquatic sea creatures, living deep in te ocean. These tissues can be compared too.

This is a way to reduce the set related issue for talking about groups and not individuals. This will take some work to get it right, but I fully intend to work on my thought and communication to make it correct in practice.

The other mistake that happens, of using a single name in place of a group, is laziness, and imitation of what others due. It's also due to limitations in natural langauge. Instead of stating a group, say the Portugese (I'm in Portugal now), or the people of their leader (like in the times when an Afonso was leading), one would need to segregate who is included from who is not in the region, and specify membership criteria (the membership rule). What is a person of a nation anyway? If you ask someone on the street, they would not have an answer univerally accepted, and really, this is not clear.

Speaking now about the United States, people may say instead of specific voters choosing an action, or specific key players, that Donald Trump, current president, make the decision, and that Trump is somehow identical with the United States itself. "The United States Under Trump Created Large Tarrifs on China and Other Nations in 2025". This makes it appear that I make Tarrifs, and that others in the United States had any say or power in the situation, and actually others would judge me and these others because of this decision. This is how global xenophobia, anger, and desire to exact damages on unrelated groups happen. There are groups of people in the United States that hate the United States! Formerly Mexican immigrants with new citizenships didn't make Tarrifs on China. It's not clear Trump alone did, this pretends he acts in isolation, without others actually suggesting and insisting he makes such and such decision, for such and such reason.

Reading my history book about Portugal, I keep hearing about how Afonso, or a Dan, or Pope, did a group action. For example, it was said a papal bull is used to confirm things like 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="using-social-media-to-teach-nationalistic-indoctrination-globally-with-people-sharing-their-experiences-with-the-history-and-values-taught-by-their-nations-that-was-not-learned-in-other-nations">Using Social Media To Teach Nationalistic Indoctrination Globally, With People Sharing Their Experiences With The History and Values Taught By Their Nations, That Was Not Learned In Other Nations</a>

*322 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 19, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Livelihood | Environment | Outdoors and Travel | Human Shortcomings | Nationalism | History | Living Autobiography  

While traveling around the world, particularly to the various English speaking nations, I have noticed a trend for different nations to have different levels of sharing of media from the others. Australia has a large amount of American television, to the extent that they are nearly American regarding what they see, but the reverse is false. There is no Australian television in the United States. In New Zealand, I do not recall the organization with this, but it is not the same and may favor Australia versus the United States (I will confirm when I go back although it is a changing situation). In London I say more American television that was very old, and I did not see much from Australia or New Zealand. I think I did see some but not much from Australia. I didn't recognize anything that was Canadian. Canadian television has much of its own but much that is American too, but little from the UK, Australia, or New Zealand. To be precise, one would have to do a review of all programming, and nowadays, there would be the issue of streaming media versus television. But large scale media, with much money allocated to it, very obviously and unquestionably does have an international agenda, and it is strange to make the comparisons because of that. It is very clear that people's minds are being steered around, and Australia is much more like the United States now than they were before probably because they watch so much American television. Not re-runs, not shows, but American everything like news that is current, that my parents near Washington D.C. watch.

Twitter in its early stages was touted as a social media platform that would be the one that created a shared social world across nations. News could be shared immediately where it was happening and would not be censored. The people were in control on Twitter. I think for a short while, that seemed to have some reality, but I think power has shifted in the other direction and now social media doesn't have this function as clearly, although it does exist. It appears nations and corporations use it effectively to manage perceptions quickly, and control situations. There are also differences like the above with television regarding who sees what. I would have to switch to VPN while in other countries in order to get what I was wanting from TikTok for example, which showed different things in different places. In Malaysia, TikTok was boring, and well, there were people with more clothes on, as compared with what is shared in the United States. In other countries there are fewer controls than others. Each nation seems to be a little different regarding what can and cannot be shared on TikTok making for stark differences in experiences, and there was at least one country I visited that had TikTok banned.

If TikTok remained banned in the United States, it would be an obvious example of a tremendous potential in the control of social experience from one nation to the next.

While there are constraints on social media at the national level, and media more generally, I think there still is good potential to make use of social platforms to break national divides and make the world more transparent and mutually communicative. It is important to point out, for those who might think that the world is sharing this way, to think about what I said above. *You have to go to the other nations to discover* that maybe nothing is shared between them on one channel or another, or at all. People in media and entertainment are aware of this. Some star, believing themself to be globally famous, may discover that one country loves them *more* than their host country, while another country knows nothing of them. There is a male star in the UK who is incredibly famous there, who is entirely unknown in other English speaking nations, as if he doesn't exist. He may be famous in other countries than those in the UK, but even in the English language, he has not been shared elsewhere.

I've discovered my website has trouble loading overseas at times, and that to distribute my own content globally, I would have to think about how to do that! I'd have to buy servers elsewhere or pay for global edge caching, and that's expensive. Companies wanting to share your social media information also have to *figure out* how to do that globally. So your shares aren't necessarily getting out of your region or nation, and for those who did figure it out at the business level, may decide actively to fence your activity to specific locales.

What I'm wanting to happen, in this context of varying ability to communicate globally, despite promise from early social media platforms, is for people to be interested in conveying the ways in which their countries differ, to the extent that they have information that is exclusive to them and not others elsewhere. Because there would be agendas behind these differences, which relate to nationalism, and preferences for one's own nations over others. Yesterday, I was talking with a Canadian about how in the United States, there is no Canadian History education early in life or at all, after he first told me, the same was true in Canada regarding hte United States. I didn't read my first history of Canada until last year, at the age of 43, and while I was aware of Canada's presence as a friendly neighbor, I knew none of its history. Nobody seems to know that Quebec exists in the United States is an even stranger thought, and it is seldom acknowledged, that a French neighbor is present, that is large, and interested in having its own nation. People live in the United States as if this potential country of its own, speaking a French language, does not exist!

While I discuss this topic, of wanting people to mutually share how they were indoctrinated into learning their own nations to love it, and to not learn others, I am aware that the above constraints exist, and well, that people may not care to do this. Also, people may not know for some reason, that this is true still, and I do recall, that when I discussed this kind of topic with friends while young, they couldn't understand that they were the product of their nation and their ideas were often simply local and forced upon them. People still do not know this is the origin of their religious views for the most part, for most people. I do think, however, that if people did want to coordinate, to make a social network that is global, reisting divisions that are created by nations and corporations, that they will need to engage in such behavior, as to mutually uncover and make clear that their nations did not globalify them. There could be methodologies introduced to ensure this information keeps flowing, and perhaps a corporation or non-profit could come into existence, that focuses on this kind of sharing, kept alive within existing channels. But, if this got popular, it may go the other way, and nations may find new ways, to keep people aware of only what their nation teaches, making them ignorant about the others.

After writing this, I'm desirous of combining this subject with the one introduced below, to talk about how in addition to the travel, immigration, and ease of visa having, and ease of migrating internationally, about how it is and was also easy, sometimes and in some ways, to have information through media channels from other places. It feels easier to travel though! Like if one wanted to really see Japan, and learn Japanese media, it could be a struggle to get the information which travels instantly, via existing media channels. Why is not all Japanese media made available? Why not a sharing of all media. What travels fast is information and data, and what travels more slowly are animal globs, walking around, getting on planes. How could it be easier to get on planes and fly brains from one location to the next, and not information?

This appears to be a fundamental point, and I will discuss this further later.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="when-the-world-is-too-mixed-to-take-nationalism-and-addresses-seriously">When The World Is Too Mixed To Take Nationalism and Addresses Seriously</a>

*322 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 19, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Environments | Livelihood | Travel | Outdoors and Adventure | Nationalism | Abandoning Equality

Permission to travel to a nation without a visa or with an electronic authorization (really a visa still), for 30 days, 3 months, or longer, enables people to live abroad for very extended periods of time without too much effort. For people who travel perpetually, like I do, there is only a need to ensure that one exits the nation by the end of the permitted window, and one can return again and again in some nations as long as one has exited. If the rules for a nation are not that one can return immediately after leaving (a strange rule), one can easily move onto the next nation, only to return after a period of time in which electronic authorization will be again granted, after 90 days for the Schengen area in Europe for example, and after a year potentially for other nations. In the arrangement that exists across the entire globe, the only limitation placed on people who live abroad from their "home nation" is to keep traveling at a certain frequency, not less than every 30 days. One can easily stay in places that allow 90 days and move between four countries every year to maintain life traveling.

That's just for electronic authorizations for "visa free" travel between countries that are not in conflict. If one applies for miscellaneous visas and works with embassies to get them in advance of travel, one can move from one country to the next, traveling less, staying for 6 months to many years elsewhere. One can even wait to get access to work, get work specific visas or residency visas, and move around the world slowly, working abroad more formally. One can even collect citizenships.

People are traveling often for vacation, which is obvious, and there are a good number of adventurous travelers, who do elect to stay abroad for long periods of time, with the effect that in any country that is not too dangerous, and any country that is not in too much conflict with many world nations, there is a mixture of international residents present. I say resident, because for whatever amount of time one stays anyplace, one really is living there. It is on a scale, from moments at an international airport, to much longer periods. The idea that people are to live in one nation only is increasingly rare, and those who still hold that view are really unintelligent. This mixture of people, existing in every nation, also excludes immigrants. I was trying to build up the picture, which should be clear, that countries are fully of others from abroad who call the country a temporary home, or just a home, and that we can increase the clarity of this picture by including immigrants and everyone else. Some countries are more cosmopolitan than others, but a very large number of countries host many visitors. Many countries are also host to huge influxes of people for events, like for the Olympic games and so on. They celebrate the global community and their new guests, and try to make them feel included in events, not only as traveling spectators but as a national community engaged in sports and working towards peaceful relations. The Olympic games creates a picture that the globe is one community, all nations are respected, and travelers are important to host countries.

Electronic authorizations, and Visas, are a strange thing to exist in various ways. Travel is really easy between nations. Visas are easy to obtain, visa free travel is usually instant on arrival, and electronic authorizations are a form of business collecting fees in exchange for instant admission. Ostensibly although in practice one can be suddenly hasseled as if the authorizations do not exist. Most travel is probably smooth and unhindered, given airlines verify this information in advance. Once one boards an international flight, very probably one will easily get into a host nation.

This intermixing constitutes a powerful argument for becoming increasingly integrated, and it is an awkward discrepancy, to have such smooth travel, wonderfully hospitable hosts, and a staunch belief that nations are separate. People are xenophobic as they fail to recognize that their citizenship is shared with immigrants, and that those around them who are traveling business people and traveling tourists is plethora. An interesting question I will want to revisit in a future posting is what must be the psychological causes of such a split-mindset. How and why are brains divided in contradiction regarding these subjects.

In addition to the mixing of people of nations in travel, is the buying of property overseas by individuals and by corporations. Hotels with brand names scatter the globe such that the brand is distinguished from the nation in which it was founded. On paper, these hotels likely have divisions that are simply copies conforming to host nation rules, making it clear that, the same company simply operates the whole thing and had to follow some beaurocratic regulations. The hotels to which loyalists and members travel often, blur the differences between nations and work in those nations, by creating a consistent atmosphere, and well, a place to live. The owners of the organizations may not understand any longer the concept of national divisions except for the pull of governments who want some maintenance of tax payments and following of certain other corporate rules. Brands allow exchange of personnell, have immigrant employees, and as corporations employ and contract the world. 

With this in mind, is there not something getting stranger in the thought that with such cooperation and people sharing, and people crossing borders with such ease, and with such intermixing of populations, that there is still a strong desire by people to remain separate and to defend and attack each other competitively.

Notice corporations internally when scattered accross the globe do not self-compete. Thus corporations, in a way, show international cooperation and even ignoring of differences. International corporations are like mini nations simply having less property, and they *do* have claims to property in all the nations in which they operate. Hotels then are like embassies all over, offering protection and international living to anyone who stays.

Thinking about this subject I wanted to mix in the last posting of my idea of a global land ownership system. While people without much property travel with easy, and live wherever they want briefly or for extended periods, using this convenient visa system to make that easy and not hard for people, land related conflicts, lack of informtion sharing about land ownership in different nations, and border aggression and zealous defense and surveillance indicates a big difference in perspective between traveler and law enforcement. Law enforcement and militaries are firmly resolute on nationalism, and exhibit a form of stubborn stupidity of mindset, whereas the travelers and the visa system indicate fun and excitement about being involved globally. This group likes to think that one could be a global citizen, and the other focuses on absolutish commitment to one's fenced region. Oddly people as they engage in travel, and sedentary living, alternate between these viewpoints, again demonstrating an inability to have a comprehensive and consistent mindset. The travelers and immigrants aid in the prevention of the joining of nations.

But I don't think these travelers are the big causes obviously. They really do tend to like the idea that peole around the world could join together. The people who are more sedentary are less inclined to think this way. I think this often includes immigrants who eventually become snobs of their new nation. This traveler's voice, which includes so many people, does not seem to be used often when news touches on nation related topics. I don't recall hearing often, travelers insisting, that the world become more joined. Given the above information about the extreme mixing we live in, why is it that this continues to exist.

Property ownership, tethering to a tax system, expectations that one maintains a physical address, and other issues pull one towards a more sendentary mindset in which one goes again into the narrow thinking that one really is a member of one's own nation where one began or where one committed to remain. One recalls that one is on a team that one likes. Memory is then refilled with dislikes for other nations in which there is a history of distrust and animosity. One quarrels over immigration and the effects on work and taxation. I think the issues that come to mind when one's attention is redirected to ones nationality is forgetful of the intermixing that is happening and the travel one has enjoyed, and immigration that exists. It especially forgets that planes are flying all over everyday carrying shocking numbers of passengers without any issues, and that the borders really let them all through everytime.

I will return to this topic soon, to analyze further aloud here in writing and to go further into what might cause nations to remain separate more fundamentally given history and other propensities, in contradiction to to the above. There is a stupidity of wanting one world and wanting it divided, that others cause and want to solve for, while being the ones without property, which enables them to move more easily. Regular people have very few things, and tend to have a single home or rent a single place in their home nation.

Without doing more analysis here, because I need to think about it more in advance of doing more writing or when inspired, I think much of the divisiveness is due to orgnaizational structures that have processes and ways of acting, that do not involve any mind. There are people within law enforcment, within militaries, and within governments, in TSA, in border control, and in a wide range of other groups, that simply have existing processes, that don't care what they think individually, and while people work in these groups, they are concerned to do their jobs, which entails actually following processes that exist, that do not have minds that maintain them, reorient them, or lead them. This is an illusion to think that minds are continually operating to decide what processes and orgs do. They simply function everyday like yesterday with few changes, and leaders themselves are unable to make big changes which is why we don't see those happening. Instead, they make smaller changes to process over time. But even the business lead and governmental leads have to work with others, and these others really are trained and programmed to continue existing operations.

The extent of this influence is something I have to think more about but I think it's huge, because it explains why people as globe trotters can love the world and think themselves global citizens, while going "home" to work, finding themselves in a process, in which their minds are "switched over" to doing work, thinking that that work well done is something of a duty. This work includes also being a citizen. Being a citizen too relates to existing processes that are stable. Once back in the structure of life in their nation, or thinking about it extensively, they trend towards supporting processes that exist even if these conflict with globalist perspectives they value when thinking like a traveler.

This is off subject, but I have also noticed the word Earthling is not really commonly used. Also, people do not seem to take Earth Day seriously, except where environmentalism is involved (and still it is a non-major holiday). Earth day, and the word Earthling, enables one to more clearly remember interconnectedness and one's commitment to our home in total. I'm not here going to advocate for Earth Day although I want to; instead, I just want to point out, it is not really cared about much. How much does this conflict with celebrations of nations, their independences, and their war commemorations? These get the attention wheras Earth Day not so much. Carnival wins over Earth Day. LGBTQ advocacy and events seems to win over Earth Day. I think this to be an especially strange subject because it does seem to reveal that people are extremely more nationalistic than may be realized, if their motivations are so much in one direction versus the other.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="a-global-land-ownership-system">A Global Land Ownership System</a>

*321 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Livelihood | Environments | Outdoors and Adventure | History | Non-Nationalism  

Not long ago, I was the owner of an 80-acre parcel of land in Alaska, in the United States. It was and is a beatiful chunk of land, and while I owned it, there was jealousy in the surrounding community. They eventually sought action against my neighbor and myself, to try to get access through the property to a nearby beautiful park and mountain peak, called Chugach State Park and McHugh Peak. While there I learned quite a lot about land use and development, municipal planning, politics around land, and law about being a land owner. In this time owning the land, I was exposed to several systems holding information about land owned. If one wanted to, one could find my plot of land in this system and get invormation about me, the owner, the location of property, size, and other characteristics. This was a system I was not familiar with, and I'm aware that the same systems are not used in every state. There was more than one system in use in Alaska to get this information and other information too about land ownership. This one in particular though provided information as to owners of land, who could be individuals, trusts, or corporations.

Recently I started wondering, why it is not the case that there is not a database of land owned everywhere. The globe is not that large to us now, and it is possible, simply with a tool like google earth, to divide up the entire globe and have associated information on who owns what. Right now, if one uses this tool, google earth, or other maps, one can find locations and characteristics about points. In software, one can get photos of specific addresses that have been taken from vehicles. One can zoom down on houses and cars, and see trees and plants that are still there. More advanced enterprise software probably can show real-time the surface or within a span of time approaching real time. If this exists and is unavailable to the public, there is a genuine issue at present regarding transparency of information and science. The reason why I'm saying that the simple globe software can zoom in on these places and show these characteristics is to communicate that this is more data than thin lines covering the globe with boundaries showing clearly property ownership.

Would it not be in everyone's interests, to be able to clearly know who owns what, to have a way to convey that they really do own what they say they do to all, and to simply have a good understanding of land ownership worldwide in order to guide governments. Since all guide governments all need the required information for their use in fulfilling their duties.

What is really humorous to me considering this, is that it is obvious that there is definitely malintent and selfishness as the causality around why this kind of information is not shared. What does each government even own? Do they all agree as to what is owned? With respect to contested land, they do not, but here I will argue:

There is no land that is not contested potentially.

That may seem absurd, but if one has an enemy that wants your downfall, they don't respect your property rights.

But if we take enmity out, there are still very large portions of landmasses that are unpopulated that were "claimed" to be part of one's nation, and one does not defend these portions oftentime or even go to them. Russia's Siberia does not require protection. Russia just says it is theirs, and nobody goes. I am personally convinced it is not theirs, because they can't use it and have no infrastructure there. It's like they just stated that all that extra land was part of their nation. People aren't visiting these remote places. The animals enjoy it as theirs and humans are like aliens in their own country when they arrive.

Nevertheless, the land claims can be tracked nevertheless. What people think about land ownership can be shared. That a nation thinks they have some territory, and that the people on it thinks they have it divided for them, can be shared in a database and on globe software that anyone can use. Notice that even in these conditions, like in Ukraine, another country like Russia can come over and say "None of that is Ukraine, and none of that is belonging to any Ukrainian", thus changing the system in that location to be Russian. But all of this can also be tracked! So in the system that shows everyone's land on the whole planet, the Ukrainian land oownership is shown, until is updated to be russian owned. Or both owned in contest.

That this does not exist is an area where there probably should be intense interest. Particularly, because the people who claim to own their government and steer it, have trouble owning land, knowing where it can be owned and at what cost, and would have trouble sharing their ownership worldwide. Your property is already on the map, why can it not say it is yours? There are many reasons why such a system would be useful for understanding "human equality", being sarcastic, and to compare different nations, and as I said, to empower individuals to decide the government.

Without this information, wouldn't they be too ignorant? How much of international warfare is due to land related concerns? This means that the people who "run the government" are ignorant as to what information is needed for understanding these conflicts, and instead of looking for themselves, have to rely on poor information from some few who claim special knowledge, who do not themselves have such a system to use.

More on this for certain in the future! 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="on-rejecting-old-national-or-tribal-founding-stories">On Rejecting Old National Or Tribal Founding Stories</a>

*321 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Living Autobiography | Cosmological Arguments For A Diety And Other Related Arguments From Originating In Myth | Non-Fictionalism | Non-Nationalism

Today as I was reading Prisoners of Geography, by Tim Marshall, I was reminded (If I was exposed earlier, and I think I was), that Japan has a mythical origin story like many tribes that we're aware of. This tribal story is not one that I know to be taken seriously in Japan by a large amount of the population, but from this it does appear that most would know the story very well from childhood. The original myth story is relayed in this book, but is recorded in a book compiled suppsedly in year 712, called The Kojiki.

I'm not going to retell the story here, because it is too absurd to really care about. This story, like native myth stories, talks about how their lands emerged from the activities of human like deieties, having conflicting social relationsihps. It also discusses and underworld and something akin to mortality and eternity, blessings and unblessings. In the same book, North Korea is discussed, and as one might expect, like Japan, there is a seriously foolish national origin story, that involves relations between humans and animals. It explains the position of the emperor, as does the Japanese story. These stories are not too different in the childish silliness of the cosmology of tribes that did not reach a high level of civilization. However, I want to make the point that it appears that nations that try to trace their lineage to prehistory tend to have similar stories of their own simply because they too came from tribes. Mormonism and North Korea's stories both aremodern tribal creations emulating earlier creations in a modern day using similar approaches, and their appeal to followers or captives tell about the mindset of tribal humans and show that this mindset isn't too different from the mindset of humans today.

Conditions of humanity determine whether they act tribally or not, chiildishly regarding the inventiveness of their history or not. Human animals would behave tribally if culture were subtracted and they were left alone before having any education. Being the same animals, or extremely similar animals to be more exacting, we understand that the culture that is loaded into us after birth constitutes whether we can think as primitive animals, as tribalists (that are still more advanced!), or as humans within greater complexity.

I have written many times here and elsewhere that I flatly reject early cosmological stories, including in major religions (they still have tribal origins to these stories), from whatever tribe they happened to come from, with no concern about how numerous they are. I would reject the cosmological viewpoints of all animals with brains inferior to humans too, if they happened to exist. Likening humans with early cultures to animals, I reject the views of these animals too. Really, for each tribal view checked, similar characteristics exist which do call for the rejection of those views. These stories are part of the heritages of different groups of humans (not all humanity because there are separate lineages), and already people do not wish to preserve all lineages. This can be easily confirmed by checking the views of Christians and Muslims against their concerns to preserve the earlier cultures of their peoples, who they believe they are in competitition with. This is a cause of the degradation and elimination of ancient buildings and artifacts.

Why is it that, the Japanese are willing to teach this story to their youths and recall it, and let others know about it so they are aware of their culture? Would this not be somewhat embarassing to them (people who supposedly feel embarassment strongly), given it means they are putting too much interest on falsity, and connecting it with their identity, indoctrinating it into their youths, and prefering it over alternative cosmologies, similarly stupid and foolish? It makes it appear they believe some of what is stated, else why is this clinging so strong. If not among their more educated, in other large segments of the population. Like those who cherish disney stories and folk tales in the United States and elsewhere. Those of lower intelligence do not interact with it, think about it, and use it in the same way as those who are smart do. They take it more similarly and have trouble disentangling what it supposedly teaches from what is useful or true. So why do the Japanese not prune this from their bonzai? They left their tree more full unclipped!

Korea, also bonzai'd did not prune their minds so as to leave out these silly pieces of information.

Taking these things seriously, I'm not so foolish as to not judge them and use this as part of my datum for *understanding them* which helps to evaluate them! Likewise for my estimation of any people, that did not simply store their ancient thoughts in books for the libraries, to be learned as history, but not taken too seriously. Really the books need, like the hieroglyphics, to become really incomprehensible. Because since truth is absent, and story is used for whatever that is not written, it will become largely unknown, and not something to be well understood. This is the strangeness of myth. When we read myths and notice their bizarreness, we know we cannot really interpret why it would be valuable. We have to rely on the people who live in the locations in which it is taught to give context, and to tell what is thought about the stories. But it is clear that since these are simply minds telling you well after the stories were created what it "means" for their group, that they are really not knowing, and they have nothing to cite, but hearsay, and perhaps parents and children's books. This does not actually provide the meanings to the originals. It is lost, strange, and locked away, like Hieroglyphics. So much hieroglyphics, for nothing at present.

I have not been introduced to a useful text written in Egyptian, but I have been exposed, again, useless tribal stories. Even a renowned ancient greek philospher, I do not recall who specifically, stated that at the their time, maybe year -400 to -300, that they could not extract much usable from all the Egyptian Texts, that they had more plentifully at that time. They coexisted with Egyptians with a lineage tracing back, maybe somewhat consistently, to many thousands of years earlier. Their hieroglyphics were unhelpful even then. They are not known today! But the cosmologies are easily rejected from what is relayed, because it is plain myth without support for interpretation. These also supply the tribalisms of Judaism, Christianity and other religions of the region that emerged later. They don't make clean divides from what happend earlier! Humans are not *that* creative. As I try to separate myself, I do see that there is much that is permanently hooked to history. Particularly my language and words I use, since there is not enought time to replace all the concepts!

Countries, to be taken more seriously, to show rationality, do need to soon commit to modern science and real histories, and to put the old stories away. They have to actively reject the silly stories. The silly stories are even used to childishly divide. A Japanese story wants to protect their infantile myths, while preventing people like me, from saying they are too mine, knowing what they are! Why do these silly tribes all have their own "special" stories, while they also claim equality and that there is a "human lineage" and "human knowledge" and UNESCO World Heritage? What is world heritage while one wants to have one's own that others cannot have?

More seriously though, there is a uniformity of nationalism in each location, where each is willing to war with other nations, as they claim to be all together lovingly with them. These stories, like ancient religious stories, are used to try to create a view that those who know it are special together, and somehow chosen, and this is blended with nationalism too frequently. In Japan this story surely is used to convey what connects Japanese people. The same is true with most nations as far as I know. I do not know enough about all nations, but it really might be, that each and every one, believing to even believe in being part of a nation, believes in separateness, and in this separateness, different histories. These different histories uniformly tend to have silly origins. In groups that do not believe themselves to be part of their nations, they still justify that view usually not on thinking they reject nations, but on thinking themselves to be in a minority that has group claims of their own. They have their own history separate from their nations! This is groupism, ethnicism, relgion, and nationalism.

They cling to their ancient sillinesses.

Only the cultures that have died have stopped clinging, because now they are skeletons without grip! Greeks of ancient times are all dead and so is their Myth, and those living in Greece are Christian primarily. We can make fun of greek religion all we want, because none are wanting to attack, being all dead. The same is true for Ancient egypt and any other group where the current populace sees itself as different from those originally there. Weirdly, they claim the ancient heritage as their own still in these locations. Muslim Egyptians still think that the Pyramids are part of their treasury, but they have disavowed anything religious associated with it, because really those who were there are dead, and they simply occupy the same space.

Not rejecting these early myths for what they are, modern societies appear to still expect to use them to promote nationalism, cohesiveness, and potentially warfare. They also make it clear that their minds are not so scientific and historian as they think. They can easily become refocused on these myths to cause them to make decisions that are opposed to a rational use of science and history. Without rejecting them as fictions, it cannot be known if they really understand that's what they are. The way to openly and outwardly show that one understands something is fictional is to make it clear to others that you reject it as untrue. It can be rejected as untrue while being stored away as history and early fiction.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="claiming-one-has-a-philosophy-when-one-has-a-superficial-phrase-and-little-related-effort">Claiming One Has a Philosophy When One Has A Superficial Phrase and Little Related Effort</a>

*319 Wanattomians, Monday, June 16, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Human Shortcomigns | Verbal Delusions | Assumption Elimination | Religion  

For a while, in English, in entertainment and in social culture, people would ask questions like "What is your philosophy on that subject?" or just "What is your philosophy?" to which the response expected was a simple phrase, and perhaps a few corresponding statements, but little more.

Philophies of life were things people had, but they had them with only short summary statements. They had them while they had religions too. For example, someone might say somethign like "My Philosophy of life is that kindness is paramount", or something such as that which is relatively trivial, and if an elaboration was provided it would have little depth. 

Why does this matter though?

Saying that one has a philosophy, or a life philosophy, that is "a philosophy" firstly greatly minimizes what philosophy is typically supposed to entail. It isn't supposed to be especially narrow, separate from other parts of philosophy for which one has views, and separate from other knowledge. This makes it seem that philosophy is some opinion that one has, or some guiding statement. There are many guiding statements that are simply tossed around and these are not individual philosophies. This was an annoying way of talking that was common for a while but may not be particularly common now. People were aware it was really a way of introducing an outlook or perspective one thinks has some importance, but without any seriousness or actual study of philosophy. A philosophy was easy to have.

The other way in which it is annoying is that a philosophy, when one has one (still not my favorite way to talk about it) is supposed to be something that has *more* depth, and complexity and not less, than simple opinions. If someone told you they had a philosophy in this way, if you knew about this way of conversing, you would have low expectations about what they were going to tell you. But this in various ways reduces what philosophy is really supposed to be and is within the discipline of philosophy. If someone who takes philosophy seriously tells you they have a philosophy, what is to be expected is some thinking of good sophistication. Typically, Philosphy is considered one of the hardest majors in college, and not one of the simplest. The intelligence of students, from admittedly unreliable information I've read about, claims they are in similar ranges to those taking mathematics, engineering and physics, with some sources saying those interested in philosophy are higher. I don't really trust this information, but I do admit the abstractness of the subject and the difficulty of the reading, and overlap with mathematics, and various sciences, does indicate difficulty. Probably there are people who can do well in each of these disciplines because they have overlapping interests, and those expanding on philosophy are often those expanding on the sciences. For example, Leibniz, Descartes and other Physicists and Mathematicians were also Philosophers. Philosophy is supposed to be thinking about the edges and frontiers of sciences and making inferences about the meaning of those frontiers for other disciplines and knowledge and morality more generally. They are not always successful, but it is a difficult undertaking.

Claiming that one has a philosophy in the manner discussed above is really unlike having a philosophical worldview of sophistication like Plato or some other esteemed thinker, and there is an attempt to posture and borrow the term "philosophy" to win over others into thinking they are amongst the philosophers and are not simply stating opinions that they happen to have.

This does not mean that the statements made in this way do not sometimes go along with statements that are of good quality, it's just that I don't think this is a particularly honest or useful way to talk about what one's philosophy happens to be if one has one at all.

Another issue, is that once someone is using phrasing such as this, one often does come to think that the statements made are true. So these people think they have powerful philosophies of their own when really they are just communicating in a semi-popular way. Also, those who state they have philosophies in this way are speaking in contradiction to their religions without knowing it. Some may have arguments that were really thought in advance that allow space for thinking outside of religion such that there is not an incompatibility, but I am aware that this is not typically the case, usually they resort to religious authority to justify their thinking in debates if it actually goes moral philosophical or philosophical at a deep level, and I think more generally, philosophy is really at odds with religion. One having convictions regarding moral viewpoints and outlooks without any connection with one's claimed commitment to religion is odd, and it's like trying to have a philosophy while having the religion also, despite definite compatibility issues. I think discussing this part too much more would go too far astray, but I would advocate for anyone who thinks they have a philosophical viewpoint that is important and fundamentally guiding them that differs from their religion, that they should take it much further than they have! Encroach on the religion until like other philosophers the religion isn't really necessary.

There is a big difference between people who claim to have philosophies this way who have put in no effort, from those who put in very extensive effort. If one encounters what I'm talking about in real life the difference is more clear, and since this issue is due to a common manner of speaking the issue is less on a spectrum and more of a definite gulf between two ways of thinking about what philosophy is or can be.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="gradients-in-one-person">Gradients in One Person</a>

*318 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 15, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | ThoughtStream | Evaluative Concepts  

The below conversation regarding the use of just two gradients for social issues, has given rise to the thought that in my own ethical project, which is focused importantly on the individual in large measure, would benefit greatly by identifying all those gradients which pertain to one's own moral thinking. Oddly this involves all thinking too because better thought requires outward utilization of all measures of importance. Also, however, would be key gradients especially useful for personal betterment given the surrounding context and conditions.

The life categories and personal form were purposeful ways of gathering data about life, and planning life, in a way that has adequate coverage. This implies that I was already fairly well-rounded in my treatement and I can use the approach I created before to find what gradients may exist for expanding my system. When I was gathing personal data in different life categories which cover most of life, I did try to find those measures which were supposed to be like KPIs which I would track and use to self-improve. I thought these quite good but they were certainly not all inclusive if one considers all that could be included of importance using a scientific mindset. But the goal wasn't really to be that comprehensive, but to have KPIs, which involve those gradients, deserving of attention, for the power and control created, on attaining better life excellences. Here it seems that growing that list into what would be used by the sciences may not be especially helpful for in a maximally useful way (initially), and instead choosing what is most powerful would be better.

The life category approach was already aware of the sciences and the measures were chosen already knowing that totally knowing all measures would not be as useful or instrumental. Later on that may not be the case, but either way, for each and every person consdiering self improvement incrementally arriving at an all-measuring approach is needed, and of course, and all measuring approach obviously is out of reach given human abilities. Using pattern oriented thinking one can get closer I think. People have to have better brains to go very far in that direction towards what would be more totally encompassing and I think that is basically a false ideal.

So still finding they key gradients seems to be best and would remain best.

At this time I'm not working on putting together these gradients but will keep it in mind.

I think the above further falsifies science as an approach to human moral improvement because expecations are too great for an individual mind to utilize. This combines with my view that journal article reading is actually harmful to trying to guide one's life. This is also why I think there is a better thinking approach than science to be used at the individual and probably collective level too.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="population-problems-and-abuse-expressed-on-a-gradient-for-all-people-and-all-locations">Population Problems and Abuse Expressed On A Gradient For All People And All Locations</a>

*318 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 15, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Life Planning | Life Categories | Justifying Life    

After doing a recording today, I was thinking it makes sense to discuss more the gradient of abuse and gradient of population issues. While it would be useful to notice the gradients where they exist and apply them however they can be applied for transformation of worldview, i cannot do that all at once, or finish that effort, and instead can only do it part by part. 

A strange question exists as to how much humanity would change if they really adopted gradients, and discovered what changes of mind were beneficial simply from the transition to non-gradient thinking to gradient thinking. What was impossible outside of this kind of thinking?

Probably humans would change in astounding ways before shifting from thinking about the improvements of the change to thinking about all that would change; it happens to be true that measurement itself is what is being discussed to and the manner of using measurement will have a huge quantity of mental changes as a result.

How do I want to use the population issue gradient and abuse gradient to facilitate thinking?

A population issue gradient would allow to communicate and think concerning global problems in a way that assumes that population issues woudl be present rather than absent, and that those problems would exist on a gradient. Currently, peple have been indoctrianted, oddly into thinking that population problems are on or off. Globally people will state that there is no population. Stating they are always present allows for seeing where they exist. I don't want to use the existence of the gradient against itself by saying the extremity is present at all times where the gradient applies. In other words that population problems are extreme because population issues exist at a low level. This is an odd human shortcoming that people tend to think that way. Weirdly, they don't go the other way, and state that where there are population problems, they must be small problems. They go to the other alarmist extremity.

Using this we can see rather than keep invisible population problems wherever they exist on the globe and at the aggregate global level.

Population issues exist in families, where there is a resource allocation concern for children had. Population issues also exist regionally in specific parts of the earth, where the effects of the population, have negative consequences to those regions, in ways that may not exist for other regions. Trash is a population problem. Graffiti is too. Need for maintenance is a population problem. There are many population problems people don't think of. The negative affect of a single person on a small colony of animals, like an ant hill that my get destroyed, is a population problem. Earlier I wrote that each person has to pay for him or herself. That is a population problem, that one person can be too much to care for by the resources of one person. I can tell from this last example that this idea, of recognizing that population problems exist all over or in many places on a gradient is helpful for understanding much more than one might expect. I am my own population problem.

Abuses exist all over. Abuses relate to population problems too, so these gradients will intermix. Rich families apparently doing well abuse their children mildly in various ways or sometimes in very damaging ways. The word abuse calls to mind the extremity, but if one is rational, one can still use the word in a way that does not think it that way. Another word can be used instead but I use this word now. We are on-and-off with the word abuse. People tend to think all is flawless until sudenly there is an abuse, but abuse simply does not typically work that way. A parent can do one thing to a child under that thinking, and go from pure to criminal. But the entire time, even when a parent is a good parent, they are being abusive according to this definition. I think some abuses are severe that might be called mild, but still without calling to mind the extremity of abuse, and now I see that this kind of thinking is an intelligence concern because it calls for too much. Let's use detriment instead, but know that future people would call certain mild seeming abuses severe later. Teaching a kid a less useful language is a severe abuse, but we consider it something to not notice, or even praise, for preservation reasons. But it can lead to life long impairment. Having a child that will likely have poor genetics without a plan such that they do have inferior genetics is a kind of abuse given the context. If one has a child that is unattractive, has poor traits, and is unintelligent, that child might thrive and live an excellent life, in a natural context in more ancient times, but currently in the social context, they would do very poorly, an dso creating children who have those traits seems a kind of primary severe abuse. Today that is simply not considered at all as having any moral trouble. If one thinks this subject one might be considered to be the moral problem. However, this is plainly a kind of abuse to create things that cannot do well.

Combining abuse with population on gradients with everpresence is useful. Now there is a population problem wherever abuse is occuring in a common way. So if there is a population that is too abused doign too many abuses, the quality of life is lower, and therefore there is a population issue concerning well being. Interestingly, that might seem really familiar, relating it to general welfare. The issue of general welfare is a population problem relating to many things but relating definitely to abuses. An abused or abusive population however small perhaps ought not expand too quickly, or at all, or should consider diminshing numbers. Historically, people would kill each other off and animals too, if there were basic issues with food. Parents would kill their children if they couldn't care for them. They knew already there was a population and sought to reduce numbers with killing rather than simply reducing it by procreating less. As I said also, in similar conditions, people will procreate more! I was writing about how people tend to produce more children if they are expected to die more often. This appears a contradiction but it is due to different kinds of scenarios, but both kinds of scenarios could exist nearly in the same place/time with different reactions to those conditions. Mortality in history has been high even in wealthier locations leading to having more children, and in places where starvation and warfare is happening, suicide, group suicide, and killing of others for what they have, and killing of children exists.

It may be worthwhile to create a framework that puts many of the gradients of interest in view at the same time so one can move from categorical thinking, dichotomos thinking, and nth-chotomous thinking to spectral thinking. Similar utilizations to the above exists for other subjects. This would help in removing good/bad distinctions, which I'm averse to using anyway. I'm not sure where all these problems exist, know they are language related and so are pervasive, so it would be funny to know how much a mind that has undergone the changes would differ from myself. I think of myself very highly but someone who underwent such efforts extensively would have a better mind for sure.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="thinking-non-truthfully-is-less-generative-of-ideation">Thinking Non-Truthfully Is Less Generative of Ideation</a>

*317 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 14, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Creativity Management | Productions | Mind and Mental Development | Book Writing and Authoring | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought 

Even in the writing of creative fictions, one is often wanting to convey something one believes is important to the reader, and what that is that happens to be important, really is something thought to be truthful. Creativity, mistakenly, has been related to fanciful imagination and the makings of pieces of art that may have unique qualities of colorfulness, patterns, or other visual differences from what existed. Unfortunately, many have come to think they are creative only if they are creating fictional works of various kinds or are doing works of art that show imagination more than reasoning. This confusion really exists although the people who understand better what creativity really would be with better intellection would be aware it is closer to general ideation and problem solving. Ideation, and problems solving, results in creations that may be fictional, or very avante garde if visual or audible, or something new if musical, but creativity exists wherever new ideas are forming in the mind firstly, and are being put into creations secondly. Sometimes creativity is happening during work so happens not only imaginatively but as one is making music or actively making art, but much ideation happens simply by thinking. I don't consider this the definitive treatment of creativity and would want to say much more which is the purpose on my work on Creativity Management, but I think this is a good statement for now. Creativity does not implie non-truthfulness and creative ideation can be only mental.

The thesis of this particular writing is that not only does it seem that creativity can be truthful and honest, and mental initially, I think greater levels of creativity go towards this type of thinking. There is an additional thesis that non-truthful thinking, in opposition to common expectations, does not appear very generative or conducive to ideation by comparison. I think there is a very large difference in level of creativity in people striving for truth and honessty, thinking about things relating to truth, than those thinking about fictional or novel artistic or musical productions.

In music, one is not haphazardly producing cacaphonies of sound. If one is trying to create a new musical piece, or new sound, one wants others to like it, and one wants to believe it sounds good. The creativity that goes into it relates to arriving at something that does have sound qualities conformant with sound tastes, and one wants it to be the case that what one makes really sounds of good quality. This is looking for truth in music. One wants truly good scales, sound combinations, and well produced songs and albums in total. One is not looking for something fictional and new.

In writing for songs, notice that most have not departed too greatly from norms of vocals, and norms of songwriting. There are songs that diverge a bit, but we are not being greatly surprised by song compositions. Even when artists are creatively trying to share something in the vocals and writing, what they are typically trying to do is convey some truths they have, especially in music truths that are not easily discussed directly. Topics are covered in which there is considerable censorship if spoken about without disguise. The disguises are often imaginatively ingenious. The results in the musical writing, does happen to involve the communications of truth. Something profound, passionate, and infectious. The majority of the drive of the creativity does not seem to be around fanciful imaginative creations separate from they conveyance of truth and contribution to the quality of sound, in rhythm and other areas of musicality. The lesser part of the music creation appears to relate to untruths, although I would admit this component does exist. My thesis here is that the driver of the ideation of the music and the writing accompanying the music is the truth components in each. Notice also that fiction in musical writing is much less common than fictional storytelling, but even where fictional stories are told, there is some accompanying moral or teaching that is expected to be conveyed that is honest and not false and is supposed to result in useful learning.

Where is the falsity that is happening in any artistic creation whatsoever. There may be abstract kinds of art in which lies are told by the artist in conjunction with the art's creation. Like lying about what it is, what is purpose happens to be, who made it and how, and any other intersting lie that may be created to further some artistic purpose which maybe somewhat purposeless. This does not appear to me to often form cohesive structure, or be very dense or expansive in ideation. This appears to me to include few ideas, but these may include jarring stark transitions, comparisons, contrasts, and so on. I don't have considerable experience in this domain, but I'm aware of what is possible, and what would be likely portrayed. I have experience in the arts and have been exposed by large amounts of art of all kinds, and I can say from this experience, that very little untruth is trying to be conveyed. Playfulness and randomness in results seems to happen in an art-media-activity interactive way, where the artist does not see the result in advance but makes it amazingly along the way, is something that is common and to some maybe inescapable. This is highly creative too, but once again, like with music, I think unless the result is pleasing, I think it is not really exhibited, unless there are corresponding fictions created to try to invent reasons for thinking the art good. Artworks having good qualities created this way are like the musical pieces that have pleasant aesthetic qualities, and these qualities still represent what is true about human perceptions and attitudes and reactions about beauty and quality.

So in both music and in art, my direction of argumentation and thinking does seem to support the thesis and at the moment I don't see anything seriously wrong. I think as usual the intuition is resulting in additional thinking headed in a correct direction.

Now moving to fiction, we have the creation of actual false information. Here we have the building of imaginative stories and worlds, and characters of all kinds, including beings that don't exist, and much that is known to not correspond to reality. How much of the bulk of writing includes such creativity. I think this kind of creativity irrefutably exists and that it is composed of much that is definitely false. But still there is much that is *driving the creativity* that invovles truth, and I think there is not much driving the creativity that is false. There is a desire to teach, use imagination to discover truths about the world, to find new directions people could follow, and to entertain in a way that is honestly considerate about what the author just likes and what the reader would enjoy. The motives and direction seem to include much that is honest.

Here I pause for the moment, because most of what I want to say is about this part of the subject matter, but I don't really at this moment want to dwell on it. I will return to this at another time. I want to move on, then come back to this later, while assuming that the above paragraph is on the right direction, that motives around fictions seem to be about creating truth, while much that is created is still false which is obvious, because it is imagination and that is desirable. I think what is thought to be true in fiction still seems to be false oftentimes, despite motives of the authors however. They think people behave in ways they don't, think that their stories correspond to how social events transpire causally, when they really don't, and what is created that is supposed to conform to reality in other ways does not. I think oftentimes the moral directions, with ideas of what should and shouldn't be done are false oftentimes, and so on too. But for now I want to overlook this part because the theses are about the motivations and intentions, and I think despite these issues the objectives in the creation are truth conveying. But here is where there is still ample creation of what is false and I have to address that, particularly since I said I think truthfulness is more generative than falseness. I will need to address this soon.

Before concluding, I wanted to talk about how lying *is* a strong driver to creating very large amounts of false information, and this too will have to be explained to continue to defend and argue for my theses. Unlike in fiction, lying more often includes a deliberate desire to create more that is false, and in quantities that grow over time. People know this, and have talked about it in moral writings, and it has existed culturally in various locations where simple traditional moral teachings are conveyed. There is this idea that one should avoid lies because sometimes, one will end up living a much falser life and will have to work hard on making sure the lie is not discoverd by covering flaws in stories with more lies. Interstingly, there is convergence here with fiction creation. If one has to tell a substitute story to hide the truth, one has ventured to create fictions. Truth oddly is still a driver in here, because what is sought for by someone who may be close to discovering a lie is truth, and to defend one has to create more fictions that have plausibility which means they are believable fictions that have aspects of truth that correspond with physical and social realities. This is why someone who is smarter is better at lying and conning and scamming. They will have better detail in more areas of thought connecting to reality that will create more comprehensive lies making those lies harder to identify. Those who are worse at lying have more mistakes that are obvious, and stories seem to not be believable fictions. Believeable fiction writing uses intelligence to create imaginative stories that have better structure corresponding to reality. These are stories we are likeing more when we are not having fun enjoying absurdities and sillinesses, which can be quite enjoyable too. Notice the liar cannot use this kind of ficiton in tellling compelling falsities! They would be considered insane! "I didn't cheat on you, because while I was missing, I was simply abducted by aliens, and these aliens resembled clumps of fluffy clouds with numerous eyeballs." This even seems like a bad example to share, because of the degree of its insanity. The rules are I'm supposed to tell lies that seem more plausible, like that there are aliens. To the misfortune of the public community, that too is an obvious lie that is insane, but alas the public is not very intelligent.

This conversation presented what was needed for subsequent development because categories and subcategories of productions that can be considered truthful or not have been shared that are adequate for arguing this particular case, that truthful motivations are more ideative than false motivations. The main argument in the next part of this series will be that the edifice of structure of creations is built primarily with truth conditions and motivations playing a role the majority of the time in construction and that this cannot be maintained with false intentions. It will be shown I think, that large structures of knowledge and productions depend on truthful thinking and this influences brain development. This is to be contrasted with false motivations and productions and brain development. As a teaser, consider what the brain would be like of someone who was creatively producing thoughts propelled by false thinking. What would this edifice look like? It would have an unusable structure and could not be large! If taken too far it may resemble the mind of a schizophrenic or psychotic. Even trying to think of totally imaginary concoctions of false information existing in a mind, retained, seems difficult and probably includes impossibilities. Highly creative people, I think, will retain what they have thought about, will want to use the thinking in the future, and will have productions that do also contain information that has more realistic cohesiveness, coherence and structure which permits of being recalled. With less structure things are not really easy to remember. Brains among people who are highly developed trend towards having better structure to information. Creative people I think show sanity as part of their creations, their creations are more developed, and their brains would show evidence of greater development over time. Creativity is related to actual advancemnt. Advancement of culture is the result of ideas which include instrumentality and many truths which make them durable. People seek truths in culture and technology and find them. We here can see that what unexpectedly defends the thesis that nonfiction drives creativity is that falsity isn't part of the structure of culture so much compared to what is truthful. It exists within it an that is cause for this discussion but it plays the lesser role. This is all fascinating given people think creativity sometimes really requires fictional imagination or works of art and music that are totally novel that may not result from thinking that has a scientific basis. And here we have even that scientific thinking which is also nonfictional thinking seems to push forward creativity rapidly in a way that is structure building and motivational, and results in causal explanations for why good music that was creative was successful, and why certain arits we enjoyed include truths about reality too. It seems that working with fiction is harder in various ways and that too will serve to futher argue this position.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="expansion-of-the-idea-of-child-abuse-to-include-indoctrinating-with-wrong-languages-and-teaching-lesser-cultures">Expansion of The Idea Of Child Abuse to Include Indoctrinating With Wrong Languages and Teaching Lesser Cultures</a>

*317 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 14, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Cults | Methods of Replacing Religion | Relationshps | Sexuality

The concept of child abuse is far too limited. The idea is that a certain class of actions should be prohibited from parental practice or practice of adults around children, because the actions cause direct harm or harm in the future of the child. Child neglect, corporal punishment or beatings, drugging children, yelling and screaming at them or otherwise being hostile, and other actions are included. But much is disincluded.

Of particular interest regarding what is disincluded, some parents are simply unfit to have children, and while most would think this includes only a small segment of the population, I think it includes most of the population. Having a parent who is near average intelligence, implies they cannot have very good teaching. Typically, I think it implies abuse. If the parent is smarter than this, the same is likely true. If much smarter than that, it will not be the intelligence that decides but other traits, and still, many intelligent parents are very poor parents.

Having the wrong teacher is not considered good for a student. Teachers are expected to be knowledgeable. Arguably, if oen put one's child in a school of average people doing the teaching roles, one would have done some level of abuse to that child, given other options are available. One would not say, be a good parent, if in a wealthy nation, but puts one's child in the school of an impoverished nation. For example, moving form Europe, to some place in Africa for work, and putting the children in a local school along with the African children, would constitute abuse. Notice that the teachers are supposed to be well educated, so if the teacher is full of those with average IQ, it is certain they are not very well educated, because they cannot be. They can only have average receiving of any education provided.

Above I wanted to talk about language and culture. Teaching a child a language that has a small usage, or impoverished usage, is certainly abuse. They will remain too comfortable in a useless language and it does diminishe their language learning potential regardless of what any prejudiced arguments are presented. Learning is time bound and teaching your child a first language that is inferior is an abuse to the child. They will be struggling with gaining proficiency in another language that is competitive all their lives if they are even given the opportunity to do that. 

Cultures that are inferior are a form of child abuse as well. Learning Christianity or Islam is a form of abuse, beacause the cultures are filled with superstitions that we know historically are hard to remove later. If children do not want to be Christian or Muslim later, they will not have an easy time, and may face abuse later from parents and other family members or community.

These are simple conclusions. One can easily expand on this to include any type of ethnicity, type of person, heritage, tradition, context, language and so on, where to teach it creates similar abuses resulting in weaknesses and disadvantages. Most of parenting today in the future will not be respected; rather, it will be considered that child abuse was the norm, and good parenting was rare. Above I stated that simply being a parent if one is not of good quality constitutes abuse. Limiting the conversation then to the smaller group, of those parents fit for parenting on intellect and other biological traits, like apperance, and expectation of good health, we look to situation, culture, language, and degree of education potential. There are smart people from heritages that should not have children. The children in these categories routinely complain of suffering then have chilren themselves, perpetuating the suffering they said they experienced. Arguably, women may not be fit for having children, if they believe they suffer for being women.

The issue is widespread. That most perhaps would be abusive having kids, does not mean the abuse ought to be ignored. In European countries, Africa is not really attractive, and no European wants to become African or have an African child. Their views on implications regarding this and similar points is that they think those people are not having good lives. They do actually have views that make it clear that if they are probed for information, would reveal that they think those kids really are being abused. They think they are right sometimes to be refugees, to seek homes elsewhere, to get aid for children because they are doing so poorly, and to think that perhaps, it would be wise if these parents were not having kids in these conditions. Probed they would need to admit it, else they would be in severe contradiction. They believe and disbelieve it depending on the discussion, but really everyone already is supposed to know that Africa has been abused, including the children, and sometimes this is because of the parenting there. Impoverished parents are often abusive parents. Also many believe Africa to be inferior and of low intelligence, and they really do think it while openly disagreeing. They would not want their children to be like African children. For those children to exist in this kind of view is to have a life of suffering which is an abuse. Of course, if they are highly intelligent, they left Africa, have resources, and are generally better than the low intelligent whites in Europe I talked about, then one considers that these might have better prospects than others in various ways. But I would venture to say that people think a black child will suffer anyways, being in these places. It could be really, that having children from certain groups is a form of abuse because already the prospect for that child was thought to be suffering.

These views are uncomfortable for some people, but this is a perpetuation of abuse on their part. They are unable to state that suffering would be a cause for not having children. Instead they hold the horrendous incompatible view that they should remain prejudiced (they are), and that children who would come into life suffering around them, should exist. That the kids they are prejudiced against should keep getting made, for them to abuse later.

I think child abuse is vast and problematic, and again, that the current state is one of horrendous treatment of children, even where it appears they are doing well. The measure of what it is to do well needs to include different potential minds the child will have and as I said in a recent posting, this entails a new way to think of wellness. Right now, Human Quality of Life Indices do not include intelligence measures and actual measures of rationality and knowlege. A nation of people fed well, thoroughly entertained, but stupid and superstitious, living like domesticated animals do, would score high on these indices simply becaue they have income, food, education, and relatively safe spaces. This is till inadequate because a superstitious mind is an insane one, and even in these contexts, people believe they are "suffering" and need religious saving. Doing well like a clean animal while suffering and living ignorantly and stupidly is not really faring very well on another better interpretation of human well being.

We know historically people were doing poorly, and perhaps we know now, that because people are so delusional, that history isn't the demarcation of poor levels of wellness at present. Because right now people are doing poorly and say they are.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="you-have-to-pay-for-your-own-robot-thats-you">You Have To Pay For Your Own Robot, That's You</a>

Abandoning Equality | Livelihood | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism 

*315 Wanattomians, Friday, June 13, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Earlier I wrote about the strangeness that one is born into a forced existence then has to pay for one's own existence, and compared this by implication with buying yourself again and again as a product. Since one is a biological robot of sorts, there is some humor to the idea that you are forced to live, forced to pretend to not be causally determined, are a predetermined biological robot running deterministically, and you have to pay for yourself. It's funny to think of yourself as a kind of robot product on the market that you had a contract for but didn't buy initially, then you had to buy it over and over.

Historically there has been this concept of the social contract that I immediately rejected but some have taken seriously in my presence, with great strangeness to me. This is the idea that at birth, you have signed contractually to terms of existence within a nation and society, and that you are really obligated to fulfill what's in this contract. This is how it was communicated to myself and others, although as I write this, I think it so absurd that it may be possible that anyone I've heard talking about it simply got it wrong, and maybe the original source has another explanation. it comes from Rosseau although I did not read the source. Since this idea is surely incorrect, and the subject matter itself isn't particularly interesting and does not seem like it would be fruitful, I did not look further. But perhaps this idea is really a criticism of "naturalization" and the idea that one is a citizen at birth. Maybe it sarcastically makes fun of this idea, imagining that babies sign contracts. I would have to read to know more, and if I do I'll relay it here, so the reader should take this conversation not as a judgement of original writers about this, but as a judgement on those who take it seriously that someone can be forced into life and that immediately they have signed a "natural" contract. People really do think this.

I am not fond of metaphors because it causes people to think that the metaphor is literal and really keeps people making those mistakes of not knowing there are metaphors! But the comparison of robotics and humans is so strong, it trends todards recategorization of knowledge around robots I think to make biological animal animal robots. They are running on DNA, small parts, basic principles of energy, and even tendon-ligament-joint levers. The brain has been compared to a computer and digital photography, videography and such stems from an understanding of eyes and optical components of the eye. The robotics is created partially on an analogy to humans but has great similarity in results, such that non-biological robots akin to robots are assured to come into existence. There is a crossover concept of automata, that will apply to humans, animals, and future robots. To call a human a robot is an analogy and one is not strictly a metal being of electronics. But one is certainly an automata. If we made bio robots we'd be making animals! So it does appear, there is a concept we could introduce, that would make robots and humans in the same category. Similar kinds of entitites with differing lineages. But are they differing lineages given the human creates it from self reflection and self observation.

So for now I'm running with the idea that humans *are* robots. As robots they are product-like. Human trafficing reveals that we presently think they are products. Even if we are against it, they are being sold. We also enjoy robotic employment, and our manual tasks are performed by us automatitically, and when we "automate" it we just get other automata to do it. People have used the idea that employees are slaves on analogy too, but that also does have truth to it. One has to pay for one's own robot.

Since I have to pay for my own robot, and society has moved forward on adopting the social contract on naturalizing babies to be stuck in nations, and within those nations there is a trend towards criminalizing and ostracizing the non-worker, one really does have to work! One has to pay for one's own robot and one is a slave like an automata that would replace the employee, who already is the automata, therefore it seems a tight analogy to say that people are robot like and are slaves, and were nation tethered and caged. And they *must* put in effort to maintain appearances, have homes, and pay for their own selves.

I enjoy what I do automatically. I enjoy my own robot. A robot that is advanced like a person, or a person who is a biobot, or an animal, simply takes pleasure in its own behaviors and its enjoyments, and is liking oftentimes it's own products. I like my taste buds and did not make them, and I have to pay to use them. I have to pay for my miscellaneous parts that I received on my birthday!

I'm aware some would say this creates a bleak veiw of reality, but it is funny! And better still, it is intersting. Furthermore, it is actual. Because these analogies really are so tight as to recategorize. Humans really are wage and pay slaves, and they *are* automata, so they are robot slaves that did not choose their lives.

What is the proper life of a robot slave now that it's known?

The robot part is not optional ever, it is only as it is. The "slave" part is something that is perhaps changeable, unless we're on a railroad track into the future regarding that. Probably in this lifetime robot slave that pays for itself as a product is permanent.

Just like an animal you can enjoy your body and your physical talents, the fun of eating, and some enjoyment at finding a mate. Mating is brief but repetitively fun. You have your body to enjoy. Some say free things are best, but your body is not free, you pay for it. If one became very old and lost function, as these robot slaves do, one finds that if one could have certain functions back, which sometimes do return, what is gotten back is like a gift. It's like a product started working again. My knee functions less occasionally, and when I can effortfully bring it back into good order, it is like I got my toy working again. I'm a collection of products I have to pay for and this is not a joke! One does have to track the metaphors however. But the analogy is so close it really is honest to speak about it in this way!

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-need-to-revise-human-quality-of-life-indices-to-include-better-mind-quality">The Need To Revise Human Quality of Life Indices To Include Better Mind Quality</a>

*315 Wanattomians, Friday, June 13, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Environments | Outdoors and Travel 

To Be Updated

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-misuse-of-we">The Misuse of "We"</a>

*315 Wanattomians, Friday, June 13, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought | Evaluative Concepts

The concept of "we" is one of the more flawed linguistic devices that is routinely used incorrectly, but used in so many different ways it is analysis defying. One cannot envision all of the ways it is used at the time of analysis, and more time is required to have more experience to collect all the manners of use to fully know all the mistakes. Fundamentally though, we can say some things about what is incorrect that is inherited by a large quantity of these common misuses.

I think the best explanation of what is wrong with we will correspond with what math has to say about sets and knowing what set membership consists of in order to know that mathematical statements about sets happen to be true. People say "we" firstly, without specifying what the set membership is, which is required in math to identify the contents of the set. Without saying what the set membership rule is, which is what we can recall from set-builder notation, or saying specifically what is in the set, in advance of specifying a corresponding set building notation, we have no set. A set that is provided a clear membership, can still be an insane and false set, if the set builder notation has not been utilized. Along with the membership of the set, the speaker usign "we" has to have a sane set building rule to say, at the time of stating a set exists, or later without alteration of original intuition, rationale or intention. This provides the two ingredients needed to have a set and know that the set really is not a nonsensical aggregate.

I think this is enough about the math to have the nugget needed to start looking at ways that "we" is used incorrectly in normal usage, and probably the reader can predict in advance some of what I'll be saying next.

Firstly, people do claim "we" without specifying who that we is specifically. They'll use it as a rhetorical device, saying "we" in such a way sometimest to vaguely include all humans, all people in the audience, or all people in a nation. When this is used, it can be anticipated the some in the audience, will simply think they are not a part of that "we" and that the speaker or writer is simply trying to assume they are together in agreement on a subject matter, or that they are somehow included as one who is described. This is a use of we that fails on both of the above ways: it does not say who is included in the set of people, which is an insaning mistake, and secondly, it doesn't state who would be in cuch a set using a rule. Sometimes enough information is used in the rhetoric to know who might or might not be in such a set the person is writing or speaking about, which makes it possible to quickly dissent, but not enough information is given, to really identify, who *would really be in the set*. Insufficient information is provided, and insufficient information about other people is had to make the connection to that information.

We is also used, in all sorts of other scenarios, pretending that within that scenario, and *mistakenly outside that scenario*, there is a we-ness. For example, if you are at work, someone may start using "we" and, you may be willing to be part of the group statements. Maybe a number of other people with you are actually willing as well. This does not mean "we" is sane yet, and probably it really does fail both tests from the last paragraph. But let us assume it is working fine for the moment, and is vague but "good enough". Having a relationship being colleagues, or part of a business, or an employee, does not necessarily imply there is a durable "we" that extends outside of work life. The criteria are transitory and contained within a domain. But a business thinks you are an employee when you are not working, and some groups or leaders of groups may behave like you can never be outside the group, even if you leave. The person who uses this type of "we" is using it insanely, and while I said it could be good enough for usage sometimes, more likely it fails the criteria above too, and is very delusional.

It is common practice, for people who are near to each other, to self-divide into camps. If a happening occurs, and there are witnesses, but the event that transpired was unclear, there will likely be people splitting into groups on the basis of what they believe to have happened. These groups are using really limited information in which to form groups, but in practice the behavior indicates they believe the criteria of the group membership is a deeper similarity than what is going on in the event. People may act to protect each other, think they are more alike in other ways, not recognize the transitoriness or contingency of the group formation on the basis of the situation and think there is a more durable connection. People in an emergency, think suddenly they are a group sometimes that has more significance than the transitoriness of the group. People think in such situations they are *supposed* to have a more meaningful relationship and connection.

Repeatedly, we have the same occurance, a mathematical erorr also, of thinking that the group membership criteria is something not-superficial and other than it is. But on inspection, it is immediately clear, that it is irrational to use anything for group memberhsip other than what the criteria of membership is.

Someone might say, well, this colleage and I, are both doing this project for 10 days, and while we are both employees, we are also both human, and since we are both, I feel it necessary to learn the person in greater detail and feel a larger bond, than to simply recognize our similiarities regarding our employment. This is a form of irrational and fallacy ridden thinking. What would be more accurate to say is, "we started as colleagues working together, but as we talked, we found more similarities, and using those similarities, came to enjoy each other more and perhaps mutually consider a durable friendship." This is more rational, but there are reasons to reject this too. For now I want to point out, that once one is considering friendhsip, one typicall goes still by more than the group membership criteria that is growing. Although, with time, it does make sense to consider it probable that affinities relate to patterns which may be cause to think there is good potential for finding many more similarities, and enjoyable differences, and perhaps similarity of personality and direction. But oftentimes, even when one thinks one has thought this way, one forgets that outside of your presence the other person may be more different than is expected, have friends in which very different behavior is expressed, and so on, and this may include aspects of the person, that disconfirm this hypothetically probable set of similarities that might exist. So oftentimes it is still found that the set building rule is still a pretend and false set building rule.

People also use "we" too often. In one scenario one feels "we" with someone with an opposed politics on other grounds, at another time one feels "we" with someone of the same nationality, while havign different politics, but the same politics of someone from an enemy nation. Then one feels "we" with one group of friends opposed to another group in which you are a "we". What is built up is a nonsensical "we" person, or you and the other ones, who is incompatibly "we" with all of these. Additionally, all of you think you have a special bond that is more extensive like I said above. So your friend is a close friend and you two are very similar. But you are all these contradictions so obviously there couldn't be such a depth. This is why certain topics cannot be covered, and why these relationsihps have boxes around them.

Since the general propensity of a person is to utilize "we" frighteningly often in the above way, anyone who does this becomes an odd person who is strangely inconsistent and appears to be lying in a wide variety of ways. The way they are using "we" has been false too many times. The cause, however, is really that the way people are taught to use set thinking in language is faulty, and that the way they learn and apply language has resulted in this widespread problem. But this is a problem that plagues civilization, because people fight and disagree and go to war, on one or a number of "we"s for which the others are enemy, forgetting that there are "we"s that make for friendship. During warfare, people actually notice this and sometiems befriend enemies, and there have been numerous stories ont his subject. You can meet a tourist in your country, love them in many ways, then find yourself murdering them in warfare later.

The above is very usable to explain errors related to false togetherness and beliefs about mutual group membership and meanings of those memberships. But what it doesn't do is conveniently cover the massive number of cases that exist without identifying all the forms of those cases. That seems to be a necessary task, but I will not be able to carry it out, finding that to be not a sufficiently worthwhile endeavor, since for my purposes and the pruposes of interested enough readers, who would want to be able to identify issues natively knowing a few patterns. I do think it is worthwhile and must be done but I admit I won't be the one to create the catalogue of errors of this kind. But knowing it using the patterns and above examples it covers most cases, and one can still quickly see what is wrong about other cases not covered.

When a politican starts using "we" it is instantly falsifiable, which is humorous. I don't know of anyone else other than myself trying to avoid using this term incorrectly, and it is just one of many terms. So the prognosis is not looking good in the short term, and I think it will be a long while, maybe hundreds if not thousands of years, before there is a cure.

For those who are curable however, it is enjoyable and great to be outside of delusions and more aware of truths, and this improves life greatly. Since life is improved I wonder what to think about the quality of life of those who never make any changes. There is this idea of a human well-being index, but since this is not cured, I would not really consider the quality of life as good. Since many issues have not been corrected and are not in education, that are similar to this, regarding improvement of thinking, and they are basic learnings, I think the human well indices are too skewed towards happiness of lower animals. The human well being indices are more about income, having various freedoms, ability to live easily without too much effort, better veterinarian access, and so on. It's not about having an honest and high quality mind.

Wherever religion exists probabily it is a lower quality of living than is pretended.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="if-you-could-choose-your-own-life-location-and-context-your-imagination-would-be-too-poor-to-do-it-and-notice-the-difference-between-that-and-this-process-and-result-and-your-actual-Life">If You Could Choose Your Own Life, Location, and Context, Your Imagination Would Be Too Poor To Do It, And Notice The Difference Between That And This Process and Result, and Your Actual Life</a>

*315 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 12, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Abandoning Equality | Livelihood | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism  

As an exercise it may make sense to compare what one would really want for oneself, if one could be any organism or being, of a new kind, or a kind similar to one past, present, future, or distant, with the body and type of animal one is that one did not choose for oneself. Similarly, it would be useful to think about, imaginitively, what one's environment could be, and what tools and things might exist in the environment. What kind of world. Large or Small, with what kind of travel or not, and what kind of plantlife, if any.

How different would be your chosen world compared to the world you live in. How different would you be?

I think this exercise may be helpful, to reveal to the reader, that one did not and could not choose one's own life and that it is forced and that it has been forced for everyone else too.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="for-me-to-have-a-me-i-need-to-keep-paying">For Me To Have A Me, I Need To Keep Paying</a>

*315 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 12, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Abandoning Equality | Livelihood | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism 

As is being discussed in Abandoning Equality, and Constraint and Determinism, it is important to know that every person simply has not chosen to exist, and has not had control over the context of life and their own constitution and biology. There is some influence over things later, but this influence is not as powerful as people pretend, and powerless regarding the starting conditions, genetics, surrounding conidtions all of life, and most of all one's physical traits. Even decisions about what one will control is a kind of moulding and forming of what exists already, and one modified slightly the surroundings one is exposed to, and slightly changes one's physical body and mind with minor decisions that are slow acting oftentimes.

I recently recorded, in preparation for this posting, in the back of my book Prisoner's of Geography, by Tim Marshall, that in order to continue existing I have to keep paying for myself. The humorous idea here, that is true, is that I buy myself in a way over and over. I buy what keeps me alive, and I buy what keeps it maintained nearly as it is. If I stop paying really there will be an issue with my preservation. Keeping myself healthy the way I am now, or keeping myself safe, and finally, keeping myself from starving or dying of illness.

People are brought into life, with planless sex, as I thoroughly discussed before, and after becoming who you couldn't choose, in a place you chouldn't choose either, you have to buy yourself too. You have to keep paying to keep yourself in those conditions, and your payment goes to keeping that unchosen situation the same, and to keep payments going.

The perpetuation of business results in the perpetuation of payments. If you support a business, it may be nice for you, because you enjoy what they provide you. You like the products. But the business is what keeps payments happening. So by supporting businesses, you pay for payments to exist.

By paying for anything you support payments.

To support a business is to support what it does, and not only what you receive, although it may be true you might be only focused on what you receive.

The way you receive it is also caused by your payments.

It seems from these observations that *you must keep paying for yourself*, which means it is required that your payments *for yourself* sustain more payments for yourself. You make the business of paying for yourself exist and continue.

What if you do not wish to pay for yourself?

That is a difficult challenge and some have tried to live freely, on food from natural surroundings, and using tools make by materials that can be found, like wood and stone. This is a return to primordial living to an extent and it is not easy. Actually I said it is prohibited. It may not seem like it is prohibited, but to move in that direction, one finds many hindrances and risks and prohibitions. Too many to state here. It makes it futile for all to complete the objective entirely, of living off the land with nothign at all but one does not have to pay for. If there are any people who achieved this, they are very few in numbers, so as to be zero as a fraction with the remaining population.

If you do go down this path, efforts replace payments. There is still a cost. But those costs are not making payments.

They are somewhat akin, but it seems highly preferable to not make payments, if there is ease after the knowledge is had, and if that knowledge is combined with modern knowledge.

Housing and clothing are easy, gardens are easy, foraging is somewhat hard but in the right conditions is easy, and avoiding illness isn't so hard either given modern sterilization and hygeine. Most ailments people have had required no medication. Age at death has some relativity to it. We don't live to one thousand and think a life to 80 is old. So is a death at 60 old? Also, with the efforts required, combined with modern hygeine and sterilization, it may be that living this way one would live even longer. Dentistry may be a weak point in this plan, but perhaps exchanges allow for dentistry, which like a payment, but is different, and requires no money preparation and maintenance.

Effort is the cost of living so if one is born one is forced to use effort.

Payment was the modern exchange for some effort, but efforts exist still. What if I should not compare payments versus efforts because at present efforts and payments both together are required and both might be higher. This appears true in my estimation given my time spent living more simply. Effort does not seem to much increase reducing payments. But food generation has and foraging was not yet included, and I'm aware that does take more effort. But then I'm a vegan, what if we consider the fisherman?

The fisherman who lives on simple textiles, dwellings, tools, and so on, really appears to be fully self-sufficient.

It appears to me really that the payments have not reduced the efforts and now we are living with a combination of a large amount of payments, and large amounts of effort, and that living simply really does reveal that the substitution of payments for effort has not actually played out to ease people's lives.

What is actually making for the need for additional effort in this context? Why are our payments not replacing efforts more completely?

Let's take clothing as a single example, before moving, at another time, to other examples, encompassing most of living.

I discovered it is very easy to make clothes. Clothes provide warmth and coverage, but really warmth and some layer of protection is the part actually needed. It plays the role of the house closest to the skin. One can live without a house and only one's clothese if the climate supports it, and one has learned to be comfortable. Nudity may be possible too, if the climate is correct. It is hard to say regarding that, however, because we may have evolved to be less adapted given the existence of clothing. This appears to be true with shoes.

So clothes are required somewhat.

But they are easy to make. One can definitely make clothes even with fibers found in nature. Shoes also. One can use hair and other materials scavenged. The exchange in buying clothes, is to replace the effort required with making clothese and presumably to get better quality. In the modern world, where harvest of fibers is possible from human byproducts, or with nearly free expenditures, there is another way to look at this, but for now, I will focus on using what exists in nature only versus buying what exists in stores.

The exchange is supposed to provide better quality, but one can easily learn to live with lower quality. Appearances are used to justify violence, and criminalization of people who differ regarding their clothing and those who wear home made clothing from twines may be subjected to attack, and assumptions about homelessness. They may not be able to get jobs. There are extremely serious consequences to this and this is why I chose clothing as an example. The exchange for having a market then resulted in both the need to procure the clothing with payments, but the need to have better clothing too to avoid being ostracized, being kept out of the market by being unable to pay for lack of a job and so on. This required the additional assumption, that is true, that not only does one need to buy clothes, one needs to keep them clean, buy them somewhat frequently, and buy clothes that have some competitiveness in appearance and perception. That entails a lot of work around clothing, which is apart from the substitution of payments for effort, which transfers effort also to work to have funds. It added more effort still.

From the above, I can plainly see, that the efforts and their forms have increased extremely in the substitution of payments for efforts. It substituted efforts and more efforts and the effort of making payments for effort.

And now we have to make payments for ourselves, to have ourselves.

I think on this line of argumentation that the idea of liberty and freedom is grossly incorrect. This is already a subject matter of the book I'm writing on Constraint and Determinism, but apart from causal determinism, in the domain of unhindered largely unconstrained action of humans who are unbothered by people, we find that really they are extremely bothered, and bothered to the extent that they have to buy their own lives.

I need to work on the actual strength of arguments here and examples but I think this conversation is germane to discussions in both of my books, Abandoning Equality, and Constraint and Determinism.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="speed-monkey-speed-lizard-and-whole-gila-innocuous-alternative-purpose-marketed-toys-undisclosed-as-sex-toys">Speed Monkey, Speed Lizard, and Whole Gila, Innocuous Alternative Purpose Marketed Toys, Undisclosed as Sex Toys</a>

*314 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 11, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Development of Desire | Innovation | Creativity Management 

Speed monkey, is a plushy toy stuffed animal, with an arm like a dildo, but concealed to be more apelike cartoon, and the arm vibrates, very rapidly. It plugs in for high power and it heats up to greater than human warmth, and has a simulated faster heart beat, for your comfort, love and enjoyment.

Speed lizard, is just like speed monkey, for those who wish to be less animalized as a primate. It helps them feel unprimate even if only for a little while. The lizard is beautiful, has some suface scaling and ribbing for enjoyment, and its tail vibrates excitedly, explaining the lizards slight smile. The lizard is like the stuffed animals had while young, but lizard. No fur, plenty of smoosh, except on the tail, that is more dangrous, attracting mates, and fending off enemies.

Whole Gila, is like speed lizard, but instead of an iguana or other varieties of speed lizardkind, it is a Gila Monster from the desert. It has a larger stubbier tail, with a knob, and a much larger club like head, for advanced affection.
It is recommended that younger users, and new users, spend some time with the other animal friends, before moving onto Whole Gila, unless faster to the finish is desired.

These are funny creations of mine, not without some sophistication and significance, and ready for patenting. I wonder, will this lead to my first humorous patent, or will it lead to generous sharing. Do I cling to this idea, or do I give it away charitably?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-scale-of-meritoriousness-relating-to-thoughts-ideas-and-actions">The Scale of Meritoriousness Relating To Thoughts, Ideas and Actions</a>

*314 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 12, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Creativity Management | A System of Thought | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation 

In the last posting, I talked about how certain ideas and accomplishments had that were had earlier may have greater significance, and how ideas which are seemingly simple, still are laudable, and good to be learned or discovered, because it was already shown, that such ideas were laudible in their initial discovery. In a way this is like saying that any culture that is true that is learned, that required effort to create, has some praiseworthiness still when learned easily, and when rediscoverd by children and adults functioning in isolation. Thuse a simple learning by a child of somethign that has high value in the original discovery is still culturally important and valuable to have learned, and also, if this were rediscovered in a tribal setting by an adult in another nation, it is very praiseworthy and receives that level of praise the child receives, but more because like the original finder or discoverer, this person discovered it nearly alone. The person is aiding in the culture building of ideas that are thought to make for the greatness of cultures that are thought to be very modern and advanced.

Here I want to trend towards linking this subject matter to the wider subject of value concepts, and of determining what value exists in human efforts, actions, thoughts, and discoveries. The above forms some part of this wider subject and will aid in the illumination of what has greater or less value, and will help for arriving at something analagous to an economy of value apart from money but inclusive potentially of money too. This may be a difficult pathway, but I'm aware of much that will be helpful, in the least, to moral thinking. That is what we want to discover most, it appears, to know what seems to be more fundamental regarding moral valuations which can be used as a larger guide of human behavior and governmental/economic planning. Economic planning may seem as though it would be the authority, but what they are ostensibly trying to do, with economic planning, is to increase human well being and wellfare, but they have not done the very best job of linking these subjects, such that the moral efforts they assume themselves are justified. If they were justified, our personal morality would be altered favorably, if their findings were true.

I will gradually add in subject matter here in a slightly asystematic way as I think of related important elements, because I do not yet envision a comprehensive way of discussing the subject. The growth here will be organic. The development of the book Evaluative Concepts and related books will be more systematic. It's helpful to allow one to write this way in order to arrive at a better manner of communication later or in parallel.

Now I want to think a bit more about what makes certain thought unmeritorious, given the earlier discussion that oftentimes, really easy learnings and thoughts still have good merit. We can remind ourselves about this thinking about how education begins with nothing, and arrives later at an adult showing excellences. But it is still clear that there are non-meritorious ways of thinking. But I want to separate non-meritorious ways of thinking from ways that deserve less merit, like learning those lessons that happen to be easiest and have value, but not so much value as to prompt any outward celebration from others.

Even potty training can be better than this kind of learning, because it is more significant and vital, and probably ought to be rewarded with celebration.

It is important to mention event these kinds of learning, else parenting and early personal learnings have not been mixed in, with thinking about merit adequately.

Culturally, we do not consider thoughts or actions to be laudible, if they have as their basis, faulty reasoning, and if the extent of that faulty reasoning is very extensive, it indicates that severe results apart from certain directly related actions will occur, and we think less of the minds that have those thoughts, even on little exposure. Initially, this should make it clear, that whether or not this is justified, as a way of determning merit, we know that almost universally, people will call stupid, the behaviors that relate to such thinking, the thinking itself, and if repeated enough, the minds that do both. I think we have to do a little work, since we want to be reductionistic, to arrive at why this might be the case, with some good sample of examples, that will allow us to be confident, that this public propensity, happens to be at least partly reasonable.

I think what we will find gradually is that all are faulted in line with the topic of my book Human Shortcomings, which shows that, humans simply have not attained a very great sophistication in utilization of logic and scientific thinking, removal of superstitions, or psychological cognitive errors. All people really are making errors using some of these issues, and unfortunately most make mistakes often with the majority of these kinds of errors. They'd like to hear they are doing better, but unfortunately they are not. This is easy, even just looking at the extent to which any individual makes good logical inferences probabilistically on good evidence, scientifically and logically, and if they know what that would look like, or how to do it. Finding specimens of what it looks like in prose is impossible nearly, for very few people would serve to be exemplars. Social media examination of communications would immediately show the extent of this issue. But, the issue still exists on a scale, and this amounts to saying humans as a whole are somewhat low on the scale of what is possible and are developmentally early. But one can still identify specimens exhibiting the worst by making the largest mistakes most frequently, or even some who only make reasoning mistakes, or those only exhibiting emotional problems, or nearly always. This would include those with brain damage, serious psychiatric conditions, those insane, and so on. People who are severely retarded or mentally disabled may also be those with psychiatric conditions and they would be unable oftentimes to learn any reasonability.

Just above this are those people who society really detests often. The people who appear on judge shows, and talk shows that are basically zoo experiments or exhibits that some laugh at, showing the least intelligent, most poorly passibly behaved people, existing outside of prison and institutions, doing drugs, damaging close relations, making social mistakes, those unable to be trusted in any way, and so on. These are the people who stick together, and appear together on these shows, an live in slums and worse areas together, because really, others cannot choose well if they decide to be with them. So they are relegated to their area, gradually fleeing from wherever happened to be nice, or remaining in a place where they feel safe, together, where mutual judgment exists less.

There is some especially non-meritorious about thinking that is nonsensical. Up from nonsensical, delusional, psychotic thinking, is just really illogical thought, thought that still does not make sense but is not completely exclusive of some meaning or truth. There's too much untruth. Idiotic and uncreative lies. Creative lies are valued oddly, and some think if children show good lying, they must be better thinkers. But beneath this are the lies that are stupid lies. Stupid lies, more obvious to others indicates less merit. Inability to trick others calls for demerit. Being gullible causes demerit. I happen to demerit on the basis of belief in superstition, but somehow just above this lower level, gullibility still exists and is popular. And this is partly I think why average people are often considered non-meritorious, and pretend to smarter to avoid this consequence. But together, the more average people are beliving in ghosts, dieties, spirits, poltergeists, angels, devils, afterlives, underworlds, jinxes, unlucky or lucky omens, sasquatches and fanciful beings, and so on. Those believing these things are less meritorious oftentimes to others, even if others don't say it and partake, becasue there is some awareness that lucky charming is nonsense. But much of this exists in normal average thinking. Normal and average thinking, we have to admit readily, is less than more intelligent thinking, and has less of a development potential regarding scientific, mathematical, logical, and sympathetic thinking. It's all on a scale, and well, what is regular simply is not providing us models of excellence.

For a moment I thought this too global, but I also know, that logical linguistic thinking is not easy, so it cannot be the case, because regular standard writing and language and speaking is filled with illogic, that the average folk could be suddenly outside of this thinking. They are inside it and are less than what is recorded or heard, because they are not the ones writing books and creating these various works that are shown, and those do exhibit errors still. If we look to errors in music we get closer to what is below average and average and sometimes just above errors and music is like a horror story of nonsense.

It's like pre-education state of civilization in a way, this world we are living in. Politicians can't make sense and they are the leadership and it is easy to show they don't make sense.

In order to discuss this further, we'll need to get into simple logical mistakes that people make, and psychological mistakes. I am not quite in the mood or prepared to do this, but I'll mention that simple logical mistakes are being made, like with the plain application of truth values to statements that are fictional.

I'll develop this and will provide examples soon.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="triviality-banality-simplicity-and-significance-in-creative-ideation-and-thought">Triviality, Banality, Simplicity, and Significance in Creative Ideation and Thought</a>

*314 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 11, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 

The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | A System of Thought | Thoughtstream | Creativity Management 

Creative ideation that concerns solutions and findings that relate to what has been discovered by others elsewhere, to some, does not constitute good thinking, or good ideation, erroneously, on grounds that there is insufficient newness, if another person happened to discover it already. While this is obviously not the case, and I won't spend too much time on it, I'll mention two points, firstly, that what someone does on another planet, or on another continent, or just widely separate from another, such that what was done is laudable to others, is disconnected from that other, and while disconnected removing any claims that what was discovered should be known, still preserves for both what might really be praiseworthy. People do things in isolation, and when one learns in a laudable way, it confirms some laudability of what is done elsewhere in isolation, but that one happened earlier does not affect that the other in terms of the laudability. If there are apparent counterexamples, what is true in the counterexamples will be separate from which came first or second, it will be more concerning the degree of ignorance that exists for the one or the other in the arrival at the solution, with the understanding that sometimes, if solved earlier there was more thinking and less support from others. But even in that case, what was more self-driven in the earlier case did not remove totally the novelty and significance for the other in isolation. Doing a social comparison, one might simply be more impressive than the other, but the other may still be more impressive than much else that could be compared.

Triviality, banality, and simplicity here relate, because if someone happened to have a similar idea elsewhere first, the idea had again by someone else is to others sometimes reduced to being insignificant. That this is true could be seen from considering what trivial or banal findings kids might have in their developmental path. These learnings by children or young people worked on independently in isolation from the findings of adults who live presently or lived earlier remain laudable in a way justifiable by the appraisal of those other adult findings. Thus banal, trivial, or simple ideas, showing independent creativity and discovery, can and do show significance in ideation and thought. But we've called them basic, knowing that at the present time, the information may exist even if not researchable from culture.

My interest here at the moment is not really to defend children and others using creativity or doing problem solving from the judgement of others who cannot think it aright, as much as to try to arrive at a clarified definition of what is more trivial or more simple. If it is clearly identified what is easy, both in the learning process, and independent discovery process, and this clear identification also allows for explaining what is laudable or not, or how meritorious some activity or learning is on a scale, then we will have it defined for us, what is smart in work and stupid, a better idea as to what words to use for others thinking and efforts, and a good view of what really happens to be trivial or not.

Using this, we can start to build a scaled approach at understanding conceptually and communicating more clearly about the relative value of other people's thinking and accomplishments, undrstanding value of things when one is entirely alone too, versus when one is in a culture, or in a set of cultures. This is needed because humans remain in confusion about whether what they do is valuable or not, with a real worry about complete devaluation in the estimations from others. Seeing the above we already saw that complete devaluation will occur with a profound independent discovery of something that turns out to already have been discovered by another potentially in another country. Like if someone in Russia solves a complex problem, that say, was already solved in The United States. People in Russia, learning the discovery already exists, really will completely devalue and claim insignificance regarding this discovery, while not understanding, that the praise for the other discovery, confirms the praiseworthiness, of the independent find in Russia. That we know this to be the trend in experience, we already are aware to give less value to the estimations of others. But the issue exists, why have these others not been educated correctly to make it uncommon.

The result of this effort would be both trivial and basic after adoption and education of everyone, because all would be unable to see how, in the past, this mistake could be made, and all easily think together in this new way, that happens to be simple itself. So even this is a case of trying to arrive at a solve of high significance and importance, that is not apparent to others, but not entirely unknown to all others either, and yet it would be reclassified as unimportant or regular/normal later on. Since kids will need to still learn this, their learnings would be reclassified as trivial or simplistic, without any praise if learned well.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="scepticism-key-used-to-quickly-relate-like-footnotes-to-items-indicating-clear-relation-use-often-in-some-context-less-in-others-but-with-the-difference-being-due-to-justifications-relating-not-to-inapplicability-but-unreasonability-of-the-quantity-of-use">Scepticism Key, Used to Quickly Relate Like Footnotes to Items Indicating Clear Relation, Use Often in Some Context Less In Others, But With The Difference Being Due to Justifications Relating Not To Inapplicability, But Unreasonability Of The Quantity of Use</a>

*313 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Editing

This could be renamed something like "An Initial System For The General Utilization of Skepticism", which is a fitting title for the subject matter, particularly because no such system has been universally taught as part of the school curriculum and something such as this truly is necessary. It could be included within school curricula and college practice as part of a new teaching of logic. Logic has not been taught within the school system, and is only first really encountered within Philosophy, particularly college philosophy, which teaches logic to go along with an understanding of proper skepticism. Logical analysis would provide reasons to be skeptical and provide avenues for reducing the need once sufficient reasoning and evidence approaching proof has been arrived at. There are still some avenues within philosophy for challenging norms which may come to exist in the dogmatization of what is thought to be fact arrived at from intially skeptical investigations.

This provides one starting point for wider use of skepticism. People know what skepticism is largely, and know sometimes to be critical, within the larger atmosphere of assumption and conformism. But the manner in which skepticism arises is sporadic, and sometimes infrequently, sometimes frequently, depending on how critical the thinker happens to be. A critical thinker with good skill will find many things to be skeptical concerning and will have to self-supress or throttle their excitement at critique, to allow others the comfort of abstaining from sustained examinations and analyses. Not many people find that highly enjoyable or have endurance to consider it an enjoyable recreation. I tend to find it funny and often it relieves and comforts rather than labors my mind. We kindof know this too, people just use their minds and only sometimes openly or internally critique things in an analytical way akin to what philosophy advocates in a healthy use of skepticism.

Or another perspective could be true, when it is not intellectual and sporadic, it is pervasive and common, in socialization about what is disagreed with or what is not liked. This may actually be a more complete way of looking at it if this is included.

That would make skepticism something a bit more obvious because people are disliking and challenging seemingly everythig around if the population is checked regarding total reactions to anything in particular. There is no universal favor.

Either way, in conversation too much passes along without criticism, and without sustained analyses with a skeptical mindset both of what requires culminating answers, and regarding the answers had, which may require additional reflection. Skepticism teaches that one seems to be more correct if one gives time to test one's own viewpoints rather than immediately have too much trust in initial reactions. This kind of criticism does differ from the common skepticism I talked about above because many do seem to trust too many of their own conclusions with inadequate testing and self-criticism.

There is not really a clear methodology used in any of this. The criticism is just sometimes about whatever appears to have defects. Some people are aware of the classes of defects that exist logical and psychological, but even in my experience amongst those educated concerning the types of errors that exist, their knowledge about it isn't that structured or methodical and the criticism works, but is somewhat sloppy, and relates more to what their intuitions say about what they perceived or detected to be false, in the ways they can perceive and detect things to be false. So people are walking around like partially complete defect detectors. They see defects often but in their own ways, and they don't know all the ways, and they do it asystematically. They often do it well, but there needs to be a better more comprehensive methodology behind it. This is like pre-methodical natural error detection resulting from good thinking with insufficient education or organization to the education. Note I'm not talking about people as being "uneducated", instead I'm wanting to convey that even in mathematics, science, and philosophy in the study of logic, and in the law, this is not so well done as people think, and what they come out with after all this formal education is really closer to a native understanding of how to do some of it, but still without a clear and comprehensive method.

If one disagrees with this, I have a challenge. Can one point out a handbook, that really does pull together the possible forms of error and areas of skepticism for people to methodically address, such that there is an authority or trustworthy source that all can rely on, to some degree? There is nothing combining those elements which are required. Science has its way of discussing an approach at valid knowledge, epistemology has some to add, logic speaks about soundness and good valid logical inferences, computer science does too, and so do language studies. But that is not combined, and needs to be combined with, probability and statistics, and most importantly the defects that exist from a study of psychology and neuroscience. Perceptual errors, illusions, delusions of various kinds, effects of indoctrination, and many other areas of related results. Cognitive errors, limiations. These play a role in identifying what one should be skeptical about.

The impetus for writing this particular piece was my realization that in history or archaeological museums, statements about artifacts and works of ancient art, and buildings, tended to use statements that never indicated any margins of error, any issues with approximations, and too many assertions with no indication that there could be any incorrectness. There is pretense too frequently, universally and without exception in museums nearly, that all that is stated happens to be true. But in my estimation the margin of error must be very large, and expected frequency of accurate veracity might be less than 50% in some cases. Depending on the museum, what is stated for knowledge may be true less than 20 percent of the time. Much correction would be needed with full knowledge. For some reason they do not expect this? They do not expect that if they learned the entire story, that their lack of direct information, would result in an actual difference between what they said and what was real? This is a clear case in which skepticism is needed.

I had this idea that like a map, there can be along with some works, initially, a key that relates to various forms of errors, defects and areas of skepticism that are relevant, and that this key can be checked against, markup in writings in museums and history, that tell you without dwellign or talking about it too much, what areas of skepticism exist, that would be shown in the key. It's like a guide as to what might be false and in what way. A guide to truth in writing like a guide to the usage of a map.

The key that is used in a text, or in relation to writings of various kinds, like those in museums to cover the example, but more widely anything relayed as fact in nonfiction, can vary according to piece, to include only what is relevant, but the keys can all come from a standard sourcebook in keys, the standard reference, which pulls together all the key items, keys that can be borrowed in standardized form to add to texts, and includes additionally all one might need regarding errors of many different species. It would be both the reference text for these keys, with examples, but also a definitive reference in progress, regarding errors of all kinds, pulling together what must be related from those interdisciplinary fields I was talking about.

It may be possible for me to provide an initital example or move forward on it, and alread I am intending to work on something akin to this, to discuss error correction as it relates to ethics and moral philosophy. Much of what ethics is, and moral philosophy, is to self correct until one has more excellences. Since many people are engaged in such an effort, I think people would quickly understand that eliminating errors from the mind and thinking is vitally important seriously in ethics and not only in these areas of inquiry like history where nonfictional statemnts happen to be made. It is a task of self-improvement.

A useful part of this effort could also be to arrive at what is usable. In technology, in user experience work, and design, is what is called "usability" which relates to the extent to which the software is flawed or useful for actual humans interacting, to determine if changes are needed to be more inclusive of people with disabilities, or to simply make the software not have stressors and so on. the goal is a smooth use of the software. Well, in self improvement, trying to do things like adapt ones mind to new information like logic and self-change due to knowledge of fallacies and illusions, requires considerable self work if done without tools, but with tools, still requires a degree of work that could be unreasonable depending on how much change seems to be necessary. This is an area where it will seem too much change seems necessary. So usability regarding the tools, and output of actual usable texts and information, will benefit from some understanding of optimality for the writer and reader, or information creator or consumer, to have some comfort with the undertaking.

This should make sense since if one is using exercise equipment, and everything is new equipment, one really would need to learn what is reasonable or not. Imagine if nobody ever used gym equipment? There would be strange risks, obsessions, injuries, misuse, and less appreciation for limits of the human body and appearances. Even today the same happens to be true, but people seem to be better at knowing what is healthful or not. I think people have somewhat improved in this domain with increasing knowledge of sports and sports tools. But with self improvement for logical and psychological rigor without error this is a new domain. People might state it's not, but it is, given the absense of tools like I'm discussing. I would agree, that people are aiming for improvement of their mind with self-help, and do have unreasonable expectations, like to be enlightened and reach nirvana or to be transported to an afterlife with a diety. These are unreasonable and unhealthy. These also exist because there is too much credulity and not enough skepticism. Adding skepticism will help this situation, but what I'm talking about here is that skepticism too can lead to a desire for incredible precision, and the unattainable mind, like having an impeccable body. Some can get further than others. It is highly practical to have the right tools, but also with a knowledge of those tools, what is reasonable for self-development.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="everything-we-do-costs-food-wakeful-awareness-and-recovery-what-is-the-complete-list-of-costs">Everything We Do Costs Food, Wakeful Awareness, and Recovery. What is The Complete List Of Costs?</a>

*313 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Economics | Evaluative Concepts

There are two subjects where I've covered this at least, that of the cost of communication and listening, and audience having, as discussed in the last writing, and in my discussion on an alternative usable definition of "free" in the marketplace, where one is making purchases. I mentioned that in that context I consider "free" to be, at present, anything less than $2.00, thinking about foodstuffs, and in part of my rationale for that, I talk about how obtaining food in foraging, even has a cost, and it can exceed that number, because of the amount of energy used. $2.00 can cost less than foraging. If the foraging was free, we can treat that as free, but I don't use only those reasons; and, I am aware that one can simply use another perspective too. This is a perspective of specific instrumentality.

However, the discussion about everything having a cost including foraging is actual.

Oftentimes, there is a comparable cost in money which can make discussing most things on an economic basis reasonable, and the early economists were also moralists, thinking they could have an economic and reductionistic calculus for both the market and for human behavior. I think one can have a calculus, or set of calucli, with difficulties in finding for commensuration, but that instrumentality and advancement on the instrumentality are undeniable. One becomes more sophisticate and moral using such tools and one feels this as we (or I) strive aright, with early tools, while we live in a primitive state of tool-lessness. Economics and math were not in wide use until very recently, when school became available. 

We did not have school.

Anyway, the point about morality pertains to the idea that behavior involves decision making, and habit formation, that are benefitted by smart plans, that do include computations. If they included all the related mathematics and science, they would be more maximally optimal.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="what-qualifies-your-audience-or-listeners-to-hear-you">What Qualifies Your Audience or Listeners To Hear You</a>
 
 *313 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Relationships | Audience | Human Resources | Economics | Resume

While it may not appear that listeners really do need to provide their qualifications in order to hear certain things, there are many domains in which is not the case. Qualifications really do need to be provided. Two kinds of qualification will quickly show this to a reader, the first is the financial qualification that one either has sufficient money to be in an audience, or has paid to be in an audience, and the second are working contexts in which one cannot have access to people without first getting hired, but this extends to many kinds of groups with requirements for joining or being admitted and not only jobs. You cannot spend time with people in universities or faculty very easily without first getting admitted to the schools? One cannot access the higher administration of religions without first being admitted, easily, but later without having social requirements to be involved with those more powerful. In general, there are social requirements, akin to admissions, for people to simply allow one to have any access to them, in group relationships or in friendship. Or to have any communication.

From the above it is abundantly clear that people do have to meet criteria for qualifying to listen or hear oftentimes, or to be audience members too. This is the class of relationships that is less transactional. Since the above applies to both, it includes also the one directional.

Sometimes one can pay to be admitted into a group, a conference, to be a member of an organization, a political group, or an investment group. Sometimes one can pay to meet a star, or to see a concert; either way, one has to pay.

If one wants to read a book, or to listen to a book aloud, one oftentimes has to pay for that too. Now from this, it is appearing, that to be in an audience, is to be in a market, and that to hear or listen, one does very often need to pay.

If messages are especially worthwile, a payment or qualifications are often required, otherwise it is free. It is free in friendship, or free online, on the radio or on television. But to qualify for the both you *still need qualifications*. You need to convince someone you are worth being around and make small efforts and expenditures to remain in touch. You need to pay for a television, computer, or radio, in order to hear from those, while this would be more evident in history than now. These are not free although now they are less costly. Additionally even to have free content, of oftentimes poorer quality, one has to watch or listen to advertisements, and in a way, to see advertisements, people have to buy the products, and there is some probability that you're the one doing that. So even to see advertisements, there has to be some expectation of transaction, and if they do not receive it, advertisements stop. But they don't stop because you and others really do pay them, and those funds, pay for the ads too. Your contribution to a business is allocated to marketing, so you pay it twice, when you buy and when you watch.

When starting this posting out, I didn't think I would trend to the finding, that this amount of listening was paid for. Let's try to find something that's not paid for. To do that, however, it is clear effort has to be removed. I think even in an immediate environment, with family present, available to talk for free, there is still an effort cost. Unless we remove the effort cost, nothing will turn out to be free for listening.

Family seems to provide ongoing free listening experiences. Friends do a bit too. Perhaps we can say light advertising also can be omitted so on social media, some of our reading of posts and comments and some exposure to videos and entertainment is free. Maybe we can say that, trips to free events that are somewhat nearby, constitutes free listening too. If one goes to the urban center of one's city, and there is some gathering, with speakers, maybe we say that's free.

Here we can say, probably without too much mistaken, that on the more accurate conception of costlessness, no communication is free. On a more relaxed version of costlessness, some things emerge as free such as those listed above, but there is some irritation knowing that these really do have costs while we put that aside for the moment. I personally think radio does not feel free. Talking with friends and family does feel free. Predatory behavior wants you to think social media is free, so to let that slide too long for the sake of conversation can be dangerous, which shows just how much it really costs; nevertheless for now we will say that it is free.

Now let's change directions. I went on this exploration not to discuss any irritations about not being unobstructed from having cost free listening experiences or to be in some audience. What I wanted to talk about is having qualifications for other people simply to hear you talk. While in the above discussion, we were talking about how others are really compensated for you hearing them, or how they are filtering who can talk to them for other reasons, I'm thinking about how liberally people are willing to communicate with others, with a strange idea that all are equal, and all must have genuine conversations with whoever happens to be around, or willing to speak to all. How absurd is this idea?

In public, people think there really is a togetherness such as this, where they ought to liberally share. It's a giving generous attitude that is inconsisent observed over time. All are good and we can have relationships with all, and we are all equal, and why not share and talk and give lovingly or kindly without too much reflection about who the people we are relating to are.

On reflection this is incredibly naive. While I've been willing to engage strangers for quite a long time, gradually it has been shown to be a largely non-worthwhile activity. I've said worthless or negative worth at times. One has to pretend there are only positive valuations to relationships, but recal that in all the above, with the cost of qualifying, and the filtering that happens to hear someone, there is the meaning that having someone listen who is not qualifying, or not filtered, is somehow a detriment to them. Detriments imply negative valuations. Since this is so common, it must be admitted, that for any and all listening experience, using the stricter costing perspective above, there is some negative valuation within the composite of negative and positive valuations and sometimes it is net negative. I've written it is hard to be net positive. But this explains why one has to work even to *find good friends*.

Thinking to myself further about relationships the trend is to increasingly reduce it, with my present preference for solitude, after plenty of longterm friendships and very large numbers of other friends and acquaintances. Many jobs, many customers and colleagues too. Solitude has been very pleasant, and while I've been traveling alone for a long time, a number of years now with very little social interaction, there has been no desire to increase it, the desire instead is to nullify any interactions that happen, using monging, explained earlier, to transactionalize automatically required formal small-talk type relations, with businesses and others.

So instead of going against the costs of having listeners, I'm willing to go beyond the naivete of the odd liberality of unstrategic promiscuous talking, to a strategy that requires qualifications. And guess what? That is what happens when one realizes that one has to transition, if one is a producer of art, literature, or other media, from socializing too much, to simply having customers and a paying audience for those things, while one selects carefully who one talks to, for business purposes, to further that effort, and within that effort are enjoyable discussions.

What qualifications am I creating? Am I making a kind of job type list of criteria for others to fulfill to be able to listen to me? Yes, that is what I'm thinking of! And even this sounds like it could offend, but one does not feel responsive to beggars, and homeless approaching who might look ungrateful or dangerous? One does not want to admit friends into relationships without considering cleanliness, appearance, and social standing. People are filtering more than they think they do, as I said in contradiction to, their sometimes advocated perspective of indiscriminate socializing.

Men and women both will reject others from approaching if they do not appear desirable for intercourse later. This means the discussion hinges on sexuality and attractiveness, and oftentimes not only for that intercourse, but the view that intercourse is worth thinking about potentially. In other words, they have to seem good enough to be around to get something out of it that relates to sexuality and attractiveness even if it does not result in a relationship and even if there aren't intensions like that. I seriously do not especially want female friends if they are not very attractive to me, and this is also because, since we know the above, we know it can trend towards relationship wanting on the other side, which means that other person may become sexually interested, but one knowns one doees not want that. It is a much nicer life to be around a pool of potential mates, even if you're not openly believing that potential exists. It's nice to be around attractive people, and they become your listeners, because they supply that value to you.

So it's not weird, but normal, and even in-built, to qualify people for having closeness or proximity to you, for a number of reasons including but not limited to those mentioned above. So adding qualifications is not really so strange as it seems.

Reasons people give for wanting others to pay for hearing and listening to them are not only about making money. They also involve the respect given once someone does pay. In some relationships, some are quite rude and unsupportive. If someone pays, already they are providing you some support. So you've already done some filtering, for those people who could be more kind to you. Also, there is an economy of sharing, and efforts do matter in choosing how to communicate. It is better to avoid useless progressless socialization, in comparison to forward looking, goal oriented, sharing that exists when one is productively doing art, writing, or media productions of various kinds. Some say they put their communications into the writing and not into the socializing. There is limited energy. One results in too many benefits, while the other seems to over time result in lack of progress and frustration. So some think to avoid the socialization that is more indiscriminate and unplanned, happenstance relationships, and focus on goal oriented communication with some requirements.

So now I need to think more about the exclusivity I want to have for listeners to be able to access my work, that is humorously free at the moment. Typically for more intimate, personal converation, few have had access as of late, and that has consisted of people who have regrettably had access to me or vise versa in the high intelligence community. Other times it has been with customers, colleagues of very high quality, and certain longer term work generated friendships. But I'm trending even these downwards. The other group are those who have purchased my first book, a very small group, who bought my hand bound, self-published book. These were expensive editions at 100 per copy, so those who supportive, were very supportive, and they had the reading and some small writings in return. These folks don't bother me, or obstruct my interests; instead, they've listened at a rate of 100 per book, and have been largely silent. It's a very worthwhile path I can see.

More on this subject later for certain, since I'm tiring of writing of this in a sustained way for now.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-family-as-a-cult">The Family as a Cult</a>
 
 *312 Wanattomians, Monday, June 9, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

 Cults | Relationships | Religion | Learning 

 For this writing I'm not wanting to expand too much, because on brief reflection it is true and true in many ways. Some cults appear to be partly modeled on the family with a father figure being the person to submit to. A mother type character sometimes plays a role. All in the group will not do well trying to alter the group, and outward independence and difference is strongly deterred, thwarted, punished, resisted, ridiculed, &c. Learning is much like indoctrination, and learning is not only formal education, modeling and teaching, but pruning and channeling. Behaviors in a range are allowed. Views expressed have to remain within boundaries and persuasion may not be a part of the experience. Parents rely on force and bereatment, repetition, and simply being the only adult in the child's presence. Exclusivity of influence is sought. Choice of mentor is disallowed. Other parents are ridiculed and considered dangerous.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
 
 ## <a name="insanity-of-audiences">Insanity of Audiences<a>
 
 *312 Wanattomians, Monday, June 9, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

 Relationships | A System of Thought | The Value of Social Platforms

 Too many times, too often, humans have had a person or small group, on a stage or with a microphone, in front of them, ready to agree, act like the others, give power to the speaker, stare straight ahead, and even assent to religiously give up their independent thinking.
 
 Sporting events, political rallies, meetings of all sorts, religious services, lectures at school and elsewhere, collectively watching and responding to the news, watching musical events, and any other gathering you can thing of with an auditorium like setup.
 
 These are people on reflection I do not want to be near or among in any meaningful way excepting to have a minimum level of a social life. People watching and so on.
 
 They are unable to see the problems with it, and it will be a part of what determines future events.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
 
 
 ## A Reduced Quantity Of Behaviors Following Removal Of Those Not Gainful Or Thought Increasing
 
 *312 Wanattomians, Monday, June 9, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
 
 Relationships | Com | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Attention Management
 
 Now in this book there have been extensive writings on a decreasing value of relationships, communication, and thinking. Additionally, I wrote about the illusion we have that attention is as valuable as people think, particularly for those with a reduced gainful social pool of people for whom there would be mutual development. Here I want to grow this topic, to begin to cover the changes that might make sense to ones normal activities, reducing what they are, because their use for self improvement also decreased.
 
 A simple example follows from the dwindling value of socialization. If speaking to people has become too repetitive, eventually it feels as though it is not communication-conversations can become vacuous, and feel like they have no value or negative value. Many think this way but going further what does this entail about the activity? Here I'm wanting to explore the idea that what we are doing begins to become making sounds at one another, or moving mouths at one a another, being near and breathing rhythms. This too is not new as in commonplace communication people talk about people blowing wind or hot air, or simply behaving like birds or herd animal- but I don't think people carry it into action in the interesting ways I have in mind. Some people who say these things are just not smart and cannot socialize well, and discount the activity, becoming self-isolated and avoidant, or reclusive. Some of these people pretend others have defects and they are not worth being with, and they'll make some of the statements above, that are just traditional canned expressions, and don't really think along this trajectory, but I'm not claiming this is entirely new or none have done so.
 
 Monging is a practice that is akin to formalized robotic customer service, which coming from me is the other way around when used against business personnel but is used more generally to make conversation automatically non existent but largely favorable to oneself. This is not like being reclusive. It is like recognizing communication isn't happening and dealing with it otherwise, to make it go all the way to vacuity, which is the real direction of development anyway. 
 
 This is one way of altering behavior to account for diminishment of value of certain behaviors, and is somewhat like reducing the behavior and all it can be to something very minimal, and clipping it from experience.
 
 Standing near each other, sitting beside or across each other, also constitutes something less than what people would want to grow it to, pretending great significance of togetherness, as though repetition and low thinking and sameness doesn't eventually make it less important.
 
 Some people who would talk like this in less intellectual ways would be the elderly who really have experienced the same too many times.
 
 Sitting for a drink seems similar. Eating loses a but of its value. One loses taste over time. I want to further reduce these activities in ways that are appropriate and have done so with water drinking only and my new adventure of meal automation. Tea time is really not anything to me.
 
 Tea time is like sitting again, with a drink that people used oddly to name the event, to the extent that if you have water, it's not tea so others may get angry, sitting near each other is like bodies in the space, and what is said is like worthless false information too often played through speakers that are the mouths. Dead information, and bodies at each other, with stops in breathing for voices, and drinks unneeded with a spend.
 
 With a spend.
 
 Thinking this way we can see we are decreasing the range of activities, because while before we would allow for subcategorization of things like drinking as drinking at a bar, which is now, ingesting fluid in an enclosed space with bodies breathing with noise. Drinking coffee is the same. So there are fewer activities.
 
 Before I talked about diminishing value of thinking and of imagination about what is really outside of sensory space, to now reduced value of activity. I didn't deal with this directly in this way, although I did arrive at my reduced list of behaviors within a activities I'll perform regularly within a 3-day cycle. But this takes things a bit further in a different direction. I need to produce a list of remaining behaviors and activities and see what it alters about my three day process. I think probably it will not alter that list regarding what it includes as much as it will change my interpretations and meanings concerning it. 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="ramifications-of-the-mistaken-view-of-equality-rampant-across-the-globe">Ramifications of The Mistaken View of Equality Rampant Across The Globe</a>

*311 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 8, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Abandoning Equality | Evaluative Concepts 

People are affected in nearly all the ways they can be affected with this incorrect concept that has too many life-relationships.

*One lives in foolish contradictions, and if severe enough, one has a fake life*.

- "Self Development Implies One Has Improved From Self and Others Like Former Self"
- Can't make sense of military strategy.
- "Societies can be improved"
- "Typically there is something better than you are, and are highly sensitive about not being the very best"
- "We are the best, we are number one!"
- Competition cannot be made sense of
- People want to give advice that is their advice, but the advice of others is equal
- Teaching doesn't teach the teaching other others, and is forceful to children who would want alternatives.
- Children are not allowed to choose their elders or information.
- Can't make sense of nationalities, and preferences for one's own nation, or feelings that another nation is filled with enemies.
- Rewards and the money system cannot be made sense of
- Mentorship assumes inequalities of importance with the mentors
- Can't make sense of family heritage and legacy plans because it has racial, ethnic, and linguistic prejudices
- If I adopted a child, I would discriminate
- "Sexual attractiveness is revolted by equality and has strong preferences for what is desired, and desire itself excludes with dislikes and mild and strong hatreds"
- "Equality if real would require might actual kindness and love without work". Since work is require it is untrue, and different people provoke divisions into those accepted and those not, those valued and those not, which implies an inequality.
- "Civilizations are equal" but you never think about the others hardly ever.
- "Religions are equal" even while they are enemy, and choice of one really does include rejection of others.
- "One cannot speak of exchanging parents or children", but they are all equal so one can easily have other parents, and other children instead, from other families, of other kinds of people.
- "Handicapped people are left out of the conversation because it is too obvious they are unequal for real and would never be accepted as equals"
- "People claim there is equality, but think the afterlife is exclusive to the special"
- "There are fools thinking themselves chosen people of their religion, and in their behavior they obviously believe themselves superior to those they think are not"
- "Hells have a valuation that assumes non-equality"
- "Prayer against other teams" shows foolishness that other teams are not thought to be equal, even religiously

*Weak people are unable to think it and remain weak*. They can't think about things like how easily they can be killed, submitted, defeated or embarassed, and they may stay fearful because of their dishonesty.

*Believing In Human Equality Results In Excessively High Self-Appraisal For Some, Excessively Low Appraisal For Others, and Incorrect Appraisal for All*.

*Truths can be used for strategic advantages in warface, wheras those stuck in untruths will be put at a substantial weakness*. Since in many democratic nations, they are unable to think carefully enough about humand differences to notice them in detail, and enemy who is attentive to differences will have a realistic evalutation of self and other, wheras the one's who cannot do such an evaluation, know neither well.

*Those groups that have been unable to understand human behavior as a zoologist would, in all details observable, making comparisons with other primates and other animals, understanding that humans are animals, will have eventually a very impressive understanding of humans wheras others, who use "equality" to inhibit investigation and comparison, being sensitive and easily offended, will avoid the subject matter, as they currently do, and will appear ignorant like they do, for not doing that.* There will be a very stark comparison between the actual darkness of information about self an dothers, compared to the obviously intelligent and creative and brilliant thinkign of those who actually have the scientific understanding. One advances, the other does not. One group remains sensitive about it as a sensitive matter, the other transitions to medical understanding, not being sensitive or offended, and intellectual about what is known and understood.

*Equality since it does not make sense can be used to stifle nations into endless disputation internally about what it means, how to have it, and what changes should be made to encourage it.* Many democratic nations have wasted a considerable amount of time discussing equality with very few internal improvements, and internal changes, to grow equality, which does not make sense, implies internal changes that are not making sense. Many democratic nations, while others are advancing, have simply stagnated in bickering, about how to make things equal.

*Some pretend equality exists already so others cannot advance*. 

*Wartime propaganda can be used to make fools of nations that pretended to have equality, but cannot secure it, claiming that they are innefectual, stupid, or hypocritical. Their greatness rested on it but it was lies*.

*Sudden violence, internal stress, social snapping*. Since ideas about equality have not been realized, and goals are not clear, and people who understand it is too erroneous, will gradually become more and more discontented with their society, until some snap, and eventually it could lead to a need for dramatic change, which could become violent.

*Disgusting history of ignorance*. Instead of being proud of one's history, it becomes increasingly clear that one was stupidly indoctrinated, and one was not using good reasonign or thinking or reflection concerning topics of interest like peace and justice, and neither was one's countries founders or one's ancestors.

*Need for overhaul*. Eventually there is a realization that the erroneous thinking has infected too many activities related to the structure and operation of business, government, institutions, and regular communicative behavior, and that such changes will take a very long time, are necessary, and may not be fixable in a lifetime.

*One lives in foolish contradictions, and if severe enough, one has a fake life*.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="theft-by-historians-of-the-work-of-others-to-write-new-unneeded-history-texts">Theft By Historians Of The Work Of Others To Write New Unneeded History Texts</a>

*310 Wanattomians, Friday, June 6, 2025, Estoril, Portugal*

Human Shortcomings | Living Autobiography | History | Relationships | Com 

Recently I started reading a History on Portugal, and while reading that I was motivated to write a number of postings revisiting the value of historical writing, texts and expertise.

This book in particular, indicated to me what I wrote about yesterday, that historians are not able to add history. Anything they do add, that has not been already written, would involve logical explorations about what might have been possible, speculations, and simple lies and misinformation. They cannot add to history, and when they do, whatever they've added, would need to be flagged as having some level of suspiciousness. The reader is supposed to be informed, that what consists of thinking about history, or how it might have been, or how they author thinks it was, needs to be designated as such, to protect the reader, and of course, to protect history, and that all of the other writing, that's not of this kind, would be statements that are nearly identical or are identical in meaning to what was already written about or recorded before.

This means the historian cannot add their ideas for the most part! Nearly at all! They can transmit, from what they've read, and what they are reading to re-record, to copy from, what has already been written.

While reading this work on Portugal, it did seem to me much was chronology. Too much writing that is simply a list in a paragraph, of events, names and dates, for which one has no exposure. The author, since they did not invent the chronology, hopefully, and refrained from adding his own ideas, (there is no part of the book in which he indicates he adds anything of his own which would be needed), only included sentences that must be re-recordings of the same sentences, either identically, in paraphrase, or in translation.

Then I realized, that it was very likely that this historian simply rewrote a history and stole all the sentences from before and just used his own words. Since he cannot add his own history, this is all he can do!

So we have a strange conclusion that historians only steal history and transform it into their own words. This is surely an exaggeration, and I would have to size the extent, but whenever they are telling history, they have to really only be reconveying what evidence they had. I think some additional argumentation is required to show how this is the case in all instances but I'm convinced it is true. Relationships, logical inferences, and so on, have limited admissibility, and that's what they would be trying to find and use, and that's from their mind, and they would need to relay that. Because it can all be false.

The historian then, arguably, does not need to write additional history, except in those cases, where evidence is scattered, and requires combining. These would be new histories. But what has been combined into chronology, still is tying evidence together. And even in that case, mutual inclusion is somewhat unjustifiable sometimes. So existing chronology is questionable oftentimes.

But this writer, and many others, simply seem to be drawing on other histories already written. This book is a Brief History of Portugal, and while reading it, I really get the feeling, that the writer, who is not using citations, has a stack of books beside him, that he re-records selectively in his own text. Like he really is stealing mostly everything. Oddly, from what was stated above, in history it is expected to steal writing and simply combine evidence. This writer and other writers, do not do nearly enough citing. It really is true they are stealing it, but it happens to be the case that this is expected behavior in this strange field.

Imagine you are to write an essay on Portugese history, and it has to be ten pages long. You know you can't invent history. So you read some books. From these books you see sentences, and you remember them. You have the books beside you, so you refer to them. To write the history, you are not permitted to add, so all you can do is say again what they said. You plagiarize it. There is a limited extent to which you can use your own words, because when you use your own words, you may add translation, paraphrasing, and ways of describing events, which change those events, and how people think about those events. You are not permitted to hear the story of history and tell it differently in a way that changes it too much. So you either steal it verbatim, or you rewrite their sentences.

If you take a few books, write a small book on history, which is a longer version of your essay, do you think it is ethical, and reasonable, to rewrite sentences down? Then sell the work? Then claim you are a historian? Let's consider, that also you are a fraud, because someone who is not a historian, is then a historian, if they take sentences, and rewrite them. The scribe is the historian!

Since the historian steals the sentences, where do they originally come from? That is the strange topic of the writer who added too much in at the time they put evidence together, and devised their own narrative. Without indicating how and where and how often they added their own thoughts. They are not permitted to add their own thoughts without telling you you are at risk of speculations. How much of their works would remain, if all the parts they added were omitted? It would just be the evidence?

Does it not makes sense to present only evidence then?

There were a number of courses I took, that included source books on history. These source books were aggregate collections of evidence from history for which a narrative would be presented. But the books together already conveyed much history.

I can see now that I need to add more about this particular topic of first histories, using evidence, and to think about what the first historians add, compared to evidence. If you imagine works of history, you will know, many include no evidence, and just tell you with words, sometimes what that evidence might be, and one has to go find it or trust. Just words on pages, not museums and artifacts and buildings, and dead people raised alive. That never happens.

For now I have to conclude it is increasingly obvious that historians may be lost regarding the quantification of the veracity of their works and that they may go along doing what others have already done, unaware that all they are permitted to do is relay existing information or say more but confess it is likely false. When one is using inference where one does not know, one really is just guessing. We act like they are in the domain of 90% probabilities, but what if on average, they are in the 5% of probability. I think that's highly likely, that it's very low probabilities, not high ones, and if that is what are history is, is that not refuse? It's active lying about history while sharing what existed.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="synthesis-of-thought-and-time-limitations-on-revisitation-on-prior-thinking">Synthesis of Thought and Time Limitations on Revisitation On Prior Thinking</a>

*311 Wanattomians, Friday, June 7, 2025, Estoril, Portugal*

Mind and Mental Development | A System of Thought | Book Productions | ThoughtStream 

This ThoughtStream has become a very long and extensive writing, with ideas falling under numerous categories being included very often. These interdisciplinary and eclectic ideas each are expected to fit well within various books in progress. Also, the thoughts are often related together, which is a cause for having a number of keywords written above to show what subjects the thoughts belong to and how they might connect. My way of thinking has a very good amount of blending and synthesis, which is required if one is a very good thinker. If one has an insight that is true and has high generality, one expects to understand that generality, and to understand the implications what is learned. This means on will have and continue to relate the learning to whatever does relate, and will make changes to self and behavior wherever those implications call for it and where there is a good combination of time, energy and interest. Others who are less synthesizing in their thinking either just decide they don't care to self improve, mentally or behaviorally, or are actually unable to think with the same level of abstractness. Whenever I meet others, I can tell from their discourse, and progress with me conversationally over time, that they are always as a rule less naturally synthesizing compared iwth myself, not that I'm expecting that they would have this trait to that extent. Laziness or lack of generality in thinking appears to be the main causes of not doing what I mentioned above. 

Most are doing it to some degree, since this process really is required to some degree by most learning. Any learning that is going to be used later, has to have some generality regarding application, but this is far from relating diverse topics quickly to a level of abstractness that has traits of pandisciplinarianism (no one does this well in the thinking but it trends towards that) and most are not working hard to slef improve based on learnings. Probably the bigger defect is the latter, because it limits those who even have a good degree of abstract thinking.

Typically I'm doing a very good job relating subjects, but today I thought looking at the thoughtstream that it is really getting more difficult to tie subjects I've considered over the years to have mutual progress of related ideas. They are too numerous, and I would need to admit, some thoughts that have passed simply have not returned to memory for blending.

It may be possible to start to estimate the extent to which I'm limited on using my thoughts later, and for blending thoughts, given all that I'm having. While the Thoughtstream does a very good job of conveying what I've thought about recently, it does not include everything, because of course I don't write everything I think that has good significance, but I do tend to notice what is more interesting and novel to recall to write it down, if I don't simply write the ideas immediately upon realizing they are worth recording. Sometimes I have a laptop handy, sometimes I don't but wait for later to record.

Before I had my system of publishing my thoughts I would have had to let many more ideas go, as I talked about in my writing "The Burden of Having Too Many Ideas". It has been about 8 years since writing that though, and now I can say that much of the ideas I have really do get written down. I don't know the percentage written versus unwritten but soon I can estimate that too, if I just take note of what I think about in the day, what was significant and ideative, and what I wrote and didn't write. A decent estimation is all I think I can achieve regarding that in the near future.

Anyway, I think it possible to begin to measure and quantify sythetic thinking and limitations in myself, and this would provide a pathway to do it in others and compare people more generally.

What would it take, for me now, to load into memory, all the ideas from this thoughtstream, and what would the thinking be like, that blends it well. How much time would it take to read it all and comprehend it well, and what would the output look like afterwards.

I am very good at quickly loading and self-priming information I've thought about and have been exposed to in order to prompt ideation and readiness to think further about it. To develop and improve it. But here's an important comparison: before I was doing well blending my ideas without reading the writing, but now looking back, and seeing that I do not load many earlier thoughts, I'd have to do the priming. So there is how well I do without priming, and how well I do with it. There is also how much I get primed by: do I read all of it, or some reasonsable amount? What is reasonable. There are approximately one thousand postings here, many of which are long. Last I checked it was over one thousand pages, and now it is probably approaching 1200 and that excludes other writings including one full book that I'd want to have in memory to blend.

The writings are simply thoughts conveyed quickly here. If what I wrote is a good representation of what I think about, then largely to some percentage I will soon estimate, the writing is the same as what I've thought about. So I will learn the limit as to what I naturally combine and not combine, rate of letting things out of memory, and rate of reinclusion.

This is incipient, so I will talk about this more in the future. I want to relate this to some earlier writing on the impossiblity of oneness or holism, that I said was impossible already on brain division along sensory systems fundamentally, but it would be true due to other divisions as well. Obviously, If I do not recall earlier thoughts in order to blend them then they could not appear in any holism. They could and would appear in a related system, but not one that has holistic thoughts like some fraud gurus have claimed to have.

Notice since I said earlier, that laziness about self change and alteration of related domains of thinking from learnings means that anyone with that laziness is especially non holistic. Already it is impossible, but that person is more fractured and splintered, which is just a harsh way of saying what is natural, that thinking cannot be all combined and is divided. But the faux expert practitioner of some types of religious or new age thinking will claim they are whole, or holistic, or one, or are total, and so on, without any good justification. They are very much not that, and can't tell and can't make the changes out of said laziness!

But additionally as I said before, most are not very abstract in their thinking. Even someone who is more abstract and general, people like myself, think of abstract and general things about what they are about that's not about whatever else its not about! Or where unable to relate at that time. There is nothing that exists that blends mathematics in a mind, such that all math is the same math, and really that is a clincher refutation. An ultimately general mind would hold all math together simultaneously.

If both paragraphs above are remembered while existence is forgotten, then it will be readily known that those two are adequate together to know that holism is impossible. And the joke in that last sentence of course, is that your attention is limited.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="cognitive-limitation-on-defect-finding-in-short-videos-composed-of-many-clips-used-to-convey-higher-quality-that-actually-exists">Cognitive Limitation On Defect Finding In Short Videos Composed of Many Clips Used to Convey Higher Quality That Actually Exists</a>

*311 Wanattomians, Friday, June 7, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Mind and Mental Development | Filmographicvideo | Social Media Platforms | Livelihood | Music and Art

Here I want to compare the video productions in social media platforms in the shorter format which is common as video platforms scale in their ability to handle large videos, and supposedly artistic work in photography, and with advertising and music video production. Not all at once, but part by part.

I noticed today, while out for a jog in Lisbon, while thinking about the beautiful videos produced by people on social media in the short format, that while those videos are of very high interest, and are the result of the creativeness and image and video productions of many young people who have made good cultural contributions for the enjoyment and benefit of everyone else, that still, despite the many positives, the work really does capitalize on cognitive limitations to create an inflated sense of quality. I'm here speaking more about videos in the short format, and less about videos in the longer formats, that took potentially more time and care to put together, to create a longer period of attention, perceiving a more complex quality. This isn't the best demarcation or categorization because there's some that is more masterful in the short form, there is some that is not masterful in the long form too. Here I'm just focused on the short form.

Short form videos on social media composed of quick successions of images and shorter videos with captioning and voiceover have gained in popularity, to the extent that much of the entertainment that people are exposed to in recent years are on phone applications that show almost exclusively this form of content. This kind of content, which is made of user selected videos and photos, displayed in quick succession, somehow is very attractive to people watching. It seemst o me that this interest in these videos is nearly universal, and the presentation is effective, and this is not only a cause for the newer popularity of such videos in the last two decades, but also the cause of the effectiveness of advertisements that use a similar approach, and also music videos that are slightly longer but still rely on fast displays of chunks of content, sometimes so fast that what is shared is flashed at the user. Here I want to talk about why that might be popular before relating in the other topics.

I think it has to do with a cognitive limitation that appears irrefutable from my earlier studies in Psychology, that an observer is unable to really find defects in things shown to them at a rapid pace. If a user has clips of videos, and images they think are nice, and these are quickly flashed through to a user, in a span of say, 30 seconds to a minute, the watcher will be unable to see defects in what was shared, but will quickly pick up on the colors, some visuals in each, that did have good qualities which were the cause of the producer's having included them. So the observer, the person entertained, or the user of the software showing it, the audience, does get exposed to some quality. Sometimes very good quality. But they have no time to appraise what they are seeing, to evaluate the short exposures they are seeing. In this way, sometimes they aren't sure what they saw, and oftentimes don't reflect on what they are seeing suitably to notice what might be wrong or of less quality. There is insufficient time to see the details to know what is wrong, and too much shown in sequence to retain in memory for sustained independent reflection in the imagination. The quick images and videos shown still convey energy, a high level of stimulation, some of the qualities the producer wanted to convey, and some other characteristics that cause interest in the user. Because this interest and excitement and quality still exists, but the defects are much harder to notice, I think it is the case that user misappraise what they see to think it is higher quality than it is, and that they do this also for advertisement productions and short productions for music videos. Music videos especially seem to rely on this method of presentation if we are focusing on more traditional media and entertainment and not only new social entertainment.

This idea is not purely hypothetical and it is view I had before in another context: movie productions where what is wanted to be shown is too complex, so what is shown instead is fast. For example, in the movie Transformers, and all its sequels, if one looks at the transformation of the robots, one would expect, on close inspection, if it were really done well, that the transformation appears to be a realish one, with the steps from the robot being a car for example, to being a standing robot, or a plane, to have some realism. When the transformation occurs though, obviously, what has to be done is something creative and imaginary. It is possible to create a fake robot, which is what they are doing, and obviously that's all that could be done, that would show all steps of transformation such that it still looked real and maybe the idea could translate into a real world attempt to make a real model. Or a real robot, but that's far too hard. But that is not really feasible for a productions company to do. It's too hard to think about how the robots would transform. And they have to have many transformations within a single movie. So instead, they just show fast flashes of strange interstitial video and images that make it seem like the robots transformed, when obviously they didn't. There wasn't anything even imaginatively making sense about the transformations. It's whatever would fool the user into thinking it looked the robots transformed, and in a movie called transformers, they relied on speed, of sequences of video and images, to create an illusion that there were transformations, and I noticed at the time the movie came out, in people who I knew who saw the movie, and in the public, that there was an unawareness as to such a critique. This means they liked what they were seeing because of the other qualities that existed, but were actually really unable cognitively to detect that such a category of mistake or defect would exist, or see that there would be any defects that would be missed by this limitation. They did not really appraise or evaluate the film in a way that included the errors that I was seeing, that combined with other errors, made the movie a fool's film in my estimation, that could have been made well but wasn't.

Use of fast presentation of images in tests of psychological subjects is not uncommon in Psychology, and while I was in college, it was part of initial learnings of experimental designs, for creating practice experiments on computer systems that used slide shows to show images followed by information collection on reactions. For example, people may be quickly exposed to photos of other people, to see what their impressions were, hardly seeing them. The body of studies in this area would be very large, and while I am not at this moment searching for specific studies related to this, being on vacation, and somewhat resistant to that activity for a number of reasons, I'm still very confident on my background that my observation is true, and one reason is compelling. If you were to make a video like a music video, and you only had a short time to do it, and it had to be three minutes long, would you choose to make a three minute video, showing all the flaws, or would you select the very best footage of a much longer period of productions (maybe in a day), to put together a sequence of videos, that show what was best, left out everything else, and was quickly shown in succession for 3 minutes? The choice to do it that way conceals and makes selection incredibly easy. Because whatever footage is gathered, there will be three minutes worth that is interesting somehow.

This is testable by everyone who wants to produce something fast to share in a way that reduces defects.

On social media, one is highly motivated to quickly post. I'm impatient about this myself. So people want to go through their images and videos, and choose quickly what they most liked, and following the format of what is expect on social platforms, using the short form, will choose a handful of things, and simply crop and trim to have very brief good quality files to work with. These are then uploaded all at once with the order chosen by the user. Voiceover and captions are added, and sometimes subtitles are added. Someone else's music is put in the background. The result is a video that really deceives regarding the overall quality of the act an conceals that there was a rush to publish, and that what makes all like this format that is already popular on social media relates to a cognitive limitation, that elminates defect finding and an ability to recall for reevaluation afterwards due to limited memory.

Ok, but moving on, there were the other intersts. I think a good conclusion regarding this subject that is helpful, that will make this kind of productions more honest, is that in many ways this kind of video making is akin to photogrpahy that people would deny could ever be a true art from. It felt like photography was too easy, too much like what an amateur would do. Over time, this was confirmed very definitely, although somehow denial exists. The photos produced by people with their hand tablets (I'm getting annoyed now dating that piece of technology by calling them phones), or digital cameras before smartphones created larger higher quality images in greater quantity that photographers could produce, and an easy sampling from all that exists in the space of amateur photographers, or "anybody", would result in specimens of great quantity better than what professionals produce. Professionals who are doing better, oftentimes really, honestly, are just editing them afterwards. Photography became the profession of justifying what they do with the technology they paid more almost exclusively, and if one wants to do more to defend them, one still has to look at micro activities they are doing to achieve anything better, or more worthwhile?

Currently, there is a trend, to think of those who are making content for social media as content producers. I think that's fine, but I would now, after the above observations, reduce the esteem of this title a bit, to make it clear that it is what everone does nearly now who does do it and imitates, even if the results are good, and that it will be perceived, later, to be something as simple as photography. It's video taking. It's cobbling of selected videos into video albums. A music video is a video album, and so is a movie. Movies and films sometimes are of much higher complexity to raise the esteem of the efforts. Filmmaking still seems to be hard to me, to get it done well, which is why so few films exist that I care to see. But videography today on social media platforms is revealing probably that video making and editing in the short form was always using this cognitive limitation and was using a rushed approach potentially, to create something that really is like what a "photographer" would do. It was too easy. Everyone could do it. It required just selecting what one liked from the world at time of capture, then selection from the reel. They were put together in sequence. Anyone who had this type of job before has learned from youths that youths can do better. When amatures take better photographs than paid photographers and people making videos on social media do better than video producers and editors, it shows the fields were too unsophisticated to separate the professional from everyone else.

In software architecture, I had a task to facilitate the process of taking videos and organizing them into a content management system in an automated way so that teams would not have to do the work manually. I created a program that executed an entire team's day of work in seconds. From this I became aware that a large amount of the post productions of videos, including naming, cropping, alteration, scaling, and other processing can be done easily with software, and I do this to a limited degree on my own software platform I made, for this Book and Journal. There are limitations on what I could do with existing software, but it showed really, how basic the work is. More recently as I thought about how I would devise my movie player I was making from scratch, I realized really that movie editing, when it isn't manipulating *what is in the images* or *on top of the images* or in sound *along with the images* is just a sequence of images only. There isn't a single movie or video seen on television that has had "productions" behind it, that was not a sequence of smaller videos and images, merely put together, like a slide show. And I even noticed that slideshows and videos are just transitions of the same, frames that come in and out of view, and in time it is in one direction. It is just frames appearing when others disappear, and all video productions we would do would result in one video after another. 

This is just not hard to do. Software can do much of it, and this is something I did show in real life for a large organization on my own.

But nowadays, with AI, AI will do the selecting for you, and already I've seen advertisements for tools, claiming to be able to take your camera reel, to make the video for you that you would put on social media. They don't do the best maybe at the moment, but later, they will know to make what is average. Then later what is better than average. My phone right now tries to make silly things out of my photos and videos, and its choices aren't the best, but others have perceived, that this work that people are doing, to make videos of their own in the short form, can be done easily by AI and it will just take time. Not too much longer either.

This will prove to be a simpler task to make these kinds of videos than others. Really simple. This will demonstrate that as a manual task it was an easy task. In software automation, the first step to automate, is to identify how it was done manually, and if it was done easily manually, the software has to perform less steps with less complexity. That is what enabled me to do the solution I did for this company. If it were more complex than it was, in the manual steps I identified, I would not have been able to do it. But I did it without AI, and for a long time, people have done scripted, programmatic, batch processing, doing the same steps I did.

Anyway, so my view is that this type of video production just hasn't yet been identified as being nearly as easy as photography itself, although admittedly, most do initially struggle on social media to do the editing in a way that people really like. It doesn't mean that it's that hard when one gets it right, it's just that few have been exposed long enough or had sufficient practice to do it well. Someone who does it well, I think would have to admit, that they could train anyone to do similarly after a short time, to do nearly as well if not as well or better. It is an easy job, not a hard one. If one were to employ others to do it after doing it well, they would quickly do it well too, and not after a long time.

Photography seems like it could not have been that way, but really has a similar process. If one takes a photography course, one finds that one takes better photos. Some learn how to do it naturally on their own. But if you give a camera to a baby they don't instantly learn how to take very well framed pictures, with a good eye as to what is interesting.

So photography and videography both take some learning, but not enough to make it so that the "professional" really is on a category apart from everyone else. Really they have an easy job that doesn't take much training to do. 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-need-to-identify-what-is-really-understood-as-a-result-of-learning-history-to-reorient-history-writing-archiving-and-study">The Need To Identify What Is Really Understood As a Result of Learning History To Reorient History Writing, Archiving, and Study</a>

*310 Wanattomians, Friday, June 6, 2025, Estoril, Portugal*

Human Shortcomings | Living Autobiography | History | Relationships | Com 

Reading the book on the history of Portugal that I bought in Lisbon a week ago, last evening, I became more interested and not less about the topic of what is really being understood when history is being read. This particular text, in some portions of it, amount to recording sequences of events and names and dates. Complaints about to much learning of events, dates, and names of influential figures, is common and everyone who has taken history classes knows about this. But instead of students getting defended regarding their defence, or the students going further to really know what it is that is fundamentally wrong, to advocate in some ways against the present state of history education, the students are ignored, and the students ignore their own earlier thoughts. But it appears to me, as I do my reading, thinking about it honestly, that it was always really obvious that little is really transmitted through such readings and there is no way out of the issue that really the words are mostly meaningless.

It is important, that historical events really are masterfully recorded sequentially, to a level of detail that is really beyond what people would want to memorize, but I think this has utility that is separate from the meaningfulness of what is being written, and that the meaningfulness of what is written is really very low.

How much can one really understand, when they write a history of names and places, and times, they have had no exposure to. I think there is some degree of insanity occuring, or profound delusion, in those who are really interested in history, in their belief that they are learning and understanding *as much* as they think they are, and they really do act as though in their studies of history they are transported back in time to really know it, whereas the reality is, I think they mostly have a verbal comprehension of what they read.

This writer about Portugal, for example, says he spent time in Portugal. He is a British writer. I've been to Portugal too, being here right now, as I write this. But the both of us having been here in the last 30 years, going to the museums and places that relate to some parts of the historical text, does not give us an awareness of what it was like in the year 700 AD. If someone were to claim that we both know nothing about it, both of us would disagree, thinking that untrue, but I would do this reluctantly, thinking that really the person who makes that bold statement is really getting close to being accurate. I would want to credit their observation. The writer of history I think, would delusionally defend, thinking themselves expert in what they have read about. I think there is a way to test the historian though.

My ex wife used to claim she was fluent in Spanish. I would agree with her that she had pretty good Spanish skills. When we moved to Miami, she discovered she was intensely uncomfortable with the languages, when jobs really required it. So tested by life, it seems she was not fluent. But I wouldn't use that against her, although it is a real test of fluency of whether you are *fluent*. So very good test of her abilities. But there is a simple test one can use, and that is to challenge them to say whatever you can think of with simple words in the language you both really know. For example, I might say "Throw the basketball between those branches over there to try to hit that seagull". Strange sentence. She would not be able to say that in Spanish. But when one is fluent, one can do that over and over and over. Sentences the come up in everday thought about what is happening in the highly variable environment includes sentences like this one. When at work, people will stay unexpected and strange things. If one is fluent, one is able to do that. Once fluent, everyone is able to do that who is talking together. If one is not able to do it, one will be too rigid, and seem foreign. It's a good test.

How does this relate to history. Very easily. Test in detail what the historian can tell, about what they know about various time periods, in a way that has this property of diverse curiosity. Question outside of the normal dates and times, or question about people who were not famous, etc... and one will definitely find they simply need to invent to have answers. Also, if one probes deep about the causes of events, they will not know them, they will only recall verbal statements as to causes of events. Go into more detail, wanting to know systematically, who *all of the key players were*, ask about what else may have been involved, and just keep asking, and do so like you're asking about the present day, until it is obvious that the difference between the knowledge about that time and the present time is so great, that the person who said that one knows nothing about history is starting to seem more correct. Then add in questions about the present, to show that what is thought to be known about the present is not known. If historical events and their main causes and interconnections are not well understood at present, living in the middle of the living world that is telling you about it, with the figures living and testifying about events, it is obvious that one is not really *fluent about the present* and one is so far from being fluent about *history* that one really seems to be a beginner in a language, with only a few words and very little ability.

Historians have very little ability about history. But in their defense, what I am trending towards is that they can't, and that the study and transmission of history seems delusional, and that these historians are somewhat just part of the system, although they are still stupidly guilty and seriously self-deceptive and dishonest to others.

How much history can you know and write about that is your own history? This is why I added above, the relational category to living autobiography, which is another topic of interest of mine. Could you write a history of another person? Biography would be hard and there would be lies, and still you weren't there living it. People can't write autobiographies well either, because they are "puff pieces" to make themselve better than they are. So now, with this knowledge tha t one still does not know other people well even if they try to write histories of their own or have someone do it on their behalf, obviously we don't know well the detail so any historical figure at all.

History seems least interesting, when it is really the type students complain about. Names, events, and dates. This writing appears stolen from other sources that simply wrote the same thing. One cannot write anything new as one retells this because if one did, one made up history. One just tells it again.

If one can't tell it differently, it indicates one was not there, and one doesn't know what the history was, and has to rely on canned language. If you and your friend mutually experienced the same events, you would write totally different types of things about those events, having different interests and observations. So both would simply have flexibility in relaying what is really known about those events. The historian has zero flexibility, because they know nothing about the events, in which to fluently and flexibly say other things about those events, simply reimagining what they experienced. Being unable to do this, it is much like someone who fraudulently said they were involved in your events. Someone who fraudulently says they were involved in your events, would only be able to try to convince someone about their experiences by using what matches what someone said about it that is true, and adding lies. The fraudster then could convince some they were there, by stating things that really agree with what you say about it, and perpahs what someone else said who was there too. That's like a historian, relying on accounts that existed in writing. But if they add anything else, what are they doing, they are fraudlently lying! This means that the historian really to add anything additional to any account of anything historical they read about would have to lie. This means they stick to the story if they want to do a good job. But sticking to the story is the sign that they know nothing about the event! They *would need to be able to fluently and flexibly add more information about the events* if they had the knowlege about those events. It follows they only have verbal knowledge and what they transmit is imply copied from earlier sources. Any more is fabrication.

Sometimes historians will want to speculate about what might have really happened given some scarcities of information, but what they are doing is more speculative, than speculating about events that happen at present. We speculate about htings happening presently, and with all the detail and live about it, we still know when it is pointed out, we are in the dark about what we are trying to know about. For a historian to think they can do this about very old events is really delusional, and what they are doing when they allow themselves that bad habit, is produce history that is new, from their imaginations. They did not stick to what was written, instead they tried to add to it.

As I write these postings about history I am coming to discover for myself, what is more final about what I can and cannot know. I am in Portugal, learning about Portugal's history. Visiting places, and reading about it. But knowing what I know and have written above, it feels I am reading without understanding. What I am gathering are still dates and names and events, and not enough more. Sometimes, I get some interesting details, like the causes of certain architectural forms. For example, a building with a nice archway exists in Lisbon, which I was learning might be Moorish or Roman, or a blend. I'm still learning and am uncertain about it. But some of these architectural pieces do seem to connect with what is stated in chronological record, and once one knows that there is one theme coming from Islam, and another from Rome, and another from elsewhere, one does learn something about the buildings. But notice this could be on the plaque of a building and is very briefly stated. Little details like this are nice to get from history, but it really is not knowing history.

i wonder the value of knowing even that. Am I still pretending to know more than I do. It still feels too verbal. It feels I may be incorrect too. What is a Moor and what is Moorish, and what did their architects create versus what existed. Am I certain they added anything? Which part did they add. This is missing information but that is what knowing what the contributions was. Therefore it appears what I am acting like I know is verbal. But I am learning something of a theme of buildings. That is not so much about history as about classifying designs, *without* history.

I am becoming more convinced history has a very constrained utility, that is very very important. But I think humans are living out some delusion about what they think they know about history and the extent to which it has any color or substance.

Also, total knowledge of a historian I think happens to be low too. If I'm asked to write as much as I can about a vacation I had, I may be able to write quite a lot. More than would be expected. But if a historian is asked to write from memory about some historical event, I think they have almost nothing. I think it is so embarassingly nothing it would be shocking. Speaking for myself, as someone who has a very good memory, if not an extraordinary memory, I still know that if I'm trying to regurgitate history, I think I got from reading several books, that touched on a specific event, for only a few pages, that I will only have a small portion of that to share. Someone could ask, "Hey Matt, you know about Pearl Harbor, can you tell me all you know?" For that I would only have a few sentences for certain. A historian of *only* that event might have a lot to say that is still delusional in its thinking it was present for the event, seeing what cannot be seen, knowing the causes and relationships, but I would agree that that historian would have decent detail. I think the way they'd tell it would have hallmarks of someone not there, talking around it, like they have the subject organized like an outsider who read about it does. Stating the same schematic. So that is a counterexample still because they can say a lot, but I think I still can say more about a single vacation, then they can say about their area of expertise. Now, make them a generalist historian, they then would be reaching back to the set of paragraphs they read, and films they saw, about the subject, and like myself, they would only have a few things to say. This historian of many things would have much less to draw from to talk about events, and they would hardly be able to say anything at all compared to what I could say, after having spent a week in Greece for example. I would have minutia to convey pages and pages of material just about what I ate and how I thought about what I was eating while I was there. Additionally, I can see where I was in my mind. This is disgustingly more rich than the knowledge of the historian. Particularly if we consider, how much storage is supposedly required for the memories had about visual experience.

How much storage does one utilize, in a few sentences recollected about a historical event, versus what is recollected in real events in a human brain. In terms of data in a computer, there are videos and images in my mind, that I can replay, that would constitute many gigabytes for certain, and probably more. I can then add pages and pages of verbal thoughts about the events. The historian has zero of their capacity used for the true events. Additionally, memory of actual visions of a vacation are greater than the data required of a handful of images from the vacation. If I think of Lake Meade, in Las Vegas, I can think of much more than just a few videos or images I captured. If I go back, there is evidence I know where I am, and where to go, and know what things look like already. But the historian, where they have any visual information, like about Pearl Harbor, watched videos and saw images made by others. Here we already see this too is less than what would be stored for vacation. Therefore I would still know more and be able to say more and think more about my vacation than an expert about their field, in this case the expert on Pearl Harbor.

If this is not true, is it not obviously reducing what we'd think about the historian's expertise, if we permit I add several vacations and not only one to the comparison. At some point, it is obvious, even that expertise is little compared with simple experience. This may call for a defense from people regarding their areas of expertise, but for now I'm less intersted in that, and more interested in the fact that what the expertise of historians happens to be, is experience. Historical knowledge is very low in quantity and quality.

More on this subject as I try to find for myself what I really know about history and not, and how it ought to influence my historical explorations, my behavior seeking out new information, and my beliefs about what I learned having been exposed to such information.

A quick add. Just over a week ago, I was at the Parthenon in Greece. I have to admit, after having been there, that it is skeletal. It is like seeing the skeleton of a body, not knowing who it was or who it looked like. From this skeleton, I don't know who the Parthenon really looked like? If you stumble on a skeleton, you might imagine they are your own race, only to discover, they are another race. Likewise, the Parthenon definitely looked different thousands of years ago. So what history do I know even having been there? This is what I was trying to convey, that even the combination of having traveled to some place and seeing artifacts, ruins and buildings, with paragraphs of history, does not result in what feels to be good understanding. But historians are acting like they can help you have understanding. I am arguing they don't have much anyway, so what sentences are they going to use, to transport you back in time?

There really are a good number of problems with history that would cause one to want to rethink what one can really know about the subject and the value of the subject matter.

In the future, things will differ a bit, as there are better chances to share immersive experiences. But even then, the gaps will feel huge. For example, imagine you could have an immersive experience, being at the 911 event. You see the planes hit, you are in the building, you see it from outside the building, you see people in fear, because we imagine, in the future, there are tiny cameras everywhere, gathering all that happens. Even in that case, you may not have the video from the disconnected pieces that were really important for knowing the causes. Who detonated the last building seven, and were the others demolished or not? What was the owner of the building doing? Etc... In the future, with enough data, it may get possibe to identify a cause. But even if we could be in the towers, and nearby, and on the planes, we still wouldn't have enough immersive experience, to be all places at once, to know. And so we still have a trusted regurgitation history. We simply re-use statements about what the causes were, dates, players, etc... and we can add in what we might remember if we lived at that time. 

There is much more to say about this, but it appears, from complex events, that historians begin with what cannot even be experienced sufficiently, and relay partially true, partially false information, AND they are not permitted to change it or add to it, because if they do, they have simply added in their creativity. History is not creative like that.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="that-historically-people-have-had-more-kids-and-not-less-when-their-kids-were-more-likely-than-at-present-to-die">That Historically, People Have Had More Kids, And Not Less, When Their Kids Were More Likely Than At Present To Die</a>

*308 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 4, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Human Shortcomings | Relationships 

Currently I'm reading two history books, one is called *Prisoners of Geography* and another is a brief history of Portugal. Both of these books discuss populations of a large number of different peoples. I'm not sure which book motivated me to want to discuss this particular topic, but one of them reminded me that in historical times people would have more children instead of less if there was a higher childhood mortality rate. Even if this was only in one of the two books, both books give many examples that this can be connected with to substantiate additional reflections here. I'm not sure what the cause of this is, but I've heard it before in earlier classes and studies of history. Some families think they need their children, particularly their sons. It may build familial stature, and the children are of course slaves who can do slave labor. With minimal food, and sometimes on a starvation diet, they do some labor that the parents do not want to do, and in addition, some labor that may earn some income. Chores at home and work outside the home. I do not want to talk about the reasons why they had children too much because that is not my main interest. Sometimes they just did it because others did it too, and there is some pressure or belief that there is pressure that they should do the same. What I'm more interested in is what this indicates historically and presently about concern for planning offspring, and the lack of real genuine planning in the children's interest inthe past and present.

Let us consider this again, people have kids more if they will die.

If we link this also to the population problem in countries that have too little food resources, we might have some frightening insights. Let's think logically about this then relate it to everyone else who is not living in scarcity.

Firstly, if a child dies, and a mother contiues to have unprotected sex without contraceptive, which is normal in impoverished conditions, they will have another, but will have the same resources as before having the first child because it died. So it died, and then the same amount of resources exist to allocate or fail to allocate to the next child. Also time and effort is made available for the new child. Here is a frightening idea that is probably true, if one has a sequence of children who all die, then it is like one has no children, yet had more, and frees up time and energy to justify having another, thinking they could allocate resources to just one!

I can tell from this line of thinking that I will not complete finding at this time all the valuable insights one could have.

It is easiest to have kids who die, and one can have a sequence of children who all die to avoid abortions, avoid infanticide, gain free time and energy, continue to have sex without contraception, keep getting pregnant and enjoy that however it can be enjoyed, and live as if one never had kids. The one who has the most had the most resources if they all died and if they all died it even made it easier, becaues if they did not have contraception, they would have one or more kids.

It truly is an unfortunate thing, that there is an unknown taboo on this subject in cultures that think themselves wise enough to have thought this through. An implication of their inability to handle topics like this, or conduct similar thinking, is that they know less than the people who do this in impoverished conditions.

What does the woman like about this? It is my belief that some women really like ignoring that they could have safe sex and contraception and discipline and plans, and new habits, and education from those they do not want education from, while simply solving things with routine abortions of neglect of children. You just pretend you didn't have the kids you had or kill them with neglect or abortion. I think they enjoy both this *and* pregnancy and sex during pregnancy!

This didn't even go into the topic of any kid anyone has could not fit any vision of what they would want in advance, so all are not what could be wanted, and most would not realize dreams of having the best things in life. Very seldom is a baby exactly the child wanted, with the child and adult being as good as *what could be dreamed if really dreamed* or better!

Let's go back to the idea which seems to be well understood and taught in history without any criticism, that in history, when child mortality was higher, women had more children and not less.

This means if it is expected that a child will die, one will have it. This does not only include infant mortality, but child mortality. Even mortality before adulthood, during teenage years, because oftentimes, these could not then fulfill obligations they were made to have. They were even a let down for dying.

Having a kid is supposed to relate more to the prospect that they would have a better life, and that the parent could easily provide, given the resources they have. But it is also known that affluent parents tend to have less. So we can add in also, that historically, and presently, people have more children when they have less resources. So now we have:

"Humans will have more children when the parents have less resources and they expect them to die or live poorly"

We can see we can reduce this to:

"Historically, parents have decided to make more people who were more likely to live poorly"

This is at present too, in affluent locations because they have less on more resources, and in impoverished nations, because they have more with less and with the expectation that they'll die.

So there seems to be a repulsive planning happening here that is a combination of what is really disconnected desire based thoughts that don't congeal into a plan, and not having any plan and simply doing things with very little reflection.

Earlier it was discussed, a number of times, that a plan is a real plan, with its being in writing as being a requisite criteria. Plans in the mind are simply insufficient, and really do not amount to plans when people say that's what they have. They are more like incipient plans, made of really rudimentary visions, for how things could go. Or micro plans, which are themselves bad plans, for being too disconnected and insufficiently general. So if it must be admitted that these visions are small plans, they are still bad plans, and if we don't admit it, they aren't plans, and plans aren't being had.

From this and the above, what we have is people have bad plans regarding their children which almost amount to malintent. Notice if they were good plans, they are horrendously immoral and include premeditated murder. I think it's more true that the bad micro plans are like this. Additionally, I thinkt people live in desire without plans, and this does include the affluent too. The affluent as I said before, love intercourse, and simply open themselves up to children, having weak visions about the future or who they would be, and not having anything like a well considered generalists plan that is rationale in writing. And again, I'll say it, noone in history, not one, has had this plan, is a reasonable assumption, because if it was not none, it was one, or two, and effectively over billions, that is zero.

That this subject is fascinating is underestimation still. It is thrilling unexplored territory, that affects billions, and implicates many women and men in murderous visions. And all, since all did not have a plan, are implicated on average, in having children in a socialized way, that does show the trend, of having less kids when they would live well, and more when they would not.

Those who have less are still somewhat exempt from this interestingly. Because they have no obligation to have any children. So the manner in which to speak about who is implicated socially has to be determined. But those who have less on less resources who expect them to die are incredibly implicated morally in the negative by this.

Didn't we already think this, that people in history, having kids who would die, then having more, in poverty, were disgusting in many ways?

Sometimes, learning or being reminded about this, I would think to myself little more about this topic then "It must have been harder, to live in times of illness and plague, and sudden scarcities." Usually I am more judgemental about people who live in poverty in poor nations who do this, thinking them stupid, hoping there is some educational cure for them. But they are in modern times living the way those others did, who were of my race and ethnicity. I'm imaginging stupid families in the 1800s and earlier, in europe and the americas. These were as foolish as the dumbest of the others int the poor nations. Some were smartly planful about their murder plans for their offsprings too. There is a tad of racial prejudice in here thinking that european nations have higher average iqs than some of the poorer nations at present, and I have to remember though, authoring Abandoning Equality, that they really are not equal too, so in that case, I am absolved.

More on this topic later. It is of serious more interest. Children created were also expected to do those chores I said, and maybe do things for the family, and fulfill a legacy, and they are certainly slaves regarding that.

We will incorporate a new concept related to slavery, about partial slavery. since slavery has no absolute severity. There were slaves who were partial slaves. Who was the worst of the worst of the worst slaves? Veals? But veals relax? Veals who can't relax may be the worst slaves. Tortured entities.

So these children now are slaves too, in the present day. Because we say things like, they have to work. But also there are worse ways in which we are all slaves too.

Those born into poverty, with the expectation that they will die, are strangely in a horrible condition, where they may even have to prove they can live, by showing they can do work, without food.

More later.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="since-everyone-uses-it-these-added-analytics-are-your-analytics">Since Everyone Uses It, These Added Analytics Are Your Analytics</a>

*307 Wanattomians, Monday, June 3, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

*Relationships | Technology | Computing | Com     

Somewhat recently I wrote about how any social media could be utilized as a negative social analytic, where analytics refers in the software industry to data about the software utilization and connected components. Analytics are gathered by companies within software tools to know what behaviors you've had in relation to the software, all that you've done if taken totally. What I was saying in this posting is that if you have a social media account at all, it could be used as a negative indicating you are not in a sophisticated enough social class, or that you spend your time unwisely.

This was speculative, but it seems to me that it has some truth if it is not completely accurate. Wealthy people and people who are famous really do not spend any time oftentimes on social media and may not have accounts of their own. Many do, but there is a trend among those who are wealthy, to exit platforms. For example, those who are leading in their fields or are CEOs or are owners of companies may not use linkedin. They'll use it less or have someone else manage it if they do have one, but I've noticed oftentimes they simply do not have accounts.

Even if it is not accurate, the *extent of use* alone could be used as a measure to show the extent to which one would waste time. The observations I'm makign here are not about specific uses, which of course could be used against someone. It can now be used to estimate intelligence and detect when someone has emotional issues or is perhaps a risky person who will be violent. It is used by law enforcement and will very likely be used by companies in ways that are negative regarding users. But I'm most intersted in that posting in theh idea that *any use* is negative, like if one had a tinder account, or if one had an account on a platform that implied one was a cheater (there is at least one cheating platform I've heard of, and by cheating I mean marital infidelity), but instead of being negative about those platforms, the judgment may be negative about *any* or most social platforms including those that are most common. Owners of platforms like Facebook and X or Twitter, and Snapchat may know that the average behavior of their clientele indicates they are a low strata in their estimation.

There were also some comments about how it may also be that, because one uses a social platform, a software company or law enforcement agency could simply "stuff data" into your account and claim that you've used it that way. Also, companies can simply smear specific members and perhaps even their global analytics by inserting information.

This posting, more humorously, involves thinking I've had recently about exiting social media platforms more entirely, to really never use them. At least for extended periods of time. Perhaps this year I use no social media at all, so the period off the applications is one year. Will they pretend I had certain behaviors that related to them in that last year? Will they pretend that, not using their platform has meanings it does not have, and insert that or infer that regarding information added, about my absence?

Here the idea is that it will appear to other companies and outsiders who they would advertise their data to, and various agencies that might like to use the data, like government agencies, that the social platforms are being honest whereas I am not. I may never know about it, so may never have a way to make any counterclaims or corrections. I don't have access to the data they collect and aggregate. The data they have, they think would consitute evidence, and it may be that I have very little or no evidence that I can use to show the information is incorrect.

Already, in some locations that seem inappropriate, and I think some government agencies, users are pointed to facebook pages and other social accounts to either get information or to interract with something akin to customer service. People already know that they can complain about companies on social media, and their social media managers, or people who work on their marketing platforms, will respond. This is to protect their image and control situations from becoming too negative for them. It seems to make sense, but if you hold a negative opinion on the street, about a company like Burger King, do you think it appropriate if an agent of theirs swoops in, and controls the conversation with the people you're talking to? It seems odd? So now their in your personal conversations even if they are a bit more public. But additionally, there is a trend towards making these more official social channels, since sometimes they do, direct users even away from their websites to social platforms.

Email is a similar entity, in which users were gradually told the use was no longer voluntary, but required. Email is a really shoddy technology in many ways. There are very good reasons for not wanting to use email for required communication just like it is strange to use Facebook for required communication. Email companies delete data oftentimes if it has sat around too long, and people are restricted sometimes regarding how much data they have. In corporations, they will have all their email "deleted" and they won't have access if they are fired. This means email systems actively remove the chance for users to preserve and utilize their communication for their defense. Email is also read and included in analytics. Since people are using "free" email, that email is treated sometimes as public data, and that information is likely retained even if you lose access to your account. Companies keep that data, and utilize it for too many things to really go through at the moment, but the point is that there are companies that are seeing that data and you don't know who they are and they may be numerous. And you cannot hold onto it easily to use it in court? Remember there is no obligation to keep an email account forever. Exporting the information is not an easy task and oftimes it does not work. My last attempt at exporting my mailbox went very poorly and it became clear to me they don't want you to keep the data if you intend to leave. But they'll keep it.

All this information used in these weird technologies (including email, it is weird), is then incorporated into your analytics. The means of aggregation and locations of aggregation, and who the players are who keep and use aggregated data is not clear to me and probably not clear to anyone else, but this information game among corporations does exist. They can change this data and say you've used it in ways you don't, make false inferences about it, and in keeping with the title of this posting, they may claim you use it even if you don't even on tools you don't, because their claims that others use the tools and so you do too, and that they are trustworthy may be enough for courts to believe. Consider that if you did not use facebook, all would believe, if a false facebook profile were presented with your image and some writing in your manner of writing was included. People wouldn't believe that you don't have a facebook account. At this moment, I thought of the counterargument, that you could have witness testimony that you never did have a facebook account, but they could simply claim you always did you just kept it private for your interests. People know others actually do that so they would believe.

This is not really a posting about defending oneself from any court proceeding against you, but about how you would or would not correct or defend your information given you don't have it and it can be so easily falsified for whatever purpose.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="all-you-do-is for-yourself-and-can-be-seen-by-all-babies-as-a-new-moral-principle-inarguably-novel">all you do is for yourself and can be seen by all babies as a new moral principle, inarguably novel</a>

*306 Wanattomians, Monday, June 2, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Another Ethic | ThoughtStream | Evaluative Concepts | Honesty and Transparency | Interdisciplinary Science | Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings

I will need to discuss this further later, but this would be a maxim, aphorism, precept, or principle, or rule, that whatever you are doing makes you a zoo to babies, who are nonthreatening anyway to you. All you do becomes zoological information to the world, but firstly, through babies, who will not embarass you, be embarassed by you, and who will benefit by your work, because now your audience is everyone.

You do this in practice on your own, but you would allow furthermore that it is the reality. That all babies witness all you do. Everyone is educated with everyone's information totally.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-filling-of-childrens-brains-with-universal-science-and-withholding-knowldege-from-children-as-part-of-parents-plans-if-they-had-plans">The Filling of Children's Brains With Universal Science, and Withholding Knowldege From Children As Part of Parent's Plans If They Had Plans</a>

*306 Wanattomians, Monday, June 2, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Interdisciplinary Science | Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings

Relating the last posting with the earlier recent posting about how children have a gap between birth and attaining the information they need, but sometimes they never get that information, I think it interesting to consider how brain formation in general may or may not relate to an education strategy that could exist. Also, what education strategy exists that we are aware of?

I am not aware of any national or international strategy of education.

We are aware, going through all kinds of school as they occur in sequence that there is a strategy, but even then we don't know what it is, and it does not appear the teachers do either.

There is nationalism in education and separation beetween nations, and some national direction with regional controls existing too.

But what is the general relationship between the existence and growth of information and children's brains, and how do we plan for new brains?

Some who are religious do not wish there to be brains, and they do unfortunately have too much influence.

What are some of the ideal brain states in those who have brains we prefer, for all the ranges of intellgience? We want to know how best to educate all people and to know what their brain images look like when very well advanced.

These are the brains of mentors and specimens of excellence.

Knowing that science is not universally sharing, and that information is restricted in so many ways, and that the growth of information does not include any pool in which all information goes and is retained and accessed, doesn't it seem like, we are tasked as adults with creation of information which is stuck in places, and that this information is not related to any model for growing baby brains into new adult brains of high quality for each kind of brain that would come to exist?

This would be the developmental trajectory and model that would be required for a very solid approach with good futurism and sophistication. It has an obvious vision. What are the brains supposed to be like, and what is the information we are feeding those brains, and why does the plan not exist, and why does the existing behavior, seem so concealing regarding who gets access?

Governments tout that their systems are knowable, and that their laws are easily available, and that information they create is popularly comprehensible. But what of the education? There is plainly a serious disconnect in the expectations that government information is a part of human brains as they develop and that education includes all what it should include additionally to be included in those brains.

In the last posting, I talked about how fundamentally, science is not defined in relation to socialization, which means it is not defined in terms of education. Who gets to learn about science relates to who is doing it and who conceals it. Thus people who get to learn it are often only those who develop it. If you want to learn a lot about chemistry, eventually you work for a company with patents and secrecy. The vast majority of science that is developed appears to be in contexts of secrecty and if not, in isolation regarding publications. Where science is "open" there are costs about journal publications and access to data. Notice that data is not a part of journal publications. Huge data sets, like stellar datasets I am interesteding having, about space, are not easily available and may simply be hidden.

This means that existing arrangements for the growth of the brains of children, during our lives of lack of plans for children, includes systematic reductions in access to information for kids. They can have the information only as they become workers and specialists. In order to learn something as an adult, one must find a way to have a career in that domain, to have what is current, or what is more advanced. One has to have what is less, and what in history has been called "lay knowledge" or what is near lay knowledge, ensuring that whatever one learns, one is basic in comparison to employees of companies, militaries, and academic institutions.

Open sharing for babies as a human right is not under consideration. I do not myself believe in rights, but am in agreement with objectives that people have about really securing resources for people. Education as a human right is something I've heard before. But how does this relate to the idea that science is universally sharing?

Plans are missing in this area and it is fairly clear to me that the future of people does not include in the near or probably long term anything that is universally transparent science or a way to develop childrens brains into those brains they would want, knowing they have scarcities of information they want filled, that they can't fill because they have no trajectories to further their educations according to their interest.

In a recent post, I was saying that people have not identified the list of all those things people need to know in their lives, and I just now thought that people probably simply never get what they need whoever they happen to be. An easy example exists and that is that people are blocked from legal information and from becoming lawyers on their own and that they really need this, given the legal system pretends you do know laws. I don't myself feel a reasonable pathway to having actual legal knowledge in many domains, and while I may be able to get closer to getting what I need, it still appears I never will have what I need, and this definitely means others will have no chance of getting much at all.

Knowledge is only part, it's utilization comes after. If I cannot be a lawyer myself on par with a lawyer I would pay, then it seems I cannot apply legal knowledge in my interest all that effectively, because I'm limited in what I can communicate to my lawyer, for their oral and written presentation. So even if I get the knowledge I need, I can't use it where I need it, because other structural issues exist regarding my needs that aren't knowledge based. Getting what knoweldge is needed is insufficient then, because there are additional things needed too in order to smoothly be able to do what I need to survive.

We are told we get what we need to survive and live well but this is definitely incomplete? What does this look like completely?

Here is a new interesting idea. Universal smoothness of survival and realization of somethign akin to wellness.

I find survival fairly easy, although I do admit quickly something could terminate my existence, like natural death. But for what I'm in control of, surviving is pretty easy at present. Continuity is easy. But what of general smoothness of survival given the range of obstacles that come about, and how does that relate to knowledge and its utilization.

Smoothness of continuing seems a fundamental concept now. We talk about knowledge and education, but I noticed there is a need for training. Training is what results in actions that utilize the knowledge creating smoothness of continuing. Like one trains for work, gets the knowledge, and in combination with having an society that has a pathway for the requisite behavior, continues smoothly in that work.

I will definitely develop unpon this subject in the future. Linking it with what was written before, smoothness of continuity would be combined with process smoothness in society (which is something we all want and we love it when we experience improvements, like with mobile apps for rideshare, making transit smoother), and with the plan we must have, for smoothly allowing science to be shared universally, and for smoothness of the realization of the plan that children acquire that knowledge that has undergone development.

Maybe a baby-first philosophy, that does not distinguish the baby from the adult later, in an ageist way? It just focuses on the importance of the baby, but remembers the adult as something as important. In this baby-first philosophy, all information assumes the baby as the recipient, which can be the self too, to ensure there is no ageism. Also so self-interest is included. In this setup, military science, and all other sciences, must as a legal rule, present the information to babies. There has to be a way for babies to access it, which means all can access it.

I really think now this is a useful vision that might be useful for aiding with planning for the future. Does it not sound like we pretended this somewhat with education and science? That anything scientsist make is for everyone, that everyone will have the education to have it, and that new babies will have this too, since children are the future and all this is planned for them, partly forgetting us?

More on this later!

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="in-cryptography-there-is-a-false-assumption-that-known-encryption-and-decription-methods-are-more-secure-and-impenetrable-than-new-unknown-ones-but-the-military-does-not-think-at-all-this-way-ndicating-that-it-is-false">In Cryptography There Is A False Assumption That Known Encryption and Decription Methods Are More Secure And Impenetrable Than New Unknown Ones, But The Military Does Not Think At All This Way, Indicating That It Is False</a>

*306 Wanattomians, Monday, June 2, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Computing | Interdisciplinary Science | Com

I thought of this after rereading my posting about openness and science and closedness within the military. Sciences is lauded as something that is global and universal, something to be shared between people, the ability to research, replicate studies, and have access to information, is touted as being part of the scientific method itself. Sharing creates the possibility for such research and confirmation and disconfirmation of studies, and growth of knowledge. But corporations and militaries obviously conduct science separately from science that's conducted in academic communities that publish openly.

Thinking about this, I realized that in cryptography, the claim that open methods are more secure has to be false, because if the military had its own cryptographic methods, it would not use open ones for what is most important potentially. What is extremely valuable would not be shared openly by the military, and instead, it would be concealed for competitive advantage. Competitive advantage is an assumption about intentions of militarism. I find it highly likely that encryption methods that have been made public and were called good because they are public, with claims that they are well tested and are more secure, are simply those that are easily broken by militaries and law enforcement. This ensures firstly that the public is unaware of what cryptography is good and uses what is easily broken, and that what the military and law enforcement itself uses can be different and can remain unknown.

Science is really not defined regarding what its requirements would be for social openness and transparency. Instead the methods we learned about science, in the main methods of observation and inference, can be conducted on one's own in one's home. Since it can be privately performed by one person, one can do science without any socializing or external organization. It follows then that science can be independently conducted by any capable individual or organization that uses the method and this is separate from any additional criteria which may be added regarding how sharing should be done. The military, with its assumption that competitive advantage must be preserved, with power asymmetries created to its advantage and retained, it is assumed that their sciences would be secretive, even while they enjoy the utilization of science conducted by the larger community. They'll take what they can but would not provide their own science.

From this it is certain there is no such thing as a unified scientific community, even though I have followed in the use of this phrase along with others. There are simply individual scientists, scientists working together with some collaboration in organizations, and a level of information sharing within nations and languages, and some within allied nations and nations who are permitted access. Most science functions in separation. I believe this to be scientifically measurable.

It should be possible to estimate just how open science is and what the prospects may be for a more unified science in the future.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-learn-to-need-into-old-age-useful-or-needed-patterns-and-facts-non-exposure-to-these-in-education-and-in-parenting-and-that-all-were-babies">The Learn To Need Into Old Age Useful Or Needed Patterns and Facts, Non-exposure to These In Education and In Parenting, And That All Were Babies</a>

*305 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 1, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Abandoning Equality | Human Shortcomings | Living Autobiography | Self-Defense and Warfare | Competition 

Independent learning may be a questionable activity wherever what is learned happens to be extremely important for one's success in the world. Yet independent learning is encouraged, and additionally, one has to self-seek information all one's life, to obtain all of what one needs, or arguably, most of what one needs. That everyone was a baby, indicates that all had very little knowledge initially and there was really a need to find and be given information gradually. Independent learning is required to make the information, if one is making mathematics as the mathematicians did. Independent learning was required to determine specific needful pieces of information when situations arose that were not expected. The set of all situations required for which the necessary information is needed has not been identified. This means people are learning things in isolation, separate from real situations, with insufficient communication about those situations, until independent "hard learning" happens when situations really arise. Training is a way to combine situations with learning to make it more complete. This is soemthing that can be done independently, but nobody thinks this way apparently, and this is an area of interest that seems unique to my works, although I would admit those who work hard in a disciplined fashion would be those who know first hand about self-training but probably without this kind of interest more generally in ethics. There are similarities. In any case, this shows that independent learning has been required. It may be that the extent of actual training can be measured, and compared with what has been needed from independent experience, to determine the total quantity of what was simply not given for success. Additionally, it could be measured how gradually that information is come to if all of it is come to, to see the extent in which nature before the  present time has left us unprepared. 

The gradual nature of the learning is of interest. At what age does one have what one needs, and is it not unfortunate, that one does not have what one needs, except gradually. Permanently incompletely. I think it is permanently incompletely for many particularly those who relay on false information and fictions. Those who are religious and so on. They gradually learned false information. At the terminus of their lives, they are using gradually acquired substitutes for good informaiton which was usually not independently arrived at as it connects to organized religion, but also includes what has been independently contrived that includes true aspects but has the unfortunate connection to fictions which are interspersed or are fundamental to it. I will have to think and write more about the effects of the gradual nature of learning later. Some spoke about this in my learning history, mostly regarding how upper primates seem to have a much longer learning period for critical skills in apparent absense of innate or instinctual knowledge and behavior, and some of this information was used to laud humans for being "different from" those animals who, humorously, are fortunate for not having a gap in time in which to obtain what they need. They naturally got what they needed much more quickly, and survive with very little afterwards compared with humans. This is not to say that humans do not fare well in comparisons, but there are strengths and weaknesses, and one point that indicates how great it is that animals already have it is that you might wish you had it too, for whatever enables you to be maximally talented in this world! To be born a "blank slate" some some ancients have said, staring aimlessly, uselessly defecating and urinating for such a long time, doesn't compare well with some animals that emerge powerfully from the womb and not weakly.

The greatest weakness I can think of with human betterment in education and in socioeconomic situation as it relates to what is improvable with knowlege and behavior is that parents perform any role at all in rearing children. This is because, if we take the mindset of the affluent, and of people who are doing fairly well in countries with good living, is that parents in ghettos, in poor countries, and of people of lesser knowledge, intelligence, and moneys, will do a very poor job of getting their children what they need. This is why we have education! To counter these parents and all parents who cannot do such a good job as a group of many adults! It is known that the current state of education is not ideal, but oftentimes children are safe from adults at school, but they are never safe from their parents at home. We know this because they cannot stop themselves from treating their kids punitively and can't stop themselves from reacting harshly or stupidly, or on average, they teach the wrong things, or things counter to what is good in education. Many things I've learned in education I've seen others rejecting because their parents were foolish religionists. Suddenly they are stupidly challenging the existence of dinosaurs, or that we are animals ourselves, and adopt superstitions which are rejected and go deliberately untaught in school. It is illegal in some places to teach about ghosts, as though they really exist. Yet parents will tell their kids they are ghosts and that upon death they float to another world they can't describe.

When I originally thought about how parents are the issue regarding child rearing, but that kids are stuck with them, was when I was in High School. At that time, I didn't have a low opinion of all parents. I just knew those who were disadvanteaged would definitely not be doing well at home. This was the cause of movies I saw as a child, like "To Sir With Love" With Sydney Poirtie (spelling), and "Dangrous Minds" and other movies that had a teacher that was able to suddently "have an impact" helping children in their classes that were living in a horrible environment anytime they were outside of school, and that it infected school too, despite desires and efforts of teachers who "didn't yet give up". It is not really controversial. Parents are not by default good. Anyone can have parents. Including serial killers and all those people you dislike or hate with prejudice. Nazis had children. It is not easy to find large groups of people, in the millions, that you despise, thinking that you do not despise anyone. You despise millions! These had children and perpetuated more of their kinds.

A subject like this is only controversial for those who have more divided minds.

So it is clear really, and the easiest argument can be made for it, that many if not most people are damaged by their parents or are extremely hindered. Imagine a world with no education! Here we can recall what it would be like, if there were none, and if the amazing parents did it all! It would be like slipping into our primate heritage with having simple language remaining and learning how to cook, clean, and not hurt siblings too much. Parents do not convey that much as far as expertise to their children. The average parent is average, and wants their child to learn from many much smarter instructors. They cannot afford to send all children to Oxford and of course that is an impossibility. It follows that the average person, who needs other minds to learn from, learns in worse schools too, because of their parents.

The quality of their parents affects how they get educated and where they choose to live! And if they were born in a scenario in which this is not even possible, the subject shifts from being about education, to choosing when to have children. That is a subject I've discussed too much already, and have concluded that none at all have had a real plan regarding their kids. Too much to say regarding that now but it is definitive, even if it seems like it is not.

There are two things that prevented us from having the best chance later possible, hopefully, for having all the information really necessary to have a good life, like an animal popping out of the vagina, ready to walk and find food. That's whether or not the parents were in any position at all to have kids, given their location, nationality, ethnicity, race, money, level of intelligence, and lovingness. If these are too low, the kid will struggle much more independently. The other is how their parents themselves teach and influence what kind of education they receive from others who do have knowledge.

Imagine your own life, and consider, if it would not be better, to be affluent, to have a good intelligence, and immediate access to a futuristic school, in which you can self-explore in a channelled way and be guided, to learn really everything you need early. Have access to the very best education later, and so on. Then this can be compared to the experience of a kid living in poverty who has his or her parents immediately question all that is learned in school, with their insistence that they replace learnings with foolish religious viewpoints.

If we need more information, we can study, by finding all the people who had the lives we don't want, count them, and measure the quantity compared with everyone else!

If this seems offensive, consider what is done with income and unemployment.

I think there will be more to say potentially on this topic later because it is a fundamental human shortcoming that there is such a long period of time requied to learn the very basics, and that there is a dearth of information that is needed that one has to independently find only if one is lucky or talented enough.

I think it will be important to find a way to estimate the total amount of information a person needs. With an animal, that appears to need less, we can appreciate their alertness at birth, quick ability to walk, and quick ability to actively seek food from parents. Some are walking, finding food, are visually alert and scannign and working in the environment, if not immediately within days after being born. Humans require years. Additionally, if we are observant, we can do a decent job at estimating what else they learn quickly that enables them to do well in their environment. We can do this with people too although this is harder. Particularly because what they need involves how to live in a complex social context, within civilization. We know what a good life consists of largely, so describing that and determining what is needed should not be too difficult even to the minute detail. This would enable determine what is not provided in education or by parents. We could then make it possible to be trained early to have these things. Training for this obviously, one could now see, would not come from parents. Making sure it happens early means making sure they spend less time with parents early. They get the educational equivalent of good parents. Or AI.

Using this information we would know a lot more. Intuitively I see I can grow this to a very large subject matter. It is somewhat coextensive with my work in ethics but comprises more depending on the interpretation. What are all the situations and what is the information and training needed. What are the conflicts? Using this we have an approach at solving societal problems since we have a good list of issues to work with. Why are certain conflicts possible. Why is society so organized as to enjoy competition? What kinds of competition if any are worthwhile?

Sporting can oddly be competitive without being competitive. This has not been explored except with little kids but can be improved upon. I mention this because this is where we expect and want mutual destruction later in life. Our experiences with sports are related to business and international competition as though they are the same.

What information do I need to destroy an adversary? Do we teach the adversary that too?

That is much like the issue with guns and with self-defense. I personally don't want the dangerous person to be armed and very good at fighting, better than myself.

There is delusion with regard to fighting and defense and competition. We are taught that all would do well to learn toself defend, as though that doesn't mean that competiton has ended. If competition will continue and be as it is, I do not wish others to know how to self defend better than I can. If it were in a world in which nobody took offensive positions, that used the same learnings as self-defense, then all would have a skill they don't need. Which makes it not a skill that's needed!

That is a very good example of what would be identifiable in human organization that is an issue when it comes to universally teaching people what they need to live a good life.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="progresslessness-after-unifying-accomplishments-with-clearly-diminishing-returns-on-thinking)">Progresslessness After Unifying Accomplishments With Clearly Diminishing Returns on Thinking</a>

*303 Wanattomians, Saturday, May 31, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

ThoughtStream | Living Autobiography | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings

Recently, after experiencing many good culminations, I have noticed a diminishment in my ideation and interest in ideation or creative intellectual writing. Part of this is due to an awareness that my concentration for next advancements is to complete my meal automation and to make my 3-Day attentional management process habituated. These two tasks are not very difficult, but are taking a bit to finally set in. These will be accomplished in the near future, and the attention to bring them to completion are not very great. These finishings are culminations that will improve my behavior past earlier culminations to a more final state in which all I'm wanting to be doing is accounted for and done frequently in three day cycles at a maximum. Once done, this means I will not think about what I need to be doing ever, except very briefly, where there are sudden changes or where there are differences I wante for spontaneous behavior but these sponteneities are already planned for too to an extent. Meal automation at the moment is the most important goal, and also is nearly finished. There are other completions that required a considerable amount of thinking and preparation over decades but afterwards additional thinking is no longer required. I have written about the diminishing return of thinking before and will not say more about this here, but mention that culminations mean that thought towards the culminations are not necessary. Also since I have few culminations remaining, and these are easy to complete, the completion requires little thinking and post completion will remove the need for the thought.

Since much of what I am interested in happens to involve life planning, and moral and ethical strategy, and I would need to think about other topics in which I've had less completions, I would need to think more about where I'm less interested to have ideation but this ideation appears to be less significant. Except for my interest in mathematics it seems. I do expect some good ideation and significant future thoughts applicable also to ethics, and outside ethics too. But many of the other subjects are not of as much interest or require less ideation. For example, I am in Lisbon, Portugal now, doing some traveling as usual. Before I was in Athens, and London. I have been focusing my attention on sightseeing, history reading, and reading about new locales in travel books, and while I enjoy this, they are not really too interesting to me in a way that encourages ideation. It feels less valuable now. Since these doings don't relate all the time to my other interests in ways that would build progress (like improving my ethics), I simply learn the information as facts which have limited curiosity.

This last ten days I've had more interest in linguistics for example, and wrote about that yesterday. I've had some interest in learning more Portugese, and I've been interested in learning more about Portugal. Today I'm buying a history of Portugal. But I don't think I will be extremely interested and synthetically creative about it.

This is fact learning and fact building that has a kind of non-utility and progresslessness.

Points I've been connecting to ethics along the way have been less significant.

Once progress has been had at high significance, what follows is a lull of low significance. So now I'm enjoying being relaxed and a bit less mentally active or enthused about writing. This is supposed to be part of the benefits of realizing the goal, and is an award, but it takes some time I think, to be more comfortable thinking less than more, while doing more than less (physically).

I'm fairly confident that what I am experiencing really is a diminishing return on thinking, but I think that thesis does require a little more testing. I do intend to continue writing at high frequency with perhaps less interest, unless more interest and motivation can be catalyzed somehow, or simply appears, but even as I do this I do look forward to doing more of other things, like more fitness, more traveling and exploration, and more relaxing.

Even this writing feels more banal but that is a consequence of diminishing value of thinking.

## <a name="a-possible-pathway-to-new-organic-and-ai-generated-languages-using-a-phonetic-alphabet-including-all-possible-human-vocalizations">A Possible Pathway To New Organic and AI Generated Languages, Using A Phonetic Alphabet Including All Possible Human Vocalizations</a>

*302 Wanattomians, Friday, May 30, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*

Linguistics | Computer Science | Environments | Mind and Mental Development | Human Shortcomings 

While some work has been done in phonetics to classify different sounds humans can make as known by the range of speakers of the many languages that exist, but I don't think it has been done in such a way as to cover the range of all possible sounds in a similar way to what has been done more systematically if not with completeness in the study of music. Since we are aware that humans are limited regarding their speech related organs, including their lungs, miscellaneous speech components in the throat, the tongue and the mouth, and the skull, we know there are hard limits on what sounds can be made by humans. I am unaware of any languages that use non verbal sound creation using the hand, tools, or other parts of the body, but the number of sounds that can be produced if this is included happens to include also all music and any other sound that can be creatively thought of. Restricting this conversation now instead to what people would expect from language, to speak from the mouth and hear it with the ears, I will focus on these but the method of discussion could be extended to include these other possible ways of communicating. Limitations of the structure of the human body and speech related organs exist for the entire species and not only for individuals, and it is known that individuals differ regarding what is possible for them. There are singers who can vocalize very differently from other people, and more powerfully, and of course there are people with impairments and disabilities. Most of us have much power with speech but we cannot state that there are not others that would exceed us in unexpected ways due to their natural endowments. Different sized tongues, shaped mouths, nasal passages, ability to self hear to learn language, and different lung capacities would control what one can and cannot do with one's speech, and like with athletics, some of what others can do is impossible for oneself. Nevertheless, the extremities of what exist in human abilities and human anatomy exist in the living aggregate, and is defined by the individuals that exist within it. Measuring all people we would know the averages and the extremities. Later and earlier generations would be unknown somewhat however, and it would be assumed that the extremities somewhat change from generation to generation as unusual people with special traits existed in history and will exist in the future.

With our knowledge of this aggregate of the total human population, and our knowledge of human anatomy, and our knowledge of phonetics in linguistics, combined perhaps with knowledge of musical instruments regarding what things produce which sounds, we can arrive at a list of all possible sounds. Preferably we would want a structured list of sounds organized into different types. This taxonomy or classification of human speech sounds would need to be first created then organized and reorganized as learning continues. Initially however, I think a very good job of this can be done, and with this list sounds are mapped to character types or symbols and variations of symbols to depict one-to-one speech sounds. From this what we would have is akin to letters and letter combinations in the alphabet, but of course, these would also match phonetic symbols that might be recommended by linguists. Some extant alphabets of regular languages happen already to be more phonetic, like Hangul in Korean, which is a newer langauge in which the writing happens to still match the phonetic sounds. Older languages have undergone evolutionary changes in the sounds made with lingering changes yet to be made in the actual written languages, so they differ from each other somewhat and are harder to learn. Hangul is a very easy language to learn to read, whereas older languages are not as easy.

With such a system, the characters used in writing would very clearly specify in a musical way what would be said. Thus there is a kind of musical replacement to the existing writing system. But what is best about such a system is that it would allow for the utilization of a global written language. Because all sounds have been depicted by characters and variants of characters, and perhaps supporting characters, to represent any and all sounds, it would mean any language could be written with strings of these characters in substitution for the characters they were using before. There would be no unique language with regard to characters any longer; only unique languages as to their sequences of those characters which now express their existing language more precisely and musically.

Young children and others could then move on to learn the complete set of sounds they can make, and they would learn their own talents and limitations as they learn them. When they accomplish learning all that they could learn form this set of sounds, they would have what is needed to express any language and not only one. This would be training for the acquisition of any language including any language newly recreated, and perhaps regenerated from historical characters with new sounds or estimations as to older sounds used. Students would differ because the set of sounds would include the extremities of what is possible, including edge cases and boundaries of what is possible, so all people would be unable to do some of this very large set of possible human sounds.

Later this system could be extended to include other sounds humans could create, and a foundation could be created to tie this to the sciences, particularly physics. Thus every sound will have it's physico-mathematical representation when the system is closer to complete after many iterations.

So all kids would have the sounds required to quickly imitate speakers of any langauge. Rhythym would need to be learned, and of course grammars and vocabularies would have to be studied. But comfort with making the right sounds would really exist, and be trained already. It may be true that there would be much less of a risk having any accent at all because any sounds can be made. Rhythms would perhaps still show linguistic acquisition issues later in life, but it may be that there is a finite set of rhythms that can also be taught at the time that the universal set of sounds are taught.

Even signing in other languages would be enabled by this process.

What I have in mind here is not only a way to learn languages and perhaps I'm less interested in this than the prospect of having new future languages that are better defined with operationalized concepts that have better scientific validities, are really truthful and have no false concepts, unless that is obvious at all times, and those concepts represent the structure of the world systematically. Vocabularies and languages would be contstructed that allow for more true thinking, and words would be unlikely to lead people astray, and instead consistently teach them in ways that are scientific. Today we have animal names for example. It would be better if colloquial animal names were the same names from the scientific animal classification, but instead they are not. We would not want them to be so cumbersome as those long names that are not easily used, and we would want the scientific names to be more like the easy names. Some harmonious blend exists, and instead of learnign two naming systems we use one, and the one we use, maps to the structure of animal life and earth's history.

We could create langauges this way ourselves, or rely on AI to create languages using criteria and depending perhaps on what AI can recommend, once AI is good enough for doing this. Then if AI suggests a langauge and a lexicon, a third party has created it. It may be that there can be agreement as to a universal first of firsts language. I say first of firsts, because an infant can be exposed to more than one language to have a number of first languages. Then having the set of all human sounds that are possible, they can more expressively use those sounds in a much more sophisticated and advanced langauge. Thus people can retain their old languages while using a newer more sophisticated lanaguage.

A limitation on continued human evolution and cultural evolution involves limitations on existing language and the fact that issues that exist create boundary conditions on what can be thought, whereas, if those issues do not exist, then those boundaries are further out. The boundaries always exist. For example, human language is very ambiguous regarding its logic. It is not explicit as to its own logic and how it might be used. In order to be better at logic, one must learn logic, and once one has learned logic, one can do better with one's natural language, but the ambiguities still exist and incredibly stifle communication. If one gets very good at logic, it is still ambiguous in the language, and while one can more precisely constrain how one speaks, others cannot hear or perceive the differences oftentimes. Thus cultural persuasions and growth of knowledge are affected. One's mind is limited too as one is preoccupied with conversing in ways that others understand, and not new ways, and if new, it does not become common even with efforts in that direction. Logic is not the only issue, as some words actually have no meaning, only vague meanings, have not been clarified for everyone, and people do not share meanings. There are some permanent constraints with this but that is probably a good thing; nevertheless, improvements can be made such that there is mutual understanding about what can and cannot be different such that corrections can be made and differences can be evaluated for novel benefits.

For now I think that is all I wish to say about this topic, although very likely I will expand on this in the future. I think it would be fun if all people could learn themselves so well as to be able to make any sound a person could make within their abilities. It is fascinating then that all languages could share the same character set and symbols. Since this is a complete list of symbols, it is amazing to imagine that any language AI could make that uses these sounds that understands human soundmaking limitations would comprise possible languages for humans. This should unlock the ability to think in more complex ways and enable humans to identify specially gifted individuals who would then allow for the improvement of the human species biologically by either spreading their traits or taking those traits for genetic modification of new dna materials that can be used for new offspring. It will be something that will be addressed in the future, the trajectory of future human life and which traits would be selected from or not. There would be a pool of traits to select from, while enabling whatever beneficial recombining at random may seem useful given probabilities.

Given advancements its hard to say which would or could happen first, the popularized genetic engineering or the creation of new languages using an approach like that above. The creation of a new language does seem to be necessary however, so regardless of any pathway for improving people genetically, there is a pathway to improve them culturally and mentally with the genetic pool that happens to exist already, and I think there would be considerable advancements without changing the hardware that peple now have.

## <a name="reading-my-own-writing-seems-more-important-than-reading-from-others-and-it-includes-blemishes-confirming-that-reading-through-blemishes-to-meaning-is-easy-and-where-the-meaning-is-good-enough-makes-it-more-important-than-making-it-blemish-free">Reading My Own Writing Seems More Important Than Reading From Others, And It Includes Blemishes, Confirming That Reading Through Blemishes To Meaning Is Easy, and Where The Meaning Is Good Enough, Makes It More Important Than Making It Blemish Free</a>

*296 Wanattomians, Thursday, May 24, 2025, Athens, Greece*

Human Shortcomings | Reading | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Candidate Content For ThoughtStream The Book 

A large number of my writings which were published in the High Intelligence Community received comments and criticism about simple blemishes that existed in punctuation and so on, despite messages to the reader, that what was written, was unedited, as part of a study in editing. They were told it was semi-blind typed, and that no spell check or punctuation checks were used. Even within this community where there is supposed to be support regarding various projects of fellow members, people like to complain and point out errors in a way not dissimilar to everyone else in the rest of the population. It could be they are more like this than some other populations that do include a larger number of supportive people.

Already I'm aware of the quality of my writing, and of course, I could not have made my career or academic pursuits as successful as they were without being a very strong writer. My writing is what singled me out as being especially talented in many ways. My writings in the high intelligence community sometimes are jealousy provoking and somethings this was the true cause of the reactions, but othertimes there were genuine issues with punctuation and grammar. However, as a known member of the community well known to have good writing, the message that this was experimental should have been enough for polite responses rather than rude ones, if there were errors, particularly since the objective includes having errors as a requirement.

More recent writing has been more full of errors in punctuation and spelling, because I shifted from semi-blind typing to totally blind typing without any feedback of any kind.

Today reading from my ThoughtStream, I encountered many of these errors, which I have to say are still very few and non-severe given I can't see anything I'm typing and do not read it! Never is any spell check or grammar check used! Reading the results of this writing, what I am seeing is writing that makes for a facile experience. I'm smoothly reading through blemishes. Ever read any of those messages used to convey a psychological point about reading, with all the letters scrambled or some upside down? It shows that reading even deliberately broken writing is easily understood. Each and every word in some of these examples is rapidly understood despite all being misspelled or missing letters. This is because when one reads, one has gotten past reading individual letters. Instead, the brain simply autocompletes words on limited features detected perceptually. If you read a word that is misspelled, you see the word still. Sometimes you can read words and sentences with errors without errors, because your brain detected what words are correct, before seeing that anything was wrong. This is what happens when you try to edit your own reading, after you have written it. Being even more ready to interpret words as what you were intending, you fail to see errors. Only later, after some time has passed, are you able to detect errors that were overlooked.

This is meaningful for this discussion because it shows there can be serious errors in writing and it will still be easily understood, so obviously, for the few errors in my writing, the reading is valuable, wherever the message to be received is valuable and is useful to the reader, interested enough in reading it!

Typically the test of my view that one should read for meaning has been tested using my own writing on an audience that has not been receptive. Some have given great feedback, but many have complained that even small blemishes are too much. But what if I read my own writing, that I have not seen in a while.

I would expect in advance that it would be of good value. Today, after a long period not reading any of my own writing, I went back to read a few postings, to stimulate my creativity, and also to get some reading accomplished, which is a task I set for myself today. Reading my own writing from a few of the last ThoughtStream postings, I was surprised just how important the messages were and how useful they would be for my self-improvement. I felt I needed the information. Reading was easy through blemishes that hardly appear given the ability to quickly perceive what the writing was intended to be. The reading was pleasant and even more enjoyable than reading the text I've been reading lately, that has been heavily edited to be a popular paperback with huge numbers of readers. I thought to myself, that I did not much need that other text and that I should redirect focus to my own writing. From an established author to what I've written. Of course I'm an author too, but this is an author with a very large readership, and still, what I'm seeing from myself includes more to learn from, even though one might think since I wrote it, I'd remember it. Familiar upon reading, but the relevance felt different, and some was surprising like I didn't think I would have ever thought of it.

I think this is plenty of confirmation, that my mission of conveying that having blemishes in writing is useful. I have not stated the full argument here of course. Blemishes are useful because if one does not edit them one said what one really said, and did not change it, and because the meaning is still there. In verbal conversation people are not picky correcters. They don't stop you when you make a grammatical mistake, and there is no such thing as spelling, and we are more forgiving than we think about differences in pronunciation, and if we look closely, people do not say words the same way. This is interesting too. Words written very closely resemble each other, except with differences in font and some other user experience and design related differences. But the words are really similar. Spoken words vary much more than written words. We listen through this natively and easily understand. When a foreigner tries with more difficulty, we still readily understand oftentimes. We are so unconcerned with correcting others in speech, but in writing some will stop reading, complain, and act as though they received no gift of meaning at all, even when intent is very positive.

I've said all I said above lengthily but really it is true that reading my writing that retains speed of communication without editing, causing some blemishes to persist, is still read with a smoothness that does not justify complaints and certainly confirms my points are true.

## <a name="a-continuation-on-the-prior-thought-about-what-goes-unsaid-that-determines-simply-if-a-friendship-continues-or-not">A Continuation On The Prior Thought, About What Goes Unsaid That Determines Simply If A Friendship Continues Or Not</a>

*296 Wanattomians, Thursday, May 24, 2025, Athens, Greece*

Human Shortcomings | Relationships | Truth and Honesty

Another way to approach this topic, is to consider if any friends would still be had, for anyone who said everything they thought and not only some of what they thought. If it were believed, that for nearly all people, that if they really thought aloud, that each and every friend would not be a friend, then friendship is a strange thing for existing, because it depends on dishonesty and concealment, and on ignoring that there is no person that you would want as a friend, because in the same way that you would be rejected for some of what you'd think, youd reject the others as well. There is no person that you would allow to be your friend if this is true.

If it were not true, would it be that everyone who is friendworthy simply alters their thinking to make it agreeable to frienship? In this case the mind has been altered to be acceptable to others so the thinking is consistently something that would not cause one to be rejected.

If the mind has not been so modified, a friendworthy person, then, woudl be someone who somehow simply thinks in a way that is more naturally agreeable to other people. But it may not always be in this condition; nevertheless we can imagine someone who is this way at least for some period of time. This would mean some people are naturally friendworthy for some durations fullfilling some criteria that might be had about how long it must continue to make such a relationship reasonable.

Having the knowledge about what may or not be true in this conversation is really of good general importance, because friendship is not something that is culturally necessary. It may appear that it is, but it is not, and instead of close and intimate friendships being highly valued, it could be that acquaintanceship and temporary but fun relationships, or useful relationships, could become the focal point. A culture could be built off the latter and not only the former. I also think both would be satisfying to most or nearly all. It would be interesting though, if they are the same thing! Because how much do you know about your friends? Do you live with them, watching them perpetually, with them watching you likewise? Or is it more true that there are very large gaps in time seeing each other? In that case, friendship is repeated acquaintanceship without people realizing it. Thought about this way, not only does the alternative culture seem more feasible, it is the one we have perhaps, considering this perspective.

But why else is it of general importance?

Apart from deciding what culture would be reasonable or better for a higher quality of living, one might simply think for oneself and consider that, if really it were known that one would reject all friendships if all the minds were known, then in the least, a reinterpretation of the value of friendships would be wise, and without such a reinterpretation, one is someone naive and juvenile about one's living arrangement, however commonplace it may be. Does one think less of friendships? Think less of their beginning or ending? Expect less about it?

Maybe if someone simply read these paragraphs, they would be inclined to alter their expectations, if they are self changing people.

Personally, on other grounds I reject the concept of friendship as one that is early. This does not mean I would not want any relationships, but I was thinking earlier that I'd rather describe relationships individually using objects, relations, and properties, instead of too general concepts like friend. Is someone your "best friend" or a "friend" really? People wonder to themselves about these things and have anxieties about how others really think about them? But why not simply consider the objects the properties, and kinds of relationships happening? This would indicate that two friendships can be very unalike. Why even discuss them as friendships or not. Acquaintanceships can take many forms. If one goes into the details, one still performs the exercise of describing the person, their properties, yourself and your properties, and the details of how you interract. Why not simply do this with the small finite number of relationships had? With experience it would not take long to do it quickly.

Then one can also consider how absences of information might change the interpretation of the relationship. Instead of thinking dumbly that one is a friend or not and that there are strict rules of friendship, one can simply have different kinds of relationships, even considering keeping those relationships with knowledge that their thinking would cause you to reject them on the friendship model. This is what happens somewhat anyway. You have a frenemy you think. By saying you have one, means you think it will persist. So now you have this other kind of relationship, that you kept, knowing or suspecting, that what is omitted, would cause you to reject friendship according to the other model as a possibility. But instead you keep them around. Perhaps because they are fun to be with and are not too risky.

I have had relationships that were like this, especially collegial relationships.

Friendships are interpreted by society to be something that requires some level of purity to be maintainable. Knowing that others very likely think through things in such a way that they will think negative things that would bother the others, or offend sensittivities seems to really imply that friendships would not exist if more information were known. But it is known that this is true. Therefore it is a strange thing that this sensitivity about this kind of purity about friendship has not been reinterpreted such that everyone has a sane view about what friendship is. Some people will say that this view is characteristic of an insane view of reality. Reality is denied in order to maintain an idea about what one's friendships are, rather than seeing what they really are and developing a more precise understanding.

## <a name="someone-may-or-may-not-say-something-to-you,-and-if-they-do-not,-you-are-friends,-if-they-do,-you-are-not-friends,-and-significance">Someone May Or May Not Say Something To You, And If They Do Not, You Are Friends, If They Do, You Are Not Friends, And Significance</a>

*284 Wanattomians, Epoch 1747014615, Sunday, May 11, 2025 18:50:15, Tucson, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Relationships

This is a higlhyimportant topic that I I'll have to revisit at another time. What exactly do you think, that you could say, that you elect to not say, that would end a relationship? /Why then are you in that relationships? What relationships remain if you disclose more?

*284 Wanattomians, Epoch 1747014660, Sunday, May 11, 2025 18:51:00, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 45 seconds. 48 words. Typespeed: 63.960 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="present-day-culture-has-the-strangest-bias-towards-finishing,-even-in-finishing-what-is-unnecessary.-finishing-arguably-is-not-finishing-oftentimes-as-well">Present Day Culture Has The Strangest Bias Towards Finishing, Even In Finishing What Is Unnecessary. Finishing Arguably Is Not Finishing Oftentimes As Well</a>

*280 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746738176, Thursday, May 08, 2025 14:02:56, Tucson, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Relationships | Procrastination | Development of Desire | Evaluative Concepts | Inferring To Moral Conclusions

Finishing races that were signed up for fun for example. More on this later.

*280 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746738194, Thursday, May 08, 2025 14:03:14, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 18 seconds. 14 words. Typespeed: 46.620 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="while-reading-a-book-on-the-history-of-russia,-i-realized-that-too-much-contained-was-almost-purely-verbal,-and-not-much-of-the-history-is-known,-but-that-this-seems-especially-true-of-native-history,-relayed-by-the-natives,-and-much-of-it-is-shallow-and-purely-verbal-together">While Reading A Book On The History Of Russia, I Realized That Too Much Contained Was Almost Purely Verbal, And Not Much Of The History Is Known, But That This Seems Especially True Of Native History, Relayed By The Natives, And Much of It is Shallow And Purely Verbal Together</a>

*277 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746426122, Sunday, May 04, 2025 23:22:02, Tucson, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Truth and Honesty | The Distant Future, Legacies, and Morality

Here I think they title conveys what I'm wanting to share and retain. Not too long ago, I explained that there should be a commbination of verbal and visual verification for validating infromation. Verbal, I mean visual, real world sensory information is helpful to confirm what is verbal. 

Life does not immediately exhibit itself to us thorough your sensory perception words. Initially we have sounds, and images, and touch, and smaell. We do not have words initially. We do not, like a computer program, receive a stream of characters, corresponding to visual and auditory stimuli. Later we use words to talk about what was experienced.

In history books, we do not at all have any of the visual, audiotry, or any sensory information whatsoever. Even if we are wathing films on history, we are getting very little of that, although this is improving and developing. It will remain an area of limitation nevertheless, because of other considerations around the scaling of archives and the scaling of image capture, or video capture. More on this elsewhere.

In the history books, we are not seeing films on history, but verbal text. The character stream. Is the character stream, coming from someone, reflecting on what they experienced without that character stream? No they are not. This is taught in history, with the concepts of primary, secondary, and tertiary documents. But this teaching has not conveyed the dearth that exists and I think this appreoach does better.

More on this subject later, but before completing this brief commentary, I wanted to say that this seems especially true of native histories. Native histories often rely on no documentation, and the histories they share are often shallow, and appear to be even copies of what others have shared. They seem too verbal.

Without having good documentation, or good connection points to closer experiences, shared through video and stories of people who know firsthand, and ultimately reollections in the reader (!), I think it is too verbal. But Native histories combine both that they are shallow and verbal, which makes for the potential inference that they have no real history in some cases. Little to no history may be better to say. But again, I think one has to quantify and measure if one is scientific.

So here on the thoughtstream we will commence with the approach to quantify and measure or at least realistically estimate the quantity of support that exists for any particular history. 

Have you heard of this at all, of actually point by point trying to quantify and measure, and do science for seeing what history exists and is trustworthy, and what does not, and extent?

Nodone does this. And considering just how much is relayed in a historical text, it is humorous to think about just how many estimates would have to be made. This is a clear show that there have been no such measurements, else along with the texts we are reading we owould see estimates as to the veracity, and levels of support.

I think even if this would be done, it would be done in such a way as to show a strong bias to wards changing nothing in the history. Or chaing it in such few ways, that it would appear, that much of what existed is resatated to be true.

I think this would show dishonesty within the field of history. Also what is intersting, I feel I know that this is what tehey would do.

But what would an AI do if asked to do the same work, if it were a trustworthy AI that did not worry about respect, and simply concerned itself with truth and accuracy.

*277 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746426769, Sunday, May 04, 2025 23:32:49, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 647 seconds. 613 words. Typespeed: 56.820 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-velocities-and-displacement-or-shifting-are-high,-expenditures-and-transactions-are-low,-with-some-few-exceptions">If Velocities and Displacement or Shifting Are High, Expenditures and Transactions Are Low, With Some Few Exceptions</a>

*277 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746405751, Sunday, May 04, 2025 17:42:31, Tucson, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Livelihood

If one is moving rapidly, one is not transacting or spending. Nowadays some spending is of course done automatically via credit card purchases that are scheduled, but for any transaction that is done in person, with card or with cash, the transactions are fewer if one is moving.

Notice one is stationary every time one is making a transaction like this. 

If one focuses on moveing more and with a greater velocity, shopping is harder, both in the selection of goods and in the actual transacting to have them. Seeing them is hard if all is a blur. You can't know what to buy if you're moving past earth too fast.

The faster the velocity the more unlikely you are spending.

If you are an asteroid, there is no way to swipe the credit card or give someone cash.

If you are in front of the computer and you are buying things online, have you noticed, you are not moving much. 

You have some displacements mbut not many. 

So one method you can use to avoid spending as much is to make sure you're moving faster.

*277 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746405916, Sunday, May 04, 2025 17:45:16, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 165 seconds. 186 words. Typespeed: 67.620 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-my-works-and-artifacts-of-myself-became-noteworthy-later,-and-worthy-of-attention-in-the-future,-it-would-still-make-it-seem-mankind-was-less">If My Works And Artifacts of Myself Became Noteworthy Later, And Worthy of Attention in The Future, It Would Still Make It Seem Mankind Was Less</a>

*276 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746319391, Saturday, May 03, 2025 17:43:11, Tucson, Arizona*

Relationships | The Distant Future, Legacies, and Morality | Human Shortcomings

I am aware that my accomplishments and works and personal development are important for the future, but that does not mean there will be any attention to my work at that time.

It may be that my work will fail to exist in the future. I do notot think of that as a failure but simply use the word. It may simply not make it that far, or may not be well archived by others, who I largely think are incompetent at such a task, where what is valuable is not recognized as such.

In the future, if it is seen that my works were valuable for development of human animals and others, somewhat humorously, the videos and so on will show a person or human animal that is not as great as would be wanted visually.

How to know a human's value from their behavior and appearance given also their amazing works.

We assume that if we come to know the people who did amazing things that what we would experience are people as amazing as what we experienceed.

Quality of thought does not necessarily relate to expectations in visible behavior.

Firstly, my attractiveness would vary. Some would think I'm ugly, many would think I'm pleasant looking, and some would think I'm very attractive. But I think few would think I'm very attractive.  I would be in the eight out of dten or seven out of ten ranking category on average. Some would say lower, soome higher.

Apart from appearance, is factial expression and gestures which are abhorerent to some cultures. Some of how I act will be considered quite strange or unwanted, and other ways of behaving quite interesting. My behavior will be very out of date!

My clothes willnnot be current fashion and may not look sufficiently rich or noteworthy. I am not surrounded by riches although I live exremely well with my travels and choices of locations to remain. How amazing can someone look, while eating fast food?!

We might be extremely surprised about peole like Aristotle or Socrates, or other people of high repute in history,,, seeing their behavior.

Unless they behave extremely formally, and dress in a way expected of someone of high reputation, then they will not seem great enough for their accolades.

Yet their minads and writings did really produce what is most admirable to us, being those people who think we can look into the exterior of things (interior of things) to fully understand , or more accurately recognize, what is of value while somewhat discounting the influence of the exterior.

Recallt hat I am typing this rapidly and I cannot see any text output.

This is mind into writing and publication elsewhere.

enough for now since this batteryon this computer will soon be empty.

*276 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746319864, Saturday, May 03, 2025 17:51:04, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 473 seconds. 464 words. Typespeed: 58.800 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-randomness-of-the-children-people-are-having-is-better-understood-when-one-thinks-about-how-random-the-kids-of-family-members-seem-to-be-when-they-finally-have-them">The Randomness of The Children People Are Having Is Better Understood When One Thinks About How Random The Kids of Family Members Seem to Be When They Finally Have Them</a>

*275 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746260492, Saturday, May 03, 2025 01:21:32, Tucson, Arizona*

Relationships

Think of how the kids of others seem to be so unnecessary and unexpected if they are not yours. They are not how you think they would be when they finally come into existence from their parents. It almost seems like they have little resemblance to their parents.

I've tried to communicate to others many times how they reallly cannot and do not visualize who their child will be in advance, but for some reason they are unable to understand. Seems intelligencce related and I've written about this before. But if you look at this from the perspective of others who see these kids come from those parents, it is more clear how random they really are.

For example the kids who came from my sister seem to be ever so random beccause there really is no way to conceive at all that such kids even could come from this person, and they seem like they could have as easily coem from other families.

I think this should be explained further. I am not saying that I do not like kids from people who have them necessarily and I certainly don't dislike the children of my siblings. What I am saying is that they seem random like they also could be substituted for totally different kids simply if the sperm and egg combination were different. This has to be restated deterministically.

*275 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746260733, Saturday, May 03, 2025 01:25:33, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 241 seconds. 231 words. Typespeed: 57.480 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-world-has-become-a-worse-place,-have-another-child">The World Has Become a Worse Place, Have Another Child</a>

*274 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746212699, Friday, May 02, 2025 12:04:59, Tucson, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

Another addition to the series begun in writing for the first time here, if not once or twice earlier, on having another child despite having very serious complaints about the world and life in general.

Some statement X, Have another child.

That is the form of the statements I'm collecting.

For example:

Life as a woman has been difficult and hard, and in some ways it is too annoying to be perpetually less than the other sex, but nevertheless, I'm having another child.

I was born into slavery, and slavery still exists, have another child.

I am not very smart, am sexually unattractive, and I have a few genetic ailments, have another child.

I am old, and now I do not enjoy life, yet I have been this way twenty years, and perhaps have twenty more years of life like this, had another kdid. Gradkids had another kid.

I have no mo;ney, and was born into feudalism, have another kid.

Legacy doesn't exist, have another kid.

The best time of life is childhood and the rest is not so enjoyable, have naother kid.

I'm sick of work, I spent too much time being employed to others and did not make enough money to justify it, and wasted my life, had five kids. They make more grandkids.

I dislike pollution, have another kid.

I'd like a life with untainted nature have another kid.

*274 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746212988, Friday, May 02, 2025 12:09:48, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 289 seconds. 232 words. Typespeed: 48.120 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-life-categories-and-the-attentional-management-process,-encapsulating-all-of-the-various-life-activities,-do-not-constrain-those-activities-which-is-made-clearer-in-that-those-activities-still-exist,-are-few,-and-would-are-really-representable-by-such-categorizations">The Life Categories And The Attentional Management Process, Encapsulating All Of The Various Life Activities, Do Not Constrain Those Activities Which Is Made Clearer In That Those Activities Still Exist, Are Few, and Would Are Really Representable By Such Categorizations</a>

*274 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746152959, Thursday, May 01, 2025 19:29:19, Tucson, Arizona*

Architecture | Imagination and Filtration | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings | Personal Form

Occcasionally, when I am using the attentional manageement process, I quickly feel that it could be constraining. This is partly because I thihnk that others would criticize it thinking that it would be the case, and because I'm aware of such criticisms of systems within philosophy. That they cannot be complete and must have some input from the external system. Some philosophers historically have rejected what they have called system building for philosophies and moralities, as wholes created by authors, because they too often omit considerations that make it obvious the systems would require extension or that they simply are not the right systems.

When I think about systems that I have read about, my view is that usually they are ill conceived. Ill conceived may not be the right cliche. They simply come from minds that are not comprehensive enough. They don't have a large enough vision matching up with what reality includes. These systems are usually not improved enough with extension. Instead I think these are systems to reject, and replace with better systems that have a more generall consideration of more relevant information.

The idea is that systems typically do not include all that is relevant. If something is relevant is left out, then replacement or extension of the system is required. Typically the omission of very large amount sof relevant information falults works to too great an extent and they have to be repalced. But this is not always the case I'm sure.

There are times when these considerations are not as appplicable, but I think people would still apply them.

Anyway, in producing my process I am wanting it to include inputs from the external world, and to be adapted and altered based on new relevant information. I'll have to state what kind of completenesses I think it has. In the future, I think it will be realized that this is a pretty comprehensive and adaptable system, that is not deficiant in the same ways systems that I'm discussing were defective. Insteadl I think this system will just get old. i think it will be found that it was a very good system, but simply is a primordial variant of what would arise later. It probably will be admittted, if there is any knowledge of the system later, that the system is a necessary germ or beginning to a more advancedd system.

At the time of writing this is the most advanced system I've been exposed to

By writing the above I don't assume that there really would be any reading of my work for future utilization and it may simply be forgotten but the same thoughts are applicable if one considers that even if they go unused, the actual system still constitutes an analogy or morpholical simialar to whatever the beginning system that goes forward turns out to be.

There is confirmation of the system used if others use equivalent or similar systems.

Anyway so I do think about these types of things as I consider my own system, and while I'm very confident and think about this infrequently it does come to mind from time to time.

Stifling systems are often stifling because they omitted relevant information in their design and conception. This system is too rigid and does not actually imclude what is needed or the flexibility required is what a user or advocate would think. Instead of advocate, I should think practitioner.

Regarding the part of the system that is the categorization of the life categories, which redundantly is about capturing life activity and behavior iinformation, it appears that there is no issue relating to system stifling. Not that I can see that matters much for the moment and now this is after very much consideration.

As I am using the attentional management process, and I'm running through the categories, I think if I am utilzing a system that is to constraining. But then today I thought to myself, after thinking something such as this very quickly, that the behaviors exist as they are even if the system happens to not be used. That means it has some representational validity. It has very good representational validity. Having this representational validity, it captures my behavior into the categories even if I do not utilize the attentional management process or any other process.

Having gone through the use of AMP for a long time, I am also the result o fthe process. My activities well conform to the life category model, and work well within the attentional management process, and is very simplistic in many ways, making it really clear taht the behaviors and activities really do definitely fit within the scheme.

Since they fit within the scheme now, even if I abandoned any use of the system, it would conform to the system. I see now that this is similar to the statement I made earlier that one can simply learn from the system, train with it, then stop using it later if one wants. One is trained and simply doe snot need to refer any longer. Since that is the case, it definitely conforms to the sytem even if it is not the system being used actively as a tool.

The kind of stifling that one could complain about, that I noticed could be complained about, concerning there being too inadequate a representation of relevant life information would not work.

But there are other complains about the stifling nature of systems. Is it too repetitively used, even if absorbed and not used as a tool any more. Embodiment of a stifling system would be a stifling embodiment. Having insufficient flexibility to behave in unconstrained ways (that matter) would aslo indicate potentially an overly stifling system. Also whether or not there are parts of the process that allow for natural exploration, that conforms to the system in important ways but provides enough freedom. Waht is the perception of freedom of the system? How free am I using it? What extra freedom does it create? How free tdo I feel learning it, versusus how free I feel afterwards. Since I want to learn it, it is very free to be able to learn it! But for others, it might vfeel forced. The interesteing thing is, whatever level of freedom exists for incorporating the system into self with practice, the outcome seems to be more freedom.

It's like with children learning that if they confrom in some ways to actually useful way s of earning a living, that they'll have more freedom later with the discipline. Some might like that process while others don't. But if both become rich through actually going through with the process, both understand the freedom gained later.

Much more needs to be said on this because I do need to have some testing of the validities of my own system, even though it is very well tested-- it does need more, and I also need to offer explanations where I think the reader may have complaints or may have criticisms.

*274 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746154146, Thursday, May 01, 2025 19:49:06, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 1187 seconds. 1171 words. Typespeed: 59.160 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="there-is-no-living-entity-that-holds-cultural-knowledge-that-is-not-a-brain,-and-the-analogy-of-a-lone-highly-developed-old-tree">There Is No Living Entity That Holds Cultural Knowledge That is Not a Brain, and The Analogy of a Lone Highly Developed Old Tree</a>

*273 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746127424, Thursday, May 01, 2025 12:23:44, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Mind and Mental Development | Constraint and Determinism

I think it is easy to forget that there is no living entity someplace that holds all of the cultural wisdom. By postulating collective social entities such as nation, and states, and institutions, we create an idea tht there is some larger object that is the thing holding all the wisdom knowledge and information.

There is this foolish quote, that people use as a guide to action, which includesthe phrase that it is worth belonging to something larger than oneself. Larger athan oneself. This phrase is of interest. What is this enttity that is larger than oneself?

This phrase is used in other contexts but shows the fallacy in play. Sometimes people will use this phrase to urge others or themselves tojoin large organizations for work or reltigious purposes. The idea is that one is not to feel alone any longer and is to feel a part of some larger entity that somehow holds the wisdom. There is a larger purpose to these organizations.

I'm not sure it is appropriate to think of larger systems of processes of people and tools to constitute things that are really larger than ourselves holding information. That is until there is a time in which there is soething more biological that is large that is identifiable that we are allwwithin, and by that we are all within, I really mean those people who are livingin teh future hwo are not me.

There is an interesting issue that if one is a human and one belongs to a larger organic entity that is biological like that is identifiable that one is forced like a cell into living aspart of the organization and that one is only part of it playing the role for it for a short part of its life span potentially.

Like if you thought a nation was real andhad a real collective biological objectification to it, and that nation had a life span of several hundred to a thousand or so years. Perhaps it will live longer and be many thousands of years old like China claims to be.

But I here want to introduce another way to think about culture. That once again, as it is today, it is really nothing but a collection of individuals, tools and artifacts of various kinds, and behaviors that relate. There are other ways to explain this using process as a more central ingredient, but here I will place process as an artifact or as a stored behavior in a brain.

If we think that people are removed from the environment, all dead at once, or dead for a long period, or all zombies like in a zombie film, we see an emptiness arises in all esle that is claimed to exist as part of a larger ysystem to which the people belong.

Ifthe people die, and are erased, or fail to function to an extent of becoming all zombified, then the larger entitty dies.I think of course that is metaphorical to say that it has died. Really I think it never existed. But there is a systemic thing that has inputs and outputs and continues over time that does cease to work any longer.Perhaps one can think of it as an ecological system of sorts, but I don't think tiit is developed enough for such a view to be able to refute this view I'm now sharing and articulating.

So if the people are gone, the earth is quiet regarding human creations. They stand still. They seem lifeless. In a way the buildings are like coral reefs that no longer have living things in them. There is no movement. Displacement of humans has gone to zero or near zero.

Before this occured however, there was lots ofmovement. This movement is because of the objects that are organisms that are moving in it that are biological. But they are not really a collection that arisees in a  new entitty. They really are just individual people. Like cactuses in a forest. Or trees in a forest, except moving. If some people were to die and some were to live, then it would become obvious that information loss has occured, but the information loss is related to who happens to be present.

If one wants to look to the most wise entity in an environment, one is not going to look to the lifeless whole apart from the people living within it. This is like thinking that the larger zomified human construct would have theinformation and wisdom. There is no wise entity if there is no thinking entity.

These thoughts require clarification, I know, but for now I think this is trending towards an accuracy, treating the culture as a group of inddividuals that do not emerge any whole At least not of the sort ofat would be wanted for other perspectives that are contrary to the view that individuals really have the wisdom and there is nothing larger to belong to, as discussed above.

The most wise thing in a culture is not the culture, adnd this shows there is a sematntic problem with the word culture. The most wise thing in a culture would be the most wiseliving entity in it. There would be a large collection or subset of theliving entities that are more developed and these would be like the most developed cacti and trees in a forest.

I find the alnalogy of the forest of trees or cacti very pleasant for explainging this view. There is noc complex forest that i s a tree itself. There is only a collection of trees. There is no collection of cacti that is a cactus, but insted, thre are many individual cactuses. It can't be more than a forest of individuals.

A lone and highhly developed old cactus has an allure. Same with large very old trees. These old, very highly developed trees and cacti seem to have special importance. We think it more repulsive to kill these plants, versus the younger cacti. We recognize how difficult it is to find such a rarity, and how unusual it is for a ccactus or tree to reach such a state of development.

Very old cacti and trees also seem to have more complex structure and variation than the other trees. Extremely highly develloped trees seem more different from ech other and the rest than the very young cacti and trees.

I like the cactus analogy because it creates a sense that there is nothing that is larger than a particular very large cactus that is a cactus, and that the cactus really is isolated, separte, and alone. I'm more sensitive these days about defining alone, but there is a definition that might be suitable. I will have to explain later. 

The contrast between a specific highly developed cactus and the rest of the cacti is of interest. Disconnectedness is of interest.In humanity, the equivalent are very smart people with a high level of nereural and bio development.

Like with the highly developed cacti it may be  worth keeping around the highly developed if the highly developed holds the cultural information and wisdom that is thought to exist iin a whole. That is, these larger more complex brains actually do hold the information and wisdom that creates an illusion that there is something larger to belong to. It's really there are just living people who are still wise and well developed. 

We can here then think about what it would be like if instead of all people dying all died but the most wise, or if all died but the youngest. If all died but the most wise, it would seem that culture still exists nearly intact in the ways that it would be wanted. If it were only the young, it would seem that culture has vanished very largely.

More must be said about this and the relationship to recordings.

*273 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746128948, Thursday, May 01, 2025 12:49:08, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1524 seconds. 1314 words. Typespeed: 51.720 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="considering-which-experiences-correspond-to-brain-states-that-do-not-require-improvement-or-concern">Considering Which Experiences Correspond To Brain States That Do Not Require Improvement or Concern</a>

*266 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745465087, Wednesday, April 23, 2025 20:24:47, Tucson, Arizona*

ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Mind and Mental Development

Even stale content provides useful artifacts about how life was, and so a mine of trash, from the past, which is largely what paleontologists think of artifacts, from my training in archaeology, it seems that there are useful things till to be found. The trash and waste and things people cared about can include useful information even when that thinking was stale before during and after.

Future thoughts, I noticed, from my last posting, will be stale. I can expect them to be stale already. This challenges somewhat the concept of staleness because perhaps it should be another concept, that relates to the usefulness and timelessness of thf the information.

Stale content is irrelevant feeling, and sometimes false, and often tasteleees. What I am saying here is that artifacts including stale content, which is almost all of it, will still have utility, bu tthat utility is about locating what animals were like in the past. This does not necessarily include appreciation of what they wriote about or said.

But what if what is being spoken about includes much that is factual, and much that does have utility, at earlier stages of devellopment, if not later. What if these learnings from earlier stages of development are fogotten in the course of development and need resurfacing for other reasons. It will be noticed that if the facts are facts they are still truths. Truths stated by small animals are avaluable, and I may care more about facts coming from cute rodents than facts from people. If kind birds, and primates, and rodent globs also decide to tell of what was useful to them, in a way that conveys effectively more facts, then they have said yet more abotu what is useful in development. This is all inaddition to teaching abotu what they are with the artifacts they share.

A challenge seems to be to find the quality that is wanted, and many people struggle with this. I think it is really more simple than might be noticed. Stating things truthfully, sharing things with enough detail and accuracy to actually communicate in a way that is less ambiguously true is helpful, and using mixed media to provide a comprehensive picture is good.  The objective is to provide more truth. Relevance is where people become interested or not. 

Relevance is equal to stale content. 

If most of my writing is relevant, then there is additional utility. This is too social a way of looking at this subject though.

The key thing is to communicate truth in my estimation, and the central concern apart from gaining relevancey to others is a person's own independent interest which results in the writing.

I have spent a long time trying to think through which mental states should be changing but without thinking about it so much at that level as at the level of the individual thoughts and their potential changes. Additionally of course, there are classes of kinds of thinking that I wanted altered and I didd work on altering those. But I did not go to the topmost level to consider in detail which thoughts are those that would not be worth changing.

This is telling regarding my approach to my own thinking. Much that I think is a target for alteration. I spend a considerable amount of my time revising my thinking and have been that way since childhood.

The effects of learning something general includes the need to update other thoughts and parts of the brain whihch paepen to fall under that generality.

So certain conclusions about logic and logical thinking, relate of course to generalizations about how to speak and think in natural language, and this takes time to change.

But what does not require changing?

A moment ago, I had a transitional thought, that had associated with it some mild discomfort, about having some lack of thought content. It's like one of those gap thoughts between changes in moood. Sometimes there is a lack of thinking aand some discomfort that is hard to describe. 

This moment was quick, and does not happen often. I will recognize it when it happens again and spend some time thinking about what it was like, so I can describe it in more detail later.

But the thought seemed to me to be one that perhaps is not really worth changing.

Some uncomfortable thoughts, which are not extremeely discomforting, or are somewhat unpleasant only, or hardly unpleasandt and nearly neurtral, may not be those that should be changed.

It may not be worth it.

wWhat discomforts are worth retaining?

In a way, thinking this way, about self-alteration to this extent, is like trying to find a way to have no discomfort at all.

I can think of states that are not really desirable that one does not have control over. But here I'm talking about those that one has more control over if one re-experiences it a sufficient number of times for self training.

Anyway, I think some top-level thinking about what thoughts in life do not require alteration is required.

*266 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745465451, Wednesday, April 23, 2025 20:30:51, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 364 seconds. 844 words. Typespeed: 139.080 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-writing-does-not-contain-facts-aor-comments-of-real-utility-creating-a-timelessness-it-is-stale-already,-including-future-thoughts-and-contents">If Writing Does Not Contain Facts Aor Comments of Real Utility Creating A Timelessness It Is Stale Already, Including Future Thoughts and Contents</a>

*262 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745178432, Sunday, April 20, 2025 12:47:12*, Tucson, Arizona

ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings

Even stale content provides useful artifacts about how life was, and so a mine of trash, from the past, which is largely what paleontologists think of artifacts, from my training in archaeology, it seems that there are useful things till to be found. The trash and waste and things people cared about can include useful information even when that thinking was stale before during and after.

Future thoughts, I noticed, from my last posting, will be stale. I can expect them to be stale already. This challenges somewhat the concept of staleness because perhaps it should be another concept, that relates to the usefulness and timelessness of thf the information.

Stale content is irrelevant feeling, and sometimes false, and often tasteleees. What I am saying here is that artifacts including stale content, which is almost all of it, will still have utility, bu tthat utility is about locating what animals were like in the past. This does not necessarily include appreciation of what they wriote about or said.

But what if what is being spoken about includes much that is factual, and much that does have utility, at earlier stages of devellopment, if not later. What if these learnings from earlier stages of development are fogotten in the course of development and need resurfacing for other reasons. It will be noticed that if the facts are facts they are still truths. Truths stated by small animals are avaluable, and I may care more about facts coming from cute rodents than facts from people. If kind birds, and primates, and rodent globs also decide to tell of what was useful to them, in a way that conveys effectively more facts, then they have said yet more abotu what is useful in development. This is all inaddition to teaching abotu what they are with the artifacts they share.

A challenge seems to be to find the quality that is wanted, and many people struggle with this. I think it is really more simple than might be noticed. Stating things truthfully, sharing things with enough detail and accuracy to actually communicate in a way that is less ambiguously true is helpful, and using mixed media to provide a comprehensive picture is good.  The objective is to provide more truth. Relevance is where people become interested or not. 

Relevance is related to stale content. 

If most of my writing is relevant, then there is additional utility. This is too social a way of looking at this subject though.

The key thing is to communicate truth in my estimation, and the central concern apart from gaining relevancey to others is a person's own independent interest which results in the writing.



<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="stale-content-and-living-content-are-more-similar-than-they-might-appear">Stale Content and Living Content Are More Similar Than They Might Appear</a>

*262 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745163527, Sunday, April 20, 2025 08:38:47, Tucson, Arizona*

The Value of Social Platforms | ThoughtStream | Editing

There seems to be a good similarity between content tht might be written now and content that was written before.

In a way the last sentence is a humoous comment regarding the subject being of itnerest.

New content differs from stale content in what ways ? Stale content is sharing information that has characteristics that date the writing. It appears dated once the content does not seem relevant in any way, but also when the content is utilizing language that only seemed appropriate at the time, but no longer feels appropriate. This happens when peopel are using a shared pop cultural language or when they are using professional jargon and business language.

The keywords that were common in each of those languages became flags indicating that what is being spoken about is perhaps not true. I t may also indicate that what is being spoken about isn't really corelevant because of the tcontents but is relevant because it cotninues some common discussion, or promotes the writer.

Stale content may also just includes stories and information that are not interesting anymore because they are already well known or are again, too out of date.

Isn't it a bit strange though to think that some story that was interesting before is out of date now?

Simply having traits of age and antiquation makes something appear to be too old to pay attention to. For example, if there is a commercial for a movie on tv on a channel that is not a commonly watched channel it may show clips from old television shows or it may show that what is upcoming is some movie from the 70s or 80s. At this time, I have in my imagination a police car from the 70s or 80s. Simple images such as these are enough for me to think the content is dated and stale, and unworthy of attention.

But these are cars though. Imagine on social media, randomly it is seen that there is this piece of news that has these cars in it. The piece of news is from the 70s. I think most pople would immediately skip over this story. But if you substitute a new story for this old one with identitical contents that include things from today, then suddenly that same information may not seem stale.

It appears some stale content may have timeless value in some respects.

Moving on, thinkign about content I write, I notice that what I write may feel stale as I write it. Firstly, I know that it will be stale. So, well, why isn't it stale righgt now?

Sometiems the place a thing that is written makes it appear to be stale. Like if you write on a blog that looks too old. Or if you write fro a fringe magazine that doesn't get readers. Tehse eahch could be looked at quickly and mistaken for stale ocontent. Soemthign feels too old even if what is there is totally fresh and new.

This website is delibaerately (well this book that is a website too), has a design that is supposeed to have a classic and plain text appearance. I think in many ways it looks like an insipid piece of software. It's a boring looking blog. 

If you open the book version of this particular text, however, it looks less like that. Beut as I think about it, it may be that most books I have ever looked at already appeared stale.

Right now I am thinking that maybe all books are stale.

No movement, lifeless, insipid, plain, and often inclusive of what's old.

To make my content appear less stale, even if it were old content, as I was saying, I could update it with new things, new words, and new dates and images. I could add a new video. Maybe I include more current sofotare design patterns that add something that feels a bit more current, although things here are still pretty current. If I do this, then what I have made is old content fresh and perhaps made it not possible to know it was old content. Also, the stuff that i used to maek it fresh was deliberately contrived to make it seem current. It really is true that what makes things eems new and fresh are meaningless things happening alongside what is shared woor within what is shared.

What does that mean about the content I write and put out now.

I think really, being totally honest, much of it really seems stale already. I'm aware though, that to make it unstale, i probably have to force into it things that are stimulating.

Perhaps there really are more similarities between stale content and not stale content than one might think. Perhaps old content might not be stale, and new content might really be stale already.

*262 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745164321, Sunday, April 20, 2025 08:52:01, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 794 seconds. 805 words. Typespeed: 60.780 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="people-who-are-not-that-smart-including-those-who-are-said-to-be-smart-cannot-gain-knowledge-oftentimes-because-an-insufficient-power-of-what-is-learned-is-not-felt-because-what-is-learned-is-too-partial">People Who Are Not That Smart Including Those Who Are Said To Be Smart Cannot Gain Knowledge Oftentimes Because An Insufficient Power Of What Is Learned Is Not Felt Because What Is Learned Is Too Partial</a>

*258 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744806066, Wednesday, April 16, 2025 05:21:06, Tucson, Arizona*

The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Situations and Significance | Intelligence and Psychometrics | Human Shortcomings

The idea here is that when someone who is less smart learns somethign that has high significance or even good significance usually there is a complex of things to be understood and not only one thing, and this includes the applicability and rel world connections which comprise the significance immediately understood by the person teaching it or the person who understands and apprehends it readily.

That would be the very smart person and not the person who is simply called smart usually too. Because while they seem to learn things that are significant, for this reason they don't know the range of appplication and range of change necessary in the brain and behavior to implement it.

So hey partially understqnd it and partially implement it, or simply feel it insufficiently and let it dissolve. They simply don't use it, can't leel like it would bre worth using, and let if disappear. Or small parts of it are retained. But if the person is average, slightly above or below average, it is really just lost.

This is why college educations and high school educations are forgotten.

I was not a good high school student, but I powerfully retained what I learned from all my education. 

This explains why some who seem to be understanding what you say forget it quickly or fail to develop with you conversationally-- it is because they simply did not have enough understanding even if their faces and beahavior indicated they understood enough for the converstation at that time to move along.

*258 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744806276, Wednesday, April 16, 2025 05:24:36, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 210 seconds. 255 words. Typespeed: 72.840 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="europe-is-embarassed,-that-it-is-small-places-with-small-languages,-and-low-intelligences-using-them-in-isolation">Europe is Embarassed, That It Is Small Places With Small Languages, and Low Intelligences Using Them In Isolation</a>

*258 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744800242, Wednesday, April 16, 2025 03:44:02, Tucson, Arizona*

Com | Relationships | Human Shortcomings

Those languages that we entirely neglect, or fail to know exists, are those that are smaller and more isolated in their use. Tribal languages are counted among the more than one thousand that are claimed to exist in the human bragging about divesrsity, but those languages are the most embarassed of all; unless those are the ones most aware of the present topic.

Very embarassed people, nations and speakers of languages, are those who are really jealous when they socially compare. They socially compare with people in larger nations, with larger pools of language speakers, with much communication power, and ability to move about. The world is maximally jealous of the English speaker, and less jealous of say, the French speaker, but still jealous of them as well. The focal point of the jealousy in this age is the English speaker, who is usually envisioned to be anative speaker, and not one that has learned it late, speaking it in a botched fashion.

The botched speakers receive less jealousy because they cannot use it with the power.

All these countries in europe are small, and much smaller than the states of the united states oftentimes. Some are equivalently sized. But there are less. Europeans have to include Russia as about 40 percent of their landmass to comapare with the land mass of the United States for example. 

Europe is half the size of the united states, and they have countries, who unfortunately, have their own languages, wtih very embarassed people. These eweaker speakers, of weaker languages, are mutually embarassed and share the same kind of embarassment. They have warred with each other over the languages they think matter, then later, they discover they are small. Canada is twice the size of all them combined. Australia is more than twice the size or nearly twice the size too. Combined, they are about size times the size of Europe. A single province of tAustralia or of Canada may fit twenty European nations. These nations take pride in their tiny languages which is to say, they are arrogant while they cover their intense envy.

There is another interpretation fot his whole thing of course which allows for some real proudness of national heritage and language of course, but iI think this interpretation is stronger, even though it seems for humor only, or primarily, because really they are intensely envious and have had wars, and have continued to think themselves separate.

The world got large with the discovery, hilariously, of half the world in 1492, or a bit earlier. In any case, later, potrugal finds out it is hardly anything. Today, Portugal is like a nothing nation, and it has to look over to Brazil to feel like it's language has any power, but the reality is the world actually forgets what Portugese is. It's a weird langauge.

All the other countries have weirdo languages, and before thinking that is rude, consider that you neglected the tribal languages into oblivion and think it a savage.

*258 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744800748, Wednesday, April 16, 2025 03:52:28, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 506 seconds. 501 words. Typespeed: 59.400 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="probability-was-not-utilized-in-the-justification-for-language-use-or-of-math-use,-and-of-course-this-will-be-known-after-the-current-populations-die-only">Probability Was Not Utilized In The Justification For Language Use or Of Math Use, And Of Course This Will Be Known After The Current Populations Die Only</a>

*257 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744752134, Tuesday, April 15, 2025 14:22:14, Tucson, Arizona*

Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings



*257 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744752136, Tuesday, April 15, 2025 14:22:16, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="additional-causes-of-nostalgia,-a-continuation-on-the-discussion-of-eliminating-negative-recollection">Additional Causes of Nostalgia, A Continuation On The Discussion of Eliminating Negative Recollection</a>

*257 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744743568, Tuesday, April 15, 2025 11:59:28, Tucson, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Music and Art | Relationships | Constraint and Determinism

Here I try to add some additinonal causes of nostalgia for including more ingredients for finding a strategy for handingl what remains that is of importance.

Simply seeing on television or social media something from history produces some nostalgia, although what nostalgia is in that scenario may need more definition. If I see, for example, an actor in a clip of a movie from the nineteen eighties, I may have a moment of recollection and familiarity. This can be one that is pleasant, or unpleasant, or neutral. Typically nowadays, these are unwanted, and I do usually avoid them. If I see such a visual, and promptly reject it, am I feeling very breifly, some negative nostalgia, or am I seeing something I remember and simply don't want to see again?

Nostalgia, I think, thas some sensations associated with it, and people may think that these sensationss and feelings are common to each other. But I will venture to claim that people do not know that their expereience of this is the same between people or that people really know what it is. But I do think many have oconsiderable overlap.

I think part of th eoverlap is a strong reaction, or a trend towards a strong reaction, that has some fear about losing a memory, about there being a big difference in experience between present and history, or their being a strong emotional attachment to what is in history that makes one want to feel as though one is still there or that it still exists. With this last emotion, there is a desire to share with others. Can someone else confirm, that htis experience is real still?

There is a distrust in the memory.

The losing of the memory is key to the experience I think. The rpeservation and confirmation of it is part of the desire to socialize about it. 

clips of videos, television whshows, musical pieces, artworks and so on, amke the handling of nostalgia a little more problematic in a final way. These presentations of information are very short and sometimes are unexpected. Actually, they must be unexpected oftentimes. One does not expect to see, when on social media or o watching television, to see suddenly, some old tv show or movie, or hear some old song. There are thousands of those, and the time is not now to be hearing them given one's expectations. So to hear them is odd. The oddness is also why nostalgia is what it is and is part of the defining characteristic.

Here I think it may be seen that nostalgia has not been aggregated into a definite singular list of experiences. I can see it with or without this last experience, but see it as necessary for it to be nostalgia in another set of that type. So what is nostalgia as a collection.

I think it is confused actually. A taxonomy may be needed. I may create an initial one. The initial one will be seeking a final wone for the goals I have described., although I may not arrive at anything that would be universally agreed upon, which is soe;methign that seldom happens anyway. Something will be missing or will not align with someone's strange neuroanatomy.

Smells create nostalgia. These, like with music, can be vague or can be more definitnte depending on whether one can recall the experiences that go with the smaell accurately. I think if one recalls a nice scent, I mean experiences a nice scent, but does not recall what the source was, it is like a new experience, with some familiarity. There can be discomfort in not remembering, but sometimes there is no discomfort with this. This can simply recreate a novel experience with it, with the addition that it is known and felt already to be enjoyable. Sometimes a lack of a memoory creates a very enjoyable expereience.

I think that having no recollection assocaiated with something that is nostaliga provoking may be more enjoyable than those that create some inkling as to a memory but insufficient information to locate it. Then there is too strong a sdesire to have the associated memory. And this can create some frustration or sadness about not having the memory oany longer, or worries about permanently losing the memories. If one is old, this may be very distrurbing, depending on level of preparedness or practice with the experience. But it is close to not remembering at all. It may be possible to leverage that understanding to alter the negative feeling of this experience.

Notice that any experience that seems familiar from history that is not well known is approached lie a curiosity to know more about in a way that is not too unlike experiencing it for the first time, or in initial learnings. Even initial learnings have to have some introduction or context that invites exploration. Without that, it may seem dangerous to look, or , there may seem to be little relevance, or fun about it. Parent sand other people often create the expectation that what will be experienced will be fun and new, and this does create an enhancement and pleasure to the learning.

It may be that this experience is fundamental to human learning and may be hardwired into babies and young children. 

They wan;t to attend to where the moether attends. They want to do and look at what others look at. It is part of imitative behavior. If there is an imitative invite to a curiosity, then it is likely that that is something that will be enjoyable.

If one has already been introduced to an experience, then such a concept or invite has already happened. If thre is no memory that is known to exist but is missing or hard to retrieve, if that doesn't exist, then the experience will be one that is like what was mentioned above. The social context of creating an interest will still be there. It is part of the familiarity too, without the person knowo;ing. Or, the person self created it similarly, by accidentally stumbling ont he experience, and finding it interesting or pleasant independently. In that case, the familiarity created the curiosity context.

Familiarity has a similar effect. I use familiarity as a way to create attention and motivation for learning. This is how introductions often work to get people some small amount of advance learningt o stimulate for future experience.

More later.

*257 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744744779, Tuesday, April 15, 2025 12:19:39, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 1211 seconds. 1072 words. Typespeed: 53.100 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="humans-had-trouble-seeing-what-the-final-human-story-would-be,-so-when-that-time-comes,-in-the-face-of-an-expansive-future-coming-still,-they-will-not-know-how-to-end-it-nor-how-it-should-be-told,-if-they-approach-it-like-they-do-now">Humans Had Trouble Seeing What The Final Human Story Would Be, So When That Time Comes, In The Face of An Expansive Future Coming Still, They Will Not Know How To End It Nor How It Should Be Told, If They Approach It Like They Do Now</a>

*256 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744630327, Monday, April 14, 2025 04:32:07, Tucson, Arizona*

Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism



*256 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744630329, Monday, April 14, 2025 04:32:09, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="there-is-not-any-singular-story-of-humanity-as-people-may-want,-and-no-group-set-of-stories-together-that-would-be-official-either">There Is Not Any Singular Story of Humanity As People May Want, And No Group Set of Stories Together That Would Be Official Either</a>

*256 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744629130, Monday, April 14, 2025 04:12:10, Tucson, Arizona*

Relationships | Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

People want to thihnk that there is a common human story, that all fall within, that provides direction and comprehensive meaning fora everyone. It appeasr to me this is not possible, and that it does not exist.

Eslewhere I questions that there is any such unified thing as a humanity, so clear and contained as people hope. I think the topic of species membership and species over time is more complex than people think. I don't think all animals that people would want to consider to be human really were human, are human, or in the future willl be human. There are many reasons to think this and not all will be given here. One reason is taht thre is no way to compare sexually prior human animals of different kinds, current human animals of different kinds, and future human animals of different kinds. Thre is a kind of gradient among the discrete human animals stretching over time, but nothing that constitutes a single humanity.

More will be said on this later.

ut there are other reasons for thinking in adition to the reason that there is no actual single humanity, that there is no unified comprehensive story of humanity. Although now it shoudl be clear why that would be damagineg to such an idea.

There can be no cast, producers, storytellers, and so on, that will not be generational. Humans can radically change the stories later, what they want their lives to be about, and different people will want different stories for everyone.

In history, there is this way of tellling the human story from prehistory to present that is repetitively using a narrative that creates the illusion that a kind of English dominated perspective constittutes the real history. Differing countries will have althernative conceptions of what the story would look like, told more complretely their way. The story also has thi sodd repulsiveness of being in progress, like hisotry somehow has a direction that is known but is happening currently, and already acepts the past history as its history in the way it is currently written out.

The stories taht people will think of regarding humanitiy's unified progress wil today be one with too much togetherness, and will be too different from what people would have said two hundred years ago, and too differen tfrom what a thousand alternative people would say.

Historical information that is of good quality that is truthful will be included in a complete story of humanity, but I don't believe a plain chronological account of everything, the playbutton of the earth, would yeild a story that is like a literary story, for all of the development of the animal kingdom including for human development.

That there are not people living very long periods of tiem stretching more than one hundred years and that even people who do live 100 years disagree greatly with people only a few decades younger, indicates to me that change about what the human story is is happening at a rate that shows it has changed an incredible amount of times since human prehistory. 

Even for a prevailing culture, it change dramatically perhaps every 30 years or so, and in the future, it may change more rapidly.

Seeing the trajectory of computing, a few hundred years from now, I don't think there could be a great taste for the stories historians have presented.

Human history willlater be one of a history composed of many animals. There may not be a desire to say human any longer. Human history will be one that fianlly admits an unknown future, a future so unknown that the story of all humanity couldn't be stated without too much additional future information. It's an odd attempt at writing a story for which too much remains and there is too much variation.

Also, there may need to be an idea of hiostry as simply being a recording that has representativeness, and that for each history, there will be another that is dramatically different in fthe future.

Additionally, we do these histories while failing to admit the scarcity of information we relly have about history. Most about history is ereally lost. We may need AI to review and tell us the truth on the matter and even to measure what it thinks we have regarding valuable truth about history, and what it shares back may be laughable.

Even thinking about what AI might say calls to mind, for me, that I simply cannot see places where I am not at presently. So history is much like what I could see, which is nearly nothing, although what I do have includes patterns that extend outwards, to explain what I can't see too, but only to a limited degree. What is not seen will have to be admitted as not seen and whatever structure is known will have increasing avagueness, imprecision, or fog as it departs from current times outwards, and then we have to admit we cannot well understand patterns that apply even to the present.

Much mlre willl need to be stated about this but at this point my view is that there is not cand cannot be a comprehensive human story. I don't even think that is desirable. The ideas that there is a "humanity" with a common story that will go into the distant future is also one that seems absurd and undesirable to me. 

Later I will have to explain also why there is thi slack of story in nature to begin with. There does not appear to be other than a sequency of happenings and things existing in various states and configurations. Threre does not appear to be any story tathat is better than simply what the facts are. The story then seems something humans stupidly add, having defects as a kind of animal that requires anthropomorphization. it is an animal that uses stories because it has generational issues and has memory and teaching problems to solve. Then they use the stories that help in the process to explain everything, in a way that is distinctly human silliness. Religion will be shown to be a kinds o fsilliness related to theis propensity. 

*256 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744630189, Monday, April 14, 2025 04:29:49, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 1059 seconds. 1029 words. Typespeed: 58.260 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-fish-saddlery,-making-saddles-for-fishdids,-a-new-business-venture">The Fish Saddlery, Making Saddles For Fishdids, A New Business Venture</a>

*255 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744559365, Sunday, April 13, 2025 08:49:25, Tucson, Arizona*

Creativity Management | Mind and Mental Development | Outdoors and Adventure | Livelihood



*255 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744559367, Sunday, April 13, 2025 08:49:27, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="making-sense-of-nostaligia,-and-positive-and-negative-feelings-associated-with-it">Making Sense of Nostaligia, and Positive and Negative Feelings Associated With It</a>

*255 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744531272, Sunday, April 13, 2025 01:01:12, Tucson, Arizona*

Higher Order Attention | Mind and Mental Development | Meditation, Mind, and Mood | Music and Art | Nutrition | Relationships

Nostalgiac moments, very brief ones, are some of the few remaining times I actually feel any discomfort at all. Typically, when speaking to myself, and writing to others, wI would say things like I'm not all that nostalgic, or I don't havenostalgia, and so on. This happens to be nearly the case or the case in a way, but nevertheless, what can be characerized as nostalgia like moments are those in which I quickly feel some discomfort.

For a while I was aware that I could make sense of this experience, partily because I've been adept enough at limiting any feelings of it to begin with, and any negative emotions concerning it, but also suspecting I have some ideas which may make ti possible to remove it.

Would you want nostalgia to be removed if you could?

When I thihnk of this question, I think my answer would be like the answers others would give. Sometiems moments of nostalgia are those that feel most closely associated with life's meaning, putting it in a way that is comon and traditional. Intensely feeling some nostalgia related to a piece of musical art that was strongly connected with positive fjjoyful experiences, alone or with family, will be those that will be very highly valued. Might cause some strong emotion, tears, and perhaps following some tears strong relief and happiness at having the recollection.

But htere are many things that are also unwanted about nostaligia. If someone is not wanting the experience of nostalgia, like that I'm mentioning above, there might be a refulsion. Suddenly it is strongly not wanted. Also, is nostalgia even always a positive emotion or is it often a negative one. What of nostalgiac mmemories that relate to things that are more sadness producing? Memories about the beginnings of relationships that went wrong, or situations that changed dramatically, or were not well understood?

There was somethign distrubging before about the experience of nostalgia apart from these that related to memory, and about repetition, and about things not being understood for being old, or not worthy of repeating again. Reminders that should not exist. Things that should be in history and no longer in the present. Sometimes when I hear a piecr e of old music, I wonder why it is that I must hear it again. RAther than somethign nostaligia producing, I'd rather hear something new. There is something very incorrect about limiting openings for new things while repeating old things far too many times, to the linking of people who have trouble getting over history.

It is this last part that got me wanting to remove nostaliga from my life, and very largely I did, but occasionally I have moments. Like just a few minutes ago, hearing a piece of music that I came to associate with some social media experiences, that I realized were unsatisfactory for recollection in that way. I heard a piece of music that was one that was played again and again on a social platform that shares videos from users , and with those other users there is some false sense of shared social experience, and this music prompted some feeling that that has ended and thatthere is something I like about the experience and the music itself.

Some kinds of nostalgia seem to be more appropriate than others. Do you want nostaligiac feelings for music relating to moments that were not really that valuable, creating a feeling that the nostalgia somehow too elevated what wasn't that great?

I wondered if there was a way to finally have a strategy that would both make sense of what is wanted in nostalgia and what is unwanted, and make it possible to retain the one while discarding the other.

The beginnings of a strategy came to me in thoughts like thise:

Firstly, important times we have, are better unerstood, when they have a clear beginning and end in time, and what is within, is something that can be remembered. With this social platform and the musical piece I was talking about, both of these properties are missing. I watched videos on the platform for probably 4 to 5 years. There is no clear and identificalble period in which this music started and ended. Furthermore, what was within is not clearly memorable. I don't recall what the music was associated with definitely. Indefinitely, the nostalgia is vague, and fails memory.That is another issue with nostalgia, in that ist seem sto relate to an inability to recall. 

With this type of nostalgia, the contents and delimited time period would not be clearly remembered and so the nostalgia would be vaguest and most ambiguous and most uncomfortable. Well perhaps not most uncomrfortable compared to some other forms I can now remamember, but still very uncomfortable.

Secondly, memores like times with friends, trips, periods of life that do have a clear start and end, in which the connection between the event and the music or art is clearly known, constitutes a recollection that is more complete, and the nostalgia does not have associated with it a memory failure of the same kind, although there is still a vanishing.These are easy to classify as those that are worth thinking abotu further or later, and those that are not.

I will add more soon, this is a start for now.

Another item of importance, n ingredient for more thinking, is that the value of the recollection will depend partly on whether it is a wanted or unwanted memory. I don't have manyunwante memories, but when I do I can quickly cancel them. Nostalgiac memories can fall into both categories, meaning that nostalgia on this division will be positive and negative and can't only be positive.

Since I said I can cancel memories I don't like easily, even though most are innocuous, justnot preferred, it seems easy enough to clip nostalgia where it relates to unfavorable memeories, or memeories I don't need.

Then there is the division of nostalgia into those kinds that create discomfort and those that don't, and the kinds that also might not be wanted.

I think the first and second items on the list do a good job creating a beginning to a strategy for that purpose. Incomplete, but at a good start. I don't feel that the completion is far off. And since I've mostly succeeeded removing it all, it is now for what I would like to preserve and how, more than to cancel any other nostalgia further.

*255 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744532310, Sunday, April 13, 2025 01:18:30, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 1038 seconds. 1081 words. Typespeed: 62.460 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-you-wrote-something-you-read-but-if-you-read-it-does-not-mean-you-wrote">If you wrote something you read but if you read it does not mean you wrote</a>

*254 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744442793, Saturday, April 12, 2025 00:26:33, Tucson, Arizona*

Mind and Mental Development | Editing | Reading | Bibliography



*254 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744442798, Saturday, April 12, 2025 00:26:38, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 5 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="when-one-can-have-a-highly-significant-idea-without-powerful-intellection-instead-using-honest-observation-it-may-mean-culture-has-been-avoiding-something,-and-examples">When One Can Have A Highly Significant Idea Without Powerful Intellection Instead Using Honest Observation It May Mean Culture Has Been Avoiding Something, and Examples</a>

*254 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744430932, Friday, April 11, 2025 21:08:52, Tucson, Arizona*

The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Relationships | Situations and Significance

Sometimes, having a highly significant intuition or observation is not requiring very powerful intelligence. Everyone actually knows this to an extent, when they had learnings that were especially critical or important in their lives.

Some very significant ideas can be had that are outside these personally powerful mooments to thoughts that are culturally very significant including for the broader population. In this thinking, you are a mind in a sea of other minds, thinking something that is extremely significant fore everyone or a large numbrer of the others, and it may be that others have the same idea or that very few or none do. 

In any case the idea had is important for everyone.

Now, some ideas that are important for everyone require very high intelligenct oto discover. For example, scientificic and mathematical discoveries have required very powerful intellects. 

Someteims though, more regular people have very powerful and significant ideas and experiences taht did not require such an intelligence.

I think these experiences relate to areas in which human thinking and culture has been avoiding things.

Sometimes, the ideas that are had in these scenarious can feel or seem intensely painful to the people having them. They seem to relate to a permanent ignorance in mankind and a necessary earlier ignorance they have had. It may make humankind seem permanently stupid, and themselves permanently stupid along with human kind.

Such an example can be had by anyone, for example, if they simply look closely at some subjects that obviously matter extremely but people keep trying to avoid, like the issue of parental sexual attraction to children, even if it is only brief, or occcasionally blending with their own adult sexuality in their psychology or brain development. Another example, which is actually the one that causedd me to write this, is the importance of th e subject fof profound mental retardation mixed sometimes with disfiguration and unattractiveness.

If you happen to become a parent of a highly disfigured and unattractive retarded individual, it is almost guaranteed, actually, I think it is tentirely guaranteed, that what will be experienced is a discovery of the profound stupidity and ignorance of humankind and a feeling of ignorance around the risks of having a child. Obliviously, people are having fortunate families. You, however, did not, and nobody will seem to be able to understan, that all had the risk, not only you. There is something foolish about having kids with such oblivioion.

There are many more experiences than this that will be absurd regarding humankind.

Thoughts had will include extremely significant observations that will involve impossiblity of sustained attention from others in conversation.

They may even reject you utterly for wanting to discuss such subjects. You become an outcast.

None of these highly significant thoughts required very powerful intelligence. It required an honest treatment of the subject. Some who are really honest and really attend to this subject, can have the thoughts in advance of the experiences, and really avoid having children to avoid this kind of unpleasantry.

Others will simply havie the highly significant idea s and experiences because it really did happen to them.

I think this would be true also of experiences like being crushed in a car in a car accident and so on.

For some experiences, there may be significance with less ability to prepare in advance. I admit that while thinking it someewhat unfortunate to have that ignorance myself. I wonder which experiences those might be. If they really exist, and it seems intuitively that they would.

Just thinkign abotu the range of strange things that can happen to soemeone there must be strange significant experiences taht are not easily to probe using a great imagination.

More on this subject soon. The main idea of interest is that one can have highly significant ideas that dont' requrie very great intelligence where it appepears humanity is largely ignorant because they are avoidant of such topics.

Something to be discussed further in addition to other subjects will be the avoidance of subjects by hujmankind. Given that this happens to be the case, it should seem obvious that humanity would not want it to be the case, right? Especaially fit hey are planning on having new births, creating new people, who too will be ignornant. How can they plan for such ignorance to exist?

*254 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744431599, Friday, April 11, 2025 21:19:59, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 667 seconds. 723 words. Typespeed: 64.980 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-popular-word-once,-hypochondriasis-is-no-longer-what-anyone-says-or-wants-to-hear">A Popular Word Once, Hypochondriasis Is No Longer What Anyone Says Or Wants To Hear</a>

*253 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744348422, Thursday, April 10, 2025 22:13:42, Tucson, Arizona*

Relationships | Com | Health



*253 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744348424, Thursday, April 10, 2025 22:13:44, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="mathematics-is-thinking-from-the-same-cultural-ingredients,-with-creativity-only-on-the-set-trajectory,-primarily">Mathematics Is Thinking From the Same Cultural Ingredients, With Creativity Only On The Set Trajectory, Primarily</a>

*252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744265931, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 23:18:51, Tucson, Arizona*

Mathematics | Creativity Management | Mind And Mental Development

If you look at mathematics, and consider it as coming from a single culture, it becomes apparent, that thought is within that culture, and develops according to a trajectory, path dependent on the initial ingredient input. Peope are not particularly creative within mathematics, looking at it thi sway. They learn by adopting what tradition has put in front of them, and when tethey are creative, usually they are creatively arriving at what is already next for learning, or something in the vicinity of that. Learning and creativity is on a cloud on a trajecttory of ingredients not departing too far from that cloud.

It seems to follow that people are not being very creative given this. Well, the creativity that is very great, is still a degree of divergence from the ingredient trajetory somewhere in the cloud but not too distant from that cloud.

Mathematicisans are not creating their own incgredients along the way. They are utilizing what exists.

This makes sense, because then others are more likely to understand what they make, although this is not ever part of the rationale. Or is seldom part of the rationale.

Creating the ingredients and moving ahead results in a very different looking mathematics from what people have received from tradition and begins to exit the trajectory cloud.

outside the trajectory cloud is mutual unintelligibility.

thi s is the case even if the alternative math isn't a particularly developmed math.

It may just be an alternative math, that would take too long to learn in the same way the other math was learned.

So if one was to create along the way new ingredients for a math there would be a new ingredient trajectory and creativity would be both on the ingredients and the trajectory and the cloud. This is much more divergent creativity.

Thisis also like creating a new cultutre of mathematics.

An issue with humanity at present is that they think that the mathematics we have is the one that is desirable, and perhaps that it is the only one, and that any other would be gobbled within it.

This does not appear to me to be the case, although one can sematnically create a supergroup to both kinds of math. 

A point here is that a new math can be sufficiently different to have a different name for it than math. The others would merely want to pretend there is sufficient similarity potentially to have the math and pretend that they made it themselves.

So now we imagine there are two cultures of math. We are told we ought to be biased and prejudiced towards learning new cultures. We are told that this epands upon our ability to tink about the world, either representing it more fully, or by becloming more creative. But notice there is a resistance to departing ffrom learning trajectories.

It sappears to follow there is a contradiction between the idea that we should learn alternative languages, and that we should not culturally depart from learnings in other areas suc h as mathematics. We would expect other wildly different ideas about math and about certain subjects to be of interest if usfficiently developed, but it turns out people immediately reject that.

They also immediately reject other cultures.

There is a risk in humanity that it is too biased and prejudiced that thereis a single mathematics and science, and that there is inadequate diversity.

They do this while claiming that there would be such a diversity. Somehow they keep working along the same idea trajectories while beleiving this.

There aren't really from-scratch cultture builders, or those who approximate such.I think it can be shown just how insistent humans are on creating bias and prejudice for a particular knowledge and for all knowledge by looking particularly at mathematics and its developpment and resistances to change.

*252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744266531, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 23:28:51, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 600 seconds. 637 words. Typespeed: 63.660 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-falsification-of-user-activity-due-to-hugeness-of-user-bases-on-software-platforms">The Falsification of User Activity Due To Hugeness Of User Bases on Software Platforms</a>

*252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744256505, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:41:45*, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | Com | The Value of Social Platforms

Interesting realization. I think businesses can now entirely fabricate who has or has not been a member of their platforms, and who is utilizing it.
Consider that FB has some billion number of users. If presented with a list of users from another platform, they can determine who on that list has not had a FB account. Then they simply just say they do to whoever they need to.
Coming from the software industry myself in an executive role, I think it likely now that Analytics themselves are probably not real for big business. Also, they will only *seem real* for those who are in mid sized or small businesses. People who pay for it and think still the analytics have to be real.
If you have a billion users, you can claim users on probability while trying to make software sales to other companies, and can even fabricate documents substantiating it for courts.
So for Twitter/X to claim it has some user base, some amount of user support, it can simply claim you do stuff on it, even if you don't. It is probable you do. It is believable you do. And also, you wouldn't know. Furthermore, if you did know, you would not be able to falisify their fake evidence.
I wonder to what extent governments were misrepresenting pools of people to other governments. Similar information issues would exist that would make fabrication and lying too easy.


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="social-media-executives-as-people-who-dislike-their-social-offerings-and-think-their-customers-are-low">Social Media Executives As People Who Dislike Their Social Offerings and Think Their Customers Are Low</a>

*252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744255583, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:26:23*, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Com

I am feeling fairly confident in the prediction that social media platforms will be used to identify who is socially low. Simply by joining the social media platforms, I think those with influence and power will believe that new joins have made a social mistake. Any subsequent on the platform is the activity of a buffoon of sorts going forward.
People who are highly powerful and influential and are seeking business are really unlikely to be able to stay in the spotlight. They won't have the traits that are desirable for that. Typically. Even if they do remain in the spotlight, they don't get the most loving feedback.
Meanwhile, in order to have product sales, they have to sell something that must be popular. To be popular it has to be low quality oftentimes. When they offer social platforms, it will be known in advance, that for people to want to join and to remain, it will have to be low quality like typical entertainment. This means that the people making the platforms will find their own offerings laughable, while they congratulate themselves as business men and women.
Would they themselves have accounts? I don't think so, as I said they wouldn't really fit in and wouldn't really get good attention. So instead they just think everyone is low on the platform and that their own platform isn't worth their time. That is excepting using it as a tool of manipulation. So any person really who joins the platform then becomes a plebian to them, whoever they are really. Because those in their social circles would know that this is a serious faux pas, to be on facebook and so on.
Simply to be on a social platform may become a serious negative.  Unless one can find a *special platform* and join. Seems unlikely.


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="any-social-media-use-as-a-negative-analytic">Any Social Media Use As A Negative Analytic</a>

*252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744254775, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:12:55*, Tucson, Arizona

The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Com

It could be that in the future, having and using a social media account will be utilised as a negative analytic against individuals, regardless of how they use it, because of the absurdity of the offering.
In other words, social platforms will be known in advance to be of poor quality in the offering, not because they wouldn't like necessarily to offer something of good quality, but because they can't really and expect to be successful. Like when movie producers and directors make a piece they know is simply horrible, but will be popular. Those in the audience who like it are definitely disrespected in their minds.
Offering something less, but popular, people decide to join, and to be entertained. The creators are aware that what was shared was of low quality already, because they were unable to live up to their own dream, of providing something popular of high quality. They had to provide something low. But knowing it is low, they have a low attitude towards the users.
So new people who sign up are like captures, and anyone who signed up, even if there is no behaviour, is listed as someone with a failing, and then this is scaled to the extent of the interaction.
After spending a very long time off of facebook, when I log in I notice a different experience. Instead of being some habit, I'm noticing more what was disturbing before, and the quality is more obviously poor. In some ways the platform has gone from disturbing to hilarious in my mind, seeing what ads exist and what interactions are really happening. It's like for a long time I used Facebook still as an early adopter, but now after taking some time off, I can see what I'm doing again.
Combining the above point, with this experience of seeing the platform again like a new user perhaps, what I'm trying to say is that it is fairly definite to me that social media use here and in some other places is going to be seen as a poor use of behavior. Like there is something wrong with any and all users of the platform but more especially those who use it more.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="scientists-as-a-community-can-give-a-false-sense-of-control-given-they-do-not-run-and-are-not-involved-in-militaries">Scientists As A Community Can Give A False Sense Of Control Given They Do Not Run And Are Not Involved In Militaries</a>

*251 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744173600, Tuesday, April 08, 2025 21:40:00, Tucson, Arizona*

ThoughtStream | Relationships

The scientific community and the military institutions do not have a very large overlap potentially, at least not in the way that others would expect. I think others would expect, that somehow, science would engulf militaries, and maybe that the scientific community, too, incorporates the military too, as a part. Those who are conducting science in the military are simply in the community of sciences.

It may be the case that the military is more scientific and yet does not share the values of free and open information sharing which is thought to be a characteristic of what science is and a requriement for any scientific community. Thinking about this carefully, that is only an add on value. There is nothing entirely required about openness and transparency in scientific method and scientific development, and soemetimes people, being in their small world that is their nation, forget that their nation is not open regarding their sciences often times especially their military science.

But their military science is not open for you either.

Then there are others who think taht all who have a shared belief taht science is the path towards quality knowledge that all are scientists who simply believe that. Everyone is a scientist including those who do not do science simply because they are a private advocate of science, perhaps only in their own speech or even in their own attitudes.

This is equivalent to simply thinking one is a scientist because one likes some of what science does.

This challenges I think the idea that there is any climate science community that is as broad as people might try to indicate. /The minitary science communities worldwide in different nations may not at all share any of hte opinions heard in the media regarding climate change and may have their own indiependent conclusions from their own evaluations about such matters.

There is an important difference though, in that militaries do have powerful influence, and in an area in which ordinary citizens do not.

More on this later.

*251 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744173943, Tuesday, April 08, 2025 21:45:43, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 343 seconds. 338 words. Typespeed: 59.100 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="when-do-you-see-your-return-on-your-investment-for-climate-change-in-your-efforts-to-create-children,-or-is-there-never-a-positive-return?">When Do You See Your Return On Your Investment For Climate Change In Your Efforts To Create Children, Or Is There Never A Positive Return?</a>

*249 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744027044, Monday, April 07, 2025 04:57:24, Tucson, Arizona*

Relationships



*249 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744027047, Monday, April 07, 2025 04:57:27, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 3 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="debunking-claims-that-are-of-poor-quality-is-an-activity-that-is-incommensurate-with-the-claims-and-so-it-is-not-reasonable-to-think-debunking-is-necessary">Debunking claims that are of poor quality is an activity that is incommensurate with the claims and so it is not reasonable to think debunking is necessary</a>

*245 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743705028, Thursday, April 03, 2025 11:30:28, Tucson, Arizona*

Relationships | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream

I have spent a considerable amount of time in the past trying to counter incorrect claims from simpletons who have very quickly and obtusely stated false claims that required considerable time and effort to completely disprove. However, I realized there is an issue with trying to disprove such claims, in that it is a simple dedication of too much time in strategy to the task that doesn't require such a substantial time allocation.

There is an issue of strategic asymmetry.

The person making the bullshit claim used too little effort and very little thinkign and experience.

A person debunking would spend far too much time and effort and would be too rigorous in approach.

Meanwhile, someone  who is witty wouled simply ridicule the claim, in a way that is consistent with correctlness, or supply substitute correct clalims.

I see now that strategically, there is an issue regardding taking on the burden of tring to prove to a person who would not understand that the claim is false.

It is not that there would not be a need to sometimes write something reusable or think about subjects in depth such that such easier responses would be usable again and again later, but the timing doesn't make sense just because someone makes annoying claims.

This sis something I've done in the past. I have spent too much time planning, preparing, and responding to people who have made challenging claims that were incorrect.

The cause of this posting was something I saw on Facebook moments ago, about a sillly claim made by one cartoon character, that took hours of response time by another cartoon character. There are quotes about the difficulty of countering bullshit claims, or claims of poor quality. That it takes too long to do.

I think this is a mistake, and the idea that this is true leads people astray into thinking that this is the way to respond. It doesn't suggest alternatives. The alternative is wit, ridicule, and simple substittution with correct claims, or very fast damaging arguments. It isn't proving with a new academeic paper that what was stated was incorrect using proof.

*245 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743705399, Thursday, April 03, 2025 11:36:39, Tucson, Arizona*

*Written in 371 seconds. 356 words. Typespeed: 57.540 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="people-have-not-yet-realized-that-they-do-not-mind-being-deleted,-since-they-have-been-getting-deleted-all-their-lives,-and-as-they-get-older,-they-are-not-wanting-their-earlier-lesser-deleted-selves-to-still-exist">People Have Not Yet Realized That They Do Not Mind Being Deleted, Since They Have Been Getting Deleted All Their Lives, and As They Get Older, They Are Not Wanting Their Earlier Lesser Deleted Selves To Still Exist</a>

*243 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743505186, Tuesday, April 01, 2025 03:59:46, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic

As people get older, they do not show any indication that they are wondering why their earlier selves are not prsent with them. They do not express that they are concerned where their earlier selves went, or that they should be retained, or that they should continue to exist alongside them.

Why has the world not ben set up, such as to preserve all versions of a person? So instead of just me now, the oldest me, there is actually all earlier versions of me, all one billion of them, living with me on Earth.

I live alongsidea ll of my earlier me's together.

Maybe they continue too and their variations are persisted.

We see here thought that that is an absurdity. Instead the mind is deleted along the way in life, and there is no version of us preserved and retained, to live with us.

We also don't have billion-parted-siamese-twin-uses.

When we think about the old man or woman with this in mind, we can see they are not even ever thinking about what is deleted from their minds, or that they should ever be preserving earlier versions of themselves. Instead, what they are concerned about is living longer as they are. They may hope for more health, but they are wanting more health and some minor restoration perhaps, maybe not complete restoration, but restorations that they can think of and be concerned about.

They do not even think this much abou tthe subject!

It seems from this that they are fine mostly with being deleted, not even knowing they are deleted, desptie being rapidly and extremely deleted in time. Even as living.

They also do not care at all about having earlier versions of themselves. They want some version of the later version. They seem fine even with who they are as later pepole in many ways.

From this it appears that they are largely unconcerned with death being deleted as often as they are, and not wanting to preserve any of their earlier vanished selves. 

How many versions of yourself were vanished in time?

Why now are you concerned about you? Have you not demonstrated to yourself, inductively, sttatistically, with daily repetition, that you will not need yesterday's you? You shed your you over and over moment by moment.

There are some few ways people are concerned about death, but when these views are concsidered, those other views really do seem irrational. As if they never cared abotu death and they didn't really know it, because perhaps, interpret the world incorrectly, given the ways they've been taught to interpret the world by their lelders and peers.

Interpreted aright, it may be that there is no concern with death really. Future children may not even understand later why there was any concern. They would know from an early age that they are familiar with and do not mind being deleted all the time, and they don't mind getting deleted further even as they approach final deletions.

There are other reasons that are inagreement with these for thinking that death matters little, and one can read further in the thoughtstream to find those other writings. I think there are prlenty of cross verifying truthful thoughts about this subject that now are adequate for bringing this subject matter to a culmination. 

*243 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743505704, Tuesday, April 01, 2025 04:08:24, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 518 seconds. 551 words. Typespeed: 63.780 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-feminization-of-warfare-to-make-warfare-seem-more-silly-or-irrational,-indicating-that-femininity-has-more-rationality-in-the-process">The Feminization of Warfare To Make Warfare Seem More Silly Or Irrational, Indicating That Femininity Has More Rationality In The Process</a>

*241 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743315134, Saturday, March 29, 2025 23:12:14, Phoenix, Arizona*

Rationality | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Relationships



*241 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743315136, Saturday, March 29, 2025 23:12:16, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="sports-celebrations-upon-scoring-are-simple-repetitions-of-a-largely-nonsensical-behavior.-such-celebrations-do-not-happen-in-the-workplace,-or-elsewhere,-and-the-physicality-of-the-behavior,-the-touching,-and-the-groupiness-seems-inappropriate">Sports Celebrations Upon Scoring Are Simple Repetitions of a Largely Nonsensical Behavior. Such Celebrations Do Not Happen in The Workplace, Or Elsewhere, and The Physicality of the Behavior, The Touching, And the Groupiness Seems Inappropriate</a>

*239 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743127186, Thursday, March 27, 2025 18:59:46, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships

Here I am not saying that celebrations are not something that can be approved of or that they should necessarily stop. I do like that in sports teams can celebrate together and enjoy accomplishments. What I am commenting on is the absurdity of it however.

It may really be that it is better to discontinue such celebrations as being too repetitive and unavailable to those who are working in other group settings.

Consider the touching behavior, and the places of the touches seen.

Consider that the players celebrate every time they score in smoe cases, as in soccer, and this is for the crowd largely, and is far too repetititve to be justifiable. 

The causes of this behavior beingg for the fans has not been made known to fans. The reptitionseems to reveal ist is mainly for that, the way that it is done in televised professional sports.

*239 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743127323, Thursday, March 27, 2025 19:02:03, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 137 seconds. 148 words. Typespeed: 64.800 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="governments-are-unscientific-both-in-design-and-in-operation,-and-generally">Governments Are Unscientific Both In Design and In Operation, And Generally</a>

*238 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743113172, Thursday, March 27, 2025 15:06:12, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Architecture | Higher Order Attention

This is a thought of the kind I've had long ago, but nowadays, wanting to bring certain areas of my thought to completion, those that are ready for completion, I want to broaden this idea to engulf government entirely.

Before already I thought that governments were not the result of scientific work. Obviously, they are hardly even the result of comparisons. There is no person deciding making compariosns between governments, ready to rationally simply adopt one form or another. All governments have had idiotic pathways to being accepted and used. None were rational, all were involving concessions, none were actually solutions from a problem solving perspetive, and in general, people have been bad at imagining alternatives for comparison.

They didn't really make much comparison, couldn't ustilize rationally comparison, and did not use any scientific methodology whatsoever.

So from that governmetn already is in a poor position, being something that has questionable implementations every time, and questionable design. The beginnings were faulty, and so were these government beings. If these government beings were taken to be organissms, they would be poor organisms, or very early ones.

It could be that after millions of attemtps the world will result in better government organisms of which we are cells..

We hear ideas about how humans are insect like, but less often do we hear about how they are cell like. Admittedly, part of this vision is similar to the idea of a Leviathan in Hobbes.

The voting process for electing officials is unscientific. Also, the selection from a pool of two individuals is unnscientific as well. There is a wider selection process, but it is unscientific. The wider selection process fails human resource expectations, and even human resources is not really scientific, but is much much more scientific like in its operation. 

I would agree that the discipline of human resources is much more scientific if done in an idealized way, that is actually practical, and not necessarily in the way a poorly operating oragnization would do it. But reviewing thousands of resumes seems superior to the curent politician compariosn process for jobs.

I can see here that there are also thousands of other arguments of similar sorts that really damage governments and their organizations as they exist today, such that they really are unacceptable in any traditional form.

Explaining how this could be the ase to others could be a challenge.

It can be said, positively, that there are businesses that exist that do function much more like scientific operations than governments, and these perhaps can serve as models of sorts. So there are organiations that exist that are doing much better, and are functioning with plans from minds that are more scientific. Still few comparisons are made in advance about which business methodology is the preferrred one, and so business like government, unfortunately, has the defect of too few forms, and too little imagination going into origination

*238 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743113779, Thursday, March 27, 2025 15:16:19, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 607 seconds. 487 words. Typespeed: 48.120 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="human-adaptation-of-senses-may-provide-good-guidance-as-to-what-information-is-unknowable-or-unusable,-and-what-studies-of-wider-situtations-are-reasonable-for-advancing-knowledge">Human Adaptation of Senses May Provide Good Guidance As To What Information is Unknowable or Unusable, and What Studies of Wider Situtations Are Reasonable for Advancing Knowledge</a>

*238 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743035905, Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:38:25, Phoenix, Arizona*

A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Architecture | Higher Order Attention | Humans Are Animals

Assumption making is a part of human behavior that vry clearly relates to positive human shortcomings. Humans are inclined to make assumptions about things for which they can have little to no information, are inclined to remember them, believe they can rely on them, and so on, all while stating here and there, that people ought not assume so much.

An interesting question is what is the proper use of assumptions. Even the scientist and philosopher today would have stome struggles as to how to answer that, because when spoken about informally, and about within their actual lives, what is known about science and philosophy is not as extensively used, and may not be remembered!

But science and philosophy do providdthe information needed for deciding upon what assumptions are whorthwhile and what assumptions are not worthwhwhile. There should be an arrival at a solid reusable strategy for assumptions. Perhaps this fits into another larger strategy of thinking and logic and use of language, and use of senses for information collection. Probably I will incorporate this study to other larger studies that have more generality and provide more comprehensive application direction so it can be integrated into life  and not simply forgotten!

I like to joke about the mathematicians who did not yet mathematize anything in their lives except what would be thought already to be mathematical topics. What about all of the other things hou do?!

Animal senses are clearly adapted to small environments. Here I try to dodge the conversation about what environment specificially. For animals we more clearly see the relation of adaptation to environment, because they are still stuck in those environments and migrate none or very little. Migratory animals follow migratory paths which do not mcuh vary either.

Humans have general skills that permit for living in various conditions. HIstorically and prehistorically we know though, they were increasingly bound to a smaller location in the origins of their history. Even when people wish to think about their religioius beginnings, they are still thinking about a world in which the people are contained in a very small location as compared with the present day. So there are people constrained to mesoptotamia and egypt for example. Or locations in China, etc...

Looking at tribal peoples, they show examples of animal life really. This is not admitted, but here we see current day animals bound to specifica locations where they really are aapted to live, both in their knowledge, behavior and morphology.  But huamans were still scattered into tribes that are in different places. I will not have an answer as to the exact climes and locations of the earlierst people, but can only say it is increasingly primate, and most stories place the earliest humans at specific places in Africa.

What is clear is that we really have been adapted to those locations! Before that though, thinking abou tit now, we were earlier animals still, and were in yet other locations and adapted to those places. There is some kind of accumulating adaptation of different environs occuring. This means that even for animals, one is not certain if they are exhibiting adaptations that are just for where they are, or for where they are and where they were together, meaning they are exhibiting traits for which their location no longer fits. I will certainly dwell on this subject more later.

Humans have of course eyes, nose, ears, and a mouth, and touch recepters in the body on the surfaces and some within the body. I'm putting this informally and simply. These senses really do show to us what cannot be known in addition to what can be known. So now our senses tell us not only about the world we are seeing and feeling, but about what is totally impossible for us to know about. For example, we cannot understand the world of the bat, which has been given as a standard example in philosophy.

Here is where we come to the interesting idea for which I began this posting. If our senses tell us clearly what is usable to us as far as information goes, and what is impossible, then to what extent does swider situational information uasable or impossible for any individual.

If it can be ascertained that certain information for which assujmptions are had relate to impossible information to have, then it seems to follow that it is highly irrational to be making assumptions or to be even exploring the impossible. And again, we'd know more about this by reflecting further on the simple topic of what can e had through the senses we hvae. Notice a story of gossip from someone does not really provide us anything that wasdirectly available to our senses.

Work on this has been done in philosophy trying to create a foundation of knowledge with epistemology founding it on direct experience taht is more trustworthy. What I am doing here is not so much epistemology though. What I'm trying to do is not try to discover the foundations of knowledge. What I'm trying to discover is what is clearly impactful regarding personal behavior for ethical planning of life.

These two subjects relate of course, but I think there is here a simple path and not one that is so complex. But with more rewards. As of today, I have not found much rewarding in epistemology of others.

*238 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743036874, Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:54:34, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 969 seconds. 897 words. Typespeed: 55.500 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="example-on-video-thought-posting,-about-user-experience-being-for-an-individual-a-simple-set-of-simple-tasks,-for-which-a-user-device-or-machine-should-work-well,-in-order-to-provide-sufficient-value-to-a-customer">Example on video thought posting, about user experience being for an individual a simple set of simple tasks, for which a user device or machine should work well, in order to provide sufficient value to a customer</a>

*237 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743033509, Wednesday, March 26, 2025 16:58:29, Phoenix, Arizona*

Architecture | Software Architecture | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings

The motivation for this posting is to discuss more thoroughly the issues relating to consumer electronics, where those electronics have been made difficult to utilize on primary functions. Also, I wish to extend this subject matter into the domain of interaction between animals and their environments. 

User interactions and animal interactions with objects that are tools, or are tool like, are very simple, and there are typically only a few ways that the tool or object does something on behalvf wor with the user, or animal, that really satisfies their needs.

In software this is somewhat known, and there is a simple process, recommended also by IEEEE for creating plans around projects and ffor implementing those projects, and this is related to knowing what an object or product features.. er should have, in terms of features, and which are those features the business wants, and which features carry out intentions of users in ways users really benefit and think they beneifit.

Documents relatied to business software planning includs a simple and abstract way of dealing with the issue of user interest and features for products, but they are not aware as they use those documents and crate them, the full generality of some of the concepts they are working on. or with.

I have several devices from Apple, and a long history of purchases of electronic devices, each of which in retrospect had functions and features which only a subset were really known to me and put to use.



These devices became less usable or valuable to me at a time taht apple made the devices more difficult to use regarding key functions. It seems to me, that they rely on the perceptions of luxury and the perception that the product offers many features to distract a bit later on that their key features are made more difficult for the user to use.

The resutl is that later there is less real value ot the devices because they made changes in key areas making those devices less usable than they were earlier, but they keep offering new features and make the entire product look luxurious and something everyone wants to keep getting you to buy it. Meanwhile, they are introducing greater levels of control on the key features .

Business and marketing get in the the way of providing what the customers really need on the primary use cases.

For an individual, the things they are doing with a device are really few even if they think they are not. One wcould look for a long time at the beheavior of a single user, such as myself, and compare what is done by the user with what could be done using all functions, and it would be found, that for a simple device like a smart phone, that less than 1 percent of functions are used. Instead, key functions are used again and again, and many of these key functions overlap with uses of other users, and these functions relate to main business.

In aggregate, individual use that is simple, becomes a population's use that is much more complex. But even with the total offering of a software product, there are many unused features that the population doesn't know about or care about. Some of these features are those that they simple couldn't sue, because they are more focused and have time constrants. The focusing is on what they like to do most, and even if there is a good feature recommended to them, they may nnot have time to try it or incorporate it into their behaviro.

Humans have a finite ability or finite set of things they can really do with their time, and obviously this means they are constrained in the number of functions they can even use on a device. Taking myself as an example, I would say that I use very very little of what a software tool provides, and that I don't have the time, ability, or interest in trying tooo many new things. I rarely at this point try new things, because like some other users, I already know my wants and needs and know well what software provides satisfaction to those needs.

Simple individuals in simple populations means that even if it looks like lots of behavior is happening of a wide variety of kinds, these kinds make for a list that is manageable by a smart person. The entire usage ofa software tool can be known through analytics, and this is a reason why software manufactuerers are wanting to get input from users about how they use the software. Otherwise they don't know what features to build, maintain, or eliminate. But they can do this! The  analytics are simpler than one might think, and make for a list, that a smart person can manage to work with.

Notice it would be an absurdity if a business like Apple were unable to manage a large amount of their functionality. But now as I write this I realize that absurdity is actually the norm, so it's not an absurdity. However there is some absurdity in there, in that the business does know a large amount of what the product does, and they do have list to manaage features, and these features do relate to lists of uses by the public and analalytic data which does give them somethign to work with for business plannign that is somewhat sane.

There is much more that can be said about this topic, but I will develop it further later. I want to talk more about how it does appear that after a long period of use of various products, that knowledge and experience provides substitutes that are more self-sufficient, that make it possible to discared those products partially or altogether, or makes it possible to choose something simpler and cheaper instead. 

Also, I want to develop on the the idea that animal behavior is simple, particularly as it relates to tools, or objects as tools, and that what they ket from tools and objects as tools are simple things, and that probably some animals don't use the tools in the ways that other sare, whcih even makes it seem that the tool use may be exploratory and not necessarily for real advantage.

*237 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743034649, Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:17:29, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1140 seconds. 1046 words. Typespeed: 55.020 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="repeating-the-culture-again-and-again-at-the-individual-and-collective-level-has-serious-absurdities,-and-it-does-seem-possible-to-largely-avoid-it">Repeating The Culture Again and Again At The Individual And Collective Level Has Serious Absurdities, and It Does Seem Possible To Largely Avoid It</a>

*234 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742762929, Sunday, March 23, 2025 13:48:49, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings



*234 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742762931, Sunday, March 23, 2025 13:48:51, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-more-intellectualized,-accurate,-and-formalized-variants,-or-reinterpretations,-of-exaggerated-but-high-quality-ridiculing-arguments-against-religion,-are-qualifications-that-more-completely-damage-religion-rather-than-show-that-the-humorous-arguments-were-poor">The More Intellectualized, Accurate, and Formalized Variants, Or Reinterpretations, of Exaggerated but High Quality Ridiculing Arguments Against Religion, Are Qualifications That More Completely Damage Religion Rather Than Show That The Humorous Arguments Were Poor</a>

*232 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742549016, Friday, March 21, 2025 02:23:36, Phoenix, Arizona*

Religion | Relationships

The idea here is that if I wer to take my arguments against religion that are of good quality that simply make fun of religion with hyperbole and exaggeration, and maek them formalized and improved arguments that might appear in journals or in academic writings, the arguments would simply show that the initial arguments completely damaged the religions. 

The exaggeration and the ridicule was functional and instrumental, and it would even be noticed that the arguments are perhaps more ingenious in that form.

I have stated elsewhere that schoolhouse ridicule of religion is sometimes the best and modst damaging, and thatt  the school yard treatment of religion ought to continue without any additional respect being gratnted to relgition at any time. Because these arguments made from childhood were still the best, and were still complete and final. 

The formalization and qualification of arguments I make that continue to ridicule with exaggeration typically in my human canning form nowadays is as damaging and final as theh human cans. One might expect there to be a departure from these conclusions as academic alterations are made, and improvements are had, but this is not the case. 

The result is a verification and convirmation of the ridicule.

*232 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742549221, Friday, March 21, 2025 02:27:01, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 205 seconds. 203 words. Typespeed: 59.400 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-speaking-were-a-job-with-requirements,-almost-all-would-not-meet-those-requirements,-yet-they-speak-and-many-are-forced-to-listen,-and-meanwhile-listening-is-not-a-job,-or-a-consumer-purchase">If Speaking Were A Job With Requirements, Almost All Would Not Meet Those Requirements, Yet They Speak And Many Are Forced To Listen, And Meanwhile Listening Is Not A Job, Or a Consumer Purchase</a>

*232 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742546579, Friday, March 21, 2025 01:42:59, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Livelihood



*232 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742546581, Friday, March 21, 2025 01:43:01, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-expectation-that-intelligence-should-show-itself-is-to-request-it-to-show-compute-for-what-does-not-require-compute,-or-to-recompute-live-what-has-been-computed,-or-to-compute-something-new-live,-which-has-not-been-determined-by-those-with-the-undefined-expectation">The Expectation That Intelligence Should Show Itself Is To Request It To Show Compute For What Does Not Require Compute, Or to Recompute Live What Has Been Computed, Or To Compute Something New Live, Which Has Not Been Determined By Those With The Undefined Expectation</a>

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742423882, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:38:02, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Psychometrics | Human Shortcomings



*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742423885, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:38:05, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 3 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="you-can-measure-quantitatively-the-amount-of-intelligent-thinking-that-went-into-thoughts,-behaviors,-decisions-and-plans,-for-anyone-including-those-who-are-intelligent">You Can Measure Quantitatively The Amount of Intelligent Thinking That Went Into Thoughts, Behaviors, Decisions and Plans, For Anyone Including Those Who Are Intelligent</a>

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742422779, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:19:39, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Psychometrics | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream

For a long time there has been a question around intelligence and stupidity in behavior among those who are intelligent. This is due to a simple fact, that intelligence computing may or may not have been dedicated to an area in which behavior is exihibited.

A learning and intelligent animal may hct foolishly in an area because their mind simply has not been utilized extensively in the area in which the behavior was exhibited.

For any comptuer, compute time must be allocated in the area in which computing results are expected. Thus if a computer were suddenly required to act on a decision robotically in an area in which there is no experience it would do so in a way that may be absurd or even stupid from an observers perspective.But this is merely a coverage related issue. A computer has to have adequate coverage of circumstances and scenarios to have an advanced raction upon those scenarios. This is why young intelligent people do more foolish things than older intelligent people, and some older intelligent people do very foew foolish things.

Ability to yave wide coverage is improved with intelligence so long as there is adequate intelligence related modules. Also, the compute time is more valuable, just as with a computer. So coverage is faster, and results are better in a shorter time.

However, that does not mean that areas in which coverage was not had would not be those areas in which an intelligent computer or an intelligent person would not show errors or poor decisions thinking and judgement.

We can determine quantitatively the quality of compute dedicated to any particular area of life in relation to any comptuer.

Thus for any person, we can examine if they have dedicated adequate compute to moral thinking and systematic organization and deision processes on behavior.

From this we can know that thte aver age person, and the highly intelligent, during this age of hyumanity, has very poor compute regarding their behavior. Their moral processing ahs been very poor.

This is most obviously exhibited in the poor compute allocated to religiosity, and that their poorness of compute has blocked additional compute for their behavior because it has not been allowed. Or they have been confused as to the adequacy of pre-existing compute.

We would readily see, that people tend to have better compute regarding areas in which they have worked for long periods. Thus experts in various areas of work and their fields would show much better judgement, behavior, and decision making, than in other areas of their lives. This can be quantitatively measured.

I will need to say more about how this quanitative measuring can be done but it will definitely relate to the level of organization, quantity of stimulus, relevance of stimulus, abilitie s of the compute, which is related to intelligence, and the development level on the computation, which mens duration of computation--- etc... will be related.

It is clear that quality of results and planning , and behavior, will exibit the quality of related compute.

Robotically, there is advancement on behavior only with sufficient development, and this too is quantitative.

Thus if we created androids that behaved increasingly like the best huymans, they would have characteristics of high intelligence, giftedness in m;odules related to behavior, and adequate development time with suffficient feedback and stimulation, and perhaps very good stimulation (simulation), which is related too to intelligence. The androids then would be simple models of people, and of course people would be models of the androids.

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742423385, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:29:45, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 606 seconds. 587 words. Typespeed: 58.080 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="old-age-is-quite-commonly,-i-hate-life-but-i-already-made-another-few-people">Old Age is Quite Commonly, I Hate Life But I Already Made Another Few People</a>

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742421834, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:03:54, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Relationships

People change quite a bit after they have children and they are expected to have children at a time when they are relatively unreflective. I have commented before that for a period of time teens are told they should not have intercourse or be very safe so as to not have children, but soon after, maybe only a few years after, they are told to have kids. This means they are expected to have children shortly after they are children.

Most people are having chilren between the ages of 14 and 35 yeears old. But most life obviously is after 35 years old if th average age of death is after 70. If we observe people after they have children, we see there is a diminishing quality of life.

Quality of life is a measure that has been used to describe how well people are living in different conditions, and typically this measure is used without talking about parts of lives but entire lives instead. Quality of life might be used to describe how life seems to be in one country versus another, or a country at one time in history versus one tiem later. But it is not used to talk abotu how much better life is in youth than in old age.

But we know already, that youth is avlued. And from some sources in our culture we are told that youth provokes very intense jealousy and envy in some older people.

Also, we know that old age is when a decline in health occurs, that results everytime in death.

So we can expect mortality to go along with poor health, and old age, and thus declining age will be definitely related to declining quality of life.

Actually it will result in the worst quality of life consistently.

health concerns, death from disease and so on, in locations at a young age, is connected with what we say is a lower quality of life when comparing nations. We also say quality of life is lower if there is less exercise, education, and a range of other consditions that make for a more enjoyable existence. But we can see that alzheimers results in a reduction of education, of brain function, and that dcline in ability to recover results in an inability to have exercise and sufficient time outdoors. Pain from arthritis and other ailments results in a life of actual pain and maybe suffering.

Old age then is related to lower quality of life. It can be used to help define and describe a low quality of life.

Thus strangely, after a period of low reflection when one is expected to have kids and one does have kids, one begins to decline in quality of life, until one has a terrible existence very often. 8 billion people exist today, and nearly 8 billion will have a hard time in old age if they cannnot learn the art of suicide.

But all these older people will have already created children unreflectively. Do they feel uguilt about having had chilrren who would certainly live most of their lives in decline and older age?

It does not appear they have guilt or that their supposed conscience comes into play relating to this subject.

I think it really common that as people get older they begin to dislike life but already they created children and this shows that on average people have very irrationally and ignorantly curelly created people who would have decline and death tlike they did, without plans.

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742422390, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:13:10, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 556 seconds. 587 words. Typespeed: 63.300 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-world-has-created-babies-to-love-itself-and-for-a-short-time-with-insufficient-more-of-it-to-love">The World Has Created Babies to Love Itself And For a Short Time With Insufficient More of It To Love</a>

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742418995, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 14:16:35, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts



*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742418997, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 14:16:37, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="it-does-not-appear-that-there-are-good-reasons-for-creating-life-that-are-sufficiently-or-greatly-distant-from-reasons-to-not-create-life">It Does Not Appear That There Are Good Reasons For Creating Life That Are Sufficiently Or Greatly Distant From Reasons To Not Create Life</a>

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742418947, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 14:15:47, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings



*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742418949, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 14:15:49, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="everyone-seems-to-have-a-lower-quality-of-life,-or-a-very-high-percentage-do,-because-jobs-are-silly-jobs-with-silly-purposes">Everyone Seems to Have a Lower Quality of Life, Or a Very High Percentage Do, Because Jobs Are Silly Jobs With Silly Purposes</a>

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742410360, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:52:40, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts



*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742410364, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:52:44, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 4 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="list-television,-a-channel-that-rapidly-presents-lists-of-important-new-pieces-of-information-from-known-areas-of-useful-information,-and-does-it-comprehensively">List Television, A Channel That Rapidly Presents Lists of Important New Pieces of Information From Known Areas of Useful Information, and Does it Comprehensively</a>

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742371347, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 01:02:27, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Education | Mind and Mental Development



*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742371350, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 01:02:30, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 3 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="space-suits-used-for-space-training-and-actual-time-in-space-were-usable-for-earth-but-were-never-made-available-to-consumers-and-costs-were-never-reduced-for-regular-purchasing">Space Suits Used for Space Training and Actual Time In Space Were Usable For Earth But Were Never Made Available To Consumers and Costs Were Never Reduced For Regular Purchasing</a>

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742369985, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 00:39:45, Phoenix, Arizona*

Property and Organization | Livelihood



*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742369987, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 00:39:47, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="it-may-be-that-civilization-cannot-be-advanced-in-various-important-ways">It May Be That Civilization Cannot Be Advanced In Various Important Ways</a>

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742354061, Tuesday, March 18, 2025 20:14:21, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Constraint and Determinism

Today, thinking about shoes, I cam eto see that it does not appear shoes can be advanced. In what way would a shoe ever be advanced? It covers the feet, and provides cuhioning. It provides water resistance. In many ways, the shoes we have are mere basic textiles with rubber glued or bonded to it. More advanced shoes are using more advanced foam and glue and plastic. Where can the shoe advancement go? It appears ot very far, and not far from where it started, and people still prefer where it started too. 

Regarding shoes, ti does not appear there can be much advancement.

Does it seem the same for clothing? To me dit does seem the same.

What about for vehicles, and for transit? We have the bicycle, which I have found to be not much better or often worse than walking. We hae running. We have electric scooters and cars. Wheels, and motors. There is a point in which we can move too fast in planes, using those engines, such that we can cover the globe so rapidly, that we see that the earth is small enough to understand well while still in youth.

Thisseems to mean there is not much room for advancement even for transit and that since we haven't been in development long, and that we use wheels and engines and propellers etc... to achieve already speeds too fast perhaps, and speeds regulated, that there is not much room for advancement and that from beginning to end there has been very little advancement or potential for advancement.

This makes it questionable if an easy period of advancement really is such. Millions of years of change of biology, versus a hundred years of industry?

Notice I said taht clothing and shoes have not advanced too far. So we can see then that industry did little. What about for food? Well, in that area, we still simply enjoy those foods that people think make their cultures authentic. We value the plaants and the animals for food. They don't change much. We breed the plants and the animals until they have qualitities that are better for foods, but these things do not differ that much from when they were consumed earlier. People ate well in history and they eat well now. Distribution of food is rirrelevant to the actual advancement of food. 

This is not a question as to whether people are more poor or not regarding food. The question si if foods have advanced, and to what degree, and if the time of devellopment justifies saying that the advancement really was such. It does not appears to me that there was muc advancement really, esxcepting for feeding more people, in greater quantitites so that all have more food. But honestly, as I have reflected more recently on legacy, and on my life and its duration, I don't care if people had less food before, and people have more food now, and later there will be more food. These are great things, but there is a population concern that nobody discusses, and of course, none of that population came from me.

From my perspective, eating natural foods from 2000 years ago, would be as good if not better than foods today. Why not try foods that have not been tampered with by humans as much? What is it like to eat such foods? Is it closer to foraging? what recipes existed? We know many recipes existed that aren't too diffferent from today, and beer for example is hardly different at all. I do not drink beer. But it is funny to think I could have drank a glass of beer two thousandyears ago and it would be similar, and bread would be similar too. Butter, olive oil, many plants, etc...

Foraging sounds great, and for that we hope for no advancement.

Greater advancement to me, might relate to things like making foods from elements and in greater variety than could be imagined now and with taste and quality exceeding what nature could produce. Maybe that is in our distant future, adn that is something I would admit probably to be some kind of advancement, but I also would have to state that I can't quite say if I would prefer that over living in nature, camping and foraging in abundance, with plenty of cherry and apple orchards, other kinds of fruit, berries, and plenty of greens. Also, I admit that that is about preferences and not about advancement, so there is still a sort of advancement in the ability to do both and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive unless people make them such. That could happen because it is hardly legal to camp and forage now.

The ida that ingestion and taste can be adfvanced is interesting. We are talking about adaancement of food, but my taste and my digestion has not changed. Is anyone promising to expand on my tasste abilities, and my ability to digest different novel foods, both historical and new and synthetic? There is no such idea. So I actually constrain any advancement that can happen for me. Looking at the world, I question that there has beeen any advancement for an individual regarding food. It is only the prospect of having good food if one is born. My life and these births are not related. I'm more concerned about how the advancement suppposedly improves my situation but apparently it didn't do that if I had food in both situations, poor or rich.

There is much to say on this topic in all different areas of life, but thinking about those areas that I'm most interested in now, I'm prefering fairly low advancement to high advancement, and am seeing benefits in quality of materials and in food, but they are not so great to think that older methods weren't great too, and I don't think the comparison yields any huge appreciation of improvement. Some of the advancements for example include stupidities and these aer not immediately obvious. Some advancements lessen knowledge. I'd like sometimes older advancements and knowledge than less o fknowledge and more of ease.

Is suntan lotion an advancement or does on ewear clothes?

Looking at civilization now, thinking about the time it has exixted, the duration, where it has come from and where it is now, I am not sure I agree there has been advancements of high significance in all those locations we look. The greater advancements again, to me, thinking about it perhaps not as lengthily as I will later, is the advancement in medicine and in some basic sciences relating to improvement of well being at an individual level. Like knowing that hygeine matters, and that sterilization prevents disease, and knowledge about surgury, and drugs. 

Today opiates are used, but opiates were used already too...

controls on advancement are reductions on advancements too.

This is a worthwhile subject matter to consider because it reveals those areas in which learning more may be valuable where learning less in certain areas might be better. I mean the learning of what exists versus frivolous learning about novelties that achieve little. Becoming a carpenter who e builds from wood, versus ba builder of prefabricated leggos that have to be purchased. The person who learnes to beuild with legos really cannot build anything without buying everything at excess cost. The wood was always free. There is more to learn than with the leggos. What is learened wis more flexible.

More on this soon.

*230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742355253, Tuesday, March 18, 2025 20:34:13, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1192 seconds. 1251 words. Typespeed: 62.940 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="religious-thinking-has-onsets-and-offsets-that-the-thinker-is-unaware-are-arbitrary,-such-that-it-is-contingent,-and-could-be-other-onsets-and-offsets,-but-they-believe-that-these-are-religious-moments">Religious Thinking Has Onsets and Offsets That The Thinker Is Unaware Are Arbitrary, Such That It is Contingent, and Could Be Other Onsets and Offsets, But they Believe That These Are Religious Moments</a>

*229 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742329223, Tuesday, March 18, 2025 13:20:22, Phoenix, Arizona*

Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals



*229 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742329224, Tuesday, March 18, 2025 13:20:24, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="on-cartography-and-distortions-in-maps">On Cartography and Distortions in Maps</a>

*225 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741979771, Friday, March 14, 2025 12:16:11*, Phoenix, Arizona

Mathematics | Computing | Science

Social Media Friend:  thanks for the invite, I'm rarely on FB these days and this is good timing, and on demand I am wiling to expound for the moment.

At 19 years old I took a course on geography at Montgomery College in the state of Maryland, before I went off to state college. This course was intensely interesting to me, and very enjoyable, although it was a bit simplistic as compared with some of the other sciences. As long as it is taken to be a separate science not inclusive of the others!

At that time, I did learn about the differences of map projections and that converting from a semi-spherical model to a two dimensional flat paper model, concessions had to be made, but the concessions made could vary, with varying results in the actual maps produced.

Some projections would have cutouts, and some would be rectangular. Those rectangular would have area issues. Rectangular maps could preserve area and direction, or area and distance, but could not preserve area, direction and distance. Cutouts provide a better solution, but a more unsightly model.

That projection that we have in the classroom is the most grossly distorted for land area, but is not so bad for distance and direction. Nowadays we might think that map horrible, but it is simply a map that has made a concession for the others to be preserved while maintaining a rectangular display.

I think though, that this map is also favorable to the United States, and creates illusions that are politically useful. The globe was always preferable. I was still alive when globes were popular; nowadays, I don't see to many globes. It could be they are still present, but I don't think globes are nearly as used today as before, because when shopping, I never see them. I had a globe as a kid, and a very high quality Atlas as a young adult, and I've had that large atlas until recently.

These are remarks on formative times relating to the understanding of the globe and distortions in presentation. What do I have to say that relates to more recent thoughts and considerations?

These too still relate to earlier observations, but fundamentally I reject any such notion as a national boundary as anything unarbitrary. People are also living in an illusory world in which little lines drawn around geographic areas are thought to depict real areas that have such boundaries in nature. So people really do think there is a China, and a Japan, and a United States, and like with animals, they are immutable forms, and are not evolving, changing, and unfixed. Of course, unlike animals though, they are concoctions and are historical power claims. Lines are claimed. That's how they come to exist.

The use of maps as they are today are being challenged I see in this YouTube video to reduce the illusions for new students. There is an issue though, in that these students simply aren't very intelligent. Switching to globes may hoist these sudents to a perspective that is better, but a more advanced education could easily simply consist in presenting to them the mathematics of spheres and surfaces, and making it clear that visualization of information in various formats, for various purposes, including summary purposes, and purposes of instrumentation (a map on a hike or a boat may be better for navigation than a globe, and a screen is flat, and flattens the globe as it is closely examined), and so on. A question is, what is best to teach to the smart people and what is best to force on the less intelligent ones. Globes may be better to force on the less intelligent, but learning about differing map types doesn't cause these confusions amongst the intelligent.

I do admit though, having these maps around, and so prevalent, does make illusions harder to eradicate. I'd like more variations close at hand to correct any illusions, because sometimes, I admit, I think of Northern Canada as much larger than it is, and Africa as much smaller than it is too, even though mentally I'm aware of the differences between projections, limitations of kinds of data visualization and the like. While my visuospatial is >=99.89 percent, that does not mean I can completely visualize at high accuracy the exact size of DNR and correct the size of Nunavut mentally.

The issue that this YouTube video is really for the educator of students who really won't have the critical ability to in an ongoing way correct information, and find right solutions relating to geography, and instead will go along life in a biased way, relying on what small parts of learning are actually retained from early education. This video for example woudln't help me since I'm aware of all that's in the video and was since young, and *can use that information with ease* and *do use that information to have more sophisticated perspectives in navigation and in political perspective*. But others cannot do that. I'd say this video is good for the support of the normal public in their education but is not particularly useful for those in the upper echelons of IQ.


But I did find this interesting as a revisitation and I like the opportunity you provided for being able to write about this. It gives me a chance to write what perhaps I did not already, and of course I can include this in my book and journal for use later, so I do not need to write about it again.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-preceding-posting-is-a-beginning-to-a-game-theoretic-treatment-of-reactions-to-truthful-and-intelligent-statements,-which-may-be-good-for-inclusion-in-the-next-volume-of-the-velocity-of-significance-and-ideation">The Preceding Posting Is a Beginning to A Game Theoretic Treatment of Reactions to Truthful and Intelligent Statements, Which May Be Good For Inclusion In The Next Volume of The Velocity of Significance and Ideation</a>

*224 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741889332, Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:08:52, Phoenix, Arizona*

Intelligence | Psychometrics | Mathematics



*224 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741889333, Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:08:53, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="disagreement-can-be-used-in-conversation-as-a-supporting-measure-for-intelligence,-because-those-who-cannot-understand-will-start-to-simply-disagree-because-agreement-is-out-of-range,-and-a-potential-tell-on-being-out-of-range">Disagreement Can Be Used In Conversation As a Supporting Measure for Intelligence, Because Those Who Cannot Understand Will Start to Simply Disagree Because Agreement Is Out of Range, and a Potential Tell On Being Out of Range</a>

*224 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741888586, Thursday, March 13, 2025 10:56:26, Phoenix, Arizona*

The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Intelligence | Psychometrics

If you are to agree with someone, subsequent conversation will reveal, if there is any dwelling or development on it, whether that agreement was due to mutual understanding, or if it was due to something lelse, like pretended agreement due to attraction, or pretended agreement due to respect. Agreement, then, creates a risk for the speaker. 

This is because if the speaker is unable to translate in their own words what was stated in a way that approximates the meaning of the speaker such that the speaker might re-assent to the translation, it will show that the person speaking may not undersrtand, but additionally, they have some traits that may be reprehensible. That is, they agree because they are attracted and because they like authority, or something similar to that.

For a conversationalist, usch as I, who is watchful for understanding of what I'm saying, an agreement then, makes it easy for me, to appraise the person as to their intelligence. Disagreement makes it harder. Disagreement makes it harder, because it can be concealed why there is disagreement, and it can be boasted or exaggerated that what is disagreed concerns another thought, that is of better quality and has better explanatory power. In other words, the person can pretend that what they have is smarter in some way nad simply makakes it unacceptable to agree with the position you presented, because that one is incorrect or too low in value.

But the issue here is that for some statements that one might make, one will know in advance how contentious it is. Some people will act as though we should have equivalent skepticism regarding all of our thoughts, which is a hilarious perspective if you consider implications.

The reality is, there really are thoughts for which we have greater certainty. So, in conversation, occasionally or often we'll be able to use those statemtns which are more veritable, and watch the audience for their reactions.

If they disagree, and disagree strongly to these statements you know immediately that they very likely have low intelligence or not an intelligence close t o your own. (Assuming you are smart and tha t is a reason you are reading this). The strength of the disagreement might tell about the intelligence too.

There is much more to say about this topic, and I can tell it is worthwhile to develop it further. For now, I thihnk what is interesting and worth thinking about further, is that the pool of people who agree and disagree seem to differ with more on the side of disagreement when what is put forth is veritable and somewhat complex. This is because agreement is harder and riskier, and because disagreement is caused not only by actually disagreeing, but by low intelligence. It seems a safer strategy to simply disagree than to agree when the intelligence is lacking and something is not understood.

Remaining neutral is a very wise move, and something exhibited by smart people. The smartest coudl even be thouse who are not understanding it yet for somee reason, but are willing to abstain. This is also because sometimes, if what is heard is new, there is a need for time.

Agreement and abstainment would be likely to have the most intelligent people, unless among the people who disagree is someone who can state itwith good complexity why thtere is disagreement, and what the person who agrees must be able to do, restate the postition adequately. But I have not focused on this, because I'm more interested fo the moment on those statements that really are veritable and of better conviction than other statemetns that are more contentious.

*224 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741889195, Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:06:35, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 609 seconds. 609 words. Typespeed: 60.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="automation-trends-towards-either-elimination-of-the-need,-or-reduction-of-work-until-the-automated-workers-are-not-even-needed">Automation Trends Towards Either Elimination of the Need, or Reduction of Work Until The Automated Workers Are Not Even Needed</a>

*223 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741800859, Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:34:19, Phoenix, Arizona*

Mathematics | Architecture | Software Architecture | Higher Order Attention



*223 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741800860, Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:34:20, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="why-have-you,-or-that-person,-been-loaded-with-that-information?">Why Have You, Or That Person, Been Loaded With That Information?</a>

*222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741664050, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:34:10, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships



*222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741664051, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:34:11, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="history-writing-may-be-like-cheating:-since-you-were-not-there,-and-rely-on-other-sources,-you-simply-write-from-those-other-sources,-and-you-cannot-add-any-original-thinking,-excepting-speculations-as-to-historical-patterns">History Writing May Be Like Cheating: Since You Were Not There, and Rely On Other Sources, You Simply Write From Those Other Sources, and You Cannot Add Any Original Thinking, Excepting Speculations As To Historical Patterns</a>

*222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741663571, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:26:11, Phoenix, Arizona*

History | Human Shortcomings

After comign to this thought, I wonder if history is actually a misnomer. Whatever it is, is not as distinguished as it has been presented I think. If that is the case, history may not be an appropriate word. It may be better described as copycat reconstruction, with mixed fiction and truth. 

*222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741663637, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:27:17, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 66 seconds. 52 words. Typespeed: 47.220 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="i-think-it-possible-to-prepare-a-template-for-writing-history,-with-parts-pre-filled,-showing-that-history-is-hardly-a-job">I Think It Possible To Prepare A Template For Writing History, With Parts Pre-filled, Showing That History Is Hardly a Job</a>

*222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741662289, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:04:49, Phoenix, Arizona*

History | Human Shortcomings

This relates to the thoughts I've been having lately about the repetition that I'm seeing in history books, that have the same geological/geographical beginning, explanation of prehisotry, archaeology that is shared, phases of early development relating to metals and lithics, and so on, until there is an actual history that begins in a way that seems unrelated from earlier pages. History books seem to repeat too often particularly where there is commonality between texts.

But current history, too ist told in similar ways, and with similar concerns, about things such as social justice, and equalitarianism.

Before, history seemed somewhat a challenging subject. But then I realized, I do not think the writers of history really can recall even what they've written. Recallign all of what one has studies d and written about is hard to do. I don't believe historians recall the historical detail of their own writings.

Instead, I think they prepare it acording to template, and imitate an reuse existing material, and I don't think they use primary sources often, and when they do, use the same ones! What new primary sources are emergin in this limited source of extant artifacts! Really there are no new historical discoveries really happening, and when they happen, they are not in the history of what one is writing about!

So the historian spends time enjoying writings. Reading various texts. Finally, they culminate with a writing of their own, which follows a tempalte. The result may be enjoyable, but it conceals laziness. 

The earlier histories, which had more personal variation, and differences of style, had more myth and falsification.

Now, there may be less falsification, but what is true is there is less personality. I have beene xposed to many historical texts, adn it seems even the style of the writing is lacking of personality.

I had a brief reading period of Carlyle, and that was different, it is true, but I think it was in the early phases of history, not too different than ancient writings of history that had more variation because there was more lack of discipline, and less actual trustworthiness, than there was enthusiastic storytelling.

Nowadays all histories seem like they were written by the same person.

Of course there are more that I need to read, but I'm seeing a clear trend, with random sampling.

*222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741662672, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:11:12, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 383 seconds. 388 words. Typespeed: 60.780 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="i-noticed-in-history-texts,-a-sequence-of-peoples-and-events-are-described,-until-current-events-are-reached,-and-earlier-events-are-forgotten,-with-the-effect-that-really,-there-was-little-knowledge-of-the-connection-of-early-events-to-now,-but-we-read-history-for-now,-unless-it-is-curiosity">I Noticed In History Texts, A Sequence of Peoples and Events are Described, Until Current Events Are Reached, And Earlier Events Are Forgotten, With The Effect That Really, There Was Little Knowledge of The Connection Of Early Events To Now, But We Read History For Now, Unless It is Curiosity</a>

*222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741659965, Monday, March 10, 2025 19:26:05, Phoenix, Arizona*

History | Human Shortcomings

An odd consequence of history is having a complete inability to envision the earlier globe, while having what apppears to be fictions to relate to that ignorance. Then, one pretends that one can use that well, to understand present day events.

I do know too, that some of what is learned in history, really is informative and usable, and does explain current eents somewhat, and differences and similaritieis between nations, and explains animosities, areas of friction, and areas of congeniality. But a huge portion of what history is, is really what I'm describing above.

*222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741660053, Monday, March 10, 2025 19:27:33, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 88 seconds. 94 words. Typespeed: 64.080 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="featureless-and-boring-geometries-as-being-greater-abstractions,-but-with-specificity-still">Featureless and Boring Geometries as Being Greater Abstractions, But With Specificity Still</a>

*220 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741522978, Sunday, March 09, 2025 05:22:58, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Mathematics | Fitness | Health | Evaluative Concepts | Aesthetics

Today I saw an image on Facebook of an alien woman ironing her clothing, which was her actual h;uman appearance mixed with her clothing. The idea is that she is something separate from this body and appearance and clothing and she's wearing it, but what's inside isn't too different from what has been outside.

There are still arms, legs, a body, and a head.

Thinking about this a bit, I had a better observation than I would have expected about mathematics.

Here's how I came to the intuitioin. Firstly, I notied that the alien appearance is a sort of generic humanoid appearance, which could be an actual person's appearance who chooses to have different looks (sentence needs revision, but that's ok). So it's like the alien is a simple form that could admit of many alternative outward forms. Perhaps the alien form is the basic form, tathat is the retrun-to image, but the alien can also change appearances and shapes like a chamelieon.  So there is this highly generic version of a person that seems more general in appearance but can have more specific appearances which seem to show greater differentiation.

I think that's largely illusory, becasue the same issue exists regarding the alien's base appearance. To illustrate, a specific appearance chosen by the alien could simply become the default appearance too, and from that appearnce other highly specific appearances could be worn or arrived at. This shows that any specific appearance can also be the base appearnce.

This confuses abstraction and specification, generality and instantiation.

But there is also this idea that may be true, that less specific objects, or objects with less features, like geometrical objects that are plainer, and have less trqits, or subgeometries, really are more general.

In the title I said featureless and boring geometries as being greater abstractions. We can draw all humans as those models which are simple gemotries of elipses, triangles, cylinders, and so on. The artist uses this to guide drawing all peopople. It shows a more general form. This more general form has to be more featureless.

But as I stated above, perhaps all the other variations of a geometry could simply have a more featured base form as the generality and abstraction. 

The idea would work this way: now we have a woman, she has many unusual traits, these trait are not like those in other people, but for fun we can imgine they are attractive rather than unattractive. This attractive women with unusual traits, then spawns a colony of humans, tht have all these traits as base traits but then have more subfeatures. Then the abstraction of all the offspring is a template of sorts which is this woman with all the unusual traits. This woman then is an abstraction and generalization of all the others and has a simpleer more boring geometry than all the others. But she still has specificity. We've noticed she has this specificity when we compared her with the others who would be drawn using an approach using plain geometrical objects.

I thought maybe I would move towards the idea that the specific is similar to the general, and that there is some error in the idea. That could be true still. But now I'm seeing additionally that it does appear that more featureless and mbioring gemotetries are greater abstractions, because while the sub-tribe of this woman has many more featutres and they al fall under the abstraction of her simplicity, which is more complex than the other humans before, all are fit still within the more basic geometry, and before that there waws a more basic geometry still.

Consider that we may have reallly evolved from fish like species. 

I think this is likely a very useful insight, applicable to a number of fields, and may have a good mathematical definition taht I could contribute. I will explore this further later.

*220 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741523697, Sunday, March 09, 2025 05:34:57, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 719 seconds. 649 words. Typespeed: 54.120 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="learning-how-to-not-have-a-body-to-have-even-less-needs">Learning How To Not Have A Body To Have Even Less Needs</a>

*219 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741443675, Saturday, March 08, 2025 07:21:15, Phoenix, Arizona*

Short Stories | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals



*219 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741443677, Saturday, March 08, 2025 07:21:17, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-you-watch-yourself-on-video-you-can-see-your-own-animal-unawareness-and-obliviousness,-and-favoring-of-sensoring-systems-and-morphology-serving-those-systems">If You Watch Yourself On Video You Can See Your Own Animal Unawareness and Obliviousness, and Favoring of Sensoring Systems and Morphology Serving Those Systems</a>

*218 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741339041, Friday, March 07, 2025 02:17:21, Phoenix, Arizona*

Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings



*218 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741339043, Friday, March 07, 2025 02:17:23, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="it's-a-fools-countdown-to-do-years-backwards-before-ad-0">It's a fools countdown to do years backwards before AD 0</a>

*217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741264802, Thursday, March 06, 2025 05:40:02, Phoenix, Arizona*

The Calendar Solved | Mathematics | Wanattomianism



*217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741264803, Thursday, March 06, 2025 05:40:03, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="what-is-the-set-of-completed-topics,-rationally-considered-and-done?">What is The Set of Completed Topics, Rationally Considered and Done?</a>

*217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741255317, Thursday, March 06, 2025 03:01:57, Phoenix, Arizona*

RationalTimes | Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention | Relationships

When I started RationalTimes, I had this idea that people are striving somewhat towards having compmleted thoughts on different subjects. Usually, people who thought they solved some problem, did not acknowledge that their solutions were really tentative but not complete. But this tendency does show that they were tending towards thinking they had complete views and perspectives, given their inability to understqnd they were not really final.

For myself, I wanted to keep acknowledging the tentative nature of the conclusions I would have while thinking. After a long time thinkign this way and thinking through various subject matters, I have come to develop some so far as to become really complete, meaning there isn't any input from outside I would expect to revecal the thinking is tentative and is not really conclusive.

Also, I noticed that while we think about subjects that are basic, sometimes we really do arrive at facts. This is something I knew too, of course, but this does contiribute to the view that some thinking is complete. In fact, there is a lot of thinking that can be completed. Most would have some trouble knowing what things would be final and which things would be tentative, but for my own efforts, as I became more experience, I got better at identifying what thoughts were more final and which ones were not.

When I wrote down the title to this publication here, I was thinking about actually listing out those thoughts that really do have completness. What are the topics that are done and are finished? Some topics reallly are done and finished, and having them finished allows one to move one's mind from that topic to tothers, confidently understanding that little to no thinking is neeeded to problem solve for hat topic again.

The RationalTimes journal was intentded to arrivce at final thoughgts. Tentative conclusions aggregated together forms also a comprehensive quantity of thoughts that are *nearly finished* even if they still could use more research and input. This means a mind has trended towards a comprehensive completion.

Now I can combine this way of thinkign with the diminishing return on thinking which I think is a view that is also nearly complete, in that it represents an actual fact and trend.There is a portion of that thought that appears final. All of the effort of rational times is trending towards a life that does not require as much thinking thany longer, in total volume and significance. This is also what is wanted all along, to have problems solved.

Those who disagree with this kind of project would oddly have serious contradictions as they try to proceed on their own personal self development. This is actually foolish to disagree with. It may be the mark of a fool to disagree with such a project as this.

Anyway, now that I'm very far along in my efforts, it may be time to record a list of thought sthat do appear to be final or are trending towards finality. Which topics are concluded? 

There is also a test of my approach, because later on, I can still revisit some of the subjects and see if they were really final or not with additional thinking. I may discover that some percentage still seemed complete, while some percentage did not. Maybe 10 or twenty hears from now, I examine the topics and thoughts and find flaws. Or maybe I simply confirm the results.

If the results are confirmed then that is truly a valuable result. 

It would be a mistake to think that this is not what I was doing along the way. I am a self-testiner, and willing alterer of my views. If something is wrong with my views, I cahnge the views to fit them to what is truthful and honest. This means I have been changing my views since very early in my life. I like being wrong in order to know that I needed to fix something. While it is infrequentlt that I'm seriously wrong nowadays (really that doesn't happen), I do find flaws I need to fix often. 

If this is compared with the activities of others, one might question the species. Particularly regarding their views on religion!

Since people are not self questioning, and self-correcting, one wonders what they do with their minds as they claim to learn.

I think it will be found that RationalTimes, and my efforts on morality, in generqal tesets animals including humans.

If they are not and will not do the same, or resist doing the same or similarly, then it appears to me they are inferior entities that perhaps have harmful intentions or are apathetic and indeifferent to untruth and lies, even in their brains.

It would appear they are not caring for their brains. 

I think this too  will be one of the subjects that will be final. If someone is not altering their false views so as to make them true, they are apathetic about perpetuating having false brain tissue. Thi sis who they are and they are wanting it to remain that ay.

There are scenarios in which it is konown that it will take too much effort to correct the tissue, but in that situation, honestry is the correction, or at least honesty is used to do all tht could be done to correct the incorrectable. 

Soon I should be putting gtogether a list of complete topics in which I have found answers or areas in which I've developed my life to a point in which additional developments don't appear necessary.

*217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741256163, Thursday, March 06, 2025 03:16:03, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 846 seconds. 927 words. Typespeed: 65.700 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="humanity-has-really-not-found-a-justification-for-having-children,-and-no-parent-has-ever-had-a-written-plan-that-could-be-rational-or-really-make-sense,-and-it-does-not-appear-to-me-they-will-have-the-capability-anytime-soon,-implying-the-most-rational-course-of-action-for-certain-is-to-have-no-children,-because-it-can-only-be-irrational-otherwise">Humanity Has Really Not Found a Justification For Having Children, And No Parent Has Ever Had a Written Plan That Could Be Rational Or Really Make Sense, and It Does Not Appear to Me They Will Have The Capability Anytime Soon, Implying The Most Rational Course of Action For Certain Is To Have No Children, Because It Can Only Be Irrational Otherwise</a>

*217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741249956, Thursday, March 06, 2025 01:32:36, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings



*217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741249959, Thursday, March 06, 2025 01:32:39, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 3 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="that-one-does-not-have-much-responsibility-for-the-future-if-one-does-not-have-kids-has-not-been-adequately-appreciated-or-analyzed">That One Does Not Have Much Responsibility For The Future If One Does Not Have Kids Has Not Been Adequately Appreciated or Analyzed</a>

*217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741248575, Thursday, March 06, 2025 01:09:35, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

I can recall hearing when I as young, others saying, that they did not think they dhad responsibility for the future, if they were going to die. I do think also, that I recall some saying the same, that they did not have any such responsibility becasue they would die, but more because they would not have children. 

I do not recall who said this when I was young, but I do recall that I did not fully appreciate the points. It is a rare scenario in which I was hearing a perspective that was a good one, but I had some bias that did not allow me to really appreciate what the view offered.

I aws more on the side, at that time, of thinking that one ought to be concerned with the future. But now I think that view is mistaken largely, and is only partly  the better one. Really the superior position is a fusion of the two, but with much more emphasisis on the side of the person , or on the side of the argumentation, supporting the idae that one is not responsible for the future.

If someone has kids, I think they are more responsible than if they did not. If osomeone chose not to have kids, I think they are much less responsible.

Before I wrote about how if a person has just a few kids, these kids could reproduce over time until there is basically a city of people just coming from your family. The world as it is now, in the over eight billion people that exist (supposedly), comes from just a few families and at the earliest a few individuals.

By not having children, it becomses increasingly clear that there are illusions that people are living in that they are unaware of, that involve social demands on their lives.

I think this is a wortwhile focal point in the study of morality. I've said much about this in the past, but I don't think the full importance has still become entirely appparent even in my own life. I think it is mostly unknown thto the rest of humanity.

By not having children, you not only greatly benenefit your own life, but social responsibilities for the future largely fvanish. One can hardly have any impact taht could be durable and negative. I say this while thinking my own actions should be comprised only of positive and neutral actions, and hardly any that could be harmful in any way.

My favorite topic to point out involves the commitment to recycling. It is interesting to me, that people will have families of 5 or more, including children who create grandchildren, resulting in total families of 20 ore more potentially, with each individual owning a vehiclcle and producing an entire lifetime of trash. Meanwhile, a single person, with no kids, doe s not firstly have much responsibility for the future, they will be dead, and did not produce children who will have to live under future conditions. they are not responsibl for the kids of others. So some small amount of trash they produce in their life is insignificant.

The other family however, produces incredible amount sof trash. They do this while disavowing responsiblity for the children they created and their actions. In a way, they disavowed their contributions to the future too, thereby, if they are to be consistent thinkers.

I don't think this is an especially difficult topic, and I may have a conclusive article on it in the near future sometime. If one does not have children, the lack of legacy is obvious. The alleviation of social responsibilities is obvious too. It is a matter of whether one has engaged in actions that resulted in a perpetuation of life into the future for which there is somethihng owed. I don't think this is the best way to think about it. I think this merely shows how basic the topic really is. If thre is only nothingness after me, and other people continue, they are the ones with the responsibilities. Thoswe with ties to the future are the ones with obligations relating to the future, fi there reallly are any. But they are the ones who would theink there are!

More on this topic soon. I don't think this is a permanent and conclusding analysis in any way. i am merely pointing out it appears a simplistic topic and that it does seem to have pretty significant and meaningful social consequences once understood.

It is also already recognized too, that people do not have any responsibilitiy to have kids, and that they shouldn't if they have good reasons not to, and one good reason to not have kids is simply not wanting to have kids. But what are their social objectives supposed to be if they have no kids, are they supposed to serve others, and lay preparations for kids who aren't theirs? 

If they are rational people, their desires are at odds with the desires of people and their chilrdren. I think others would want to force people to behave in such a way as they are to contribute to children they did nto have!

Hidden in soxiety is a laziness of the parent, who is demanding from others, to do good things for their legacy and their children, neglecting their own.

People wan ttheir name to be huge! They want to have fame! They want the legacy to continue. They do not want individiuals who are not them to take some of this fame for themselves, or at least not any share that lessens their own. They would rather that they somehow contribute to their own attention and the attention of their family, and they would like them to perpetuate it post humously. 

If someone else has the attention, and you do not, and there is a market relation, there is something that they are expecting you to do that contributes to their reputation. They either want you to listen to them, buy from them, and maybe do things to further their perspective or messages.

Meanwhile, it may be that rationally, you had no children. Having had no children you don't have an interest in the future or legacy necessarily. They, caring about attention and legacy, believinging falsely that hteir family will carry on with their message, really think you are to contribute to their future legacy too.

*217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741249596, Thursday, March 06, 2025 01:26:36, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1021 seconds. 1068 words. Typespeed: 62.760 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-study-of-evaluative-concepts-and-values-does-depend-on-comparison-of-different-living-entities.-at-this-time,-i'm-wanting-to-compare-being-types-within-my-own-entity.-this-happens-with-learning-to-have-very-new-behaviors,-and-comparing-what-is-experienced-with-what-is-remembered-from-earlier-ways-of-being.">The Study of Evaluative Concepts and Values Does Depend On Comparison Of Different Living Entities. At This Time, I'm Wanting To Compare Being Types Within My Own Entity. This Happens With Learning To Have Very New Behaviors, and Comparing What Is Experienced With What Is Remembered From Earlier Ways of Being.</a>

*216 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741149861, Tuesday, March 04, 2025 21:44:21, Phoenix, Arizona*

Evaluative Concepts | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Relationships

Recording for now.

*216 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741149866, Tuesday, March 04, 2025 21:44:26, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="correctness-of-mappings-and-vagueness-seems-a-part-of-most-human-creations-of-generality-like-language,-logic,-mathematics,-electronics,-and-so-on,-and-relates-to-specificity-of-intuition,-acknowledgement-of-generality,-but-insufficient-knowledge-about-actual-generality,-seeing-that-an-idea-has-an-application,-has-analogical-abstractions,-but-without-seeing-clearly-what-the-world-mappings-really-are">Correctness of Mappings and Vagueness Seems A Part of Most Human Creations of Generality Like Language, Logic, Mathematics, Electronics, and So On, And Relates to Specificity of Intuition, Acknowledgement of Generality, But Insufficient Knowledge About Actual Generality, Seeing That An Idea Has An Application, Has Analogical Abstractions, But Without Seeing Clearly What The World Mappings Really Are</a>

*215 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741074113, Tuesday, March 04, 2025 00:41:53, Phoenix, Arizona*

Mathematics | Evaluative Concepts | Natural Language | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

Part of this has to do with the knowing that there is some application to an idea, and vaguely seeing that there are others, then later forcing that it works for the others. For example, an n electronic computer is a forcing of logic into a domain in which it was not originally usable. It is also known that a computer could be hydrolically defined, or defined with other kinds of devices and contraptions. Machine computers and the like.

We could to day have instead of computers, and screens that are digital, machines, and the movement of physical pixels as actual patches of fabric or color, at a much greater scale.

For example instead of having a television, we could have a recording medium, and a reader, that takes what is read, and flips patches of color to make the pixel equivalents, that may be like two inch by two inch squares of paper, or other material.

These would be like hthe flipping billboards and flipping patches of color used for language and numbers in old times. There were message boards, that had flipping numbers, and flipping colors that amount to pixels like on an old liquid crystal digital readout.

Old calculators had arrangements of monochrome, two color, black and white patches, used to show all the numbers.

So instead of a computer that is electronic, all of this is simply done mechanically with a giatnt machine at first.

Movies are watched on gigantic screens that still have the older style of pixels.

That it would function or not is not a question. It would work!

Hydrolically it could work, and instead we could use liquid machines.

Already now, there is not an agreement as to the screen technology. Some use screens, some use projectors! There are mre options than these.

Computers could be done only blindly using tactile information. Both in the implementatioin and in the result or user interface.

We are therefore forcing somethign that we learned specifically about onto another area. There is an abstraction we know, but what we do not know, is where we are to apply the abstraction, and how.

This actually is a moral question too, one of how one ought to decide to do things.

Thre will certainly be more abotu this later, but what i'm most interested in now, is the first steps from an idea ato the abstraction.

Also, are the first ideas already misapplications or extensions?

When we have language, what are we to apply it to later?

Ideas themselves are strange inferences sometimes.

At first, sometimes, we might think we have the origin.

But what we are working with, has been extendedd! And what the origin is, has been infected already, by what has been extended?

Have you not extended visions when you had an idea for something new 

Did you not extend language when you had aniidea for something new?

You could hnot have ideas without these things.

The origins are oftentimes taken for granted. Early math, for example, might be thought as a true origin; it is the beginning, of what was mor became math later. What was grown from math. But already it was an extension!

What thing has been made for which there is no precursor thought! Or precursor preparation that is biological?

Waht are the biological beginnings of certain thoughts that lead to ideas?

When are the extensions usable, and instrumental but forced?

Instrumentality appears to have a much greater importance than people realize and I have written about this elsewhere. Meanwhile, it is not often recalled for its explanatory power.

Function and instrumentality, and utility. Utility is a newer term, used for other purposes, that make it seem a diffferent word. But Use, function, instrumentality, etc.. go together overlappingly, and there is some word that perhaps does not exist, capturing function, that does not have any negative or positive moral connotation that would confuse.

That is all for now!

*215 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741074830, Tuesday, March 04, 2025 00:53:50, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 717 seconds. 657 words. Typespeed: 54.960 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="which-of-your-traits-are-those-that-simply-are-not-as-good-as-others-the-world-would-do-better-to-spread-for-better-new-life?">Which Of Your Traits Are Those That Simply Are Not As Good As Others The World Would Do Better To Spread For Better New Life?</a>

*215 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741061965, Monday, March 03, 2025 21:19:25, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Legacy

Recodrding the idea.

*215 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741061970, Monday, March 03, 2025 21:19:30, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="there-has-not-been-a-defined-transitional-period-that-is-required-for-moving-from-self-interested-non-adulthood-to-non-self-interested-post-childhood,-particularly-in-the-freedom-of-being-able-to-elect-to-remain-single">There Has Not Been A Defined Transitional Period That is Required For Moving From Self-Interested Non-Adulthood to Non-Self Interested Post-Childhood, Particularly in The Freedom of Being Able to Elect to Remain Single</a>

*213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740909550, Sunday, March 02, 2025 02:59:10, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships

Recording the idea.

*213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740909555, Sunday, March 02, 2025 02:59:15, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="others-have-not-been-generous-to-themselves-with-more-thinking-for-themselves-and-others">Others Have Not Been Generous To Themselves With More Thinking For Themselves and Others</a>

*213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740909282, Sunday, March 02, 2025 02:54:42, Phoenix, Arizona*

A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts

This is a typical social combat thought. The idea here is that others are too ready to accuse others of selfishness, when the reality typically is they are slow, stupid, inconsiderate, foolish, and have considered very few thoughts before making judgements.

They have not been generous with themselves enough with thinking, for their own benefit and the benefit of others.

They have not been gnerours with time for themselves to do this.

An inetersting consideration I think has wide application in the combating of the unreasonable judgements of others.

*213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740909383, Sunday, March 02, 2025 02:56:23, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 101 seconds. 89 words. Typespeed: 52.860 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="fundamental-problems-that-are-easy,-and-philosophy">Fundamental Problems That Are Easy, and Philosophy</a>

*213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740887679, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:54:39, Phoenix, Arizona*

Fundamental Problems | Human Shortcomings

One could say that philosophy is due to the human shortcomings of people. That they create problems or discover some, that they ill define, that don't really exist as real issues, or are those that they are incapable of solving, due to constraints that exist, that they have not identified.

While I add items to my list of ufndamental problems, I am aware that some I have already solved, and some fit into the above description. But I keep collecgint them.

Collecting them, and making new ones, tells about the history of philosophy itself. How the problems of philosophy arose, and what was wrong about such questioning. It also shows about why they persisted, were questioned the same way too many times without alteration, and why they went unsolved. Finally, it will be shown I think, why this process of philsoophy has had issues. These issues relate to human shortcomings. These would show why religion, philosophy, and science have eache been flawed. What is needed is new, and may not require a new name. Instead, it is a development upon each, and a fusion of them.It is also an elimination ofwhat has not been usueful.

Part of the prsent moral enterprise has been, although I haven't highlighted it, or focused too much on it, is a crique, and discussion, about what is wrong about bheavior, as it relates to any behavior whatsoever, but also how it relates to thinking behaviors, that resulted in futile questioning and answering, in the sciences philosophy and in religion. It somewhat fixes these issues and points a pathway to a new way of thinking.

Like with Zen as I like to say, the new way of thinking doesn't care what you call it. Even calling it anything results in making it too specific, and too defined and contained.

Right thinking itself notice, is something that impacts all different things that are done. If you were to hav a mastery over a new ay of thinking, and you named it, say philosophy, the religionishts would say you've only attained mastery at philosophy, but not religion, or other disciplines, but they'd say that overly containing you, not realizing that the thinking applies to everything nearly, like kmathematics in a way, but more so.CAlling it philosophy caused the confusion.

Likewise, calling Zen Zen causes confusion. A Zen thinker ought not care what it is called.

But I say it humorously too, because of course, while a Zen buddhist would claim to not have much desire or clinging inclinations, they would cling to Zen. They would even cling to the name Zen. Also, this misses the point that Zen also is false in too many ways. So here one should not think I'm advocating Zen.



Some of the fundamental problems of philosophy are easy to solve. Some that I'm adding area lso easy. I will return to show why they are easy, and how they are solved, and how such aproblems even came to be thought of as being problematic although they never were.

*213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740888184, Saturday, March 01, 2025 21:03:04, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 505 seconds. 505 words. Typespeed: 60.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="infinite-recursion-in-inanimate-nature">Infinite Recursion in Inanimate Nature</a>

*213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740885995, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:26:35, Phoenix, Arizona*

Nature | Constraint and Determinism

I have commented before, that recursion and meta development seems to have instrumentality constrains in the animate that cause there to be real boundaries to objects, that have repetitive behaviors or growth processes. For example, leaves ashow a repeated pattern of growth, but then the growth terminates. This appears to be due to the dna of the tree, but this appears to be also related more finally to the instrumentality of having leaves at a certain size versuss a larger size. Parts with repeated growth processes that interrelate would not appear to have as much of a design if they kept recurring and the appearance of design relates to actual instrumentality.

This appears to be something that is seen all over in the animal world. Orgnisms are bounded, have life expectancies, starts and finishes, and growth procedures that repeat, but not indefinitely.

However, it does not appear such rules exist in the inanimate world.

In the inanimate world, we do see beginning s and ends to things, but it isn't clear in those cases sometimes if the beginning sare such, or if the ending sare endings.

When the earth stops rotating around on a daily cycle, will that be the end of the rotation, or will that simply be a continuity of the motion?

It appears here there is a fundamental philosophical problem of interest about what really has a lifecycle and what doesn't.

Most people would be inclined in the rules of language to say that of course if it has stopped rotating, like the moon, then it no longer rotates and something has come to an end. But it is not clear that rotation has any special foci justifying its having a beginnign and an end in the way that people like to use beginnign asn ends.

It would not be something that could be argued against tha tthe mathematics relating to the rotation seems to have shifted from apinaapplicability to applicability to inapplicability, but then we are told laws of nature are always in effect. So are the laws relating to rotation in effect for non-rotating bodies when they are not rotating any longer?

Now I see I've digresse d too far form the point. Here I will merely say that there does appear to be a start and end which we still find suseful. This does not seem to be related, like the biological examples, to an instrumentality that is easily known or to any instrumentality that exists whatsoever. It doesn't appear that the universe cares that the object has any number of rotations or not. Biological enttities, with lifecycles, do seem to show boundaries related to instrumentality, but inanimate objects seem not.

Biogenesis may, however, take from physical reality, what is needed for biological reality, such that the interpretation of the physical reality in the inanimate is still fully explicable in the biological on the basis of the non biological (lost part of the sentence in distraction momentarily). 

Some would say that physical nature would have some of the justifications coming from biology, while others would say it is the biology that is better understood in terms of th e inanimate. Some would say they have differing properties. 

I have a tendency to want to see it from the perspective that the physical world will provide what is required for interpreting the biological world too, in a reductionsistic way, because the explantion seems to be more reductionistic, more complete, and when it trends this way, tends to handle the complexity.

Also thinkint hte other way seems to take local information to use it for universal explanation, which I call taking a local analogy to a distant object, or a local to a universal. This is akin to fallacies that make it seem that one can explain all of nature from some basic personal experience. That one can use science on earth, to explain veverytihing, that one can use biological life to explain all existence instead of just biological life.

In that last clause, I explained how , or shoed an immediate example, about how this fallacy relates to the present topic.

But it does not appear the other way around it works the same way. When I do find information that appears to be universal and exists off earth, like laws of motion, then I apply them to earth, they still hold. This is going rfrom a broader more universal piece of information then applying it in a local scenario. So this would be moving from a universal to a local using analogy.

Notice, though that one cannot simply assume that laws of motion explain minute phenomena, such as subatomic particle physics. But that is not really what I'm talking about and that is not a counterexample. Because what is found about subatomic particles is also ssomething that is expected to be universal and not merely local, although thre is much to say about the inferences needed for that.

But physics about subatomic particles is expected to simpy work eslewhere in an identical way with  different situational factors ineterplaying with them.

Biological life, however, only exists on earth so far as we can tell. So what is happening with biological life is more truly local!Now again, we have to return to the main point, but this is usable potentially for later.

In inanimate nature, where beginning sand ends are more quiestionable, and less part of what looks like but isn't design, and what looks like instrumentality, may not have boundaries, starts and finishes, and may include endlessnesses.

Again, people do assume that laws of nature continue to persist. They speak about beginning sand ends to matter and so on, but less about the beginning sand ends of system rules of nature.

The hair on a person stops growing (actually as I write this, hair growth seems to have properties of endlessness excepting thwarting conditions). Beginnings and ends of rotations and of objects as distinct opbjects is questionable in nature.

At this time I will record at least one fundamental problem for posterity to consider, adn that is the meaninfulness of named objects, and of beginning sand ends, in inanimate nature, particularly in astronomy.

*213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740887145, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:45:45, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1150 seconds. 1028 words. Typespeed: 53.580 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="creating-a-wake-state">Creating a Wake State</a>

*213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740884738, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:05:38, Phoenix, Arizona*

Wakebook | Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Abandoning Equality

For a while I've been using a book that I call the wake book for the purpose of reloading in the morning a state that I'm wanting to have after a sleep reset. Before I talked about how the sleep period really does create a reset that is not unlike what happens with a computer with all the programs being shut down without their state being reset on waking back up.

One is sometimes guaranteed to feel quite differently the next day than the day prior. One can feel as though things are going incredibly, and that one has the mental state one would want to maintain, only to find out the next day, that the mental state had has vanished or is difficult to recover.

Today would be an example of this for me in fact. Not of the day prior, but I had a reset that created a day that was considerably different than days a few days before, and the day before as well. The desirable state was at least two days earlier. 

This is not to say the day hasn't been going well, only that there has not been a reload to the erlier state which was the preferable state.

The wake book is intended to reload from where one was at the time that the writing was recorded into the book. This can't work that extensively, matching new state to earlier state, because it is about large portions of the brain, and not only what can be recalled about the desired mental state. 

What are all the biological aspects of the mental state had that is desirable!? That would be a huge set of information even for somthing as asic as happiness experienced around some recent events, and some recent ways of behaving.

But reading does put on back into the mindset, or I should say into a mindset that has similarities, to the mindset of the writer. 

Reading a book will make one think clearly oftentimes because one is thinking more like the writer did when they put together their clear thoughts on paper. One really is actually thinking what the writer has thought. If the writing was good, and one spent time reading it, then one will find oneself even afterwards in a mindset that is a bit better than say, the mindset of a person who has awoke in a fog-- which is what this posting is more about. But you could go from any undesiraable mentality and get to a mentality of a writer by spending time reading what they wrote. You'd get close and not exactly there but you'd see an improvement.

The woke book, or wake book, is intended to get me back into the state I was in when iI wrote it dthe information down into the book. It functions like my other book I began called Rational times whihch was also intended to put myself into a mindset that was similar to my more rational mindsets, in themoments I took to write entries. 

There are simlilarities to journal writing and reading, but there are additions regarding the purposes goals and intentions.

I've written about much of this already. But was realizing that what I'm trying to do is a bit more than simply trying to recover va way of thinking like when I ws writing, or recalling goals. It is more like what I was trying to do briefly in Queenstown, New Zealand, when I was waking in the morning, and trying to reload and recover various life accomplishments, and other categories of life, in addition to what my plans happened to be.

Now I think there may be a way of recording the information into the wakebook to more comprehensively arrive at a wake state that is wanted but also, perhaps one can situate the world in a way to recreate the mentality as well. This would involve world develpment to aid wthe wake state in addition to writing enteries and reading them in the woke book.

Now I'm trying to recall some other pathways of ideation I had relating to this subject, but I think what most interests me now relates to trying to really get closer to the mentality that is really wanted, and not one had when writing was done, and finding ways to get closer to what might be better than that in a next day development.

The idea here is this-- that when I write an entry into the wake book, it is like a rational times entry, in which I have a more rational mindset, and I'm talking to myself trying to put myself in that mindset again. That works. But the mindset that I'm in at that time isn't the best mindset, or the most rational. There are days in which the mindset had is etter than the time in which the entry is made.

So there is a need to come to an understanding about which desirable mindsets I have are and compare them for determinign which I like more, and for putting them on da development pathway. Reload, I admit, wasn't only about recovering the past days way of thinking, but also had goals mixed in-- so there was also a foreward looking developmental aspect already in the plan.

What is the state of being that is wanted and how can that be recovered again and again? There is a big philsoophical puzzle or problem in this too.

As one gets older, how does one have the more healthful mindset and way of being.

Clearly reload cannot even recover what is wanted most. What is missing is also the health component of the new day. It is not possible for me, at 44 years old, to arise as a 26 year old or 18 year old no matter what writing I make for myslself. Humoroously, the writing I would prepare for myself would not be anything like my 18 year old self (or not much lik eit), and so would not recover the midn or the health! This is of interest because it indicates nothing can be had, or very little could be had from that age. Although I suppose, these entries can be read when I'm much older, so somewhat , er.. some portion of the mind from the earlier age can be recovered but not the feel and not entirely the state.

What parts of health are in the state?

Knowing that there are differences, how does the development and preferred state change. The preferred and wanted state has to be a possible one.

The older person will have a preferred state that is of a low health condition and of some very good developmental conditions relating to an improved mind existing with decreased mental health too.

Preparation in longevity shoudl include this information.

Now when yu are old and you wanke up, how do you put yourself in the mindset you want given this information?

For now, I think the wakebook is very effective. I think these considerations could amke one think that they are less effective than something else that has not been created, and that seems true, but that would make it appear that the wakebook and journal approach isn't already amazing and incredible.

The next developments for this will still need to include written instructions. Written instructions of a different kind. So it may be more of the contents of the wakebook than a much larger change of approach ast least initially.

more soon.

*213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740885876, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:24:36, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1138 seconds. 1253 words. Typespeed: 66.060 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="it-is-interseting-to-consider-whether-complex-mathematical-objects-have-magnitude-or-magnitudes.-i-prefer-the-plural,-but-the-expression-of-a-singular-is-useful,-and-the-conjoint-properties-or-separate-magnitudes-would-still-be-required-for-comprehending-the-singular-magnitude.-the-singular-complex-magnitude-is-the-set,-perhaps-a-dynamical-set,-of-constituent-magnitudes,-or-subproperties-of-the-total-properties-of-the-object">It is interseting to consider whether complex mathematical objects have magnitude or magnitudes. I prefer the plural, but the expression of a singular is useful, and the conjoint properties or separate magnitudes would still be required for comprehending the singular magnitude. The singular complex magnitude is the set, perhaps a dynamical set, of constituent magnitudes, or subproperties of the total properties of the object</a>

*212 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740799741, Friday, February 28, 2025 20:29:01, Phoenix, Arizona*

Mathematics

Simply recording the idea. Thought of it while reading a book on linear algebra.

*212 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740799757, Friday, February 28, 2025 20:29:17, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 16 seconds. 14 words. Typespeed: 52.500 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="ending-the-concepts-of-fundamental-ownership,-fundamental-deservingness,-fundamental-credit,-fundamental-property,-and-other-easily-rejected-concepts-at-the-personal-level-such-that-they-do-not-recur">Ending The Concepts of Fundamental Ownership, Fundamental Deservingness, Fundamental Credit, Fundamental Property, and Other Easily Rejected Concepts At The Personal Level Such That They Do Not Recur</a>

*207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740392610, Monday, February 24, 2025 03:23:30, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Higher Order Attention

This includes commitments I've had since a late teen. But these concepts arise again, and do cause one to go back into using them, with an irritation that that would have to happen again. Now I'm thinking I want to more permanently rid of these concepts. 

*207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740392666, Monday, February 24, 2025 03:24:26, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 56 seconds. 46 words. Typespeed: 49.260 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="artificial-objects-as-distractions-because-parts-of-the-objects-contain-wrong-motives-and-intentions,-and-this-has-been-left-out-of-aesthetics">Artificial Objects As Distractions Because Parts of The Objects Contain Wrong Motives and Intentions, and This Has Been Left Out of Aesthetics</a>

*207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740389071, Monday, February 24, 2025 02:24:31, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention

Recording the idea for now.

*207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740389078, Monday, February 24, 2025 02:24:38, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 7 seconds. 5 words. Typespeed: 42.840 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-conversations-are-stored-for-people-to-have-for-the-first-time-and-to-continue,-but-those-converstions-are-over,-and-that-is-a-goal-of-writing,-to-avoid-repetition-and-to-move-forward">The Conversations Are Stored For People To Have For the First Time And To Continue, But Those Converstions are Over, And That Is A Goal of Writing, To Avoid Repetition and To Move Forward</a>

*207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740388960, Monday, February 24, 2025 02:22:40, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships

Storing the idea

*207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740388965, Monday, February 24, 2025 02:22:45, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="fightclub-and-sheeplike-behavior-in-people,-and-determinism">Fightclub and Sheeplike Behavior in People, and Determinism</a>

*207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740381482, Monday, February 24, 2025 00:18:02*, Phoenix, Arizona

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

I was thinking about the scene from Fight Club the other day, where it is shown that regular people really resist fighting. That it takes quite a lot to get them to realize they are in a situation in which they would need to make a change to their behavior in order to really fight (I know this is kindof true for me too. I wouldn't immediately have a fight response back towards aggression). But then I thought, 'I wonder if this is generalizable to other behaviors, in which a useful response that is desirable does not occur even when it ought to occur or is provoked'. I think it generalizes to most movement.
Consider that people mostly traverse expected paths. Paths they are familiar with. Paths to work and back, paths to the grocery store, and even paths within the house. They tend to walk, drive, run, and take the same paths over and over. Now suppose you wanted someone to deviate from a path. One way to do so would be to provoke some confrontation like in the movie fight club, hoping they would change course. That plan would not be effective very likely, because after an altercation, they resume a course, they don't change it. Which things happen to people that change course, versus those things that don't? It appears since people seldom change course, very few things well, change their course! You could do things like break their vehicles, steal their bicycles, create traffic (somehow), create emergency situations, etc... but these are rare and not as easy to do. These things change courses, destinations, plans etc... But mostly everything else creates delays and then the same paths are traversed.
What does this also mean? It also means that the things they do are the same, because if they traverse the same courses, they will be doing the same things (that's what taking the same path is), but also, they will do the same kinds of things along the paths.
Now since we said that it is hard to do things that would cause them to alter course, and that mostly it delays what they do if we make changes, it seems that if we do things to them, usually it results in no change to their behaviors spatially.
I haven't fully thought this through yet, but it is very interesting. How does this relate to your post though, 'oh yeah, back to that'.
People seem to do exactly the same things they were going to do even if you introduce them to new information in my estimation. Try to persuade them, make conflict to force them to change their minds, make them learn, etc... etc... I think they keep to the same behavior with very little alteration and very little change deltas (like those deltas I mentioned in my book). This makes people seem even more stupid and foolish, because those paths and behaviors they have, will seem unchanging *even if* something is done that one might expect to influence their pathways and behaviors. Instead it does not. Anyway, maybe more on this later.


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="determinism-and-seeing-people-past,-present,-and-future-as-they-move,-particularly-if-they-have-small-change-deltas">Determinism and Seeing People Past, Present, and Future As They Move, Particularly if They Have Small Change Deltas</a>

*207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740380732, Monday, February 24, 2025 00:05:32, Phoenix, Arizona*

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Hunting | Path Dependence in Economics

Combining the ideas of change deltas, inability of people to alter pathways, resistance to path changes and behavioral changes even with some force, and especially if there is only little force or influence, and hunting, we come to a pretty comprehensive view of the deterministic behavior in other people. I think we observe it.

I think the determinisim of the behavior of others is observable but we have not thought about it so much. We (or other people) have been preoccupied with their own free will, to see that, the behavior of other people really is easily recognized to be causal in an observable way.

I mentioned as an example, that an aging couple begins to have very good predictive powers of teach other, such that it becomes more clear, what the patterns are that exist in each of them. They start to become more aware of the causality that is controlling their behaviors. It is visible to them. They can predict their spouses behavior with better acuracy over time.

Over time, they come to think they know the other better, if both have been more truth ful about their behaviors especially.

There is much more to say on this topic, but for now what I'm most interested in is the resistance to any path change and behavior change in those with low change deltas and that in practice, they can most often be delayed in traversing paths and performing behaviors, but that after delays, they traverse those paths and engage in those behaviors.

They do not change much until forced. There are many ramifications to this.

More soon.

*207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740380983, Monday, February 24, 2025 00:09:43, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 251 seconds. 269 words. Typespeed: 64.260 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="having-a-variety-of-probabilistic-expectations-and-not-only-one-expectation,-and-mortality-as-an-example">Having a Variety of Probabilistic Expectations and Not Only One Expectation, and Mortality As An Example</a>

*205 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740208518, Saturday, February 22, 2025 00:15:18, Phoenix, Arizona*

ThoughtStream | Health | Evaluative Concepts

A moment ago, I realized there was an issue with how I was thinking about probabilistic expectations regarding my mortality. About when I would likely die and what to expect. My own thinking on this subject is of course more advanced than would be expected in others, however, I certainly did not have it right. I also think that others show signs of the same errors.

This error I have in mind is to think that there ought to be one expectation regarding how old one will be when one dies. Also, the way it is taught, with average mortality, and so on, one is expected to think in a way that is trending towards selecting one outome. For example, utilizing all information, a medical professional may tell a female patient, that here likely life expectancy is 81 years old. This medical professional also used the word "life expectancy" or phrase, to indicate as I stated, that there is only one expectation to be had.

If someone has a terminal illness, they simply change this, and give an expectancy that is shorter.

Early in my twenties and even in my late teens I had some hinking regarding this that was early for the insight I just now had- I could feel the relationship between the two as I just thought about this topic.

I had a ring for a while that said "last day" on it, that I had inscribed onto it, to remind me, at the age of 18 or so, that deterministically my life could end very learly. Ther is a cliche about living as though the current day is the last day of life, and while my thinking did relate to that, it wasn't as formulaic or cliche. It was more about just having a serious recognition that really one does not have a clear way of knowing that one will live to some advanced age, and that there is still a trong likelihood that one will die earlier.

I was very aware of the many ways people could die, and wanted to seriously keep it in mind that I would not necessarily reach old age.

But I also had another view, which I kept in mind not much later, about it being the "first day". This simply created a more ful perspective about life in which I would consider that while it could be the lsast day, very likely it was the first of what remains and that there would be more. 

I will not here explain more about this but it does have some interest although it has on the surface some very simple charictaristics. And of course there is some excessively simple thinking that goes into this too.

The point I'm wanting to make here, is that at this time, I was already trying to figure out a solution relating to the expectation ... related to the problem that one cannot have a singular expectation realistically about when one will die such that it will feel usable, and that one will not need other expectations as well.

This is like a very early way of addressing the issue that one can have multiple life expectancies to have a more sophisticated and full view about what might come and how to plan for it. One really does need to live at least somewhat as though one could die early. If not, then one might be seriously unprepared for serious illness later or injury. Also, one should have a scientifically reasonable expectatin about how long one might live, so one can plan to enjoy more life, and perhaps have a savings to self care into advanced age. In general, it is useful for life planning to know that one might need to self care until one reaches a very old age, if that happens to be what is scientifically reasonable for one's case.

Now however, as this came to mind, I, and by this I mean simply that I had this first day last day idea in the background someplace, as I thought about how I wouold plan for my remaining years, in attitude and with actual plans of action, I noticed that there probably should be many expectations regarding age. 

Mathematically, I don't know what is most instrumental at present. But even if we look at probabilities relateing to life expectancy, we can plot for ourselves expectations on a continuous gradient from now until a date at which death would definitely occur, say between the present time and 200 years old.

doing this, we already have a list of thousands of anticipations. Using the term life expectancy we choose one of these thousand. In my case I might choose 80 years old, although I have strong doubts that I would really ive that long. Because I'm a vegetarian there are reasons to think I might live longer than that. Am I to use this number, or am I to use another approach that allows me to be prepared at least somewhat for what might ocur later, knowing what I do, about what happens to all other people?

The knowledge about what happens to other people who have similar behavior to me, living in similar places and so on, is useful, because the way they die and the way they manage age will have some similarities to the way I will die and the way thaat I will manage illness.

I really coudl die in a car accident, and I could get cancer. I could suddenly have a stroke or a heart attack.

I have not heard of any sttrategy for this. This trategy would probably link with a general plan of life over the lfie span. It would certainly also link with the death plan. 

A solid strategy of upcoming life does include expectations about how much life remains! If it were known that only a few days remained, then one's plans would not be as necessary! But Knowing that it will be between anytime from now to 200 years old for certain, I have a very wide range of possibilities to have some expectations regarding. 

Chunking this into manageable pieces will be necessary. Whtat do I do for the next few years and how do I plan for advanced age are certainly two chunks to plan for, and to some extent what is in between will need to be addressed.

Knowing that a life plan should have thi salready makes this ppear quite an absurdity! To be trying to divy and chunk it into some mangageable strategy to get started without having anything already is a huge moral omission for humankind.

It is not that there are no ways to think abou tthis that are not impoarted to children, but what they would receive is not planful or strategic.

I will think about this further and will have much more to add later, but for now the main idea is that there is a need for each person to have a large number of expectations regarding the future and these would relate to likely mortalities. Liek I thought before, I really should have some plan for having a death soon, and having a death much later. I had some knowledge that at least the endpoints shoudl be considered. The way we have it with the term life expectancy we have a single input. And I'm also aware that this is not all that is available in the culture. 

But the way it is thought of really does seem to indicate to me that people are thinkign that one expectancy is what they are wanting and will use, and this is what professionals recommend.

*205 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740209682, Saturday, February 22, 2025 00:34:42, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1164 seconds. 1279 words. Typespeed: 65.880 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="loci-of-the-termination-points-of-thought,-and-actions-that-resulted-from-such-terminations,-and-not-from-finishing,-but-from-stopping">Loci of The Termination Points of Thought, And Actions That Resulted From Such Terminations, And Not From Finishing, But From Stopping</a>

*205 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740192722, Friday, February 21, 2025 19:52:02, Phoenix, Arizona*

ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | RationalTimes | Evaluative Concepts

Some thinking people will stop thinking once another has stopped applying pressure on them to continue. Their actions are the ressult of whatever the stoppign point happened to be. If they stopped earlier, their actions would have one character, if later, another, and the point in which they did stop theyir actions had a third character. That result of their actions was due to when the external pressure stopped.

The Loci of the termination point in thought in that person then is related to the stopping of pressure from another party.  Irrational and lazy people will have behaviors that result sometimes from having loci that are too early in rational processes but may constitute better actions than if there was no pressure placed on them.

This is just one example.

All thinking stops early. How early depends on many factors. Some of those factors are sensible, others are not. The locus of the stopping point determines the quality of the actions that result. All thinking ends too early where there is not an optimal solve. Solve optimaility is an interesting problem to consider. This is not only the solving of problems, but of solvign them optimally. 

Currrently we tihink we solved problems with finality once we've gotten to a kind of mathematical solution. But we also know this is not always the case, and still some of these seemingly final results were just tentative.

The optimization of solutions would be related to this problem.

Since we hve not been pressured to finish this problem, e have lazily stopped early, and our actions involve irrrationality with respect to problem solving. In that way, all of humanity is like the lazy irrational person, who needs pressure from others to do anything, but never has enough pressure to finish it really well.

*205 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740193019, Friday, February 21, 2025 19:56:59, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 297 seconds. 299 words. Typespeed: 60.360 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="considering-which-things-do-not-have-much-value-in-retrospect,-what-does-frequency-of-coming-to-mind-or-inability-to-recall-have-to-do-with-it?">Considering Which Things Do Not Have Much Value In Retrospect, What Does Frequency of Coming To Mind Or Inability To Recall Have To Do With It?</a>

*201 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739890256, Tuesday, February 18, 2025 07:50:56, Phoenix, Arizona*

Evaluative Cocnepts | Human Shortcomings

It is now appearing to me that the ability to recall and requency of recall combined with level of perception of the value of the events on recall are closely related to actual value. But these are so transtory, I wonder now if substitute for other quick transitory thoughts are good enough. Substitution also plays a role.

I do not believe adequate attention to this was paid, while so many have assumed that memory has value. Of course it has value. But how much and when? The elderly have not done any subtle work on this! Have they done any work?

They often live boring unchanging lives, then think it should be rich with achievements and actions and events. But what of what I said above? Waht of the removal of memory with age: What of the reevaluation of events on the basis of the experience that some in retrospect appears to not have mattered much. What of usbstituting some mental events for others? What of transitoriness of memory? What of not being involved in a party versus going, if in retrospect, there is no memory of either? What if a substitute memory takes the place? What if it is one that his not desirable? What if it is more desirable, but is the recollection of eating a grape?

*201 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739890469, Tuesday, February 18, 2025 07:54:29, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 213 seconds. 219 words. Typespeed: 61.680 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-not-going-to-an-event-or-not-doing-an-event-is-sometimes-or-oftentimes-an-enjoyable-substitute-for-the-event,-the-events-and-their-frequency-are-greatly-queestionable">If Not Going to An Event Or Not Doing An Event Is Sometimes Or Oftentimes An Enjoyable Substitute For The Event, The Events And Their Frequency Are Greatly Queestionable</a>

*201 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739889929, Tuesday, February 18, 2025 07:45:29, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention | Evaluative Concepts

This also relates to he earlier posting about things that afterwards were like they did not matter. Sometimes not going to an event resutlts in activities that tat the time were more relaxing and more enjoyable and more stress free. Both afterwards do not come to mind, either the avoidance of the event or the event.

It appears then that there is also some equivalence in the perception afterwards that the event and the not going to the event both didn't matter.

*201 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739890014, Tuesday, February 18, 2025 07:46:54, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 85 seconds. 82 words. Typespeed: 57.840 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="10-trillion-dots-in-pavement,-of-steel-stainless,-and-other-metals,-for-the-handicapped,-who-do-not-use-them">10 Trillion Dots In Pavement, of Steel Stainless, and Other Metals, For the Handicapped, Who Do Not Use Them</a>

*199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739689046, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:57:26, Phoenix, Arizona*

Waste

For the one who did!

*199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739689053, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:57:33, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 7 seconds. 5 words. Typespeed: 42.840 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="since-famous-politicians-and-figures-cannot-write,-and-must-satisfy-confidentiality-and-security-needs-of-secrecy,-it-follows-that-they-not-only-won't-share-history-and-cannot-write,-that-we-don't-have-history-because-those-figures-were-the-only-primary-figures-of-history">Since Famous Politicians and Figures Cannot Write, And Must Satisfy Confidentiality and Security Needs of Secrecy, It follows That They Not Only Won't Share History and Cannot Write, That We Don't Have History Because Those Figures Were the Only Primary Figures of History</a>

*199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739687511, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:31:51, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | History

We have in history the concept of primary source documents which is not really that great a concept. ThTo this concept, I want to add the concept of a Primary Source Person or Figure. This includes those who were really involved in events. For those reasons listed int he title, it follows we have a very poor record of history. Instead we really rely on writings from those who are distantly related and relay only secondhand. They use the concept of a primar;y source document, to make it seem like they personally are not distant. But they are not primary source figures. They are remote historians.

They are not political leaders who cannot and won't write. They are civilians, who look at patches of information. What they do is rank that information. Primary source artifacts are nthose that they pretend tell the story or provide all that is needed to validate accounts. But they don't include their writing! They wrote other things! and these things cannot be infered form their dataset which is the set of premises they hvae.

They will have a very hard time refuting this claim. Methodologically, history is impoverished. We are in a primordial period at the beginning of history. And it may be that we weill live in the future (well people who are living after I die) in a time of evidence tampering and evidenc replacement.

*199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739687714, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:35:14, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 203 seconds. 232 words. Typespeed: 68.520 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="history-before-audiovidual-recordings,-beginning-with-edison's-employees,-and-before-media-on-television,-was-the-most-distant-hearsay">History before audiovidual recordings, beginning with Edison's employees, and before media on television, was the most distant hearsay</a>

*199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739686682, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:18:02, Phoenix, Arizona*

History | Human Shortcomings

History appears to be more difficult than has been hiterto communicated to students, who are taught to believe that histoical artifacts used have been adequate to support the narratives that have been provided by historians. They certainly have not been adequate. in order to be adequate, the evidence would need to constitute a suffficient set of premises to infer all narratives that make up the storis of history. 

There simply is not such information to do this.

On the side of those who were intimate in the decisions about what would happen in historical events, are security related secrets. These secrets were not divulged, and even if they were, would not be believed and there would bnot be useful documents to counterbalance the excess of other writings. Also, too few in power write.

There is therefore a very great scarcity of information from those who really knew more about what was going on and those who provided decisions that really influenced events.

But on the other side, before we had any media, like television and radio, and artifacts that are audio visual, people were far too distant from events to share anything really usable for acurate historical accounts. So we have soldiers and civilians and poets and faux historians telling their hearsay recollections of what they heard or experienced that was most distant from any real decision or central view of situations.

Reading today an account of Hannibal from Livy in a history of he roman republic, by David M. Gwynn, I am seeing how stupidly Livy wrote about Hannibal. Poetically ther are good qualities of compellling literature, using hte criteria of literature others would accept. But I don't find it good writing or anything really honest.

Writers at this time simply had almost no knowledge of happenings. Without any current media to see about actual happenings in a timely manner, they simply rely on periodic things they heard and saw, infrequently, and utilized that information. this is different than seeing the news everyday!

And yet we cannot trust the news.

History is botched thereby and needs a new foundation. Historians would not admit this, but really, their profession is truly botched. They need to be honest about the scarcity of information and stop along with the scientists sharing as though they really know when really they know very little.

They do not add to their accounts the stronger list of possible omissions and margins of error associatedd with what they can present. 

Thinking about what a historian can present, doesn't it seem as though their list of artifacts in their personal museums must be very scanty? We imagine historians have smithosian like archives about their subject, when in reality they have only a few figures to add to their stories, and a bibliography of remote understandings.

Those writing in history before 1900 comprise all history nearly, with only a small fraction of time being between the onset of media to present. . From 5000 BC to present, we have 7025 years, and if we subtract 1025 years to remove the period in which we have media, we only have 1025 yerars with 6900 having no media whatsover and only horrible hearsay acounts.

This means we have really almost no history to date.

*199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739687270, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:27:50, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 588 seconds. 543 words. Typespeed: 55.380 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="people-do-not-appear-to-effectively-use-pros-and-cons-to-create-a-balance-or-differential-to-show-sometimes-that-social-values-are-minimal-or-negative">People Do Not Appear To Effectively Use Pros and Cons To Create A Balance Or Differential To Show Sometimes That Social Values Are Minimal or Negative</a>

*199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739683648, Saturday, February 15, 2025 22:27:28, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought | Evaluative Concepts

Just now I was reflecting on the recent postings about the reduced value of social relationships. Some social relationships quickly end after being started, and these relationships when started, may appear to have good value. But they also tend to have side effects and negative aspects that surface shortly afterwards. These side effects would be some of the cons of the relationship, if one was doing a binary analysis on relationships using positives and negatives, like an acounting equation. 

Doing such an accounting equation, the negatives *really do* subtract from the positives. When analyzing or thinking quickly about brief relationships, people tend to overstate the strengths or pros about the experiences, and think that the value of such interactions must be equivalent to the total positives counted. Oftentimes, the negatives are forgotten, or are not deducted from the posittives to arrive at a net total .

This bias means that people tend to overstate the value of their relationships. Subtracting the negatives many relationships that appear valuable when thinking only about the pros of the experience are actually relationships that are low value, almost valueless, or have negative value; they can be quite harmful. 

Many relationships with strangesrs that were initiated with kind happenstance conversations afterwards immediately fizzled or were ended with no subsequent contact or development, but the thoughts abou that interaction and the relationship constituted negatives in m;any ways. There was an expectation of having more later. The memory of the relation had less positive hthoughts later. More honesty arises after a period of positive inflation of the value of the interaction occurs. 

When we talk to people for the first time, we magnify  the positives about it, and with respect really have difficulty seeing things clearly and honestly. We claim agreement when we can tell we have little agreement. WE do this in a way that we feel as though there really was agreement when there was not. Later the thought about the disagreeable parts of the interaction become irritations and points that may be dwelled on.

There are many other negatives besides these. Counting the negatives is laborious, there are so many. But there don't appear to be that many positives. It may be that we've come to pretend things are better than they are in interactions to hide just how little we really like sociatlization.

This supports the claim that we think and focus on the pros and postitives, because even our mode and means of interaction is biased in the same direction, and afterwards only does the honesty gradually and not immediately come into view.

When we think generally about social life, we are even more skewed to think that things are positive without thinkign about the negative, partly because we think even that life itself is about social relationshns. This is not a view I share or would ev;en consider, but mainstream culture has people imagining they are servants to humanity and that their relationships and families are what they are living for. If this is taken as a truism, and an assumption, then certainly there is a very strong bias on the positive side, and a resistance to thinking about hte negatives or actually using them in the social accounting equation to find what the value of the relationships really were.

If used in a large accounting equation, I think it would be found that social life is very neutral oftentimes, sometimes negative, and sometimes positive, when there are real freiendships with little negative on both sides. We are all aware of complaints about false friendships too-- so people are aware that even those relationships thought to be positive can be among the worst upon examination.

So it seems that on an individual interaction level, many relationshps are neutral, low value, or negative, and many not justifying any effort, with much fewer being really genuinely worthwhile than originally thought. Then in aggregate the same is true for all others. This is quite diffferent than the normal view accepted about social life, although it is ceraintain the normal view is false.

Additionally, we have not included relationships we do not want. If we include these, it appears that social life is not as worthwhile as may be thought, and really what we are seeking is something really rarer than we would originally think, based on the assumptions we were forced to have.

Humorously, we can also relate this to equalitarianism. Obviously, thinking about it this way, equality in the social world is the greatest absurdity, if it is rare to find anyone we would really have positive interactions with, that are clearly worth the effort. These people we find we would hold to be of a value greater than the others. Since we would not feel the same about all the others, there could be no equality between them. This is one subjective measure, but it could be used for all people and show collectively there can be no view of equality since people simply don't find the others worth interacting with, even if they inflate it with bias at the time they call to mind those indoctrinations we've been exposed to when growing up.

*199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739684506, Saturday, February 15, 2025 22:41:46, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. One edit was performed afterwards, on noticing that an accidental error could have been mistaken for an expletive. That one was changed, all other errors remain.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="instead-of-pretending-or-desiring-to-have-days-full-of-all-that-is-desirable,-everydaying-things,-one-may-want-to-consider-multiday-cycles,-like-my-three-day-cycle-in-preparation">Instead of Pretending or Desiring to Have Days Full of All That is Desirable, Everydaying Things, One May Want to Consider Multiday Cycles, Like My Three Day Cycle in Preparation</a>

*199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739673655, Saturday, February 15, 2025 19:40:55*, Phoenix, Arizona

Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Personal Form | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

A long time ago, I came to the idea that a multiday cycle is preferred oer a single day cycle. Oftentimes, in our social world, people pretend that they need to accomplish all that can be accomplished with routine activities on a daily basis. Everyday, someone claims they do something. Everdyay someone goes to the gym, and everyday, someone eats healthy meals. People are skeptical about such a claim, and such an approach, but also require it. Typically, I think claims and goals like this have too many flaws to make them justifiable.

Put another way, one does things frequently, periodically, often, or sometimes, in a punctuated or sporatidic way, even if regular. One may have behavior that is typical for a day, which people call a normal or typical day, but usually people do not do the same type of actifvity each and every day, unless it is one that is required, like eating. Even that need not happen every day but it is an example of one activity in which one can really anticipate that someone would not by lying if they said they did it every day.

People would do better to use the language mentioned abouvove about regularity, typification, normaliity, frequency, etc.. instead of simply relying on the word everyday or always.

But more to the point of the posting, what I am suggesting here is not only that thone could do well to alter language to be more precise on this point, but that one can have a better goal than to do things everyday. Instead, one would want to make sure that many or most behaviors that are wanted are present in a cycle that is multiday instead of single day. This has aided me i various ways over the last few years. Firstly, I don't have unrealisitic expectations about my daily behavior. I know that as long as I'm sufficiently aware about some activity, and have a good habit about doing it, I can expect that I will do it without too great a lapse in days, meaning that I can perhaps expect I'l do the activity at least one time in 4 to seven days, or as much as every day in those fur to seven days.

This has allowed me to identify which recurring behaviors are regular enough to trust that I'll do them even if I don't do them every day. Someone who is great at paying bills might know about this already. They don't pay bills everyday. They may not think about bills everyday. They instead would simply routinely and regularly return to the topic of bills and pay them. It may be worthwile to think about bills every 4 to 7 days, to ensure that not too much time passses before , I mean after, the last bill has been paid, so that it is forgotten to pay the next one.

There is a deterministic habitual process that appears to exist within the bralin once training occurs for this that creates timely reminders to pay bills. But this requires self-training and practice or regular behavior consistent with a training approach.

In an earlier posting, I mentioned that there are a finite (is a finite) set of activities and behaviors that a human engages in. I have found that for myself, having reduced my activities to those I favor, that there are even less activities than one might expect that can be engaged in for a full life and that this list is not only finite but within the realm of what is easy to remember and recall. One can list all activities, count them, and recall them.

Since the list of activities that are desired and actually performed are small, one can easily build a plan to engage in those activities with a regularity that can be assured to occur in some day cycle, like a 7 day cycle or a three day cycle. Without having such a plan with this level of specificiity, but a plan that was somewhat consistent with this with something akin to a seven day cycle for all activities, with some few that were put off or procrastinated concerning (one or very few), I was able to do this already without focusing on this objective exclusively. I focused on other objectives and attained the same, already with the concept of a periodic cycle of several days instead of single days.

Here I am now writing about my new plan, which is deliberate, and current, o have a three day cycle for the entire set of all activities I engage in, by category. This also accounts for spontaneous behviors which allow soem diversity so there isn't too much rigidity. A three day cycle seems sufficient and adequate to include all activities. Soon it appears all will fit into the three days and there will be *none* that will be procrastinated.

The new objective is to refine the list of activities and categories of activity. These correspond to or fit within the same life categories that are so often used. This ensures taht life has had sufficient coverage in behavior, or that nothing has been omitted from the plan that is vital for a full and complete life, which is the goal of the personal form and life categories. (a goal of the personal form).

Once the activities have been listed, there is now a set of activities expected to happen every three days. Interestingly, the concept of priority is included in this strategy, in the following way. Some activities will happen on average everyday, others two of three days, and others one of three days. This means that those that are happenign everyday have a sense of importance that makes them more primary. There are reasons why they must be everyday and not too much less than that. The others happen less. Finally are those that must occur with good frequency but not everyday. There are other types of priority that will relate to how important something is if it has been put off for two days but must happen the last day, and for some items that must occur during the day over and above items that would happen with the same frequency for that day, but apart from this, at a macro level, there is still a prioritization occurring simply in this three part division. More generally, we can say something about human behavior, in that whatever is most frequent is held to be more valuable. So even outside this design, there is a sense that prioritization relates to frequency of activity, even if there are other forms of prioritization within this. And of course, frequency of behavior is about all behavior. This is what is meant when it was stated that this is a prioritization at the macro level. All activities will be on the three day cycle, and this includes a prioritization that covers all life behavior that will occur.

It is expected that within the next month, all of my behaviors will fall within the three day cycle. Periodically, there are unexpected necessary actions that become requisite, but these are aberrations or less common needs. These are simply treated separately. This is easily understood and to be expected. One does the same kinds of activities on routinely all of life, and then interspersed within a life, there are demands which are unexpected or less regular, like a need for surgery, to recover from sickness, to suddenly care for someone or take care of an emergency, or to handle government paperwork like taxes. The activity list also changes. But the activity list that changes can include new habituations that fit within the three day schedule and some can be removed. So the three day schedule really does cover most of human behavior and the idea that there are other activities that will be exceptional is anticipated. It does not mean that this approach is in some way infeasible. In principle organizing behavior *is* feasible, and that people thought they could fit all that they need to do in single days, or that they could do activities every day, indicates that they thought they could *get close* to actually doing that, even if they could not realize it. I think most were far from realizing it, but I do think it is not impossible to achieve something somewhat closer to that goal, and that is the three day cycle, the five day cycle, or the seven day cycle, with decreasing difficulty of attainment. I have not yet myself achieved a three day cycle. Right now the only behaviors I know I do each and every day are to eat food, have some level of activity, and drink water. There are some others as well perhaps, but really most other behaviors are not every day. Nearly all of my activities do recur within seven days (by category, not the actual behaviors, because history does not repeat. Instead, there are similitudes between activities happening over days which permit us to call the next actions recurrences of prior actions).

The set of all actions will not be a long list. Not all have to happen everyday, but some subset of those actions *do* have to happen everyday, to create a better life satisfaction. That subset will be identified for my needs. They may not be the same for everyone. So some subset of the actions needs to be done every day, with some substitution allowable. Omitted items for one day happen in the next day, or else in the day after, but are guaranteed to happen within three days, with a frequency of once or twice of every three days, or sometimes all three days. Although this is broken into once, twice, or three times for three days, averages will reflect that some items that happen once or twice every three days, on average happen more often than that. There is a measure of frequency that simply plots the recurrence between 1 and three. There is no between zero and one. Thus is is actually a two day scale, since there are no actions that will not happen at least once every three days. This is omitting unanticipated periods of sickness and so on. These simply halt the process to an extent. There are multiple ways of thinking about this, that could go one direction or the other as to whether unusual conditions should halt the process or be included in it, but for the time being what I am focused on is regularity and habit under normal conditions. In that case I simply omit thoughts about unusual situations, like if I was in a coma. If I was in a coma for three months, I would not want to include the behavior because it would fault my discipline unnecessarily. Then again, one can simply have different metrics given the same data. They are not mutually exclusive then. But still, my attention and focus for now is on this two day scale with averages falling between one and three and not zero and three.

Once habituated, solidified, and automated, all that needs to be performed in a full life will be done on a cycle of every three days minimally. This means that I will no longer be thinking much or nearly at all about what I must do. I simply do what I must do daily, every other day, and all within three days, and repeat. This alleviates moral burdens further, because now there is little to no thought about morality. One simply does good and neutral things automatically and predictably within a three day cycle, with *improved sponteneity*, because of the design of the plan of the life categories. One then is only a good person doing good or neutral things. Ones life is easier and simple. Automatically one does what one needs to do, makign worries less. One also has enjoyments planned, and these are frequent. One's health is improved, since one is behaving more optimally as to fitness, nutrition, cleanliness, and hygeine. All is cared for in a compressed timeframe predictably. There is no longer any procrastination. I must mention I have very little procrastination in my life at this point, and I am near having none again. Not only will it be none, delays will at most be two days.

I will say more about this soon if my plans change, and soon as my progress happens.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="in-relationships-there-may-not-be-much-more-than-shallow-sentences-and-superficial-visuals">In Relationships There May Not Be Much More Than Shallow Sentences and Superficial Visuals</a>

*196 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739440327, Thursday, February 13, 2025 02:52:07, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Higher Order Attention

Merely recording the idea for now

*196 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739440334, Thursday, February 13, 2025 02:52:14, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 7 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 51.420 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-you-are-informed-about-the-activities-of-another-person-you-do-not-know-or-have-not-seen-in-a-while,-you-have-not-really-learned-more">If You Are Informed About The Activities of Another Person You Do Not Know Or Have Not Seen In A While, You Have Not Really Learned More</a>

*196 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739440084, Thursday, February 13, 2025 02:48:04, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Higher Order Attention

Oftentimes updates of other people about other people are not really worthwhile. The result of such updates, oftentimes, is equivalent to zero new information, if that information is taken in ratio to what is left out. This seems like it would be common knowledge, but it is not. It really appears that people think that by such updates they have resumed having adequate knowledge about someone.

They think they can use such information to believe they still know someone well. They give theupdates as if they have such results and ask for them as though they expect oachive knowledge by getting it.

I will be practicing not really attending or thinking much of such information received. It appears there is no person for which such an update would provide knowledge, be it someone wh ois famous, infamous, someone who is a relative, a friend, an acquanintance, a friend of a friend, or a colleague. There is no person who would be known better by receiving a piece of information such as is provided by people providing hearsay updates.

*196 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739440263, Thursday, February 13, 2025 02:51:03, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 179 seconds. 178 words. Typespeed: 59.640 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="obstructing-others-can-result-in-legacy-deletion-of-the-legacy-not-even-had-yet">Obstructing Others Can Result In Legacy Deletion of The Legacy Not Even Had Yet</a>

*193 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739210580, Monday, February 10, 2025 11:03:00, Phoenix, Arizona*

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Mathematics | Ethical Architecture

Recording for now.

*193 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739210585, Monday, February 10, 2025 11:03:05, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="relocating-an-object-or-container-is-similar-to-replicating,-mirroring,duplicating,-and-copying-it">Relocating An Object Or Container Is Similar To Replicating, Mirroring,Duplicating, And Copying It</a>

*193 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739207891, Monday, February 10, 2025 10:18:11, Phoenix, Arizona*

Mathematics | Software Architecture | Ethical Architecture

Simply recording the idea for now.

*193 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739207897, Monday, February 10, 2025 10:18:17, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 6 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 60.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="those-of-us-who-can-size-up-others,-and-are-perceptive-about-what-smallbehaviors-mean,-fail-to-admit-that-much-of-the-pattern-of-a-person-is-known-quickly">Those of Us Who Can Size Up Others, and Are Perceptive About What SmallBehaviors Mean, Fail to Admit That Much of The Pattern of A Person Is Known Quickly</a>

*191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738999841, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:30:41, Phoenix, Arizona*

Personality | Descriptive Typological Systems and Wanting to Know People

Routinely, I'll notice a small behavior, and let it slide. In other words, I don't allow myslef to predict that there is a bad durable trait in the other person, or that there will be unwanted conflicts and outcomes later.

The reality is very often I am shown that I should have judged faster and earlier and more definitively. It is almost never the other way around.

It nearly never happens that a person who I meet who I think might have a durable bad behavior or traait, putting it simply, is someone I was wrong about. Nearly always I am right about ti and there are some negative consequences as a result later.

This is not somethign that happens often, that I let things go along until there are bad consequences, not knowing that I should have avoided a person or have done something to alter conditions. It is infrequent that I have lapses in judgement that er serious.

This is more about the smaller issues. Tjhose smaller issues that still lead to annoyances and larger issues, that others definitely usually would notcare about or thing much about, being less adept at sizing people up.

Many times, I have sized people up, to see issues worth mentioning toothers, who disbelieved in what I saw, only to see later that these were problem people. This was when signs were serious and obvious, and still the others were unable to see the trends and traits of the other person clearly. 

Nowadays, I am noticing I'm better at it than I realized before. Nowadays I'm feeling I should immediately assume my judgement is right. As a heuristic, it owould have few if any failures. If it seems to have heuristic value, then it appears it is somethign that would benefit me immensely put into action , to simply trust my inclinations.

That is the cause of this writing. Now I think fast judgement is more valuable. iIt has to be proven that one really ahs this skill and that it is valuable and that rrors are few. I've proven it too long! Socially, we are told, to keep giving hchances. Now Isee few chances are better.

It seems to imply aslo that solitude is betetr, and I like solitude so there is a good consistency between these two ideas. 

*191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739000186, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:36:26, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 345 seconds. 387 words. Typespeed: 67.260 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="when-we-think-we-represent-reality,-what-we-are-doing-is-akin-to-representing-an-interior-system,-rather-than-the-full-exterior-system">When We Think We Represent Reality, What We Are Doing Is Akin To Representing An Interior System, Rather Than the Full Exterior System</a>

*191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738998891, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:14:51, Phoenix, Arizona*

Constraint and Determinism | Mathematics

When we talk about reality, we are typically talking about the exterior system including all internal systems such that there is nothing outside that is additional to consider. Reality is identified with what people have called the Universe. I am now oonsidering disuse of universe, because it is simply an attempt to claim that there is a known entity that constitutes the entire exterior system.

Now I believe I really will disuse the word universe.

Reality is not something we have immediate access to as students of science and philosophy are aware. But then why keep speaking of reality and universes as though one has such access. Waht one has access to interfaces with the exteriior system that provides immediate inputs. The exterior system providing input and larger systemic ingredients is not even the larger external system that includes it, very likely. We do not know when we probed to edges of the system, either at the macro or micro scale, and certainly not in time, thinking about endpoints, of beginning and some time well past the beginning.

There are things in the universe in which we do not conceive of ends or starts. Including certain physical laws. So it follows that there are things we are willing to understnand as being perhaps more durable than physical objects. But observability applies to physical objects too, and we must admit we cannot see the external system to which our internal system is the nested portion of reality.

Thought about this way, knowledge can be thought of, by analogy and illustration, as an interior circle withing many other circles nested, and what we have access to is just an increasingly large circle surrounding the interior circles. A very simple illustration, but one most imaginations would lack. So it is helpful.

What is true is as we study, we get a better view of the exterior system ( still thinkign figuratively, although from the spatial perspective, and time perspective, it makes sense to think there is an outer wrapper which is not yet knowable, and beyond that, there may be additional wrappers., and these wrappers can contain new things that have not yet been experienced.

Another way to think of the situation of growting knowledge in relation to areas of ignorance and perhaps areas of complete and permanent ignorance.

Permanent ignorance is an important topic.

If we were to ask people for a list of items in the permanent ignorance, they would have trouble knowing what those would be. But then why do they think and assume it possible to know everything, or have some knowledge about all things such that combined there would be knowledge about reality all the way to the most exterior wrappers? Matttanaw's law plays a role here too, but I can save that for another conversation.

*191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738999402, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:23:22, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 511 seconds. 468 words. Typespeed: 54.900 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="input-or-environmental-randomness-from-the-perspective-of-a-system-that-cannot-see-externally-seems-random,-but-outside-the-system-without-the-uncertainty-or-with-diminishing-uncertainty-it-is-or-appears-non-random-or-pseudo-random">Input or Environmental Randomness From the Perspective of A System That Cannot See Externally Seems Random, But Outside The System Without The Uncertainty or With Diminishing Uncertainty It Is Or Appears Non-Random or Pseudo-Random</a>

*191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738998079, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:01:19, Phoenix, Arizona*

Mathematics | Constraint and Determinism

It does not seem to me that there is any complete randomness whatsoever that is natural in an absolute sense. The word random comes with the idea that there is something absolute as to the randomness, although it can be used in a relativvistic way as well.

With respect to the relativistic idea about randomness, one can consider that if a system is unable to see inputs or is unaware about how the inputs arose, then the system has a perspective in which randomnss appears to exist, even if it is due to uncertainty. Under uncertainty, from tehe perspective of the uncertain, there are kinds of relativistic randomness. It is related to the mind tor the system that is perceiving the inputs and information that arose without any absolute convicition.

Outside of this context, if the causality of the randomness is known, in some cases, that randomness would cease to be considered random. So larger systems with interior systems that thinkt here are random inputs would see that those inputs are not random.

There may be a way to define randomess more accurately using this way of thinking.

Some have argued that there is a fundamental randomness in physical reality and one piece of infomration showing it is extensive and pervasive is from quantum mechanics. My perspective is that it seems likely that with additional exploration any uncertainties about the randomness of inputs would be reduced or eliminated such that an external system is known containing the earlier system such that the absolute randomness thought to exist will be shown to not exist. But this is something that woudl not be agreed upon by others necessarily. Many think that the randomness in question really is a natural feature of the universe and I am not yet convinced regarding that.

Without any proof, I tend to use the term pseudo-random, instead of random, to mean that what is experienced is simply random if there is uncertainty, and that if one inspects futher the randomness is eliminated. . Much more must be said on this topic fbut for the moment it is interesting to think that there can be systems that have limited knowledge that would have a potentially actual ... corection more random like experience than external systems that have more information and do not have the uncertainty.

History has largely been a trend away from the experience of randomness to greater dunderstanding of determinism.

*191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738998546, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:09:06, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 467 seconds. 404 words. Typespeed: 51.900 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="which-areas-of-math-apply-to-all-particular-situations">Which Areas Of Math Apply To All Particular Situations</a>

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738875077, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:51:17, Phoenix, Arizona*

Mathematics

Which areas of mathematics apply to all situations and only some? What situations relate to some math but not all math? What does relate to all math? 

How comprehensively does math apply to each and every scenario and how does one identify what math does not appply? If one is actively seeking to find all relevant mathematics that realtes to a situation to fully understand a situation, one wants to do more than simply relate an area or two of math to that situation, but to actually know how any and all math relates. 

What are all the physical laws that relate to a situation? 

An objective is to isolate utnil what is under consideration is only determined by a few ingredients. The minimal number of ingredients allows a human mind to solve precisely or more precisely what is going on. The scientific method calls for isolation. But how isolated really are these various scenarios? Are we looking at aspects to make isoluation?

An interesting way to go about understanding sitautions is to refuse to just isolate and to try to know it comprehensively instead, because that too provides many benefits and perhaps more sometimes. This is like a legal approach to understand a phenomenon.

What are all thte maths that appply and what are all the laws of antaure that relate? As I sit there, and am I subject to all laws of nature, or just some? I think it is probably only some potentially, but maybe most are relating. How many exist that are not testable?

In any case, for the prusuit for moral knowledge, knowing what mathematics applies is important. So for any particular situation I want to correctly identify the related mathematics and have approaches that provide value for those sitautions using those mathematical areas. Not only those that apply at that time because they have variables of interest, but all that could have variables of interest, or any interest, simply for understanding the situations.

It appears comprehensive and focused understanding are actually really at odds with each other somewhat, and that science maybe steered people away from comprehensvie understanding. Specific roles in work does the same, and people realy seek to understand people in simplistic terms so peopls put themselves in those terms by doing things non-comprehensively.

But what is really needed is more total than more specific.

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738875484, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:58:04, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 407 seconds. 393 words. Typespeed: 57.900 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="things-that-feel-like-they-did-not-matter-after-they-happened">Things That Feel Like They Did Not Matter AFter They Happened</a>

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738873236, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:20:36, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic | Higher Order Attention

Some things immediately after they happened did not seem like they really mattered. This can include happenings and events that were large in scale, and those that simply felt like they would have been important at the smaller scale but werent.

I'm interested in this kind of thing that turned out not to matter, but I'm also interested in another kind, and that's those things that one thought was important in life, or important in moral planning, but did not turn out to be important.

What is the perspetctive of the oldest rational mind, regardin their own personal history?

What seemed important and didn't matter.



Sometimes memories reveal that things that seemed important were not and other things that did not seem important seemed more worthwile later. 

What is the ;most durable feeling of what is worthwhile, that lasts in to the many decades of old age.?

When is it finished, this search, to know what things did not matter after all?

I don't tactually think one has to live a thousand years to figure this out, or liveto be old to know. I think people ancan know this as children, once they are taught!

And why did nthey not get taught this already? Why was the message not clear? Why do the old people learn it old, well that's because they didn't learn it while young?

The implication is a horrible failure of religioin!

That the olds are required to tell us what was and was not important for entire lives, and that they'd fail to teach us, because we can't know ourselves until we're old! Otherwise we could ask young people and what they'd say would simply agree with what old people would then say.

Another area where age doesn't matter when it's simply information that's being shared.

I think it will be easy to make it claear what is of value and what isn't in life for later in life, with a consideration that it could have ended at any time. This will be easy up until advanced old age, considering the results that will come from the earlier posting on (err this posting), about things that feel like they did not matter afterwards.

Taht informtion is needed, because people think they are building up lives that they will enjoy in retrospect. Big events, getting married, graduating from college, having a business, advancing in career, having children, and so on, may feel much later to have been not very imortant. Time management seems to old people to be important, but I'm thinking it isn't so important as they assume. I do accept it as important however.

This information would allow for choosing things that have different values than one would expect as one lives. What is of greatest value while living? The older people would not only state that certain things were not important afterwards, but that other things seemed like they would be much better or were. They were life activities that built greater value over time.

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738873735, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:28:55, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 499 seconds. 501 words. Typespeed: 60.240 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="wants-and-desires-versus-voting-process">Wants and Desires Versus Voting Process</a>

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738873157, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:19:17, Phoenix, Arizona*

Voting

To expand on soon.

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738873162, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:19:22, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 5 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 48.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="happiness,-flourishing,-moral-direction,-and-the-functions-and-trajectory-of-nature.-how-they-come-together-to-explain-why-being-moral-is-better-on-probabilistic-grounds">Happiness, Flourishing, Moral Direction, And The Functions and Trajectory of Nature. How They Come Together To Explain Why Being Moral Is Better on Probabilistic Grounds</a>

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738872446, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:07:26*, Phoenix, Arizona

Another Ethic | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomigns

That happiness and flourishing and living longer has a relationship with firstly, striving that is universal nearly, and that this has ramifications for physics and biology. The idea here is to relate this universal striving to something physical that fits within a system in a clean way. The result is that human striving, which would not always be successful and for pseudo-random reasons, would be connected actually with the trajectory of nature. Those who have a good moral system, then, would be more likely, but not with guarantees, to have a better life more consistent with natures direction. This appears to be the case anyway. It seems this provides the direction required connecting moral thinking with what nature is trying to get out of people through the functions they have due to evolutionary advancement.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="that-quick-death-after-long-life-might-indicate-life-may-really-have-functions-that-are-purely-physical">That Quick Death After Long Life Might Indicate Life May Really Have Functions That Are Purely Physical</a>

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738871933, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:58:53, Phoenix, Arizona*

Another Ethic | Living Autobiography

Simply recording the idea for now.

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738871939, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:58:59, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 6 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 60.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="trial-and-error-exists-for-all-truths">Trial And Error Exists For All Truths</a>

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738870802, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:40:02, Phoenix, Arizona*

A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings

This is something interesting I came up recently, although I'm not sure to what extent I'd want to commit to it. This is the idea, that everything that exists, and exists tomorrow, and is somehow tested. Well, that's not the original thought, but a slightly new thought based on the earlier one, which is more about what is stated or thought than what exists. But it seems to apply to what exists too as I think about it now.

Darwinism says that animal life is tested. If it is being tested, and each life is striving in some way for survival, and nature is trying to make things that are fit, and they are composed of things that are inanimate, it seems that much of nature is being tested, and that most agree to this already. Now this is in talk about reality! So reality is testing itself and is being tested! At least parts. But even if only parts and not the entire cosmos, it is all we care about. All life.

This would make it appear true then that we would agree that truths are being tested, or the source of truths which is reality. But in addition to this, we are saying things. The saying and thinking of things is part of biological life. This eans we are being tested too for our thoughts or regarding our thoughts, as parts of our lives, which are included within Darwinian "struggle". (Here I'm using some language from Darwinism although I don't prefer that language).

Our thoughts about the world include true and false thoughts. Our true thoughts are then being tested in the world along with the false ones, as our entire selves are being somehow threatened with death and diminishment by the world around us.

I don't like this idea about Darwinism, that somehow we are continjuously tested or are continuously unde rthreat, thinking it false, but since the prevailing view is that we are actually "surviving" all of th etime, in some sense it seem swe are continuously, if not very often, if not often enough, tested by our surroundings.

So in that way it appears to be true that truths are tested. These are truths in symbols and representative mind as it relates to reality, which includes real truths which are hte same thing. I would aggree this language is sloppy, but will persist nevertheless in expressing the idea.

Additionally, it appears that, the world really may be continually testing things that exist in a way. Does the stuff corectly conform to natural laws or not? (Despite the earlier language, I dno't believe this at the moment. I'm playing with the ideas). The world keeps forcing things to remain on natural paths according to natural laws, supposedly according to what mathematicans have discovered. Do things simply follow these paths automatically, or are there any tests along the way? Here I am tring to search for something reasonable that would indicate that continually there is some testing happening, which would agree with darwin at the physical level, however. But so far I can't see anything too compelling.

What is much more compelling is that truths that people have get tested. It also appears to be true that they are tested repeatedly, . When we are living, and our thoughts are tested again and again, getting feedback each time, that is really trial and error testing. The truths get tested along with the untruths. This is why: how do you know when your testing is complete? At the end of your slef-testing, if you arrive at a truth that always without exception works for you, then all utilizations will appear to have a success. These many successes are confirmation that the truths are actual. But there is some anticipation in science that if one waits long enough, all truths will be falsified. Perhaps excepting some facts that don't involve or relate to perpetuation or ctointnuity. For example, the mas of the earth at a time happens to be the mass at that time. Later, there is no concer nwhat the mass will be. That is different from a truth that is about something that continues through time.

Thinking now to move onto some new activity, I want to conclude that it is interesting to think about which truths no longer get tested. And maybe thought that way, which ones no long er get tested, without any reference to what should or should not be tested according to rules of scince. Just scientifically, what gets gested and what doesn't.

Some act as thought DNA is being continuously tested. And as I reflect on it, cells are failing to rebuild correctly and are failing to replicate. Are they failing tests of various kinds in nature? What is being tested and not? This akes it seem s though there is a pressure that exists, thinking imaginatively, that makeds it seem s as though, really, even the minutest of things have tests for them. What of within physics? What of this DNA analogy would be true to atoms?

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738871780, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:56:20, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 978 seconds. 846 words. Typespeed: 51.900 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="there-are-few-people-who-can-feel-the-investment-in-a-city-or-nation-that-is-merely-a-territory-of-their-larger-nation,-such-that-they-strongly-think-it-is-theirs">There Are Few People Who Can Feel The Investment In a City or Nation That is Merely a Territory of Their Larger Nation, Such That They Strongly Think it is Theirs</a>

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738869815, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:23:35, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

Annexed countries, and territories that are distant, simply do not create any real feeling of possesion among those who are citizens of the nation that belongs them. 

To give an example, suppose Hawaii was suddenly taken from the United States. None who are not in Hawaii can have any real feeling of possession of that territory. If it were decided, from above, that this N territoy, these territories, were to be given to another country, sold to another gountry, let go due to warfare, or let go for the sovereignty of locals in that location, people would move on in their lives as if it never happened.

Likely the expandsion of a nation creates a good source for argumentation in the same direction. The nation grwos and soon has new territory to add formally. Nobody feels they possess that land. Few would have been involved in that growth. It seems to follow that nobody really thinks it is their possession initially excepting some very few people who are among the actualy inovolved. 

If it follows that none are thinking they are possessing these locations had or not had, in my estimation, that they don't possess them. Or that they don't think they really have a strong claim to them, or that they simply do not care too much for them. They could receive these possesions without too much change or feeling about it, and they could give ithem away without concern or expecation of repayment.

Additionally, there are some changes that simply do not cause any concern afterwards anyyway, since people are indifferent as to th lodifferences.

This will later be shown to have many interesting ramifications, many of which challenge common views about hwhat is or isn't a nation, and what is or isn't theirs, and what is or isn't their involvement in the governments they are stuck within.For now this is enough, and for later I intend to connect this to the topic of the relationship of individuals to groups. In the ideas above, there is a confusion of who is doing what when nations annex other nations or territories, or when they give them up. Who id soing it? We act as though the nations really are singular entities, and that it wasn't a few people involved in actions to annex or give up territory. A few is not correct, but is a reasonable way to provocatively put it given percentages of population that are infovleed. The percentage of the U.S. poulation involved in gaining Alaska for example is effectively zero.

Also, if most individual s in a nation don't care one away or another, then why is it claimed that there are such great feelings about the suject at the national level? Suddenly, if there is any situation that concerns gaining or giving up land, the nation is willing to take huge actions to prevent it or make it happen, and those actions cannot be from people who really care, unless those who arcare are just those few who are involved.

This is an interesting example, because it relates to colonization and warfare in the long term. Some countries wer equikcly granted independence without much conflict. Some had to struggle severely. In both cases, those who are initially concerned are  (I would delete this line but allow it to remain).

More later on ramifications relating to the above points.

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738870600, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:36:40, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 785 seconds. 563 words. Typespeed: 43.020 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="another-way-it-is-known-that-family-legacies-are-unreal,-is-that-nations-are-not-expected-to-be-preserved-by-emmigrants,-ii">Another Way It Is Known That Family Legacies Are Unreal, Is That Nations Are Not Expected to Be Preserved By Emmigrants, II</a>

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738868200, Thursday, February 06, 2025 11:56:40, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

Continuing from the prior post, these second generation children seem to be soemewhat tormented by this division. Life is more difficult being an emmigrant we are told, and this would be true for both first and second generation children. If we believe them, it follows that there i strouble with this arrangement that will need to be relieved. 

The way that it is relieved is that the children simply want to become more like the people in the new culture, particularly if the country is one worth joi;ning. Assuming the emmigrants went to a country that is wealthy or better in various ways than the prior culture, there will be a strong desire to simply decrease the effort and join the new culture where there is want of not only acceptance but potentially fame.

It will be known that fame cannot be had. It will also be known that attention will be difficult to obtain. it may seem the hot culture is less loving and less accepting and that's because it is ttrue they are less lovign and accepting.

The patern that is universal really is assimiliation into the new culture. As I said, it turns out that the heritage simply quickly erodes and vanishes and the third generation children are likely to know very little about their original source culture.

For those in the America, we can confirm this easily, in that all Americans who came from some place else, had progeny that ultimately called themselvees Americans later, and had to use tools like Ancestry dot com to simply find what their heritage even was!

In America, people vaguely state that they are Irish, German, English, French, and so on, and by that they mean their genetics, and partially their ancestry, which would be evident in family trees they didn't keep or never had. They simply were totally assimilated into the new culture. Only small behavioral relics would exist in what they say and do that resembles what was said and done by earlier generations in their family. But they don't know where these relics came from or what they are, meaning really totally they have adopted the host culture.

There are clear implications to the reasonability of legacies and inheritance from this observation. These points make it clear there are a number of issues with legacies that make their function illusory.

Taking this point and returning to the thesis that legacies cannot preserve source cultures in host environments, we can see it follows that the family legacies were not functioning in these conditions. Also grabbing that earlier observation that families when expanding will eventually have populations the size of towns or cities, we also see that what would be created by these emmigrants in host cultures would simply be populations of that size that are of the *host* culture, deleting the legacy that supposedly existed or should exist, by the third generation.

Family legacies do not always include this component of trying to keep a culture alive. But oftentimes it does include this component. The quantity of people who have moved around the globe is huge, and populations do continue to move and blend. In the United States, no person is from the Americas except the indigenous tribes. That means every person alive in America not of native descent is an example of a termination of a legacy. All l 300 million people came from families and did not preserve the legacies. 

This appears true and proven at this point with this observation. But what about everyone else who remains. Well, if one remains in a place, one has nothing to do to preserve a cultural legacy that is there existing. One simply lives life in tahat location. There may be some few people who are working on and are interested in preserving culture, but the reality is that mot are just living, and by living they create a changing continuity from prior times to later times. 

In this changing continuity, must i s changed. We have the concept of a generation to divide times suggesting that different populations who are at different ages have important differences. Later generations of course become the only living generations. This means that what was claimed to be important in earlier generations is actually lost. There isn't really a belief that what is konown by old people really can be transmitted to young people. Only parts can be taught.

What is taught appears to be what is core to the culture like the language and ways of behaving in youth, along with how to get along in the world getting employment and interacting with institutions and the market. Experiences of earlier generations are really laregely lost. There is too much information to teach and convey, and so teaching what the older generations thave experienced is futile.

Older generations tend to have some disappointment with the direction of their culture later and some disappointment in the differences between their age group and new age groups, with increasing differences as time goes on. This means while they are alive they can actually see that legacy doesn't function. The trend is obliteration, with some key teachings being preserved.

In a way, people learn the language, and those things mentioned above, while becomeing ignorant of history. Or while they are unable to really have access to history as they undergo their learnings.This allows them to think largely independently with respect to history-- by that I eman they don't rely on, have, or utilize, what exists in history much, or what the elders have directly experienced and can remember. They take teachings without that context and use it in a new context in a somewhat unguided way.

If a young person were to claim that htey had sufficient access to the history of their grandparents and parents to access it directly and replace them, the elders would be angered very likely, because that would be thought to be impossible. It would be thought that the older generations, the older population, all of it, holds infoormation that is valuable, that cannot be had. WEll if it cannot be had by the younger person it follos they will never have it! Because the elders will make this claim until the death! That they still have information that matters that the youths did not and could not learn, and that the older generations could not teach.

From this view of genrations, it really follows that we alread;y anticipate significant loss of culture over time. New generatinons cannot receive legacies very easily, and additionally, since what people are doing in their culture is simply living, without any active work to preserve, they don't do anything. It would follwo that legacies don't really function or that they don't exist anyway because people simply do what they do anyways. Arguably;, if one thought this supportedl legacy, I could respond then that everyone has a legacy. But legacy is something people compete for and find challenging.

A patriarch doesn't simply have an easy task of livign. That would imply that parenting has not had any effort, and that there has not been any goal to have a specified legacy that is knowable. It would follow that there is no legacy that is specified and that it simply is subsumed into the largerculture of people just living without any plans for a legacy.

Men striving for big names are then made equivalent with anyone. As I write this, I am slowly building up new premises that I can use in a more rigorous presentation of this information to demonstrate that legacy and inheritance were largely founded on delusions. There are many other arguments in addition to these, for example that children reject legacies anyway ( a point similar to that about second generation emmigrants). 

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738869574, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:19:34, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 1374 seconds. 1299 words. Typespeed: 56.700 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="another-way-it-is-known-that-family-legacies-are-unreal,-is-that-nations-are-not-expected-to-be-preserved-by-emmigrants">Another Way It Is Known That Family Legacies Are Unreal, Is That Nations Are Not Expected to Be Preserved By Emmigrants</a>

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738867709, Thursday, February 06, 2025 11:48:29, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

I will not write out all thoughts relating to this until I have them better organized, but I will say a few things briefly as I record the diea.

Small countries are odd entities. The people within them may have a wide variety of reasons for wanting to have a separate nation, but over time, I think it becomes obvious whthat what is had simply is not really desirable, and any excess love of the nation, and inclination to protect the nation, comes along with foolishness and stupidity.

When I imagine a nation has ced decided to be separate from other nations, it was due to survival or due to a desire to have separation, to have a singular identity among the people and to retain a separate identity. But it's also for resources, and in any case I reject the idea that a group of people would really decide that particular act. Really I think a small group or a few would control whether or not there would be a separate nation.

Small nations mean that within them there is less territory. Having a strong love for a tiny place without a desire to move about is really ridiculous if one could sipmply be a part of a larger nation that *includes* that same area. If it includes that same area, then one has it already but has created fencing.

The other seriously ridiculous issue is that peolpe think they really are actually preserving a legacy the way they think they are. Oddly I think the subject of keeping a connected and continuous national history is related to the retaining of a legacy at the group level. Oh and I meant to mention it connects with the believf in legacies at the smaller level, becaues what is wanted to be retained is similar to what is wanted to be retained in the family. For example, individual expatriat families try to keep up those customs and behaviors that were like those of the nations that they emmigrated from. But using what I'e said before about legacies, and other poit s about their ineffectiveness, is that once a people leaves their homeland, they can expect that their heritage would dissolve into the other nation in which they've come to be nationalized in. This is simple assimilation.

Retaining the cultural heritage does seem to be more possible at the national level, because the context of what one has is still existing, and in such a case there is more surrounding which allows for the preservation. However, it appears tsill that legacies are not really real at the group level either, because only afer a few generations does life stop resembling what was had before. National boundaries are also expected to change rather than remain the same for many small nations, particularly those that I hae in mind in Europe.  It does not appear, that the nation will be able to preserve anything that is exactly what they are wanting to preserve, and they don't have a group related way of making the decision collectively. The group cannot have a way to decide what excatly will be retained in the culture at the time of creating the nation state, and they can't during the possession of the nation state or nation either. What happens later is not something that can be visualiaed. At best there are some re

I'm strongly of the opinion that legacies in families that are historically patriarchical are a confirmation of human delusion. Additionally, since legacies do not actually work, and are unreal, inheritance does not do what people think it does. For now I'm not going to discuss inheritance, but will provide an additional reason why one can expect that a legacy will fail to function.

That reason is that if one was going to become an emmigrant of acountry in which ther was a strong desire to preserve culture, there would not be a realistic expectation that the family alone could preserve that culture while abroad. Since a family, after many generations, will create many people such that there would be a population equivalent to a town, if the legaciy is preserfved, the national legacy within the family legaciy, it would follow that a new nation elsewhere with the same cultural heritage would be emerging.

However, this is not what we expect. Instead of expecting this, we expect that it will be rapidly dissolved in tho new host culture. We expect that youths in the new culture will adopet the host culture and only partly adopt bits and pieces of the culture from which they came. After a short time even second generation immigrants are more like the people in the host culture than people in the parent's nation.

*189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738868083, Thursday, February 06, 2025 11:54:43, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 374 seconds. 792 words. Typespeed: 127.020 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="small-countries-imply-foolish-behavior-and-beliefs-within-them">Small Countries Imply Foolish Behavior and Beliefs Within Them</a>

*188 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738791248, Wednesday, February 05, 2025 14:34:08*, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings

I will not write out all thoughts relating to this until I have them better organized, but I will say a few things briefly as I record the diea.

Small countries are odd entities. The people within them may have a wide variety of reasons for wanting to have a separate nation, but over time, I think it becomes obvious whthat what is had simply is not really desirable, and any excess love of the nation, and inclination to protect the nation, comes along with foolishness and stupidity.

When I imagine a nation has ced decided to be separate from other nations, it was due to survival or due to a desire to have separation, to have a singular identity among the people and to retain a separate identity. But it's also for resources, and in any case I reject the idea that a group of people would really decide that particular act. Really I think a small group or a few would control whether or not there would be a separate nation.

Small nations mean that within them there is less territory. Having a strong love for a tiny place without a desire to move about is really ridiculous if one could sipmply be a part of a larger nation that *includes* that same area. If it includes that same area, then one has it already but has created fencing.

The other seriously ridiculous issue is that peolpe think they really are actually preserving a legacy the way they think they are. Oddly I think the subject of keeping a connected and continuous national history is related to the retaining of a legacy at the group level. Oh and I meant to mention it connects with the believf in legacies at the smaller level, becaues what is wanted to be retained is similar to what is wanted to be retained in the family. For example, individual expatriat families try to keep up those customs and behaviors that were like those of the nations that they emmigrated from. But using what I'e said before about legacies, and other poit s about their ineffectiveness, is that once a people leaves their homeland, they can expect that their heritage would dissolve into the other nation in which they've come to be nationalized in. This is simple assimilation.

Retaining the cultural heritage does seem to be more possible at the national level, because the context of what one has is still existing, and in such a case there is more surrounding which allows for the preservation. However, it appears tsill that legacies are not really real at the group level either, because only afer a few generations does life stop resembling what was had before. National boundaries are also expected to change rather than remain the same for many small nations, particularly those that I hae in mind in Europe.  It does not appear, that the nation will be able to preserve anything that is exactly what they are wanting to preserve, and they don't have a group related way of making the decision collectively. The group cannot have a way to decide what excatly will be retained in the culture at the time of creating the nation state, and they can't during the possession of the nation state or nation either. What happens later is not something that can be visualiaed.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="what-is-a-heuristic-and-what-is-not">What is a Heuristic And What Is Not</a>

*188 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738789452, Wednesday, February 05, 2025 14:04:12, Phoenix, Arizona*

A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings

Recently I was thinking about how prejudice can be a heuristic, and not purely a form of bigotry. In relation to that posting, I thought again about heuristics more generally, and wondered what is a heuristic, and what is not. This is not a thought that would be about the meaning of heuristics, I know what that is. This is about really being able to identify when a heuristic is being used and when one is not, such that one is aware about the nature of the tools being used.

In moral life, much is heuristic. Very infrequently (actually realized it is frequent, so cancelling that thought). Sometiems what is decided about utilizes experience in a way that is not really claer. We make judgements based on experience using a heuristical approach that is ambiguous but effective. An AI system, if it learns how to do something, will be doing somthing in a way that is heuristical often times, because it uses probability and with probability there is uncertainty, and with the uncertainty there is no guarantee concerning the rules used.

That's one way to look at tit. There is another way to look at AI an dbrains to see that they are not really rule-oriented so the term heuristic is not really as applicable. That is rule oriented in the sense that they find a rule, improve the rule, and then rely on that rule in order to know what to do. That is not really how they work. They learn and use what is learned, but hey are not specifying what has been learned in such a way that there are rules assoiated. That happens only sometimes. Genearally a learning and acting system is not really acting according to rules it has come up with.

However, people do actually form rules and principles and make plans that they use to act upon. This is where I realized that really much that I do a s a moral philosopher and moral person is to act on these plans and self created directives and suggestions, and so on. I do this very very frequently and in a way it contains my behavior and influences all behavior at this point, or nearly all behavior. 

This growing system in which one is aware about that one actually uses, in the form of a plan or a rule or a process, and so on, is one that is heuristical. It does not definitively produce the results that are desire devery time.Reliability is extremely high, and the process has very few flaws in certain ways, but it has to be admitted there are gaps iand flaws in other ways that make it imperfect.

A sttrange thought is whether heuristics really make sense. It is strange to think about this because the idea of a heuristic is so common,. This relates to the idea abou thwat is heuristic and what is not. A rule that works every time is a rule that is not thought to be heuristical. But aren't almost all rules like this? this would mean that most rules are certainly heuristics. Maybe more interesting is to know which rules are not. Some aspects of the higher order attention process I've created seems to be non-heuristical. This means I am living according to a process that is at least secure nearly absolutely sin some few ways.Stating those ways that it is absolute would allow for dthe description of which parts of the ethical system are free of flaws and blemishes and are absolute and not heuristical. 

By absolute, I mean really really accurate and precisely correct like a law of nature. I accept that these may not be so absolute as people might think if one looks at it from a philosophy of science perspective, but from an ordinary perspective, a mathematical rule about the motion of an object that is as current as it can be in science is nearly absolute or is absolute with respect ot certain aspects. Mathematical predictability at a level in which there is no expected aberration is non heuristical. This is what is supposed to define what a heuristic is, by setting the boundary of what it is not.

This posting is about knowing what is heuristical and what is not in everyday experience for all things that ight be characterized as one or the other. In my experience people are not really seeking to know this information but it is very important. 

Consider if for an aspect of life, like nutrition, if one can know a rule or set of rules that are not heuristical, but are absolute. This would enable a person to stop thinking as much about which kind of nutrition one should have would be. There would be very little talk about nutrition very likely where it relates to these things. It allows one to be decisive.

Regarding what is heuristical, one would be aware of where there might be lacks of knowledge. Heuristics exist as replacements for what would be complete knowledge. If I hav a heuristic, it likely means I have not gotten to a point in which I have certain knowledge about a rule or process. Heuristics are useful but they are due to limited information.

Other times, heuristics relate to the permanent scarcity of information. These are useful to know about too. This would allow one in ones moral knowledge to know twhat really cannot be known. This allows for one to know the limits of tools that one has, and this would allow one to really and confidently adapt to not having specific pieces of information and to remain oaware about what kinds of information t;hose are.

With this information one would have a much jore secure existence. This result could be achieved in probably more than this way, ut maybe not. Eitehr way the desired result is one that does not yet exist. The task to get there seems somewhat easy, in a more sketchy way at first, but ieven this would be very helpful, and in a comprehensive way later. REally what is most needed is the basic way. The comprehensive way would have less utility than the basic result which would apply very generally.

So it appears this is som;ething of primary pimportanc eand should be prioritized very highly in the work of moral science and philosophy.

*188 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738790405, Wednesday, February 05, 2025 14:20:06, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 953 seconds. 1062 words. Typespeed: 66.840 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="national-bubbles-of-culture-with-nothingness-beyond-instead-of-other-nations-and-what-they-offer-that's-similar">National Bubbles of Culture With Nothingness Beyond Instead of Other Nations and What They Offer That's Similar</a>

*187 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738661197, Tuesday, February 04, 2025 02:26:37, Phoenix, Arizona*

Human Shortcomings | Music and Art

This is the start of a continuation of the last posting, but instead of focusing on the fringes or boundaries or limits of culture and whtat it provides in music, film, and writing, this is about the fact that nations create a barrier to having nmore of what one might want, that is artificial. If it does not create a barrier to what one might want, it creates a limit of who might be able to create more. 

An example of this was how certain ... Abandoning this current thought and instead I'm electing to wait to develop this subject matter later. Interestingly, I think this is the very first time I did not complete a thought once I started typing it while working on the ThoughtStream.

*187 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738661353, Tuesday, February 04, 2025 02:29:13, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 156 seconds. 127 words. Typespeed: 48.840 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="having-much-music-and-not-knowing-how-to-find-more-that-is-similar-versus-having-all-of-the-music-of-that-type">Having Much Music And Not Knowing How To Find More That Is Similar Versus Having All of the Music of That Type</a>

*187 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738660298, Tuesday, February 04, 2025 02:11:38, Phoenix, Arizona*

Music and Art

Having all of the music of a type, of a kind of sound that is enjoyed, is possible or nearly possible at this time. For some genres it would be harder to have all the mustic than for others, but it is possible. Humans are not producing music and publishing at such a rapid pace that it cannot all be quickly listened to. Of course, what I'm thinking of is music that is published, and is not simply in a sea of poor quality music relseased by miscellaneous artists.

VAguely I mean music that has been pre filtered to be of a kind of quality worth putting in front of an audience. This would require more definiteion but it would remain vague because there is no entirely rational way of publishing music or finding it.

When one wants good music of a certain category, one does not have an easy task for really finding what one is really looking for.

There have been services that linked music with similar musical qualities but they are limited and do not provide all that is available in the larger market, only what is available to them. Some of these servies seem to haeve less music than one would thin, sicne they claim to be able to do this type of work very well.

It still would be difficult to have all the music that one would wand of a type. But what is certainly common, is having all the music one knows about of a certain type. This is equivalent to simply wanting more music than one has or one has heard , when one finds that one has tired of the music that has been played and replayed, but one wants to hear similar music. One simply wants to have and hear more.

The sensation one gets from wanting more music can be similar to that experience of actually having no more music of a kind and these experiences are somewhat indistinguishable. I have not experienced total exhaustion of a genre of music, but I do think this would be the case, even if one confirmed for certain that all music of a kind has been heard and experienced, and had.

Not having access to music of a certain type is like being on the edge of what exists in a civilization. For books and reading, it may be challenging to get access to and read all that relates to a subject, but even there this can be experienced. Nowadays, the desire to have more than owhat exists must be far less common than it would have been when culture was smaller. When culture was smaller, there must have been a very strong desre for new materials to experience.

It may be that the experience of not having enough music that one really likes is a more common one exemplifying this kind of historical experience I'm talking about. Film may offer a similar example. 

Film may even provide a better example than music does, and I think as I ponder this that this is the case for myself.

I return to shows like Star Trek, The Original Series, for example, because it feels strongly that there is nothing else resembling it in the culture. Not even later star trek series. One can tell that there isn't anything else that exists like it, unless one is mistaken; but even if one is mistaken, one would likely have little additional, and that experience of not having it currently and not having it ultimately seem the same.

In both cases there is a strong desire for something more. There is not enough in this culture! That is something that one might think. One has experienced what ift offers to the edge and has searched for more but there was nothing else to be found. 

Beyond what could be found is really nothing at all. 

More on this soon potentially.

*187 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738661011, Tuesday, February 04, 2025 02:23:31, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 713 seconds. 654 words. Typespeed: 55.020 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="determinism-did-not-arrange-for-optimal-lives,-although-some-lives-may-appear-to-be-more-optimal">Determinism Did Not Arrange For Optimal Lives, Although Some Lives May Appear to Be More Optimal</a>

*186 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738608651, Monday, February 03, 2025 11:50:51, Phoenix, Arizona*

Constraint and Determinism | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings

This is just to get the idea recorded. Will expand on this later.

*186 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738608665, Monday, February 03, 2025 11:51:05, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 14 seconds. 13 words. Typespeed: 55.680 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="it-may-be-thought-there-is-a-singular-black-culture,-but-they-are-regional,-and-do-not-have-a-rollout-of-cultural-updates.-like-other-cultures-and-groups,-separated-members-are-unaware-of-developments">It May Be Thought There Is a Singular Black Culture, But They Are Regional, and Do Not Have A Rollout of Cultural Updates. Like Other Cultures and Groups, Separated Members Are Unaware of Developments</a>

*186 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738562195, Sunday, February 02, 2025 22:56:35, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Entertainment | Human Shortcomings

This is a simplistic point, but it appears to me, that people are perhaps unaware that there would not abe a singular black culture in which all area aware of each others changes in their anner of behavior. Pop culture would not be the same for each group, and would ibe influencedby the various regional groups as people from those groups atttain some level of attention in the media.

More widely, I am noting thta for any group in which a singular culture is thought to exist, the regions must be remembered. The groups within that compose it that have great differences between them. Still I myself do not entirely recall that I have to subdivide groups as I think of them to recall their composition and remember that they do not have a uniform culture.

When considering people, one might think that this is even more inmportant than with other topics. However, I don't think this is routinely done by most. Perhaps it is possible to behaviorally automate thinking of the composition of human groups each and every time ( or nearly each time), as they are thought of.

A larger objective than this, might be to think of nouns as words having ocomposition as they are being used. I think this would be very difficult to do in practice, but to recognize composition as one thinks would be useful. Perhaps this is something that will be achieved by some in the future, since likely few would be able to achieve such a result wihtout strating at a young enough age. We'd have to be willign to educate children to be able to have such a mental habit.

*186 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738562492, Sunday, February 02, 2025 23:01:32, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 297 seconds. 279 words. Typespeed: 56.340 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="since-persuasion-requires-a-display-of-information-sufficient-for-a-rational-person-to-be-persuaded,-it-follows-that-candidates-for-voting-ought-not-persuade-anyone">Since Persuasion Requires a Display of Information Sufficient For A Rational Person to Be Persuaded, It Follows That Candidates for Voting Ought Not Persuade Anyone</a>

*185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738524174, Sunday, February 02, 2025 12:22:54, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Generals, Presidents, Chiefs, and Hierarchies | Rational Times

In a recent posting, I explained why it is very likely the case that any individual in a family or a marriage who is in a non-authority position, who ends up thinking like the family, or that person, is showing irrationality. That was for any and all kinds of relationships in which there is a tendency for one person to resemble the other such that the group has the same or similar views.

I focused there on families and marriages, but it is clear that it applies more generally. It seems to apply at the national level, and is applicable to cults and other groups. It appears too be true of employment as well, where people who become employees too readily become similar to those they are employed with and for.

This is a rich are worth exploring and would fit into the disciplines of Social Science, including Sociology and Social Psychology. Already there is some existing work on related topics, particularly in the huge area of marketing and propaganda, and social persuasion.

Here, there is one topic I wanted to relate this idea t and that is voting and politics. In politics, there is the idea that there will be a person, a representatitve, who will be voted for or against, or just for, to get a role in government. In the American two-party system, typically there are only allowed two people to vote for who are the candidates. There are others but ultimately they are ignored as the media only allows for two to be presnted at debates. 

This implies that for elections like in the presidential elections (others may have different properties), there is much less information about all other candidates but those two candidates. What I'm saying here and in the earlier posting applies to any number of candidates, but for simplicity, it helps to consider the simple case of having only two candidates.

In the election process, candidates and their hoards of promoters share information with the public, that they would like them to be persuaded by to make a choice as to who will be worth voting for. People recive this information in a variety of ways, often in marketing and via the media through conversations and debates. There is also a considerable amount of hearsay about the politicians. This set of information is the total set that is possible for anyone to use to hae information about the candidates, aside from what can be located through research.

This isn't a posting about the nature of propaganda and its harmful effects. I'll just say here that this information is not useful and is really just propaganda and advertising. Choices on the basis of this information is insufficient to select a candidate. Research may be adequate to rule out candidates, but once candidates are selected by someone else, or in a preliminary, they provide the option. Additionally, I forgot to mention, one can choos not to vote. So not voting is a third option, which is actually a very rational choice.

Ignoring now that the information is scanty or is propaganda, we will simply look at other characteristics to see why persuasion s;hould not be expected, and why voting cannot be the result of a rational decision.

A candidate, a person, is not a presentation of a coherent set of information about anything that can be known well enough to decide upon rationally. Tuypically, rational thinking requires information and good inferences in order to arive at rational decisions. Aside from the quality of the information in terms of factualness, is the interconnectedness of information into coherent sets of information that constitute presentations of what should be persuasive.

Instead of having that, what is had is loose information about a person. Loose information about a person and pieces of hwhat they think is insufficient for a rational evaluation of coherent interconnecting information from which to draw inferences. Furthermore, this information is and has been disconnected with action and future action and the assurance of any action on its basis. Instead we basically have a person, a candidate, that we can look at, hear some disconnected information about, hear some ideas they have about what they might do, and then we are asked to vote on the election for or against them or for or against another candidate or not at all.

This portion of the topic consderns the presentation of information side rpimarily. The presentaed information has to have sufficientt properties in order to allow for rational agreement or disagreement. Without such information, what can be done regarding it cannot be entirely rational.

Beyond this, but in agreement with this, we also have the pressure from society for people who are part of groups and part of society as a whole to vote, and to vote with their group, or with their spouse or families. This measn there are numerous groups, including the nationanl group, applying pressure to oconform. We saw in the earlier posting that this pressure requires that those who conform must have done so irrationally, especially if, there has not been a presentation of information that is suitable for rational decision making regarding any level of decision making connected with each group.

More on this subject soon.

*185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738525129, Sunday, February 02, 2025 12:38:49, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 955 seconds. 874 words. Typespeed: 54.900 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="renaming-world-war-i-and-ii-to-group-them-to-a-period-and-eliminate-the-desire-to-continue-the-numbering">Renaming World War I and II to Group Them To A Period And Eliminate The Desire To Continue The Numbering</a>

*185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738478879, Saturday, February 01, 2025 23:47:59, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships

A whilele ago, I considered that it may have been the case that each world war, umbered one and two, were really just one conflict. Arguably of course, conflicts happpen in a context of memory and animosity, so earlier and later conflicts also relate. But these two somewhat distinct wars definitely relate to one another, and could be thought of as a continuation of the same conflict. For now we can ignore that eve more conflicts could be added.

Additionallly there is the idea that Grand Strategy encompasses continual warfare, as if there is not a moment that is not within a warefare planning and strategic set of actions. In other words, war is happening all th e time. It's just not always in the form of actual conflict. Notice also that within wars, there also are prolonged periods where there are no battles or exchange of blows.

There is a usefulness of combining these wars into one conflict. I was thinking about this as I was reading about the Punic Wars, which also seem to be different wars on appearance. The author of the book I'm reading has combined them with others who allso use the word Punic into a single war collection. There are in this book three Punic wars. These wars appear less related than the world wars, yet they were collected together this way.

What I like about this method of collection is that for those who are learning abou tthe war, and thinking abou thte wars, there is a clear start and end. There will be no more Punic Wars. Unlike this way of grouping, for the purpose of making history organized, there is no expectation that there will be any addtitional numbering. The Punic Wars are complete, and we do not anticipate a fourth punic war. We don't make perople nearvous in the region that they can anticipate Punic War 4. We do not create a self-fullfilling prophesy of any kind. We think of the conflict as over without any advertising that there will be new wars.

Likewise, we can think of the World Wars as happening at at time period distinct from the present day and simply group them with another name, that makes it clear they are both related into a period which makes the word justified for organization. It may also be justified to show that there really was a tight interrelation. Even that they were the same conflict with a long period in between. This new grouping word would make it so we don't keep talking of things such as World War Three. Instead, we will not want to re-use the name. We will think that the wars like the Punic Wars are just over. If thre is a new war, it would need a new name.It may even remove the idea that we should really expect that there would be a new war. 

Inductively it seems we should have such an expectation, but there is an expectation with a want in some people when there is a nujmbering that suggests that we can have a third soon.

People ask 'When will world war 3 be?" as if there is a related war that will be happening soon in the future.

It creates some fear, and some reduced comfort, thinking that there are preparations to be had, for some conflict that may never happen. People will continue to think, because of such a way of thinking about wars, taht they are at some risk whereas they may not be at any at all, and may actually ahve some success promoting peaece.



I have heard some politicians saying things about world war three and its prevention. There may be an argument that this use of terms results in a strong desire to reduce a third war of any kind, magnifying how seriously such a war would damage life, knowing what happened the first times. Or Earlier. I'm not sure this is the case, but it is possible and deserves soem further consideration.

*185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738479563, Saturday, February 01, 2025 23:59:23, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 684 seconds. 671 words. Typespeed: 58.800 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-use-of-bc-to-have-negative-dates-is-a-clear-mistake,-although-methodologically-it-may-have-been-useful-briefly-to-have-a-more-definite-reference-zero">The Use Of BC to Have Negative Dates Is a Clear Mistake, Although Methodologically It May Have Been Useful Briefly To Have A More Definite Reference Zero</a>

*185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738477955, Saturday, February 01, 2025 23:32:35, Phoenix, Arizona*

A Calendar Solved | Wanattomian Calendar

Reading tonight a book on the roman empire, I am exposed to dates again of BC. Thinking back to my writing on the Wanattomian Calendar, and my work The Calendar Solved, I noticed that this usage of a negative date is definitely in error.

If it is known that there is a clear backwards dating that is trustworthy, such that all days are traceable from ero to some earlier date, or because dates are clearly placeable on a backwards measure of days and years, there isn't a good rationale for not replacing the zero further back in time.

In other words, it would not make sense to not use the earliest BC date that is known and trusted as the new zero date.

Within the Wanattomian Calendar, this is not really an issue or of much interest. However, this offers new reasons for rejecting the methods of dating and the calendar systems that have been used recently to present. They still have obvious errors and difficulties that are not scientifically justifieable. Obviously the use of a negative dating is not consistent with the precision of the sciences and needs to be bought back to currrency.

It would also be the case that new discoveries which are becoming fewer would allow for having verifiable events at dates that are earlier than a new date chosen to be zero. I'm not sure what the candidate new zero date would be, but it would be before the current zero date by a long period, and while that date will be useful too initially, it will have to be moved backwards.

As I resume thinking about dates in the existing calendar system, I will simply ignore all BC dates and place the scale arbitrarily backwards about 5000 years. Then any date that is a BC date will simply be a newer date. This will mean that the new calendar date is not 2025, but 7025.

What is funny and humorous about thi s to me right now is that this date makes it obvious that we really have issues with dating. We know that the dates go back 4.5 billion years. But somehow, making the date even 7025 makes it seems like we've existed longer! But that is obvious.

The date of 2025 creates an absurd psychology tha I have not yet examined, but am noticing mroe clearly now. Many may have ben fooled, for quite a long time, by alternative perspectives about the age of the earth, simply because they knew the date from zero was only 2025, and couldn't imagine that there would be any period much larger than that. We are thinking in thousands of days and not millions of days. But even in the thousands of days we have not gotten int right. This is revealed by making the date 7025 for the year, but we could go further potentially and hoose an earlier date, if we wanted to. If 

It seems from these initial considerations that it is irrefutable that the dating system at present has characteristics of being primitive.

It may be that the current calendaring system is one of the more primitive technologies that humans have that they struggle to change. They seem to not want to try to change it, and I've heard no suggestions my entire life.

It seems many are convinced taht what we have is the best calendar, and that it may remain unchanged. Maybe some think it timeless. It is actually a terrible system! But the solution has international sensitivities. Scientists almost certainly would want change if they were involved in the process of making change and suggesting alternatives. While alternatives may be sugggested, I am pretty confitdent that the work in the Calend r Solved points the correct pathway for the changes to be made.

*185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738478578, Saturday, February 01, 2025 23:42:58, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 623 seconds. 634 words. Typespeed: 61.020 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-tendency-for-families-to-have-or-express-the-same-view-indicates-that-non-authoritarian-and-non-leading-family-members-cannot-be-rational">The Tendency for Families To Have Or Express The Same View Indicates that Non-Authoritarian and Non-Leading Family Members Cannot Be Rational</a>

*184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738452038, Saturday, February 01, 2025 16:20:38, Phoenix, Arizona*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

This would indicate that in any family where there is an expectation that members would follow or do what another says or recommends would have to be irrational for not expressing differences. 

I commented very early in the thoughtstream the idea that people who get married oddly come to be pairs who vote similarly and have state or express similar views and beliefs. It is expected and anticipated that families and married coupoles would have the same view. This means we expect that families will have irrational people in them, and that married couples will resemble each other to the same effect.

When we know we are meeting or seeing a married couple, we expect that the married spouses will have similar views. It would be very strange to suddenly alter that thought to expect that married couples will express differeing vies showing their individuality. This would show that they are often in disagreement and not agreement, unless the pair has an unusual similarity to one another. 

The one of the two in a married couple that moves to be like the other would have had to do so on irrational grounds, and not rational ones. In order to really show that, I'd have to demonstrate or make it clear somehow with examples that in normal culture it isn't rational persuasion that leads to similarity. But I thihnik that's easy and already I have a reason.

That reason is that we anticipate that couples will disagree and not agree, and they swap mates. Humans are interchangeable inmating. Because they are interchangeable inmating, it follows that there are a number of candidates that are ready to be paired. The full diversity of possible mates that could be wives to a man would show that there could not be agreement between those wives in peperspective, individuality, and beliefs. They vote differently from each other in the open poulation.

From this idea, that people can perform the job of husband or wife to many different other people is like admitting there is interchangeability similar to what exists in occupations. It's like thinking the hired family maid will come to believe the same things as the family. But they come from different backgrounds. The cleaning was the cause of the bond, not similar ideas and thinking. Likewise, it is known that the bond in a relationship is primarily sexual for marriage, although other matches of various kinds are typically required than sexual compatibility. This only somewhat relates to views. People tend to be agreeable when they meet, and anyone who knows about friendship knows it is easy to maintain friens by simply expressin shareing what happens to be common, while quite a lot else differs.

It seems to follow from this that all or most of those in relationships who have shifted to be more like the person who they were with were irrational in that shifting or to a very large extent.

Rational persuasin is rare and is not anticipated to be the cause. Similarity of experience, however, is a good reason why couples come to have similarities but these are unrelated to rational reasons for having certain views.

Some of these statements require qualification, but the refinement will show that they were in the correct direction. The objective going forward for this topic, as I develop it, is to refine the statements to be more truthful and to have less exceptions. Also to be more general. Because kids too are interchangeable to a large degree. A parent may have one of a million children from just one sperm dose, indicating that all million of them could have arisen. Each would have individuality. That they would have a similar view to their parents indicates irrationality.

*184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738452678, Saturday, February 01, 2025 16:31:18, Phoenix, Arizona*

*Written in 640 seconds. 622 words. Typespeed: 58.260 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="it-may-be-possible-to-utilize-a-question-set-in-conjunction-with-standard-question-words,-like-who,-what,-and-how,-to-show-that-questions-did-not-have-a-really-necessary-or-meaningful-part-of-speech">It May Be Possible To Utilize a Question Set In Conjunction With Standard Question Words, Like Who, What, and How, to Show That Questions Did Not Have a Really Necessary or Meaningful Part of Speech</a>

*184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738450130, Saturday, February 01, 2025 15:48:50, Perth, Australia*

A System of Thought | Relationships | Human Shortcomings | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic

Yesterday, as I was initially thinking of the last posting, I came to the idea that we may be overusing the question words like who what where why and how. These are those words taught to us in elementary school in a group, as we were told that each of the words should be utilized often to more fully understand topics.

For this posting there are two main interests.

The first interest, is that these words are so often used, that it may be possible to do something alternatively to make it possible to not have to be so repreptetitive. The repetition does not appear to be one that is justifiable.

Consider if instead of using each of those question words, one used two or three of them. It may be possible to use the question word hohw as a replacement for each of the others. IF it is argued that that is not the case, a strong case can be made to show that only two are needed. This means we could use two instead of five or six. But if we used two, or one, then it would be too repetitive. This could be a cause of hahving more than only one word for questions. But also, if only wone word is needed, I suspetct not even that word is needed. To understand that, read the ealier posting for context.

The other idea, mentioned aove, is that using all of the questions is a helpful way to create enough questions to momre fully understand various topics. If we pay attention to adults, they do not do this, and arguably, none have learned what was taught. It was really taughth to me, for example, in my school system, that this is what we shouoldbe doing. 

Yesterday, thinking about this, seeing that the question set is small, I realized additionally that it may be possible to have a single question set to examine most phenomena. Question sare unlike other sentences. We were told we can simply sometimes say Why, or When, to get more information, Sometimes we use short sentences too, but in the whole range of human sentences, we have a huge number of possibilities such thatf we reduced them, we would not be able to well understand, describe, and dprobe into the world for more information.

But with the questions that does not appear to e the case. Questions can be rephrased using statements. Just sayin gwhat issues might exist. 

There appear to be two competing contradicting ideas here. That one can have one question type dto do most of the work, or just five, and that this is too repetitive and that we need a soolution to that. What I'm suggesting is that we automate questioning to get away from repetition.

Right now we think when we use these five question tyypes repetitively that we are being thoughtful. More thoughtful than we are. We use the forms of questions too often however, and we are being repetitive. I suggest that this reepetition suggests a manual tasks exists that can be automated. This is how we arrive at the conclusion in business and software and elsewhere to knnow that automation is possible. We se first that sometthing is too repetitive.

So one solve to repeitio is just knowing that it is repetitive and making it automatic. But I also mentioned that sentences of other types need not have this kind of repetitiveness. Questions of course, can be built up like sentences, so in a way, this would show an avenue to arguing that really questions need not e repetitive either if they are expanded on.

I now intuit that that is still incorrect, because the question set can repetitively be used to replace all questions, or a very large amount of questions, having the utilitity that now falsely expanded statements have.Well falsely expandes questions that were made to be like sentences simply to make them longer and less repetitive seeming.

So there is no contradiction.The goal is to have even more repetition with automation knowing that it is automation, rather than doing the work, and having the gain of increasing the ability to gain good information by doing what we were taught, asking questions automatically and in a normallized way to get more information where we would normally ask only a; couple questins that spring to mind.

More on this topic soon.

Noe, this was typed in coold considtions with dcold fingers, very fumbly. This accounts for the difference in typing quality and the number of mistakes during blind typing.

*184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738450905, Saturday, February 01, 2025 16:01:45, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 775 seconds. 762 words. Typespeed: 58.980 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-view-that-the-work-of-science-or-a-problem-solving-intellectual-is-that-they-are-or-must-be-finding-the-right-questions-is-incorrect">The View That The Work of Science or A Problem Solving Intellectual is That They Are Or Must Be Finding The Right Questions Is Incorrect</a>

*184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738447407, Saturday, February 01, 2025 15:03:27, Phoenix, Arizona*

A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings

When I have a solution to a problem, I did not always work on defining a problem in advance that is well defined, and I did not often think of a question that is well defined, that is one that is better or more clear than many , most or even any alternatives, when the option chosen was already a good one (may need adjustement for clarity). 

Doing good work in intelllectual apursuits does not seem to require or work optimally with the formation of good quality questions. Some pepole, supposed experts, have suggested, and copied each others suggeestions making them again, that people ought to be seeking to form the right questions.

While I don't disagree that it is useful to recognize which questions are not particularly worthwhile for active work, or for dedicating life too, to improve time management, and that it is also worthwhile to avoid nonsensical questioning, I think that questions in general have less of a role in improvement than one might recognize.

When I am doing intellectual tasks that arrive at very beneficial rewards, andn solutions, I am not really oftentimes making questions. Some think that having a good problem statement is connected or required for achieving desirable results or finding solutions, but that does not appear to be thae case. When I say finding problem statements, I am saying something that is close to stating problem questions that require effort for finding a soolution. The phrase problem statement may even be to combat this view that there is a need to have questions. Problem statements are used in business to make sure that teams are aware of the work to be performed and are not confused as to what is to be focused on.

Problem statements do work, but are also not required oftentimes just like clear questions are not required.

When I'm thinking I may simply recognize that ther is some contradiction or other and I may quickly wand without too much trouble identify what a solution might be or what solutions might be missing. For communication purposes, I also don't think I woul dneed to rely on questions. I don't thihnk I woul dneed to refine any questions. It may be unnecessary to even think ;iin terms of problems and solutions. However, for now I'll continue to use the word solution.

If I were to communicate to someone what an issue might be, I might use the word problem, issue, situation, or other to convey what could be improved or altered. But I don't think that these words are entirely necessary. I just recognize that they do seem to bre sueful at times to communicate in a way that peopole expect that isn't too far frm what is alternative or more reasonable or better. Notice that here again it is clear seemingly that questions don't need to be a part of the conversation.

A reson why I state that the view that question refinement and finding is central, is of course that it is nort needed, but additionally, because it is infrequently utilized in the goal of discovering issues which in my case isn't a goal but a frequent and regular mental activity, that simply happens,  and if one did actually spend ones time trying to find and refine questions it may be that one doesn't have that many insights as to pbroblems, oand that one is workin gin a way that reveals that. I personally would not ant to spend time finding and refining questions. It would waste time from other activities that I do find worthwhile. Simply thinking about issues and solu;tions, and scenarios that exist with contradictions and seeing solutions to those is what I spend my time doing anyway, and if I added to this making perfect questions for others so they can understand I'd be doing something bizarre. I'd be making my own thinking less effective and less efficient.

*184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738448015, Saturday, February 01, 2025 15:13:35, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 608 seconds. 653 words. Typespeed: 64.440 words per minute.*

Typed in cold conditions with cold fingers, and with pause time to reflect, which is common.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="some-thoughts-on-the-phrase-we-the-people.-the-people-are-guilty-of-everything.-they-are-the-sum-of-crimes-and-misbehaviors-in-people">Some Thoughts on The Phrase We The People. The People Are Guilty of Everything. They Are The Sum of Crimes and Misbehaviors In People</a>

*182 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738195621, Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:07:01, Perth, Australia*

Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings

This thought has some literary qualities that definitely indicate overgeneralization and other fallacies. More than one. While that is the case, I'm leaving the idea here anyway.

When one shifts into thinking in a way that has more of a literary character it may be that one is more likely to start thinking as a marketer does too, and to state things in a  a way that might seem to be provocative or attractive to others but false."

Still I did not post this because I was thinking it was a good example only of false literary thinking. Instead, I think there is something to it of interest. While people are thinking that they must be generally good, or morally praiseworthy, they often have in mind, I think, no clear vision of people and who they really are and what their actions would consist of . They've forgotten that humanity includes the entire set of immoral actions that have happened on earth among any agents that might be thought of as morally blameworthy using an ethic that humans have adopted or think they have adopted.

Animals can be included as those with primordial moral behaviors and in group social behaviors which include etiquette and rules against certain kinds of cruelty. But thinking about it with that excluded, it would be the case taht at any wong that was done, as some might say, was done entirely by humans, and so, they and their behaviors in total include all that was bad and all that was wanted for prohibition with rules of ethics.

*182 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738195867, Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:11:07, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 246 seconds. 262 words. Typespeed: 63.900 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="pretending-people-had-souls-was-a-way-to-trick-them-into-thinking-they-were-something-equal,-without-having-anything-and-doing-no-comparisons">Pretending People Had Souls Was a Way To Trick Them Into Thinking They Were Something Equal, Without Having Anything And Doing No Comparisons</a>

*180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738098589, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 05:09:49, Perth, Australia*

Abandoning Equality | Cosmological Arguments for a Diety and Other Related Arguments Originating in Myth | Nonfictionalism

recording the thought.

*180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738098594, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 05:09:54, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="soon-even-your-money-is-only-plain-text">Soon Even Your Money is Only Plain Text</a>

*180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738092811, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 03:33:31, Perth, Australia*

Livelihood | Property and Organization

Recording the idea

*180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738092816, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 03:33:36, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="mistakes-in-the-view-that-death-is-humiliation-to-discontinue-that-thought-path-initiated-by-others">Mistakes in the View That Death Is Humiliation to Discontinue That Thought Path Initiated By Others</a>

*180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738086759, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 01:52:38, Perth, Australia*

ThoughtStream | Non-fictionalism | Humans Are Animals | Humnan Shortcomings

Recording.

*180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738086762, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 01:52:42, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 3 seconds. 1 words. Typespeed: 19.980 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="incest-or-tight-ingroup-mating-as-the-only-way-to-rapidly-or-feasibly-create-new-societies-and-to-preserve-new-traits">Incest or Tight Ingroup Mating As The Only Way to Rapidly or Feasibly Create New Societies and to Preserve New Traits</a>

*180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738086640, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 01:50:40, Perth, Australia*

Humans Are Animals | Relationships

Adding for expansion later.

*180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738086645, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 01:50:45, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 5 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 48.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="measuring-the-life-improvements-resulting-from-accomplishments-during-post-success-as-one-experiences-the-diminishing-return-of-thinking">Measuring the Life Improvements Resulting From Accomplishments During Post Success As One Experiences The Diminishing Return of Thinking</a>

*179 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737990641, Monday, January 27, 2025 23:10:41, Perth, Australia*

A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream

For more consideration soon.

*179 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737990649, Monday, January 27, 2025 23:10:49, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 8 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-influence-of-thinking-on-biology-of-the-self-and-deterministic-biology-of-that-thinking,-and-when-the-thinking-of-a-biological-system-does-not-appear-to-influence-itself">The Influence of Thinking on Biology of the Self and Deterministic Biology of That Thinking, And When The Thinking of A Biological System Does Not Appear to Influence Itself</a>

*179 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737984863, Monday, January 27, 2025 21:34:23, Perth, Australia*

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

Preparing for additional writing soon

*179 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737984871, Monday, January 27, 2025 21:34:31, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 8 seconds. 5 words. Typespeed: 37.500 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-candidate-for-mattanaw's-second-law-would-be-that-it-is-not-possible-to-think-anything-that-would-not-also-be-a-communication">A Candidate for Mattanaw's Second Law Would Be That It Is Not Possible To Think Anything That Would Not Also Be A Communication</a>

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737931410, Monday, January 27, 2025 06:43:30, Perth, Australia*

A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Com

If what we are thinking about are those thoughts which are verbal thoughts, although I do not mean only verbal thoughts but any thoughts, then those thoughts are more obviously communications or potential communications even if one does not want them to be.

Another way to talk about this topic is to consider how one's desires relate to whether a thought remains or is or isn't a communication;  of some time. Think about if you would like a communication to be or not be a communicatioin, or a thought to be or not be something that would or ocould be understood as something that would be a communication. It's simply thate case that any verbal communication would be a communication even if you did not want it to be that way or if you wanted it to be private. Another result is that it can't be only private.

Privacy is a separate topic, so of course some thoughts would never be shared. But it happens to be the case that for anyt thought that exists, it doesn't have the propertiy that it can remain or mis private. One thought it and communicated it to oneself. Having communicated it to oneself, it has been public to oneself. If stored, it may be accessible to someone else. If intercepted it is not private. If interceptable or storage retrieveable such that you would understand it, it follows that something else could understand it. I.e. it is a communication or a potential communication no matter what.

Mattanaw's Law has already been described. Mattanaw's second law has not yet been shared. I think this may be Mattanaw's second law, although I hahve to spend some time thinking about it. I do believe it to bea novel piece of information.

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737931670, Monday, January 27, 2025 06:47:50, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 260 seconds. 294 words. Typespeed: 67.800 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-any-voter-found-another-voter-who-was-going-to-vote-opposite,-they-could-simply-agree-to-not-vote,-with-the-same-outcome">If Any Voter Found Another Voter Who Was Going to Vote Opposite, They Could Simply Agree To Not Vote, With The Same Outcome</a>

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737904349, Sunday, January 26, 2025 23:12:29, Perth, Australia*

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

Now that there are mobile applications and online applications most rely on, it is possible to easily create an application that would alter the voting process. A candidate application I would suggest, is for opposing voters to be mutuallyy aware, and agree to not vote, once paired. So for example,  country that has a system in which there are two parties, a member of one party who will vote simply gets paired on the app with a member of the other party who will vote, then both agree not to vote. This is repeated until the modulus remainder is found. The remainder would be wthe winnner. Well the modulus would show who the winner is.

The objective of the system though would not be to find who the winner is. Instead, the objective of the system is to show the cancelling property of voting. The outcome really is the same, if opposing votes are canceled. People could humorously skip voting, simply knowin g that if one person of the opposing party matched with them skips too, the result is the same. This would alter the perception of vvoting and may make it possible to show that voting really is control of populations rather than looking for their input.

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737904570, Sunday, January 26, 2025 23:16:10, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 221 seconds. 208 words. Typespeed: 56.460 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="humanizing-is-a-kind-of-stupiding-process,-if-you're-smart.-it's-not-making-it-great-to-be-accurate.-it's-making-it-more-average,-less-average,-and-slightly-above-average-only.">Humanizing is a Kind of Stupiding Process, If You're Smart. It's Not Making It Great To Be Accurate. It's Making It More Average, Less Average, and Slightly Above Average Only.</a>

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737903897, Sunday, January 26, 2025 23:04:57, Perth, Australia*

Relationships

For now, I'm simply recording the idea, that to making things more human as some like to say, isn't to make it more accessible or approachabeble to all people who are human. To make it less computer like, and more human animal like, in just one way. Which human do you choose as the model? Of course humanization is to think of it or makie it more like what an average human is. This is kowing what is average, less than average and more than average. I think what is less than average plays more of a role too in this.



TTo know what is more human requires knowing maximum commonality, which Ithink m;ay take thinking to the below average domain, to find what is common to everyone minimally. 

This is about one annoying kind of statement, and to humanize can mean more than this. I'm not being very general at this time, but instead am commenting on a specific usage for which there is a more general thought, but not all those general thoughts about what humanity is or something like that. 

So to humanize something might actually be closer to make it what even more basic humans are like. As a smart person, thiis is like making it really really unlike myself.

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737904090, Sunday, January 26, 2025 23:08:10, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 193 seconds. 214 words. Typespeed: 66.480 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="zoologically,-primatologically,-families-are-indistinguishable-from-people-simply-living-together">Zoologically, Primatologically, Families are Indistinguishable From People Simply Living Together</a>

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737898899, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:41:39, Perth, Australia*

Relationships

Since families are just those people who were living together, and since governments dictated who can live together, or who ought to live together as a normal family unit, it follows they were simply artificially arranged. In some countries extended families are normal, which means grandparents and others would be part of the group which ;may be thought of as a family. Nuclear families, or families with parents an children only are the norm in some western nations. But in both kinds of nations sometimes family friends, frequent freinds, temporary fosters, extended family members, an friends form the regular context. These are families that are simply groups of other kinds of people for which the parents and children have more relations. I myself was part of another family by being a friend who was always present.

In primatology, the small group of animals together would be equivalent to the family of that naimal. Likewise this is true for tribes, to some extent. Some tribes would ntot put people into divisions as one might expect, and would group them variously and inconsistently (comparing tribes), and some might have most living communally with little privacy. 

whichever collective we are talking about, it destroys the concept of a family and I'm m certain that the idea of a family is simply unjustifiable, wherever it is thought that the family is identical simply with what a government has recommended or a single nation has adopted as a grouping method.

Understanding that humanity was the ttotal of all tribes, and that humans are primates, we must look at the whole to know what all were doing, to say what humans were doing, and what is natural to humans. We are trying to estimate how people were orgiginally when they were more like the other primates and later like now, and we need to do this thinking about what is best for peopl into the future.

What is clear is that the life of any one human would have been very different from others, ocomparing all humanity. Yet many did well with very diffferent settings for their relationships while growing.

Also, family life need not have an onset or offset, but rather be understood as a changing over the lifetime of people who are present. This is very accurate too, since it is not clear when a family ends. In a nuclear family in the west, responsibilities end at adulthood, and children typicallly leave the home, to create later new families idiotically of the same type. Without reflection. Did the family end at the time they lieft for that person who became an adult? How about for the others?

Once all the children are out of the house, have their new homes, and later have children, it is irrefutable that under the system in the united states or other western nations, that new families have comea bout and the old family was dissolved. Confusingly, there is no nuclear family relating to the earlier family but there are thoughts about the continuation of that family. Are the grandparents still family? What is their relation in the rules? Some children totally separaate. AFter a generation or two, all future nuclear families are disconnected utterly from source nuclear families as if they never existed...

Irrefutably, families have simply been goups of present people, and they have changesd as people were present or not. This if looked at closely I think eliminates the existence of the concept of a family. This is because there is nothing consistent that holds ttogether the idea of people simply coming and going without reference to anyone as the one holding it together. We have to imagine one person then has people coming and going, but we then don't know what the famioly is for the others who came and went! It then becomes simply who was present to a person and for how long. (!)

I have challenged elsewhere that a father is a real relationship, and that the mother is a relationship that is as durable as people think. Neither are lifelong in any way that is thought to be universally true. In primatology, thinking about what the original contributions weree, fatherhood can end immediately at the conceiving event . Motherhood can end, variously, near the end of breast feeding. If in a communal setting, others may take on the roles of guiding a child after this period. Thinking this topic out more fully, it becomes dubious that there is any durable contribution other than the biological one from fatehr and mother, and that later, the cultures thoughts about what a family might be as applied to people is what gives people the diea that these relationships go further. So in my view, father or mother after this biological contribution is simply a sociological construct that differs between cultures, that extends it artificially afterwards. 

Using this way of thinking, the idea of a mother at 60 years old to a child is meaningless as an ongoign relationshp understood without a governmental or larger social context.

More on this topic for sure later

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737899786, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:56:26, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 887 seconds. 849 words. Typespeed: 57.420 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="doing-many-actions-and-acting-energetically-can-only-be-a-deviation-of-behavior-which-could-invite-ambiguous-language-of-judgement">Doing Many Actions And Acting Energetically Can Only Be a Deviation of Behavior Which Could Invite Ambiguous Language of Judgement</a>

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737898043, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:27:23, Perth, Australia*

Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought

Recording for now. I noticed that the definition of hubris I just received indirectly from walter kaufman could be ambiguously used to judge behaviors that were simply highly active or intelligent. Hubris by a critic on amazon, named Steven Farron has said that hubris means in the original greek insult, violence, and/or outrageous conduct. I am not sure if these thoughts would only be about hubris or if that would be accuragte. I have noticed in relation to the earlier posting on the length of sentences, that the length of sentences is lacking even in dictionary meanings.

Outrageous behavior is something that others might think is simple behavior that is different or anomalous and that could simply include highly active behavior or behavior that is especially intelligent, without any actual analysis of that behavior to see its benefits or moral value.

I would expect that people who know little about the full meanings of words in many sentences, would be willing to call various actions that are unusual but good potentially hubristical or outrageous, because they don't know what these words mean, and that they know they can suppress action or harm others by making such claims.

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737898298, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:31:38, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 255 seconds. 197 words. Typespeed: 46.320 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-rule-for-utilizing-or-disusing-information-from-others-including-the-rejection-or-request-for-new-information-immediately-for-quotes,-sayings,-maxims,-recommendations,-and-so-on,-that-are-only-phrases-or-short-sentences">A Rule for Utilizing or Disusing Information From Others Including the Rejection or Request for New Information Immediately For Quotes, Sayings, Maxims, Recommendations, And So On, That Are Only Phrases or Short Sentences</a>

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737897078, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:11:18, Perth, Australia*

ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts

The objective of this posting is consistent with what I said earlier many times regarding my desire to think in relation to complex ideas and thoughts of greater significance expressible in paragraphs and sets of sentences and not simple ideas expressed in simple statements.

The use of simple sentences and statements for moral guidance is to be avoided for many reasons too numerous to repeat.

The shortcoming of the short sentence and statement worth expressing again and again is that a short sentence simple communicates too little with too much that is questionable regarding actual meaning. Elaboration is required. More sentences together provide teh gclarity and greater expression of the idea. And of course, many new paragraphs is also better than sentences.

This creates a proper estimation of the size of ideas and their required number of expressions for better communication.

Some ideas will have book sized amounts of informatin for full elaboration. Some will require les. Most can have a few pages to provide good clarity and direction, and summary. Abstracts are written for even short ideas but abstracts are paragraphs leading into long papers and articles more fully talking about those ideas. Academic papers are then expected examples of this idea about using more writing to say more about ideas for which some use only simple sentences.

More information elsewhere.

The sentence recommendation from others is to be rejected and replaced with sentences instead, of that sentence has any viabiliity. Additional information is asked for. Quality of mind is discovered with inability to provide more. High quality of mind is discovered with subsequent ability to provoide a lot that is meaningful and significant and ideative. The consistent and logical set of true sentences replacing short sentences is what is desired.

What is recommended here is a rule or heuristic of replacing and rejecting sentences that are thought to be guiding of behavior with more words. These sentences could in the future be understood to stand for as symbols larger collections fo inforamtion. But for now sentences that involve recommendations or imperatives are not used this way. They are used as if there is nothing else remaining that exists for the guidance.

Since these sentences are historically understood to exist in isolation without additional information it is already known that they are not accompanied by more elaboration. They are known to be short sentences only that are recalled easily without any recollection of explanations or clarifying information. People are limproverished relying on these sentences. These sentences clash with other sentences that are alternative recommendations. Worse still, culturally, one offers what it offers, while the other offers what it offers, and they would not agree. What exists in chinese here iss not what exists in English, for example. The result is clash of people using poor and minimal thinking. This leads to clashing sentences and definitely clashing minds. The clashing of sentences are thoughts and clashing minds that willl result from this will reject cultures from elsewhere and potentially want warfare. This is likely one contributing cause to warfare over the course of history.

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737897614, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:20:14, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 536 seconds. 514 words. Typespeed: 57.480 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="it's-not-clear-to-me-that-the-locus-of-commonality-is-species-level-which-is-supposedly-human,-and-not-a-lower-level-or-higher-level-of-primate">It's Not Clear to Me That The Locus Of Commonality Is Species Level Which is Supposedly Human, and Not A Lower Level or Higher Level of Primate</a>

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737857422, Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:10:22, Perth, Australia*

Humans are Animals | Abandoning Equality

Recording the diea.

*178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737857428, Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:10:28, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 6 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-life-with-a-solid-initial-plan,-versus-one-that-has-a-reactionary-course,-versus-one-with-a-reactionary-course-greatly-inferior-to-one-with-a-solid-initial-plan,-versus-planning-civilizations">A Life With A Solid Initial Plan, Versus One That Has a Reactionary Course, Versus One With a Reactionary Course Greatly Inferior To One With a Solid Initial Plan, Versus Planning Civilizations</a>

*177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737817400, Saturday, January 25, 2025 23:03:20, Perth, Australia*

Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic

Simply recording the idea for now.

*177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737817407, Saturday, January 25, 2025 23:03:27, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 7 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 51.420 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="value-of-actions-in-life-increase-if-there-is-fallback-value,-which-is-the-value-to-the-self-apart-from-any-benefits-to-anyone-or-anything-else">Value of Actions In Life Increase If There Is Fallback Value, Which is the Value to The Self Apart From Any Benefits to Anyone or Anything Else</a>

*177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737816366, Saturday, January 25, 2025 22:46:06, Perth, Australia*

ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts

Only reording for now for expansion later.

*177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737816376, Saturday, January 25, 2025 22:46:16, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 10 seconds. 7 words. Typespeed: 42.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="reactionary-local-solving-versus-planning-in-the-course-of-history,-versus-ideal-planned-pathways.-planning-civilization-well-in-advance-versus-knowing-it-was-incorrect-in-retrospect.">Reactionary Local Solving Versus Planning In The Course of History, Versus Ideal Planned Pathways. Planning Civilization Well In Advance Versus Knowing It Was Incorrect In Retrospect.</a>

*177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737815990, Saturday, January 25, 2025 22:39:50, Perth, Australia*

Human Shortcomings

Only recording the idea for now.

*177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737815999, Saturday, January 25, 2025 22:39:59, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 9 seconds. 7 words. Typespeed: 46.620 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="thinking-clearly,-accurately,-and-masterfully-about-subject-matter-does-not-require-subjection-and-containment-into-an-accepted-jargon-or-pc-universe-of-discourse.-instead-it-requires-and-is-exhibited-with-a-multilinguistic-approach-which-includes-a-number-of-methods-of-explanation-and-questioning">Thinking Clearly, Accurately, and Masterfully About Subject Matter Does Not Require Subjection And Containment Into An Accepted Jargon or PC Universe of Discourse. Instead It Requires and Is Exhibited With a Multilinguistic Approach Which Includes A Number of Methods of Explanation and Questioning</a>

*176 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737749998, Saturday, January 25, 2025 04:19:58, Perth, Australia*

A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality

Thinking about a topic very clearly involves the abilitity to navigate alternative ways of explaining and questioniing. A person who is masterful at a subject, acan with dexterity and agility jump from one manner of communicating to the next, from one mode of expression to another. Elsewhere, I have described the approach to academics that includes exposition in a; more comprehensive multimedia communication. Writings are thought in this context to require or benefit from other additional means of expression that explain simililarly, but in different ways, using art, ffilm, video, images, music, verbal audio expression, sculputre, literary forms, and so on. 

A person who is able to explain the same points using a wide range of ways of expressing will have a power of truth that is more obvious than others. If one can say in only one way what one means, it could be that one fails when explaining otherwise. The other ways of expressing are tests. But for the person who is masterful and adept, jumping from one way of explaining to another just confirms to the listener and others that the person truly has the power over the subject matter required. This means they have understood the relation between some important truths and life. 

Simply jumbling a bunch of media together does not achieve this. RAther, and obvious synthesis of material that has properties of truthful concilience would better exhibit truth. Yet there are still shortc;omings in that people can still be confused by what they are witnesseing.

Although this is better, quantity can be used to baffle some.

But this post is more about language. In some subjects, such as feminism, thinkers appear to have been locked up in a special jargon and pc culture in which certain ways of speaking were more usual and were new. Much was untested. New ways of expression were emerging. There was some pressure to use this mode of expression. This resembles LGBTQ culture, where there is now a kind of required way of speaking about the subject. Outsiders not obeying to use these rules are rejected.

However, one who is more masterful does not have a problem leaping from one way of conversing to another to communicate effectively truths from differin g angles. 

Movements like fiminism and LGBTQ over time lose interest and power, because they try to limit expression. They have achievements along the way. Their way of expressing views taht is new and constrained will eventually be rejected however. 

Today, Feminism feels stifled. Like it's history was an incorrect start, and a wrong direction at speaking. In my study of feminism whcih was not long, I was very put offf by the required language. It appeared "experts" lived in a strange way of discussing. Feminism had a strange discourse that looked dead already.

*176 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737750498, Saturday, January 25, 2025 04:28:18, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 500 seconds. 466 words. Typespeed: 55.920 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="heuristical-thinking-of-the-supposedly-prejudiced,-and-those-using-stereotypes,-and-those-using-rules-of-thumb-may-greatly-outvalue-correctors-of-the-thinking-who-share-counterexamples,-wanting-more-precision-and-maybe-not-using-the-heuristics">Heuristical Thinking of The Supposedly Prejudiced, and Those Using Stereotypes, and Those Using Rules of Thumb May Greatly Outvalue Correctors of the Thinking Who Share Counterexamples, Wanting More Precision And Maybe Not Using the Heuristics</a>

*173 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737478795, Wednesday, January 22, 2025 00:59:55, Perth, Australia*

A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings

Only recording this idea for now.

*173 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737478802, Wednesday, January 22, 2025 01:00:02, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 7 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 51.420 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="reducing-impact-of-social-elicitations-by-recognizing-uniform-moral-inferiority-and-creating-a-demarcation,-and-combining-with-automatic-monging">Reducing Impact of Social Elicitations By Recognizing Uniform Moral Inferiority and Creating a Demarcation, and Combining with Automatic Monging</a>

*172 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737385333, Monday, January 20, 2025 23:02:13, Perth, Australia*

Relationships | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration

A task I am still working on involves the reduction of the effections of what I've called social elicitations, which are social related thoughts that come to mind unwantedly or in too many different contexts pervasively, that alter the thinking to be too much about other people, to modified by other peopole, and too much about the social expectations of other pepople. 

The objective is tho reduce the influence of other people on thinking, even when in their presence.

Tonight, as I think of this, what is more in mind is how they effect you when they suddenly enter your presence when before that you were alone.

What I am wanting is for them to have little influence at any time; but, I want my higher order attention related processes to quickly and immediately calculate any actions that ought to take place in relation to the person or pepople that became present. But I don't want to spend time thinking abou thtem.

A way to think abou tthis, is if you are enjoying yourself at a park, and then a risky individual approaches. Instead of being perturbed by this person, or worried, or felt put at risk, you quickly and automatically simply departed and found a  new location to resume, as if the person didn't exist, but done that way because they became present and the attentional process knew what to do.

In that scenario, no risk was felt, social elicitation hasd little effect, and one was willing to slimply change locations without a concern. There was minimal impact by the other person  even if there was a need to change location. The change of location was something of unconcern as if it could be at any time that one would even voluntarily change location for other resons.

But beyond this, is the larger topic of still being subject to social elicitations where thinking seems to be about moral topics in which others would have some say or judgement. Sometimes we think about, and modify our behavior on the basis of, what we think are the moral expectations of other people. This means that there is some understanding that the existence of external pseudomoralism of other people has influence on behavior even when they are not present. That sentence was not the best sentence, but is somewhat close to what I'm wanting to say: somehow the social pseudomorality and expectation set that we are aware of operates on our thinking even when we do not want it to, and even when we are not aware of it. The more aware we are, the less we want it potentially.

This objective that I'm speaking about is to use the automatic higher order attention process to deal with people, like the dangerous person who arrived at the park, with changes in behavior that are not of concern and may be helpful in other ways. Meannwhile, one is not haveing *any kind of social elicitation* that relates to expectations of others.

Some might think if they were justified for moving, for prejudging the other person, for thinking bad about their intentions, and for assuming things about them. Maybe they didn't need to move, and could stay.

These are foolish thoughts in my estimation.  The transition from one environment to another need not even matter. If it does not matter, then any reason can prompt it. If there is something that looks like a threat, but isn't, the risk can prompt it. But it can be prompted simply by a sudden desire to do it. 

Social elicitations and expectations relate to pseudomorality that one is aware of about such sitaution san d nohow others would judge them. That is entirely eliminated in this scenario and wisely. 

But there is an issue, in that one cannot simply devellop to this stage of ability without learning how to be that way along the way. I am like this somewhat now, but I am writing this because social elicitations and sudden presence of others s *does* have too much an effect on me. These do relate to general social elicitations.

The objective I thought of is to work towards recognizing that all social elicitations relate to an inferior common expectation based pseudo-morality, which is based simply on a history of the populations exposure to judgements of tohers, of whatever origin they might have. These fit into patterns. Even if people are not aware of the patterns, their brains have statistically come to expect various reactions that are often incorrect, sometimes correct, but are actually representative of freal reactions people do have.

It may be the total set of reatctions as they relate in any way to what is being experienced.

Reespect is given to these reactions, thinking that behaving well, and in  a way others expect, results in good judgements and better situations.

However, on much advancement this is found to be a cause of prolonged self-subjection to social eleicitations in the nervous system that are not useful.

If one has identified that the social expectations are really a poor pseudomorality that was not systematically defined or developed and is self-contradictory and irrational, and sometimes insane, it is understood that there is tgood cause to eliminate social elicitations that result from it.

In my case, I happen to have a superior morality. My morality and way of behaving already is good. It need not have any further input from others, Input that does not related and is unnecessary still comes up, as people become present. The knowledge that their morality is inferiority can be used to finally create a judgement in total to have a demarcation between self and other.

I am wanting this to put an end to the influence of social elicitations and to eliminate their arising. They are too unuseful. 

The way to do this is to recognize that uniformly social elicitations are unhelpful and are added irritations and do not contribute to improvement of conditions. They stem from an inferior pseudomorality of the population. Since unifmly this is the case, a hard boundary can be created in which it is absolutely rejected, with some ability to detect special circumstances or exceptional cases.

Practice should lead to the automatic type of behavior I mentioned above about the people in the park. I already do this kind of reaction and behavior, but not always. So Iknow what to do. I just have to expand on that.

Additionally, is the practice of monging. Monging is the bot like responsing to people who are forced to be interacted with. This reduces any interest in them that may create in the brain social elicitations about them. Atomatic relations with thhem then does not result in additional thinking. There is a start and an end. 

Since this monging is a process that is used when actually interacting with people and not merely imagining interactions, it is a training to finally eradicate social elicitations. ITalking people is the way to finally eliminate additional unwanted thinking that comes along with the interactions. One practices canceling social elicitations during those interactions, until there are none.

Once there are none in real interactions, it is known there will be less in situations in which it is only imagination. People are imagining how to interact with others because they really do interact with them, and want to consider other ways of doing so.

This is the attempt to not care any longer about various ways of doing so. That has been overed. Since covered, it has the side effect that is unwanted still of thinking of alternative ways when there is no need. This i sneedless social elicitation.

The goal then is to make it obvious to the brain that it is not needed with masterful bot like interactions on all interactions with other people, excepting those that are wanted in which more attention is desired. In my case, training comes first now, so all interactions must trend towards bot like treatment. Once my brain undrestands that the automatic and learned and matured handling of situations with people is masterful and results in good results over and over, additional imagination about options will become more obviously needless.

This I anticipate will cancel social elicitations and any thought about possible judgement o f others and any social elicitations.

*172 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737386571, Monday, January 20, 2025 23:22:51, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 1238 seconds. 1383 words. Typespeed: 67.020 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-i-were-to-have-sex-with-a-women,-or-move-towards-having-sex,-my-actions-would-not-resemble-formal-dancing-behaviors.-those-behaviors-are-false,-while-pornographic-behaviors-seem-less-so.">If I were to have sex with a women, or move towards having sex, my actions would not resemble formal dancing behaviors. Those behaviors are false, while pornographic behaviors seem less so.</a>

*168 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737018165, Thursday, January 16, 2025 17:02:45, Perth, Australia*

Human Shorcomings | Natural Unarbitrary Behavior

An additional thought to go along with the recent posting, but on a topic of its own.

*168 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737018179, Thursday, January 16, 2025 17:02:59, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 14 seconds. 17 words. Typespeed: 72.840 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-artificiality-of-dancing-with-another-person.-dancing-alone,-modern-dancing-of-individuals,-versus-dancing-between-men-and-women">The Artificiality of Dancing With Another Person. Dancing Alone, Modern Dancing of Individuals, Versus Dancing Between Men And Women</a>

*168 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737017845, Thursday, January 16, 2025 16:57:25, Perth, Australia*

Human Shortcomings

Dancing between a man in a woman, in a formal way, has a great artificiality abou tit. It is abnormal from my perspective, and forced, by decisions of some past people, who decided that dancers would be paired, and that men and women would be paired, and thtat they would touch hands, look at each other, and do this and that with a false togetherness.

Dancing alone or near someone seems natural. Dancing ina formal way, with a woman, appears to be a eauropean historical strangeness or oddity. You will look at each other and hold hands, you will hug with one arm, pressing the other arm straignht out, holding hands, you will twirl, etc... None of these appear to be what I would ever want to naturally do with a female.

Dancing is all movement I would not want to naturally do with a female!

For those that think it *is* something that they would naturally do with a fema, you can guess that they were probably raised in a context that valued dance.



Hisspanics may have tihs point confused.

*168 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737018009, Thursday, January 16, 2025 17:00:09, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 164 seconds. 181 words. Typespeed: 66.180 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="once-many-of-the-problems-discussed-by-philosophers-over-eons-are-seen-as-linguistic-issues,-relating-to-problems-of-language-and-communication,-respect-for-much-philosophy-is-lessened">Once Many of The Problems Discussed By Philosophers Over Eons Are Seen As Linguistic Issues, Relating to Problems of Language and Communication, Respect for Much Philosophy is Lessened</a>

*164 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736673952, Sunday, January 12, 2025 17:25:52, Perth, Australia*

Human Shortcomings

Rreading Camus, his book The Myth of Sysiphus, I am finding again and again issues in his verbal reasoning, which relate to common issues of language, that result in paradoxes that are not real paradoxes (are there?), that prolong useless disputation.

Once his pattern of writing and thinking becomes more clear, it seems true he is stuck in  a group of mistakes that together botch his thinking and create in him an interest in problems that are illusory only. Much of philosophy actually is only this. 

I enjjoy philosophy greatly myself, so am not complaining that all of philosophy is not worth effort. That is definitely not the case. Some of the best and most valuable thinking that makes life enjoyable is philosophical thinking. I will need to define that in detail later, and not here, and quickly because I do not want to rewrite or write again another intro do philosophy. But philosophy uses language. That language runs into conceptual contradictions, which are unreal oftentimes. Treated as real, and sometimes as very important, or fundamentally important, much time is thought about it. Much time is used to think about them. But this time is not justified if the issue is illusory and only relates to what I would say are elementary linguistic mistakes!

Philosophy over the centuries as quibbles relating to elementary linguistic mistakes? Yes, that happens to be the case and is true.

The work of Camus is not much worth it. He is fun to read, but as one reads, one sees one is not learnin gmuch. One is seeing many errors, and that is if by one I mean me. But maybe you too if you read it like I do.

A favorite problem of philosophy that is all linguistic is the ontological prolem. It has existed for centuries and is discussed and argued about in much the same way, as if so much time in philosophy is simply introductory philosophy about these problems still. It wastes time. The problems are unseen. They are thought to be real and not only linguistic. But they are linguistic in origin.

When one sees the elementary errors then suddenly the argumentation to date has been an embarassment and seeing the list of those who were involved, the the culture itself is someewhat faulted. These are the leaders of this area of thought. This domain of important use of mind! But they are merely perpetuating silly errors. Once corrected, the entire area of thought is to be blotted away. Like when kids are disagreeing on something, discover they are in errors that are basic, and leave those errors and the problem for childhood without returning. 

Much of philosophy has to be simply ended, but they cannot see how to end it and keep making the same mistakes, lead into discussion my leading discussions, like leading qustions, started by someone in the wrong way, and continued by others in the wrong ways, so that it is wrong for years and years. Those smart enough to see the actual issues would not be heard because they are too few and their thinking wouldn't fit into the conversation. Their complaints would amount more to conclusding that such conversations are not worth it.

How many legal trials have activities that do not relate to justic?

A smart lawyer or a smart member from the public, may not be able to side track that train from continuing on irrelevantly, incorrectly, unjustly, and with the wrong goals. Philosophy is very much like that. Even the idea that there is a Western and EAstern philosophy is disgusting. But athat persists and they can't stop.

What would be the way to get them to stop?

It wouldn't even be argumentation which is something that faults philsophy and science too.

*164 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736674543, Sunday, January 12, 2025 17:35:43, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 591 seconds. 631 words. Typespeed: 64.020 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="earth-cannot-produce-more-species-humans-approve-of-for-coexisting-equally">Earth Cannot Produce More Species Humans Approve Of For Coexisting Equally</a>

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736328685, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 17:31:25, Perth, Australia*

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals

Humans think that there are things like "rights" to live, to have a pathway to live happily, to have resources for comfort and so on, and this amounts to having the rights to survive and continue well. Also, the way they think of rights, they imagine that people "hvae" these things equally. An implication is that among humans, they think that there is an equality athat relates to survival and well-being, that the earth is not really doing anything to ensure taht there is a fundamental inequality on this point, and that instead, humans equally can persist. 

When Biologists insist that there is a "survival of the fittest" or at least some relationship between adaptive traits and ability to survive, they are telling you there is not an equality, but there is an expected difference between all animals regarding how well they would be able to live, and continue living. Would they flourish or not. Or would they live diseased and almost certain to die early. Biologiests assuem there is very great diversity on this point and that there is no equality regarding it. But then the same biologists forget they are biologists when they become political thinkers.

When they become political thinkers, they think all have qual rights to live. But of course, if there is on earth an assured difference relating to survival, there could be no right to live and no quality regarding living. It would be different.

Moreover, the rights presume to have such a power which is absurd.

Humans don't really think of themsevles as equal to each other, and those who have good traits definitely think that those who do not have them, firstly don't have them, and secondly that if they don't have them that they are less regarding that. Loigically they fail though, and overgeneralize, and think themselves globallly superior. But really there are people who are globally superior to the others. And the inferiours know they are inferior but oftentimes reject it in delusion. The most infereior of all knows it is inferior.

Humans remain consistent in pretending however that there is human equality and tha all humans have equal value. Thus earth has created a species that is very uniform in value, and that each member of that species is equal. But Humans do not think the same about animals, and have not included them. They've disincluded all of them. There ffore it seems that humans have not approved of animals to think of them as beings that could coexist as creations of earth which could coexist equally. 

Many humans like that there are naimals. They want them near, wouldn't want them to not exist, and probably many would not awnt to live in a world with most animals extinct. It would be strange to have no birds and fish around, no insencts, and only humans, with a few other species out of view, for food. Obviously, there are limites to how much such a condition could exist because there is codependency between animals for ecosystems to survive, and so there is some small number of plants animals and insects that need to exist, but that set is small. Some will say that every animal has its place in securing the well being of an ecosystem. But in the beginning

there was only one first organism.

It follows that really most are not reqlly necessary and that easily a small number of animals and plants could exist imaking it possible for most others to be extinct.

In any case, there are many more superfluous animals existing than people recognize. And we enjoy this greatly depending.

But humans do not see themselves as being akin to animals and even at this time stupidly think they are not animals. Animals are rejects. They do not have equality iwith people for existence.

The earth does not appear to be able to produce other animals that are not humans that humans would find pleasing or pleasing enough to make equals under the false equality that exists under written rights.

Notice though that survival and conditions don't favor humans really.

Earth does not favor humans for all time. Instead it favors other animals in other ways, and this is why they exist and are specially adapted for their contidions in their part of th world wher ethey live outside of the view of people, or within their view too. Teh ocean is full of animals that humans find to be unworthy of equal status, but these animals live easily and more easily than people do.

Some ocieanic animals may have great immunity from disaster.Whereas humans might be easily eradicated.

Some have stated this in thinking the cockroadch or other small organism as being better adapted and more likely to live into the future.

Humans have not been endowed better than these organisms for survival, but oddly humans within their group think there has been equal treatment by the earth. Outside of it the earth has perhaps had better treatment to certain bugs than of humans.

Humans have seemed to agree that the earth cannot make anything worth being equal for coexistence with them though. Tehy think each and every animal to be less, even wehile celebrating their involvement in the entertainment that nature provides. Nature provides beautiful entertainment, but that entertain ment can change with extinction, and it can change with largescale alterations. The human doesn't care much about that. This is because they think animals amazing briefly before returning to thinking them mostlly unequal or at least not worthy of the same consideration, and they return to apathy and indifference towards them. They make sure to not believe they are nimals with them but are separate objects that rare more of what earth wanted to produce.

Is there a way to determine what earth has wanted to produce?

Thinking less anthropomorphically to recall that the earth is not a person with motives and objectives, we can still think, what quantifiable preference does it seems to have materialistically for the production of one species or another, and what does it seem to want to preserve? Would humans be on the list of what it wants to make and preserve most?

Most is unlikely. It did make humans so there is clearly a measure about some level of making of humans. But it does not appear to want to make it the most or most ofen or for the longest period, or even for its own preservation.

What does the earth want of its own preservation apart from human thinkers maybe blending humans with the crust.

I have not yet agreed entirely that humans are not simply part of the crust of the arth. Moving crust.

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736329765, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 17:49:25, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 1080 seconds. 1120 words. Typespeed: 62.220 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="earth-as-producing-lower-quality-beings-adapted-to-it,-by-bio-physical-natural-forces-that-require-balance">Earth As Producing Lower Quality Beings Adapted To It, By Bio-Physical Natural Forces That Require Balance</a>

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736327374, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 17:09:34, Perth, Australia*

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | ThoughtStream

Since the earth has had its long history under various conditions that are radically different from each other, it follows that the life that would exist and live under those conditions would vary; it also follows that, because there were differences in the earth from time to time over the billions of years, that som eperiods had strengths and weaknesses that were different from the other peiords. This would translate to different plant and animal species that would be qualitatively different. Prefered or not. Stronger and weaker in different ways.

So what was the age of animals that could not enjoy life? Was there any such age? Was there periods in which life was not nearly as worth it as other periods and which period was optimal?

To think that, living on an earth that is as old as it is, for such a peshort period, that we *must have lived in the most optimal period* that would create the entities that have the strengths and weaknesses that would m;ake life most desirable is plainly false. This is a suboptimal period. We know this probabilistically that it simply cannot be the most optimal period if taken by random. If we chose in 1000 year chunks, then there would be a one in 4.5 million chance that a particular chunk of 1000 years is an optimal period for earth. And it could be that the most optimal period was when there was nno life on it. It could also be when the life was simple. Or it could be in the distant future, man thousands of years from now, when what exists on earth has only a minor resemblance to us. Those things live an optimal life.

Not only that, are we going to assume, because we love ourselves and think ourselves protagonist objects on earth, tahat not only is our time the best of all times for earth and what it made, but that all animals durin gour tiem are the best animals. It also follows that with the quanity of types of life on earth that much of what exists is suboptimal. And that some life forms are better than others in strengths and weaknesses which calculateddifferent for HDI, or quality of life. Even the humans vary on HDI, so of course the animals do too.

Which are nthos e animals that the earth had intricately designed to be the worst to be? What are those that are adapted to be in balance with it, to be those lives that are not worth living?

Notice also the earth has things which are living in harmony with it that it has forced to be adapted to its current conditions, resulting in a wide array of diverse animals that humans would prefer to never be. Humans have tried to create a gulf between themselves and animals, amking animals low, and unrelated. They even say they are not animals and could not be. They are different. To be animals, would make them too low. They then would be a part of the nightmare life that the animals live.

It follows from this that Humans think that the earth requires of its objects adaptations that result in lives that are poor quality lives. The billions of animal lives are all not worthwhile. See how big a contrast this is, from thinking that this time on earth must be optimal?

And if it is not optimal for all animals, it seems to follow it isn't optimal for any of them. Otherwise, what would be the probability o fhaving the greatst animal that could live, living now, at this time, among all these animals that live lives that are not worth it? 4.5 million other thousand year chunks are candidates for being better times with better animal adaptations to earth. This one is the best, and we are the only thing on it that are best?

It also seems from this, that even if we were to persist in claiming that humans are as amazing as we pretend they are, that the EArth is a creator of poor lifeforms except when it is a human. CAn athers not see then, tha the earth is not any beautiful thihng as much as people think it is. It has some beauty to go along with its unbeauty, and the unbeauty is great, and even dominant in the comparison. That what it forces are animal objects in harmonious balance through adaptations to its conditions and that those things are suboptimal living lives not worth living, as judged by only one species of billions that has only existed a sliver of the time? It follows from this that the EArth is a horror!

And some will claim that its detail and its precision of harmony and adaptation isa  reason to think it beautiful in ad amazing! What a contradiction! And there are none who are smart enough to resolve this contradiction. Instead they persist in believing tboth things without any effort. To me this is an indicator that they are among the animal fools of the world. Livign contradictions  suboptimal, in lies, taht can;'t evluate, but think themselves the greatest. They have done no computation sor thinking about it. Notice whatthey do is receive the ideas from tradition and then say them again. And so in response to this article I'd expect

to hear what grandpa might say. Any mind saying what he would say would simply be a kind of unthinking repeater of what was stated earlier unthinkingly. It states that it is great but it cannot think. It can only have from before and say again.

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736328178, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 17:22:58, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 804 seconds. 939 words. Typespeed: 70.020 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-a-plan-for-life-did-not-include-plans-for-discontinuation-under-certain-circumstances,-then-it-was-not-a-plan-for-life-and-would-be-eschewed-with-natural-continuity-again-simply-forcing-life-along-as-before">If A Plan For Life Did Not Include Plans For Discontinuation Under Certain Circumstances, Then It Was Not a Plan For Life and Would Be Eschewed With Natural Continuity Again Simply Forcing Life Along As Before</a>

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736325387, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:36:27, Perth, Australia*

Another Ethic | Constraint and Determinism | Humans Are Animals

This seemed an important addition and restatement to the writing in the last posting. The plan for life would also include a plan for when life is worthwhile, which would be sbe included in the plans for who should not have children, and when parents should not have more, and when there should be a waiting fto have children rather than having them at that time. These decisions decide what will not come to exist, in favor of what will come later, from others, or under differing conditions. This implies there are conditions in which children should not be had, and not only those conditions when they should be had.

If thre weren't rules or conditions known in which life is not worth producing then the plan would actually not really be a plan for life, but something else simply going along with the forced continuity of life. If conditions are not suitable, life ought not continue. If all life were pain and suffering and horrors, then it is simply rational to discontinue.Life is anticipated to have some troubles along the way, but it is wanted most, and most justified, when it has the least of any problem sand the most ennjoyment possible.

From this we can see also that there are animals in life that perhaps should not exist, because they simply face too mcuh suffering  and pain and can anticipate that for any new member of the species there will simply be more pain and suffering. Humans unfortuantely cause this, but sometimes the earth itself causes it. So the plan for life also leads to the identification of which lives are not worth it and that may include species as wholes within the animal kingdom.

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736325639, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:40:39, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 252 seconds. 287 words. Typespeed: 68.280 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="life-has-had-no-justification-for-humans-or-any-animal">Life Has Had No Justification For Humans Or Any Animal</a>

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736324182, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:16:22, Perth, Australia*

Another Ethic | Constraint and Determinism | Humans Are Animals

An assumption that fits with this view is that there could not have been anything that did not live or has not been living or alive that could have created a plan. If there is a plan, it was detailed in mind, and if it was a human plan, it was not detailed enough, most likely, given how people think and their level of sophistication, and that if it was a plan it was in writing and was more developed. A plan is too simple unless it has some sophistication justifying that it could be called a plan.

That someone uses the word plan is part of their claim that there was a rational basis, and unless there was some sophistication, and consistency, it wawould not be rational the way it is intended in trying to persuade others. To have that level of plannedness and preparation it was in writing.

So something was alive oto have a plan, and if that plan was good it wen tinto writing, or that plan was from soemthing or someone that was smart enough to hold it in mind with a high level of sophistication and consideration that would allow for easy recording onto paper without too much alteration.  So even if it was not yet on paper, the ease of including it on paper in a clear way is required. Soem reference to communicability is implied. If one thought they had a good plan, then failed to write it imediately without too much changing or time for editing, then it turns out their plan was not really a good one else there would not be such a struggle. The struggle was to arrive at a plan later after editing. This meanss it was not yet good in the mind.

That there was not anything or anyone who would plan in this way for human life in primordial nature is certain. This implies that we know for certain that there has not been any plan for human life. Not only that, no person has it in their mind. Not only that nobody has such a written plan in their possession. Those who claim that they have knowledge of suhch a plan could not with ease put it into writing, that shows and reflects the systematic organization and rationality that it would need to be a plan for all animals or all people. From this we know there is no such plan in memory or in circulation among human beings.

No such plan has existed.

Combine this with the fact that humans are the result of sexual desire only, and it become sclear that planning is not how life results. Instead, it is sexual desire. That it was sexual desire all this time and not planning of any parents that resulted in lives that have no prurpose whatsoever makes it evident that humans have never had any plan at all for life. And what ever plan that would arise, is an afterhtought about what to do given there has not yet been a plan but theat there might be some way to have a plan for what comes next.

The plans for what would come next for new children and for sexual behavior to have new children, and for future life, would be in minds, and would be in writing, and would be rationally included in thinking about what to do next, and would comprise a new justification for life given there has not been a jutification earlier. Without this, what is being done is just continuing with a pretend plan.

Continuity is easy for animals. They were born from sexualiity. They exist. Continuing along is what they do. The are pressed along by nature. Living another day is not hard, it will occur; it is the easiest to continue, to keep living. There is no animal that struggles to continue. They struggle with pain and suffering sometimes, but even continuing through that is not a difficult thing because they have no option but to continue. If someone has a severe disease, the ease of continuing in pain is the issue eventually, and then there is the decision to finally end it, which comes with some hardness of planning and of execution. So the continuing is easy. 

Life just continues on without a plan, and if we created a plan, the plan would have to justify the continuity and not merely go along with it. If it just went along with it, then it is not really doning what it states it is doing, supplying the reasons for ocontinuing. Intead, it keeps going on in the same way itw as forced to do before, without a plan, but asome writing and thinking has merely been added to give some guise of having a plan when that plan really has not justified continuiing but will continue nevertheless or regardless of any plan.

The plan has then become superfluous as it is realized that without the plan one would not opt to discontinue an dthat instead one will continue whatever plan one has. 

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736324839, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:27:19, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 657 seconds. 846 words. Typespeed: 77.220 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="when-to,-and-when-to-not,-receive-messages-from-outside-your-head,-or-to-converse-with-others-who-are-not-you">When To, and When To Not, Receive Messages From Outside Your Head, Or To Converse With Others Who Are Not You</a>

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736323578, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:06:18, Perth, Australia*

ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Relationships | Com

Recording the idea now for elaboration potentially later.

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736323589, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:06:29, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 11 seconds. 8 words. Typespeed: 43.620 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="levels-of-relevance-of-supposedly-relevant-statemetns-and-communications">Levels of Relevance of Supposedly Relevant Statemetns and Communications</a>

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736322407, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 15:46:47, Perth, Australia*

ThoughtStream | Relationships | Com

It is questionable that relevant statements and rcommunications are relevant ain any provable funamental way, apart from some fulfillment of some relevance criteria that may be written that do in fact relate to what might connect one topic with another.

It is unclear if for any statement, even if it is one that is needed, wanted, seemingly related, meets various relevance criteria, and so on, are really statements that could not simply be ignored on other grounds of irrelevance. For example timeliness could not be appropriate. Manner of delivery could add information which would fail additional relevance criteria that has been unstated and so on. 

When a statement is made to another person, there is some assumption that there is a conversation underway and that there is bidirectional communication. That a communication or set of messages from another person may connect to the topic in various ways is insufficient for coming to an agreement that the conversation should  proceed. Is relevance somehow related at this deeper level to the justification for an initiation of conversation? 

If someone says something to yoyu, and it is relevant to a current or recent thought, happening, topic of interest, want, or need, what kind of relevance is needed in order to agree, if one is able to deliberate upon whether or not to commence the conversation, that the conversation can continue? 

Not seeing at this moment all of the motivations for thinking further about this idea, I think there is some relationship between fundamental non-relevance and the option to ignore any incoming message that might come from someone else no matter how related it might seem to be. It may be because, also, the message is one of a set o fmessages taht are also candidates for the conversation, for listening, and for further communication. 

For example, one person says something to you that feels relevant, but another person says something relevant that has very different ramifications and implications. Then another person says something that is relevant, then a machine inundates you with all the poossible relevant statemetns that coudl be made that tie to known needs, wants, and so on that relate to the current topic. Which of those topicommunication sare those that out to initiate the continuity of the conversation? When should one initiate the oconversation?

How relevant? Relevant in what way? Which relevance? Which can one simply ignore, and which can sbe considered. Which are rational to overlook, and which must be heard? Which messages must be heeded for one to be a rational person? Can one simply iignore messages that are reational too because of other grounds?

It shoudl be a somewhat simple problem to solve but at this moment I do not yet see a solution to what would establish a fundamental relevance to any incoming statement. It seems I can have reasonable grounds for ignoring any statement as untimely or undesirable. I can prefer silence for long periods even immediately following some thoughts. Why admit some thoughts should be incoming and received? Why assume some interaction should transpire?

If a message comes in, I think we are likely to simply observe it, react to it, and potentially respond to it. It is rare to not respond or totally ignore someon ewho accosts you. If someone approaches, unexpectedly, still yoyu will likely conisder and respond wto what they say.

If you are thinking thoughts, and the messsages that come next are relevant and come from within your own brain and you receive them, should you sometimes admit their irrelevance and be willing to remain in silence?  What if the message comes from your own mind. For those who are not yet determinists, when these messsages are reeived, who has sent them? In my estimation, the brain initiates them, and they are reeived, but there is only limited inovolvement in their production. So really they are reeived largely. How does the thinking of messages from inside the mind relate to the receiveing of unwanted messages from outside? They are both outside of control? What is relevant of subsequent thoughts?

I think there is some confounding of unrelated terms of relevance but that this problem is soluble. There will have to be some difvision of types of relevance and probably the switching fo some terms to others that aren't stricely about relevance, so there isn't any discssion too much about differeing kinds of relevance and different levels of relevance.

More on this topic soon.

*160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736323199, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 15:59:59, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 792 seconds. 743 words. Typespeed: 56.280 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="dinosaur-fossils-outliving-interest-in-unchanging-museums,-and-archiving-things-forever">Dinosaur Fossils Outliving Interest in Unchanging Museums, And Archiving Things Forever</a>

*159 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736236438, Tuesday, January 07, 2025 15:53:58, Perth, Australia*

Archiving | ThoughtStream | Living Autobiography | History

Just now I realized, that dinosaurs don't have the interest in them they used to have. For a period of maybe sixty years, dinosaurs were very interesting. They were placed in exhibits in museums and for a long time this drew attention from many young people an dparents wanting to be involved in education about them. They were in media iand entertainment for a period, with some inetense interest perhaps in the 80s and 90s. But it appears to me that this interest has waned. There is less desire to know about dinosaurs.

It could be that the museum exhibits have aged, adn thoat those people who are still alive, who saw those exhibits while young, and those who were repeatedly subject to media and entertainment's sustained interest in dinosaurs simply got bored for them. Perhaps some greatly dislike the prospect of thinking more about dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs and fossils are in stasis. There doesn't appear to be much more that can be learneda bout them or from them. To see the subject again is to be reintroduced to what one has already learned, with minor alternations. Museum exhibits are unchanging, and ther is a pathetic aspect to those exhibits. Hw long do those exhibits remain as they are? What is to change about the unchanging fossils being presented? Are they to be kept forever and archived like other artistic pieces and texts in libraries, with no date in mind to dispose of them?

What is it about ofssils that stays interesting, over time across generations, particularly given they never change, and well, if we keep the fossils as they are, and keep them as long as they might be preserved, it may be as long as they have existed already or millions of years. Are they going to be on exhibit as is for millions of years. I wouldn't expect that, but what does this mean exactly? Works of text are kept in museum without any plans to dispose of them, or to replace them with new texts. Museum exhibits of dinosaur's may not need to ever change, and if they are to be preserved, do they need to stay where they are, or be placed in another location, in a; similar arrangement? This would mean these arrangements of fossils will really be ensdlessly kept without any plan for wwhat the costs might be.

Additionally, if dinosaur bones keep being found, this will create an archival issue. Do they eventually become worthless like petrified wood, or do we simply try to find ways to preserve these bones in unchanging ways still considering them to be of high value. 

There i smuch that is interesting in this topic. More on this topic for sure later.

*159 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736236840, Tuesday, January 07, 2025 16:00:40, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 402 seconds. 454 words. Typespeed: 67.740 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="ineffibilities-and-sillinesses-and-creaturinesses-that-bring-the-smart-and-less-intelligent-together-nonartificially,-and-animals-too">Ineffibilities and Sillinesses and Creaturinesses that Bring the Smart and Less Intelligent Together Nonartificially, and Animals Too</a>

*159 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736227253, Tuesday, January 07, 2025 13:20:53, Perth, Australia*

ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention | A System of Thought | Abandoning Equality

People aer not equal to each other, and animals are unequal too, bu tthere are experiences that are common that really bring all together, or many.

*159 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736227278, Tuesday, January 07, 2025 13:21:18, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 25 seconds. 26 words. Typespeed: 62.400 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-simple-way-to-show-that-people,-humans,-do-not-learn-well,-is-to-try-to-teach-something-new-and-important,-and-see-it-does-not-spread,-but-it-must-spread-if-learned,-because-they-are-social">A Simple Way to Show That People, Humans, Do Not Learn Well, Is to Try To Teach Something New And Important, and See It Does Not Spread, But It Must Spread If Learned, Because They are Social</a>

*152 Wanattomians, Epoch 1735670810, Wednesday, January 01, 2025 02:46:50, Perth, Australia*

Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Education | Human Shortcomings

In software any manual task that is replaced with a scripted or programmatic execution of the same task is an automation. Many of the things you do on a computer can be easily automated with a script. For example, if you need to rename one thousand images to a new name type, you can do so easily with a script, which is just a small program. This is one kind of simple automation, but there are many other types, and some of those types are atutomations that people would not recognize as such.

We are aware that humans are extremely talkative. If they have something interesting to share and discuss, including something newly learned, they cannot stop themselves from talking about it. Talking about it, it spreads.

If something is learned by someone and is really learned, such that it is believed, and its truth is acknowledged, then it will be communicated to another person. The person who has the new knowledge would struggle to not share it.

Now, if they talked abou tthat neew learning to someone else, and that other person learned well, then that would be taken, acknowledged as true, and then that person would struggle to not share it with others. They would readily share it with others and even if it were a secret they would still share it.

But here we know that there is a point at wich the sharing ends. It seems to realte, not to the propensity to share or not, but the propensity to learn. Anything that is learned will eventually be discussed by ap erson with someone else, and if theother learned it, they too would share it. Sharing it isn't the issue, it's the learning of it.

Additionally, one might say, that something may not have sufficient interest. But there are many itneresting important facts about the world that are taught but apparently are not learned. If people were able to learn, there is an implication too that they would have the interest. People do like to hear about new information, that may be useful to htem, and there are plenty of interesting and useful things to learn about. People would be spreading these pieces of informatin but they are not.

Since learning and interest are combined in the act and propensity to learn, I simply combine them. If someon e fails to learn, sometimes it is because they have some lack of interst. If they have a deficiency in interest they can't learn it. If something is not relevant enough to a person, they will resist learning it too. But in the things to be learned tnere is quite enough that is relevant, so there would be a tremendous amount of sharing even if peopl eare often not finding lots of information relevant enought to learn.

It seems from this that it would be easy to produce a rigorous argument that people simply are not learning well. This is partly intelligence related. People can't understand what they hear and can't comprehend and can't well extract usable inforamtion from the world and recognize the relevance. For example, they can't easily learn math, recognize the releveance, and then talk about it with others! But that's not for lack of social ability, it's for lack of learning ability.

Those who learn do share! It appears people are not really learning much. This appears to explain much that stagnant in the world.

*152 Wanattomians, Epoch 1735671243, Wednesday, January 01, 2025 02:54:03, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 433 seconds. 571 words. Typespeed: 79.080 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="recorded-music-and-writings-as-automations">Recorded Music and Writings as Automations</a>

Archiving | Living Autobiography | Artificial Intelligence | Moral Technology

*147 Wanattomians, Epoch 1735190236, Thursday, December 26, 2024 13:17:16, Perth, Australia*

In software any manual task that is replaced with a scripted or programmatic execution of the same task is an automation. Many of the things you do on a computer can be easily automated with a script. For example, if you need to rename one thousand images to a new name type, you can do so easily with a script, which is just a small program. This is one kind of simple automation, but there are many other types, and some of those types are atutomations that people would not recognize as such.

Here is another potential automation that is of interest to me currently. Suppose you wanted to write a book for others to be used for self-help, on some subject that you have considerable experience with. Imagine there is a tool that scans your brain, and writes the book for you, and then the book is print, and distributed to book stores. Such an automatation certainly does not exist but would be interesting–if we had this, we would have books distributed from minds without any need to write!

Although this does not yet exist, though, a portion of this automation does. It's this. After you write the book yourself, and store it on a computer, and print it, the recorded document is repeatedly available for 1) copy, and 2) presentation to readers. Both of these are not insignificant. Once you've written it, it can be made into many books; and once you've written it, it is "said" to readers again and again, who only need to open it and see the contents. Readers nearly effortlessly begin to see and hear words from the pages which have come from the mind just once. At the time of reading, there is nobody saying anything! When you read a book, you are not reading or hearing from any author who is speaking to you. Instead, what they said or write is presented again and again to anyone who begins reading. This is an automation of presentation to people, and it would exist even if only a single book were circulated. Since it is copied, there is a simple automation of recreation of the same contents. Between the two of these automations, it is easy to make many books that can be presented to many people. In the entire process of printing, disseminating, and reading books, the author has never said anything again from what is in the text. The author doesn't need to be living. This automation is very powerful as something that someone has said before death can be read many hundreds of years later by minds "hearing the voice of the speaker" in the text, with the automatic presentation of the text.

This is not something I think many have appreciated. Books really do provide powerful automations.

Relatedly, music is an automation. One could, if one were a skilled musician or singer, choose to sing on each and ever occasion that others would want to hear one's music. But this would not be lucrative very likely, or as effective, as selling copies of recordings. The origin of records in the phonograph had motives such as this, to create automations for 1) copying, and 2) playback, so that the music could be played and replayed without one having to be there for the performances. This also makes it possible to earn more money, by selling a product that provides others copies of your music for easy listing without your having to be there. So now we listen to copies of music on the radio, streaming on the internet, and via digital files like mp3s, or some other copy type like compact disk, as often as we like without having performers follow us around. An emperor, in ancient history, may have had music on demand in the form of actual people commanded to perform. Nowadays everyone is like an emperor but does not have enslaved performers to follow them around or sing and dance on demand.

One somewhat repulsive aspect of this process, though, is that unlike the emperor who had live music as often as desired, everyone has dead music: music that isn't performed by anyone, or is too old, simply repeated over and over, listened to as if someone is performing. Once this is noticed, books and music can seem eerie. You can read and hear someone speak, but nobody is writing or speaking to you. This can create various illusions of relationship with an author. You can listen to music, forgetting that the singer at the time of recording was 17 years old, but is now 67, without any semblance of who they were before. Yet you might imagine a young and youthful person singing as if they are living currently as such.

Much automated work may create this feeling if one is observant in similar ways to how we're now observing the experience of listening to recorded music or reading already print books. Work performed by computers replacing work of people, and work of robots also replacing the movements and acts of humans, are doing something in a sort of dead way. Of course they are not "dead" this is only an illustration (and I think the illustration has some risks, but lazily I'll use it for now). In the future we could have cars and other consumer goods built without almost anyone's involvement. Perhaps we'll have complex devices that almost spring from the earth, if we imagine that all the mining, energy collection, creation of devices for energy collection, robotics, and the like do everything needed whatsoever without any human involvement. At that time, it will seem as though the earth produces consumer products of complexity without any support from any animal at all, although initially, to get it going, humans were required. Later it may be that humans are no longer required at all for it to continue.

The initial motivation for this posting was not on this topic though. I wanted to talk about how I noticed that music appears to be a form of automation. People want to have automations, or products to sell, so that they don't need to work as hard, spread their work to more people, and so they can potentially earn a much larger amoujnt of money. Musical recordings, thought of this way, can seem very lazy. Some recordings are not of the greatest quality, but are played many times and earn very large mounts of money. The people who made this music were smart in that they recorded it, whic created copy and playback automation. But the amount of work put into it could have been very low and sometimes it was. We think if something was on the radio, it must mean that the artists involved spent a lot of time on it. But I don't think that happens to be the case. I think instead it is likely little time is spent on much of it, with more time being spent on some only. Once created, there is a large marketing effort and productization effort trying to make what has been recorded attractive for buyers and listeners. A small amount of work has resulted in a recording automation that is very powerful, and if others were to do the same, there is a greatly expanded likelihood of having good earnings from the automation, although the marketing and distribution is now difficult, which is why I said above that there is now more effort on that than the recording potentially. If an artist independently recorded some music, they may find that their job is more in marketing than it was in their artistry. The recording may have taken little time to produce, while selling it and finding buyers may have taken substantially more time.

I think there will likely be other interesting insights relating to this topic that simple recordings happen to be automations. It should expand on what people think programming happens to be.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="incest-as-required-for-the-presentation-of-certain-traits">Incest As Required For The Presentation of Certain Traits</a>

*143 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734849834, Sunday, December 22, 2024 14:43:54, Perth, Australia*

Humans Are Animals | Anthropology | History | Primordial Ethics

It could be, that the origins of white complexion arose actually within Africa, even among those who were very dark. I know little about the actual lineage of genes associated with skin pigment, but I also think that the origins of the pale skin pigment are unknown. Where precisely did the first white person arise? Would more than one pwhite person have arisen at the same time for non-incestual relations to have perpetuated the trait?

Thinking about this now, I imagine the "Out of Africa" Hypothesis could still be true for whites even if whitenss was produced even while still in Africa, with no whites at all living in Europe. The way in which that would have been created, I imagine, could be genetic mutation, followed by incesuous activity. A single male behaving incestuously with his female offspring could create a small breed of whites that would perpetuate even within Africa.

Writing this I am not thinking that this is seriously how it ocurred; rather it is a thought expaericment. How could it happen? What are the ways in which new traits could arise and survive? It seems to me that if there is a single mutation event of an interesting trait, it could be required that incest is what perpetuates it, for certain traits.

*143 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734850082, Sunday, December 22, 2024 14:48:02, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 248 seconds. 215 words. Typespeed: 51.960 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-experience-of-beauty-as-a-symptom-of-stagnation-two">The Experience of Beauty As A Symptom of Stagnation, Two</a>

*143 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734840550, Sunday, December 22, 2024 12:09:10, Perth, Australia*

Continuing on with the prior posting, we can resume by developing on the idea that beautiful experiences become too repetitive, that once learned can be re-experienced until overexposure, and that parents of children can't themselves feel the same as their children do when they enjoy new learnings, and that we don't think they should. Upon this we will introduce that the experience of beauty is a sign of stagnation, but only at the time a certain amount of exposure to the stimulus has occurred. It works like this: if one first learns something, one enjoys it, finds it beautiful, and enjoys it. If one experiences it some number of times, it retains its beauty, and sometimes it the enjoyment heightens, and in that case, beauty is not a sign of stagnation necessarily, although one may wonder about the quality of the time management involved if something else isn't being learned instead. Then, soon after this, if the person is still experiencing the same stimulus, one can easily argue something is amiss with the person's time management and they are experiencing a stagnation related to an experience they had that was beautful and certainly cannot be as beautiful any longer. Soon there is overexposure, and the desire for that same beautiful thing is now simply stagnation.

Frequency of experience of a beautiful thing is related to the extent in which the experience of beauty is a stagnator. I think there is a consistent pattern, and it is this. Beauty is justifiable a driver of wanting more beauty early in the learning period, but is quickly unjustifiable afterwards as it leads to repetition. Consider someone who loves Disney movies. After being introduced to some Disney movie, there may be some joy associated with some animations, songs, and storytelling experienced. There is some justifiable experience of beauty. (I'm using this as an example because Disney provides a rich history of overindulgence in their films). But one thwarts the overall learning and experience of diverse beautiful things if one is repeatedly seeking the *same beautiful thing* at nearly any level of frequency after a handful of exposures. After the first few exposures then, all subsequent exposures, which may be many, are indicators of stagnation. If a movie is watched three times, the beautiful experiences associated with it are related to learning, but if a movie is watched more than three times, the learning quantity has diminished greatly, and the experiences are more related to stagnation in my estimation because there is very little reward that isn't related more to habit and compulsion, and perhaps re-invocation of certain pleasing brain states related to the first few exposures. Then after some number of experiences later, is positive overstimulation where the beauty isn't present although it may be pretended it is. If a person is watching the same Disney movie after some hundreds of times, after some number of decades, and is still claiming there is beauty, I think it is a sign of pathology. People who overly enjoy some form of entertainment for too long almost certainly has something wrong with them requiring correction. The object of the entertainment does not have the same level of beauty in relation to a pathalogical watcher and actually is more a part of a kind of horror film of experience than something beautiful.

This is an indicator that even things which are thought to be beautiful are not that in themselves. It is relative whether or not a particular "beautiful thing" is beautiful or not. There are other arguments from other areas of inquiry related to aesthetics that would indicate the same happens to be true.

To reiterate, the frequency distribution of exposures to stimuli relating to learning, where there is something supposedly beautfiul experienced will show a pattern in which the beauty appears to be genuine in the experience early, less genuine later, absent later, or the opposite after too long or viewed from another perspective. The quantity in the distribution would show that *most* experiences of beauty, in those cases where it is repeatedly "enjoyed" a large number times, are signs of stagnation rather than beneficial progress. From this we can expect potentially, we may find, that supposedly beautiful objects are really more objects of stagnation than beauty, with little beautiful experienced about them. Consider the painting the "Mona Lisa". Some may have found this painting beautiful initially, some others not, but I expect that all are tired of this painting after a short time. Later in life, it is clear and obvious that "Mona Lisa" is a largescale cultural stagnation and potentially a major obstacle to experiencing other kinds of beauty, learning about other painting. It is mentioned too often, too often shown, discussed, recalled, and so on, such that for all who have experienced it, all are experiencing it at the point in their distribution of experience relating to the painting stagnated experience. This is the bulk of all experience related to the painting. Thus individually and *collectively* the Mona Lisa is actually a stagnation that lacks or has little or no beauty or the opposite. It depends entirely on new viewings of people who have not seen it, who are capabable of seeing it as beautiful, for it to have any beauty at all, and it is assured that later, because of the way people are exposed to it, that it will have no beauty for these people either.

If we go through the list of all famous beautiful things, it will be found that all are overexposed later in relation to these things because people are too often exposed to them over the course of their lives. This includes scenic landscapes. A park I used to find quite nice, called Arches National Park in Utah, in the United States, fits this pattern. Now when I think of it, there is some beauty, but being too often exposed to the sights of this park, which are finite and shared often, I am slowly seeing that i'm growing a distaste for it. There are musical pieces too that I need not hear again, because they have been played too repetitively for too long, even though I recall liking them extremely before. Some music from the group U2 was very pleasing to me in the 1980s, but nowadays, it's a form of torture and I want to immediately have it shut off when it turns on. Music might provide the very best set of examples of this phenomena because the songs are played far too often on the radio, and some songs have been played repeatedly for decades. Some U2 songs were overplayed for more than thirty years. I think there may be some pathology to listening to stations that have played the same songs for decades, even though that pathology may be national, or cause one to question the meaning of pathology for being normal. It may be there is a problem with the species that people listen to the same songs so many times!

There is also another sense in which beauty calls to mind "stagnation", and that's where we look for developments in views about aesthetics. Beautiful things, experiences, and the like, are the subject matter of the entire topic, and those objects, works of art, pieces of composed music, and so on, are again and again, the subjects of the discussion. The topic of Aesthetics is "locked"; it is stuck caring about "beautiful things", as though there were a finality about their beauty already. They are taken to be the timeless objects of attention for the subject matter to progress using; but this to me is a form of repulsive stagnation now that it is clear and obvious to me that the subject matter of the study of aesthetics cannot even include what would remain aesthetic and more often than not would have diminished beauty, or would be something to not be interested in at all! A work of aesthetics on the beauty of poetry then can pass over to the study of why poetry is uninteresting and horrendous after a period of excess exposure! That is a humorously different perspective than thinking that somehow philosophically one would arrive at a finality as to why some particular poem is forever beautiful!

There is also stagnation in how people *talk about beauty and aesthetics*. There are few words. When one talks about beauty and aestheticall pleasing things, one uses those words too often. There is little depth. The experience of beauty is so poorly articulated. The articulation becomes too repetitive. Suddenly after a short time trying to write about the subject, one feels like a grandmother who's been exclaiming with false enthusiasm that this and that are awe inspiring and amazaing and spectacular and beautiful until there is no meaning. And one gets that feeling thinking about such aged men and women pretending to be rexperiencing beautiful things using the same hyperbolic words again and again, that they are false people. They are killing the experiences of beauty by acting like everything is more magnificent than is reasonable, and with such a frequency that any talk about beauty calls their falsity to mind.

Here I think we can move on, since it should be clear how the experience of "beauty" is more likely to be an experience of stagnation, and now we can talk about the possible benefits of moving away from the objective of trying to "collect or hold onto" beautiful things as an excessively important component in life plans. People who think they have life figured out often are collectors of beautiful experiences, such that they become overexposed to their their collections, which would result actually in a horror relating to those things they said were beautiful enough to collect. Some may live in museums of horror at home after spending enough time with their beautiful artifacts and relics.

What is lost when beauty is not taken so seriously as to make life a collection of it? Consider this. How do you feel about silence? Sometimes, being meditative, or being in bed in quiet, doing little, having nothing in particular to think about, and being unstimulated, is amazing. Some might try to tell you that is beautiful, and that is another way that the word is repugnant, it is simply used for every experience that is enjoyed by some. The absence of stimulation is "beautiful" really? Think about how different that is, than actually beautiful things. Imagine beautiful animals, plants, flowers, and human bodies and faces. These are all things you see, that are objects that stimulate the mind. They have characteristics of softness, hardness, colorfulness, symmetry, elegance of design and function, and so on. These are objects of beauty, and are characteristic of normal and accurate use of the word. Then we have someone tell us that nothingness is beautiful too. Constantly people are confounding terms such that words appear meaningless and ambiguities build until rational conversation with good results is not possible. Darkness and quiet are non-beauty. Beauty does not apply. They are enjoyable though.

Now what if there are long pauses between experiences of beauty? Well, if they are filled with meditative periods, plenty of rest, and calmness and comfort, then the beauty doesn't seem as necessary. There's a "beauty fixation" problem I think too. A conversation about beauty can easily become about how to make everything beautiful, but that is unnecessary, probably undesirable, and as I said above, could become a horror story of life in a museum, looking at the same supposedly amazing things over and over. It appears that life is more enjoyable if it is admitted that stagnation is a part of this subject matter, particularly because it seems that that is avoided. When I imagine guides providing tours of historical locations in Europe, in places like Greece and Rome, I imagine they skip over the irritating part of European life of having to see the same architecture and sights endlessly without any way to change any of it! What is terrible about living in such a place and being stuck there? Learning something new must be so much more desirable, and there must be a very great want of progress and change, and something new from the past that is perhaps better, more interesting, and filled with broad modern intellect, rather than ignorant and antiquated mindsets. Some old architecture, art, and sculputre, is attached to unlearned culture, with little imagination, much imitation, and too much that is false within religion. How repeitive is religion? How beatiful is it too, or has religion conveniently spaced things out to make it palatable again and again. Think of Christmas, and if anyone could deal with that if it were much longer in the year than it is. Suddenly, when Christmas begins, there is interest in art and classical again, and then afterwards it wanes. But what if you tried to maintain that year round? Religion has within its methods a preservation of excess repetition using the same objects of beauty. As long as they are not presented too often, and it is spaced out enough, many will think those same things are beautiful. But to some, including very smart people, those things can become horrors. I am already well-acquainted with all of the arts of Christmas, and being 43 years old, was exposed 43 times to the holidays already, and exposed a large number of times to each thing during the holidays too. Songs like Ave Maria, for example, were experienced a thousand times already. These are dead and horrendous artworks to me now.

The idea that things are beautiful creates an immunity to further observation that reveals learning what is not beatiful or what one should be critical about. Beauty is used to create an authoritarianism. It creates a stronger requirement that one should agree, when one says that they think something happens to have beauty. Like if you say otherwise, you can ruin the experience. Beauty can create an authoritarianism in that anyone who expresses that something is beautiful must be protected at that time from developing an alterantive attitude. This implies there cannot be a progress upon what is thought already to be beautiful, if it is still being expressed as beautiful, because that mindset is something to be preserved. This again indicates stagnation.

It appears a much better arrangement is simply to admit that with exposure beautiful things become less so, and that this is useful and a natural part of the learning process. Being such a normal development, beauty then is not something to protect, and not something to simply forcibly preserve. Learning being as important as it is, calls for having a greater quantity of new aesthetic experiences rather than reliving old ones. This means that older ones really do need to be ignored while new ones are experienced instead. Learning a lot has always been considered highly desirable and I think that happens to be the case, and in order to do that, one would want less repetition with what one has already been exposed to. Individually and collectively. People accross cultures do benefit from learning about nice things that have existed, but so as to not overstimulate with these things, and to create new learning opportunities, new culture needs to be shared. This new culture needs to include new learnings. Some of this culture needs to be more widely distributed and disseminated mainstream, whereas the rest of it can be made easily accessible to those who look. Libraries do a good job of providing plenty of new culture in a way that is self-service, and when I think of libraries, I don't typically imagine community libraries providing books that are too easy to read, including works of trivial and useless fiction. Instead, I'm thinking of huge national and university libraries. Obviously some smaller libraries are of good quality, but many offer very poor reading material with a poor selection. 

This topic is large and includes subjects like travel too. If one wants to have a better life, it is helpful to travel more and not less. People who are overexposed to what is beautiful that is local will eventually detest their surroundings and will have learned very little. Traveling more to see more that is new to learn and experience more beauty will create more beautiful moments and will better preserve those that existed earlier.

Also important in the arragement is to avoid becoming a "magnificence talker", like someone from Britain who keeps saying "Brilliant" ten thousand times about all things. "Amazing", "Beautiful", "Spectacular", "BRILLIANT!". Someone who screams it.

After all of this writing, my main points I was wanting to develop have not been communicated or worked out. I wanted to say more about what is nice about the experience of losing the beauty in things and positively thinking of them outside of that perspective altogether. Thinking about things as if there isn't any beauty. Thinking about things as if there isn't any beauty isn't saying that one should negate beauty from one's life, but that one should go beyond that perspective to one that's more advanced that is inclusive of it but does not stop there. It goes beyond the stagnation that exists with such a worldview and proceeds to think further about things in the absence of any beauties, and potentially with aspects that initially seem opposed to beauty. Criticality of subjects that show what is really repulsive (apart from being fun sometimes), can also go on to wider more interesting insights and understandings about the true operations of things, and while there are parts that may be undesirable from some perspectives, in addition to things that could be considered nice or beautiful to others, what is learned about *reality* conveys more complete and whole truths that seems to make the knowing mind more superior than it was beforehand. Already people are called naive if they think things too positive, and those who "see it both ways" thinking they know more about the realities, think themselve to have the superior and mature mindsets, that are more advanced in development and less novice. Naivete is connected with being a beginner. It appears to me a more advanced mindset is across an obstacle that is created by aesthetics and excess clinging to beauty. Seeing that beauty is significantly a sign of stagnation is important for becoming aware that such an obstacle exists. Really it's a huge set of related obstacles. Their relatedness can be used to strategically overcome them to become more knowledgeable and honest instead.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-experience-of-beauty-as-a-symptom-of-stagnation">The Experience of Beauty As A Symptom of Stagnation</a>

*142 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734765301, Saturday, December 21, 2024 15:15:01, Perth, Australia*

By the title of this article, the reader may think that the author does not hold the belief that beautiful experiences are not among the more desirable of life experiences. This is not the case, and the author has spend a considerable amount of his life looking for new and exciting novelties and forms of stimulation to increase the amount of beautiful experiences that can be had in a lifetime, and he will continue to do so. It is a part of his life design to frequently change locations, climates, environments, and so on, to see new sights, and experience beautiful things that he has never seen before.

This isn't something that I think is too unusual; instead, it might be one of the few universal things people have in common despite the huge variety of differences of belief they have.

As I write this, I am thinking to myself I'd like the writing to be more beautiful than it is; and there are definite faults with that. That is a tangential observation, related, but insufficiently relevant to continue for now. I may write about that more in the near future. In any case, beautiful writing and speach are both things widely valued across various cultures, and may be safely considered universal with few exceptions.

I now confess that I've had an intuition that likely contradicts this universal worldview, favoring going beyond thinking of things as beautiful to move onto new more mature perspectives, that are more valuable than those that related to the simple desire to increase and hold onto experiences of beauty and amazement.

One simple observation is that beauty is lost after a time once one has had sufficient exposure to something learned. If one learns about classical music, one may find it especially aesthetically pleasing as one experiences the best of what has been created, at the time that one is learning about it and experiencing it for the first time. Personally, I found Bach's music to be very rewarding. After many times listening to his works, though, the beauty has largely vanished. It's well learned, excessively familiar, and hearing it makes me wonder about the sheer repetition that exists in the dissemination of classical music over the radio and on television and elsewhere. Enough Bach! One can learn to hate something one once loved after too much repetition. That should provide the reader one reason why I stated that the more mature perspective seems to be one of advancement past beauty and not of trying to hold onto it. Maturization is learning, and well where does learning naturally lead? It leads to boredom with something, and if taken too far, disgust with what was enjoyed before. 

I am aware of, and somewhat advocate for, the method of reducing the frequency of experiencing beautiful things of the same type too many times, in order to ensure that later there will be some beauty remaining in what is experienced. This way beautiful works of art, pieces of music, films, television shows, people, and so on will still evoke the joy and love that existed before. This way it is not eradicated entirely and can be experienced afresh. I've used this particularly to ensure that pieces of music I really like remain enjoyable still later. Musical pieces, since short, are easy to kill the interest for. Artistic works can be seen quickly too! Almost too fast! What is some artistic work you like? What if you looked at it a few thousand times? At what point does it fail to provide the same level of beauty in experience? The works of Van Gogh to me are much less interesting now, because I've seen them far too often. Additionally, I can't really see them as anything magnificent, comparing them to other works, and thinking about what potential works could be created by new artists.

There is also the destruction of the beauty of art itself by too frequently showing only the works of old masters! What vicious anger and hatred must exist about art amongst those artist who have grown older, but are still modern and contemporary, and have superior skill, but are never exhibited widely by comparison!

If old people are asked, many may comment that the art that they can think of from old masters, and miscellaneous works of classical, may have been over experienced. If they are thoughtful about it.

Sexual experience gets old. I would argue it gets so old it becomes stupid. Additionally, a few other learnings diminish the interest in sexuality, while before those learnings are had, sexuality is especially motivating and enjoyable. When one is youngest one's sexuality is most pleasant. When one is first experiencing one's sexuality that is when sex is really actually amazing, and this is part of the beautiful self-learnings about one's body and the bodies operations. One does not know about orgasms without some experience! That learning is very pleasant, but that learning diminishes over time in value, and ultimately after a very long period, sexuality has little beauty, and in many ways, it resembles a foolish and unplanned uncrontrolled sexual act that can result without reasonable rationales in children, or can simply result in diseases. Much more needs to be said about that, and the traditionally minded reader may with bigotry reject such a perspective, not knowing there is much more to it, more than a traditionally minded type thinker can think and perhaps understand.  

I don't think it would be difficult to write a very compelling argument grounded firmly in neuroscience and psychology that learning simply results in disinterest over time, and a desire to move to something new and interesting. The new and interesting things satisfy the craving for beauty. As long as there is sufficient learning that really is novel, and important enough, new beauty will be experienced that will perhaps be enough to satisfy those who wish to cram it into their life as I have tried to do.

A parent cannot experience the same beauty and surprise and interest and amazement their kids experience when the learn somethign new; they know *that* they did find those things amazing before, and that they do still retain some recognition of that beauty, that more trace now than it was. It may be that one remembers only that one really liked something, and one cannot experience the joy about it at all any longer! Probably parents who teach their kids these things can see immediately that what their kids are experiencing in their enjoyment is something they really cannot not re-experience at all.

While teaching, parents have to fake excitement. The faking of the excitement directs the attention of the children to something in such a way that they expect to have some amazement, and when it follows, they have benefited from the cue. Through that they really discovered something new that they will remember and will want to think about again and again. 

Repetition of what was considered beautiful is wanted early, but then the repetition is wanted less later. Repetition can be something that is not bothersome at all; it can be something taht illustrates the extreme enjoyment obtained. It is not cared that it is repetition. The word "repetition" does not carry with it anything negative, *only* positive. But later that repetition is wanted less, until repetition *does* have within its meaning something negative. Repetition eventually becomes what some consider a nightmare state, or a torture.

It appears to me the nervous system in its growth and development is novelty seeking in attention and perception, is exceptionally happy when it finds something it likes and tends to dwell on what it likes, but then continues the scanning for novelties in order to find other things of interest for learning. This is so widely important and significant it really dictates much of human life and any plans for happiness one might have. Impoverished nations get less of this, and wealthy nations more; but wealthy nations struggle in keeping people happy and satisfied when this is stagnated in other ways, and it is stagnated much more than people realize it is. Those in the gifted population would be more aware, because these people really run out. I have run out!

What is life like, when there is no more interesting learning? When art is not any good because it has been too repetitive. When reading is bad, because ideas are not novel enough, and there are too many clichés? All life becomes tasteless and bland. Food itself becomes a bore. "I've eaten all the cuisines available of the various cultures years ago, and I continue to eat it, but now, it seems nothing new remains. There are no new fruits, vegetables, or flavor combinations that can shock and elevate. Instead everthing feels a the same as what was had, and the tastes are not lively any longer. Can I taste it the same way? Have my taste buds vanished? Are there no more chemical reactions, that can please the plain tastebuds, and olfactory receptors, which are many in number, but few in kind? Are they really so few in kind? Sugar again?"

*More soon, focusing on what comes after beauty in the stages of maturization.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="it-seems-more-likely-that-it-will-be-known-that-a-girl-might-be-pretty-as-an-adult-while-young-unless-transformed-too-much-in-adolescence,-versus-with-men,-since-the-appearance-of-men-is-more-likely-to-be-more-desirable-if-they-change-more">It Seems More Likely That It Will Be Known That A Girl Might Be Pretty As an Adult While Young Unless Transformed Too Much in Adolescence, Versus With Men, Since The Appearance of Men Is More Likely to be More Desirable IF They Change More</a>

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734336317, Monday, December 16, 2024 16:05:17, Perth, Australia*

Sexuality

Recording for expansion later.

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734336326, Monday, December 16, 2024 16:05:26, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 9 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 26.640 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="females-are-more-likely-to-have-the-appearances-of-their-adult-faces-as-young-children,-whereas-men-are-much-less-likely,-creating-an-issue-relating-to-sexual-paraphilias-for-men-towards-younger-women-but-less-so-the-other-direction">Females Are More Likely To Have the Appearances of Their Adult Faces As Young Children, Whereas Men Are Much Less Likely, Creating An Issue Relating To Sexual Paraphilias For Men Towards Younger Women But Less So The Other Direction</a>

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734336161, Monday, December 16, 2024 16:02:41, Perth, Australia*

Sexuality

Recording for expansion later

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734336168, Monday, December 16, 2024 16:02:48, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 7 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 34.260 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="masturbation-is-one-way-people-are-domesticated-sexually">Masturbation is One Way People are Domesticated Sexually</a>

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335482, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:51:22, Perth, Australia*

Sexuality | Relationships

Recording for Expansion Later

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335490, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:51:30, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 8 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="intro-reels:-the-12-year-old-federal-convict-prostitute-who-became-british-without-ever-going-to-britain">Intro Reels: The 12 Year Old Federal Convict Prostitute Who Became British Without Ever Going to Britain</a>

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335416, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:50:16, Perth, Australia*

Short Stories | Intro Reel Screenplays

Just recording the idea now for later

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335424, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:50:24, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 8 seconds. 7 words. Typespeed: 52.500 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="i'm-human-brand">I'm Human Brand</a>

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335038, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:43:58, Perth, Australia*

Humans Are Animals | Constraint and Determinism

Something I may practice in the near future is a prefacing of thoughts to see what might arise from the idea that humans are brands. This would be a good way to gradually unlock some useful thoughts that some humanists may be have or are looking to have for themsselves. It's easy to forget periodically that one is a human, with human properties, as one forgets what one is durin ght ecourse of most days. What does it entail, what is certain about oneself because one is human? What does the brand include and require? What doe ismake one have to be like? What does it make one certainly unloike? What is not free about being within this brand? If we reflect on simple products, we can see oconstraints, but humans somehow think themselves unconstrained. They are very much constrained to be human brand.

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335170, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:46:10, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 132 seconds. 144 words. Typespeed: 65.400 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="being-a-less-advanced-human-means-partly-one-would-have-a-better-connection-with-history-or-be-a-better-representation-of-living-history">Being a Less Advanced Human Means Partly One Would Have a Better Connection With HIstory or Be a Better Representation of Living History</a>

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734334552, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:35:52, Perth, Australia*

Relationships | History | Humans Are Animals

It may be that people in the average range are acting in ways that are more traditional typically. If more traditional, their ehavior would be more similar to how people were behaving in history htan those who are more intelligent who are detracting more from how people behaved historically. Additionally, change deltas would be smaller in increments of time between those who are more average historically and those who are more average currently. Also, considering that those in history may be the same as those living today, when the time considered is within athe time of ;aa single life span, it follows that those who are average, who could only have smaller personal change deltas would be similar to themselves earlier to a greater extent than those who have higher intelligence, and therefore they too would still be closer to history than the others.

But there are some interesting observations that can be had that benefit society. People who are of lower intelligence are more likely to show us something about history in their behavior. If we are needing information about the past using the behavior of existing individuals it may be better to observe those who are of lower intelligence to see what they retain that may have been changed by others.

*137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734334740, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:39:00, Perth, Australia*

*Written in 188 seconds. 213 words. Typespeed: 67.920 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="writing-can-be-flowing-from-the-mind-as-it-thinks,-recording-what-it-thinks-truly-onto-paper,-without-edits,-or-it-can-be-thought,-edited,-rethought,-then-recorded,-thinking-of-the-recording-not-of-what-is-thought,-but-instead-as-a-small-commitment-of-an-edit-of-what-one-has-thought-instead,-afertwards">Writing Can Be Flowing From the Mind As It Thinks, Recording What it Thinks Truly Onto Paper, Without Edits, Or it Can Be Thought, Edited, Rethought, Then Recorded, Thinking of the Recording Not of What is Thought, But Instead As a Small Commitment of An Edit of What One has Thought Instead, Afertwards</a>

*125 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733344618, Thursday, December 05, 2024 03:36:58, Bangkok, Thailand*

Editing | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought

If one writes as one is thinking like I am doing right now, then what is recorded are the words precisely as they are happpening in the mind. What you are reading here is precisely what I have thought with no alteration as I've thought it. Now, if I insttead write, pausing to think of sentences first, then recording those sentences, even without editing, those thoughts are not recorded as they happen but are instead recorded afterwards. They can be as true to what is recorded immediately as the thinking is happening but there is a reliance on memory to do that. If the memory is not correct, then the recording does not match the thinking.

Sometimes it is useful to work that way however if one is wanting quality of an initial edit to appear immediately instead of after a re-read. I am not sure which I prefer for overall quality, knowin gwell wthat what I think is already of good quality as I record it without edits or pauses. But I do recall writing with pen in the past, thinking of full sentences first, considering them, and then rethinking them before writing those sentences. Taht results in less generation, but is good for writing manuscript that may perhaps have better readability. I don't think the difference is great, but it does exist. I'm not sure if it is better or not. There is this challenge still: write what one thinks to have later a record of thinking, or write what one would more like to commit, with more editing in mind as the writing is being done, to have something that might be better for an audience or might be better to oneself at the moment as a commit to recording what perhaps might be closer to what one would really wan

*125 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733344869, Thursday, December 05, 2024 03:41:09, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 251 seconds. 304 words. Typespeed: 72.660 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="combining-the-finished-writings-of-one-author,-with-the-finished-writings-of-another,-may-have-difficulties-which-tell-us-about-difficulties-creating-a-better-political-system">Combining The Finished Writings of One Author, With The Finished Writings of Another, May Have Difficulties Which Tell Us About Difficulties Creating A Better Political System</a>

*124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733233853, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 20:50:53, Bangkok, Thailand*

Another Ethic | Political Systems and Policies in Writing

Completed governments are largely written systems, although in proactice, they are activities of people who pretend to conform, or who actually conform, to thoe rules of the written system. Once one political system has arisen in writing, it is a kind of finished system, although I grant that it continues to change into the future. It has a finishedness of operation, and peopl ereally do think of them as finished even if they are still undergoing change and development. Other systems have the same properties. These then are like two finished writings from to differing minds or groups of minds.

Can two writings that are finished be merely combined? With religious system s of writing that are complete they have not been combined. It does not appear there has been any project to combine them. There have been projects to relate what is thought to be good about each, but none to simply converge  or merge the writings together in some way. Probably this is due to the issues that exist in such an undertaking. It looks to difficult to do. It looks impossible to achieve. 

What would it be like to have such a project to blend writings that are finished like this together? Let us try to ignore that languages differ. What if we worked only with translactions in a single language. There would be differences in the organization, strucutre, and plan of the writings. There would be contradictions. There would be objecties in wone that don't exist in the other. Proglems considered in one that don't exist in the other.

Here I admit that it must be possible to merge them in a way that would result in poor style, or a lack of a nice writing synthesis for the reader. An initial merge according to topic perhaps. Flow and order would need to change. Actually, listing all that owuld need to be changed woul dresult in a very large list. I think most would agree given such a dauntying task that it may simply be easier to write it anew simply taking what is good from one and including with what is good from the other, in a; rewrite.

Notice that such a process is a process of combining rather than merging, with the work of a new mind very likely. Leaving out that of course original authors could work together in principle to do the same thing. In actuality, such work would be done by a new person or group of people.

I see that this is a large topic and probably an organized approach at arriving at the list of needs would be better than simply thinking them afresh here. I'll return to do this writing in a more organized ay.

*124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733234285, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 20:58:05, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 432 seconds. 457 words. Typespeed: 63.420 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="systems-developed-from-differing-minds-may-not-be-correctable-or-combinable-into-singularly-preferred-systems">Systems Developed From Differing Minds May Not Be Correctable or Combinable Into Singularly Preferred Systems</a>

*124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733232566, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 20:29:26*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

A System Of Thought | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic | Political Systems and Policies in Writing

If a system of politics is developed in a way that is working and harmonious, it may have some analogy to an organism of some kind, and having such an analogy, or commitment to a particular system, which is like a commitment to being a certain organism, it may be the case that there is no way to prefer that system to other systems that also would be harmonious but akin to other organisms. For example, how might one go about preferring a squirrel like system, to a mouselike system, where both systems do exactly what they are required to do but do some things differently. One might think that they key elements of a political system are akin to the digestive, metabolic, and growth characteristics of these two animals? Which is to be preferred comparing the two animals? Now, if one is able to determine in detail what is truly necessary to human political systems, it may be possible to compare those 'organisms', to quanitfy the differences and find which may be preferable. In some ways we do know that squirrels have strengths and weaknesses that differ from the mouse's. This is simple enough to be possible. But what appears perhaps to be impossible is to compare all 'organisms' or all 'possible organisms' such that one may find a clear preference. Moreover, the systems may be increasingly different in various other respects as more are added. The 'organism' comparison is, as I said, only an analogy to illustrate. What we are doing is merely comparing alternative systems devised by different minds. If we had a large enough supply of alternative systems, it appears to me we would not have a way to decide upon which is best, but going further than this, I don't think they can be learned from to a point in which the best of them may be combinable in various ways to form a more correct version of the system that is a kind of singular combined system. A funny question that might illustrate is "How could we combine miscellaneous mammals to form a mammal of more optimal properties according to some criteria to be decided upon that also relate to the functions of those animals?" Both the criteria and the system design would come from the exploration of the aspects of the various animals. Similarly, operating in isolation, our attempt to improve human political systems, has been done both by observing humans to form criteria and also observing the systms to see what might be beneficial.But how are human systems actually constructed? 

There is no human system that is not an organically grown systThere is no human system that is not an organically grown systThere is no human system that is not an organically grown system. There is no human political system (and I mean political systems here), that has had a single design, and a single agent of development. They have not even had identifiable organizations of design or development.

They have also stretched accross generations, making this obviously the case. The result of the development that may be any particular existing system is one that has arisen after many generations have completely died. None exist except who appears actually to not be doing design or development. was said above provides interesting questions and consSome of what was said above provides interesting questions and considerations about the value of diverse nations. While I don't think it is valuable to fence humanity from birth to death, I do think it is valuable to make comparisons between the lives of those living in each zoo. Some zoos are happiier places for the animals, while others are not. Some really consider and form criteria from observations of the animals that result in system changes that enable them to live better. But there are cons to every zoo system that may be devised. We can do a comparative study between zoos, and try to imagine a better zoo, or nation, which would have more of what people would like, but we may not allow all to move into that zoo, because of lack of space and territorial behavior, but very likely this zoo would be one that would have better properties. Being one zoo that combines properties of some of the better zoos, does not make it a zoo that fares better completely in comparison with each of those source zoos used for the comparison or any of the other zoos that were not the inspiration for the new zoo. This simply means there would appear to be desirable aspects of the other zoos that have not been combined into the new zoo, and may not be able to be combined into the new zoo; or if combinable, would result in a new zoo that is not the earlier zoo. The zoo may not be correctable to include the elements of the other zoos, and it may be that no alternative zoo could be created that is correctable to include all the best properties of the other zoos.

Another analogy exists to human projects. The project of one person who might be an architect of a political system will be very unlike the project of another person who might be an architect of an alternative system. Now we can imagine that there are many architects and many projects. Is any one of the projects correctable given a view of all the other systems to be improved to be the singular project of choice for the best political system? It appears not. Is it combinable with any of the other projects to form the best political system? It appears not. Correctability and combinability are only partial. Could a better system be created that combines verious aspects of various projects? Certainly. It would leave some things out that exist in some of the other systems however. Disagreement would continue to exist between architects who disagree on the *criteria* of what the best system would be on an analysis and evaluation of the various projects, and would continue to think that the strong points of their systems or other systems they like, happen to be important enough to drive the combination and correction of a new system.

A concluding takeaway which is an inference from this is that it appears that the thought that there can be a "best" system could be amiss. Optionally limited resulting systems of good quality might be what are wanted. Notice that is what animals are. They are simply limited systems of good quality, and there is no animal that we might look at as the candidate animal for 'consummate animal bestness'. If we determine criteria well enough though, some animals are especially adapted to meeting those criteria, and that's what specialization in an environment is. So sometimes, we may really have, examining an environment, an animal that seems more well suited to that environment. But what is missing in that case is a competitor. Introduce a competitor, and we know, they may lose their status as most adept. It confuses which criteria are under consideration too. In my esstimation, animals are not really entirely adapted to environments with specific criteria, but instead, are sufficiently adapted to an environment with minimal criteria met, to continue to reproduce. At this moment as I write this I have some concerns whether or not we know what criteria actually are.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="lost-autobiographical-information-lost-religious-information">Lost Autobiographical Information, Lost Religious Information</a>

*124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733223435, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 17:57:15*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

A Simple Solution For Creating New Religions | ThoughtStream

A Simple Solution For Creating New Religions" "From one person, you can know that the written history of religion has excess falsities. Lost ideas, or lost ideas in partially recorded ideas, or literary fragments, show that what is lost is not collected to determine all that was lost. Little parts of religion were lost along the way (didn't do a good job anyway), and the *total loss* is exceedingly damaging to religion. It would show that all in the lineage were liars regarding their convictions that meanings were present and not lost, and that they did have the meanings. They have too much conviction they know the meanings in their own religion. Notice that in addition to this, compounding the problem, most people are not high intelligence. The founders of the religion are taken to be supreme authorities, people who one could not be like. They don't say intelligence, but they *hope* that the authority they pretend, really did relate to intelligence. If it didn't, they were authorities perhaps falsely (because pretends intellectualism). So now the lost ideas are all gone forever, and nobody has added up what they all are in aggregate to know the damage, foolish people keep claiming "they know the meanings" of what has been lost, AND that they can know almost any meanings, from anyone so much greater than they, who interpreted and shared the teachings, providing the commentary and the newer writings and lectures. Between the loss of ideas and the lower intelligence of all religious people compared to their authority figures, it follows that they have *way too much conviction* regarding what they think they learned. Otherwise the foolish religious persons convictions would be trusted too actually... because if they ideas were right, were conveyed easily by the religion to the people ( a precondition or religion doesn't work), and that the people were smart enough to understand (maybe not how the authority would but adequately), then it follows they can state the ideas with conviction and that those ideas would be true and would deserve conviction. But according to this, they don't exist(!) because lost, AND religious people are not trusted to educate the religious!! They don't trust their own people to educate their religion. Why? Because they are aware (putting power to the side), that they will really get it wrong, and more ideas will be lost, ...)... Notice also, that if one were to create a new religion that is to be akin to existing religions, it would have to have a similar amount of lost content. Or, for the new religion to gain similarity to the other religions, after being too complete at the outset, it would have to lose information and become corrupted, and have new additions that do not agree with what was originally devised.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-way-to-improve-mental-models-one-has-for-interacting-with-others">A Way to Improve Mental Models One Has For Interacting With Others</a>

*124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733220621, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 17:10:21*, Bangkok, Thailand

Relationships | ThoughtStream

Creating models of the minds of others in a way that is somewhat akin to the model that would be needed for those who you interact with who are smarter, then strip away 'ways of thinking and analyzing' that would be unavailable to the public on a gradient.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="globs,-clusters,-and-gushes,-and-child-cosmology">Globs, Clusters, and Gushes, and Child Cosmology</a>

*118 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732709098, Wednesday, November 27, 2024 19:04:58, Bangkok, Thailand*

A Simple Solution for Creating New Religions | Cosmological Arguments for a Diety and Other Related Arguments Originating in Myth | Fundamental Problems | Fundamental Concepts | A System of Thought

Recording the idea.

*118 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732709104, Wednesday, November 27, 2024 19:05:04, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 6 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-you-needed-a-proof-of-greater-non-stagnation-compared-with-the-rest-of-the-population,-what-would-it-consist-of-and-look-like">If You Needed A Proof of Greater Non-Stagnation Compared With The Rest of the Population, What Would It Consist Of and Look Like</a>

*117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732636858, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 23:00:58, Bangkok, Thailand*

ThoughtStream | Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Higher Order Attention

Recording the idea.

*117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732636863, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 23:01:03, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="saved-people-who-later-hate-your-views,-and-targets-of-saving-behavior">Saved People Who Later Hate Your Views, and Targets of Saving Behavior</a>

*117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732606814, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 14:40:14, Bangkok, Thailand*

Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic

Recording the idea for expansion later.

*117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732606823, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 14:40:23, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 9 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 39.960 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="low-expectations-of-quality-of-life-are-evident-in-expectations-and-wants-of-greatness-while-mundanity-is-what-is-always-received.-this-indicates-low-life-prospects-despite-any-human-development-index.-humans-think-they-are-satisfied-when-they-are-not-and-continue-to-want-rare-fame.">Low Expectations of Quality of Life are Evident in Expectations and Wants of Greatness While Mundanity is What is Always Received. This Indicates Low Life Prospects Despite Any Human Development Index. Humans Think They Are Satisfied When They Are Not and Continue To Want Rare Fame.</a>

*117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732605590, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 14:19:50, Bangkok, Thailand*

Higher Order Attention | Evaluative Concepts | Another Ethic

Recording the idea.

*117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732605595, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 14:19:55, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="safety,-security,-force,-and-imprisonment,-might-be-better-going-with-a-human-wildlife-management-perspective">Safety, Security, Force, and Imprisonment, Might Be Better Going With a Human Wildlife Management Perspective</a>

*117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732583014, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 08:03:34, Bangkok, Thailand*

Relationships | Another Ethic

Recording the idea.

*117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732583020, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 08:03:40, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 6 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-list-of-all-words-requiring-redefinition,-and-the-list-of-all-thoughts-recurring-requiring-replacement-or-correction">The List of All Words Requiring Redefinition, and The List of All Thoughts Recurring Requiring Replacement or Correction</a>

*117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732580075, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 07:14:35, Bangkok, Thailand*

Human Shortcomings | Glossary | Higher Order Attention | Editing

Recording for now, to expand on later.

*117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732580084, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 07:14:44, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 9 seconds. 7 words. Typespeed: 46.620 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-recording-plant,-or-fruit,-that-is-like-a-video-recorder-but-nobody-could-tell,-because-of-the-way-it-records-and-the-way-the-recording-looks">The Recording Plant, or Fruit, That is Like a Video Recorder But Nobody Could Tell, Because of the Way it Records and the Way the Recording Looks</a>

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732578742, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:52:22, Bangkok, Thailand*

Short Stories | Literature | Nonfictionalism | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought

A short story idea and idea more generally for thinking about later.

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732578754, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:52:34, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 12 seconds. 12 words. Typespeed: 60.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-extent-in-which-people-are-errored-can-be-noticed-recognizing-that-the-rules-and-thoughts-they-repeat-that-they-think-are-useful-are-seriously-premature-or-erroneous">The Extent In Which People Are Errored Can Be Noticed Recognizing That The Rules and Thoughts They Repeat That They Think Are Useful Are Seriously Premature or Erroneous</a>

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732578341, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:45:41, Bangkok, Thailand*

Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic

Recording for expansion later potentially. Getting the idea down.

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732578354, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:45:54, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 13 seconds. 9 words. Typespeed: 41.520 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="there-is-no-appropriate-film-length-for-an-autobiography,-since-any-film-is-just-a-shortening-of-the-life-which-captured-completely-is-the-same-length,-including-ifinitesimally-or-motionlessly-minutely">There is No Appropriate Film Length for an Autobiography, Since Any Film is Just a Shortening of the LIfe Which Captured Completely Is the Same Length, Including Ifinitesimally or Motionlessly Minutely</a>

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732576331, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:12:11, Bangkok, Thailand*

Living Autobiography | Filmographicwriting | Human Shortcomings | Cinematography | Biography

Recording the idea now for expansion later.

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732576341, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:12:21, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 10 seconds. 7 words. Typespeed: 42.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-word-modern-is-irritating,-because-whatever-is-current-is-modern,-and-words-for-what-comes-after-modern-are-synonyms-for-modern.-but-all-is-primordial-and-state-of-nature-still.">The Word Modern Is Irritating, Because Whatever Is Current Is Modern, and Words For What Comes After Modern Are Synonyms for Modern. But All is Primordial and State of Nature Still.</a>

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732574420, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:40:20, Bangkok, Thailand*

Human Shortcomings | Wordly Coinages | Glossary

Recording for later expansion.

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732574428, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:40:28, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 8 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="i-devised-my-work-as-a-mandala,-but-it-can-simply-be-a-manadala-more-than-once-or-many-times,-since-preservation-is-hard-but-restarting-is-not-so-hard">I Devised My Work as a Mandala, But It Can Simply Be a Manadala More Than Once or Many Times, Since Preservation is Hard But Restarting Is Not So Hard</a>

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732573334, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:22:14, Bangkok, Thailand*

Human Shortcomings | Archiving | ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention

Recording now for later expansion.

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732573341, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:22:21, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 7 seconds. 5 words. Typespeed: 42.840 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="having-kids-creates-needful-tasks-to-perform,-meanwhile-one-is-aware,-if-smart-enough,-that-the-choice-was-a-mistake-that-simply-created-direction-and-something-to-do,-too-much-to-do">Having Kids Creates Needful Tasks to Perform, Meanwhile One Is Aware, if Smart Enough, That the Choice Was a Mistake That Simply Created Direction and Something to Do, Too Much To Do</a>

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732572045, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:00:45*, Bangkok, Thailand

Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention

Recording the idea for expansion later.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="since-a-death-date-and-time-is-unknown,-one-does-not-really-have-a-wide-range-of-time-management-strategies-as-the-elderly-have-supposed-and-pretended.-they-pretended-time-management-largely.">Since a Death Date and Time is Unknown, One Does Not Really Have a Wide Range of Time Management Strategies as The Elderly Have Supposed and Pretended. They Pretended Time Management Largely.</a>

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732571589, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 04:53:08, Bangkok, Thailand*

Another Ethic | Death Plans | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings

Recording for the moment to get the idea in progress. To expand on at a later time.

*116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732571604, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 04:53:24, Bangkok, Thailand*

*Written in 15 seconds. 17 words. Typespeed: 67.980 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="agreeing-that-all-are-equal,-because-if-you-removed-all-that's-great-from-yourself,-you-are-the-same-thing-and-same-value">Agreeing that All Are Equal, Because if You Removed All That's Great From Yourself, You Are the Same Thing and Same Value</a>

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732184434, Thursday, November 21, 2024 17:20:33, Phuket, Thailand*

Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality

A thesis of the thoughtstream is that human equality does not exist the way people would like it to exist, and that one way to know that there is no equality is to consider your own personal advancements, and ask yourself if you think those advancementts did nothing or not.

"When you improved over a long time of work, did you really improve yourself or are you simply always equal to what you were and what you will be?"

It is clearly false that people do not improve. We are a ware that education, done well, creates greate improvements for people. Later versions of people seem beter than earlier fversions. We all came to an agreement (something akin to that), in  supporting school systems. We wouldn't want to be primates without culture and think being taught culture improves the situation frofor humanity. It seems absurd, to ask also, if humans today are simply equal to those in the past, because they couldn't make themselves anything other than equal by technology creation and education.

Another way to look at this, or to persuade potentially, is to think about what your good traits are, and wonder if you are the same or equal to yourself if you remove all those. So now you're a less smart, uglier, less athletic, less skilled, less healthy version of yourself, and you've gone backwards in your education, and perhpas have brain damage canceling some of your education. Are Are you equal to this reduced version of yourself, or not? Clearly, one thinks that one with all these traits is better than the one without those traits. By reducing yourself that much you really did not result in a;n equal thing, but something as unequal as those traits that were deleted.

This posting still doesn't use language how I think is best and clearest, according to what is in the writing Abandon;ing Equality, but those readers who are careful can probably discern the accurate meaning in this posting.

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732184770, Thursday, November 21, 2024 17:26:10, Phuket, Thailand*

*Written in 336 seconds. 331 words. Typespeed: 59.100 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="everyone-has-to-be-maximizing-happiness-and-acting-religiously-to-expand-the-value-of-each-situation,-ignoring-this-collectively-in-practice,-versus-knowing-when-to-maximize-the-value-of-each-situation-and-acting-in-accordance-with-a-strategy">Everyone has to be maximizing happiness and acting religiously to expand the value of each situation, ignoring this collectively in practice, versus knowing when to maximize the value of each situation AND acting in accordance with a strategy</a>

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732182529, Thursday, November 21, 2024 16:48:49, Phuket, Thailand*

Higher Order Attention | Another Ethic

What this amounts to, is that thre is not a strategy for improving the excellences of collective experience. If one visiits a tourist destination, this is very clear. Instead of having a plan that builds up to a sophisticateed collective excellence or experience of whole value, there is an aggregate of organically generated, or randomly created, market related chunks of experience. It appears strategyless, apart from the civil planning or architecture performed to set the statge for having any enjoyment. The bathrooms were somewhat well planned, because they are almost enough to satisfy the need. But apart from these

structural basics, the other devellpment is haphazard and uncoordinated. There is no strategy for producing collective excellent experiences it seems. What is the method or strategy used at the upper levels to buiold up a total experience that is more excellent now than before. Architects are famous for trying to create spaces that have this kind of thinking placed into it. But they don't do it to the moral level, or to what really enhances each person at each moment. That is excessive of course, but there is no trend even in that direction. Instead, these architects became people who had some good plans around what a good life might look like within a certain setting where more needs are prepared for.

Having such a coordinated strategy for everyone feels like it is not difverse enough. And that's why organic development sometimes is quite amazing, producing the enexpected and spontaneous improvements to society. But there should be a methodology. If there is no methodology, what is the morality of this domain? Does it fit into your existing domain, or does your domain fit within to that? 

That second question is not a serious question, it merely pionts out that people aren't aware of what morality even is, and that they think that what they have been exposed to is somewhow ready for all tasks, teven those tasks it does not perform. Like prepare for a strategy and methodology of morality for all people that collectively plans benefits, and not one dthat isn't doing all fo these things and cannot.

What are the tasks your religion can't perform? What is it that your religion is weak on? I know a lot, but the list is huge, so build out the list.

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732182927, Thursday, November 21, 2024 16:55:27, Phuket, Thailand*

*Written in 398 seconds. 389 words. Typespeed: 58.620 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="using-'i'-versus-'accepting-your-hardware-and-sensory-and-subtracting-self-from-it,-including-name,-history,-synthesis-of-components,-etc...'">Using 'I' Versus 'accepting your hardware and sensory and subtracting self from it, including name, history, synthesis of components, etc...'</a>

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732179379, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:56:19, Phuket, Thailand*

Identity | Human Shortcomings | Egolessness and Emptiness | Morality | Attentional Management Process

Just recording an important consideration for the development of one's selfhood or non-selfhood as one may thinki about it. 

Interestingly, people seem to have taken a stance on this topic by having the division in goals to go one way or the other but not to work on both as a single area of inquiry. 

The topic of self-hood has been inappropriately divided into just two categories of anatagonistic development and mutual stifling. Some go down th epath that there is no ego ;within oneself. This is closer to some views of buddhism. Others go down the path that there is reallly a single individual within each person, and that thinking of oneself in terms of 'I' for example are appropriate.

However, what is missed, which is obvious to me now, after having thad this observation, is that the goal is to learn about what one is in more detail and deal with whatever absences of unification exist, and to account for multiplicities.

One has always been a combination of unified things in the same system, and a;a multiplicity of things. Some argue that in the mind, there is no cohesiveness adequate to point to any individual ;ment al ego or 'I'. It is immediately obvious to me however that there is truth on both sides, but the side that actually hase some development is the one that does not obstinatntly stick to the idea that there is a unified I only and nothing more. That is the most naive idea of all.

A better way to look at the study is tthat minds are seeking to find ways to categorieze, name, and understand, internal constituent parts, and their relationsn into larger units of self, and relation into the total biological unit of self. This does not entail unity in the mind of a thinkier that constitutes an I. Instead it seems clar that we are merely stagnated here and haven't developmed because of the force of those who insist there is an I only.

Also, our tradition happens to assume that the definition of I and its use is correct. Howver, it is certain that it is incorrect.

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732179668, Thursday, November 21, 2024 16:01:08, Phuket, Thailand*

*Written in 289 seconds. 359 words. Typespeed: 74.520 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="for-those-who-might-think-that-the-boundary-of-the-brain-and-its-infromation-cleaving-it-from-sight-and-attention-of-others-means-the-brain-has-a-policy-of-privacy-supportive-of-the-existing-system-of-privacy,-consider-also-that-the-brain-has-information-hiding-from-itself.">For those who might think that the boundary of the brain and its infromation cleaving it from sight and attention of others means the brain has a policy of privacy supportive of the existing system of privacy, consider also that the brain has information hiding from itself.</a>

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732178244, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:37:24, Phuket, Thailand*

A System of Thought | Thoughtstream | Open Health and Identity | Human Shortcomings

What is the value of the brain's information hiding from itself? How often do people use that to protect their own minds from what they have thought and done? Did they do it until really, they can throw thoughts away, and dump them, like th etrash on a computer?

Here I am stating that I don't think that the policy of privacy in social life should be analagous to how the brain actually divides private from non-private, but I'm not sure why yte. Or if it really happens to be the case. 

Certainly some analogy to the brain will be worthwhile, and I would support the utilization of good analogies to the brain's way of storing, hiding and accessing information. Since social life, and life in culture, is built up of brains, the way the brain does nthis will need to be part of the solution.

Butwhat might this mean about the brain's information hiding from itself? Could it be at all an analogy to security clearance? 

I would characterize these thoughts as planning around the responses I would have to an objectiion I devised, that merely could be on e that others would think about and would use. Actually I would expect that they would use it. I intuit that the brain will be a necessary analogy to make as long as it is really an analogy. But I think intuititvely that this objection would not be a "decisive objection" without further consideration.

Now I'm recording this but I have not worked on the various considerations.

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732178526, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:42:06, Phuket, Thailand*

*Written in 282 seconds. 257 words. Typespeed: 54.660 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="using-the-attentional-map-to-plan-how-you-would-like-your-life-to-be-in-a-way-that-is-actual,-because-the-map-becomes-what-you-do">Using the Attentional Map to Plan How You Would Like Your Life To Be In A Way that is Actual, Because The Map Becomes What You Do</a>

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732177672, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:27:52, Phuket, Thailand*

Attentional Management Process | Attentional Architecture | Life Categories and Process

I was thinking a couple nights ago, that there is more that is useful in the positively defined attentional map than what you've considered before, as it relates to relationships, but also more broadly as it relates to the objective of simply having a positively rather than a negatively defined life and existence. 

As pepole plan their lives, and plan what they will do next, they include what they woul dlike it to be like, and what they woul dlike it to not be like. Sometimes what it woul dnot be like is the more important consideration. If one is in a relationship that one does not want, then one may be planning for how to not have that relationship. Then the plan itself becomes negatively defined in terms of the omission or negation of that which is to be avoided.

More of the planning however can utilize postiively defined parts of the attentional map. This includes the people you do know you wa;;nt to be around, the types of people wh o;yyou'd also like to be with, foods youd like to have and not those you want to avoid, places you'd want to go and not just places you'd wan tto avoid. Decisions that eliminate the need for negative decisions about what to avoid.

I noticed recently, that if I'm not focusin on relationships at all, and I'm not thinking about people in my environment, then things I'd rather be paying attention to come into view. The things around me that were not interesting before suddenly have more interest and those things are what I'd prefer to be looking at. Social life is huge, and being so large, it would figure prominently in the plans about ho w to manage attention and behavior. One would have to look at all the details of life and behavior and thinking to finally understand the complete ways in which social life blends with personal attention and morality and behavior, but one can look at the pattern sand trends without having all of this know;ledge to better plan how to use those trends to improve one's morality and ethical behavior and expertise/excellence.

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732177998, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:33:18, Phuket, Thailand*

*Written in 326 seconds. 359 words. Typespeed: 66.060 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="humans-have-systems-in-which-they-cannot-debug-or-alter-their-code.-people-have-not-collectively-conceded-that-implies-they-are-very-restricted-regarding-their-behavior-and-their-ability-to-change.-a-huge-area-where-change-would-be-needed-is-life-permanently-across-a-change-boundary.">Humans have systems in which they cannot debug or alter their code. People have not collectively conceded that implies they are very restricted regarding their behavior and their ability to change. A huge area where change would be needed is life-permanently across a change boundary.</a>

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732176346, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:05:46, Phuket, Thailand*

Human Shortcomings | Self-change | Morality | Inflexibility | Constraint and Determinism

There is a massive and permanent obstacle that exists for people's prospects of making self-change, and that's that they cannot alter their running code that is involved in their existence, and in their traits related to their brain and its functioning. We have some minor abilities to edit our own minds using our minds which trace back to the same code. This has implications then into even where we make changes for ourselves. Was that the code that made the change, or was it I?

It is hard to know even who has mad ea change when one has made a change oneself! Did you make that fix to yourself or did your source code make the change. It created a system that makes changes to itself, and you cannot influence that system.

Clearly we are more contained than we would want to admit. I've accepted this already, focusing more on the deterministic philosophy and science than on this particular point, but they go well together.

What is the size tof the change that a person can make as code that is executing that one cannot change. I am the code and I am something that makes changes, means there is a pair doing the work. But what is th e size of the changes that a person can make even putting this aside? 

Considering change deltas in an individual, changes are minute from moment to moment and day to day. Even in a day we make self-edits, but if we reflect on what the edits were, oftentimes they are edits to things like, what one will say later, how one will think about a subject, and perhaps plans get editied. If you think of these changes as textual changes, it would be changes to sentences. And of course one is thinking sentences while making such changes. Some changes may have a visual component obviously too dependin gon who is doing the thinking and I add this for those who might not have great verbal skills. But even in that case, what is updatesd is like the kind of update a person could make accross a portfolio they ave.

The brain is somewhat like a portfolio . The thoughts one has and frequently has is the portfolio of their thinking as they go along. So one briefly thinks about work, and about how to cook a particular meal better, or how to save monney, and in making those changes, one has gone to different categories in the prortfolio and made changes. LIke making small changes across the life categories.

When those changes are reiewed they aren't dissimilar from someone making edits to a collection of things. So some small textual and visual edtits wer made? And this corresponds to tissue. The changes would really correspond to almost no tissue!

This implies that the changes you make in your life daily amount to alterations of almost no tissue, but meanwhile you are this large running machine, with your source code controlling all that happens. The you that changes you is within that. It makes very small changes, almost none. These are important to us but they are few.

This is very important for appraising our current status regarding our moral systems. Our moral systems acted like sizeable changes tocould be made to behavior quickly! Instantaneously and sometimes miraculously! But those epeople who claim huge changes really exhibit the same patterns of behavior accross their entire minds. They could only changes small amounts of tissue.

However, if you make lots o fchanges daily, and are more adept tat mentally editing, and changing behavior, gradually, one can make big changes, but I hastill have to admit that's within my preecided self system.

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732176894, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:14:54, Phuket, Thailand*

*Written in 548 seconds. 619 words. Typespeed: 67.740 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="humans-are-widely-variable-regarding-thinking,-we-just-have-a-system-of-working-overlaps-for-communication-that-makes-this-not-apparent">Humans are Widely Variable Regarding Thinking, We Just Have a System of Working Overlaps for Communication that Makes this Not Apparent</a>

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732175789, Thursday, November 21, 2024 14:56:29, Phuket, Thailand*

Relationships | Sociology | Psychology | Com

A recording to cover in greater detail later. For now, I wanted to get this into my creativity list, as something to discuss further, because it has great importance and seems to have had little treatment. It is odd that those who are most intelligent would coexist in a system with those who are muc h less intelligent, and comunicate in a way that leads others to assume that the illusion that peopl eare similar happens to be true. Certainly they are similar, but this makes it seem that people are much more similar than they really are.

If two people have in their mental environments very different happenings, which could be true even of relationships like marriage and other family relations, the communication method and interface creates the appearance that the differences don't exist. But now to me, it appears there are vast and huge differences and that we are communicating in a way that creates and assumes the illusion.

*112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732175948, Thursday, November 21, 2024 14:59:08, Phuket, Thailand*

*Written in 159 seconds. 161 words. Typespeed: 60.720 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-broad-application-of-the-word-equality-in-mathematics-and-the-sciences-and-social-justice">The Broad Application of the Word "Equality" in Mathematics and the Sciences, and Social Justice</a>

*104 Wanattomians, Epoch 1731472615, Wednesday, November 13, 2024 11:36:55, Phuket, Thailand*

The broadness of the utilization of the word "equality" within mathematics and the sciences indicates a readiness to trust and apply the word repeatedly and endlessley without any discomfort of overuse. When one thinks of physics and of mathematics, one thinks of equations, and this does not make one irritated. One does not think to oneself, or complain to others, that this indicates a plainly excessive usage of a singular concept, relating to making comparisons. Also, there is no complaint from outside the sciences that the sciences are using "equality too often"; instead, their activity of using the concept pervasively and compulsively, often with little changes in how it is used, is not even noticed, and instead the common and regular usage of equality in math is expected at the same frequency that it has always been used.

When one shifts over to the topic of Social Justice, I have noticed a different kind of trend, realting to discussions about human equality and inequality. Firstly, there is a strong desire to use other concepts than the same one again and again. People like to use words that are alternative to "equality" like "equivalence, fairness, parity, egalitarianism, and so on. In conversations relating to Equality there is some resistance to saying the word "equal" over and over. In mathematics, however, there is no resistance to using the word "equal" in exactly the same way every time, excepting when disciplines and activities are crossed. Students will work on calculus and algebra for extended periods of time never complaining over the equals sign as it is used in their formulae. They repetitively use it with the same meaning that it happens to carry. I'm not sure if many have thought about the tedium that is using this equality sign over and over. If the same repetitiveness were taken into normal conversation, it would become annoying very rapidly.

In conversations about social justice I think there is some alleviation to this issue in the use of rough synonyms for the word "equality" like those mentioned above. By switching concepts, some of the repetitiveness of the conversation is felt to be avoided. However, has it really been avoided? Or is the concept simply re-used again and again, in new guises? If I shift to say "egalitarian" instead of saying "equal", am I confused that I'm not still speaking about "equality"?Where synonyms have been introduced into conversation to communicate thoughts that are still using the same meanings, conceptually the same word is being used again and again, and that word does happen to be "equal" or "unequal".

There is also a resistance to technical precision in the comparison of people, although there are exceptions to this. People enjoy discussing how athletes differ, and how one may be superior to others, using stats and other information about the athlete to communicate that a large difference exists. In sports there is a desire for increasing technical precision. If we want to compare two ethnic communities on the basis of their strengths and weaknesses, or perhaps their IQ scores, there is a very strong resistance to technical precision, even thought there is still considerable competition, including intellectual competition. There are some areas in which people are highly averse to having technical comparisons and in some instances it appears that the public forbids comparisons. Such an unwritten rule of course is not something I would personally bother with observing, so of course I will skip that and go onto comparing, as technically as I need to, in order to scientifically understand a topic.

In these areas, there would be resistance to the idea that there can be any usage of mathematics at all, because the desire is to prohibit thought pathways on the subject which trend towards more technical understanding that may thwart objectives people have that may be ill conceived. How is one to persuade others that the mathematical concept of equality is required to understand and develop the topic more fully, if there is going to be a resistance to the use of mathematics at all, and a resistance to a more technical development of the subject that obviously requires the term?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="what's-the-most-you-can-do-for-yourself-with-your-self-care?">What's the Most You Can Do For Yourself With Your Self Care?</a>

*78 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729277581, Saturday, October 19, 2024 02:53:01, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

A Simple Solution for Creating New Religions | Self-Improvement | Morality

You were told, when you were young, by someone, that your body is a temple. Maybe you've been told that your mind is a temple too. Taking what you are to be a temple, that would mean that you are a place of worship. You are something to be thought of as being of high architecture.

You are beautiful, you are important, you are something to keep clean, ritualistically. You are to religiously keep yourself excellent, and in good condition. You are to use your space and time to improve yourself. You are to focus on this, and concdentrate on it iusing a lare amount of your time, religiously, as one would say.

Hearing things like this, one must wonder how others would think about characterizing yourself as a temple with this level of seriousness. Putting that much time and effort into oneself. Showing oneslelf that much love, concern and care. Self-improvement is an area of study in which there is a forgetfulness about the religiosity of making oneself a temple, and instead usingually one makes certain improvements on oneself without taking it quite this seriously. But how serious can you be about caring for yourself. How strongly can you love you. How strongly can you be attracted to you. What is excess here? What is zeal and what is excess? 

Religiosity has zeal, and focus, and commitment, and investment. What does this type of thinking expect from you for investement. 

In some ways, putting yourself this much in your focus is what your life already is. Even for those who don't think in this way, or make themselves temples, they are thinking about themselves often. They are themselves too. Have you been yourself most of your life?what is that like? How obsessive is it? How regular is it? If you're not making yourself important and temple like, what do you do with aall that attention to you? An interesting thing to consider is what amount of self love and attention and care you should have for yourself reallly, so you don't have regrets about it later. If you had regrets, maybe you didn't do it right.

*78 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729277925, Saturday, October 19, 2024 02:58:45, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 344 seconds. 357 words. Typespeed: 62.220 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="nested-orchestras-with-separate-composers-and-instrumentalists-in-a-hierarchy">Nested Orchestras with Separate Composers and Instrumentalists in a Hierarchy</a>

*75 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729006068, Tuesday, October 15, 2024 23:27:48, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Music | Art | Mathematics | Computing

Thinking of other applications of the most recent posting I realized that orchestaras and musical pieces relating to orchestras can be defined hierarchically according to the same rules of mathematical composition I mentioned. The size of the orchestra can be very large and can contain many suborchestras. It can be dynamic, with suborchestras being unknown to the main orchestra and only a variable input for the main composition. Using such an idea one would have more elaborate musical performances and compositions adn this would give an avenue for the development of more intersting mucsucal pieces.

*75 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729006162, Tuesday, October 15, 2024 23:29:22, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 94 seconds. 95 words. Typespeed: 60.600 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="looking-at-the-compositionality-of-mathematical-functions-to-arrive-at-an-architecture-and-methematical-treatment-of-compositionality-more-generally">Looking at the Compositionality of Mathematical Functions to Arrive at An Architecture and Methematical Treatment of Compositionality More Generally</a>

*75 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729002724, Tuesday, October 15, 2024 22:32:04*, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Idea to consider:

1. Compositionality of Math Components Bearing on a Solution.
1. Forms a hierarchy, like a simple block diagram, or tree.
1. Is often finite, but in math may sometimes be treated as infinite.
1. In Chain Rule for Partial Differentiation of a Function of three variables, where each function is a subfunction of two variables, it is like as follows:

<pre>
                 f(x, y, z)
                    /  |  \  
  fx(u,v),    fy(u,v),   fz(u,v)
                      /  \     
    u   v          u   v       u   v
</pre>

Objective, begin to cover the compositionality of mathematical perspectives from a software architectural perspective, and as a mathematician representing compositionality mathematically.

Notice, for any mathematical problem, there is compositionality. Compositionality with constants is a simple compositionality, but compositionality still exists, as one has to break problems into chunks for simplification. Expression reduction and evaluation is compositional. If a variable is added, it adds additional compositionality. Since sometimes variables stand for functions, that expands it further. Chunks are components, subchunks are subcomponents, but can simply be thought of as components. It appears it often works similarly and a generalization exists that can be written mathematically, programatically, and diagrammatically with trees like that written above.

For the chain rule's use for working with the tree above, one takes the partial derivatives of f with respect to x,y,z and sums the product of those with the partial derivatives of x,y,z with respect to u separately. One would also need to do the same for all with respect to v. How one operates in pieces using this tree relates to limitations. The limitations on what can be discerned needs to be elaborated. A limitation here is that one must do all with respect to u, treating v as constant, and then to v taking u to be constant.

Knowing that there are three variables to f(x,y,z), we know we have one component and three subcomponents: f(x,y,z), and the variables x, y, and z, minimally, ignoring for now additional components added by constants and operations within the functions. Since x, y, and z, are actually subfunctions, they introduce more compositionality. They are each functions of two variables. Each variable component then corresponds to 3 function components. We still have four total components because they are the same components. Again ignoring any additional components added by constants and operations within the subfunctions, and remembering we already listed the three functions within the four mentioned components, we have two new components, u and v. We therefore have six different components. The different components can be identified and enumerated in the tree by finding their unique total name.

g = f(fx(u,v), fy(u,v),fz(u,v))

Notice the tree can be generated easily programatically, and that there are combinations of components. The function's signature in the math tells about the combinations. We have three combinations of u,v, and one combination of x,y,z. Permutations of x,y,z is ignored, and so are permutations of u,v, for each of their respective combinations.

We have a graph of one node/vertex, three subnodes/vertices, and 2 subnode/vertices. We might name a graphing function

G = graph(1,3,2)

The graphing function could be more generally written for variable inputs to n:

graph(x1), graph(x1, x2), graph(x1, x2, x3) ... graph(x1,x2,x3,...,xn)

Each of the inputs to the graph function could be variables representing subfunctions:

graph(graphx1(u))

And these too can form a series, such that the graph functions can be composed of n-number of subgraphs, finitely. But in math this can also be infinite given existing rules.

One can state that n > infinity, to have a concept of a limit with respect to graph compositionality, on both dimensions. The dimensions here would be the width of the graph function, which is the total size of the functions number of inputs, and the height of the graph function, which is the depth of the interior compositionality to n-depth.

We can see that the graphs functions themselves form an n-dimensional graphing matrix, within the main graphing function.

Here we imagine that we can write out the entire graphing function, but we can programmatically offload that to utilize a simpler graph-function writing function, using the concatenation operation which is representable using sigma notation, or for more clarity, Concatenation notation, or simply psuedocode.

<sup>∞</sup>Σ<sub>n=1</sub>graph<sub>n</sub><sup>∞</sup>Σ<sub>k=1</sub>graph<sub>k</sub>

This requires a more full expression and corrections, because it's not quite right, but suffices for now to show that this graph can be understood as a sum concatenation along both dimensions for writing out the graph.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-strategy-for-imparting-knowledge-while-also-conveying-the-living-autobiography-would-be-to-convey-one's-pattern">A Strategy for Imparting Knowledge While Also Conveying the Living Autobiography Would be to Convey One's Pattern</a>

*74 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728907081, Monday, October 14, 2024 19:58:01, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

If one can communicate one's own patttern of thinking and action, one can communicate most of what one thinks one is. If one focuses on this pattern, and people are patterns in a way or could be characterized as patterns, tthen you can convey more completely who you are and what you would like to say along the way. The collection of living artifacts, and pieces of situation, experienced in life, fits within the pattern as a framework . The pattern is the life framework that more concisely states who one was, and the living artifacts that fill the framework  function to build out the total story. One cannot convey the total completely of course, but one can do well to convey a comprehensive pattern with much details filled with images, videos, writings that are situational, and so on. One can also supply dadata, stories, and specific experiences that fit within the framework already conveyed.

*74 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728907237, Monday, October 14, 2024 20:00:37, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 156 seconds. 155 words. Typespeed: 59.580 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="washing-athletic-type-clothes,-socks,-shorts,-underwear,-and-t-shirts,-when-you-shower">Washing Athletic Type Clothes, Socks, Shorts, Underwear, and T-Shirts, When You Shower</a>

*74 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728906556, Monday, October 14, 2024 19:49:16, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Yesterday I went for a long jog, and when I returned, I was saturated with sweat and water from the rain. I was needing to wash my clothes, which included shorts, a t-shirt, and socks, but since I was traveling, I was not yet in a position to get my laundry finished. Today, after having a chance to do laundry, I reflected on how I could avoid laundry. As a traveler, like many other travelers, I would smometimes handwash garments to avoid the costs of doing laundry, and avoid the irritation of getting laundry detergent for one use.

I think the entire laundry visit can be skippped. Handwashing is annoying too, because it takes time to soak, it takes time to rinse again and again, and one wonders which soap to use to ensure the clothes are clean and one won't have any allergic reaction. I prefer to use a soap that is not a laundry detergent. Ohther soaps for handwashing really do work, but I have not been consistent in my choice as to what soap to use because I've decided at the time and usually used a soap that happened to be present.

The new strategy I just imagined was to simply shower with clothes on first, before removing clothes to complete the shower. I was enMy clothing as I said was saturated when I returned. The clothes were very wet, and I made an uncomfortable trip to the shower dripping with liquid before finally being able to remove my clothes. After the shower, those same clothes were still filled with sweat and liquid, and I hung them up to dry. But why did I not simply stand in the shower and wash the clothes as I showered? They were already wet. I would still need to hang and dry them then. So why not simply immediately take a hot shower with clothes on, apply the same soap that already doesn't cuase an allergic reaction to the skin, and rinse and wring the clothes in the shower.

Upon completin of the shower I could hang the clothes up the same way, but when they were dry, they would already be clean.

This is a strategy I'll be attempting in the future and if it works well I'll keep doing it. Perhaps it will become a long term strategy for avoiding laundry. It is intersting that clothes washing could be combinable with washing the body and showering. Laundry and showering becomes the same thing. It makes some sense because one wears the clothes, so why not was both the clothes and its contents while they are together at the time the body will be washed. The clothes are already present. It should be an extremely convenient way to wash clothes and shower.

*74 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728906964, Monday, October 14, 2024 19:56:04, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 408 seconds. 463 words. Typespeed: 68.040 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="religions-have-been-very-strange-for-choosing-an-ancient-figure-to-be-their-perfect-exemplars-given-humanity-has-better-specimens-later-than-earlier">Religions Have Been Very Strange for Choosing an Ancient Figure to Be Their Perfect Exemplars Given Humanity Has Better Specimens Later Than Earlier</a>

*73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728844669, Monday, October 14, 2024 02:37:49, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

This posting is about progress. People believe in progress. Politicaly typically they think the world is becoming more interesting, more livable, and more knowledgeable. They see various nations improving over time. They compare the present day comforts with the difficulties of the past. They nknow that most people are able to have attainments that were not possible before. But oddly, when they direct their atention to religion, they think about figures who are supposedly perfect, or supposedly the best examples, but they are too ancient to have had the opportunities to develop as well as culture would permit today.

Culture today supports the growth of individuals to an extent that would not have been possible at tht time. Eminent figures were rare, and while sometimes they would have seemed to have greater power, the size of their power was still very small and isolated to single nations typically or neighboring territories. They are much more popular now in myth, and while not living, long aftwerwards. And of course, that they is not even them, but what people imagine very briefly from the small amount of information they have. Nations were small. Their lives were not inclusive of much travel. They had much less knowledge. Their excellences would be less appreciated today if they were transported to the present time.

Since the future is going to include many thousands and millions of years, it is werid that peopl are not thinking about who would emerge, and and by who we should be thinking of large numbers of peple and not small numbers, that would be much better than people today. People think about that topic and they want to defend the peoplde of today, but they aren't even willing to defend the people of today against the people of the past who were thought to be eminent in religion. I would agree there are mnany to day who are prefereable to those religious figures. We just don't know who they are.

And if there are many today who are better examples of humans then certainly there wil be peple in the future who will be much better examples, because they will have the opportunities to be better, due to incrcreased quality of culture.

There is some anticipation of a decrease in the quality of life later on. But that is not anything taht we can think to be true without simply being negatively bias about future prospects. If things go on a similar trajectory to how they've gone comparing ancient times to now, the future will be much better than now. People read signs regarding small issues of the moment and think they are armaggedon predictiing. They are not. 

*73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728845066, Monday, October 14, 2024 02:44:26, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 397 seconds. 448 words. Typespeed: 67.680 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="maximum-cross-category-accomplishing-activities">Maximum Cross Category Accomplishing Activities</a>

*73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728844340, Monday, October 14, 2024 02:32:20, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

There are a limited number of activities one can routinely perform, and if one wants to get the most rewards and results from one's activities one has to be selective, to ensure that each of those activities do more in each of the various life catego;ries. Fitness is definitely one of those activities tht creates rewards in alarge number of categories and in very important ways for each category. So I suppose it is not only the number of categories but the impact for each of those categories. Writing is also another activity that has a high amount of results.

There are other activitis I ca think of, but for the moment I'll complete witis posting with that observation, and will return with a more considered idea about which activities serve to create the most accomplishments.

*73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728844478, Monday, October 14, 2024 02:34:38, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 138 seconds. 136 words. Typespeed: 59.100 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-hierarchy-and-network-of-independent-and-networked-brains,-with-living-beings-existing-independently-within-those-brains">A Hierarchy and Network of Independent and Networked Brains, With Living Beings Existing Independently Within Those Brains</a>

*73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728834290, Sunday, October 13, 2024 23:44:50, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Recording the thought and idea for now, with the intention to expand on it at a late rtime.

*73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728834306, Sunday, October 13, 2024 23:45:06, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 16 seconds. 18 words. Typespeed: 67.500 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="advertising-as-anonymous-or-semi-anonymous-message-sharing">Advertising As Anonymous or Semi-Anonymous Message Sharing</a>

*73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728833311, Sunday, October 13, 2024 23:28:31, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Advertising is basically anonymous message sharing. Instead of anonymously sharing through small scale media, unless it is in the promotions industry, advertising seeks to market in locatioins in which there will be a large reach. They want places that have a large audience. Those advertisers that don't have a large audience, are those that are considered lower value. Those that have a large audience, or a huge audience, are highly valued.

No matter the advertisement, typically the advertiser is left out of the message. You don't know who worked on the messaging, the images or visuals that relate, or who was in control of decision making related to the ads. They just appear on television, and in various other locations, without conveying to you who made it. You know hwhere you are seeing it. That is harder to hide. But you don't know who made it. You don't know who is responsible for it.

If one made a product, and instead created 20000 fake accounts on social media to share the message then one would be doing somethig akin to large scale advertising and one would be doing so anonymously.. Even if the people who were sharing the messages were paid to, it would stilll be anonymous, because you don't know who they are, don't know if they are real, and you would likely ignore them. But for the example, I'll stick with the use of fake acounts. The fake accounts all have a person's name. This is a pseudonym. The person doing the advertising is you, you can imagine, or you can imagine that a company is doing it.

In that case, there is a very large reach, somewhat similar perhaps to what a large company could do with a marketing initiative. It is happening on any social platform where one can post the information. There are many people who see it, read it, spend time with it, and don't know hwhere it came from. But they still receive the message.

So it shoudl be clear that these are very similar. The large marketing company that uses media with a huge audience can simply do more all at once without the work of doing it again and again like an individual. If you place an add in social media, you are doing that too. You are only automating the distribution to a larger audience reaching about the same number of people that could be reached with some large workforce of anonymous marketers.

The most intersting observation though, is this: The ultimate goal of a marketing campaign is to get people to want to talk about it without being paid to do so. Imagine instead of the 20000 paid workers, there are simply 20000 people who want to talk about it with their friends and family. They may go online on any of the various platforms and simply post information and maybe some of their thoughts. People have big friend lists, and when they post, sometimes they post to groups. Some people will know the person well enough to identify them when they share, but others who see it are seeing it as if the person sharing it could just be an anonymous marketer with a fake name or pseudonym.

Regular people then are the marketers. once this is seen, it is eerie to think about how they are really very similar to advertisers.

*73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728833840, Sunday, October 13, 2024 23:37:20, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 529 seconds. 564 words. Typespeed: 63.960 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="typespeed-becomes-less-important-than-velocity-of-ideation-and-significance-in-the-communications">Typespeed Becomes Less Important Than Velocity of Ideation and Significance in The Communications</a>

*72 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728720209, Saturday, October 12, 2024 16:03:29, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

If all thoughtstreams written at high velocity were switched to use not typing as an input but just thinking, eventuallly it would be uninteresting the speed of the thoughts as compared with the speed of the significant ideas conveyed. What ideas were had, how significant they were, and how fast they were ideated. How fast changes were made in a life. 

I was realizing this as I was thinking about the timed postings I was making and their diffferences relating to speed of ouptu. Type speeds range from moderately fast to very fast. But what if I were not typing any longer and I was just thinking? What if someone thought faster and faster until they were thining with high rapidity almost all of the time? How would they compare with others who also are fast thikers? How would they compare with others who are doing less rapid thinking with words, but are having perhaps more ideas at greater significance. 

Writing surfaces velocities around ideation and the significance of ideas and thoughts. The speed of the writing becomes somewhat unimoportant as long as the velocities of the significance and ideation is present.

There is a certain speed of thinking that is requireed for feedback loops and learning, and for having more ideas and more significant thoughts to begin with. So there will be some rapidity to the thought. But simply increasing the rapidity of the thought does not ensure that there is more significance. 

I'm not sure if brain tissue of a larger or lesser amount necesarily increases or decreasses the quantity of thoughts that can go into writing. It may be that a smaller brain can write just as much as a larger one, and perhaps more. But what would be missing would be the ideas . The two ideas of plain velocity of thought and velocity of significance and ideation are related. It is best if both are present. 

There are some insghts I'm missing here from what I was intending to write but I'll return. 

*72 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728720566, Saturday, October 12, 2024 16:09:26, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 357 seconds. 338 words. Typespeed: 56.760 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="renewing-existence-within-existence-many-times">Renewing Existence Within Existence Many Times</a>

*72 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728719674, Saturday, October 12, 2024 15:54:34, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Existence on planets is erased and then recreated, erased and recreated. This is done partially and on some planets may even be done wholly a number of times.

From one perspective after erasure, the planet appears as the planet was after an erasure making it seem as though the effects of the living beings has ben completely deleted. This is not the case, but I admit, the contribution is less interesting if it is just elemental.

Erasure of existence makes those who are serious about existence have existential crises in which they wonder about their status as elementts later. Others might have joy from it though. It's fun an intersting. It can be fun and interesting for the perspective that watches new experiments with new results. It is also fun and intersting to the person who simply likes that idea of new opportunity. 

*72 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728719875, Saturday, October 12, 2024 15:57:55, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 201 seconds. 143 words. Typespeed: 42.660 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-framework-for-minimizing-omissions-in-thinking">A Framework for Minimizing Omissions in Thinking</a>

*71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728642394, Friday, October 11, 2024 18:26:34, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Having a set of life categories along with a set of topics that relate to morality, where morality is considered to be a covering of life and thought, one will already have really good coverage regarding the synthesis of thinking and knowledge that is required for good action and decision making.

However, one will not have anough. Having experience in a variety of sciences and studies that are related mutually to different topics of thought and action will be required to have a more full development of thinking.

The existing framework I have for covering the life categories and approaching personal morality is already extensive and really does provide a good framework for ensuring there are few major omissions to thinking. But this needs to be combined with a framework for inclusding the various sciences as they are applicable. At present, I happen to be aware of many scientific topics and areas of research that are applicable to thoughts and actions, but admitedly I do not yet have a knowledge framework yet that corresponds in completeness and finality to the life categories I have developed. I will need to develop such a framework.

Together, these constitute in a way a simple list of what knowledge happens to relate to any thought or action. I don't think it will be too hard to make a list that is good eough forfrom a framework perspective. The framework would simply be expanded to include subfields and subcategories, and refinements of the major categories. LIke the animal taxonomical system. 

This sounds advanced, but making it more simple and practical, it is just a large list. Imagine if one was about to make a decision, and one had a list of all that must be considered in order to decide well. Now imagine that one has advanced in experience and maturity, one would need a new list, that is longer and perhaps has modifications, if the first list was well done. Now imagine that on ehas become incredibly experienced across the full offerings of knowledge of humanity in its diverse fields. One still just has a list. The list can be organized and reorganized for what is most important, and can be tailored to different scenarios that one finds oneself in.

Now imagining that humans have evolved quite a bit, the list grows. It is still just a list! Even if there were some computing or application mechanisms to organize and read out the list or guide, it would still be known that there is a list mapping. It is still just a list. It may be that forever it is just a list.

Since forever it is just a list very likely, then there is a point in the list improvement in which returns on development are lessened. This means some state of development already does most of the work with the list it has created and uses.

So what is wanted is a framework, a list, that is near that threshold. And, one wants to use that list to blend it with one's thinking such that one scan recall without the list. Tehen the thinker and the actor has a powerful tool that is known to be correct, that is consistent with the list, at the threshold of power in advancement of civilization.

After that threshold level, developments can still be made, so it willl keep going as knowledge grwos and as people evolve in complexity. But after that time, it will have to be forever admitted that those who had the framework earlier were already powerful, and nearly as powerful as those with the newest list.

Also, people in history would then have potentially had sometimes greater ability to implement. Since there is a scale in sophistication of living peopple.

This is very diffferent than today. Today we look back in time, at the ancients, and know well, that they were too limited, and that any particular individual would be greatly inferior in many ways because their culture did not have the tools for them to adapt to for betterment.

Some few in history of course would be better than people today, but their numbers would be few. The number of people today who would be better than the people who existed before would be very grate.

So in the future, it may be that they don't look at the ancients as ancient as much. They are just seen as advanced moderns, with less, but with the key tool being as powerful as any that they could have. 

*71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728643073, Friday, October 11, 2024 18:37:53, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 679 seconds.      756 words. Typespeed: 66.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="once-a-function-has-written-a-decision-tree,-it-has-read-the-decision-tree">Once a Function Has Written a Decision Tree, It Has Read The Decision Tree</a>

*71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728639844, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:44:04, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

If you were to write a function that is able to write out a decision tree, the function and its inputs are known to have already determined the tree and its output. When it writes the output, it has already within it the knowledge of the output, and while it is writing it, it is revisiting what it is writing. In  a way a function that writes the output for a decision tree already has read the decision tree. There is a mixture of read and write in that operation.

The same is true for the human mind. Of course, if one has a written decision tree, and one has not written it, then one has to read it, and the activity is distinct from the writing it. But if one has envisioned the tree already, and how it iss written, when one has begun to write it, one has loaded the tree into memory, and has in a way read it. Then when one writes the tree, one revisits it reading it. Then it is written. The process of writing it seems combined with two reads.

Additionally there is the process of visualizing and editing the tree in one's mind before that. This is similar to the process of wrting th e function. One thinks about decision trees, and what the tree is for. One imagines visually, and maybe in functional form, or in narrative form, what the tree consists of. One has then , when one has finished the tree, loaded the tree into memory, written the tree into a visual or narrative or functional form, and one has read it from the brain where it is stored. 

Being able to think about a decision tree implies that one has visualized something, and that visualization has constituent parts that have already been seen or thought. Those cannot be developed without recallign those. So they are written into memory. 

I don't think at present it is possible to go all the way to what is read and written to the brain as one does the first imaginatory work. For me, I might have a somewhat ready generic decision tree come to mind from memory or peieces. The operations of building the constituent partts are sometimes oconscious and sometimes not. ORder is hard to track. I will likely have more to say about this in the future. For now it is interesting to note that more reading sems to happen while writing, for functions doing atasks like writing decision trees

*71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728640217, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:50:17, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 373 seconds.      420 words. Typespeed: 66.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-brain-is-limited-because-at-any-time-where-topical-relations-are-known-many-others-relate-which-cannot-be-called-to-mind">The Brain is Limited Because At Any Time Where Topical Relations Are Known, Many Others Relate Which Cannot Be Called to Mind</a>

*71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728638880, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:28:00*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In my last posting, on this ThoughtStream, I had the insight, that I've had before many times, that there is much that relates to what I'm thinking that I don't have time to think about at the moement.

My current approach on ThoughtStream is to write these postings, then integrate them into my larger work that comprises a number of books. For any posting that relates to various other books, I want to include content from the posting. The postings include new ideas that are useful in not only one related book but a number of related books. For the last posting I could think quickly of a few categories thtat have related books in which I would want to add the content.

The category that I added to include the content for which I call Life Categories, is the one that made it immediately obvious that all of the other life categories have relations. There is going to be a book for each of thos ecategories and there are 15 of those along with the main book that ihas the same name.

When I use the attentional management process I run through the categories making relations between the categories themselves and any plans or ideas I've had recently or am having at that time. Since I do that often without writing, I'm aware that all of them relate. But additionally I have other books that aren't simply about the life categories and those also are numerous. Each of the postings relate to many of those books.

Taking the whole of human thinking to include a large number of topics that interrelate, we can expand on this insight further and know that there are many categories outside of one's awareness that also could be important for the subject.

In my case, I'm most interested in the categories tht I write about. Theese are interdisciplinary, so many other topics of human thinking go into those books. But the process of taking these writings and placing them with modifications into places where they belong does not mean that at that time I'm going to be entirely pandisciplinarian, which is impossible, while I do that work. The goal is simply to take what is important in the idea, relate them to the other topics in the ways that they add to those topics, and write new content, and resuse the ThoughtStream posting, to build out the book. This means my mind is focusing on synthesis between the books and their main theses and the new writing. That is not the same as adding the content to the book in a way that relates, and additionally transforming those contents to be pandisciplinarian.

One also wants to be relevant. Relevance is a matter of degree oftentimes though. So unfortunately, I can see relationships that are worth developing, but the relevance will seem less. The greatest relevance seems to relate to fitting the new ideas and contents to the book topics primarily.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="things-to-do-while-hiking">Things to Do While Hiking</a>

*71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728637732, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:08:52, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

I plan to spend a considerable amount of time hiking without access to any digital resources. While hiking, I will not be on the computer for long, and I will have an abundance of time for activities. So much time it isn't the simplest to decide what is worthwhile doing.

I could stay outdoors, doing fun outdoorsy tasks, like making cabins, making shelters, and doing miscellaneous bushcraft tasks. But I have work that is related to the digital resources that I will want to resume so as to continue to build on my projects, and not simply stop them for weeks or months at a time.

So what are some tasks that I might work on while I'm off grid camping, without electricity.

Writing, Editing, Reading My Own Work While Editing. Writing would be on paper, reading would be from books on paper, and reading hwhat I've written before would also be on paper. I could read and edit what I've written while I've been out.

For the moment, my primary interest is how I continue to do the tasks I want to do that relate to my productions projects.

*71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728637971, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:12:51, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 239 seconds. 190 words. Typespeed: 42.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="culminations-of-thinking-and-change-of-action-without-choice,-simply-feeling-it's-correct,-being-already-consistent-also-with-plans">Culminations of Thinking and Change of Action Without Choice, Simply Feeling It's Correct, Being Already Consistent Also With Plans</a>

*70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728557055, Thursday, October 10, 2024 18:44:15, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Just a moment ago, after thinking about how I was noticing that certain culminationss of thinking were really happening, I noticed that I am feelig that i want to alter course to utilize what was worked on in an active way but instead to use it in a passive way. The feeling was as though I was not actually deciding upon it. Of course I was not deliberating. Deliberation is clear when it is happening. So what I was doing was not deliberative, and not verbal. 

It was more like I could feel that my subconscious was causing a redirection and that I was partly aware of what the redirection would be, and that I was comforted with that change of course.

To illustrate, perahaps one can imagine someone who is in need of retiring from a;  job. This person has thought about it a while, thought about alternatives, thought about what seemed done about the career. Then instead o fthinking it over again, this person merely feels like the timing is correct, and that there is a push to simply end it. The feeling is also that there is not much need to reflect, that the reflection is done and is wise. The transition isn't hard anymore, but easy to do. (not really applicable in my case, but we can imagine for the example). So quickly without deliberation, it is felt that the time is to move onto sometthing new, and there is confidence and comfort that it is over, and there is no worry about what comes next or what one is changing in relation to the past.

*70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728557313, Thursday, October 10, 2024 18:48:33, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 258 seconds.      270 words. Typespeed: 60.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="adjusting-to-culminations-in-diminished-thought-on-important-life-categories-and-their-combinations">Adjusting to Culminations in Diminished Thought on Important Life Categories and Their Combinations</a>

*70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728555425, Thursday, October 10, 2024 18:17:05, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Today I noticed, as I've noticed to a lesser degree on other days, that there is less to think about on global topics of personal interest. Now it appears my mind searches for something to develop on topics of personal developmental importance, but when it finds a related category or topic, it notices no further thinking is required. Or, that less thought is needed, and that there are few worthwhile developments for the moment. 

Either way, what is expereienced is a diminishing return on thinking such that even thinking about those things does not seem to provide enough interest, and that interest would be related to their being some future reward for some upcoming completion. 

Since complete or nearly complete there is a feeling that the topics are done.

Without too much attention recently to bring new developments into behavior, it appears they are already mixed into habit and behavior. Thought about what to do next includes some small adjustment rather than some sizeable change. 

A lessening need to think to improve may relate to a lessening need to act differently. The doneness of thought is related to the doneness of action. Is that just action that is habitual that does not need to be improved, or does it mean no actuion futher is required? Intuitively, now, it is moer of the former although it loks like it incluseds the latter.

*70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728555682, Thursday, October 10, 2024 18:21:22, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 257 seconds. Typespeed: 48.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="ideation-and-creativity,-if-one-can-generate-it-at-will-or-nearly-so,-is-like-searching-for-what-is-new,-or-might-be-new,-or-for-immediate-or-recent-changes">Ideation and Creativity, If One Can Generate It At-Will or Nearly So, is Like Searching for What Is New, Or Might Be New, or For Immediate or Recent Changes</a>

*70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728548424, Thursday, October 10, 2024 16:20:24, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

For expansion at a later time.

*70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728548432, Thursday, October 10, 2024 16:20:32, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 8 seconds. Typespeed: 42.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="social-postings-are-rarely-well-done,-but-if-well-done,-there-will-be-no-references-or-citations-to-it">Social Postings Are Rarely Well Done, But if Well Done, There Will Be No References or Citations to It</a>

*70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728545566, Thursday, October 10, 2024 15:32:46, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Social postings are typically small chunks of text, with a range from some small number of characters equal to not more than a couple sentences, to postings that can be several paragraphs. For the smaller postings, there is no rooom to type ccitations. For the small social postings, if one wants to write more, one has to write a number of chunks. It is unclear, from the knowledge that there are a number of chunks, that they relate well to each other, making up a cohesive writing. These social postings will not receive any citation from anyone writing books or papers, because they will not be taken seriously enough and they will not be considered publications although they are publications. Longer social postings do have room for citations but citations are rarely provided. For all social postins then, there is a context in which citations are not much expected. This does not create an environment in which people are thinking at all that they need to be citing the thoughts of others or that they would. 

If a social posting is really good quality it is still in this context. So people are not going to be in the mindset that what is read should be cited. They are also not well encapsulated as discrete chunks of topical thinking. So there is less of a feeling that there is any unit that is to be recalled and remembered that should be cited. Citation of chunks of separate texts would not be very simplistic, although it can be done. Larger writings are not titled usually, also making them appear to not be units but perhaps chatty sequences of statements and sentences. Not being a clear and obvious paper, article, blog post, or other publication, there is the feeling that there is no need to cite.

For social platforms, this may already be known. It would be known. If none of it needs to be cited by any member interacting in the community, then the platform would not feel any need to do more than anyone else would do. They would just refer to the fact that nobody cites there and that sharing is free. They may even use the information to claim that there is an implicit free sharing happening with no expectation of credit, and that credit is something that doesn't fit into the system.

This provides them an additional way to ignore that people are sharing useful information and that credit is something that they are seeking out, being on the platforms for attention and not only for sharing with each other. This would be more obviously true regarding video content, but video content too does not seem to be something that others would think they would need to cite later on. So social platforms have additional ways to argue that they can simply have whatever happens to be posted.

*70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728546061, Thursday, October 10, 2024 15:41:01, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 495 seconds. Typespeed: 54.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="amputees-may-be-able-to-achieve-first-human-powered-flight">Amputees May Be Able to Achieve First Human Powered Flight</a>

*69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728475769, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 20:09:29, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

In the olympic games we witnessed many athletes who have had their limbs removed who were able to achieve very great speed. If not in variations of olympic games, or olympic games themselves, peripheral competitions would have plenty of evidence they do well. With the aid of new appendages, that are springlike, they have shown they can oftentimes run faster than others who are not amputees. They may have advantages. If this continues to occur, there should be a point in the future, when mechanized people will have to have their own competition, because it is unfair to humans who are not amputees!

I think this idea can be expanded upon very greatly. One Idea I had just now develops on that theme.

For a while, people interested in flight have attempted to make flight machines that are human powered. Some have been powered with bicycles, and those were plane like, but through antiquity some have tried to use actual wings to fly. They have tried to build wings, flap them, and fly like birds. Nowadays, we know that the weight of the person and their strength makes this impossible to do. The energy requirements mixed with the weight of the body make it impossible to be birdlike in flight, under human power.

If we examine birds, we know they have cartilege instead of heavy bones for their skeletons. This makes their bodies much lighter, making it possible for their muscles to generate enough power for their weings to make them fly along. Comparing with people, we can see then that we'd have to make changes to the body to enable them to fly. But why not enable the amputees to fly. A very large portion of the weight was legs.

Using this idea, amputees are recruited to learn to fly. They may be able to use technology to walk still, even while they try this study. Thise with no legs at all are preferred. In this study, they are encouraged to be very light, losing most bodyfat and musculature where it is unneeded.

Then they take steroids, and work on flapping their arms with weights. They build the back muscles, the shoulders especially, and their pectorals. They can then have human breast muscles like bird breasts. They strengthen these muscles beyond what any bodybuilder has achieved. They receive other enhancements as needed.

Now that their weight is low, and their arm strength is high, it is to be decided if they are still too heavy or not to flap and fly. Much of this could be determined in advance, usin gmath, for feasibility. But to see how much force they could generate and for how long, would be very interesting. They may achieve brief flight, like the wright brothers in their first attempts at flight.

Then it is determined what else is needed. It appears at this point it would be achievable with some few additional steps. Maybe some ribcage can be removed, and made plaastic.  Maybe additional muscles are added and trained. Maybe some bone is removed. Maybe the scull is lightened. Weight is reduced while strength and endurance are increased.

With new wing construction, it may be possible for thes epeople to fly like birds who can't fly well, compared with birds who soar, but still get around easily. Like chickens and certain geese like birds. They fly low and fast. Maybe they fly high and land in trees for rest.

This could be a first or next step in becoming more like birds, for anyone who wishes to live the bird life. Everyone else can still walk like ostrriches, and so can admit they are birds too.

*69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728476370, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 20:19:30, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 601 seconds. Typespeed: 60.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="some-points-on-the-denials-that-humans-are-animals">Some Points on the Denials That Humans are Animals</a>

*69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728470212, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 18:36:52, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Making sense of life is a challenge for those who would deny that humans are animals. Of course they rely on the fact that in the animal kingdom, three are divisions of species to think that humans as a group are separable from other animals. This supports their view that of course, humans are not chimpanzees, they are not rats, and they are not guinea pigs, or any other animal that is not a human. But the simple distinction between humans and all other animals makes it appear that all other animals are in a class called "animals" and humans are separate from that class.

Looking at the human section of the animal taxonomy, we see that they are a simple division, and only one division, within all the divisions of animals that exist and have existed. Somehow, some have become so confused, that they think that the human section of the animal taxomony is making them distinct from animals, whereas really it is simply their animal category among all the other animal categories.

It's hard to imagine that others can be so confused by their language to not recognize that humans are simply a;a single division in the animal kingdom. They are within the animal kingdom and simple make up one category o fthe animal categories.

Denying that humans are animals must lead to some strange confusions. Firstly, why, if you are not an animal, do you have a body. This is going very simplistically. How do you recognize other anials? Well, they are separable from earth's other materials. The earth's surface, atmosphere, plant life, minerals, dirt, buildings, and so on. We can see that they are separable because they have bodies that have similarities and are clearly separable from ;what is around. Also, they move about. Why is it that you too move around? You have a body in motion, an dyet you don't see yourself as being amongst the animals.

How then do you perceive another person as being separate from their environment? Do you use the same method to separate them from the environment as you do with animals? Of course you do. Other people have bodies and are in motion, and that makes them plainly distinguishable from their surroundings. What would it be like to think they are not animals? Would n't it be strange that you could distringuish them from environment in the same way as for animals, or that you can distinguish them from environment at all?

Do you blend with rock? Do you have a ghost that goes through walls? 

Also, if you were to try to distinguish people from their environment using a way that is not similar to how you notice anials are separate from their environment, what method do you use? How do you recognize a human non-animal as distinct from environment without using body and motion?

You wouldn't be able to see them if you couldn't use this method.

What are your non animal methods of seeing? What are your non animal methods of touching? What are your non animal methods of using eyes or other senses? How do animals know you are present?

It seems more reasonable that animals use the same ways to know you are present that they use for other animals and that you use for them. Animals see a background not moving. They see other animals in motion on the background. They see bodies taht are boundaried by skin and their size. They see outside of body, which is the background, and they see body. The motion helps them see it.

If animals do this well with their senses, then perhaps you are using an animal's way to see it too. 

If you rely on a different way, then what are the anials doing? How is it that they are so similar? Why is it  you don't know what they are when I ask?

I am asking now, not later, but I'll give you time to respond. What are y our non animal methods to do the same thing. How are they not the same thing. Do you use your yees  nose,  and ears, to do it? Why do animals have those things too?One has to be strange to think that humans are not animals.

*69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728470992, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 18:49:52, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="mobile-devices-should-be-computers-by-now">Mobile Devices Should Be Computers By Now</a>

*69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728462020, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 16:20:20*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Consumerism | Markets | Business Trajectories | Technology | Moral Technology

In the early 2000s, I was strongly desiring a new laptop that would function as a complete computer, as small as a palm pilot. Palm devices had some promise to function as full computers. They had document writing tools like microsoft word, and other office related applications. But these applications  did not perform well, and were tooo minimal. They provided functionality making one think that the applications were created too quickly. , and that perhaps they were not well developed.

Applications like microsoft office did not provide the suite of tools for the palm devices. Instead they relied on similar applications to do the same work. For a long period, I substituted the sony ux50 clie device for the computer. I used it in class to type notes and lecture material. The keyboard was inadequate, but close to adequate. Some would ask what tool I was using for the work. It looked like a very small miniature laptop. It did function for a while, but once documents became long, they would fail to save, and I'd lose work. I was wanting this device to have some slight improvements. With those improvements, it would have been a replacement for the laptop. Ultimately, the device, after trying many workarounds, proved to simply be inadequate.

Following this period was the period of netbooks. And these were amazingly well done. Very light on the compute, they still provided everything needed for a full office experience includding full versions of windows. Linux worked well on these devices too. Computers were extremely small at about 8" to 11" and had a complete keyboard. I could do all that I needed to do on these devices.

Soon however, the market changed, and all laptops had a minimum size. I do have a small laptop that is approaching the size, the mac air 11". That got discontinued. Again we were stuck with large laptops instead of small highly portable ones. This period now has been nearly 10 years. It has been perhaps a bit longer since the netbooks were discontinued. The netbooks were full computers for 200 USD or less. The cost was very low.

Now it is clear that there is a business trajectory that simply wants to keep lapots around while people are using phones that are nearly laptops. For a long time, I've wanted an iPhone to function as a macintosh computer. Nowadays, they tout the quality of the processor, screen, GPU, and insist they have amazing compute abilities. But the user is locked into using the apps that they deliver along with apps in the app store. These do not typically test or allow one to make full use fo these processors. I found it strange that such processors were offered, without their being computers. When one uses a full computer, one can test the processor. One does tasks that require the processor. But on these devices, there is insufficient reason to market the processor any longer because they simply cannot be extensively used.

Also if the processor is as good as they market, they can surely use full operating systems, which can function on very minimal devices. So I wondered, why do they not simply finally offer phones as full computers. There are many applications in which this would be worthwhile and I see pathways that they could use in the business to expand on the business. However it appears they simply are defending the laptop market, and want to supply laptops that may be very inexpensive with little development for the same prices.

*More Soon*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="reading-the-faces-of-income-richish-and-wealthy-parents-is-like-reading-the-faces-of-the-impoverished">Reading the Faces of Income Richish and Wealthy Parents Is Like Reading the Faces of The Impoverished</a>

*67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728336638, Tuesday, October 08, 2024 05:30:38, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

The parents and the poorest simply did not have an educatioinal pathway to avoid being miserable as parents. There were no plans, thre still are no plans, and there is no way to train anyone to avoid having children without having optimal mind nand conditions for having them. So the rich feel strongly the mistake of having children. They feel strongly misguided. They feel like it was the wrong trajectory like not having a good trajectory living in poor conditions or in a poor nation. It results in the same kind o fscarcity in time and increase of misery. It does not result in accomplishments that anyone wants to attend to, and children have trouble giving credit to parents, and parents have trouble understanding that they aren't to be credited in the way they want from doing the minimum or what is simply obligatory.

*67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728336795, Tuesday, October 08, 2024 05:33:15, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 157 seconds. Typespeed: 54.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="when-people-use-ellipses,-excess-commas,-and-punctuation-marks-for-expressions,-i-begin-to-suspect-defects,-and-editing">When People Use Ellipses, Excess Commas, and Punctuation Marks for Expressions, I Begin to Suspect Defects, and Editing</a>

*67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728282519, Monday, October 07, 2024 14:28:39, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

I noticed that some use periods to divide paragraphs, and repeatedly keep doing that. I also noticed, that some use multiple parenthesis to exhibit without typing miscellaneous expressions and emotions, and also I've noticed, some use the comma a number of times, or ellipses, to indicate much more could be said, or for other purposes. After seeing this some number of times, I can tell there is not an experimental undertaking taking place in the writing. I can also tell, thre isn't any special expressiveness ocurring. It's not artful.

This is done sometimes to replace emoticons. Sometimes, the writing that goes witht he punctuation is lazy. Oftentimes it appears that whoever is doing it, cannot well type, speak, or converse. It does not take long before I question the intelligence of the writer.Probably there is a way to utilize intelligence testing for this type of content, to dectect fraud and misbehavior. People try to portray they are intellligent using these means, thinking themselves tricky. There are some similarities to the use of emoticons too excessively. There is a substitution of some emotional expression where thinking is lacking. I understand, however, there are compensatory reasons sometimes why people would do theis. Sometimes they may not beable to type because of some physiological problem. I think that's atypical though.

Why is this person, who believes themselves to be quite intelligent, substituting thinking and writing for shorter statements and punctuation? Knowing people who speak and write well, the contrast is massive. They are unlike each other. The topic of how different people can be from each other in their written communications is interesting. You really can divide them using bases suchas the one I'm writing about here. The best writers and thinkers simply never do this practice of using too much punctuation marks and emoticons.

*67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728282887, Monday, October 07, 2024 14:34:47, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 368 seconds. Typespeed: 48.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="writing-topic-sentences-in-advance-to-create-flow">Writing Topic Sentences in Advance to Create Flow</a>

*67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728281528, Monday, October 07, 2024 14:12:08, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

In my writing, even when I write straight from the mind, there is usually good development and flow. However, that is not always the case, particularly when I'm writing a book that does not yet have a final organization. Recently, as I've been writing, I've been revisiting the value of topic sentences. This of course is a subject that was taught in early education, and in High School, and in college. But there are still areas in which I can benefit from developing further that learning. 

I have found that, it appears writing topic sentences in advanced to write a book may be beneficial. The topic sentences develop all of what is wanted to be said section by section. Pars themselves are just elaborations. This was taught already. But the actual process of writing somewhat confuses how to use that learning. Do we simply arrive at that point of having connecting topic sentences and pars after quickly writing while motivated, while ready to write with precious energy ? Or do we risk not using the moment for creation, to instead focus on topic sentences alone without all else that one would want to say? The way I typically write is simply to nearly converse into the document from the keyboard. Topic sentences come later, but after very important material has been collected and put together. Then I find issues with the topic sentences and flow, and fix them. But at that time, there is so much extra text that it's harder to organize.

Another way might be to wait to have the creativity again later. In my case, I can rely on creativity to be available, but I'm writing this recalling that all do not necessarily have the creative energy I have. Writing all of the topic sentences at once may make it less conversational, and less like sharing what is really interesting in one's mind. I may be changing my approach to really focus on topic sentences to build the whole arguments first, then to expand on each topic sentance afterwards. New topic sentences can be added at any time. Others can be corrected. But by the time the topic sentences are there, flow might be more assured. Since the whole document interconnects, later there isn't the feeling that there is a huge mess. The overall mess is minimized, while decreasing the amount of content that is initially input. I think the benefits may offset the weaknesses of this approach. There may be few detriments as long as there is sufficient creative energy..

*67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728281968, Monday, October 07, 2024 14:19:28, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 440 seconds. Typespeed: 54.0 words per minute.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="black-only-scientific-application">Black Only Scientific Application</a>

*66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728211680, Sunday, October 06, 2024 18:48:00, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

This is a methodology in which all experience gained from huge amounts of data and tests are gathered, but only that data coming from black participants is used for anything. That knowledge is then applied, by matching the black data analogically to new situations. So white patients of dentistry only get care that blacks have received and is only guided by black information. Surgeries too. Any science applied to people is done so from black information only. Otherwise people would have to admit that the equality of people and treatment is false. dAll people should be willing and ready to receive medicine that has been used for black people, regardless of their race. If you get an injection it is onya black injection. If you get blood drawn, it's only black.

If you get chemotherapy, it's what the black man and woman who are analogues got. When you get a drug, it's exactly as it was prescribed to black people. All science then becomes dependent on black information and black people, and all applications are fair. You cannot ever get more than what thehe black pepople received. Also, nothing is learned from you. All your data is simply ignored and only black information is used. Since blacks and you are similar as you believe, you can be ignored. You are ignored and your treatment is stellar, because it turns out your treatment can be the same as what blacks received, and wheat they receive becomes more important for everyone.

*66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728211991, Sunday, October 06, 2024 18:53:11, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 311 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="diminishing-return-of-thought-to-culminations-versus-vanishing-thoughts-with-huge-learnings-still-occurring">Diminishing Return of Thought To Culminations Versus Vanishing Thoughts With Huge Learnings Still Occurring</a>

*66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728210092, Sunday, October 06, 2024 18:21:32, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

A diminishing return of thought implies that one is really arriving at something of a final point of learning. It means one is growing and having large insights until a time when even the largest insights based on the smaller insights come togethr into a cohesive completeness. Some strive and get close to a more final state. 

This may be compared with the view that there is not a diminishing return on thinking and that thinking keeps resulting in huge insights. This would seem to imply that the person who is having the thinking believes that later, they will still need huge insights. That they didn't or couldn't have them already. 

The world to this second group may appear to be one in which complete knowledge (more complete) is not really possible or desirable. Tho this group, the bigger insights may happen later. If one lived to a thousand years old or older, there would still be huge insights that have not been had. This to me appears to be a view of someone who simply wants to hear they will remain childlike in their curiosities, which sounds nice, but is not actual. They simply want to hear that they can keep learning the same way. But as I was saying earlier with project completeness, there really are ends to projects and insights that don't develop further, or much further. If one invented the shovel, there would be a large resistance to thinking for creating new shovels, because really there is much completeness achieved already. Regarding shovels, it is over.

But now this other group may say that they think the number of projects is infinite. That does not appear to me to be the case. Particularly for humans with a limited life expectancy. I think there are a finite number of interesting or important things to work on. Thinking that thre are infinite projects to work on appears to me thinking about projects that are not important or interesting. One can of course add new curiosities to one's list of things to do. But those curiosities are increasingly less important if one has figured out the project of doing with one's life what is important. 

It seems a simple thing to see how or why someone might deny the idea that there is a diminishing return on thinking. They want to hear there is more ahead that is worth doing. They want to hear that there are always new projects. But that to me is a sad way of thinking. It denies reality. It means one is not striving for a synthetic completeness of important projects.It is lie simpply adding more tasks to the list of things to do.

Imagine if one had funds to travel indefinitely. One goes to all countries, first those that are more highly valuable to visit, then other countries, then finally the rest. Then one focuses on cities. One focuses on high value cities, then medium value, then the rest. One can then stare into the crevices where there might be other people living. The end of travel is not the interesting part compared with the onset of travel.

I already know this because I have traveled very extensively, and know already it has gotten less interesting. Patterns are seen. It feels more like repetition, even where there are differences. Traveling to many countries and many cities and seeing the patttern and synthetically blending what one learns with what is important seems to be better, bringing travel to completion. One can reallly finish earthly travel.If one had a million years to travel, eventually it would be so repetitive that people in the second camp would become those in the first camp, finally realizing they are bored.

But realistically thoe who cannot well see patterns, or sythetically blend nearly complete projects together, may simply think that the world is full of inifinite possibility because they themselves are limited to the extent that bblending things together, and having the requisite completenesses is impossible. 

That is a nice life, but a more enlightened and complete one makes death seem more desirable. This is a benefit. Compare "I feel liee I've finished life, and now I'm ready to go" versus "Death does not seem welcome to me because I have so much more to learn, and I really would like to have completed my life." That is a bit of a convenient comparison simply supporting my point, but I think it can be framed objectively too.

What I think is great about the diminishing return on thinking is that it is desirable.A plan I actually have is to diminish it until there is little to think about that is not already thought of, and that would be of importance or interest. When thought isn't useful, or interesting, then it is a good time to finish life.Probably this will occur some time before death but not too far from when death would be appropriate anyway.

*66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728210966, Sunday, October 06, 2024 18:36:06, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 874 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="diminishing-return-on-the-thoughtstream,-and-the-relationship-to-diminishing-return-of-thinking">Diminishing Return on the Thoughtstream, and The Relationship to Diminishing Return of Thinking</a>

*66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728199498, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:24:58, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

The ThoughtStream involves a process of writing that is nearly complete. Being nearly complete, there are few improvements that can be had. This is a great accomplishment, because it means thinking can be diverted to other interests. However, the completion means the interesting thiking about the thoughtstream itself and its process is coming to an end.

Thinking on anything until complletion creates a good confidence and culminating moment of having knowledge that is adequate where it relates. This means that for any task that is brought to compmletion that really does result in a culmination that thinking about that becomes less important. It becomes more rethought. Thought, as a project nears an end, is diminishing in importance. When the project ends, one feels that one should start looking elsewhere to have interest. This should confirm the hypothesis that there is a diminishing return on thought.

The ThoughtStream doesn't only do this for the writing process however, because the contents of the writing combined with th the writing process, architecture, and topical writing development of the book and journal which contains the thoughtstream, has subject matter that has also come to completion. Ideas that were separated were being sythesized. Their combination resulted in more difinitive conclusioins. The completions of these various topics, relating to diverse areas of life, are coming to a culmination. That culmination also signals diminishing value of additional thinking. Thought then becomes repetitive.

This ThoughtSTream is also sharing topics coming to an end.

In my earlier writings I called RationalTimes, I mentioned that we are wanting to have conclusions on various topics that are final. However, as we develop our thinking, the conclusions we form can usually be only nearing finality. Revisions are needed as life goes on end more experience is had, and more thiking is developed. But after a very long period of tentative conclusion arrivals, there is, for some, anand end in view. This is akin to the end of a project. Thoughts that are striving towards completion in a subject are like mini personal projects, and they are scattered around in our mind as it relates to diverse life considerations.

As there are conclusions in eac h area, there are culminations. Eventually there is more conclusiveness to all thinking, if the thinking is correct. That results in a diminishing return on all thinking and not only some thinking about some projects. 

This appears to be provable. If one has a conclusion relating to a personal project, then one can can simply think about life as a set of project, each of which could come to completion in the same ways.This means that if one is sufficiently comprehensive, there is a diminishing return of thinking on all thought, and that one ends up in repetitive thinking about confirmed conclusions as one thinks. 

*66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728199999, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:33:19, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 501 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="plans-that-have-positive-intent-universally,-and-instances-of-communication-and-pathway-that-to-others-appear-to-have-malintent,-yet-do-not">Plans That Have Positive Intent Universally, and Instances of Communication and Pathway That to Others Appear to Have Malintent, Yet Do Not</a>

*66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728199197, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:19:57, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Someone who is an intellectual who has dramatically new ideas relating to plans that are very positive intent, may result in work that has trajectories and results that appear to others to be out of mainstream positive objectives. This would cause others to reactively thik there is not positive intent, whereas the planning and behavior would indicate that there is more positive intent than they could even have.

*66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728199271, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:21:11, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 74 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="creating-mutual-knowledge-of-merits-by-removing-technologies-the-public-thinks-they-are-responsible-for,-an-reduction-of-stimulation-if-it-can't-be-admitted,-a-short-story-on-another-form-of-torture">Creating Mutual Knowledge of Merits By Removing Technologies the Public Thinks They Are Responsible For, An Reduction of Stimulation if it Can't Be Admitted, A Short Story On Another Form of Torture</a>

*66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728198828, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:13:48, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Last night, I came up with a new interesting sci-fi short story idea which relates to the reduction of stimulation of people who can't admit inequality with respect to intelligence and contribution. These people are placed together, and only receive intelligent input that's too intelligent for their comprehension. Then they are shortly mutually exposed to less intelligent thoughts to regain interest and attention, but then immediately afterwards, each communicates to the other, with artifiical means, input that's too intelligent for them. Without their awareness, all that is communicated to the others while they are talking is intelligent information that's too complex. They then become disinterested in each other again. Then stupid responses are allowed again and they build interest, but then the scenario is repeated, until they realize they will ;never understand anything. There is much more to this idea but it would amount to an intellectual horry story for the masses.

*66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728198995, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:16:35, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 167 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="you-created-a-process-for-your-work,-but-not-for-your-behavior">You created a process for your work, but not for your behavior</a>

*64 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728024801, Friday, October 04, 2024 14:53:21, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

This point is more clear if you consider that you cannot and did not communicate your process to anyone else. You could not do it for your children. Your privacy would prevent you from being candid about it too, even if you had a process. Your children that you didn't really plan did not have a life plan coming from you on as baic a matter as daily behavior in the same degree of sophistication as a simple work process. You did it for work but not for you. Meanwhile, all people think themselves morally superior without any training.

*64 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728024880, Friday, October 04, 2024 14:54:41, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 79 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="your-face-is-not-part-of-your-thinking">Your face is not part of your thinking</a>

*64 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728024690, Friday, October 04, 2024 14:51:30, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

If your entire face were removed along with the jaw, from hthe eyebrows down to the neck, and all was replaced with digital, it would be apparent that only the brain is doing the thinking. The face is peripheral devices. Like mouse and keyboard and speakers and webcam. When you look in the mirror, reallly your face is not part of your thought.

*64 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728024767, Friday, October 04, 2024 14:52:47, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 77 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="hollow-prose-encephaly,-or-holoprosencephaly">Hollow Prose Encephaly, or Holoprosencephaly</a>

*63 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727933428, Thursday, October 03, 2024 13:30:28, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Holoprosencephaly is a disease or embryological malformation that is caused by a developmental issue just after conception due to an issue with the axial twist. This is an interesting disease to consider when deciding whether or not to risk the deaths of children. Sometimes they are spontaneously aborted, sometimes not. But the word is interesting. It sounds a bit like "hollow prose encephaly" which may relate to the babies inability to write substantive content.

It could be that this word was created as a jab to the stupid. Those who write as if nobody is there. Those who write without anything meaningful in the words. This would be their "hollow" prose.

*63 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727933595, Thursday, October 03, 2024 13:33:15, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 167 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="ethics-of-human-studies,-and-gatherable-information">Ethics of human studies, and gatherable information</a>

*61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727769385, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:56:25, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

iI've written elsewhere that companies are now prperforming studies on humans without their consent using any analytic related information they can gather from technology. All inputs into the keyboard, all clicks, and all content entered into text messages, are gathered providing data in which scientific studies can be conducted. Studies are conducted. This clashes extremely with what universities have taught in training on how pto propertlly conduct scientific studies.

Studies areon humans without their consent were performed by militaries and scientific companies for a long time, and sometimes with terrible results. As students we learna  about this, and the need to be transparent with purposes of studies, and with results. Certain studies are now used as examples of what not to do. For example, studies on disease on unwilling participants in the public and in other countries. TStudies that have resulted in the deaths of participants were conducted without their knowledge.

Nowadays the ethics asssociated with studies have been disregarded. Nowadays, information is agathered and used, without consent. Almost all studies at the is point are probably itwithout consent or without disclosure of results and handling of information.

Thi s has been a failure of business more than of science, bu tthose doing science are qwithin business. Science at a large scale cannot be conducted without funding, and nowadays without profits and any scientific studies done are siloed within organizations who choose to share or not to keep their businesses competitive. If they share, there is also the question of why they can share. Complicity between businesses is a cause of the increased science without consent. Nowadays, information is shared between web service providers wheras for a long time they did not have mutual access to analytics information. This means they can conmplicitly plan and use information taken from users without their knowledge.

The people who provide the information, which is now everyone, is disincluded from the process and all are human subjects.

Being unethical about science is now the norm. 

*61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727769775, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 16:02:55, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 390 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-costs-of-doing-business-as-a-cellular-service-provider.">The costs of doing business as a cellular service provider.</a>

*61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727768060, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:34:20, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

iIt appears now that cellular cservices are stable, universally available, nearly, and free wifi has failed, that there needs to be a reevaluabtion of the costs that cellular service providers incur, to determine if the business is fjustifiable. 

The SIM standard has abeen arounda long time, and it is clear that the costs of providing sim cards is nearly nothing. Now that there are micro sd cards that hold terabytes of data, and many gigabytes, it is clear that a card that holds almost no data, is basically free. It is nearly a rprinting cost. This implies that when one needs cellular sercie the only thing needed is something free to connect. The additional cost is merely the amount of data one is wanting for a period of time like a month. 

Overseas, the costs of data is much lower than it is in countries like the united states, where little bandidth is provided at a much higher cost for less data. Overseas, I recently procured a sim card for 25GB of data, which was more than enough, for 25 dollars for one month. For 5gb, it would likely be less than 10 dollars. Additionally, I've procured esim data service for less than 5 dollars for a month. Because these are enough to sustain business, it appears the business is offering something free. There should perhaps be no cost.

What are the relationships between cogovernment and cellular services. If governments control, reduce, and examine cellular communications, then what is provided is not only something from a carrier but something from government. Government controls infrastructure. Government is responsible for advancing infrastructure. Being responsible for these things, it appears that taxes already cover the costs .

When we sign up for tfree services, we give away free information. That free information is not typically at the scale that is received by cellular communications companies. This means what they have received is more than enough to cover the costss, and, what exactly do they do with hit? Ge

Wifi has failed to provide free interent for people in shared locations. There was a period of time ;in which free service was a goal. There were issues of rproviding wifi reliably over a wide area. In free areas, it would wnot work well. City provided internet has been a definite failure. Meanwhile, there are more requirements to gain wifi at business locations. One has to be within or near the business to have a signal. Meanwhile cellular services have had no issue providing service everywhere.

It apperas to be time to provide free cellular. Providing free secellular removes the need to maintain a relatioinship. It removes the need to pay bills, worry about bills, and to be reduced to low bandwidth. The bandwith may not have the limitations bpeople thingk it does.

This is a clear issue with nations that claim laeeadership. They provide less bandwidth. It must be that they are artificallly reducing bandwidth. Also, upload is limited in places. Elsewhere, there are not upload limitations.

Destressing people is a major role of government. Since the taxes cover the costs, it should be provided to those with less resources for free. It is not clear what a justification would be to not allow free connections at this point. But it doesn't appear that it would be due to good motivations and good intention to not provide free connections. Everyone with a cell phone can easily connect on the free sim chips. Esims are available on phones to not require even the sim card. It is time that the phone is purchased and the connection is automatice. Simple configurations can be used to change numbers.

*61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727768703, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:45:03, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

*Written in 643 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="after-living-extremely-frugally-for-several-years,-i've-confirmed-that-rent-and-where-you-are-renting-are-really-the-only-considerations-for-creating-quality-of-life-globally.">After living extremely frugally for several years, I've confirmed that rent and where you are renting are really the only considerations for creating quality of life globally.</a>

*61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727766181, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:03:01, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

Rent really is the primary consideration for staying well and having a great quality of life. People need to have an inexpensive way to sleep while they are simply able to enjoy being outdoors and in market locations. Location is the other consideration. People need a way to change locations. Then they need a realistic rent in order to sleep. If they are able to do these things, they will live very well. The other costs are slo low, if one lives frugally, that they don't matter. Rent and location matter.

*61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727766247, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:04:07, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 66 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="daycare-is-a-mistake-of-investments">Daycare is a Mistake of Investments</a>

*58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727507975, Saturday, September 28, 2024 15:19:35, Bali, Indonesia*

Again and again, I have heard of the incredible costs of day care. My ex-wife worked in day care for a couple decades, and told me of the various costs of infant care, child care,and costs at diffferent facilities. Some facilities, I recall were costing 1,500 per month per child. Or if that's mistaken, it was for a single child. Perhaps there is a reduced cost for the second thild if more are had.

We hear about the benefits of investment. This is not a reasonable investment. If one were single, just that alone would pay for rent for a beautiful apartment. It would pay for all travel if travel was wanted. It would allow for gradual investment in various interest accounts. It appears to be an irrational practice to have day care. One may become divorced, and then one is single with children in day care. If one is deciding to be a parent, if this is required, or needed, then it is simply irrational.

*58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727508157, Saturday, September 28, 2024 15:22:37, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 182 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="mental-state-changes,-duration,-and-time-to-alter-and--retain-new-state">Mental State Changes, Duration, and Time to Alter and  Retain New State</a>

*58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727507153, Saturday, September 28, 2024 15:05:53, Bali, Indonesia*

iWhen one is in a certain physiological state corresponding to a mental state, there is a sduration associated. If one feels a certain way, and one wants to feel another way, it may take some time to transition to the other way. If one is not aware of the state change, the state change may occur before awareness, which is typical, or may only change when one becomes aware, and seeks out a state change.

The change of state has a period of time of transition. So if one feels one way, becomes aware of it, wants to feel another way, and then tries to feel that other way, one will be aware it is not immediate. Even if one were skilled in making state changes one would still know there is at least some small period of time between the first feeling, and the subsequent feeling that's more desirable. Sometimes it's fast, as when one meets a person and it is quickly happy with plenty o fsmiles. Before that moment, it may have been very different. So there are examples of rapid transition.

If one experiences some phsyiological state that is somewhat uncomfortable leading to a feelin gthat is not as desirable as another, it takes the alteration of the physiological state somewhat or completely to have the new state. If one has a heart attack, it will take a while ;to create the new feeling. That is obviously an extremity in the physiological situations one would think about considering this topic, but it makes the issue clear. If one wants to transition out of meditation, it also takes time to return to a more excited state.

The period of transition is interesting because that is where the skills of transition are used immediately or quikckly after awareness is had of the earlier state.

The objective is to have a methodology for habituation that will result in quick transition sto desirable states, even if there is a physiological transition that needs to take place.

*58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727507500, Saturday, September 28, 2024 15:11:40, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 347 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="totally-blind-typing-with-zero-visual-feedback-has-resulted-in-slightly-reduced-typespeed,-due-to-type-clumsiness,-lack-of-practice-creating-an-increased-caution,-and-resulted-in-some-minor-increase-in-typos">Totally Blind Typing With Zero Visual Feedback Has Resulted in Slightly Reduced Typespeed, Due to Type Clumsiness, Lack of Practice Creating an Increased Caution, and Resulted in Some Minor Increase In Typos</a>

*58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727504156, Saturday, September 28, 2024 14:15:56, Bali, Indonesia*

It has been found that typing with zero feedback has resulted in some unpracticed clumsiness in typing resulting in slower write time and a small increase in typos and other errors. Thesee errors are small. The type speed has been reduced, but already it is clear that typespeeed will increase and probably be greater than it was before, when there was a screen reading back text.

That the typespeed has been reduced only a small amount, an dthat the typos and other errors have been increased only slightly, indicates that the writing and typing skill of the author are very ppowerful, even when there is no feedback at all, writing into a black box. It is anticipated that the writing will improve and eventually the errors may be reduced to the same amount of errors (maybe less) from when typing was semi blind. Again, no spell check , proofreading, reading, or tools were used to make any corrections. Nothing can be seen on the screen. Before, very little on the screen was watched.

Cursor position seems to have played a role in the ability to self-correct with a small amount of visual feedback, even if there was only a small amount of attention to it.

*58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727504358, Saturday, September 28, 2024 14:19:18, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 202 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="meditation-is-thought-to-be-a-periodic-or-regularly-occuring-activity-with-gaps:-a-punctuated-activity">Meditation is Thought to Be a Periodic or Regularly Occuring Activity With Gaps: A Punctuated Activity</a>

*58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727502833, Saturday, September 28, 2024 13:53:53, Bali, Indonesia*

Last year, while meditatng in Cairns Australia, while driving, I realized it may be possible to maintain a meditation session for a prolonged period of time. Before that experience when I was more actively meditating it was practiced daily, more than once a day, with a return to the meditative state when I was facing stress from a particular person who communicated too loud, too close, and for too long. This person was in my active work environment and was someone I did care for, and this person was caring, but had some various dysfunctions that may not be uncommon to people on the autism spectrum. There were other stressors too, and when I felt stress, I would quickly return into a meditative state, because it was well practiced enough to simply reactivate the meditative feeling. Combining these two expereinces, I thhink it is possible to further the meditative effort until for a much longer period of time the meditative feeling is experienced. 

At this time, I would not want to be perpetually in meditation. There are times in which I want to experience other stronger emotions and to experience a high level of excitation and even something akin to power and aggression, particularly at the gym and while wporting. But what I think would be worthwhile is to be more meditative between these events. Typically, between times meditating and these other experiences, I'm not doing anything that is planful regarding my somewhat less mindful periods. Everyone has times throughout the day in which they are not attentive to their relaxation, mindfulness, or immediate awareness of sensations and space. 

Oddly, this can be contrasted perhaps with the perspective of a thoroughly relaxed person, whose baseline relaxation is very great repose. This kind of person is already satisfying objectives of meditation. They could likely relax further with meditation, but in a way, they are always in a more meditative state, than a person, perhaps frazzled, who enters a meditative state gradually at the time that they begin. Other times they may simply be irritated, annoyed, or stressed. The relaxed person seems always relaxed. Some especially relaxed people may never enter states of high excitation, not being people necessarily who would want to exercise vigorously, or do anything that would include some level of agitation. Others, however, would already have realized the goal I have in mind. They are relaxed very often, nearly always, but then suddenly, they can transfer into another mode in which they are more energetic, passionate, assertive, or enthusiastic.

I believe now that the punctuation of meditation is not really necessary, excepting the periods in which one wants to have these other energetic states. It can be blended with all other activities that don't require high enthusiasm. Meditation, if it makes a relaxed person, simply resulted in a relaxed person who is permanently in a kind of meditative state. They too can go into deeper meditation when they want to , but they have an achievement of automation with respect to the relaxation habit which is a blending of behavior with meditation.

*58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727503544, Saturday, September 28, 2024 14:05:44, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 711 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="edited-forward-for-in-sights-some-smart-people-views-and-lives-thirteen">Edited Forward for In-Sight's “Some Smart People, Views and Lives, Thirteen”</a>

*57 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727411222, Friday, September 27, 2024 12:27:02, Bali, Indonesia*

Very intelligent people are notably absent from mainstream culture, where typical media and entertainment is most pervasive, sharing only what is thought to be palatable and enjoyable to the largest segments of the population, which of course is comprised primarily of those minds that are closer to the average in most ways. An effect is that people are not often exposed to those who are exceptionally and profoundly intelligent, and when they are, they may not know it, because those who are extremely intelligent, while having the average population as an audience, will alter their behavior so as to be more readily understood. They perform the same act that they knowingly or automatically perform in real life dealing with strangers: they follow along with simple questions, allowing conversations to remain simple; they share interests that are akin to regular interests, to show commonality; and they express agreement when there certainly could be little agreement, to have smooth and considerate transactions. A result is that people, almost everyone, do not have much experience with the most intelligent people and are really unable to differentiate. This creates problems in politics where people are unable to identify which people are actually the most able, if any able politicians happen to be present at all. It also reduces the influence of scientists and skilled experts, because they too are not easily distinguishable from others and their quality of mind is not well appreciated.

A major contribution of the work of Scott Douglas Jacobsen, is to provide the public access into the world of some of the most highly intelligent. Many of the people who are extremely intelligent thrive within academia, various industries, independently, or in the High Intelligence Communities. These are areas in which they live and spend time, but these are also locations in which people cannot readily join in. The Some Smart People, Views and Lives series, along with some of In-Sight Journal’s other publications, are filled with activity from some of the same people who are spending time in socially exclusive and reclusive social locations. I can think of few other places to look, where people can read materials from exceptional people expressing themselves in ways that are closer to how they really think. I recall quickly writing a very brief article, entitled “How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think?” in response to a query on social media, to provide some direction to a person who was wanting to be more informed on the topic of how people with immeasurable IQs really think and behave. In retrospect, the answer was not especially informative partly because I did not fully appreciate the extent in which the highly intelligent people were separate and unavailable to the normal public. Today I think there is a large research issue regarding how this might be achieved, to get information about individuals at a personal level. One can read academic journals in medicine, mathematics, physics, and the other sciences, and get exposed to the output of very intelligent people but you do not get to know them in the process. The very smartest may still not be present although that output may lead one to believe that’s where these people are found. That’s one reason why this publication is especially helpful to the public, because it provides a location where they can be found, and where they won't be simply sharing academic material that gives the impression that they are really smart without providing anything about who they happen to be. In this publication the highly intelligent have a chance to tell you about themselves in a more personal way. If a reader happens to be sufficiently interested, they can learn more about specific individuals, having a pathway to research, since the writers are sharing details about activities they are or have been involved in, in which more information can be located. Mr. Jacobsen is providing an avenue that I could not provide in my quick response, to read about these thinkers and have a pathway to understand them and intelligence further, and today if I were to direct readers to a place to gain knowledge about the most intelligent figures of all, this publication would be included as one of my suggested places to look.

In this publication, I too have been interviewed. In that interview, a central question that is considered is the topic of identifying who is really among the exceptionally and profoundly gifted, in the immeasurable range, and who is not. Publications such as this, while extremely helpful, do prose some risks. These risks are minor if one has the right strategy for reducing those risks. One of those risks is that the people who are respondents may sometimes be fabricating their intelligence and their histories, and may be providing some misinformation. We can’t underestimate how important it is to know that once people have invested time in creating a personal story, they will do quite a lot to protect it and perpetuate it. Some of the people who are even in the high intelligence communities themselves happen to be people who simply want to be perceived as being extremely intelligent, and will do much more than an average person would to keep their story going. In my response, I suggest using an informal method of analyzing conversation thinking about velocities relating to significance and ideation. More about this can be read in my interview response. The question as to charlatanism came directly from Mr. Jacobsen, and that’s partly because there is actually a genuine issue to be addressed. However, I don’t suggest too much reading caution, just the appropriate amount, because some of the most intelligent really are present in the publications. (The situation is different with relationship caution, and for that, read my response thoroughly). This is a very important series to keep the access to intelligent figures going, so that the public actually does have a way to know intelligent figures. For that purpose I can’t think of many other publications that are satisfactory, and for this and any other publication, some expectation of fabrication should be anticipated. This issue is ineradicable but should not prevent the more positive efforts from continuing. After one has noticed red flags in various works, the remainder can be read enjoyably, and as a result one will have a much better appreciation and understanding of intelligent people than if one was stuck only with popular media and entertainment, where that information seldom exists.


What is also great about this work, is that the answers from exceptional writers might seem unexpected. It would lead the reader to more fully understand what high intelligence arrives at, where the arrival is personal and not only academic. The surprising nature of the responses should be anticipated, because these thinkers may not be prominent, as I said, in the mainstream media. Since they are usually not present in the mainstream media, what they say will be very different from what is in the mainstream media, and that makes this publication even more interesting, because what will be read is something unusual and different than what one has otherwise had access to.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="once-you're-bached,-you-never-go-bach">Once You're Bached, You Never Go Bach</a>

*57 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727401147, Friday, September 27, 2024 09:39:07, Bali, Indonesia*

Or once you're Bach, you never go Bach.

*57 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727401166, Friday, September 27, 2024 09:39:26, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 19 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="foreward-draft-for-scott-douglas-jacobsens-some-smart-people-views-and-lives-thirteen">Foreward Draft for Scott Douglas Jacobsen's "Some Smart People, Views and Lives, Thirteen"</a>

*56 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727325907, Thursday, September 26, 2024 12:45:07, Bali, Indonesia*

Very intelligent people are notably absent from mainstream culture, whre typical media and entertainment is most pervasive, sharing only what is thought to be palatable and enjoyable to the largest segments of the population, which of course is comprised primarily of those minds that are closer to the average in most ways. An effect is that people are not really exposed oftentimes to those who are extremely intelligent, and when they are, they may not know it, because those who are extremely intelligent, while having the average population as an audience, will alter their behavior so as to be more readily understood. They perform the same act that they knowingly or automatically perform in real life dealing with strangers: they follow along with simple questions, allowing conversations to remain simple, they share interests that are akin to regular interests, to show commonality, and they express agreement when there certainly could be little agreement, to have smooth and considerate transactions. A result is that people, almost everyone, do not have much experience with the most intelligent people and are really unable to differentiate. This creates problems in politics where people are unable to identify which people are actually the most able, if any able politicians happen to be present at all. It also reduces the influence of scientists and skilled experts, because they too are not easily distinguishable from others and their quality of mind is not well appreciated.

A major contribution of the work of Scott Douglas Jacobsen, is to provide the public access into the world of some of the most highly intelligent. Many of the people who are extremely intelligent thrive within academia, various industries, independently, or in the High Intelligence Communities. These are areas in which they live ans spend time, but these are also locations in which people cannot readily join in. The *Some Smart People, Views and Lives* Series, along with some of Insight Journal's other publications, are filled with activity from some of the same people who are spending time in socially reclusive and exclusive social locations. I can think of few other places to look, where people can read materials from exceptional people expressing themselves in ways that are closer to how they really think. I recall writing a very brief article quickly, entitled "How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think?" in response to a query on social media, to provide some direction to a person who was wanting to be more informed on the topic of how people with immeasurable IQs really think and behave. In retrospect, the answer was not especially informative partly because I did not fully appreciate the extent in which the highly intelligent people were separate and unavailable to the normal public. Today I think there is a large research issue regarding how this might be achieved, to get information about individuals at a personal level. One can read academic journals in medicine, mathematics, physics, and the other sciences, and get exposed to the *output* very intelligent people but you do not get to know them in the process. The very smartest may still not be present although that output may lead one to believe that's where these people are found. That's one reason why this publication is especially helpful to the public, because it provides a location where the highly intelligent have a chance to tell you about themselves in a more personal way. If a reader happens to be sufficiently intersted, they can learn more about specific individuals, having a pathway to research, since details about activities are shared. Mr. Jacobsen is providing an avenue that I could not provide in my simple response in my essay, to read about these thinkers and have a pathway to understand them and intelligence further, and today if I were to direct readers to a place to gain knowledge about the most intelligent figures of all, this publication would be included as one of my suggested places to look. 

In this publication, I too have been interviewed. In that interview, a central question that is considered is the topic of identifying who is really among the exceptionally and profoundly gifted, in the immeasurable range, and who is not. Publications such as this, while extremely helpful, to prose some risks. These risks are minor if one has the right strategy for reducing those risks. One of those risks is that the people who are respondents may sometimes be fabricating their intelligence and their histories, and may be providing some misinformation. We can't underestimate how important it is to know that once people have invested time in creating a personal story, they will do quite a lot to protect it and perpetuate it. Some of the people who are even in the high intelligence communities themselves happen to be people who simply want to be perceived as being extremely intelligent, and will do much more than an average person would to keep their story going. In my response, I suggest using an informal method of analyzing conversation thinkinga about velocities relating to significance and ideation. More about this can be read in my interview response. The question as to charlatanism came directly from Mr. Jacobsen, and that's because there is actually a genuine issue to be addressed. However, I don't suggest too much caution, just the appropriate amount. This is a very important publication to keep the access to intelligent figures going, so that the public *actually does* have a way to know intelligent figures. For that purpose I can't think of many other publications that are satisfactory, and for this and any other publication, some expectation of fabrication should be anticipated. After one has noticed red flags in various works, the remainder can be read enjoyably, and as a result one will have a much better appreciation and understanding of intelligent people than if one was stuck only with popular media and enterainment, where that information seldom exists."


## <a name="sketch-a-day,-writing-a-day,-fitness-a-day,-documentary-entry-a-day,-math-a-day,-moral-technology-a-day">Sketch a Day, Writing a Day, Fitness a Day, Documentary Entry a Day, Math a Day, Moral Technology a Day</a>

*54 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727154790, Tuesday, September 24, 2024 13:13:10*,Bali, Indonesia

There are few things that I am now needing to do per day because the synthesis of my interests, motivations, goals, and lifestyle are blended, and there is only a small set of fun tasks I want to do daily, or near-daily-cyclically to accomplish all I want in the short and the long term. Sketching every day, and producing documentary entries every day are two things I have not fully habitualized yet, but am nearly ready to complete the behavioral automation. Also to include is Music a day. I don't really want to completely daily the tasks, but make it such that on a regular basis, after a cycle of several days, each activity has a development. It is somewhat a poor moral plan to expect to complete a certain thing every day. But habits should be created such that there is a recurring motivation that is nearly daily for each and every category, such that after a small number of days each activity is really repeated; and repeated with a regularity such that one will predicably simply do it again and again. It is a rutting. The goal is to have a stuck position in doing these activities.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-recipe-writing-function-as-an-example-illustrating-that-long-equations-or-equations-with-many-components-are-not-that-complex">A Recipe Writing Function as An Example Illustrating That Long Equations Or Equations With Many Components are Not That Complex</a>

*50 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726854021, Saturday, September 21, 2024 01:40:21, Bali, Indonesia*

In computer science function writing sometimes involves the passing of many parameters, and the programming steps within a function may be numerous. Sometimes, writing code to perform ttasks that are more mundane, or simple, require many steps and have many pieces. These numerous inputs and numerous operations are analagous to the numerous inputs and numerous operations of equations in mathematics. The analogy is very close actually, while it might not seem that that is the case.

When finished with such programs, one may not feel that what was produced was very special. In some areas of engineering, the resulting software may not appear to be very mathematical, or very computer science intensive. This can lead the person writing the computer program to think that they have not themselves produced something of interst for the science for for mathematics. On reflection though the quantity of work is quite large, the steps can be very laborious, and complex from the point of view of mundane work having complexity, and the fesults have properties in common with mathematics where there are many operations and steps.

Imagine a program is written to output kitchen recipe processes. Kitchen recipe processes seem easy, but the actual process diagrams for doin gthe work and completing the recipes would actually look like somewhat sophisticated business processes. The graphs or diagrams for the recipe making processes in the kitchen would have complicated seeming programmatic implementations. There would be many many steps in each of the programs to accomplish the recipe tasks. The inputs would be numerous considering the number of ingredients and tools. If one thinks about a long recipe, with many ingredients, then one can realize that the inputs to the equation would be very lage. That's a lot of variables! 

Such a program would have many more variables and steps than much math that is performed. This reveals somewaht that the work of the mathematician is like simple work in the kitchen. 

Now imagine you are a programmer or just a coook at a restaruant, but you have very good talent. Now you have a program that is internalized that includes many inputs and work tasks (operations that are repetitive), and you capture all of that work into a program. The program is like a long and torturous math problem with many operations and inputs.

A function, that includes as many inputs and subroutines and sub functions would seem like a very complext symbolic setup. Here we can see though, makign this comparison, that it is not, and the hardest math problems can be likened in many ways to work in the kitchen. 

*50 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726854640, Saturday, September 21, 2024 01:50:40, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 619 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="normal-conversation-using-mathematics-as-a-key-ingredient">Normal Conversation Using Mathematics as a Key Ingredient</a>

*50 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726816261, Friday, September 20, 2024 15:11:01, Bali, Indonesia*

Today I was reflectingon how my mind would be more easily communicated if I were to mix into normal conversation mathematics used in colloquial language. Instead of responding to people with simplistic messages, anticipating their level of conversation ability to be low, I an simply begin to think to them at greater complexity with math built into the dialogue.

The objective partly to halt converstations that would go nowhere. But there is also the objective to speak more from my own real character. My conversation ability is already extremely strong, which is evident by my career history. But it can be improved to be less geared towards communicating as others expect. Instead, I can communicate at a level of complexity that is appropriate to my mind. This may lead to enriching encounters. It may be possible to get others who are like me to speak like me a bit more and reveal that their thinking has better sophistication. Using math in language does not entail speaking with symbols or speaking in a way that is not accessible at all. Instead one simply makes statements in plain language that correspond to what would be symbolized if written mathematically. Like the narrative portion of textbooks on math between all that math that does the explanations and asks the questions. "

*50 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726816512, Friday, September 20, 2024 15:15:12, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 251 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="within-computing-and-mathematics-there-is-a-minimum-strategic-set-of-tools">Within Computing and Mathematics There is a Minimum Strategic Set of Tools</a>

*47 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726548569, Tuesday, September 17, 2024 12:49:29*,Bali, Indonesia

When one is working in software one can use a reduced set of tools, programming functions, and logic to accomplish the same tasks, omitting other tools, functions and logic that happens to exist that may allow for doing the same work. In my software, I have found, that in addition to only needing a small quanity of tools many of which I created, I only need to rely on a small set of functions and logical operators in order to perform the tasks I need into the foreseeable future. I have reached a point in my software architecture and solution where I am aware there is little else I will ever need to add, to accomplish any and all tasks I want to continue to accomplish. It was a very long path of more than 8 years to arrive at the solution, and this required much thought on what might be better and more minimal and simplistic and parsimonious to do the work I do. Now I have a very simple and complete solution for all the work I see myself doing not only now but for the remainder of my life.

In mathematics, and in computer science, it is known that a subset of tools will perform all of the existing work that is needed. Inventiveness and problem solving may reveal the need for new tools, and this will add more to our minimal set. Some of those tools will be unnecessary on further reflection using simpler tools that already existed. But sometimes it is certainly true, that new tools are minimally necessary for new work, and the history of mathematics in the production of the minimal set of mathematical tools is already the innovation tradition that revealed what was minimally technologically necessary to solve problems that were never seen before. So we can anticipate needing new tools. For my work however, new tools are not really necessary any longer. Or where that is an overstatement, *very very few* future tools are needed. In fact, I think it can be simplified further. In any case, math has a subset of tools that will do all the mathematical work required. In computer science and electrical engineering this is true too. In the logic of electrical engineering much can be reduced to the NAND gate logic, and within logic itself, much is reducable to NAND too. It is already known that other logical operators and electrical circuits can be defined by NAND gates. The implication is that just this one operator can perform a massive amount of work, and all of the other gates are not strictly necessary.

Another known area where this is true relates to the programming example I gave above for my own software, but focuses on the inner workings of the computer actually doing the processing. The NAND gates, by the way, also go into the processor and already illustrate part of the point. There are two classes of processors identified by how minimal they are. One is the RISC processor which is implemented in ARM chips today. These chips are superfluous. This gives a minimal set of programming instructions which are like functions. It can do all the computing needed with a minimal set of instructions. The ARM chip does not provide the absolute minimum. Just a good minimal set. CISC processors, on the other hand, give more options for programming with more instructions and more functions. Ultimately these achieve the same as ARM processors. The same games, entertainment, and software tools can be run on both processors. CISC simply gives more ways to interract with the processor to do work. It has more options. Just like in math and in logic and in programming, where many options exist to allow for creative work, this processor has many options. However, it is known that all the same work can be done by RISC processors. Notice that you may not be aware which processor type you have on your device. Two people have two different processors, and yet they are all doing the same things. This happens to be something that is telling about what is true in mathematics itself, programming, and logic. I wrote about this in relation to language. It appears to be true in language as well.

In my work, now, I'm striving to have a maximally reduced set of mathematical tools, and a maximally reduced set of tools for other activities, that performs all the required work. This simplifies things significantly. The activity can only be done within reason, but I am going beyond the boundaries of what normal people would consider reasonable with great results. I am doing this for computing, for mathematics, and for my work in logic and electrical engineering for making computers.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="solidification-of-strategy-regarding-mental-stimulation">Solidification of Strategy Regarding Mental Stimulation</a>

*47 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726543522, Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:25:22*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Mental stimulation, in the absense of any culturally accepted stimulating drug like caffeine or other, requires other elicitations and sources. If one asks if one can become stimulated doing nothing, without any external influence, or without any internal elicitations, it would be found that it is not possible. Stimulation with culturally acceptable drugs like caffeine are a way of achieving excitation without having *to have an approach* to getting wanted stimulation on demand, as desired. One can drink a cup of coffee or tea, and suddenly, one feels more excited and interested, curious perhaps, and more energetic. Drugs then serve an interesting purpose for us: they can alter our state by simple ingestion without our having to have a strategy for obtaining the stimulation by other more deliberate means. A habit towards stimulants would do this on a routine basis. So even less of a strategy is required from one moment to the next in which one would want more excitation; instead, one can simply follow one's normal routines of making coffee and tea at home in the morning or evening, or picking up coffee, tea, or something similar from coffee shops and other businesses catering to these habits. 
 
There is also a drawback to this benefit from drugs that is of interest. There are many drawbacks and I don't intend to go through all of them. One drawback is that one may live all one's life without a strategy to generate excitation and stimulation without stimulants. Certainly one does things that *does create excitation* and I'm not denying that people don't do these things. Sports does it, debate with others does it, excercizing using simple movements can do it, and so does thinking about the prospects of some adventure or goal. People do all these things it is true. But they do it in a way that is not organized, not strategically purposeful for the objective of acheiving excitation uniformly, not in a way that is within a global strategy that can be called to mind anytime to create that same stimulation that substance dependence is providing. Also, sometimes stimulation is desired and created the wrong way. Having a strategy reveals to oneself why one is rewarded by other activities that are not especially beneficial. Some people even like to fight to create stimulation. Some gamble. Some look for sexual activity to an unreasonable extent. The main point though is that having a strategy is much better than not having one. And it does appear if one is honest enough that people simply do not have a strategy for building stimulation.

I only drink water these days, and due to a minor respiratory ailment, experimented with low nicotine vaping (the minimum nicotine) to resolve those symptoms. Most of my life I was a habitual coffee drinker and for long periods consumed a lot of earl grey tea. Caffeine was a regular overdose in my life. 7 months ago, I returned to the objective of quitting caffeine, like I did before for a period of 6 months (at all other times I was drinking coffee since I was a young teen). This was a success, and for the last seven months I have only consumed water and seldomly water with fruit infusions. My regular routine is plain water, and sometimes carbonated water. That is all I drink. For a period of one month, several months ago, I discontinued vaping. And after a month of discontinuing vaping, suddenly I had a good amount of difficulty attaining a level of mental stimulation I was wanting. I had no culturally acceptable stimulants of any kind, and even my strategy for staying stimulated was not as stimulating as I wanted it to be, and I went back to vaping again. Right now I'm in the process of finally quitting again. This time I want to have a stable or solidified methodology baked into my habits such that I achieve automation at a better degree so that I *can routinely and almost always* achieve the stimulation I'm desiring, or else have comfort in being relaxed and less stimulated. I want to simply be stimulated enough that I feel I am alone creating all the stimulation I'm needing. It is important to mention that *I do in fact have a strategy* for increasing my excitation, but that it's not yet entirely adequate to fend off the desire for more stimulation from something I have not myself created. Sometimes a sudden desire to socialize is simply also a way of getting it from elsewhere in a haphazard and an unplanned way, and I do still occasionally do that as well. "Now I feel like I need to socialize" isn't how I'm wanting to get my stimulation, although if deliberate enough, and without any compulsion, it is an acceptable way of getting stimulated too.

Below is a list of areas in which stimulation is readily achieved if one can automate being motivated towards actually performing those actions. One can read more about building motivation in my work on [procrastination](procrastination.html) which also requires one to eventually find a way to automate having desirable motivations routinely at the right times.

- Sudden Exercise
  - If one wants to feel suddenly thoughtful or excited, one can do a vigorous exercise on demand. If one does not want to change position, one could do squats or other exercises that creates a good heart rate. If one is fine to change positions one can do brief runs and sprints. This does quite a lot to build excitementn and stimulation and can create an event that is lasting for thoughtfulness to be ongoing.
- Internal Debate on an Interesting Topic
  - Simply trying to develop one's thinking on a debatable topic can create a good amount of stimulation. In a way it simulates social stimulation. Kind argumentative conversation creates a good surge of interesting thought and creates good physical excitation.
- Deliberate socialization that is not compulsive
  - I'm less interested in this personally given my own goals, but for others this is a very viable source of stimulation. If one is introverted, periodically forcing oneself to interact will create a good mood and good excitation. For introverts, maybe too much excitation! In that case, one can have a strategy to keep things briefer, so as to not be overstimulated.
> - Walking and Long Walks
>   - One may notice that as one walks thought to oneself and conversation with oneself becomes a joy. It creates very good stimulation, and it can last a long while, since one can continue walking. Afterwards, the effect lingers further, while one is in a relaxed state. This is among my favorite methods of making sure I'm stimulated, and at the time I was feeling understimulated as I mentioned above, I was driving around. Walking at that time probably would have had the desireable effect.
- Gym or Planned Exercise
  - Exercise is one the very best ways to get stimulation and it is still appropriate that it is mentioned three times. This is because one can go for a stroll for a work break, and benefit from walking, and one can suddenly do exercises while at the desk, and one can still benefit greatly from a routine visit to the gym before or after work, or according to one's schedule. One can move quite a lot during the day. Having a number of exercise or movement related strategies is fitting, and you cannot call to mind or have available doing all of them at any time. Sometimes the gym is not something you can do, but walking is achievable, sometimes walking cannot be done, because one is working. Exercising in place then seems especially valuable, because it is the most available of all. But having each available in one's mind serves to have a more comprehensive strategy for more scenarios that one encounters in one's life.
- Reading and Studying
  - Reading, studying, watching lecture videos and so on expose you to the active mind of someone else. Maybe you're tired or lethargic. If you watch someone who is teaching you and is excitedly thinking, you begin thinking more excitedly. If you are reading a book you actually force yourself to listen to, and think along with, a stream of sentences in quick succession. The reading pace is a fast thought pace. This increases one's stimulation too. Additionally, if the subject matter is interesting, and one learn's something new, that creates excitement. It creates more to look forward to too. One will want to think about what might be next in the book, or next to think about in the subject where one is interested. One might want to change plans and get excited about planning.
- Thinking About Fun Plans
  - Planning and thinking about fun plans that one may actually want to do is great because it connects the planning with the motivations. One can feel already motivated to do something before actually doing it and get a thrill from simply planning it! Like if you imagine your plans for your next vacation you are wanting. Suddenly you'd like it to be now! And you're ready to pack your bags and get things together, and plan for all that you'll see. Clearly planning is also a way to build enthusiasm and create a more excited and thoughtful state.

 I believe there will be more to add as I think of methods I cannot now recall, but I can state that the list of strategies is not very long. That is a great thing because it means the hard work of actually using the strategy is simply practicing using it and changing habits using a short list or methods. The list should be easy enough to call to mind. Specific strategies will fall under these categories too, or one can build out similar but related categories. Maybe for some person, deep sea diving is a thrill. In that case, it fits into exercise, but if there is something unique about it, then it fits as an easy expansion like walking. One can add and remove from the list as life circumstances change. But having the list and incorporating the strategy into daily routine is a much better approach than having no general strategy at all, and as I stated, it apperas most fall into that category. Howver, there is plenty of opportunity to learn, and not having learned it there is another source of excitement. And there is another item that could be added to the list! Learning. There are myriad ways of learning. Making sure one is learning something new is another great way to build excitement all life long and that can be done simply watching beautiful fllms, doing some new and interesting activity with the hands like woodworking, welding, garment making, or other, or anything else that is novel and different. Doing new things is important for creating and maintaining stimulation in one's life.

*Finished in approximately 55 minutes*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="open-work-spaces">Open Work Spaces</a>

*46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726484215, Monday, September 16, 2024 18:56:55, Bali, Indonesia*

Computers as they have existed for a long time have the concept of a closed work space. As you work, nobody sees what you are doing. Of course, someone could record and share work performed, or stream it, but the work space setting requires that additional work to make it more open. I'm now experimenting with the idea of an open workspace setting. This website for a long time has already been largely an open workspace. It will become more of an open workspace in the future. 

*46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726484307, Monday, September 16, 2024 18:58:27, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 92 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="how-frequently-are-mathematical-problems-present-in-our-lives?">How frequently are mathematical problems present in our lives?</a>

*46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726456841, Monday, September 16, 2024 11:20:41, Bali, Indonesia*

There is an interesting question regarding the extent in which we are presented with mathematical decisions. I have stated that actual deliberation does not occur offten in life as oen may think. Decisions, that actually receive deliberation are sporatically interspersed inour daily thihnking. Many of these decisions definitely involve math if done more rationally although we don't usually use math for those problems. This means we are failing to be as rational as we could be every time nearly as we are making decisions. This relates to morality.

But also, since people are stitstical machines, as they are out in the worl dtheir brains are doing something somewhat akin to math. Where to step while walking is doing something somewhat mathematical although that has been automated. Here I ant to introduce the idea that even things that people do when they are not deliberating involve math that they are not actually using. Of course if they have not identified that it is even something requiring deliberation they would not be in a postition to go further then they normally would and employ mathemematical learnings.

The question of interst I have in mind is what is the size of the mathematical applications we are exposed to in every moment of life? How often would we use math if we were able to deliberate rapidly at almost every moment. That would imply continuous use of mathematics which I think is impossible, so really what I'm talking about is the ever more frequent application of math as intervals of time between deliberations approaches zero.

*46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726457125, Monday, September 16, 2024 11:25:25, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 284 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="mathematics-as-strangely-objectiveless-during-incubation">Mathematics as Strangely Objectiveless During Incubation</a>

*46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726455353, Monday, September 16, 2024 10:55:53, Bali, Indonesia*

During mathematical learnings with serious intentions to solve serious problems in the future using math from diverse fields seems to include a learning incubation period that is largely uncreative.

The problem space of solution finding seems to be guided almost entirely by instructors and by texts. While it may be possible that some students take what they learn and seek out real world problems to apply the math, there is a strong reason to believe they are not actually doing that. Instead, it appears they are more like puzzle solvers, solvign those puzzles that are provided by others but not those that are solved by themselves, at least initially.

Creativity with mathematics appears to be somet;hingthat arises later, after some sufficient knowledge of mathematics has been attained and an incubation period has come to ann end.

It is understood that this is only partially true, as I try to identify the largeer pattern related to the small amount of creativity that would exist in students who are learning and are trying to use math in the real world. I recall myself creatively using math after a long period after having learned it, like geometry and so on. There were other scenarios in which I creatively applied mathematics as well, but I think my way of doing that was largely unusual by comparison with others. In the desire to solve more complex problems, I think there is a greater incubation period for eventualllly coming to applications. The size of the learning effort seems to relate to the length of the incubation period.

Mathematicians in training may be largely puzzle solvers in the space of puzzles identified by mathematicians more than the;y are creative problem solvers utilizing what they have recently learned.

What they have recently learned was contextless before the instructor actually provided the initial context. This means that if a student mathematician suddenly went out into the world to do anything with that math, they would have to somewhat artificially conjure up porblems that happen to relate to that new math rather than see problems and recognize that what they alredy know happens to beare on that problemIn order to identify problems that are of interest, there needs to be other reasons to want a solution first, or the incubation period of math needs to have been long enough to allow for the creative relation of  experience with patterns in the world. 

If you are a student, and you suddenly have some new math, you have to find problems that relate to that math in order to solve them using that math in the near term. Oddly, this would be a problem finding guided by having new math rather than finding problems of actual interest. There would be exceptions as some students may be able to quicly identify some patterns that relate to what was immediately learned, and the learning may have supplied the interest.

However, that is a strange way to let one's interests be lead.

As a math student, if one wants to find problems that relate to the math learned one is actually extending the learning process in a way. One is letting the course develop one's finding of interest. Letting a category of math guide one's problem solving interest is a bit weaird. It is a fractured way of trying to solve problems. 

More comprehensive and interesting problems would not be identified until a long period of learning of mathematics was had. Real world problems in math are not presented with a ready application of recently learne math from one mathematical field typically. Usually they require a number of learnings to come together for a solution.

Or perhaps more often, since the world is complex, what is discovered to be a problem does not actually have a clear solution with available mathematics already known and put together. Some reflection and thinking about hwat math is actually needed ma;y be required.

More is needed to be said to clarify the specific pattern I have in mind here since I do admit is is an overgeneralization to state that there are not often times where there are simpler problems in which specific math learned can be utilized. There really are clear arithmetical problems obviously and geometrical problems do appear. But interesting problems do not necesssarily appear frequently.

An interesting topic is the frequency in which a mathematical problem presents to a person in real life.

It appears most believe problems infrequently appear, and if one is observant of others, and I think that would include some who really love math, I think they are not seeing the problems as frequently as they are actually ocurring.

Mathematical problems present inmorality and in behavior quite often, but they are invisible to the thinkers. I think it to be true that people are routinely failing to identify mathematical problems that are infront of them as they use other styles of thinking instead to solve the problems.

*46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726456327, Monday, September 16, 2024 11:12:07, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 974 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="economics-initially-as-an-exploration-into-market-behavior,-and-later-as-a-constrained-simulation-enacted-as-the-rules">Economics Initially as an Exploration Into Market Behavior, and Later as a Constrained Simulation Enacted as The Rules</a>

*45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726413749, Sunday, September 15, 2024 23:22:29*,Bali, Indonesia

Initially, economics was a study of an existing market system including the relationship of the market to currency, government entities, and individual behavior. Later, while it was still exploring, unable to fully comprehended, it began to think itself a system or a model of the existing way things functioned. Being ignorant, it was constrained in a variety of ways, modeling reality partially correctly, partically incorrectly. Later, having influence, it sought to guide decision making as it related to the market. It tried to forecast, and problem-solve existing market issues. In current events if there was a market problem, economists thought they could foresee changes in outcomes on the basis of changes of inputs, which included policy. However, the inputs and change levers that were supposed to relate to the outputs did not really completely relate to the outputs. Changes that were expected to have certain results did not. The simiulation of the economist on reality was not complete. However there was a desire to make it complete. If the economist could correctly forecast, and could correctly modify inputs such that the expected changes to the market would actually occur, there would be the benefit of predictability. However, the models were only partially true and there was still much ignorance, and today the same is true. There is the interesting idea though, that if the model of economics and the simulations it was trying to use *were really* the same as what was going on in reality, then the outputs would be more predictable given changes in inputs. Importantly, what was desired were controllable inputs. This would empower economists and make it possible to make changes that would actually predictably result in the outputs that were wanted. In order to achieve this, though, the simulation was blended with reality. The way the world functions is fit to the model of the economists instead of having the model of the economists fit the way the world actually functions, with the limited control that would still persist. Since the economic model was always ignorant and incompletely true, the result is that there is a system now that has been historically molded to fit the simulation rather than have the simulation represent reality. Change the reality and make it match the simulation so that it actually enables the economist to really alter reality in the same way they could in the simulation, even if the simulation was incorrect. Economics now appears to be a placing of the simulation game into reality so it behaves as the economic modelers would want to make it more predictable, according to the rules that were close to the description of reality but not quite complete.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="how-many-shapes-are-there,-including-types-of-curved-lines?">How many shapes are there, including types of curved lines?</a>

*45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726409191, Sunday, September 15, 2024 22:06:31, Bali, Indonesia*

Notice that because shapes are non-identical, and each shape, once identified, separated, and named, cannot be repeated, that the number of shapes really is finite. This creates the strange idea that the number of shapes that would exist to be finite. There would be an extremely large number of shapes, of configurations of many different kinds, bu there would definitely be a finite quantity of them. Some would never appear in nature. Some can be created when you create them for the first time. They can be created at will. But they are finite.

*45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726409333, Sunday, September 15, 2024 22:08:53, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 142 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="completion-of-life-habits-and-moral-behavior-as-they-pertain-to-every-life-category">Completion of Life Habits and Moral Behavior as they Pertain to Every Life Category</a>

*45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726407532, Sunday, September 15, 2024 21:38:52*,Bali, Indonesia

In the last posting I was focused on a topic I was calling solidifications. Really however, what is wanted to be discussed is the completion of moral behavior as it relates to each and every life category. Once a level of mastery over behavior has been achieved as it relates to the various life categories, it is understood that one has become satisfied with those behaviors to an extent that if they were perpetuated without improvement they would still be good enough. Compared with others, it would be very great excellence. It is admitted that improvements can still be made in each of the behaviors relating to these life categories. However, these are diminishing in their rewards. As I wrote recently about the diminishing return of thinking, there is also a diminishing return on the improvements of action. Once sufficient mastery has been reached, it is seen that subsequent improvements are lower value improvements, even if they can be had. So really it is possible to attain a completion state regarding moral behavior for each and every one of the life categories such that a personal moral completion state has been realized. There are a couple categories in which I want good improvements but one may look at these improvements already as idiosynctratically extra. These are bonus improvements on existing mastery acheived already. These completenesses are what I'm calling solidifications. Areas where there was behavior that could be characterized as less stable in the completeness wanted would not yet be solid. They are not firmly routine and automated behavior yet. By making them more solid they are more predictably masterful. These areas where I am wanting this improvement relate to making clothing on my own and improving the extent to which food I'm eating is from foraging and not from making purchases. One can see from these desired behaviors that they are indeed extra, if the clothing and food related behaviors are otherwise stably where they are wanted to be.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="list-of-planned-behavioral-solidifications">List of Planned Behavioral Solidifications</a>

*45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726406554, Sunday, September 15, 2024 21:22:34*,Bali, Indonesia

Many spend their time thinking about how they might alter their habits, and this of course is a commendable thing to be working on. Within morality, much emphasis is placed on how one chooses one particular action or another, but less emphasis is placed on how one might choose habits that will naturally create better actions again and again in a patterned way. I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to improve my habits, and after decades of work, arrived at what I am now calling, perhaps temporarily, solidifications, which are completions of habits which were planned at a higher level of organization. Here I will list some of the solidifications which I have arrived at or which are in view for completion.

- Soon to be solidified: making my own clothes, footwear, and baggage. Making my own backpack. Routinely making it unnecessary to buy these things any longer.
- Eating habits as they relate to frugality, nutrition, caring and veganism, health, weight management, and soon foraging.
- Writing and media productions. Book writing, site publication, documentary creation.
- Sexuality and chastity behavior.
- Drinking of water as the only liquid consumed.
- Travel methodology.
- Dwelling, rent, rentlessness methodology.
- Budget methodology.
- Fitness methodology.
- Social-relational methodology.

I can see that these simply relate to the life categories as I've written them out and solidifcations are simply behavioral completions of process which culminate moral planning. More solidifications can be written out. The purpose of the writing here, for now, was to recollect some of my existing solidifications and some planned, where I stated above that the completions would be soon or are in view. The others are already completed and were recalled here to have them in mind.

The next step then in my writings relating to the solidifications is to simply build them into the life categories as I would expect, and to track what has been completed and not completed in a way that brings into view the final complete state. The final complete state is nearing. Areas where I am wanting to have more attention relate to eating and shopping strategy as they would be more substituted with foraging. Foraging is something I need to practice more and learn more about and incorporate more into my frequent behavior. Foraging is not always possible but even the behaviors in those circumstances are nearly completed, as it relates to maximally frugal and maximally planned food related shopping behavior. Another area where work is incomplete but completion is in view relates to clothes making. Clothes shopping behavior according to plans is more nearly complete but I want to replace shopping with more self-sufficient creation of my own clothes. This propensity relates to similar motivations for wanting to forage. The objective is to be involved in the market less and to become more frugally self reliant. Estimated completion of the basic clothes and baggage related plan is less than six months. Estimated time to completion of the foraging procedure is less than one year, although it is expected that additional improvements in foraging may be life long, as travel takes me from one location to another that requires new learning about available plants for eating, and what happens to be edible or not.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="options-for-work-post-retirement-if-post-retirement-should-occur">Options for Work Post Retirement if Post Retirement Should Occur</a>

*45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726388512, Sunday, September 15, 2024 16:21:52*, Bali, Indonesia</time>

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

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="if-this-were-a-course-website,-it-would-be-a-vastly-superior-one">If this were a course website, it would be a vastly superior one</a>

*44 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726289696, Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:54:56, Bali, Indonesia*

The value of this webstie and overall book and journal is hard to fully communicate. However, it must be mentioned that it does not require many justifying explanations. Reasons can be few for having such a book and journal as this one. For example, websites often exist simply to facilitate teaching programs. If one goes to college, an insturctor may have a website for their curricula and for the specific course. Even having a good website for the course would be avery good achievement. What if I have achieved that simply by creating this site already. What if that alone justifies the existence of this website. I think it does, but it does not explain all that is important about this book and journal.

I don't think much explanation is required concerning this. A comparative study of this website and all other existing instructor websites would reveal immediately that this site is vastly superior. It is vastly superior even to the instructor websites created by ivy league instructores and instructors of the best universities worldwide. Having already achieved this, it can be seen already that this is a commendable work. But the reasons that are additional and are many aside from this justification are vastly imore important, and would serve to illustrate that this book and journal is a world class production of very greatequality and importance.

*44 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726289938, Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:58:58, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 242 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="teaching-an-easy-path-to-income">Teaching an Easy Path to Income</a>

*44 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726285229, Saturday, September 14, 2024 11:40:29, Bali, Indonesia*

As a retiree, with dwindling funds, I still periodically think about what I would do for work if I were to return to an occupation, or if I wanted to return to doing business.  However, being a retiree, I don't want to merely go back to work in my old career. I'd rather find fulfilling things to do that might include simply doing what is enjoyable or learning new things. I'd even consider jobs with the minimum payout, just to have enough to live on, while preserving whatever remaining funds I have. 

For example, recently I was thiniking I would enjoy gardening. I think I would also enjoy jewelry making. I wouldn't have to do these jobs for a very long time. I'd only want to do them just long enough to satisfy an employer, while also earning enough for myself ot save, and to have enough new experiences to justify the whole decision on the basis of learning and enjoyment.

iYoung people may begin their venture thinking that they could avoid having an employer by starting a business. That may be too challenging, but is reasonable since what is wanted in the work is also to avoid having a boss. If that is not possible, thinking about what career might be more comfortable would be a good decision. This way money earned is not money torturously obtained. Some sacrifice would be satisfactory even if there is a chance of having a more comfortable job than a less comfortable one. On the side, the young person may be thinking about how to more ambitiously arrive at greater pay, but while young it is understood that willl take time. 

As a retiree, there is not a very large difference. Like a young person, I can somewhat more patiently consider these things as I look for an agreeable way to earn income. What I recall as being particularly challenging was the urgency associated with wanting money immediately. WAnting to have money immediately can result in a skipping of some of these inclincations to take a job that is less satisfying and less comfortable for the money earned. But a patient retiree with plentyy of time, like a person who is young who doesn't try to get a job too quickly, it is easy to have a better and more rational methodology of finding a good job that matches what one wants without rushing it. However, there is still a desire to ease the process, and too *have* a process to begin with. One might want many avenues instead of a single avenue, in order to find work or income.

Additionally, having a process makes the process more of a rational one. It can even be more of a mathematical game-theoretic approach. Having such an approach would be mor optimal, and would be more moral. Without such a process, behavior is less moal because it is less planned.

Here I wanted to start th beginnings of my writing on this subject matter. I would like to have a rational and mathematical and moral approach to finding income. Immediately now, we can state what some ingredients would happen to be.  Initially one has to have a wide vision of what is possible and realistic, along with what is less realistic and less feasible but more desirable. Having a vision with a large set of options will allow for the construction of a decision process that maps to the world. It iwll allow for the assignment of probabiilities based on experienced judgement, and expected rewards for each of the probabilities. The entire strategy and process would have an expected reward too, and thes could be compared. Having the best strategy (a good one to be more acurate) would mean that the outcome is much more likely to be one that is highly valueeed. Here the connection with morality should be more clear. Moral action is targeted at increasing value. Particularly, value for one's own life.

Some initial options for income in my particular case would be, simply to continue my business of book writing to market my book and gain greater sales, find a job int he legal, jewelry, gemology, or gardening instudstries, continue on the consulting business pathway basically resuming my career in a way that may connect better with goals I more recently conceived of, talking with a services company that aligns people with employers after hearing what their goals are, or other. I could also focus on investment of the funds I already have. There are more options than these, and one woul want to have a very broad understanding of the optioins available. This will increase as one iterates through the experiences of getting jobs. One does not have to commit fully at any time. 

*Note: The first two paragraphs are not part of the timed portion of the writing. They were re-input after a minor software error was encountered*

*44 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726286000, Saturday, September 14, 2024 11:53:20, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 771 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-everyone-decided-to-be-a-portrait-artist,-interest-in-buying-portraits-would-be-low.-a-paradox-of-interest.">If everyone decided to be a portrait artist, interest in buying portraits would be low. A paradox of interest.</a>

*42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726137412, Thursday, September 12, 2024 18:36:52, Bali, Indonesia*

To expand upon.

*42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726137419, Thursday, September 12, 2024 18:36:59, Bali, Indonesia*

*Written in 7 seconds.*

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="forcing-people-to-respond-kindly,-enjoy-something,-or-find-something-funny">Forcing People to Respond Kindly, Enjoy Something, or Find Something Funny</a>

*42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726136124, Thursday, September 12, 2024 18:15:24, Bali, Indonesia*

Wehn the media produces happy messages, messages that call for support of known causes, and messsages that include happy faces, there is a reasonable expectation that the audience will respond in a way that is also kind or supportive. It is hard to produce a message that would evoke anger or opposition if the ingredients of normal appeals to happiness, support, fun, kindness, and so on are present. Interestingly, if one is wanting to evoke good reactions from people with advertising and entertainment, it is not difficult to do o. Doing so is not too different from forcing the result.

I was thinking recently about how it may not be so challenging as some might think it might e to have a good response to one's marketing or creative efforts. It simply has to have the right ingredients. If the right ingredients are present, it is not assumred that what is shared will be loved, but it does appear to be assured that the average reaction will not be too negative. If you have some thing to share, you can really force the audience to reaspond well to it.

*42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726136423, Thursday, September 12, 2024 18:20:23*,Bali, Indonesia

*Written in 299 seconds.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="advancing-to-a-culmination-in-mathematics-personally-would-result-in-endlessly-falsifying-existing-behavior-and-morality-consistent-with-findings-already-had">Advancing to a Culmination in Mathematics Personally Would Result in Endlessly Falsifying Existing Behavior and Morality Consistent With Findings Already Had</a>

*42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726116735, Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:52:15*, Bali, Indonesia</time>

If I were to become increasingly masterful at mathematics until improvements of math on my own are blended with my thinking it would turn out that I'd spend the majority o fmy time revising my own morality, which would further refine existing morality and ehavior.

*42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726116783, Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:53:03*, Bali, Indonesia</time>

*Written in 48 seconds.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="global-symbolic-blendology-to-reveal-religious-and-cultural-absurdities">Global Symbolic Blendology to Reveal Religious and Cultural Absurdities</a>

*42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726109505, Thursday, September 12, 2024 10:51:45*,Bali, Indonesia</time>

To Expand.

*42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726109514, Thursday, September 12, 2024 10:51:54*,Bali, Indonesia</time>

*Written in 9 seconds.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="mattanaws-market-basket">Mattanaw's Market Basket</a>

*40 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725953549, Tuesday, September 10, 2024 15:32:29*,Bali, Indonesia</time>

Recently upon researching purchase power of one dollar USD in Indonesia, I discovered that the concepts and search results presented back to me were in a kind of confusion. When asking for example, about the purchasing power of the dollar in Indonesia, what I'm needing in return is not anything economically sophisticated, although the answer neeeds to be based on some economic computations. What I am wanting to know, is if my dollar will buy goods on average as if it were 4 dollars usd instead of t four after conversation. I'm in Indonesia now, so I'm most interested in wwhat the result would be for Indonesia. However, I want to know for other countries that might be good places to live like India, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, or other contries. I want the answer to my question to be expressed in USD.

In economics we have the concept of a market basket, and this concept is  of course utilized in the process of obtaining a value akin to the one I'm looking for. The market basket would be an average basket of what Indonesians or an average consumer would need at a basic level to satisfy their basic needs and some of their desires. But for me, I'm not too interested in what others would purchase, so I'm now devising the concept of "Mattanaw's Basket". Anyone could do this for their own required purchases and use it to compute for each country the value of their preferred currency for buying those things.

Mattanaw's basket is a bascket of more than on elevel, that starts with the core basket which is the very basic level of purchasing required for survival. The second level is survival with some basic luxuruies. The third and any additional would simply include levels of purchasing that are more luxurious and d includes much more than what would be simply required to live. 

I intend to use this basket as I travel from one country to the next to identify what the true purchasing power is for me. If I know what it is for me, then I know the purchasing power of a dollar in each and every country that I include. All I need to do is buy things and check the market, at each of the locations. It is not easy to research in advance what specifici costs of goods will be off the shelves of retails stores in different countries, so one may have to go to each. Some research is possible however and I'm not exploring that. Housing is very simple to determine if one is using an online method of booking. One can simply see whta is possible on AirBnB for example, if one uses airBnB and include rent in with one's basket. I will share more on this topic in the future.

*40 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725954088, Tuesday, September 10, 2024 15:41:28*,Bali, Indonesia</time>

*Written in 539 seconds.*

*Manual not added afterwards: Entirely blind typed without any visual feedback at all. There should be slightly more errors than usual, but this is now supplying information as to what errors occur with no feedback to typing at all. This was typed with somewhat less comfort than usual, being more aware of the blind nature of the typing and somewhat less dextrous than usual. However, it is anticipated that these errors will be reduced greatly as normal typing comfort becomes routine in this writing setting.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-community-judgement-process-as-an-insaned-cult-procedure">The Community Judgement Process as an Insaned Cult Procedure</a>

*39 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725862534, Monday, September 09, 2024 14:15:34*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="learning-and-potential">Learning and Potential</a>

*36 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725591797, Friday, September 06, 2024 11:03:17*,Tempe, Arizona</time>

People have written and spoken about potential as it relates to learning, but it appears very little analysis has really been undertaken regarding how much potential any individual might really happen to have, and how it relates to what exists for learning in an environment.

What we are more likely to hear about in popular education is that one particular person or other seems to have lots of potential, and then we'll hear little beyond that. Potential is thought of as some high degree of improvement which might be shown in the future for a person as they mature. But the specifics of what that potentia includes is left ambiguous. This might seem fine. But only a little reflection reveals that it actually can be measured and understood if one actually understands how individual minds learn and can learn in relation to their environments.

So what would the possible future selves of a specific student be in the future given different programmes of learning and study? Of Occupation? Of change of occupation? Putting all of that together, o of morality? Ones morality is what guides one's actions, and this includes all actions. Once this has been recognized it will be seen that both learning potential, potential, and moral planning related to personal growth to become more moral area ll poorly understood.

*36 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725592036, Friday, September 06, 2024 11:07:16*,Tempe, Arizona</time>

*Written in 239 seconds. Typed with no visual feedback at all. Entirely blindly typed.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="what-is-mutually-exclusive-or-not-in-alternative-moral-behavior-organizations-plans-and-patterns">What is Mutually Exclusive or Not in Alternative Moral Behavior Organizations, Plans and Patterns</a>

*36 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725590728, Friday, September 06, 2024 10:45:28*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

As one is learning and training to become a more moral person, what has been missing oftentimes methodologically from the approach is an understanding that different ways of thinking, and different ways of organizing thought and behavior, are really mutually exclusive to one another. There may be, in the normal population, an assumption, that as one is learning, one can simply continue to build upon what was learned before without too significant a replacement. However, if what is wanted is a pattern of thinking and behavior that is superior to the last that is also mutually exclusive with the last, then it will be necessary to replace existing ways of thinking and acting and not merely add new ways of behaving.

There is an assumption in the normal population, I think, that people can continue to indefinitely simply learning new moral points and methods without doing too much replacement. However, for any learned pattern, if there is mutually exclusivity between that pattern and the prior pattern, then the learned pattern will need to replace the earlier pattern at any part where there is mutual exclusiveness.

What do I mean by "pattern" here? Any pattern of thinking and behaving whatsoever that may be altered by learning. The use of pattern here is what makes it especially abstract and general, and makes it clear the range of implications and significance that there is in this idea. Behavioral patterns, habits, thought patterns, ways of analyzing, learning, and reasoning are all included.

An interesting question that may be worthwhile for people to ask, and I'll certainly be thinking about it myself, includes what mutually exclusive patterns might exist compared to my current patterns, that would result in personal improvements if learned, and how much time would it take to learn those improvements? This can also be used to define growth potential of any individual. Without such a concept, what one can do is have a minor alteration of existing patterns learning approach, versus largescale replacement of existing patterns approach. The largescale replacement is greatly preferable because the growth trajectory is much better. The extent to which one becomes "a new person" again and again is also more related to the latter than the former. Also, it is possible that one might reach true milestones of real completion for what is posible for oneself, and if one is fortunate enought to be very talented, what is possible for anyone (or nearly anyone who exists today). For example, if one is a master of logical reasoning, and utilizes it well, and has a very good intellect, then one's hardware (or brain) becomes what could be changed for improvements but not the learnings. One then has arrived at a kind of culmination of reasoning that is possible for oneself. Defining what that would be is somewhat challenging however, but I do think it exists.

If one has become a mathematician, one will have found that one's way of thinking about a large number of topics will need to be replaced or would have been replaced by the new ways of thinking. This is because there are mutual exclusivities between later ways of thinking and behaving compared with earlier ways of thinking and behavior. These are not merely contradictions in ways. Rather, one would not have the one and the other simultaneously for a wide range of other reasons. At this time I do not believe the types of mutual exclusivities that might exist have been communicated or are known. It is very likely that this is a novel insight, and clearly it has very great importance for improving learning pathways and making sure that one's work on oneself is on a trajectory that is more consistent with what might be maximal.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="frustration-in-argument-is-emotional-instability">Frustration in Argument is Emotional Instability</a>

*31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725157979, Sunday, September 01, 2024 12:32:59*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Like the posting below, on how women have not coped with hair, people seem to have not utilized their practice wisely regarding argumentation and conversation. They become angry easily, and are willing to say toxic and harsh things from simple points of disagreement. They talk often and through most of life but have not learned basic emotional management or morality. Out of proportion they respond in ways intended to damage, even if they do so about irrelevancies. They do it again and again and cannot train themselves out of it even with daily training. If they don't have moral excellences in this domain, then where are their moral excellences? Outside of speach? It's not there either because the two relate.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="life-is-easy-to-continue-because-you-are-predetermined">Life is Easy to Continue Because You Are Predetermined</a>

*31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725157118, Sunday, September 01, 2024 12:18:38*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

People can only change incrementally. They cannot make huge changes with great rapidity. If changes were too large, instrumentality for life would not yet be proven. Instead, if one makes personal changes, they are to some few things. They don't alter how one eats, breathes, walks, spends, shops, sleeps, and so on. The few changes leave the other parts of life alone. These parts left alone assure continuity. Since one is able to continue easily, it is required that one is predetermined on what was left unchanged. This is at odds with the free-willist perspective, because what is left open for change relates to decision making. But that has been noticed to be where change is slight, and not major. Little is changed really implies that all else is predetermined and is outside of decision making. Otherwise continuity would not be possible.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="evolutionary-theory-and-making-continuity-and-minimal-adaptation-more-important">Evolutionary Theory and Making Continuity and Minimal Adaptation More Important</a>

*31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725153259, Sunday, September 01, 2024 11:14:19*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

There are some serious revisions required to improve the popular understanding of Evolutionary Theory and it is expected that these same revisions to popular lanugage will enable learning people to bypass conceptual issues that now exist. The advancement of evolutionary theory seems to require a shift from the language of marketing and promoting of Evolutionary Theory to use concepts that are true and are less likely to be confused and confounded. Here I'm thinking mainly of the usage of "Survival of the Fittest" which is not strictly Darwinian. That language was more for the promotion of Darwinism and Social Darwinism, and is unimportant and even confusing for describing what evolution happens to be.

Firstly, it is easy for organisms to survive. "Survival" hardly seems a word that is of good frequent utlity. Sometimes animals do face obstacles that may result in their deaths, but that is an infrequent occurence. It is very easy for them to go on living. It is especially easy for humans go go on living. Death events are infrequent compared to simple events of "going on living". If one counts the moments in seconds, one goes on living over and over in rapid succession. Finally death occurs and death *must* occur. No animal actually survives after an extended period of time.

Survival is also confused to include procreation. Procreation does not involve survival of any individual. Instead, it merely creates a new individual through a process of copying and new growth. No individual is "survived by" another individual.

Instead of survival being thought of as the main element of evolutionary theory, propensity to continuation ought to be focused on. Graphing continuity by seconds, milliseconds, and nanoseconds, would show that continuity is often happening, while death is seldom happening. Death occurs very rapidly and unoften. By shifting to continuity it becomes clear that everyone "survives easily". This is an obvious point, and to go the other way with it, thinking all are "trying to survive" all the time, is ridiculous. How all could have been thinking this could be the case is a great absurdity. Instead of ever "really trying to survive" you simply say that stuff to yourself, since you were trained on bad evolutionary theory. Instead, you easily continue. Until you decide you don't want to continue, or there is an interference with your continuity. Then you die rapidly (even if you had health issues along the way, in which case you still continued easily). Plotted as a frequency distribution you always continued easily and were not "surviving" at any time. Else all life is "survival". It does not feel and appear like that at all. Instead, people comfortably continue effortlessly. More days come even if one doesn't want more. You'll get to live quite easily!

Another serious conceptual issue concerns adaptation. We are told the "fittest" survive. But if one observes animals including people, simply existing means we expect continuation. Any *minimally adapted* animal will continue. More than this, all even appear to continue as easy as each other, as if there is very little difference between people or animals regarding their continuity. Imagine someone poorly adapted, and you will think of someone perhaps with health conditions or someone old. But then ask yourself, do they continue to coexist with you easily? None around us are professional athletes and mentally superior folk. Everyone survives easily and well, and more than this there is a definite expectation of average procreation to increase the total population. "Fittest" is ridiculous. One merely has to decide, regardless of who one is, if one wants to have sex to have children at a certain rate. An implication is that people who are not the fittest can simply try to "prove themselves" by having more sex. Whereas some of the smartes and most physically fit and healthy people simply decide to not have kids, or have one or two. The question is better put as "Who continues?". If interesting enough "Who procreates?".You can't prove your biology is superior by actions such as "getting clean" or "getting fit" or by having more children. It's already obvious who is better looking and who is smarter. Only the most minimal level of organismal quality of production is required to continue and have sex. Continuity is about *minimal levels of adaptation* else all the people around would not continue themselves. But they all continue easily. Most procreate easily too. If they cannot procreate, it indicates they don't have the minimal adaptation required. Perhaps they are hermaphroditic, or lack functioning genetalia. However, again, having children continues no living thing beyond its death. Having no sex organs at all might be a positive life benefit. One can more easily care for oneself. In that case, having sex organs puts oneself at risk. There will be an offloading of resources for own use to use on others. In any case, procreation is a *separate* issue largely from individual continuity. To continue one needs very little adaptation. Only a sufficient amount.

For example, does your heart work? If it is not minimally adapted to do its job, you will likely die after some time of easy continuity. But if it is minimally adapted to pump, like it is on average, then one will almost certainly continue (if all else is also minimally adapted). One needs no "special heart" to continue. You can have a poor heart and be unloving and live easily. And I do know also that love is irrelevant to continuity too. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to continue while I'm simply working and am not thinking of love. Worse than the evolutionary theorist is the religious person who thinks love is required for continuity. You seldom are thinking about love, and all those times your heart is still minimally adapted for continuity to be easy.

What do you do that's hard really? What are your adaptations that are really utilized to ensure continuity? If you are elderly you've subtracted many of your adaptations and you continue easily. You are not the fittest at that time, and nothing seems hard to keep going. Later the conversation shifts to "how can I die well". That too is an indication that continuity is too easy. It is effortlessly easy. Having the kind of continuity that is wanted is a separate topic. One might say that for some elderly, there is a lot of pain to endure. But notice that the belief there is that even with extensive and pervasive pain, life is too easy to continue. This is why some simply don't want life any longer and simply want to decide to end it. The death is then a short event, in the total of all life's events which really did involve easy continuity.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="women-dont-understand-their-own-hair">Women Don't Understand Their Own Hair</a>

*31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725152307, Sunday, September 01, 2024 10:58:27*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

A cause for toxicity and abuse in many relationships is the simple issue that women do not understand their own hair. Preparedness issues with women regarding their handling of their own affairs results in frequent frustration, and unnecessary outbursts, that amount to pandemic toxicity. How they look and how they arrive at *something else* is really something they should understand since childhood. Being faux-beauty pageant contestants, you'd think they'd understand themselves, being more practiced than is advisable while young, to the extent that they are masters of both their appearance related drudgery and their emotions about themselves. Universally or nearly universally, practice has not culminated in any mastery. If unable to do this, they are not empaths, or emotionally superior in any way. The largeness of the issue, and the extent of inability to learn, on the basic issue of emotional self management, indicates what we would expect: on average they'll cry for no good reason. It was already known they are not masters of their own emotions even regarding basics of their everyday experience. They'll toxically in frustration make the issue about something else. They'll attack their husbands and other males, and other females, failing to infer correctly from their frustrations to whatever other noises and statements they make. These are causes for the historical view that women are more irrational. The frequency of these maladaptive behaviors all of life indicates globalization of this perspective is correct. They'll attack because they don't even understand their own hair, and they'll do it over and over. I'm not sure this is a good trait for those who aspire to equal positions in government, where diplomacy may become a hair issue.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="this-language-has-nice-tentative-words">This Language Has Nice Tentative Words</a>

23 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724531815, Saturday, August 24, 2024 13:36:55,Tempe, Arizona</time>

A language is a collection of tentative words, which must be altered and updated, as the language is replaced with a new language. Each word needs to be operationalized and connected with reality. It may be that the language of a single individual would be superior to one that is shared.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="blood-pumping-as-a-regulator-of-cell-positions-counterbalancing-and-utilizing-quasi-random-atomic-and-cellular-movements">Blood Pumping As a Regulator of Cell Positions Counterbalancing and Utilizing Quasi-random Atomic and Cellular Movements</a>

21 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724378390, Thursday, August 22, 2024 18:59:50, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Today I was reflecting on how the heart beat and body temperature may actually regulate and make predictable cellular and atomic movements in the body in a way that utilizes quasi-random movements of elements, chemicals, and cells, that are subject to quasi-random movements due to brownian motion, vibration, and other external physical influences on matter such as electromagnetic influences and viscellaneous rays. Without the pumping of blood through the system, there is not a predictable availability of various cells, chemicals, and elements in the system. The operation of the system assumes a predictable routine, otherwise it would die and no longer function. If the heart beat stops, unavailability immediately begins. In a short duration of time, or a very short time delta, systems begin to lose expected input. Death can occur rapidly. At all mmoments in an animals life, there are short time deltas with rapidly fulfilled biological requirements. Pumping of the blood is one of the key ways of fulfilling those requirements.

Additionally, body temperature sets the conditions but also contributes to the motion of the system. Body temperature, or temperature, is defined by a certain level of motion of all the consitutent parts at a location where the temperature is taken. Pumping of the blood contributes to the motion occuring in the body and therefore contributes to the heat by creating motion, and also by relocating already moving material to other locations. The ciruculation of material though the body is what results in a relatively consistent body temperature at various parts of the body including the core and extremities, which really simply means the total organism. The body temperature, being approximately 98.6, with greater and lesser temperatures in different parts of the body, creates a homeostatic temperature range, which is a result of and controls the motion of the cells in all parts of the body. If one is sick, and has a body temperature of 103 degrees fahrenheit, then one's cells everywhere are moving more quickly. If one is hypothermic, and one has a body temperature of 97 degrees fahrenheit, then all of ones cells are moving more slowly. If the movement is too fast or too slow, one dies. One may imagine this is a heat requirement, but heat of the system is both a side effect of the motion and a feedback setting the motion. The system has a motion regulator and a heat regulator and not only a thermostat, although that describes both.

The body is subject to vibrations and influences of radiation from without, which means that the cells of the body also undergo certain movements which are unrelated to the thermoregulation. Me move, shake, bump into things, experience vibrations from external sources, like loud sounds and musical speakers. We area also altered somewhat from vibrations from the speech of others. Additionally there are electromagnetic forces that act on us very frequently, and there are cosmic rays hitting us from space. We live quite well with these forces acting on us and there is a very large range in which we feel unaffected. The systems operate normally. Only when huge forces from outside or those especially irregular or deadly act that we experience a systemic change that might be considered dangerous. But all the while, these influences have been introducing quasi-random motions on all of our cells. The effects of the vibrations cause cells, chemicals, and elements in all parts of the body to jiggle. The jiggles, however, are largely constrained to *where the elements, chemicals, and cells were jiggled*. Jiggling these objects making up the body does not change their locations. So it appears that jiggling objects in the body that are not changing location (excepting those being moved by the circulatory system), doesn't adversely affect the system. And of course, they would be jiggline anyway due to atomic forces and brownian motion.

Since the jiggling does not affect the system adversely, and since the system still largely regulates the jiggles by it's thermoregulation, and these do not influence greatly position except *inlocation* of the cells, it appears the role of the heart, and cardivasular system, and muscular system, is greatly to control change of position within the body. Change of position within the body *is* highly sensitive to change as we've stated, and one is sustained moment by moment by cardiovascular pumping. Jiggles are a quasi-random motion within the system, inlocation, whereas cardiovascular pumping is a regulated cyclical system. The quasi-random does not cause death easily. The change to the regulated and predictable cyclical pumping does result in death easily *and* it influence thermoregulation and movement of the bodies chemicals, elements and objects. It appears to me that this may be a system of regulation in the context of quasi-random movements, negating the importance of the randomization component. It utilizes it and places it into regulation. This requires more elaboration

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="visual-intelligence-has-importance-related-to-the-systems-proportional-advancement-and-use-of-the-visual-system-and-high-verbal-intelligence-seems-to-know-the-visual-while-acting-independently">Visual Intelligence Has Importance Related to The System's Proportional Advancement and Use of the Visual System and High Verbal Intelligence Seems to Know the Visual While Acting Independently</a>

*21 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724374506, Thursday, August 22, 2024 17:55:06*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Those who have been in anatomy or neuroanatomy class have learned that animal systems have included brain and sensory organs in some proportion to their life importance. The visual system, in humans, inclusive of the eyes, has a very large proportion of nervous system space and functioning, morphology, and since this relates to utility and life-function, it is known that it is a very important system, and more important than some other systems. One can live without another system more easily than one could without the visual system. 

Since the visual intelligence is related to the visual system, it seems to follow that this form of intelligence is especially important for life functioning too. There may be a disparity in valuation of different parts of the total intelligence of an animal. Since intelligence tests divides neuromodular functioning, not according to all types but according to visuospatial functioning and verbal functioning, it can be assured that there is a failure in the test relating to knowing the weights related to functions or even a quantitative description of the value of those functions. It's known that visual intelligence is important but it is not known how valuable it is! It is not known how valuable it is in relation to verbal functioning, but even more interestingly, it has been given importance to IQ measure while forgetting other senses, like taste and smell. Presumably though, because those systems are smaller, and less vital, they have simply been omitted as less interesting. This is consistent with this posting's message because the neuroanatomy assigned to smell and taste is disproportionately smaller than what might be valuable for IQ testing. However, a total answer as to IQ would need to include these functions.

Verbal intelligence also does relate to a very large portion of the human cortext. Knowledge is an admixture of verbal and visual information. A large portion of cortext not specifically related to total knowledge cortext is allocated to auditory and oral communication in the Broca and Wernicke areas of the brain. Verbal has a huge allocation of brain tissue like Visuospatial does, but has less peripheral organ. I have not done a differential study of the disproportionate allocation of organ and nervous system to verbal versus visual, but there must be a big disparity. I can't tell which is favored. It may still be visual. The visual cortex would have scaling needs related to imagery that are more complex than the scaling needs of sounds and symbols, aural or visual. Bits of sound and symbol cannot require as much nervous tissue as visual information. This is known already even without doing any measures of the nervous system because of what is known about data in information technolgy and computing. Scaling of video information is much larger than scaling of text information, and the comparison is extremely skewed towards visual. In Information Technology, there is even the *inability* to scale video and very large images. Looking at the visual system, it is clear that it already acts according to the principle that storage must be downscaled parts of experience. If we think of images in our minds, if we have good visual intelligence, they seem clear, but we know they are not copies of experience. Also, attention fogs boundaries of attention. What we have stored is downgraded, which means our recollections of visuals are lesser copies. As time goes on, the copies degrade, which relates to the discomfort some experience as they move towards deletion or vanishing. It appears they are gradually vanished instead of strictly deleted when one has not had any brain related health event. This is consistent with archiving technology.

Verbal intelligence seems sometimes uniquely ideative, in my experience. I am strong on verbal and visual. I oftentimes prefer to ideate mostly verbally doing less thinking visually (although I can ideate very well creatively with visual alone too). The verbal seems to be in a less energy intensive state of thinking somehow, and can simply operate while letting visual rest. But it acts as though it is aware of the visual. Having very good visual intelligence and verbal intelligence, it seems like working on verbal intelligence in problem solving with creativity is still using visual, or is has already learned the visual, while it operates without the visual. Perhaps it has been educated on the good quality visual and can act independently as if it were already experienced. It may be able to do this with less use of the total nervous system, making it possible to have feats of production that are less taxing than in other people. This would explain my very large productivity in writings (which I can do visually too), and would make it commensurate with the intelligence scores that I've received that are ceiling in both domains.

There are some considerations in this writing that reveal issues with standard psychometric intelligence tests and also indicate pathways for improvement. I'm greatly in favor of what I call a neuromodular interpretation of intelligence. The best measure of intelligence is a total understanding of the active brain and its deltas. Psychometric tests like the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler are out of date and are in stasis. They are in stasis while there are great advancements in medicine, understanding of the brain, and artificial intelligence. This is a sure sign that they should be treated as merely partially correct at this point and there should not be toto much trust in these tests to provide a full explanation. A global explanation is the one that is pretended following an IQ test and even the letter G has been opted for which is annoying. It is not clear that a total quantitative study of the brain and its separate modules would yield a score that would be a combined quantity, but going on insight it appears this is certainly incorrect. If a total brain were measured it would have many metrics, and then if a total score is wanted for heuristic purposes, with errors, it would simply be created, using a chosen scaling from aggregation of neuromodular mesures. There would be total measures too, relating to tissue qualities as they exist wherever they exist, but this too wouldn't be an adequate explanation. Much more can be said about this later, but for now it is interesting to consider visual and verbal modules and their disproportionate allocation to brain tissue, and comparisons between them both and other parts of the system.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



## <a name="balanced-high-visuospatial-and-verbal-intelligence-as-providing-a-possibility-of-more-honest-and-truthful-thinking-due-to-ability-to-cross-verify">Balanced High Visuospatial and Verbal Intelligence as Providing a Possibility of More Honest and Truthful Thinking Due to Ability to Cross Verify</a>

*20 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724283504, Wednesday, August 21, 2024 16:38:24*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="comments-to-a-social-media-acquaintance-who-inquired-more-about-what-I-thought-people-with-lopsided-verbal-visuospatial-intelligence-might-experience">Comments to a social media acquaintance who inquired more about what I thought people with lopsided verbal/visuospatial intelligence might experience</a>

*19 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724213798, Tuesday, August 20, 2024 21:16:38*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

*FB Friend's Name* interesting, and I would definitely agree that stress in social interaction can work against one's ability to communicate effectively, and therefore give the appearance of weaker verbal when in fact it may not be weaker.
I really like and excel at those IQ puzzles too! They were always fun. But, I imagine for some they would not be fun, and tests taken for that may have been bad experiences for such people. I was wanting more even.
I'm pretty balanced regarding visuospatial and verbal. Both are strengths and neither is a deficit. As I've come to work with people who might have strengths in one area and not the other, I've noticed some consequences and traits.
There are a number of motivations for the posting but the most recent related to some reading I was doing. I am now reading the Feynman Lectures on Physics (which are very very interesting and worthwhile. Strange learnings in that book). I started thinking, as I was reading, about pure mathematicians, and also people who seem to think much more verbally. I wondered to what extent they struggle with confirming results of their work and thinking, internally. Some verbal people I've met seem as though when challenged with counterpoints that they cannot visualise what is being discussed. Mathematicians, I think, from my observations, are sometimes similar to this. Sometimes I think they can logically work things out symbolically, but can't see counterpoints and examples visually very clearly. Weirdly, I think a brain that is good on both visuospatial and verbal is uniquely able to confirm or disconfirm what they think about.
Have you ever met someone who doesn't seem to understand scenarios? You want to persuade them something that contradicts something they've explained, but when you provide a scenario that is a clear counterexample, there is a feeling that they don't comprehend it, and simply return to their verbal statements again?
I thought back into history of an argument I had with another while I was navigating and driving a car in a new area, with a passenger who was with me. This person was not a visual thinker and was unable to use maps. Verbally they kept disagreeing with me. But neither of us could work together on the map because they couldn't understand maps. Being unable to understand maps and being poor at visualisation, we simply returned where we started in the verbal discussion. Very strange feeling. It was as if a chunk of their brain was gone and was vacant. The reality is they simply didn't have the brain available to utilisation and so there was no resolution possible.
Weirdly when we talk to others, without knowing it oftentimes, we are talking to people who actually have brain omitted from their lives. So if you go too far on verbal thinking or too far on visuospatial thinking (or together), they may be utterly lacking one or the other or both, and sometimes to a huge degree. This person I was talking to regarding the maps really had very poor visuospatial. This person can't recognise people well oftentimes if out of context, and cannot draw even rudimentary pictures. They would avoid all art. Trying to confirm or disconfirm something verbal with respect to directions with this person by going into visual thinking is going to a place where they have really no resources.
But I notice it when there is no huge deficit. I met another very interesting person who is in Prometheus society. This person is *extremely verbally talented*. We had very good mutual exchanges in writing on some interesting subjects with good transactional understanding. I wouldn't expect others to join in on such conversations easily. But when I met him in person, and there was a whiteboard present (we decided to do some work together a while back), I handed him a marker to diagram his thoughts on a whiteboard. He had a very strong resistance and refused. Later I saw some indicators that he may be weak on visuospatial and there were some very definite signs from other situations. His presentations turned out to be very poor visually. Now, if I were handed a whiteboard marker, I would spontaneously make things unreflectively that are of very good quality. I have no issue drawing things out, doing all sorts of alternative visualisations, spinning and flipping, doing shapes, making artwork on the fly if necessary, etc... (I'm no experienced artist but happen to be very good at drawing). This person turned out to be difficult to work with. I'd be locked in the verbal domain only with him.
But as I was reading Feynman I was thinking more about upper eschelon mathematics and mathematics where there doesn't appear to be good scientific or observational confirmation. Here I think there would be issues with verbal thinkers being unable to confirm/disconfirm thoughts lacking visual. The highly visual thinkers may be weaker on the symbolism. When there is a disparity I think there is a greater reliance on others to confirm/disconfirm or correct work. In that talk with the other person in the car about the maps, if there were another person there, I think they would utilise their visuospatial immediately to confirm what I was saying both verbally and visuospatially, and the other passenger trusting another party, would have realised (maybe) that their view needed correction. But they would have only been able to correct their verbal on the basis of trust of someone else in addition to me. There would be no confirmation of the visuospatial part of the conversation regarding the map's relationship to the talking, because this person lacked mind there. Freaky but true. It just so happens we're talking to brains of different sizes and organisations.
BTW when we talk I sense you have good verbal in writing. Both in comprehension and in what you say to me. Probably doesn't need stating but I thought I'd say so. Cool to know you're awesome at visuospatial too.

*FB Friend's Name* the other thing that came to mind after seeing a response from someone elsewhere is that there must be a sense for someone who is very high on visuospatial versus verbal, to put things into words. My father may fall into this category. He seems to have good visuospatial abilities, but is much weaker verbally. I'm not sure if he has really strong visuospatial though-- but he might be an example.
I do recall when I was younger, not being incredibly adept at explaining exactly what I was thinking visually too, not because I was inept verbally (I can't tell which is stronger, my verbal or my visuospatial. They're that close), but because perhaps the visuospatial requires less preparatory work. Little kids may have very good visuospatial, but they may not yet have the verbal commensurate with it. But later on I felt as though almost anything I could think can be communicated easily. But I'm guessing people really strong on the visuospatial may feel as though they may have a permanent difficulty talking about it if they're much weaker on the verbal side. Seems a somewhat horrible scenario if the difference is too great. I'd be curious what you think.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="calculating-the-diminishing-benefits-of-future-thinking-for-planning-and-applicability">Calculating the Diminishing Benefits of Future Thinking for Planning, and Applicability</a>

*18 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724111883, Monday, August 19, 2024 16:58:03*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

If a problem happens to be solved, then additional thinking regarding that problem happens to have a lower value. Resolving problems results in a decreased need to reflect again on those problems, and this is considered a benefit of problem resolution. Since the problem is already solved, time that relates towards working towards a solution or dealing with not having one, is transferred to thinking about other things. If one solves a life problem, one may be able to relax and think about what one likes, or direct it to other problems that are requiring resolution. For problems solved that are applicable to life circumstances, the total number of problems related to those circumstances are reduced. As one solves problems as one is living, there is a feeling as one solves the problems that there is a decreasing burden. Early on, while one is first dealing with a wide variety of issues, there is often a desire to finally have them all resolved; this thinking could relate to a vision for an improved life or lifestyle. Once all the problems are solved, it is imagined, there will be an improvement in life conditions and maybe very good conditions free of the issues formerly dealt with. It is known that new problems are encountered as old problems. Here we can still lump those problems in with all other problems and consider them as problems that simply exist in the total set of problems that will exist in a life. Solving problems before the new problems arise, is like getting through a stage and arriving at a new learning area. Learning itself is like this, since when one is born almost nothing is known and anything new to be known later will depend largely on resolving earlier problems first. For example, if one has a life problem later in life relating to "getting to work on time", that problem will only have existed because one already learned to walk and navigate as a child. If one did not learn to walk and navigate as a child, life would have ended early, and there would not have been an opportunity to learn the advanced problems relating to what is done once navigation, socialization, schooling, and finding employment are learned. Thinking this way, one can reflect that anyone who has considered working has already had an extremely large number of life accomplishments.

Notice that after having solved issues relating to learning to walk, and finding employment, and so on, the same problems do not arise in the same way. Finding employment is a recurrent issue, but it doesn't present in the same way as it did the first time in ignorance. Repeated problems really often have characteristics of new problems. Aspects that are similar feel already solved or understood. Aspects that are different require some new approach, or new learning. All of life will have this process of learning and resolution, with increased ability to solve new problems when they are sufficiently similar to old problems, as long as there is sufficient learning ability. We can see how future milestones will reveal new problems. As one gets older, one will encounter health difficulties, retirement concerns, and issues relating to budget and family relations in decline. If one does not consider these well already in advance, they will be extremely new problems and time will have to be dedicated to resolving various new problems. It shouldn't be missed that these really are *new problems* and not *old ones* and the older ones already encountered really are not problems in the same way any longer, or not at all. The benefit of this process is that later one does not need to think about these issues any longer, and really there is a diminishing return on thinking about those problems again. The issues are solved and one has already learned. Some reflection will be useful as the subjects connect to other life issues, but the need for sustained thinking has been reduced, and overall thinking about it still indicates a diminished return on that thinking until one prefers just not to think about those topics and to think about something else instead. Now, imagine if one is going to as a younger adult think about issues that old people will face in advanced age, rather than waiting. In that case, many issues will be resolved in advance too. For any issue solved in advance, there is a diminishing return on thinking about it further later. The problems have reduced in quantity and complexity. Additional thinking about those problems still provide rewards in solutions but the size of those rewards are smaller. Finally, when one reaches that age, after having thought of many of the problems that would exist, new problems will surface, but they will feel less unconsidered. Some related and relevant thought is applicable. It then gets applied. That was thought already had, so fewer thoughts are needed for finding solutions. That too indicates a diminishment of thinking because what is leveraged is older thinking and memory to substitute for problem solving. Anything that is new is less and thought is then directed to those issues. This issues being fewer require less thinking. More quickly solved, the quantity of time thinking and quantity of thoughts was less. This too indicates a diminishing return on additional thinking. But what does happen to be true is that all the earlier thought on problem solving *before* reduces the total amount of problems accounted and one has huge rewards for that in being able to place thoughts on other things that would yield greater returns.

If one through all of life very prudently thinks carefully resolving issues realistically for most domains of life in advance, then eventually there is a diminishing return on all thinking relating to problem solving. That is already how it works if one thinks about childhood, and the huge amount of things that children have to learn that are vital for many parts of life. When one is in primary and secondary school, one already had to learn about most of life's categories of problems. How to socialize, how to interact with an employer (somewhat) or teacher, how to deal with conflict with other people, how to think about a wide range of subjects, which is constitutes the main teachings encountered in a school system, and so on. When one finishes school, one is supposed to be "well prepared" for much that is faced in life, and one really is, even though it is well known that schools have not covered everything. Having gone through school, there is a huge amount of thinking that is not necessary any longer. How to become fit for example. That is extremely well covered in school fitness and sports. After going to school one can simply resume sports and go to the gym. If one did not have any education, and one did not do very much physical activity, and was not learning anything about this, one would struggle to have a fitter lifestyle later and would encounter problems that others understand well as new problems. Notice that for whatever was actually covered in school that really did prepare all or most students, those problems nearly cease to exist later. When one learns, there is a ceasing of interest in what has already learned. Consider if one really tried to pretend the problems of pre-school and elementary school were real again? It would be really uninteresting and hard to understand. The experience of the child is unlike the adult in that there can be very little interest in the adult in the process of learning how to read. Learning how to read again when one already knows how to read is a *strange* consideration. Having already learned to read, there are *improvements* along the way, but it is almost like the reading problem does not exist at all. At least until a new language is encountered or one is living abroad.

The total set of life problems is hugely eliminated by school and early education. Later is what remains. Thinking about the earliest problems (as the person learning them) have diminished in interest until there is no interest. The returns on the thought are nearly zero. A simple proposition could be formed regarding all learning and thinking that is general. Thinking resulting in learning results in a diminishment of interest and return on subsequent thinking as a learner of the same problem. Additional propositions can be formed in this conversation that are also logically quite general. Another one, that could be refined further like the one used earlier for deployment in mathematical or logical argumentation that is formal, might be "The total set of problems encounterable in a life are diminished by learning such that thought and learning has diminishing interest in those problems, and that one will redirect attention to the remaining set for renewed interest and returns on thinking." Additionally, "If one is able to think and learn about all major and minor problems such that they are resolved, and there is a real diminishing return on thinking and interest, then there is a total diminishing return on thinking."

Now we can relate the above to the title of the article. We can now see it is a computable problem. One can begin to estimate the extent in which one will have interesting problems later to think about. Earlier, we were talking about the benefits of problem resolution. Additionally, as problems are resolved, the set of thinks to think about that are interesting is reduced. If one computes that there is a dwindling set of problems of interest to think about, there will be a dwindling set of thoughts and learnings to have that have similar benefits. If one lived to a thousand, and one is a really good learner and thinker, then one will find later that there is very little to think about that has good return. Instead, one would have to be satisfied with curiosities, and thinking that results in rewards that are for enjoyment but with less huge life altering rewards. It gets closer and closer to "I already know all these things, so I'll think about what is enjoyable, even though it is not life altering. In face, I wouldn't expect huge life alteration, because I've already solved the issues that would be related to any such alteration."

For most people, there will probably be interesting problems late in life to resolve, even if some of them happen to be unwanted. This is because the problems were not already resolved. This is expected to occur most for those who have the smallest learning capacity, and least for those who have the most, and least still for those who have the most and are also *really finding solutions to problems* and are not simply happy with partial solutions. Satisfaction with partial solutions actually leaves problems unsolved. If anything tests their resolution of the problems, it will quickly be revealed to them that those problems were not resolved and really they have to work hard on solving them for real. They will have known a little but not enough. The return on the thinking on the problem, however, will be large. And afterwards they will likely think like others do that the "trials and tribulations" were worthwhile. People often think the struggle was what unlocked the learning. There is a niceness about having remaining problems, but personally it is not my preference to leave problems unsolved. I like to solve them in advance and truly feel the diminishment of interest in learning and thinking.

Despite the diminishing returns on thinking later in life as problems are really solved, the significance of thinking greatly increases. This means that what is thought about at a higher level regarding even the solved problems has some rewards. But these too follow the same trajectory of diminishment and even highly significant thinking that is cross domain becomes less interesting. I think also that this overall diminishing return on thinking, as *experienced*, and not merely as reflected upon, but inclusive of both, results in preparation for death. Thinking before death has shifted away from problems to enjoyment. Enjoyment becomes repetitive. Eventually there is less interest in having more life. If one lived to 10,000 one would probably tire of life at some point particularly if one learns really well. If there is little to no learning, there is much less that is enjoyable. Life becomes repetitive hedonism without learning. Burdens are lifted, but repetition sets in. One reflects on what one has accomplished and on feels a powerfulness that has reached culmination in reality given one's body and mind that one has genetically started with. One can simply enjoy life until one has had enough of it and then can decide upon when death should occur and how. That too would be inclusive of problem solving. One has then decided what a good death consists of and favors it over random injury. I see this as a very positive thing. It is actually extremely consistent with what others think maturation is supposed to be anyways.

*More to be said on this topic later!*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="moral-principles-and-facts-and-confusion">Moral Principles and Facts, and Confusion</a>

*17 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723936879, Saturday, August 17, 2024 16:21:19*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

People are confused as to what a moral principle happens to be, and if I were to redefine it, I would. However it is also possible to omit the concept in favor of other ways of speaking more accurately.

Oddly, in moral philosophy and in cultural literature, there are too many terms that mean nearly the same thing as a moral principle. What is common to all "moral principles" is that whatever the form, they are short statements. Moral principles are taken to be short sentences oftentimes. Sometimes they are taken to be sentences. Some will make paragraphs for them. But they will not be longer than a paragraph else what is being communicated is not the moral principle but explanations about the moral principle. Words that state moral principles are "aphorisms", "maxims", "directives", "principles", "laws", "rules", "heuristics" (sometimes), and so on. There are many variants. The trick is to simply know that the objective is to state in a short quantity of words and characters a recommendation, suggestion, piece of advice, or imperative, obligation, responsibility, and so on. Once you can see what people are trying to communicate in the short sentence, sentence, or short paragraph, one can see if they are stating any of the above or not. 

A strong argument could be made that when people talk at all, they are close to making recommendations, suggestions, advisements, or are close to communicating rules they think are absolute. If there is a presence of intention to specify a behavioral control, in a small amount of communication omitting explanation, they are stating what is equivalent to the above. Sometimes people talk a while longer, trying to explain, or find, what it is they would commit to regarding some shorter number of sentences. They try to simplify. If they can actually condense what they are trying to say they would likely find themselves briefly asserting more clear sentences they've arrived at. These they think are important. Being important they relate to behavior. They don't simply talk about behavior, but about what behaviors they think are better for performance in the future, or those that are worse for performance in the future.

Going through the total human literature, there is not much that is interesting that does not specify a change to action later, or a way to act going forward. Also, Moral Principles are selection of sentences from the total human literature people think are really important for what to do and what not to do. Humans have done a very poor job however of identifying what the moral principles *are* such that the quality of short statements align with lengthy texts of good quality. There may be a long book on honesty, giving advice on when to be honest, when not, and many details, which would allow oneself to be potentially more morally excellent. Within such a text there would be many embedded principle-like sentences. Not all would be identified. A work of 400 pages would have lots of good quality content potentially, especially if the text was already identified as a reliable and good one. But in the culture, when we try to find moral principles regarding honesty, we find things like "You should never tell a lie!" which is really an obtuse and unfortunate viewpoint with no sophistication. It sounds as though it came from a child with no experience who did no analysis. What we would like are the principles (if we want principles) from the longer works, in greater quantity. If we had lots of principles regarding honesty with more detail we would have a new book! It wouldn't be as long as the other book, but it would be a condensation of it. It would be all that you most want to know from that text without additional explanation, if you don't need it. Notice 400 pages doesn't come along with the statement "You should never tell a lie." Hearing and "learning" that statement is like learning nothing.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="automatation-and-levels-of-malintent-and-when-the-malintent-can-be-assumed-for-safety-and-types-of-assumptions">Automatation and Levels of Malintent, and When the Malintent Can Be Assumed for Safety, and Types of Assumptions</a>

*17 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723929680, Saturday, August 17, 2024 14:21:20*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In an individual person, it is possible to automate out malintent, and the people with very little malintent already know this. Perhaps not for all people, but for a huge segment of the population it is really possible, and it is possible without eliminating needs for defense.

People's behavior and thinking are largely automatic, and people are really like biological machines. They are a culmination of trained behavior and genetically defined growth. Even with personal reaction to a large variety of contexts and situations, much is largely determined by training and genetics, and of course the personal reactions to even novel situations is still related to training, self-training, and genetics. Some would want to quibble these points and I understand reasons to do so, but for now the objective is to keep the conversation a bit rough or sketchy, inclusive of some main ingredients. Tendencies in behavior relate to automations which some discern as having positive intent, something like a neutrality, and malintent. If much of the worlds behavior is automatic, and can include positive and negative intent, it is helpful to know what is automatic and what kinds have forms of positive and negative intent. Knowing this helps for self protection, self improvement, and creates a greater level of reasonableness for feasibilities relating to change. If one can ascertain what is infeasible relating to automatic malintents one can have more effective decision making. Decision making and especially decision making in advance are related to moral philosophy and ethics. How could one do really well in the world if one did not have a correct appraisal of various malintents, their extent, and degree of automation, and infeasibilities related to alteration/improvement.  

This is a large topic I'll want to develop at some depth, but for now my main interest concerns larger scale malicious automation. One form of large scale automation that includes malintent is advertising. For large scale issues of automated bevahior, many people are impacted. A single individual is affected by advertising (which is reduced to messaging), again and again. Is there a heuristic tool that one can use, that will allow for the quicker identification of malintent to avoid it, and make plans for more permanent avoidance? Such a plan for permanent avoidance can be trained upon until automatically one has a better space of positive intent. This space of positive intent would be hugely protective from the extreme repetition of messages and advertisements that include malintent. For example, if one gets an email, is there malintent? The faster those are ignored the better. If messages are received on social media through the chat tools, what is the frequency of malintent? In my experience, positive intent is rare there too. If one is on social media, and the television is on, between the two how often are messages and images from companies including malintent? Very frequently, but how much contains malintent and what is my heuristic tool I can use to avoid it?

If a bill arrives in the mail or electronically, how much of that notification includes malintent? 

Better still, relating this to the main topic, is if there is anything in my environment that is an automatic stimuli of any kind, how can I heuristically know if there is malintent and ignore it or act quickly in a protective way. Interestingly, thinking about it that way, this includes all relations a person can have in their life. Looking at nature, in a national park, one does not feel much malintent. In a social space, one feels more. In a social space with media, entertainment, and computing, one feels much more. This is partly because humans are responsible for the increase of stimulus. A setting without the people, in a park, national forest, or in/on the ocean, this stimulation is largely removed. It is the test of the identification of the causes of stimulus. It is also the closest example of non-stimulation. If one is out in a remote territory, alone, at night, and in the quiet, one has subtracted as much stimulus as one can reasonably do, unless one can create a laboratory or go to space. But space, an isolation laboratory, and a natural space with no light and little noise would be the examples of having less stimulus.

Stimulus starkly increases as one enters an urban setting. It's obvious that the primary causes of growth of stimulus and messaging is population density and technology.

*More on this topic soon*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-a-person-does-not-have-sufficient-verbal-and-visual-intelligence-cross-intuitive-insight-and-cross-proofing-may-not-be-possible">If a person does not have sufficient verbal and visual intelligence, cross intuitive insight and cross proofing may not be possible</a>

*13 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723671932, Wednesday, August 14, 2024 14:45:32*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

*[Note: Unedited but highly readable. The omission of editing is to provide source data in a study on editing in progress]*

I have noticed that there appear to be reasoning weaknesses among those who seem to be exclusively verbal. For those who are utilizing their strength in their verbal intelligence, which is an unavoidable preference if there is a definite deficite in visual intelligence, or a stronger preference in those who are less balanced between both forms of intelligence, they may be having thoughts that are obviously incorrect when tested visually, but they cannot engage in such testing. For example, if you happen to be arguing with someone over the verbal instructions for getting to a new location, but you have very good spatial abilities, you may know very well that the instructions are incorrect and will lead elsewhere. Being unable to communicate the spatial component of the directions to the other person, because that person simply doesn't have brain that can be activated for such thinking, there is a stall at the point of visual comparison. They cannot make the comparison. I have noticed this most clearly with those who are much weaker on visual thinking but are fairly strong on verbal thinking, and these people oftentimes prefer verbal or list-styled instructions rather than instructions with maps (simply handing over a map), or with use of landmarks. When sharing instructions again and again with people in this category, again and again there is a clear perception that communications cannot activate visual intelligence, and while I did not think of it at the time, this makes it clear there is a cognitive disparity. This can be quickly identified using the strategy mentioned in my book, The Velocity of Significance and Ideation.

Some in physics have mentioned that they do not require visualizations of material to understand the function of a system. I first encountered this in Pierre Duhem's The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, where he explained his irritation for those requiring visual representation in addition to verbal and especially mathematical representation (going from memory). Without additional time with Duhem to utilize the conversational strategy mentioned in my book, I cannot definitely ascertain his stregths and limitations with respect to verbal and spatial intelligence. Respectfully departing from using him as an example because I don't know regarding him, let's use an example of a person who is verbally very good at doing physics and mathematics. For such a mathematician, there will need to be a determination how to verify his results. It is possible he is simply far superior in visual thinking because he doesn't need it in order to visualize what exceeds what is both communicable visually, but also what can be graphically represented. When dimensions exceeds what is graphically possible because equations together explaining a system simply comprises what can be depicted, a physicist or mathematician can be aware that the verbal domain mixed with superior spatial vision is adequate and better than trying to make an assortment of related diagrammatic and graphical representations. They might see it as making a very large powerpoint for a simple set of formulas. With sufficient mathematical sill in a listener or reader, such efforts may not be necessary because the other person *does* have sufficient visual cortex to imagine at a high level spaces quickly. Nether person needs the powerpoint for illustration, and the powerpoint would be very time consuming to produce. In business one is aware of the excessive time spent trying to communicate. It is much nicer to have colleagues who intuitively undrstand. And of course, in the business communication of physics and mathematics, if much math is being covered, there will be too many powerpoints of diagrams and visualizations for what can simply be conveyed in text.

However, for such a person it may not be known yet *that* they really do have superior visuospatial ability, and instead what such a person might be doing is relying excessively on verbal thinking *because* they have a definite deficity in visual thinking *or* the strength of their visual thinking is far beneath the strength of their verbal thought. This is still fairly easy to determine in another person through conversation if they happen to be present. One can determine if they can draw well, have artistic talent, *are able to create the diagrams when needed*, and so on. Refusal to every make a powerpoint or visual presentation corresponding to their writing and mathematics, that uses *novel imagery they made* would surface if they have a deficit, if they don't have motor dysfunctions. 

What is interesting is if the person is extremely strong on verbal abilities, and weaker in visuospatial abilities (but strong enough), they may still consistently produce highly valuable and perhaps unreachable excellences in their work productions. Their verbal may exceed the verbal abilities of nearly anyone else. I think the imbalance weakens their total mental system nevertheless, but this does not mean they would not arrive at rarities in their work. There is a risk that the verbal creations have been overly dependent on maniuplation of existing mathematical statements. The type of person who would fit into this description would be those people who "live in the mathematical formulas" primarily, extend them, manipulate them extremely well, and so on, but don't produce much as far as visual cross-verification. These people may have good results but to some extent it is *extensive* of existing mathematics following transformation rules and the like. Because it is done this way, verification becomes more important. It was lacking in the visual verification and so this needs at some point some supply. Or experimental observational supply. Extensions of mathematics using manipulations of symbols and relationships does not guarantee that the extension will be verified true or false in experimentation. The person who is capable of both, who is hopefully as competent in the verbal domain, or nearly as competent, would be able to verify. Regardless of how verification is supplied, someone will have to do it.

Someone who has good parity of very high verbal and visual intelligence can actively cross corroborate with a very high frequency, and this indicates a strong deficit even in the very powerful physicist, if there is an imbalance. Because all of their life, many times a day, they were able to make the cross comparisons. Let's think again of the example of finding and navigating to locations using maps. In that case visual happens to be superior. One cannot navigate using a list of coordinates with the same power. But the physicist who has amazing verbal abilities may have a system for getting around *incredibly well just using coordinates and rules of direction on paper*! But this is greatly inferior to the person who can and does both, and is nearly inferior to the person who only has visual abilities simply because the physiology for that is more powerful for that task. They would likely have a mental representation of the *actual view* of the entire space. The other would have a *representative view*. The representative view is akin to plain math. The visual view is akin to modeling what is experienced using space. If both are combined the thinker is positively superior. As superior as the person who knows how to get around with a map and without a map compared to a person who can only use representative instructions.

*[Finished in 26 minutes without proofreading, spell check, reading, semi-blind typed, again as part of a study in editing, at 3:11 pm]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="ai-claims-to-invented-words-pretending-to-know-them-already">AI Claims to Invented Words, Pretending to Know Them Already</a>

*12 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723605137, Tuesday, August 13, 2024 20:12:17*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Today I searched Chat GPT and Bing's Copilot to see if they knew the source of a coinage of mine. This word "Wanattam" or "Wanattams" plurally, is a term of math and science that I created on the reversal of the spalling of my name Mattanaw.

Checking Copilot first, I found that it simply responded with an answer on an unrelated topic. It answerd "who created wanattams?" with a response about the founders of an application called "WhatsApp". It claimed it knew what wanattams were because it knew what whatsapp was and though the answer was correct.

When I asked ChatGPT, a more disconcerting result occurred. It pretended that this word and a variation of the word was a word existing already in the Lakota Indian Language. I don't think it likely at all that this term exists elsewhere preceding my creation. Additionally, when I accidentally mispelled the word, it claimed the same. Meaning it claimed that the Lakota Indians were the source of a word and another word which had merely a similarity. I find it likely it is making the claim regarding some other word that looks as though it could have come from the Lakota Indians. The words as typed were "Wanattam" and "Wanattoma". Clearly "Wanattoma" should not prompt the same response.

Worse still, both ChatGPT and Bing bypassed my terms and conditions page and robots.txt file to download huge quantites of assets from my Book and Journal including my work on Mathematics which includes the subject matter on Wanattams. Several sections of my site reference Wanattams and provide long explanations. However, ChatGPT and Bing both did not respond knowingly that these were sources, even though their AI tools should have learned from the thefts of my site's contents. They did not. They did not report back that they knew what Wanattams were.

Furthermore, the domain "wanattam" is owned by me. That domain get's scanned by the bots too. That domain redirects to my page on mathematics. So they additionally have crawled this domain and yet their responses do not even reflect an awareness of the domain.

There is a huge risk that AI engines will do two very harmful things. Firstly, they may simply pretend to "already know" what something that someone else created happens to be, or link it to something else making it seem as though it already knows. This would cloud who created what. They also don't provide sources for responses. If AI keeps claiming it already knows answers to questions asked on topics in which others performed work, *and this work has been consumed by their LLMs*, it may provide them a way to deny the creations of other and substitute what they like.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-librarian-who-knows-which-books-and-they-are-few">The Librarian Who Knows Which Books and They are Few</a>

*12 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723595303, Tuesday, August 13, 2024 17:28:23*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

I have been involved in librarianship processes relating to asset management for various corporations. For one particular corporation, I guided with a simple process for librarians to support executives with analytical answers to business questions. This was a system that was either to have an automated approach using software, or utilize a person working as an asset librarian to provide answers. It was found that the manual approach with the librarian is the preferable approach, however, for the organization it was not really feasible given personnel planning. Instead there would be a combination of software and a librarian who would provide ways for executives to find answers. This was a process of business analytics being worked on.

Manual librarianship is something that has not been identified, so far as I have seen, by others for the importance it really has. Business questions often are not known in advance. Analytics supplying needed information is unknown, and reporting on analytics is also unknown for the specific problems. A trained librarian who understands resources and questions asked, with sufficient skill and talent, can very rapidly answer business questions making it somewhat unnecessary to have software tools that the business users would use more directly. Instead of using a boring business example, let's just use a real life example, that I don't think has had attention. Let's imagine a librarian who simply knows what books to read.

A librarian who knows what books to read is different from a plain librarian who happens to have millions of searchable volume, and tens of thousands of volumes on site. We'll imagine here that the volumes correspond to any resource digital or physical. That amounts to all information. Now a library typically aids in finding good quality relevant resources, or aids in search of resources that may potentially be useful. An experienced librarian, who is also a student of knowledge, or interdisciplinary expert, who knows what the better books are in each domain, will not only be able to state which book might be useful from search results (which would be a novice librarian), but can simply point a persons mind to another mind. "These are the books of value you are needing" versus locating information that they've helped in organizing and archiving.

Going further, we can imagine, that from all books, only a subset are truly worth the time. Now a librarian has narrowed down the cannon of knowledge from some number of millions or billions of volumes or assets, to several tens of thousands. It's not hard to recall and know ten thousand books. This librarian does know them, and knows them from their studies but also from what has proven useful to others.We imagine that this librarian simply knows the hallmarks of a good book, and also has the experience adequate, to separate all that is worthwhile from what is not worthwhile. What is not worthwhile is still useful in the history of all thoughts into assets and volumes. But for those seeking to learn various topics, the librarian simply points out what is best.

People are oddly aimless in their selections of what books to read. There is good fortune when a book happens to be extremely valuable. There are many titles that go ignored. What has been read may not be as good as what could be read. This librarian would point you to what is better, and if you know that in advance, the librarian has made you less aimless. The librarian would change research dramatically. Now your research efforts are in the tens of thousands of resources and not more, *and* they point you to the best to be seen. Your time regarding learning has been more optimized. Better still, you could become the librarian yourself, simply knowing what's worthwhile and not, and knowing the structure of human knowledge from the structure of writings that are most worthwhile.

Being a person desirous of encyclopedic knowledge, then one can simply read the 10,000 best books, or sample among them given time constraints. Digest the best 10,000 while creatively making one's own works, acting like this ideal librarian, one can then acquire and have familiarity with what might be thought of as "all of knowledge". Knowing the structure of all the books, one can have the earthly patterns of interest. One can do this with encyclopedias too, but also, this librarian has made an encyclopedia of the elaboration of what is of interest. So the 10,000 volumes which include the encyclopedia become together the total encyclopedia at the size that is more optimal. Notice the books outside the list are not as worthwhile, this means the encyclopedia has become all that is worthwhile. This in a way completes the mission of encyclopedia writing. The encyclopedia could not be expanded to become all the books you'd want to read. Instead they summarize. They summarize the other works. Now the other works are together and the encyclopedia is complete.

In a way, the librarian can be a knowledgable person who knows the full encyclopedia's structure and much of its contents. They can define what the encyclopedia is. If they need a piece of information, they know where it is *directly*. Search then becomes somewhat unimportant. In my system design for customers, what is kept in mind is locatability and searchability. Searchability is what you do when you don't know where something is. That is an unfortunate state in a way. Directly and immediately knowing where something is is much better. If one loses one's wallet, or keys, one is better off if one can directly find it, not if one has to search for it, using a mental or physical search approach. So this librarian has also avoided the need for search. Even google search. The resource desired is the resource found already.

There are certainly exceptions to the above that I can see, but this is a good simplification. Growth of knowledge at first will have the issue of "what has grown and where is it, and what's its value?". New things are harder to incorporate and exist as unknown until incorporated. There are other considerations worth thinking about making the above thoughts incomplete too. But this is a very good account.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="exhausting-whats-unexhausted">Exhausting What's Unexhausted</a>

*12 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723595009, Tuesday, August 13, 2024 17:23:29*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Recently below I've written about the potential benefits of trying to become more exhausted mentally and physically. Also, I've had an interest in how to make decisions on what to do for reading and exercise, given one "exhausts ones" parts differently across one's total system. For example, weightlifting and sporting exertions are divided into different days and times to allow for recuperation. An implication is that one has exhausted a subset of what could be exhausted in the body on those days, while the other parts of the body are unexhausted. Likewise, regarding the mind, one can read a difficult book on one topic, reach a point nearing exhaustion, but switch to an easier read, and read comfortably unexhaustedly. When a system is more exhausted combining the level of exhaustiveness of parts and shared resources, one begins to feel more "totally exhausted", a phrase that is undefined, vaguely relating to the stronger desire to eat, drink, and sleep. If extremely exhausted, one may need days of recovery. Sometimes the level of exhaustion can lead to illness. One does not want to go so far as to become ill in one's decisions about how to attain higher levels of exhaustion, but one *does* want to attain a level of exhaustion that one can recover from easily to facilitate the onset and quality of sleep. It is beneficial to be exhausted but not too exhausted for any specific part of the system, for any shared resources, or in "total" which might be a good combination of resources central and peripheral.

It was mentioned it is beneficial for production to become exhausted and not only to have good quality rest. Productions of course are mental and bodily. If one is exhausted mentally and physically doing worthwhile behaviors, like exercising, reading, writing, and producing art, then one is making things that are worthwhile to create, and is changing self mentally and physically for improvement. A total measure of productivity may benefit from a system of behavior that ensures utilization of resources to exhaustion with good optimalities. A way to arrive at such a process is to learn along the way about what specific exhaustions exist and how they contribute to utilization of system resources, and how more exhaustion might be achieved where there is underutilization. If a morally excellent person is behaving in such a way as to make improvements in a large number of domains mental and physical, and is alternating between parts of the system to ensure there are growths in all areas of interest, the total person will be more excellent and will have amazing productivity. The result is a person of greater moral excellence and results on behavior.

Most are looking to improve their habits. The improvements and coordinations of habits into a total behavior pathway that results in good output and growth will be a person who has achieved what might be thought of as mastery of habit. But it *can be taken further*. How so? By utilizing underutilized resources until they are exhausted, since the habits are already conducive to good output. This increases the diversity and quantity of outputs, and therefore total outputs. Health is expected to result because it is harmonized with rest, and the rest and restoration are improved. For those thinking about how they can improve their personal excellences, it may be useful to think first about how total habits can be of excellent quality, then transition once the habits are firmed in all of living to what can be exhausted more completely. Energy then has been optimized towards excellent productions.

From this it appears that one's improved version of oneself would include a more optimized and planned utilization of energy.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="proving-who-is-good-and-bad-down-to-the-vitamin">Proving Who is Good and Bad Down to the Vitamin</a>

*10 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723415123, Sunday, August 11, 2024 15:25:23*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

When trying to decide if someone is good or bad, it should be computed down to the vitamin. Down to the mineral or element too. Brain network images related to thoughts would be helpful along with other information about thinking, but to know what someone does you have to use medical examiner archeology. Was the person active expressing excellences far from sloth. Bone morphology and density tests would help to know if they were athletic. Post humous and humous dentition would support knowledge of diet and genetic fitness to survive. Recalling DNA the DNA must be examined for quality of code and compared with physiological exam results, and historical information of blood and anything else tested.

The full quantitative method for knowing if you're good or bad contains all this and all situational information, including the measure of the earth which would provide that you're absorbed into it. Viewed from space you are a surface that moves largely imperceptibly, blended and attached to crust. Earth and its history is all your composition and history and all surrounding situations and situational-ingredients.

Here I am planning for additional reductionism of human life. I will soonishly try to provide a reference of the elemental construction of the human body and it's food, including all elements working alone and found within biomolecules and other molecules of interest. Additionally, common pharmaceutical and food chemicals will be added, excepting those that are optional for digestion. Flouride for example is not optional. One step towards having a comprehensive effort that has potential for completion is having a complete table representing all that is known that comprises what I mentioned above. A difficult area would be the depiction of all known proteins, but if found to be feasible it will be included also. A conveneient mnemonics of the approach is useful, meaning patterns of interest must be identified. Patterns of interest associatively holding it all together would be useful for the learner wanting to know and retain more on this subject.

List of All 14 Vitamins (Others would not exist or would be undiscovered)

- Vitamin A (all-trans-retinols, all-trans-retinyl-esters, as well as all-trans-β-carotene and other provitamin A carotenoids)
- Vitamin B1 (thiamine)
- Vitamin B2 (riboflavin)
- Vitamin B3 (niacin)
- Vitamin B5 (pantothenic acid)
- Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine)
- Vitamin B7 (biotin)
- Vitamin B9 (folic acid and folates)
- Vitamin B12 (cobalamins)
- Vitamin C (ascorbic acid and ascorbates)
- Vitamin D (calciferols)
- Vitamin E (tocopherols and tocotrienols)
- Vitamin K (phylloquinones, menaquinones, and menadiones)

List of All 21 Amino Acids (Unless more are found)

- Alanine
- Arginine
- Asparagine
- Aspartate
- Cysteine
- Glutamine
- Glutamate
- Glycine
- Histidine
- Neutral
- Isoleucine
- Leucine
- Lysine
- Methionine
- Phenylalanine
- Proline
- Serine
- Threonine
- Tryptophan
- Tyrosine
- Valine

List of All Mineral Nutrients (Elements is better)

- Potassium
- Chlorine
- Sodium
- Calcium
- Phosphorus
- Magnesium
- Iron
- Zinc
- Manganese
- Copper	
- Iodine
- Molybdenum
- Selenium
- Cobalt

List of All Elements

*See the Periodic Table*

List of All Molecules (Many unknowns exist)

*Pharmacological and Bio-Chemical Reference*

Elements would be classified as poisonous or not. Ingestion of any mineral or element implies that the mineral or element is within a human system, regardless of digestibility. Some elements will pass into the system despite the digestive system's defenses, or "knowledge", i.e. the genetically planned functional morphology to systemically handle those elements. The body is limited only by what cannot be stuffed into the mouth regarding what it's constitution is prior to exiting of the material, if it exits. Mass spectronomous measures of deceased human bodies shows evidence of a wide assortment of unexpected element materials with known and unknown functions. Even gold is prsent in a human corpse, although I don't know if trace elments are not averaged from deceased people with gold teeth. However, metal teeth are part of the human system once installed, and leech material into the system. If you had iron teeth you may need less supplementation of iron, although your mouth may taste like blood.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="playing-with-toys-isnt-far-from-smearing-paint-so-smear-paint-instead">Playing with Toys Isn't Far From Smearing Paint, So Smear Paint Instead</a>

*9 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723330583, Saturday, August 10, 2024 15:56:23*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

As a child, we played with stuff. As a child, in school, we were taught to make rudimentary paintings, but while painting we didn't distinguish it from playing with other stuff. Paint was more stuff, paper was where it could be *energetically* smeared. Painting was play, just as playing with other objects was play. Running around athletically was play. But the play was not all the same in its results.

Playful results can have tangible and mental, physical, and external productions. Jumping and frolicking around creates good muscles. Some of us had our best bodies as teenagers playing, and others are aware of that. Touching our hands with paint to paper, we created memorable first artworks, which the Psychologist most prizes. These are external products for sale. When we stare and think, and reflect, or ratiocinate, we make brain tissues or modify old ones into new invisible artworks. Well mine aren't really invisible, but I can't see them with my eyes. They are productions of good quality though and are carried along all of life. When a child, most play is pretty beneficial. It's not clear which form of play has less value, because sometimes doing the least in the play in boredom results in valuable mental productions which exceed in value the artworks made. Later in life, we reverse this a bit. We see less value in our thinking knowing remuneration will not occur, thinking others are more involved in value. The paintings though, if others can like them, like the Psychologist, might earn money for others, and for oneself.

As an adult, suddenly I'm wanting more of the artwork and bodily productions. If you look around, as people devalue their bodies too, they value objects more. Products become more of interest. Productivity of most is pretty low, and procrastination is a disease some think. But there was little procrastination while a child playing.

If play is more likened, again, to childhood, one will have many more products. Many more external creations will result. If one can get out of being stuck in consumerism, bodily production is also gained by play. Play will also result in more enjoyable mental stimulation that results in better thoughts and conclusions from those thoughts. So playing is something to start trying out it seems, until it is habitual.

How to start playing? Well, what do you do that is already playlike, that can be grown, and what is it you would like to produce, that can become more like fun and less like a struggle against procrastination? At the gym, I have lately tried to make it more ridiculous. I don't play basketball like a rigid basketball player "doing drills" as of late. I make movements that make no sense, and I kinda dance the court. I use bodily humor as I kick my legs oddly and make shots that are perhaps an advancement on the game of basketball, being outside of the rules, but silly and usable in trickery. It's become much more fun and as a result, it doesn't feel uninviting. I can do it and my glutes and quadriceps will grow.

My writing is playful and so it doesn't not procrastinate. It happens often and I benefit. I'm trying to make it more enjoyable still. I am not yet often doing artwork, but it is trending in that direction too. Crafts as well. Trying to make it less serious and less marketable is helping. Plans for marketability are happening in the background by they are not creating obstacles to motivation. Instead doing the play seems to unlock the marketing thought, in a way that is not obtrusive.

Playing with little cars or dolls as an adult, does not seem as beneficial though. Those stages of learning have passed. So there is a difference. If one has learned something, don't learn it again too many times. The painting, however, has a tangible result and if one is not repetitive, learning will continue. So it may be advisable to skip repetitive play, and do the painting, and drawing, and other playful productions in a way that originally were indistinguishable from first learning play. First learning while producing. As I said in the title, don't play with the toys. Over and over I have to add. Play instead with the paint, and smear it with enthusiasm. Change the paint and the media. Make the paint writing and woodwork. As long as it's fun it is inviting. This way you can hopefully have the motivation you want to do the things you want to do, and maybe money can come, later.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="what-math-is">What Math Is</a>

People assume to themselves that they understand what math happens to be, even those who are pop cultural 'representatives' of physics, the sciences and mathematics. But it turns out they don't really know what math is, and they are certainly confused as to the status of individual 'maths' which disconnectedly comprise the total literature. Some mathematics amounts to doodling, although the doodles are expected to represent aspects of nature which have created inspiration for the doodles. Other parts of math are puzzle-funning. The puzzles then are hoped to have representative power or application in the real world, but the puzzle-makers sometimes wait on others to tell them what the meaningfulness of their math happens to be. Mathematics is an uncombined venture. Branches of math do not blend, but are sometimes and oftentimes used to work together in concert. In physics, some areas of math are used, while other areas of math are disused, and these areas of math are expected to work together well. In application they seem to be more blended. But looking at mathematics as a whole, the work is almost as plural and disjointed as the interests of individuals doing the work.  

If asked what exactly mathematics is as a whole, then, one will have trouble having a complete vision. One would have to talk more about what everyone is trying to do together, and that is largely to have a representative system covering much of interest from nature, without clarity on what that relation happens to be, with differing levels of confusion on that point depending on which area of mathematics is being considered. There is a kind of joint mission, but some within the field are still puzzle builders and inspired artist-drawers who merely hope that sufficient relation to the rest will justify the effort, where it is honest.  Some mathematicians are there to earn money, or exercise enjoyable skills. Most are doing both, but some are much more serious regarding their motives and objectives even with pleasure intermixed. Different branches of mathematics have different inspirations, and sometimes their ways of doing math are so different from the others that there is some wonder if they are really doing "the same thing". Of course, they are not doing precisely the same things and the results in their work reflects this. They are creating gulfs in the field that are hard to bridge, and at present there is no unified system of mathematics. Persistence in explaining that math is still seeking to have importance and interest justified by life in nature, which would relate to the desire to have representative power of mind on diverse experiences, would make it seem that the objectives of mathematics are to be likened very closely to those of physics. In that case physics and mathematics have the same objectives, but they are going about their work in very different ways. This relates well to how people speak when they try to state what they think math is, even though they fail at doing so.

Mathematics and Physics both are expected to represent nature. Math sometimes prepares work that is hoped to represent nature where there is not really an experimental undertaking. Physics takes a more experimental and observational approach closer to the actual phenomenon to be represented, and interestingly, this closeness seems to result in a better confidence in physics than in mathematics regarding the justification of work, and definition of the results. Physics sometimes relies upon mathematics already created in a kind of human vacuum of imagination for use in its work, and sometimes with success. This success is of special interest because it implies mathematicians who hope for application working only on imagination and feedback from paper are not insane. Instead, the expectation that the work might apply is reasonable and oftentimes confirmed. What is confirmed is sometimes *the hardest portion* of what is to be done by the physicist, which explains why the physicists ingenuity and creativity couldn't advance the work until there was a borrowing from the imagination of the mathematician. But some areas of math do insanely expect application where there would be none. "Insane" is not the right word but there is some fun in the utilization to me at present. Mathematicians still rely more on the physicist to "find out" that their work "applies" than the other way around, which means they "don't know until later". This implies they don't know what they did until later, meaning they don't know what that area of math was at the time of completing their work. All work is accretional, growing on a fringe of non application in mathematics. This means all the growths are unknown regarding applicability except where there was immediate related work in physics or application which probably could be reduced to physics. If results of game theory are tested in simulation and are correct, then it will be the case that the verification did not need to use the physicist but will apply to any games mapped to games in nature, even those created by people. And people *can* simply make the games exist in nature from simulation sometimes "as is" in nature, if certain conditions are met.

Since the entire field is disjointed, much is unapplied until later, and the fringes of mathematics at all points of expansion very largely have work that requires testing, it follows that all math that has ever existed has been at one time or another unknown in its meaning. Perhaps most math currently worked on today is unknown in meaning. Math that has been created somewhat recently still falls under the category of the untested wherever it has been untested. Math is unusual in that a large amount of time must elapse before testing has happened. This means for the last hundred years or so much of math's meaning is unknown.

New math does not inherit meaning from old math by default. Extension creates a reasonable expectation that the extensions may have meaningfulness but that is not known. More novel math is more unverified. This implies that if one becomes a mathematician, and does math, and it has novelties, that one does not yet know what it means in clear detail.

But this question is still one about what math is as a whole, assuming that the branches can really be brought together under a single vision which perhaps someone can have later. As I stated above, it seems Mathematicians will need to ask Physicists about what they think. Physicists seem like they have to ask less about what it is than the mathematicians, but when pressed to say what it is, they will fail. Why is this the case?

This is the case because there is an inability to state what is actually doing the representation and to what degree and what is the conformity of the writing with what is represented. How does my calculus actually represent "underlying nature-code"? Is there any such underlying nature code. Testing for that ad hoc, I'd say there's none. Why do I say so confidently? Because if one observes anything there are no numbers present, and no doodles. When an object moves, it does not announce to me that there is math for it, and it does not state or project to me its form. It just shows me what it does! A Physicist or Mathematician who is religious might stay that underneath that there is a running computer system or that there really is something akin to lines drawn on paper, but instead of lines, they are ghostly. Being a disbeliever in ghosts, I'm not ready to add them into everything. What I do admit is that there is a representation occurring. What is the nature of that representation? That is an interest of the philosopher of science who is still not solving it. I see myself as a philosopher of science too, but I will not spend my time among them, seeing how they spend their time.

Functionalism is important, because without having functionality in the math and the physics, work on it would cease for sure. Growth of the functionalism is undeniable and is confirmed in our technical improvements which the population attributes to their own characters. Everyone thinks they have worked along with the scientists in their improvements making humans very special, and "equal" regarding their self worth. Thus I can state that when we arrive at Mars, I used the word "we", therefore I arrived at Mars, and so did everyone else. Together we confirmed the functionality while together we didn't know why it was. For that I include the physicist and mathematicians who did the work and deserve the credit for what they did, but not more than what they did.

What is clear in the above paragraph is that the technical advancement that includes functional improvement is something that all want to take credit for, and universally they all want to take *more credit* regardless of who they are. Stephen Hawking discovered the beginning of time and knows the boundaries of the universe for example, and perhaps knows that there the fictional diety is not fictional. Others take his credit themselves, and think they too know the diety personally as a result. It's hard to be too caring about this kind of thinking because it is plainly repulsive. But the repulsiveness of this especially shows that people really really value the functional advancement assisted by physics, mathematics, engineering and so on.But they can't go much past stating that it is functional in describing what it is. Pure mathematicians even think non-functionality characterizes mathematics and with this estimation I would agree, and this also that is shows the importance of "getting into the occupation" to absorb credibility from others.

"So what is it finally can you please tell me!" Not yet, and I'm not really capable of that at present, and I wouldn't finish very likely. I'd get closer I think. I have other writings I can share. Additionally, I will share more once I've made more progress, but that will take a while. What I can assure the reader is that as I try to answer this question, I will not claim I know the boundaries and beginnings of the universe. I will also not state that I see the code like I'm Neo from the Matrix. My answer would simply be a closer one, and it may trend towards, you may not get to know.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="server-security">Server Security</a>

*8 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723241806, Friday, August 09, 2024 15:16:46*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

*[Note: Written without any edits or spell check as part of a study in editing]*

Historically I haven't required any security for my Journal publication's website, having done nothing for security for over 8 years. From 2016 to 2024 I ran my server without any utilization of any specific security measures, or any appropriate messures commonly used. One might say incorrectly that my security was neglected by the omission to have any server side security precautions.

Sites that are having more of a need for security are typically those that utilize server side programming languages and databases. These often have holes, and we are told, and I would know from experience, that there are poeple working on closing those holes. However, there are computers on the internet trying to exploit publically available servers guessing what types they might be, and they try to work against common security issues that they happen to be aware of. The objectives are to steal, break, deny service, increase costs, or to embarass a site owner. My site doesn't have to worry about any of that though, because I use a home grown approach in conjunction with a very simple webserver that simply doesn't often have those same issues.

My server of choice is the Apache server. Attacks for denial of service can occur. It is possible to hack my server still. But these issues were avoided for 8 years because I use the concept of system rebuild to keep my server intact. Uptime of a server, which is a measure of availability, is considered extremely good if it is over 99.9%. This would mean that less than .1% of the time, the server is down, shut off, or made unavailable by a hacker, or other reason. My server has been down less probably than .001% of the time. It has an uptime likely of over 99.999%. 

There have only been a couple situations in which the server has gone down and I became aware quickly. In these situations, I simply needed to do some silly task like restart the server, or do a quick server rebuild. If it were a hacker, I would not have cared. I would have done the same. I would have simply restarted the system, or rebuilt/redeployed it nearly immediately with very little effort.

Replacing a total system is a very effective method of overcoming any security threat.

Doing nothing was the strategy as I said for about 8 years. I did however, very recently have a new issue, and that was inflated costs. Suddenly my server was incredibly expensive. It was looking like it could approach $1,000 a month USD or more. The cause of the issue were bots that everyone is now aware of. Artificial Intelligence Training Bots. Chat GPT from OpenAI, Facebook and others. They were simply unleashed upon the world at that time, and instead of getting tens of thousands of requests in short times I was getting hundreds of thousands of requests for "heavy" files, images and videos, that were consuming very great amounts of bandwidth. Over 10TBs per month!

Since the cause of the requests were bots that understood the structure of my site and knew the paths to all my assets, and I did not ever want to change those assets, the moment I would make my site available again, the bots would vulture my system. This meant I had to finally address the silly task of filtering requests, to keep well-known bots from stealing from peole without giving anything in return, and to keep my server up and alive. Desipte this sudden influx of requests, my total site uptime incidentally is still over 99.9%.

Initially I simply cut out access to assets. This meant they could 'have' the plaintext files that were lower in weight. This kept the site running. Then I had to finally learn all the bots and nefariants accessing my site by the millions over the years. It is humorous to think that I really supplied millions and millions of files to these bots without a care at all. Well, they were all violating my terms of service and privacy policy, but that helps me in preparations potentially, for legal action, since AI does not read terms and conditions and merely steals anything that has not been perhaps zealously protected. A lot of work is required to prevent them if one has not done anything before concerning them.

The simple solution I have arrived at, that would be useful to any system administrator running a site, is to do one of three things. Firstly, just have an ".htaccess" file (which I was already aware of but didn't use extensively), to block the main culprits. Monitor for a short period request codes and block other unwanteds by listing them gradually. After a short time, a week or two, the main culprits can't access what they are wanting. This is the main static filter. The second solution, that I'm now using, is to simply "kill switch" heavier portions of the site so larger files cannot be accessed. It is easy to simply uncomment from the ".htaccess" file directives (this enables them), that block heavy files. Bandwidth then is reduced to plaintext. This allows one again to not care so much. These can be "commented out" again later, opening the site up to regular traffic, making it a temporary access limiter/modulator that merely alters traffic while keeping the site up. The final and best solution, which I have not yet utilized, but plan to utilize, is dynamic log reading with modifications to the ".htaccess" file with server restarts. This simply watches for who is using the site, decides what pattern fits the usual nefarious use case, and simply inserts their IP and information into the file, removes an older block to keep the file size low, and restarts the server. This way you can achieve automation of fencing the server.

If one does not have an extremely large website with many files, images, and videos, like this one, then it may be that one does not need much security, unless one is using, unfortunately, one of those back-end programming languages and website systems (like CMS Systems, including Wordpress), then you will probably need to do more. But if you are using an Apache Server or another Plain Text Serving approach without backend programming (it's unnecessary to have backend programming oftentimes), then you may never need security, like I didn't for 8 years. Keep things backed up, and prepare to redeploy or create a new server quickly. If there are too many requests, and you do have a similar scenario (which is unlikely), then you could use the approach I mentioned above. Few have mentioned a dynamic log watching system for simple servers using .htaccess in my exploration of .htaccess. Typcially it is a static file just updated. But one can do more and make it simply update what gets blocked as strange reqeusts come in.

This posting is still about not having security. The precaution I mentioned above is really basic. It's only needed when some strange scenario like inflating costs comes into the picture. It's free, fast and easy. It's very close to doing nothing. And usually nothing is really what is needed. 

*[Finished in 24 minutes with no editing, semi-blind-typed, with no punctuation changes or spell check. It has not yet been read by the author. This is part of a data collections in a study on editing]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="reading-material-for-the-gifted">Reading Material for the Gifted</a>

*7 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723139733, Thursday, August 08, 2024 10:55:33*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Along with providing reading material to anyone who is interested, in a luxurious book format, or on the web for free, the Book and Journal is now offering free books to the gifted, including the immeasurably gifted, with charitable support from others in the form of kind donations.

While much reading material exists to satisfy their curiosities, and while these people are also oftentimes self-enteraining and can learn well from independent reflection, It is a rarity to have an offering of journal and book material also written by the immeasurably gifted. Sometimes this material is difficult for others to understand, offering something unusually rich to those with the greatest intellectual capabilities. This material is especially well suited for this audience.

Young people across the globe are needing material that is better in quality for reading. Gifted children without resources are especially needful or desirous of reading material that is not only of good quality, but is of a quality matching their own quality-of-mind.

The Journal is expected to have a very large quantity of volumes available in print in the near future. The growth of the Journal will eventually create a library of material available to readers so they have an indefinite supply of book issues. With many books available, a library is available. This library, being free, will supply an indefinite quantity of reading material for the gifted public to enjoy internationally.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="aiming-at-exhaustion-and-benefits">Aiming at Exhaustion, and Benefits</a>

*Thursday, August 08, 2024 09:20:56*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

The idea of exhaustion includes within it some useful elements which may be used for lifestyle planning, including firstly the assumption that one is physically depleted, implying that one has engaged in a large amount of movement for a period of time, and additionally that one has become mentally depleted, since the brain is what begins to force one to feel as though one must sleep. If one wants to sleep well, attaining exhaustion is one good way to ensure one gets it! Exhaustion really may be thought of as a periodic accomplishment, as long as one has not been forced to be exhausted through drudgery. If one has exercised sufficiently, and has utilized one's mind extensively, then one can feel as though one has earned sleep, and sleep will be more wanted and enjoyable.

Being a retiree, I've had a lot of the activity I would have otherwise had in my life removed. Suddenly exercise and desirable tasks performed throughout the day are not as exhausting. Filling the day with activities is more challenging. For a fairly long period, my sleep habits have been altered by my lifestyle switch. I sleep well, but sleep isn't pressed upon me by my system in the same way. I sometimes have to wait for sleep. Also, since there is less to do, sometimes I simply want to sleep; but not being exhausted, my system sometimes doesn't allow it. I then substitute this for simply lying around relaxing. This was enjoyable for a long time but now I'm thinking I may prefer instead to simply achieve a good level of exhaustion on most days.

I also would like to combine my exhaustions with plenty of food. I prefer to eat one meal a day, towards the end of the day. Eating causes tiredness and lethargy for me, and eating breakfast or lunch to me is a kind of abomination unto sloth. I feel much more energized having less food throughout the day. Eating at night is helpful for promoting sleep, just before the time sleepiness should arrive. If I'm sufficiently exhausted and wanting sleep, perhaps I'll just want it more after eating a large but inexcessive meal too! This is reminiscent of times as a kid. Sometimes being very exhausted and unaware of it, I would eat very large meals. Following the meals, I would promptly and sometimes unexpectedly want to sleep.
This was always a good sleep and very enjoyable and rejuvenating.

Maybe it is possible to get so exhausted that one can again experience the grouchiness and crankiness of a kid before bedtime. But this time I would welcome the experience, and of course, being alone, I could only be grouchy and cranky to myself. This is a behavior I never exhibit, but maybe it's possible to force myself to behave more like a child again, fully depleting my ability to think in socially expected ways.

Returning to the two elements I mentioned that make up exhaustion, physical and mental depletion, I want to say that both of these provide pathways for making a more fulfilling day. If one reads complex literature, and does tasks that are mentally challenging, one will have been more productive. Mental effort is required to get more exhausted mentally. Learning until one cannot learn more is a way, and is again reminiscent of being a kid. Ever get this tired any more? If not, it may be one is not learning to exhaustion like a child. If one has sleep problems, or issues procrastinating, it may be a solution to do more! Being Humorous.

Likewise, being more physically active will allow one to arrive at physical exhaustion that also adds to the mental exhaustion. After you are finished learning like a slave, your slavelike working conditions and physical exertions will deplete you to misbehavior. You will feel as though you did all you could. You've reached the maximum of physicality and work productivity. Combine this with organization and good life planning, the physicality would not be towards what is not rewarding. You will have created products for sales, like artworks and literary masterpieces, and you will have solved fundamental scientific and mathematical problems, blocking progress of humanity. You might have enough productivity to have an audience that is interested enough to procure. Doing even better, you may have people who look and act more like you all around.

It seems truly that producing exhaustion will assure sleeps onset, unless you have a strange medical condition. Perhaps it will help with diagnosis and recanting diagnoses for drugs.Physical exhaustion, and mental exhaustion, serve to improve life quality. Quality of sleep and complexity of conditions and output. I am hoping to live more stimulated and more productively with better sleep by trying to become exhausted, and perhaps by torturing myself with sleep deprivation, until exhaustion is achieved.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-wanattomian-calendar">The Wanattomian Calendar</a>

*Friday, August 02, 2024 13:14:53*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

The Wanattomian is a naturalistic permanent calendar replacement to the existing calendar system that has serious weaknesses, both astronomical and cultural. The Wanattomian calendar does not have a select locus of time location, like GMT, standing for "Greenwich Mean Time". GMT time, used by the existing calendaring system, is colonial. It's origins are positioned with the Enlish dominion of the globe, and the calendar enforces Eurocentralism.

The date of day 1 of the Wanattomian calendar is August, 2<sup>nd</sup> at Wanattomian 1 second worldwide, 2024, fulfilling a necessary rule of arbitrary selection given absolute insolubililty of time of universal origination.

The Wanattomian first second was at

- 12:58:05:001 MST

The first second of the first day was on global synchronous time which does not utilize time zones, so there is no designated location like GMT with a reference time. Instead, the entire globe shares the same time. 

A calendaring system requires total arbitrariness where there is an absolute insoluble or there is a cultural risk of false ownership. The calendar system requires *naturalistic commitment* where there are naturalistic grounds for absolutely fixing days to nature.

There is no zero in the Wanattomian System of numbering. One might wonder then, how backdating for historical chronology can be achieved? Backdating is a faulty process since until the wanattomian calendar there is too much uncertainty regarding any other calendaring system, and reliability is questionable at different times for different cultures going backwards. There is cultural centrism in adopting calendars like the European Calendar or the Chinese Calendar, although *both* can be used to locate some prior events in time. Being disconnected, the European does not align with or confirm chinese events in the literature. Going back in time the Chinese calendar does not align with or confirm European events the in the literature. The Wanattomian calendar simply maps to these calendars for heurstic backwards chronology calculation (and miscalculation).

An assumption of the Wanattomian Calendar is the dubiousness increases with time. Archiving and records are the source of information for dates, and not physics or astronomy. Unless archival technology has a technology of trust that is scientifically validated for authority and trust in a pancultural way, dates further back in time become subject to serious skepticism. Religious disputes can result in alteration of history between zealous parties, or those with malintent. Even the Wanattomian calendar itself after several hundred years may become dubious regarding the records, but the Wanattomian calendar can be *reset*. The calendar is simply arbitrarily rebegun.

Backwards scientific estimation regarding prior days can be utilized for scientific studies. If one wanted to map the Wanattomian Calendar to a Celestial Wanattomian Calendar

Wanattomianism is a property of the calendaring system. There can be more than one Wanattomian calendar, so long as those properties are fulfilled.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="foraging-preparation-methodology">Foraging Preparation Methodology</a>

*Monday, July 29, 2024 17:55:21*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In advance of foraging, it is useful to do some research regarding what edible plants happen to exist in a certain area, placing emphasis on the most common species available, for quick and easy identification, and an immediate food source of some good quantity. Discovering whether or not already known species are extant and plentiful in an area that are already identifiable is helpful, since identification is already simple, and the effects of consumption are already known, and if such
a species exists one will have an immediately ready food supply, seasonality permitting.

In advance of my travels to Australia, it would be first useful to see if there will be Dandelions in my vicinity. These are international weeds, so their presence is reasonable to expect traveling along. Additionally, I will want to check for other common species that may have the greatest level of availability. Knowing what kinds of plants *would be* common is a way to refine the search. The very best plants to eat would be very likely: 1) Foliage of any tree that might be plentiful, because if the tree species is present, it is known supply will be large. Secondly, what grasses and weeds might be edible. Grasses and weeds too, will be expected to be pervasive. Like dandelions, it is assured the food will be in good supply if it happens to live in the region. Regions of species have peripheries in which the probability reduces to zero for a species. This is the boundary of the region supporting the flora. If one knows the boundaries one heuristically gets closer to likely densities. A population density map would help for knowing more exactly the probability of finding large populations of any species. Pervasive trees and weeds in high density areas well within the regional boundaries will be an excellent source of food.

It appears the search for trees and weeds with edible foliage should precede the search for berries, nuts, flowers. Berries, Nuts and Flowers are less plentiful on plants than their foliage! Foliage is to be preferred. Also, their availability windows are shorter. A tree will have foliage for longer than it will have flowers. A Bush will have stems and leaves longer than it will have berries. Flowers bloom briefly on weeds. Thus these less seasonal plant parts ought to be secondary for attending to in preparation for edible plant identification.

Development of proficiency goes along with growth of knowledge in identification. You cannot eat what you cannot yet identify, and the foods most easily identified are the ones that one can consume quickly as a beginner. The planning methodology here described is the same as the learning trajectory, the syllabus or plan for learning what to forage in a systematic way, getting the greatest rewards more near the outset of the self-education. 

Notice this approach also trends towards exhaustiveness. After identifying the berries, nuts, and flowers, after having already identified the trees with foliage, one will be getting closer to knowing all plants that can be eaten. Syrups, and other plant parts can be determined. Working inwards into the plant, and downwards into its hidden roots, one eventually knows whole plants for the foods they offer. That's until you can process them all like corn. Advanced foraging is identified with advanced agriculture.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="to-disentangle-nature-nurture-one-would-need-copies-of-self-but-there-will-never-be-any">To Disentangle Nature/Nurture, One Would Need Copies of Self, But There Will Never Be Any</a>

*Monday, July 29, 2024 17:55:21*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

As someone who is not intending to ever have kids, eventually exterminating my own gene pool by waiting for death, it is clear there will be no poor copies of me existing in the future. I have become smart enough to not replicate. But would it be true that my genes have been smart enough to not make new people of my own "favorite kind", or would it be that I have nurtured myself to be that way, with a suitable external environment favoring (causing partly), that outcome? What amount of credit can I have for this amazing moment in history? To what extent is this mind gene caused? I'd like it to be gene caused. Because if gene caused I seem to have full merit of the decision, while also appearing to not have merit, but that's only an outward mistake likely to be had by others, not understanding causal determinism.

Either way I accept partial credit. It turns out nature/nurture cannot be disentangled without new test copies of myself. Nature is poor at making exact copies of mammals. It likes to mix in other family members. It would take new identical copies to be able to know if my genetics would keep creating versions of me that resist continuity of genetics. Confirmation of *more* self-interested genes (BTW I'm reading Dawkins's The Selfish Gene now). I don't have an identical twin widely separated from myself. There are two American astronauts, identical twins, who might think they have twice demonstrated their genes made it, or that they really made it on their own, but one was not raised in India so there is trouble.

I would need to have clone children of myself and then I would need to put the copies in other nations to have full birth citizenship in those locations. Then alternative "mes" with other cultural indoctrinations and "education" could be test cases for whether or not they choose to have children.

Going by history, and the knowledge that all humans are animals, I think copies of myself would be probably unable to resist sex if placed elsewhere, where education potential is not as good. It may be that a more rational education was important and that most copies of me if placed in nature without any eduction would behave like primates. I do admit I'm a primate too.

*[Note: For those who can't read people well, or read well, this is intended to be humorous, but there is a seriousness intermixed too. Self-genocide is not frowned upon. It's part of your "human rights" to not have kids]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="research-that-others-have-performed-did-not-include-complete-book-reading">Research That Others Have Performed Did Not Include Complete Book Reading</a>

*Monday, July 29, 2024 17:11:57*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

The bibliographies that writers have been including in their works have not had indicators as to what portions of work they have read. A bibliography, "works cited", or "references" sectioin in a work, using any standard formatting for references, APA style or other, have not provided what specifically the author has read. The design of all bibliographies are and have not been intended to show what the writers have actually reasearched and studied. Instead, they are used to provide the reader a pointer to a work that the author has presumably had at least some moments of research with, and if the specific page is included in the reference, it is not even known if the reader has read the entire page.

The terminology used by writers to provide a heading for their "lists" of references provide indicators that the books were not actually expected to be read. "Works Cited" does not mean "Works Read in Their Entirety"; rather, they simply mean "Works Credited and Referenced". "References" means just that, that the books listed were consulted in some way. Even the word bibliography doesn't mean much more than "book writing" taking the phrase literally, and less literally it means "Listing of Books of Relevance with Some Assumed Measure of Reference." None of these ways of writing lists of books provides trasparently what the author has actually read of the works.

In academia and education all are aware of the practice which has been called "reference or Citation stuffing". In education, students have to write long papers rapidly, and are expected to have a references sectioin showing some survey of books, journals, and articles that were read at least partially. But since deadlines are so strict, it is known to all that some simply pretend to have read those materials, or have only read *just enough* of those materials to rationalize or minimally justify a citation (in-text or simply in the references list). Sometimes the rationality of the instructors is questionable, and the research expected is too great for a simple paper. Students find a way out by simply doing the minimum to build a citations and reference list. In my studies I have sought to be too honest with my references, and still I was often too cursory in my research. My desire for more complete honesty has made me sometimes an excessively meticulous and subservient student while others completed the papers more rapidly with lies and earned the same grades. Teachers themselves were students and were subject to the same process. We all know that this implies that Professors, having had many years dealing with this issue, have themselves fabricated perhaps hundreds of times for hundreds of papers. This citation stuffing must be a norm in all of education.

Oddly, the manner of writing citations and bibliographies actually is supportive of this. The reason relates to what I was just saying above. The bibliography is simply *not about what anyone has read specifically*. Researchers themselves, trained to citation stuff, actually still engage in that activity. They would be unable to have totally altered that habit, and even if they were honest, they may still be doing the minimum to appear they have read works sufficiently and to appear that they really did survey fields adequately. Another practice would be much better than that of having a normal bibliography and works-cited, and that would be to actually write into the references what one has read and not the titles and sources of the works. Then authors would be claiming not only that a work has bee referred to quickly, but that they have read really specific portions. Their bibliographies would be like living histories of all that they actually did when they were reading, or much closer to all they did.

For example, if I read only two paragraphs of a book where I found relevance to my topic, I could write the citation and at the end include page ranges and paragraphal stop and end points of reading. This would not only provide the reader clarity on the true size of their reading experience (so they can't overstate authority and expertise), it would also provide the reader information about the writer's thinking context. Not reading everything is understandable, and that would be a cuase of some expected error and lack of context for those researching. When reading a paper, if the author only read four pages of a 400 page book, and then argued against it without sufficient context, a reader with more context would then understand why the error was made. The researcher simply didn't try to read the whole book. And they may have some justification.

Research done well is efficient. Typically I like to read whole books, but if I'm researching something specific, I'm not supposed to be doing things that way. Sometimes I am supposed to reference only relevant sections using indexes, and contents pages, and that's what those are for. Like researching encyclopedias, one finds what authors have written and exclude the rest. If there is fear that one has still obtained too little context, some charatibility in the writing is expected. But authors really will write uncharitably and read only a few pages of a book, not fully understanding that the remainder of the book provides oftentimes more explanation and the thought context. There are imperfections in indexing, so just because it provides the reader locations where a topic is discussed, it doesn't mean it provided *all locations where a topic is discussed* or *all locations that have the greatest relevance and expleanation required for interpretation of those sections*.

In my bibliographies for my books and articles in my Book and Journal, that I'm Chief Editor for, I will be striving to require and include the portions of text that I read, wherever my writing was not of entire works. I will also make it clear which books have been fully read. My bibliography list is very long, and most books have been completely read. But not all of them have, since I'm good enough at time management to stop reading if a work really isn't worth reading any longer or is of poor quality. If I were not to do this, my bibliographies would not truly show both the extent of my reading which is very great, and the extent of my omissions which provides the reader a better understanding of what my expertise is.

It follows from this conversation that bibliographies and reference lists in almost all books and articles are very misleading. Writers have a system that provides a false indication of the size of their research. Some may be daunted and intimidated by very long bibliographies. But what if the bibliographies of some writers included information about their more cursory reading style, that was about learning that books existed and having minimal interaction with them. This can be a choice of efficiency but oftentimes it's a choice to "have a large bibliography", and knowing how humans happen to behave, and how they are trained to "citation stuff" in their educations, I am reluctant to think they uniformly overcame "cheating-like behavior". I'm convinced the issue is pandemic. The issue is built into the design! It really may be that most large bibliographies are composed of lists of books and articles that were rarely completely read. By taking a different approach of more exactingly providing readers information not only of what was referenced, but what was specifically read, I'm trying to improve the academic writing process to have an honesty that has not yet existed. By doing this simple improvement the reader can know *specifically what I've read* and should be more able to both criticize and charitably interprete my work more effectively.

*[Completed at Mon 29 Jul 2024 17:42:26 MST. Written in ~32 minutes. Indicated as part of a study in Editing. Semi-blind typed, unread, no proofreading or spell check performed]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="fun-that-reverts-behavior-to-that-which-has-unwanted-aspects">Fun That Reverts Behavior to That Which Has Unwanted Aspects</a>

*Saturday, July 27, 2024 3:08 p.m.*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In certain conditions and periods of my life I've been more consistently intellectual with changes of behavior into innocuous and friendly childishness, and other times I've been intellectual with changes of behavior into teenage bluntness with enjoyment of a more popular style of school-age humor. That kind of humor that would be experienced between close friends of teenage years. Othertimes, I've switched into behavioral modes of humor that are closer to what very old people would exhibit. These modes of thinking differ greatly from each other, and have aspets that have strengths and weaknesses. This is not an exhaustive list of all modes of thought and behavior and states, but focus instead on those that are very different from each others in ways I'm concerned to reflect on for personal self-alteration. I could also mention that state of mind entered into when one is feeling or being more sexual. This too is of interest but I'll save that conversation for another occasion.

I mentioned that I have a very strong preference for two states of mind that I have, although I have not said so in the same way I'm discussing it now. I really enjoy high-minded intellectual contemplation and thinking, and find it to be an exhibition of my key excellences. I also greatly enjoy childish humor that is kind and mostly playful, and oftentimes absurd and nearly meaningless. I enjoy simply making strange noises for example, or using playful self-invented words that are silly. People around me have greatly enjoyed being included in these behaviors and there is a feeling in the relationships during such times of absence of harmful or toxic behavior. There is a purity of the kindness about the mind set, and there is no transactional mean-spiritidness. I greatly dislike banter and conversation of a type that is mutually demeaning. I don't like teasing, and I don't like saying rude or degrading remarks. Many people I have known could never be close friends because of this. The two states of mind mentioned above are those I would like to expand on and preserve, and increase. To do this means I have to slowly reduce some of the other behaviors and relegate them to times when combativeness with others happens to be necessary. I have been very adept at social combativeness but only use that when needed and when provoked by others around me.

Acting as I did as a teenager is something I wish to avoid more. When I say I act as a teenager at times, I am not stating that I have some unusual trait or behavior; instead, this is a regular behavior exhibited by other adults oftentimes although it is masked by apparent age of face and body. This is the behavior that occurs when one has recalled and begun acting again like one is in the context of competition with bullies and those trying to be more popular. Trying to be "cool" or trying to be dominant, results in a way of conversing that has certain toxicities built into it that are too different from other other two modes of thinking mentioned to feel good about. Blunt honesty is something I enjoy, and I'm not quite sure which ways I would preserve that into my behavior. The bluntness of teenagers and old people sometimes provides thinking that reveals truths that have been overlooked or ignored. I want to somehow retain blunt honesty in a way that is less like what I detest about teenage behavior.

Combativeness of mindset and an aggression towards truth seems to be part of what I do want to retain. Decisiveness is related to an ability to think this way. I want to mix it with a positivity that is not seeking to please others even in private. It may be true that there is a mindset that has not been explored that includes all the better ingredients without the negative ones, and without those that are aimed to simply please others. I do not want to be polite and honest in my private thinking in a way that is simply trained to create positive impressions in others as if they were present. What I am looking for might be closer to the medical thinking associated with intellectual contemplation. The doctor must be blunt and honest and quick and decisive about truths, while deliberately omitting trying to be pleasing because the pleasing behavior can slow and hinder or obstruct diagnoses and correct timely actions. Have you noticed that being decisive at key points sometimes requires a bluntness towards oneself? Particularly if one is trying to alter bad habits? There are times when people are trying to be too kind to themselves to protect their feelings such that they cannot achieve simple things like weight loss that have clear diagnoses and pathways of action. One has to more directly and decisvely combat one's behaviors that cause issues, but instead of doing that one is too kind, too permissive, and so on, so the discipline and severity required does not occur as it should. Sometimes this is where harsh advice from others even helps, and when presented with an overweight patient, a doctor really has to sometimes "cut through bullshit" to focus the patient's mind on the reality that they keep permitting foolish decisions and allow themselves delusional thinking about their rationality in relation to food and exercise. They end up stating that they eat too much and must find a way to force themselves to exercise even if that means putting themselves under the supervision of someone else, like a long term personal trainer or habit manager (which could be a family member temporarily).

Medical doctors require their candidness, and this is not opposed to thinking in a way that is pleasant, enjoyable, kind and rational. More "sensitive" people would be offended by people thinking and communicating in this mindset, but the issue and toxicity then is on their side and not the side of the medically minded person.

So what is the blend I'm looking for? I'm not sure what it is yet, but I'm going to be working on blending the traits so that I am enjoying primarily the two mindsets above preserving honesty, truth, and decisiveness, and I want the other mindsets to exist for the cause of utility in social combat, but I want it more clearly discerned and sectioned from the pleasant mindsets so it is known that it was for that purpose and it was more rational in its use. In this way I can engage in unwanted mindsets without any concerns about behaving that way because it doesn't fit with the other mindsets. Even the two mindsets above cannot be held perpetually and I don't think that's desireable. Sometimes a warring type of mind is required and it is better that that is deployed at the right time and doesn't cause any feeling that it ought not be included in one's behavior. It is required it just needs to be measured and timely. But I don't want it included too often.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="people-in-history-werent-smart-enough-to-have-their-bad-ideas">People in History Weren't Smart Enough To Have Their Bad Ideas</a>

*Thursday, July 25, 2024 13:35:01*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

We are all aware that throughout history people have entertained and accepted ideas that are now considered to be foolish and obviously false, but what has been missed is that people in history weren't even smart enough to come up with those ideas. They merely inherited them, and believed them, gullibly, without any use of their own creative powers. This would indicate that people are far less creative and far far less intelligent than we would like to imagine. They didn't create the bad ideas and they couldn't evaluate and analyse them effectively either. They simply received and believed them.

Today the situation is the same as it was in history. If it were not, what is the demarcation in time that marks the division from untruth to truth in the world. Would that not be a monumental change of conditions, a historical moment, or transitionary period, worth celebrating. The time when the Earth became true. There was no such transitional period or abrupt change. The future will look back on history in a similar way that we do today. In so many ways humanity has remained foolish, and the foolish thoughts and beliefs that exist were not those anyone was smart enough today to come up with.

The religions offer excellent examples of foolish thinking. Today, still, there are people who believe in ghosts and spirits, and hells and afterlives. They weren't even smart enough to come up with those bad ideas, making them stupider than one would recognize. They were both uncreative and unable to analyze and evaluate the veracity of silly stories they heard from older people. They received and preserved idiotic messages, unable to create anything new or to evaluate what they heard. They created few or no options within their cultures chosen for them. Options to these are simply concoctions of fiction, and it's easy to create fictions. They couldn't create the fictions that would be bad ideas that would be the options to the bad ideas. They simply couldn't think of even the bad ideas.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="interest-in-longevity-is-slightly-lessened-by-assured-eventual-death-by-injury">Interest in Longevity is Slightly Lessened by Assured Eventual Death by Injury</a>

*Wednesday, July 24, 2024 14:25:19*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

As I was stating in the recent posting about the consideration of living to 1,000 or more, death will occur eventually by injury even if it were discovered that human death by aging could be prevented. It does not appear that death could be prevented by any means, excepting perhaps becoming robots that can self create their own nearly indefinite supplies of energy, and even then it might be that after trillions of years sources of energy would wane and there would still likely be death by insufficient energy. In any case, life would be very different from human life today.

Another consideration which might be added is that if one were to live for an indefinite period one would eventually prefer other states of being to your own. You'd watch evolution occur in front of you or the enhancement or improvement of others and potentially not yourself. That is if you are not included in the possibility of being updated and improved with technology and new body parts such that you are no longer you precisely and become part of technology.

In any case, the prospect of being destroyed by physical injury will continue to exist however life is prolonged.

*More soon...*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="value-of-novel-traits-evolution-and-societal-controls">Value of Novel Traits, Evolution, and Societal Controls</a>

*Monday, July 22, 2024 12:19:00*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

The value of special traits may be a cause for the existence of various societal controls that are trying to enforce equality. If a person has special traits, and these traits are new, and desirable, then the interest in that person will be very great if it became known and was visible to others. There would oftentimes be a increase in sexual interest from the opposite sex, and over a lifetime this would increase the number of sexual partners that person could have, and increase the person's ability to select for a better mate socially. Ability to gain resources would likely increase, since people are hired for their better and more attractive traits to an extent. It is likely that those with new traits that are good, new, and desirable, will have better life quality overall, than those lacking those traits. 

A simple example to consider would be if someone were born with reflective silver eyes, and a range of other good qualities. Imagine this person as a male or female to your liking, having all those other qualities you might most want for yourself, if you were a member of the opposite sex. Imagine what is most attractive to you. This person has all those traits but also the silver eyes.

This person with the bright new eye-color would provoke jealous hostility, but would also receive a very great amount of admiration. It is likely they would be sought after for the entertainment industry, for modeling, marketing related jobs, acting careers, and so on. Job interviews would likely go much better. Selecting of partners to be those who are wealthier, smarter, better positioned socially, would be easier for this person. It is easy to see that the probability that this person's overall well being and life would be better than for most others. And this is only from one novel trait combined with an assortment of other good qualities most would want for themselves, their significant others, or their children.

An issue however is the intense jealousy that would result. Not a few people would experience some jealousy. Instead it may uniformly provoke jealousy among mostly everyone in the population who is exposed. Some who are exposed to this person would be jealous enough to want to kill them. Some would be jealous enough to want to cause the person problems. These would be more rare perhaps than people who would simply have a level of jealousy that would want to somehow control the effects of the person's traits, by trying to make it seem they are less attractive than they are, to create obstacles to the person's social climbing and social success, etc... Many would want to obstruct the person even if they don't want to inflict any positive harm. And of course many of these same people would periodically experience admiration too.

Just like other people with good traits in the world, all of the risk appears to be often averted by simply remaining cautious and avoiding various kinds of danger. People with very great traits *despite any jealousy they provoke still seem to advance and have better life prospects*.

It seems to me that new traits like silver eyes would create an interest so powerful that the sexual interest would cause so many to be jealous that society would insert controls to prevent unwanted effects. In fact, controls are already in place to manage any reaction to highly desirable people. People are expected to marry a single person, are expected to not be promiscuous, are expected to be less ostentatious about their good qualities, downplaying them, and are expected to have a limited amount of money and fame. If their traits make them too popular, their popularity will be reduced. If their traits make them too rich, there will be a desire to reduce their riches.

Since we have not had the experience of having a silver and shiny eyed person with a great mind and body enter the world, but we still have these rules, it should be apparent that the controls have the effect already of making it less possible for people with extremely good traits to attain excess attention, fame and sex. Societal rules exist for other reasons as well, but it would be the case nevertheless that the rules would already create constraints for the positive effects a person might experience if they have unusually good traits.

There is an objective to make people seem more similar to each other, and to ensure that everyone has a sexual partner and some interest, rather than allowing a huge amount of the interest to go to single individuals or those that have much better qualities.

Let's put the example of the silver eyed person aside for now, and return to normal conditions in which we are not exposed to new traits that would be as obvious as these metallic eyes. People make up combinations of traits and much of what they display in their uniqueness appears to be what we are more frequently seeing. They have novel features that are combinations of more regular feeling characteristics. We are aware that very new features like that mentioned above are possible, but typically we are seeing people with more mundane traits in combination that make for very good qualities that are new. So the world is composed of very good looking people, very smart people, very strong and large people, very small people, or an admixture of these, along with a palette of common traits that are mixed together to form a total person. Some people have somewhat new looking faces and appearances, and very good qualities that do set them apart such that they have a better likelihood of becoming famous.

In culture we can think of some historical figures, athletes, entertainers, and so on who had especially desirable traits related to their fame, and had very prolific sex lives and sometimes large numbers of children. These people often received quite a lot of anger and retaliation related to their behavior and attention received, and this relates of course to attempts by the public to enforce societal rules that control the amount of sexual interest any particular person can have. They were expected to wear clothes, controlling what great aspects of their bodies would be covered up. They had to cover their genetalia, breasts, and bodies, so that others could not see traits that may have been amazing. In many circumstances, arms and legs need to be covered, making it harder to perceive fitness and beauties that also would create interest and attention. These figures were expected to have spouses or significant others, and were expected to have children in a number that is not too great and not too small. They typically are treated very differently if they are single, since it is perceived they could then be a sexual risk to others who are married, or have significant others, and being single also creates a jealousy, since it appears there is less conformity to social rules around the creation of families. They appear to have too much freedom.

Beauty and good traits are well distributed amongst the population, such that in almost every community, there would be some fears about one or a few attractive individuals, regarding their abilities to potentially threaten other sexual relationships and to have partners who are already desired by others. Thus anyplace anywhere where people can live, there is competition and fears related to very good qualities people have. But we can take it further, and simply state that for any two people, there is a social comparison that would result in a different appraisal of characteristics, such that one is preferred in some ways, and the other in other ways.

The societal rules that exist around marriage then do seem to be controlling for many things related directly to evolutionary advantage, as we might already expect. Even the concept of equality, and the equal treatment of others, and equivalence of rules amongst people seems related to control of fears and jealousies related to the effects of people with great traits. We don't suddenly permit people with incredible traits to breed to preserve those traits. We expect them to have an equal or allowable amount of breeding. Any good trait, good combination of traits, and not only amazing traits, since these are those that always existed and were most pervasive, are those that resulted in the fears and jealousies that caused the creation of our social rules around marriage and sexuality. They weren't the only contributing reasons for the rules, but they were reasons that were primary. Growing up, in High School and College, we were aware of people with such good traits that they would dominate sexually, and oftentimes they did.

Society was unable to entirely enforce the rules, and so have avenues and periods of time in which the rules don't exist or are relaxed so people really can have their sexual interests fulfilled. While the rules exist, the desires of others are thwarted. The men that women want to have sex with are not options, and vice versa. If married, a woman cannot have sex with a man who has the most impeccable traits. She has to have sex with her current husband.

*More Soon*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-life-were-extended-to-one-thousand-ten-thousand-or-more-years">If Life Were Extended to One Thousand, Ten Thousand, or More Years</a>

*Sunday, July 21, 2024 13:41:31*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

While at a lunch at a conference called DENT, between of DENT's founders, and two elevated or senior guests, I was asked to show, in an instant, an example of my creativity. I was asked for an immediate creative idea I had not thought of. Being a creative person who can spontaneously create interesting ideas oftentimes but not always on-demand, I quickly responded with an interesting observation which indeed was very significant and very important. It was that if we lived for a thousand years, much about our moral lives would be changed very greatly, and our ways of thinking about our lives require alteration. The audience around me enjoyed this idea and so my exhibit of my own creativity was a good success. The idea of living to a thousand years is not something that's new and of course is something quite old, but what I introduced that was novel was what such a change would alter about our moral lives.

Here is an example of what increased longevity changes. If people lived to one thousand, eventually it would be recognized that the greater risk to life is not illness, but is simply injury. People would increasingly expect to live. If health were improved, disease was more eradicated, and deterioration from age is decreased, until people are living to a thousand, then the leading causes of death will switch from those causes, to the others which certainly already were present. Murder, injury from car accidents, and other accidents would more notable. Instead of dying due to cancer, or heart attack, one would live much longer until dying from an impact of some sort. A plane crash or other crash in transit, or a dangerous fall.

An incredibly interesting fact is that if health and risks are controlled more and more, the cause of death by injury is still forever not eradicated. It would become clear that no matter how healthy and risk controlling they become, the longer life will make it certain that eventually injury will cause death. Murder may likely become the very greatest risk, second to being hit with large celestial objects, or dying in volcanic eruptions. If one lived to a million, or ten million, or a billion years old, eventually something will kill. The improbably deaths became probable. And very likely people will be more fearful of other people than of anything else, unless people themselves are also altered to kill more infrequently. Either way, it will be obvious to all that there was never any possibility of immortality. "Immortality" will appear a silly idea of the past. How it could have been so interesting to consider will be what many will think, contemptfully about the past, which is our present. The earth will die, the sun will die, or some more massive event will simply eliminate all humans, and it does not matter even if they travel and live elsewhere! Expand the time frame, and one makes it more probable that the other larger, more unlikely cause of death is the cause.

There is much to share about this idea of living to a thousand or longer, and I'll have to share more a number of times later. But the idea of living to a thousand already contains the germ of these larger speculations about the future and what it must include. And there are some things the future must include, even if we get most of the other details wrong! One of those things is that human animals cannot be immortal, and that immortality itself is an absurdity.

Living to a thousand would also change things like marriage and relationships. Marriage to one person seems now to be a reasonable solution for a variety of human problems related to sexuality and child-rearing, and since people live only 60 years or so as adults, it appears possible that two people could really be happy together for that long. However, if a couple were expected to be together in youth for 1,000 years, it seems unreasonable to think that they would remain happy. It seems much better, in that case, to eliminate marriage. Additionally, if all are living to one thousand, population does not get *replaced* by new children, it simply adds them. The population becomes much more additive. Replacements would occur and would eventually become nearly continuous again, but only if the population of Earth became incredibly massive. Probably the population would be so large that the earth would be uninhabitable. Child having and rearing would appear something really much more rare to do. It would not be something people would immediately want. One might have children after a period of say, 500 years, instead of at the age of 20. Being able to wait so long to have children, would make the earlier life of having children while children seem very irresponsible, and very primitive. 

Even more interesting, is that what one thinks about when considering the possibility of living that long, is that we have gotten our moral systems incredibly incorrect. We have forgotten how those who live in the future might reflect on us (which is a huge topic), and certainly if people in the future really get the longevity they are looking for, they will change their perspective about how their life should be, and will reflect on what was in error in earlier ways of thinking.

We did not solve our life plans to be exactly right for a duration of 100 years or less! We did not plan it for the duration! All were expected to live similarly even with the prospect of dying early!

So what is it like to plan morality for lives that would last from 0 to 10,000 years? What is it like to plan it for a life that lasts 70 years!?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="stuck-together-as-one-on-earth-and-the-desire-for-different-humans">Stuck Together as One on Earth, and The Desire For Different Humans</a>

*Sunday, July 21, 2024 12:50:09*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Eventually, as the population on Earth continues to grow, and as nations eventually become more collaborative and converge together, people will become increasingly similar. Because they are increasingly similar, they are better able and willing to cooperate and to see each other as "more equal" and more worth being around. A precondition of making it possible for humanity to be less warlike, and less competitive, is to perceive a greater similarity than what existed earlier. In the United States, and in Democratic Nations, that preach equality, there is a pressuring of people to believe that the various humans and all their differences are really "the same" and "have equal value", and that we ought not see each other so differently, and should really accept each other as a single family. Messages like this became common during and after the civil rights movements in the United States, and of course some abolitionists held similar views earlier. That there is a requisite pressure to urge people to "finally treat each other well despite differences" and to "see each other as equal and recognize samenesses ignoring differences" implies that the differences were big enough and obvious enough to have resulted in a dislike for being intermixed, especially under one dominant group's way of living only. It was known very clearly that people were extremely different, having not only different appearances but apparently different dispositions and behavioral traits, depending on where their evolutionary heritage took place, and what sub-sub-species they belonged to, which has been termed "race". In addition to the admissions regarding the obvious differences that existed between types of people and their behavior which lead to conflict, is the differences in language, and different in nationality, ethnicity, and culture, which leads to an even greater perception of vast diversity between different human beings. In order to ensure that there was less conflict, movements created the equalitarian marketing and propaganda that we have long been indoctrinated to. We have been educated to think that different breeds and stocks of people are the same and have the same value, and this has lead to some positive improvements in being able to get along with each other, although within the United States and within other Nations, it has not been recognized that this style of thinking implies that nationalities too are something to be eliminated. Because obviously if the full diversity of people within one nation composed of immigrants is supposed to treat all as the same and as having the same value, this would imply they were equal when they were not yet immigrants. All people in every nation, being the same as those within each nation, would then be equal and this should work towards resolving conflicts between nations. Presently, we live in a situation in which we preach equality and sameness within separate nations, composed of people who are from all of the other nations. The other nations are seen as enemies or even as potential enemies despite alliances, as is taught in military strategy and in the military and military colleges–and they are seen this way even though it should be obvious to all that their own countries includes everyone of the types who are living in the other nations and they are originally from those locations! Democratic nations sometimes accept refugees, and are sometimes willing to allow immigrants (people) to emigrate from other places, but once those people have become citizens, they are expected to accept the same military mentality as the nation, which may include thinking their original nations or the allies of their original nations are positive enemies. "Other nations are not equal, they are less" is taught by the new nation. Nations are quite narcissistic. They think themselves quite great, and routinely reflect on what they think happens to make their nation superior to the others, and often quite delusionally. They forgive themselves quickly for any errors of hostility they make, and do not at all think that has changed their superiority. So immigrants quickly are expected to join in on patriotic nationalism which amounts to idiotic and pathological narcissism. 

As time goes on, it does appear there may be an increasing trend for nations to eventually collaborate. There is less warfare. It really may not be that there will be a recurrence to large world wars as have happened earlier. They may occur but they may be more gentle and more about applying pressure to behave various ways. Eventually it may be true that alliances between nations will become stronger and there will be less thought of dominant superpowers and their influence. Eventually they may just have all the influence and the world will be nations under a single power. Under the single power, continued preaching about equality and sameness amidst obvious diversity, and differences of cultures within nations, will weaken motives and desires to fight. Eventually it should be obvious that those who are thought to be loved within nations are really the same as those living in those other nations and vice versa. The same kinds of people are living in both nations! If all countries become increasingly multicultural, then each nation has enclaves of people which are basically enclave countries of the other nations! So each nation will contain many from each other nation and vice versa, making having different nations seem less meaningful. Eventually people will be so intermixed, and so under a convergent if not unified power, that they will eventually have greater collaboration and cooperation and less warfare. They will also intermarry and will blend traits until there is less of a clear demarcation between types of people, although it would take a very long time until all people have very similar appearances to one another, as one race or type instead of many.

That this time, however, the Earth may seem to have lost its diversity, and instead of having a rich diversity of different people with differing appearances that could have separate evolutions, there would be a more boring and homogeneous humanity without anyone different to talk to in space.Suddenly "Who or what else exists that's more different" becomes something of interest. People become more boring. "Perhaps there are other races of people elsewhere off the planet" some may put in their sci-fi. Reading back on history, the earth will appear to be more natural, less developed, and less blended. People who were evolving in isolated pockets on the earth to have different appearances and racial features will begin to seem like alternative humans of great attractiveness and interest. Some may begin to think "Where did these people go?" if the history happens to be covered up eventually. Earth becomes a much more boring place to be. A single nation, highly cooperative, mutually similar. All more equal than ever! More boring than ever, though.

Since the population has grown greatly, and transit has become nearly instantaneous, everyone on earth can easily traverse the entire round of the earth in a day. Traveling easily, and rapidly, all is seen and experienced and shared quickly. Adventure ceases to exist. People increasingly look elsewhere in fantasy to find ways to be stimulated with something new. The Earth's people eventually become fixated on the possibility of "going on vacation" to someplace very different and new, with different people and perhaps aliens, who would welcome them and show them hospitality. What was had on Earth already was totally lost in the growth of population and pressure to be more similar and equal  and cooperative. Vacations and adventure no longer exist. Expeditions into space fail. Thousands of years pass and the earth becomes increasingly interested in fantasy and delusion and alternative Earth visions. Eventually, perhaps, it is realized there is nothing else in space, and that what was given up on earth, of different kinds of people, different sub-sub-species of people, that could evolve separately and maintain interest through independent evolution, is lost. Development has made all places too accessible and too similar, until there is nothing interesting any longer either in the form of people or places, or animals, which have become too familiar and even wiped out.

Part of the cause of this process was the desire to make all equal and the same, and to increase the population without realization of the obvious dangers of uncontrolled reproduction.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="fulfillment-of-activities-and-today-at-the-gym">Fulfillment of Activities and Today at the Gym</a>

*Sunday, July 14, 2024 15:35:19*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Today at the gym, I resumed my normal workout routing of doing cardio first while reading, on the eliptical trainer, and doing weight lifting afterwards. I have had this routine for a very long period of time approaching a decade if not longer, such that each and every time I went to the gym, I simply knew I would go to the eliptical trainer to do 60-90 minutes of cardio (usually sixty), while reading. The reading would be of material important for my purposes but not extremely difficult in contents. History or Philosophy. I would do this nearly daily at a normal gym that has an assortment of cardio equipment, weight lifting machines, and free weights. Following my cardio routine, I would do weights also for approximately an hour. After that, I would sometimes do running on the treadmill. Lately I have been doing boxing and basketball but that has not been a part of my routine for quite along time. My normal workout was always cardio while reading then weights, for approximately two hours total.

Having not been following this routine for a long time, I returned to its format today. I found the activity to be much more enjoyable and it reminded me just how fulfilling it was to have this exercise routine in my past. The longer cardio session ensured I would feel sufficiently exerted for the day, and the reading while doing the workout ensured that I was feeling sufficient development in my studies. It also put me in a more intelligent and reflective mindset. Doing the cardio first also seems to assure, for me, that I'll do more than just an adequate amount of exercise. It gets out of the way what seems important to do everyday and leaves time for additional workout using weights or doing other fun sporting activities.

I don't think it is unusual that others would have really rewarding fitness routines themselves, and that's not really why I wanted to write about this. What I wanted to remind myself about is the value of adding into activities more than just those activities, and making more out situations that include the main activities by simply adding more to do from other life categories. The big change that was important today was the enrichment of my workout with reading. The reading made the cardio go by much more quickly, which is helpful for making sure I work out the full hour easily, but additionally, as I was saying, it expanded upon the fitness activity by incorporating the life category of mind and mental development. I was mentally productive while working out. Developing my mind with learning and also actively ideating. I was also forming a kind of pseudo relationship by interacting with the author of the writing, who happens to be an eminent philosopher. I've taken my workout and converted it into an opportunity to hear from one of the world's famous authors, a professor of Cambridge and Harvard University. I was able to plan for this and another writing for this thoughtstream, and had some thoughts germane for the development of some of my other topics I'm writing concerning. I enriched the gym experience by including a very valuable activity of writing, and this enabled me to more completely expand my life to incorporate what's important in the various life categories.

Historically I have also listened to music while working out, and that is another thing that can enrich the experience. This time I did not listen to music but I plan to resume that in the near future. If I belonged to a nicer gym, I would also engage in more sporting activities once I was tired of cardio or weight lifting. This is an enrichment of the situation by increasing the duration of the stay to include fun activities and not only activities which might seem more routine. It gives opportunity to play. Doing this of course increases the amount of calories burned and creates additional demands on the various muscles. Sports in conjunction with weight lifting and cardio would provide for more total coverage of different parts of the body and demand more from the nervous system engaging it more randomly using diverse body movements.

At one point I imagined it would be very nice to live at a gym, if there were an alternative residential or architectural framework that planned for such a lifestyle. When a teenager I would spend upwards of five or six hours at the gym, and at that time I was also actively swimming and eating lunch at the club lounge. I would also watch television for some time as I was recuperating or cooling down from vigorous exercise. It may not be possible as an adult to spend this much time at the gym, but it is a very great luxury to be able to do so. If one is able to do so, one will have had plenty of play/fun and humor mixed into the day, some socialization (including being near others), fitness, health, nutrition, mental productions (especially if reading), and so on. Much of what one would want to achieve during the day is then achieved at the gym, and even if there is little else done afterwards one will have felt some satisfaction regarding one's actifities. But doing more outside of the gym would increase the rewards already had.

Using this idea about enriching and expanding on an activity to making it more valuable and rewarding, I wanted to explore the idea of expanding on other activities to make them do the same. This is not an entirely unusual idea as many speak about "making the most of experience" but I think it's more unusual in that it's focused on increasing the rewardingness of regular routine activities within the activities rather than the addition of more activities to make days more rewarding. Already I have the idea that my day should include much of what would cover a fulfilling life using the life categories, but I haven't discussed quite as much the improvement of activities to include subactivities that also incorporate more of what would also create more complete life experiences. This conversation was mostly restricted to the morning routine, where that was a definite goal, but I did not think much about how most other routines could have similar properties to the morning routine, such that the combination of activities satisfy daily desired requirements or valuation or preparation in the same way the morning routine did. I have often skipped the morning routine since I first devised it. This approach may be adequate as a replacement for the morning routine.

Where else can experiences be enriched by including more subactivities or behaviors that fit into the other life categories? The objective is to do it in a natural way and not force additional subactivities where they don't seem to blend or belong. For example, reading on the eliptical trainerat the gym is quite a good blend. At first the movement may make it seem difficult to read, but this is easily overcome. Afterwards the two seem to go very nicely together such that not reading while doing it seems to take away from the experience. On the eliptical trainer one is doing nothing basically while having free hands in a stationary position, with something akin to a lecturn in front. On an eliptical trainer there is a microshelf with some pockets and a flat upright surface to place a book or magazine. It is quite natural to read while doing this exercise, and others might be staring at the television screens also built into the equipment or one of the many other television screens placed elsewhere. Music at the gym also blends very nicely, while other times quiet might be more suitable. The point I'm making here is that it is easy to add certain rewarding activities into others and it is a matter of choosing what seems natural or appropriate to the activity and perhaps to not add too much.

Currently I'm also enriching my driving experience by periodically reading in the car, either while stopped in traffic or briefly when sitting in parking lots or rest areas. Reading at work is also a way to enrich the work experience, if that is possible.

But there must be many other more unusual way to combine activities. Exercising while working is something I did before, doing work on the computer remotely while also working out on the exercycle. Perhaps it is possible to do artwork while doing other activities. Speaking into a recording is also fun while driving.

Anyway, there are many possible subactivities to choose from in the concsideration of how to enrich activities, and I'll be working on finding combinations of activities to make them more valuable.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="guidebook-to-textual-markup-and-writing-marginalia-and-teaching-logical-critique-methodolgy">Guidebook to Textual Markup and Writing Marginalia and Teaching Logical Critique Methodolgy</a>

*Sunday, July 14, 2024 15:35:19*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Today I had the realization that my system of marking up books and writing marginalia is also consistent with an editorial approach for editing books but also critiquing them too. English teachers would mark up documents as they read, providing editorial assistance, but they would also provide some critiquing as well. I can see now that their methods of critiquing have been lacking whereas their methods of editing grammar were better. All of these methods can be combined together into an approach for practicing the critiquing of written thought, its logic, and its way of being presented.

I don't know of anyone who has sought to have such a system performing all of these functions and not only some of them, with the additional purposes of self-instruction, instruction of others, and more active reading of books. The main purpose of this activity originally was simply to expand upon my interaction with books to make the reading experience more rewarding.

Once complete, the system of criquing a book should be equivalent to a method of critiquing the thinking of others, only it is more focused on the writing, and not oral communication. It is also useful of course for critiquing and improving upon one's own work. This means what I would have after completing this project is a way of examinging all thought. The thought of others and my own thought for improvement. When one learns logic and some parts of psychology concerning cognitive biases and illusions, one strives to improve oneself (if one can and is willing), by self applying ways of avoiding error and correcting errors once main. That's part of the subject of the ThoughtStream itself. Obviously, if the logic and the critiquing regarding biases of self and others is part of what education aims at (logic, psychology and philosophy cover this, but more broadly education teaches it in parts and seeks it as well), then expansion of this idea into editing makes sense, since editing and literary criticism together make for the examination of the thinking of others to find defects and what is right, and the self-editing of one's own thinking and writing is an assumption that all have about personal self improvement. What if someone is not editing one's own thinking? One is then not improving that thinking in many ways that are extremely important for removal of error.

There is probably a better way to encapsulate the mission and functions of this project, but I think here it can be seen it is ambitious but should be doable, and would make great improvements in how we correctly evaluate and critique ourselves and others. A rule governed system that is more complete and comprehensive for editing and critiquing, that is mostly universal for all communication! Regarding feasibility, if it were not feasible, that would mean we are in a horrible state currently regarding our ability to correctly examine the thoughts of communciations of others. Is our logic correct? If so, then why not correctly apply it during editing? Are our methods of examining and correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation correct? I think largely they are but have some issues, but if they were not again we'd be in a horrible state, and of course if we have them we can also incorporate them. They do already exist in an editorial process. But additionally, why have we not added the principles of science, mathematics, psychology, and knowledge of cognitive biases and other errors into the process? Has this been done and is it complete? This is where it is not complete and I think the state of affairs are horrible. We cannot jointly decide if any particular thoughts or writings include biases or illusions! Instead, we rely upon informal marginal notes and critique from English teachers and others who read and give feedback, and this consists of simply informal recommendations for improvements. But these are asystematic. Often they are untestable or are merely opinions! Does your feedback fit into any methodology as sophisticated as this? Mine is approaching it, but still does not. That means all of us do not have an agreed upon analytical technique and are certainly missing quite a lot regarding what is erroneous or needs correction, and of course then we could not agree! Like having different languages, we do not have a corect way of examining such that we can approach or not of each others examinations.

Worse still, I think first attempts of such a system from others would be incorrect, and we'd pretend to have a correct system. However, right now we don't have a system at all.

These are idaes regarding the development of my own existing markup technique. I don't think there has been anyone else as far as I know who has communicated a similar project idea such as this. It is certainly necessary. In my background, I have the requisite experience in science, pscyhology, logic, math, statistics and other disciplines to develop this project further, potentially to a point in which the correctness of what is included is aright excepting strange inputs, and what has not been covered. I don't think it would be possible to be totally comprehensive including all from mathematics, since I think mathematics is partly for this purpose as a whole! To find the exactingly correct thoughts about various subjects. The finding of erroneous thinking would sometimes and often require the substitution of mathematics for regular thought. For example, oftentimes concepts need replacement with mathematical equivalents. Hope needs to be replaced with probabilities, and until that has been done there will be much confusion.

It seems this project may be required to move civilization forward in fact.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-north-as-basic-and-not-only-barren">The North as Basic and Not Only Barren</a>

*Friday, July 12, 2024 12:06:14*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

<!-- new writing -->

I've spent a considerable amount of time living in and exploring the vast northern territories of Alaska and Canada, and while I did not notice it at first, later on I realized there are very few species of plants and animals as we have learned in our studies of ecosystems and Jungle habitats in our primary education. There is a beauty to landscapes that have few tree and plant varieties, and stunted plant life, with contrasting greens compared with rocky and primitive looking landscapes. But over time I became increasingly and repetitively aware that the landscapes simply offered very little to look at that was novel. Growing up in a Silver Spring and Olney, Maryland, suburbs of Washington, D.C., I am from a location that is much more diverse in flora and fauna, and while I did not recognize it at the time, it would be difficult to really be totally knowledgeable with all the plants and animals the regions offer. But there were some animal inhabitants that were so often seen that it became possible to take their interesting aspects for granted, and one such animal was the tree squirrel. To some in Maryland the tree squirrel is a lovable rat of sorts, close to being vermin if not in actuality. I personally find the squirrel to be a beloved animal, but I did take them for granted after long exposure. That was one of the animals in my environment that was repetitive enough to contribute to a desire to leave the region to live elsewhere to have something new and different again. The squirrel is one of a set of things I could pick from the diversity that existed in my environment to consider it repetitive, but it was far from being as repetitive as the northern environment, and I'll explain why.

Maryland must have dozens of species of trees and plants, and hundreds of species of grasses, but living in Alaska one witnesses a transition between having a handful of tree types to none on the coasts of the Arctic ocean. Maryland would be difficult to fully describe. A simple description at best would create an vague and fuzzy image that is still representative but too basic compared to its complexity. If you imagine a photo of a photo in the mid-Atlantic region of the united states and fade it until much is not recognizable, you'd have a good idea of the visual I have in mind. But for the Arctic and Subarctic regions of North America a verbal description would be more like a much more crisp image of the environment and more inclusive of its natural detail. There is a beauty about this landscape as I said, and its beauty has been strong enough for me to want to routinely travel to northern locations and to live there for a considerable portion of my life, but also there is an unfortunate aspect about it–life there is too simple, too basic, and there is a "poverty of stimulus" as one might say. Life there is too easy to understand, not too hard. Everything has the potential of becoming a squirrel of my home region. In Maryland, there is such a richness of environment that I can't tell you what it includes except for some few species and characteristics of some plants I know only by sight. I can't say all that might be repetitive about the environment, and instead I've *chosen* things in my environment which contributes to the feeling that it was really repetitive for me. There are patterns also to the environment that I've become frustrated with over time, but these patterns are still picked from other more complex patterns that exist. All there is harder to describe. But the Arctic might be the location where one can know the entire pattern and each species of animal very intimately, such that instead of needing to choose what was irritatingly recurrent about the place, one could state that nearly all has been excessively recurrent.

Being able to identify a total pattern more closely and describe an environment more precisely such that it approaches a complete image of the space entails that there is less to learn. I have come to wonder about the livelihoods of people living in the arctic locations and about the quality of life that people in native tribes really have. We already know that their living conditions are much more unfavorable than others who live elsewhere, and we think of this in terms of health and money. We think of them as oftentimes drunk, addicted to drugs, or impoverished, living in squalor in destitution in shacks. But additionally we seem to sense that there is very little that is interesting going on around them. So it is not only that they would have less money and resources, but also that their environment itself is somehow impoverishing. I can think of ways in which this can be counteracted, by increasing attention to detail and the adventure of being out in nature with good observation skills, but it does not mean that those living there have such an ability to think about it this way or are intelligent enough to do so.

Again, I can think of ways that life could be good there, and so could you, but that doesn't mean others there think about it that way, or can. It doesn't mean they can bring it into action either. More likely they are lazily living in their dwellings and really are living a life of poverty with nothing much to look at, and late in life all is so repetitive that escape is desirable, but not having the skills or ability to live elsewhere they are stuck there and resort to drugs and alcohol. This is consistent with part of the story that we've been told about native villages, and having visited native villages myself, I noticed not many people are outdoors.

A person who is intensely interested in the minute details of this territory however may find that they are perpetually getting what they really enjoy. These people would be few in number and are. Travel to the arctic is easy, but few do it, and this alone tells us that interest in the region is not great or common, and that there are few people of this type. But I do not deny that they exist and I find myself somewhat like them.

I wonder if people can come to admit that this is the case for the North. I've found it to be largely the case also for much of Canada. Much of Canada has identical landscape, very great repetition of tree species, and one can drive hundreds and even thousands of miles and feel that one is seeing roughly the same things. I've covered most of the major highways of Canada, excepting the most eastern provinces and Quebec, and over time I have come to be somewhat bored with what I as seeing. There are standout locations that provide more striking differences in landscape in the form of mountains and glaciers, but outside those regions there is quite a lot of repetition and I think it is visible on the faces and in the behavior of Canadians.

I think if one lives in any region for too long if one is especially intelligent and desirous of different things to learn and see then one will become bored and likely really yearn to travel. So my comments above regarding the patterns of what is repetitive might be more important than the other comments about being able to fully describe a location, knowing all the types of scenery, plants and animals, but I think this contributes to how we would gauge the strengths of the effect. This relates too of course to the patterns themselves. The arctic does not include much culture either. Mixing in culture, it is possible for one to get over not doing much travel by being able to keep entertained by an influx of culture that seems to be never ending. Living in or near a city, especially a large city, would provide too much to experience and see in a lifetime. But in the arctic, there is no such city. There is no city at all.

Personally, I would find any location to be too repetitive and so instead I have chosen the life of travel. And I admit, after as much travel as I've done, the Earth itself is becoming a sort of knowable pattern, and probably not an unending source of interest; but it is one of the few ways that *I could* create additional interest, and so I keep doing it. Being from a region that has a massive city already, I don't think there is any city that would be suitable. The larger the city, the more sparse the landscape too. When I think about New York City, there may be an unending place to experiment in food and culture, but there are few animals in view, and few plants. For that a more repetitive natural space of plants is desired. Clearly this is a strange contradiction to consider, that nature only feels like nature when there is sufficient overpopulation of specific plants and animals, and that this is absent in variety when one is in New York City or Tokyo. For now I'll conclude by saying that in a large city one has chosen for culture and people and buildings over nature, a known thing, but interesting as one tries to get closer to a conclusive idea about what is rewarding in one's various environments, and trying to keep life interesting in those environments.


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="reduction-and-control-of-inclinations-generally">Reduction and Control of Inclinations Generally</a>

*Wednesday, June 19, 2024 12:49:02*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

This posting concerns arrival at an approximately complete full moral control of self with a deterministic view of one's future, with prediction powers regarding all that one will be doing. Many of my writings already relate well to this topic, but what I have not covered involves the recent observation that it seems possible to control all inclinations such that they point towards actions that are wanted and planned for, and are more desirable and are closer to what would be expected of moral excellences and good character.
It was already demonstrated in the work on Higher Order Attention in the AMP Attentional Management process that such a control of inclinations and ability to foresee and plan for future actions more completely is not opposed to having a *greater level of freedom* and a *greater potential for serendipitous and spontaneous action and stimulation*. The idea then is that one can really have a better total control over one's actions and can blend it with morality, so that it is possible to become a more totally morally excellent person, all without having to diminish freedom of action. This is still expanded upon, as can be explained by comparing this way with alternatives that mostly assume free action but don't plan for its increase or optimization.

When one goes about one's day, and as one goes about one's month, one experiences a very large amount of  behavioral inclinations (relatively speaking) of a wide variety of types. Anything anyone does relates to an inclination had. Without a motivation or an inclination, one is not triggered to do anything. If one sits quietly, and tries to do very little, one still experiences as one sits inclinations to speak, move around, look around, think one thing or another, and so on, and these all relate to triggered inclinations that relate to nervous system functioning. Some of these inclinations have some level of aware attention and associated decision making, while others are more automatic, and if one notices the action, one may have noticed afterwards. If one continues sitting, and tries to refrain from doing anything else but sitting, one will eventually have stronger inclinations and motivations to do other actions. If one really forces oneself to remain sitting, eventually there will be a mental battle of sorts between sitting and doing one or other alternative action that one is triggered and inclined to do. As I said throughout one's day there is a very large amount of actions one is inclined to do, and these can relate to eating, drinking, working, playing, getting comfortable, using the restroom, smoking, drinking alcohol, having sex or masturbating, watching television entertainment, enjoying social media, talking to someone on the phone, and so on. The total set of all of life's inclinations include what one would like to do and what one would not like to do, and excludes what one has not thought of doing. All moral behavior is related to all these various inclinations to do anything, and if one is really morally excellent then one has become able to become basically an inclination machine towards what one wants to do that is also morally beneficially and well planned for. Most may immediately acknowledge this is true, but if one has not, it's simple to see it as true once one thinks carefully about what a person is doing who one feels is "really good" versus what someone is doing who is "really bad". The person who is really good has made their habitual actions extremely consistent with moral behavior and will have much fewer inclincations to act in ways that are not morally beneficial. They will even think less about the possibility of doing alternative things that might not be approved of. This really does entail they've cancelled their inclinations and motivations to behave in "wrong ways" and if they did not do this, they would acdtually not be able to act good consistently because there would be too many decisions that would have to be made that sometimes would not be well decided. Eventually some poor decisions would be made. However, a person with practiced habits that are morally excellent will have inclinations already pointing towards good actions and will have very few inclinations that point anywhere else, and they may appear oblivious to the possibility of taking wrong pathways. They simply seem good natured by the time they achieve this, and they seem as though "they are not even capable of doing various wrong behaviors", as many have said in witness testimonies defending people who were accused of doing things they don't seem like they would ever do. Good people then seem to have and be a pattern of behavior that is exclusionary of actions that seem to be poorer in quality, and that their pattern includes what is better in quality. Their good actions are easy for them. They are consistently and usually easy for them. And the better they happen to be, at any particular time in their life, they may only be able to perform good actions.

Now compare this with someone who is contstantly struggling with preventing themselves from doing wrong actions. They have inclinations often in the wrong direction and have to decide with more effort not to do those things, and sometimes or often they will choose the wrong direction. This is a consequence of having to too often decide this way, because of having these inclinations and mental options to begin with. The person who is considered "bad" will simply be inclined towards bad behavior. During their days and months they will feel impulses and nervous system inclinations towards behaviors over and over, that others would think are morally poor in quality. If bad enough, bad behavior becomes easy and regular. Few decisions are made towards better actions and the poorer habits are selected or gone with again and again. These people are very hard to change or alter and oftentimes they themselves cannot see themselves as morally unexcellent. Between this example fo the person who is considered morally inferior or a bad behaver, and the person considered morally superior and a good behavior, we can clearly see that what accounts for the good behavior in the good person is training towards having very few negative inclinations of any kind. If their behaviors and inclinations are consistently pointing in direction to actions that are morally beneficial, we know also that their mentality and brain is directed towards what is morally planned already. Their inclinations have become consistent with moral planning. Excellence has been trained into their system, blending morality with who they are and what they do. From this we can see it is certainly possible, given the example of good people who actually achieve moral excellence, that it is possible to blend moral planning with moral behavior to alter internally one's mind to be more totally virtuous. The extent of the moral excellence that can be achieved seems to relate to the degree of completness of the blending of moral planning with behavior, such that there are no poor inlinations or nearly no poor inclinations. Also, those that are poor will appear to be consistently less poor than for some others, because even the inclinations have gradations in their level of excellence, inappropriateness, or badness.

It is my strong preference to not speak in terms of "good" and "bad" but for this conversation I think use of these common terms might have made my point more clear and persuasive. Instead I'd like to use alternative language, however, which is more sophisticated and more accurate, and would like to talk about degrees of conformity of inclinations and actions to moral plans, or their consitencly to obviously better quality actions and decision making.

Within the attentional management process, in conjunction with the spatial plan for remaining in good locations and pathways and having relationships with only good objects (good people, places, businesses, etc...), I have made it clear that one can already spatially prepare all one's behaviors to fit within a moral plan. If one had a moral plan as I do for one's spatial relations and one sticks to it, then the spatial portion of the plan is already complete once sufficiently practiced, for making oneself have no spatial inclinations that are less morally excellent. If one only sees good people, good businesses and places, and is in safe locations always, and avoids any relationship with any location or object that trends it towards moral unexcellence, having poorer quality influences, then one has already gotten very far in removing negative inclinations. If one has removed all negative influences that elicit negative inclinations or can lead one astray spatially, then that means they are never there! If one has trained oneself to stay within this spatial plan, then one's inclinations are never towards these other objects because they are never present and are not part of the plan, and eventually, one mindlessly follows one's usual spatial routes and pathways in life as one moves around. "All good paths and places, and all good friends and faces" one might say. After this very huge but somewhat easy milestone has been accomplished, of controlling one's spatial relations to match with a moral plan, then one has to focus on one's behaviors and inclinations within this space. This may mean controlling how one eats, what one eats, and how much one eats. There are challenges here I face periodically myself. What one chooses to eat influences one's quality of life and the market. I chose to be Vegan/Vegetarian, although my food choices are not always as good as I'd like them to be. By creating a moral plan for my eating, and by controlling spaces relating to food consumption, and by controling food consumption within these spaces, I greatly improve my moral excellences related to my eating behavior, including my relation to other animals, people, market options, fundings, my fitness, health, personal budget and finances and so on. In addition to our eating behavior within this constrained space are all our other behaviors. Including our habits relating to fitness, sexuality, relationships, spending, and so on. It is possible to devote time and energy to each of life's categories individually until one's habits and inclinations are consistent with moral planning until a time when one's space and object relations are thoroughly good at a high level, and then are good at a lower level within one's contstrained environments, *and* one's automated thinking and behavior points only to good things. 

*More Soon*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="unfocused-time-and-time-away-from-popular-activity">Unfocused Time and Time Away From Popular Activity</a>

*Sunday, June 16, 2024 11:05:29*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Today I was reflecting on my goal to utilize a "time capsule" to separate myself from popular culture, which has become too repetitive to me, to return again to see the world again afresh with numerous novelties I did not yet encounter. This goal to separate in this time capsule is not only to have a chance to be away for a while to return when things are new and different, but also to have a better chance to accomplish various personal goals I have that would be more difficult if there were too many distractions. Popular culture *is distracting*, and by popular culture I don't mean only media and entertainment as it is found on television and social media. I mean everything around "what happens to be going on right now that has popular attention" which includes shopping for things that are new or fashionable, like new clothing, technology, games, and gadgets, and also anything related to current events and socialization about those events. All of these present distractions.

There are many examples of people who strive to have independent time in order to work on personal goals, and exemplars might be those who become professional athletes, artists, writers, or those who become advanced in other interesting goals and crafts. My personal objectives are a blend of artistry, writing, technology, and moral discipline. We also have within our history examples of people who have separated from normal society in order to gain additional moral discipline, and of course this is what some buddhist temples, monestaries, and hermitages are supposed to be. My separation from popular culture in my time capsule will enable me, as it did with those in history who have separated, to live largely undistracted by what others happen to be doing.

Separation from popular culture is apparently a rarity, and this insight was a prompt to writing this article. Those who choose to separate, comparing themselves with others, would certainly come to notice the real rarity of focused concentration on a personal goal over many days. After having accomplishments, I think they look at society with some disgust very likely, at the sea of people unable to ever spend any time isolated in useful and disciplined solitude, and the risk that all these people pose on others by their influence. There is an attention-stealing or misdirecting aspect to popular culture, figuratively speaking. Noticing that people often fail to have this sort of concentration achieved creates a small awakening about the behavior of others, and this experience and related insights have been communicated into art and music.

A fascinating observation I made near the outset of my formal studies on moral philosophy is that it is an area of expertise that is rare and yet almost everyone claims mastery. Almost everyone thinks their opinions and advice on almost any subject matter whatsoever is superior to that of an experts, and they really cannot tell the difference. This means that people who are of lower intelligence think their moral perspective is as good as those who are most intelligent, which is a repulsive absurdity. Since more than half of the population is of average intelligence or less, and more than that includes people who simply are not that intelligent, it follows that well over half of the population of the unintelligent think they are individually morality and advice-giving experts who think they are more knowledgeable than even the most intelligent of us. This appears to explain why in politics all think they happen to have the requisite information and judgement to know what the best political plans happen to be and who the best political candidates would be. They do so without having any system for arriving at a correct vote, and aimlessly involve themselves thinking they are political experts who ought to be guiding the system. Connecting these points with the fact that so many people appear to have been unable to extricate themselves from being absorbed thoroughly in pop culture, and we notice that they also have been unable to have any personal time to arrive at any focused time for their own development! The reason why it's a mini-awakening of sorts to finally have personal time away from pop culture for self development, is partly because it is too difficult to have almost any great advancement without the separation. Separation then becomes desirable and it must be done for very long periods of time, even years. One simply reads while others are disinterested, and one studies and works at one's skills while others are doing other popular activities. If one has not separated in this way, one knows it simply is not really possible to arrive at a mastery or discipline that is what those would like to claim for themselves. And that is what all these people in pop culture are doing–they claim immediately to have expertise and discipline without doing much of anything with the requisite focus and concentration. Like people who have not gone to college, and claim expertise without ever studying even independently.

The above creates a picture that there is a binary, "black and white" division between experts and those claiming to be expert. That there is also a binary division between those who have personally been very focused and those who have not. It also makes it appear that these two groups happen to largely consist of the same groups. I think this happens to be largely true, but it is imprecise. The reality would be that there would be gradations of independent focus, experience, personal isolation for disipline, and so on for each and every person in the culture. There are many who would know that this is perhaps somewhat unfair because while they didn't go very far on self discipline, they didn't do nothing, and this makes it appear they did nothing at all. So an interesting question is what the demographic data would be in a study of human behavior regarding their ability to separate from socialization in order to focus on personal development. They key aspects of behavior as they relate to gravitation towards popular activities that seem more frivolous need to be identified. I don't think it will be possible to arrive at a measure as an independent thinker wanting to have something more conclusive about this topic; instead I think a sufficiently clear and detailed structural depiction of the topic along with an analysis regarding what appears to be true regarding associated demographics will be adequate, although is not most desirable. It would be difficult to do this without being somewhat prejudiced, but I think prejudices can be identified and communicated. For example, I'm already prejudiced regarding this topic and the conclusion that I think would result from the analysis. People really do seem to get absorbed in media, entertainment, and socialization in a superficial way that really does intoxicate and prevents personal development. I think there is a stark division between a dumb socializer who is perpetually trying to be inside pop culture or someplace not too distant, and the highly intelligent master of self and subject matter. There are common activities but the difference between these kinds of people are obvious, and the difference largely does relate to focused commitment and ability to spend time alone for extended periods of time. Also a commitment to activities which are not themselves considered popularity increasing.

Since I do think there is inadequate precision in the above writing I'll return with an improved analysis in the future. For now what I most wanted to communicate is that there does appear to be an experience of noticing that there is such a divide in society, that happens when one really has separated from others for a long enough period to attain some personal discipline, focus, and accomplishment with some isolation. When this is experienced, it is noticed obviously that others are largely something to *avoid*. The avoidance of others relates to the insight that they have a "stuckness" and create a pressure, "peer pressure" to simply continue behaving in a way that is *not focused and self-isolating*. Some of these people to avoid are chronic socializers who will think you have some problem if you too are not socializing with them, and oftentimes they are not tolerant of time away. Since the success appears to happen due to time spent concentrating in an environment that is not social, it appears also that socialization is a culprit to causing people to feel unfulfilled in their lack of development.

This topic relates to fulfillment, social bullying and peer pressure, the value of socialization versus focus, the causes of success, morality as it relates to self-development and discipline, morality as it relates to socialization, and many other topics. I think it is appropriate to develop this subject matter more thoroughly to achieve a greater synthesis and to arrive at a conclusiveness that is durable as it relates to diverse subjects of interest. "How important is socialization really?" has become a theme of this ThoughtStream, and I have begun a book entitled "The Value of Social Platforms" which is a topic of great interest. Clearly these considerations require additional resolution, and I think consistent with my earlier writings, socialization will simply become something of much lower importance, and must have much greater selectivity and control.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="marketing-revolutions-before-they-exist-and-equality">Marketing Revolutions Before They Exist, and Equality</a>

*Wednesday, June 12, 2024 11:38:04*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

It may seem a strange concept that something such as a revolution would receive marketing, but anything that requires promotion in advance of the realization of it as an objective requires promotion. Revolutions get promoted, Civil Rights Movements get promoted, and perspectives like Equalitarianism get promoted too. An issue exists as to the reasonability of the marketing effort as it relates to what is promoted. What if the marketing and promotion includes false information. What if it is manipulative propaganda intended to sway people or encourage action without their rational decision making? What if the result of the marketing and propaganda is loss of life and murder, as might be the case with social propaganda encouraging warfare or revolutionary actions. What if the promotion is for some alternative vision of the future that seems like it would be better, but few are willing to act without manipulation?

Some people like to promote certain plans as "revolutionary" without their actually being revolutionary, utilizing the metaphor to explain that the plan would have effects that are akin to very largescale change. Someone who has an interesting new idea may quickly think to themselves, in some excitement, that the changes that would result from enacting the idea would be large enough to call the idea revolutionary. Simple things have been called revolutionary without it necessarily being known that calling it such is merely for illustrative effect. Some have called books revolutionary, disease treatments revolutionary, dietary plans revolutionary, and so on. For most things that are exaggerated in this way is there often or ever a result that would indicate that the terminology used was justifiable. These things simply do not turn out to be revolutions in any meaningful way.

For example, some may have stated that the "Atkins Diet" was a revolutionary diet. After some time, it becomes clear that there is nothing revolutionary about it, the marketing was simply using a metaphor that was excessive, and there was no outcome in the future that would establish that such a diet even could create a change that might be more honestly considered revolutionary.

But even before an actual revolution is to take place, there must be calls for revolution. There must be a level of organization that is large enough to actually have a revolution take place, otherwise there could be no revolutions. Revolutions could not ever happen without sizeable groups willing to fight. For those revolutionary groups to have existed, there were recruitment efforts. These efforts used persuasion which certainly used marketing techniques that are manipulative, even if there are some true aspects. People are encouraged to believe that there is a revolution happening even in advance of any actual revolution, and if revolution were had, the violence might cause some to recoil and think they prefer the prior state of simply lying that there is a revolution occurring. The actual revolution may not happen later after all the time spent persuading others to believe that it would happen or was happening, and probably the quantity of revolutionary groups that have existed were much larger than the number of revolutions that have happened historically. There must be secretive groups, factions, clubs and small militias in a large number of countries that do not anticipate really having any warfare or revolutionary change, yet they probably tout themselves as being revolutionary. Otherwise the draw and the interest would be too low. So it is very likely that many clubs exist that simply pretend to be revolutionary in order to achieve some feeling of personal importance.

These ideas concerning revolutions are really just analogies I'd like to utilize in explaining the situation with the equalitarian movement. Equality, like revolution, is something that does not exist until it exists; in advance, it is metaphorical, illustrative, or visionary. People who are in clubs that think themselves revolutionary, or advocates of equality, eventually may come to think that they have achieved their objectives already. Along the way, the marketing and propoganda, and self-elevation results in a belief that one has had successes one has not had. One becomes deluded by one's persistent messaging. Marketing affects those marketed to, but also those who themselves who simply keep repeating the message. Equalitarianism has had to proceed like revolutionary movements by at the outset thinking that what was being advocated was possible, desirable, and had some existence already. For example, if one was historically advocating on behalf of women to gain voting rights within the equalitarian movement, then one might already claim that both women and men really do have an equality that exists, which is a justification for more equitable treatment and more balanced welfare, employment and rights between sexes. The advocates of such a movement then proclaim that men and women are equal and also that they deserve equal treatment, and that their vision of equality therefore has an existing reality and also a visionary pathway to greater realization. Propaganda, marketing, advertising, and messaging are used to spread the word that equality is real and that equality is the pathway to greater justice. It may be claimed that such changes are revolutionary. After some time and many have joined the movement as they did for women's suffrage, small victories are had and those involved then think to themselves they have achieved what they have set out to achieve, and perhaps for those who were realistic they did. Others will think, seeing the change and the victories, that the wins were more pervasive than they really were. Equality suddenly was won for women. Interest wanes regarding the movement if there is a feeling that the objectives were already achieved and the equalitarian movement takes interests in new goals, perhaps to support the reduction of racism, xenophobia, and the promotion of sexual rights. While this change of attention occurs, the women are forgotten largely. There is no reanalysis that takes place that is very clear in view, although some would be working on such evaluations. Have women really become equal? Were they equal to begin with? Why aren't some things about their equality not represented in employment, power, and politics? Why are women not attended to with as much respect or admiration? Why are males so seldom emulating women? Why do both seem to care more about what men of power do, excepting interest in young women within entertainment, mainly for looks and personality? Comparing the actual state of affairs with the earlier marketing and propaganda it would be seen that there is a very huge gulf between reality and what was being used to persuasively communicate. It becomes more obvious that the changes made resulting from the movement were small, and were not revolutionary even if the changes required major changes of mindset. Equality had not existed, and equality within the culture not won. Well over a hundred years after making voting possible for women, there is a very strong feeling that equality has not been created in treatment between men and women, and it is not well understood what should be different in their treatment. This means we have not accounted for what is not equal naturally between women that would and should amount to different ways of life between men and women. We have not understood it effectively enough to plan for what should be similar, that is, what would actually become more equal within society for both sexes. Furthermore, since the gulf is so large in treatment, it has to be acknowledged that the advances are unknown regarding how much closer to equality the world has become regarding men and women, but also, that the plan doesn't seem to have provided a level of develompent result. Where in development are we with regard to equality of the sexes? Where are the points of advancement?

Like the revolutions that never actually take place, equality has not taken place. It has been marketed again and again and utilized for some positive societal advancements, but there has not been any result that one could point out and consider to be actual equality. In fact, those who think they were victorious in their movements and those who inherit changes, actually come to think that there are equalities where there are none. Some really do say that they believe that the various races in the United States for example, already are equal. That all has already been accomplished. This perspective is then used to thwart attempts made by those who are aware of inequalities to improve situations. Instead of getting support from these people, they are told it is equal already.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="from-thought-into-code-and-writing-language-agnosticism-and-linguistic-diversity">From Thought Into Code and Writing, Language Agnosticism, and Linguistic Diversity</a>

*Tuesday, June 04, 2024 15:24:48*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

For quite a long time there have been disputes over which language might be best, and which programming language might be superior over the others. I have taken the position that mostly the differences in programming languages relate to specific features that have been added, that are laregely extranneous given core features that are common to all programming languages. When one first learns computer science, one learns about fundamental programming structures that relate to programmatic completeness. There is a concept introduced in computer science called "pseudocode" which is like a programming without knowing how it will be written with a specific language yet. It is known that if the pseudocode is implemented in a programming language, that it will work. The pseudocode uses the fundamental constructs of programming that are common to the various languages and so it is known already that the languages can perform the tasks in the pseudocode.

"Pseudocode" isn't the very best word choice. It was used to distinguish it from actual code that would work, that is code-like but isn't quite "real code". Another more abstract term is desirable for this, and it can be related to a way of thinking about mathematics, in the world of algorithms. But more abstractly, it relates to natural language. The same discussion can be had about natural language in the determination of which is best. It might be said that if a language has specific features in place that allow for completeness of communication, then that language is already adequate. It is already known that some languages that have or do exist have certain indaequacies. It is also known that mature languages can be readily translated to one another. In logic there was the idea that "propositions" expressed at a higher level what has truth values that would want to be shared in any mature language, but that they are somewhat separate from the language in abstractness. This makes sense because if one knows of a truth, then one might seek to say it in a number of ways, and if ill expressed, one will try to find the way of expressing that is more accurate. If one is highly accurate and logical then one has arrived at something that was intended to be a proposition. The core features of a language that allow for description, logic, use of propositions and whatever else is required to be adequate, are arguably present in each of the mature languages. When one translates what has been well written in Chinese, it can be translated to Arabic, and as long as it is sufficiently defined, is accurate in description, is logical, and so on, it will be expressing propositions that everyone who speaks both languages will understand. The translation into any language then is possible so long as it has these features. There are issues with translations but we know that translation does result in successful communication. Functionally then, using the core features of the languages according to this idea of proposition and other features is like using the pseudocode and core features of programming it works to deploy thinking into a range of languages. If one is a master of pseudocode and clear logical thinking and descrption with accuracy, then one is less concerned about the language that performs the functions.

If someone speaks many languages extremely well (which is a rarity), then one might want to be selective about what language to write in to communicate some sophisticated thinking. Do I write this in English, French or Japanese? There would be quibbles with others on this topic of selection, and self-debate as to the appropriateness of one or the other. If the audience does not matter, and the function performed is communication, then functionally it doesn't appear to matter which is chosen, if as I said, the description and logical properties exist in the thinking, and it is well implemented in the language. One might think: "Well of course the audience matters–if you chose Japanese then so many people wouldn't understand". Since in-principle it is still translatable, then in principle a translation tool that works well would simply output the writing of the selected language into any other language. In that way the selection is still about the key core features of the languages and their readiness to convey the information. The person who speaks many languages who is in this scenario could then simply choose whichever they like the most, or which they are most adept at using. Or they could choose arbitrarily or with other parts of communication that are of lesser importance in mind. These lesser important features of a language are like the lesser important features of programming languages that only they have that are outside of the core constructs.

Instead of merely arguing this point, I have in my career as a technologist, consultant, and software architect, designed and planned around this idea. If one knows that the functionality can be completed in a software project with the core structures and pseudocode, one has consummate confidence about the ability to realize that software. Others don't have this if they are conflicted about which languages do what. Instead, one merely knows they can do it already. This mindset permits of flexibility about how it is implemented in specific languages, and is more mindful of the realities of team constitutions and business investments. This particular business uses C++ programming, and Python. In that case that is how the work will be performed unless there are other investments that give rise to needing to use other languages. The team can do the work easily, and it is known that whatever they write will be good. It will actually be able to record from the thinking about what needs to be done using those key logical ingredients to have functioning software of good quality. It oftentimes would be simpler, because there is less thinking outside what is fundamental. Furthermore, that work would be portable to other languages. It could be reimplemented again and again using other techniques. The maturity of the guidance is much greater and flexible and can adapt to new and existing conditions.

Some who really love specific coding languages or natural languages will still cling to their favorites and think that what they are doing happens to be the best approach. But notice a more sophsiticated and mature approach is one that is knowledgeable about all languages abstractly, and admits what is common between them that does the same work. If one is a linguist, one will then be much more appreciative and less xenophobic, about languages that are different, and would be good at planning diplomatically because they are realistic and flexible. A software technologist in an elevated position will also exercise better judgement being aware of what all the languages offer and being able to consider unfamiliar alternatives. Software programmers and people who speak languages are often not very considerate of alternatives and sometimes form hatred for alternatives.

Today an idea came to me that provides a much better way to explain or potentially prove this point that the core features of languages that make them "complete" ought to be the central focus, over and above details about any specific language. This idea was related primarly to software programming but is generalizable. In software as I said, one can envision how a program works simply thinking about the pseudocode or core programming constructs. The next step after envisioning is writing in a language. Then one has to select what language that would be? Well, instead of doing that, what if one could offload the writing of the program to AI, or else another system that simply chooses what language to write in. What if instead of this, one could magically think and the code appeared in whatever language it happened to appear in and it was well written. Imagine the code all works as envisioned. In that case, if it simply functions as expected, worked well every time, then one would not care as much about how it was written. A point that has to be added for full understanding here is that when one uses a computer many programs are being called from the system that are all written already in other languages. This means one's computer is already a heterogeneous system that functions well, using programs written in different ways. Some of the languages of these existing programs are languages few write now, and few would choose. Yet they work. These are the programs pre-installed on a computer that are there, that some other applications actually do also use. So you can have a browser, or word processor, or image processor, that has its own code in whatever language it uses, but then calls these other programs. It *relies* on these programs to function. So these are trusted programs that everyone is using very often and they are often of unknown origin and the source code has been unread. They are in a large variety of languages and one does not care which language. What one is concerned about is the functionality and the result. So if one could think of a program in one's mind thinking in pseudocode and core langage features, and magically it appeared in any language, then the result of that activity would be software that simply works, and would blend with software already trusted and existing on the machine.

Now imagine one wants to think and build a sophisticated program, and thinks well through the programming abstractly, and each part of the software is written in a different language, but all functions together. The resulting heterogeneous system would be made of different languages, just like a standard computer, and perform all functionality as desired. This would be a proof that the core features were the most important and the language selection more superfluous. Better yet, imagine that as you thought it, it was implemented 1000 times with different language selections, but each functioned well. In that case you'd have 1000 program versions that do the same thing, with minor differences, and each would have used different languages.

In a way it is like if one architecturally planned to build a large building like a pyramid or skyscraper in one's mind, then communicated what was to be built in French, to a team of architects who told their teams how to build it, but they were told in a range of other languages. Now the team of people who speak all these other languages build the building, but they just did it without your choosing how they speak or how they implement it. Supposing they did it well, the outcome would be the same or similar enough. It is already known that one can choose human teams in various ways to build the plan and if one did it 1000 times with all different teams, and the communication used the core constructs of language, and the plan also used core constructs of planning, then 1000 times you'd have the building recreated.

It seems to me easily proven that this is the case with software given the above, and one will eventually be able to use AI to demonstrate this. AI will be smart enough to language select for optimization differences, but even with AI choosing which language to use for what, it will still choose a range of languages, and the result will be software that equivalently functions.

Now with language there is less I can say regarding how one would think of what to say and then say it in any particular language. I think most master linguists have no language abstraction from which to deploy the same thinking identically in all languages. They simply don't attain language equivalence in a good enough way to make for an exact analogy to the software. But everyone is familiar with thinking and knowing they could say what they are thinking in a number of ways. They think, and then they form language that seems appropriate. Within the brain there is thinking occuring that allows for expression in a number of ways. Within a single language all experience this. If someone is really good at a language like English, they may care less about how something is specifically stated. Speaking for myself, I think of what I say as being something that could be substituted easily. If I have something to explain or communicate, I feel as though I can easily switch and substitute alternative ways to convey the same information, which means that within myself I feel that there is a functional equivalence occuring in my language selectivity. There are 1000 English paragraphs to explain a single idea or related set of ideas. As I'm thinking I'm aware there is an extralinguistic or protolinguistic happening occurring. What is most important are the ideas that seem less concerned about how expressed. I can express it easily in a range of ways and am not fixated on any particular conveyance. Likewise, if it were well translated into a bunch of paragraphs that were equivalent I may not care too much about which paragraph were used to convey my idea. I am selective with how I talk anyways. My preference is that it comes from me, but if there were a tool that could translate it into other languages too that I couldn't think of with a large selection of equivalent paragraphs and pages, I would definitely approve of the translation. That is not so different than if I asked people to translate my writing and they did it well, in unexpected ways. They key ingredient was the thinking that generates the language with its core features, with sufficient logic, descriptions, and propositions.

So in the case of software programming and language it appears that what is above it is more important than implementations and quibbling and fighting over which language is used appears to be a much less mature perspective. The guiding roles on both or in combination would be better from a mindset akin to the one I've describe above.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-budgetary-strategy-for-living-on-the-road">A Budgetary Strategy for Living on the Road</a>

*Tuesday, June 04, 2024 14:03:25*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In. Homelessness and Wealthy Camping

For those traveling on a budget, or those retired like myself, living on the road can create a daunting challenge of controlling dwindling funds and finding discipline that corresponds to a clear system of expenditure. Depending on how frugal one wants to be, the advise differs. My lifestyle includes an alternation between luxurious living and very great frugality. I have the objective of spending prudently within the domain of what one might call "better living", and spending almost nothing, strategically, as a hiker/camper/traveler. Here I will focus our attention to the latter subject matter, since it is the more important of the two. It's important because the solution is usable to everyone whoever they happen to be, and provides a plan, in advance, for managing when resources are low, which is something that might be faced by anyone who retires and suddenly finds their funds are suddenly inadequate to cover costs. This is also concentrated on the traveler who is seeking stimulation and enjoyment from nature. A hiker-camper-adventurer type.

In my analysis of costs faced by anyone who is budgeting, I've found that rent is the most significant cost, as most would know. The second greatest cost is food. Here we'll focus on the most significant cost which is having a place to stay as one travels.

Rent, when one is traveling, if one does not also have rent at home, which is desirable to remove, consists of hotel stays, staying with friends, online room rentals, hosteling, camping at RV parks, camping at camp sites, camping in a vehicle like a car or RV, camping on or near a trail, or camping in the back country. There are also other arrangements that can be made along the way, like if one happens to discover a room for rent from a trustworthy person, or if someone invites you into their home. I've done all of the above, but have some strong personal preferences, since I mostly enjoy solitude, very little chance for accidental conflict, unexpected and unjustified attacks from others, and free places to stay. If it could always be free, private, well positioned geographically, and safe, I would choose it to be that way every time.

Since those are my preferences, hotel stays are useful, because the process is fuss-free and one gets a room of one's own. When I am not aiming at luxuriant living, and am focusing on frugality, I prefer overall value. Typically low cost hotels and motels often plenty of value, so I'll choose these. It is extremely infrequent that a chosen hotel will not have nearly identical characteristics to other hotels. What they include is more than sufficient. But I will not choose to stay in these hotels everyday. Living on the road entails 365 days a year having to pay for sleep, and staying in hotels 365 days a year for me, nowadays, as a retiree, is not an option. So I'll strategically choose to stay in hotels only after having had a number of days of camping, or at the beginning or end of a trip, to ease the beginning and ending. If one stays at a hotel that costs less than $100 USD per night every seven nights, one gets a bit of a vacation for each hotel visit, while keeping budgeting costs relatively close to what normal inexpensive rent would be. Four times a month, one has only spent $400. Emergency stays or stays due to indecision are also allowable, but minimized. This increases costs, but then one can camp longer to adjust the total spending.

For the remainder one can camp, but camping actually requires a good strategy that is not easy to come by initially. The following is my current strategy as I have both planned, partially executed, and still envision. RV Parks and camp sites that have a payment is to be considered a less frequent occurrance like hotel stays. For anything that is more expensive, it is reduced in total frequency. So hotel stays are the least frequent, RV parks which can offer luxuries are more frequent, normal camp sites with a payment are more frequent than RV parks, and any kind of free camping in a vehicle or by tent is the most frequent of all. It's easy to find hotels and RV parks, as long as they are not booked too late in a day. I should mention that my strategy does not involve advanced bookings. Since I am an experienced traveler and it isn't difficult for me to find places on the road, I simply make my plans day-by-day. This enables me to choose what I want nearly anytime I want it. RV Parks and Hotels can easily be booked nearly immediately, and there is seldom any outages like completely booked hotels and parks that prevents availability. It can usually be trusted that there would be vacancies.

The greater issue by far is where to camp. There are many issues associated with this and anyone who has had an RV trying to find a safe place to park for the night, or a hiker wanting to find a place to camp that's allowed would know about this. Here I'm not going to discuss the challenges associated with finding places as a vehicular camper or hiker traveler. Instead I'll only share the budgetary strategy.

If one has a vehicle as I do right now, well equipped for car camping and touring the country, getting from place to place to camp is fairly easy, as long as one is not immediately in a large urban area. My preference is to drive on roads that are not large highways, and slowly make my way along the countryside for sight seeing. There are long stretches of territory that do not have camping desirability. If one is far from national parks, national forests, state parks and so on, one will have more difficulty finding a place to camp. Part of my budgetary strategy that is consistent with creating more opportunities for enjoying natures, I choose paths that go near or stay near various parks. Historically I have been very averse to camping near others in normal campgrounds, although I've done that while young, but more recently I've changed mindset since they are inexpensive and are often still in beautiful locations. They are very inexpensive. High side, the cost for camping might be $25 per person. As I drive around, I'll note signs that point out camping locations, and I'll go take a look. If nice and available, I'll keep the location in mind. But that is still pricey and instead I'll prefer more frequently to stay at a free location. Free locations are harder to find. If one chooses a free location that is not on property that allows for it, one will get visited unexpectedly by police, even if nothing is wrong, since they might just want to see what is happening. This occurred as I was touring the country in an AWD travel van that made just sleeping anywhere really easy and attractive. Now I simply want to avoid any potential interractions with others who might disturb, so I had to find a better strategy for finding free camping locations. Before moving on to the strategy for finding free camping locations, I want to cover where we would be in expenditure for a month. If we spent $400 per month on hotels (4 days per month), and we paid for camping, say, 14 days a month, we would have spent a total of $750 per month. If the remaining 12 or so days were spent only camping for free, our total monthly cost would be $750 per month which is still less than rent. I'd aim to pay for camping less than this, and the amount I'm able to get that free camping simply brings that number down. If one moves around this is harder to achieve, but if one decides to stay in a free camping area of good quality for a longer time, one really could spend nothing every month on camping. My approach, however, since I'm on the move, is to simply have a reasonable budget that is less expensive than rent, that gives amazing adventure opportunities, and includes more diverse living conditions. This enables as I said some alternation of living conditions and if one is spending time in a hotel once a week, and then living in nature the remainder, the overall life satisfaction is very high. All for less than normal rent.

Free camping is easy in only one way I can think of at the moment, and that's to find a nice National Forest that has few visitors. Large National Forests with few visitors often have a large number of campsites or locations to simply just park without being bothered. The big difference between these areas and parks with paid camping is simply that they don't request payment, and are flexible about what one is allowed to do. They aren't strict. These parklands are vast and often have many backroads and few visitors, meaning one can often camp without seeing others. With no costs and few visitors, these are my most favored locations given my preferences. These national forests do often have rules about duration of stay. They typically would like people to be moving to a new location after a week or so. They give various limits on length of stay in their rules, and these apply to backcountry trail hikes as well. But if one is traveling with a vehicle touring the country, living on the road, one might find drawn to a new location before this limit is reached, and typically I like to move after just a night.

The very best free camping method I can think of involves simply hiking along national trails that go through the parks and cover very large distances. On these trails like the PCT and CDT, and Appalachian Trail, one might not see many people for very extended periods of time. Camping is simpmlistic, although there are still rules depending on where one has walked to, and these can be strict. But there is unlikely to be any emergency about camping suddenly anywhere if one has to. There simply isn't anyone around and few are concerned about where you're going to be sleeping. A night here and there outside the rules doesn't affect anyone and doesn't create any significant risks. If one is off the trail and in the back country it is possible to do this for very prolonged periods of time without anyone knowing, and one could live months this way. With a vehicle this approach is more complex because one needs to find a place to park. In my experience doing this, it was without vehicle. I would find a way to get near to the trail and simply begin my hiking excursion. This is far more challenging since one has to have one's equipment nearby and carry a large amount of gear, water and food. To alleviate this I've purchased a cart to use for hiking in places that don't have too difficult terrain. If one does have a place to park a vehicle to make such a trip, or one does not have a vehicle, this is the very best way to keep expenditures low that I can think of, and of course off the road there is no thought of paying for camping or paying for hotels. It is possible using this approach to spend months without paying any rent, and of course, if one does actually hike these long national trails, one already has committed to spending months on the trail camping. Nobody has ever hiked the PCT, CDT, or Appalachian trails, end-to-end, without planning on spending a long period of time on the trail. Since the trails exist and are thought to be the epitome of hiking adventure for many, this is an accepted and lauded activity. It would be possible to be entirely homeless and only hike trails. From a budgetary perspective, this may be as good as one can get for reducing costs, while keeping market opportunities available. The only other I can think of is starting in remote territories and living in open country. That is possible, but in that case one would need to hunt, fish, and actively gather food sufficient for survival. Using the hiking approach is safer, and that is currently my preference. One can hike feeling there are no risks whatsoever.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="status-on-the-current-project-regarding-homelessness-and-wealthy-camping-ii">Status on the Current Project Regarding Homelessness and Wealthy Camping II</a>

*Tuesday, June 04, 2024 12:33:40*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Before it was a bit difficult to explain to people quickly in a way they could understand how wealth and homelessness relate. Recent news regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict should make it much simpler to communicate some relatioinships.

College students, across the United States and abroad have decided to protest Israel's overreaction reaction to Palestinian hostilities by creating their own symbolic encampments on University properties. This was extremely well televised, and was spread on social media, and many were influenced into deciding to make yet more encampments at more universities themselves. Suddenly there were hundreds of encampments and groups of protesters living in tent villages that were supposed to depict unity with palestinians who were living in encampments which would not be too dissimilar for the message to not get accross.

These encampments were created by students and some universtiy faculty members and consisted of tent-dwellings that are similar or are identical to what hikers and campers would buy for themselves. Seeing some news coverage of the events, I did spot some high quality brands for tents that were used in these camps. University students and Faculty are typically well off, and comprise a good portion of the demographics of welth in the country. Elite universities also had encampments, and it would be expected that students of these schools would come from families of yet higher levels of wealth. I do not think everyone went out and procured tents specifically for that protest, although some certainly did. It is more likely that students and faculty members who come from higher levels of income simply found the camping and hiking supplies they already had, and so had good brand gear that elite hikers would potentially have for creating their camp sites in their encampments.

These camps were intended to resemble refugee or settlement camps. Campers stayed close together, and their dwellings are not too dissimilar from homeless camps too. Homeless camps, Refugee Camps, Settlement Camps, all have similarities. These camps also resemble simple camp grounds in national parks, although in these camp grounds, usually there is more spacing. That's not always the case. RV Parks and other kinds of camp grounds are sometimes crowded. If one travels frequently as an RVer one does encounter these parks in a wide variety. We've also seen the way some live in poorer countries–worldwide people sometimes cluster together and live in huts, homemade dwellings, tents, and so on, and some are living quite well. Some prefer to live with simplicity and in close proximity to others in smaller homes.

These students of the elite who were already campers who were choosing to symbolize their support for Palestinians were already owners of hiking equipment designed for camping, which means they must enjoy camping for recreation and socialization, and they probably enjoyed being together for their protests. Wealthy people in RVs of various expensive kinds including motor homes voluntarily tour around and prefer to live in camping areas with others, who are not as well off. These other people may be using simple tents or may hav inexpensive trailers. RV parks are a strange kind of mix of high prosperity in retirement, and simple vacationing of others who represent the full diversity of income level, investment and savings. Again they do this for enjoyment. Some save their whole lives to retire this way, and some find this an easy way to live inexpensively, and both of these lifestyles are not too dissimilar from living in an encampment, at least as far as the dorming goes.

Wealthy people buy expensive gear to enjoy camping, hiking, and living in simplicity. As their lifestyle gets closer to being like a camper, they become more similar to homeless people. If they enjoy it and find it adventurous, of course the homeless people do too. The student encampments would not work as a symbol for Palestinian encampments if they did not resemble one another. That the students were using gear that indicates they already camp would show that there is again an overlap with homelessness.

Why is there this huge issue with homelessnes while wealthy people and people well off enjoy themselves camping, and eventually have the likeness of homeless people when they are finally successful doing it. Homeless people, hikers, and others, who have done it more are more adventurous arguably, have a longer history and more experience doing it, and may enjoy it more. After all, why do they choose to live that way? Notice that homelessness and an adventurous life can be a source of jealousy for the wealthy who feel they can't actually try that sort of life, or don't have the skills yet to live that way. Some well known examples exist of adventurous people who give up their property in order to live in nature, and to live without having to work so hard. This includes people like Christopher McCandless, the person depicted in the book and movie "Into the Wild". He gave up his savings and career to travel and explore the country with less, and had many adventures that people admire, which explains the popularity of the book and film. There are also religious founders who have stories about how they left the market system to live out in nature with greater freedom. Siddhartha, "Buddha", for example, has a story in which he left the life of being a prince to live in nature as an ascetic. There are similar stories in the Jewish and Christian texts.

The overlaps of wealth and homelessness in the area of camping and adventure explain partly why the issue of homelessness has not been solved, and why there are people who dislike those who are homeless. There is an ancient division of interests: to be free and advanturous and to have wealth living in the market system. People on both sides want both for themselves. The homeless would love to be wealthy, and the wealthy would love to live adventurously too. The homeless have fewer options, but the super wealth often live both lifestyles alternating between living in luxury and exploring. Explorers themselves had to have considerable resources to go on their expeditions. We forget who they had to be in order to really become explorers and they were not destitute. The better parts of their lives may be when they were camping in Nepal, or traveling to the North Pole. Many who are less risky would still consider their time along trails or at campgrounds in national parks to be more memorable moments in their lives, and some would wish they could do it more often or live that way. The writer of the book "The Ultimate Walker" lived until an advanced age only living as an adventurous hiker, camper, explorer. If a homeless person wanted more information on strategy to live that they, they might benefit by reading that book. But I think the primary audience of that book are people who have resources who enjoy hiking. They have to use the same literature to gain the expertise required to do it well! This makes this man who wrote this book a sort of expert in both domains.

The reader should know I'm already aware of other issues involved in homelessness, like drug addiction, inability to be employed, low intelligence, medical illness, injury, and pathology, and that is not the current subject for this posting. I will discuss that too. For now I'll say that part of the religious messaging is that anyone can lose much of what they have very rapidly, and end up in a state of disease or illness. Wealthy can be easily lost. This means most wealthy if they think about it would be aware that if they did lose their prosperity they would be similar to homeless people in various ways and as they are increasingly less prosperous will face the same kind of decision making and conditions homeless people do. But at the end of it they get adventure and enjoyment potentially if they have a positive outlook. They may not think of this while they are considering their potential hiking and climbing vacations, however, but they are planning specifically for enjoyment. Even plain homelessness due to severe destitution offers and advanture of interest, and some wealthy people would like to journalistically explore that mode of life to understand it better. So even the journalistic explorer who wants to learn more may find adventure in the same way a homeless person does and may find some admiration for the lives they are living.

This is interesting to compare with the student encampments protesting the treatment of Palestine. They became a news story and in the process learned more about the Palestinians, got to use their camping equipment, and they certainly enjoyed it for a period.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="new-artistry-approximating-skill-of-historical-masters">New Artistry Approximating Skill of Historical Masters</a>

*Sunday, June 02, 2024 11:28:06*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Recently I've been working on developing my artistic skill again, starting out feeling somewhat like a beginner, although I do have some talents. I began by sketching a portrait of myself, that turned out not to be a great likeness, but more like the appearance of Matt Damon, a person I was told when I was a teenager I looked like. On my second attempt, there was an improvement, but again, the result did not look really like me as much as it shockingly looked like my brother. I never thought of myself as really resembling my brother but seeing his face appear when I was trying to draw my own confirms to me that indeed he really does have a good resemblance. The parts of the drawing that were not quite correct were the width of the face, and overall proportions of various facial features. The combination of miscalculations in the drawing combined together to create a face looking like my brother's. It's funny to confirm that you really do look like certain other people by making mistaken drawings that produce their faces without any planning.

Anyway, after doing these drawings I became more attentive to portraits being exhibited by others on social media. On TikTok I discovered a portrait artist who draws only with ballpoint pen, and my practice too was with ball point pen. However, his skill is very masterful, and his drawings seem to be approaching precise photorealism. He's a young artist perhaps not older than 25 years old, and probably younger. As I was observing his various postings of his pieces of art, I thought to myself that he would be just as good an artist in another medium very likely, and I imagined that in the future he could create very skilled paintings. I was thinking about what he would move onto next, after having already perfected ballpoint pen portraits.

He is aware of his talent and shares it knowingly while making other postings intended to provide guidance and encouragement to other artists who also are doing portraits. He kindly critiques them, mentions where the strong points happen to be, and where there could be some development, and he does this without trying to damage the perception of the quality of art they produced. He has provided commentaries on very good works of art from other portrait artists in various stages of development, each of which are better than what I can now produce but are reachable, and he mentions how long they've been doing their art and how amazingly far it appears they can go if they continue on their present course. Meanwhile, it is clear that the art he has produced already is a distance away on their trajectories, and my trajectory, and it would take some time to eventually reach his skill level. But it's also clear it may not be really possible to reach his skill level and he's very young. He has achieved his skill very quickly.

Driving today on a road trip out from Phoenix through Kanab and parts of Utah, I was thinking more about my reactions to his work, and realized that already he has really reached a level of productions that must be similar to what great masters of history have produced. We recall famous masterpieces and imagine they are unreachable, and focusing on those works we really do tend to think less of works created by present day artists. These older masterpieces "shadow" new masterpieces as we might say. Today there are many artists that are certainly better than the older masters but they simply don't get the attention that the older works receive, and that is unfortunate. Thinking again about this particular artist, a person who draws with only a ballpoint pen on regular drawing paper, I realized he already really is a master. I thought about how I wondered what he could do next, that might be "better" or "greater", that he could achieve more by doing his work with paint, but that ignores the fact that he really is already a master and has the same skill level very likely as those producing portraits in historical times.

He has already created a large number of portraits that are of a quality I would consider complete if I were the artist. There would be good reason to continue work and making improvements, but if I were that artist I would be happy to include similar works of art in my books and maybe not do much more. If I had his skill and anyone looked at my books, they would immediately consider the works to be of a professional. I would be very satisfied only being able to make portraits and other pieces of art at that quality, and being someone who does much more than drawing, I wouldn't want to necessarily go much further myself.

So this is a young person who has already reached the skill of Leonardo Da Vinci for example. Thinking back to various works I've seen in art's history, I think he exceeds many of their works. Much that we appreciate in the older works involves themes of the time, and historical aspects that do not exist today that create more interest than would exist. Clothing and facial features seem to differ from today, and if some of these works were photographic instead, we would still enjoy them greatly because of what they depict, and the degree of difference from what we experience today. The actual skillfulness of the art does seem in many cases to be less than what this person is able to produce.

It seems likely and possible using this artist as an example that many new artists have exceeded the quality of early masters and did so at a pace that is much faster because it's now possible to learn the same skills in a compressed period of time. With plenty of examples, there is time to move more quickly through the educational or self-educational process. Once one is creating art this well, one has certainly hit the mastery milestone as it hitherto existed. Even if expectations are greater or excessive today.

There are two points above that I now want to bring together. It appears easier now to become a master if one has the talent, and producing masterful work really means it is masterful. In other words, it is satisfying and is satisfactory. Young artists can then create works of art that have a timeless aspect, this being something characteristic of museum pieces from earlier artists. Being able to create something that has the qualities of timelessness, relates to my wondering about what would be next. Again, if I had this skill level, I would feel my drawing ability is done and whatever I would produce would be so good that each piece would be good enough to publish in my publications. But what happens next? What has to develop further? What improvement is there?

I think one largely produces more works that have timeless qualities it seems that one will mostly just be making more. Different subjects, meanings, intentions, objectives, media, dimensions, and so on. What is one trying to achive creating more pieces this way? Connecting this subject now with earlier recent writings, I think the work would go towards, getting attention, notability, building conversation, earning money, doing what one enjoys, and publishing with the goal of getting the work into a more permanent and accessible record. Maybe one would like to get work into museums, or art books.

Here I will want to realate this to the actual realistic trajectory of valuable relations with other people, and think about what might be an optimal pathway for artistic self-development. I worry sometimes about artists. How they will react to receiving insufficient attention, and insufficient praise of their works. I worry about their likely inability to earn a large income on their works, considering scarcity of related jobs and positions. Also the difficulty of starting a business and earning money from artistic creations.

*More soon*  




<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="marketing-categories-of-my-products-ii">Marketing Categories of My Products II</a>

*Thursday, May 30, 2024 18:14:13*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Here I will resume from the prior posting about identifying marketing categories of products as it relates humorously to conversations with others. 

An initial list of targeted markets. This will have to be developed to include specific audiences and information where each of the various markets exist, where people are active, where they interact, and what products they are already using that might relate. As I was saying this procedure would also identify who I would want to talk to on a personal level about these same topics and markets. It is clear too that these relate to the structuring of knowledge. This is a bit of an initial and somewhat disorganized "mind dump" that will be organized in detail soon. Points without elaboration will be elaborated.

- Readers of Psychology, Psychometrics.
  - Psychologists, Lay Psychologists, High Intelligence Community Members, and those interested in the subject matter. People into Self-Help as it relates to giftedness or rarities related to quality of thought and talents.
- Philosophy
  - Professional Philosophers, Lay Philosophers, Readers of Philosophy. Members of Philosophical societies, teachers and professors interested in Philosophy. Students.
- Hiking, Traveling, Camping, Homesteading, Off-grid living, Homelessness Studies
  - Self Help, People interested in Hiking Equipment, Ultralight hiking enthusiasts, Hiking enthusiasts, Outdoorsman, Survivalists.
- Natural Lifestyle
  - Self Help, Foraging, Harvesting from Markets, Frugality, Selection of 
- Communications
- Archiving, Librarianship, Digital Retention
- Ethics, Moral Philosophy
  - People into religion, self-help, ethical answers.
- Mathematics
- Physics
- Logic
- Computing, Computer Science
- Professional Enterprise Technology
- Publishing, Editing, Writing, Book Making
- Design, Art, and Architecture
- Interpersonal Relations
- Law
- Social Technology Platforms, Online Socializing
- Death
- Economics, Financial Studies, Banking, Investment 
- Planning, Strategy, Life Planning

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="marketing-categories-of-my-productions">Marketing Categories of My Products</a>

*Thursday, May 30, 2024 11:40:55*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Of interest to me lately has been the topic of when to chat with other people and when to abstain. When to expect some valuable conversation and when not. When to share things on social media, versus when to simply wait to market ideas. These topics interrelate in interesting ways.

People sometimes suggest that one might benefit from working hard in isolation until one has developed a writing or product of interest before sharing. There is the idea that sharing along the way may result in thwarting of efforts by others and poor or untimely feedback. Instead, the idea is, that one finishes the work when it is polished and is at a more advanced stage in readiness to show. This is done when there is an expectation that reactions will be more positive and supportive than negative. An implication of this is that one is not really transparent or conversational about what one is doing for long periods of time. One likes to socialize and chat, without plans like these ones, whenever social moments happent to occur or there is a motivation to socialize. So people share on social media when they feel like talking, and they talk with colleagues, friends, family and people in the public just as they run into them. The suggestion that one should isolate while one is creative indicates that all these people shouldn't know about what one is doing and what one is planning. The idea certainly includes the thought that these are the people who would do all the thwarting. If one looks at one's socialization, surely the list of family, friends, colleagues, people encountered in the public, and people encountered online is very comprehensive. It does include these people.

Waiting until one has something complete to discuss is not too different than telling people they should wait until they are ready to sell or market before talking to anyone about what one is doing, that one cares deeply about. I am not totally in agreement with this viewpoint, and I continue to share often and transparently, and simply talk about what I'm doing, but the frequency that I'm willing to do that is much lower now. Because it is true that there are too many obstructive and opposing people.

Another related idea is that very good quality conversational moments are rare, and that one cannot expect to get any great popularity, especially if one has a very high quality mind and communicates at a higher level. I've committed to speaking less, expecting less, and self-benefiting more from quicker interactions that have any good level of quality. It appears though, that better interactions happen when there is something to share that is more complete, easier to understand, more polished, and more obvious as to its value. This may mean that sharing at the time of market readiness really is a better time to talk about things with others, at least where talking relates to self wherever projects are important. I'm almost a walking human project of projects, so there's very little I want to discuss that isn't a project that is incomplte or has a completeness that is not something others can comprehend easily. But I have a complete product and more complete products are underway, and now I'm wonding about marketing and how to have good conversation that is more meaningful and timeful in relation.

Additionally, one has better conversation when it is with the right audience. I just showed my published book "The Velocity of Significance and Ideation" to someone I've interacted a fair amount with, and he was interested, but I couldn't say he is the best audience to show it to. The context and interest didn't align really and it was more of a show and tell of what I was doing, since he asked about my work, and I told him I was a retiree and author, nearly finished with a book. Showing this book to others will certainly prompt varying levels of interest depending on who it is. One would have to like books and reading/writing, or appreciate and respect it. Also, one will have to like the subject matter, or appreciate that too in order to wish to converse about it. My communications flow into books that are in a number of disciplines. This means my mind and the books will relate in varying ways to other people. Everyone knows this is how people tend to relate well or not, and mutual interest is a pathway towards friendship that usually has constraints of interest. So now I'm thinking, and have been thinking about, who do I talk to about these books with my mind that is basically just trying to talk about the subjects contained, and who do I market to?

Who gets talked to and who gets marketed to turn out to be the same people. I like ultralight hiking and traveling. If I want to talk about that I may join a social group about that topic or join some group excursions. That way I might have more friends who would relate to me in a constrained fashion with a focus on hiking and travel. Now, we would like the same things and products potentially and would want to share information on that. The information exchange would be useful and helpful and I would try to value these sporadic conversations more now that I know so many conversations are of less value. But I want to share self and talk more detail, and that is at a higher level of thinking and talking, so relates to book plans I have underway, which is the avenue for sharing more developed thought. I'm supposed to abstain a period to avoid thwarting until its more developed and at the time its more developed I'm told I will have something better to share and discuss. The book itself can be read which is a better level of communication too. More is needed to integrate and develop this topic thoroughly, but the point can be seen that products and interests relate, and talking about it gets better if there is more to share and if self relates sufficiently to projects and products, waiting until they are well developed might be advisable. Marketing then relates again, because of mutual interest in products, and because friendship is focused on mutual areas of focus. Conversation is marketing. If one has a product, one talks about it somewhat like how one informs about it in marketing. Some persuasion is expected. And–for the interest in ultralight hiking the pathway is on the marketing domain, which is the interest domain as it relates to that activity.

But I don't just want to talk to ultralight hikers. Some will have interests in other domains that are similar, and that's why there is even a market space of sorts of related products, like Outdoorsman Gear for examples, and also relates to how their is a friendship comfort zone and space where the friendship remains. It explains why some friends don't mix with others. Market space and frienship space relate. It can get general but as a rule it is never or extremely rarely globally general.

So now I'm imagining you're a person with many interests like me. Now there are lots of topics and interests and nobody who shares all of them with you. This is why you likely have many people to talk to and many friends to share and receive with. If you write a book, one friend likes it and cares, and the other doesn't. You're in the friendship and product market and there is a big giant venn diagram of interest and disinterest.

You also went to college on one subject, and your friend studied something else. You had one career, and they had another, There is misunderstanding in these areas of talking. But where there is a mutual interest, there is better discussion.

Since we both have many interests, how do we direct our products and conversations? Well, we direct them to wherever there is a topical interest, and that is identified with Marketing. Thought of this way, marketing is extremely simplistic. What do you want to talk about and share concerning is just like where you want to try to sell. You just find that population of people that really relate, and joing up, share, market, and discuss in those areas. We have many interests though. So that means we need to do the same thing for each and every interest! It's easy, but now you've got many different kinds of groups, audiences and friends. You expanded your social life and marketing reach if you've got a wide variety of products.

My writings are steadily growing towards having many diverse markets. The interests vary greatly from work to work even though I bring them to cohesion. That means my future efforts will need to include probably thinking about more categories of relationships than I thought I would want to have. I was more interested in having very general friendships with greater intimacy and shared knowledge, but knowing now this is not really feasible given earlier writings, and knowing that marketing makes sense in relationship to this subject matter, I am aware that I simply need more relations and not less of greater intimacy. Some may have thought "I'm lonely, I can't find anyone who has my interest, and my friends and family don't care much about what I do". Well, an explanation I've arrived at is that they are all constrained relationships with focal points of interest. People resist developing outside the focus and resist change. But if one simply thinks about topics and interests and forms new frienships and relationships, one has covered more of what one would like to cover in one's life and has a more fulfilling assortment of relationships. People with many friends who may not have thought about it this way maybe would quickly agree and see how their relationships really already do this kind of thing.

When I first sat down to start writing this I was thinking I would simply list all of the different topical categories where I would start to converse more and where I would start marketing. That is something I'll have to resume later. In the meantime the topic has more conclusively arrived at what constitutes better relationship having and making, with strangers, potential friends, and consumers, all as one human population. 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-diminishing-return-of-thinking">The Diminishing Return of Thinking</a>

*Tuesday, May 28, 2024 10:10:18*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In Economics one learns about the "law of diminishing returns". The law of diminishing returns is very useful, and has general meaningfulness and application, heuristically. It's easy to understand, but there is a mathematical component too, which can be ignored for our purposes, although it helps to know that the mathematical component does exist to provide substantiation and rationale. It was first explained to me in a course on Economics in the following way: If you eat one slice of pizza, it's delicious and the value is very high. If you eat a second slice, it's very delicious pizza still. The third slice starts to make it clear there is a downward trend in value to the pizza eating. Still it's delicious but less so. Eventually the pizza is no longer wanted. For all people, when they are very hungry, the first slice is the most prized. This is an example provided from a basic experience mostly everyone has had, but notice it's already not strictly about economics directly. It's an application of a general rule that applies to so much more and this is clear in hearing about the pizza example which is already just a selected instance. There are many things you buy that have a diminishing value after the first is had.

For someone just learning of this law for the first time, the next things I have to say may not seem to have as good of a foundation, because it's an early leap to a subject where this has not been applied. But just like the pizza example, it's a very good selection. People who have been exposed to economics and have thought about it a while will understand that what is being described is a similar case and there is still applicability.

I recently realized there is a diminishing return on thinking itself, and I connected this with my earlier view on how learning takes place. Learning in AI is already known to be statistical. As young children, when we first learn about basic things that are still entirely new, we pay a lot of attention and think about it quite a lot. We dream about it. One could say there is a diminishing return on dreams. The thinking eventually slows or becomes less frequent about what one has discovered. One feels one knows about it already. It then becomes more thoughtlessly included in action and perception. Insects like bees might seem really interesting and unusual and foreign as a very young child. Later, they are so familiar they become forgotten and are not interest provoking. The thought about the bees diminished in value while the knowledge replaces the thinking. The result of having a diminished value of thinking results in a more mature and knowledgeable person who better interacts with the world. The learning includes a kind of statistical summary of data gathered while learning. More can be said on the statistics, but inferential statistics is an inductive approach to explaining and making generalizations. Learning is like that too. Once the learning of general knowledge has been attained, there is a reduced value of thinking.

The statement "reduced or diminishing value of thinking" requires explanation. In *The Velocity of Significance and Ideation* I explain that significance increases as one gets more mature. This makes sense because when one is carefully thinking about highly general knowledge, what one is thinking about has greater power and value. This is true even if the thinking quantity and frequency has been diminished. The value *of* thinking frequently about it is reduced (this might challenge the economic viewpoint somewhat). But the value of the fewer general thoughts is greater and is more significant and includes a more comprehensive and complex brain network. Even if it seems true that there is a diminishing return on thinking, it does not mean there is not an increasing return on different kinds of thoughts, relating to the significance.

Here it appears there is somewhat a contradiction on the valuation of thinking. But there is a diminishing return also on this more significant kind of thought until a greater completion. This is something I've been experiencing lately. Much is solved in life already, and I'm thinking increasingly more generally connecting highly significant and viewpoints approaching finality. This results in a decreased need to think about even what is most significant and valuable. I can already feel that as I get closer and closer to a more final general level of thinking that the time utilized for that thinking is no longer necessary, like a child who learns something, knows it, and no longer needs to think about it. We don't need to think about how to walk, how to drive a car, maybe how to fly a plane, later perhaps how to run a business (perhaps), and if one is in an especially good position, how to think philosophically about certain things. Knowing all that would need to be known about many areas of life, one starts to get into repetitiveness about these things too. Thoughts that are repetitive are felt and if they relate to a finality of solution, there is a strong feeling eventually that those thoughts are not needed or are undesirable. Like having too much pizza for too long. And so even advanced thinking has a pizza related analogy that is useful.

What is there to think about once one has "solved it all" if one has really done that. Supposed you lived to 1000 and you really solved all of life's problems and learned mostly what is useful to your particular mode of being. Maybe now you want to look at more details, but about things less general or directly useful to you. You enjoy curiosities again. Maybe you want to learn some scientific topic, and maybe you want to learn a bit about what's around you like more about animals and plant life. You become an observer.

Here it seems since there is a diminishing return on thinking that one has merely directed attention to what remains that is enjoyable. Because our brains are limited, there will be more things that are enjoyable to attend to. But there is a perception too that this is not as valuable as the other learning, but since that's done already, what one has remaining to think about and do is less valuable. This may indicate there is a diminishing return on time had for experience. And after enough time, one may perceive it has been a long enough life, and really death has an attractiveness. Maybe death can be like eating something for the very first time? Maybe it can be maximally enjoyable instead of maximally fear provoking. Like a kid you can just experience it for the first time.

Death appears to be something separate from this diminishing returns idea, because it simply can't be experienced over and over again. If it were possible in medicine to keep regenerating you after death, and you are able to experience it again and again, it may turn out it loses its value until it's so known that there is no concern for having it. Death would be less interesting. It could be neutral or something that is not wanted for experience again.

There is a need to think further on this idea that death can be a great first experience.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="i-became-the-thing-i-want-and-wanted-to-be">I Became The Thing I Want and Wanted to Be</a>

*Saturday, May 25, 2024 01:36:39*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-peer-review-process-of-academic-journals-must-vary">The Peer Review Process of Academic Journals Must Vary</a>

*Friday, May 24, 2024 10:08:52*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Academic journals that have a peer review system integrated into their editorial process vary greatly. This is necessary because they all operate according to their own business plans and processes, and there are so many, they would not be using identical approaches. Journals that are peer review vary widely, in their ownership, editorship, composition of peer review teams, peer review processes used, disciplines covered (meaning different editorial needs), and quality of issues and results. Some have the highest quality and some have the lowest quality even in this domain. There are about 60,000 journals, and the subset of these journals indicates a huge number exist. Journal publications range in complexity. Some concern medicine, chemistry, and physics, and some concern more basic subject matter. The needs of peer review in the high sciences is much greater than the need of peer review in other domains.

Since they vary so widely, it is hard to know what generally or abstractly a peer review process offers to quality. To claim that peer review results in quality is like prescriptively claiming that any peer review process whatsoever is adequate. Some of the thousands of peer review journals will have inadequate and poor peer review processes, yet their outward position being and established "peer reviewed journal" will bias readers and others into thinking they will have qualities they may not have. This is because "Peer Review" has been connected to quality but people have not considered the degree of variation that exists in these processes. It is somewhat like marking produce organic. That does not imply quality. There is a degree of quality in the produce itself, and then there is a degree to which it is organic. Both the quality of the source and the quality of the organic farming method contributes to the quality that results. Likewise, the quality of the source of the writing along with the editorial peer-review process jointly produce the quality they come together to create. And so the editors and peer-review contributions are not overstated, recall that the author or authors are the ones who really contributed most to the final writing.

Peer review does not only exist in journals but in careers where work performed is cross-checked, and in these other careers it will be more obvious to participants that the quality of the peer-review process varies greatly and can even deteriorate quality. Since I was a software architect and technogist I was sometimes involved or in charge of testing processes, and was involved in quality assurance. To ensure quality, the code written by software authors is reviewed. Peers are required to review the code for issues, perform testing, and are supposed to reject code until it is really ready for "production". The quality of the outcome relates firstly to the quality of the written code by programmers, and secondly to the quality of the review and release process. Peer-reviewers are code editors. Results of code are publications of sorts, since they have to be edited before finalized and distributed for public consumption. Sometimes the editing process simply stagnates authorship and creates bad team morale. This would happen in academics and in journal article writing too. Sometimes the development organization is small and they use less peer review tools and processes, and sometimes they are large and have a complex code release process. Sometimes the complexity is appropriate to scale, and sometimes not. Sometimes there is too much peer review, and sometimes too little. The people doing the peer review process may care about results or not. Some may do nearly no job approving everythihng, some will do little, and some will be overbearing and have recommendations that don't improve. There are control issues that exist within peer review. Anyone in the software industry who has worked many projects for many companies will know that the review process simply varies widely and does not always contribute well to code quality.

Most software companies have code review processes. They can't state that they have them and so as a result they are to be trusted fully to always provide great quality. What companies produce obviously varies quite a lot and we know this simply by considering what software we've been exposed to. The very worst software likely has some peer review testing. That they can't simply communicate they have "peer reviewed software" for others to believe they have quality is a given. It's an assumption. But it happens to be true that the same must be true for journal publications. 

Books are a kind of loophole to peer review. They have some editorial review and as a default that is a kind of minimal peer review. But that editing may be performed by the author. There are many authors of extremely good quality books, but they have not been "peer reviewed" like academic articles have. Yet we trustingly read from these authors and expect good quality. I software too, a very good software programmer can alone create amazing applications and code. Their results are reviewed by themselves, and sometimes they are the ones who would also be the leads in peer reviews. Their self-review may exceed what reviewin g of others can achieve. If extremely great, others would be unable to peer review them because what they have done may not really be something they can understand well enough to contribute to. Many journal articles surely have been written without a great need for even editing. It may be that for some really great writing, peer review pretends to do their work. They see that it's great, have some suggestions that ay or may not be required, and then simply let it pass through. For any journal that immediately agrees that the writing is good enough for publication has not really done a peer review. The writing of the author simply produced the quality alone. If there were no such process, the results would be the same if the submission was the same. In this way peer review publications are identical with non-peer review publications.

This all should persuade a reader that an appelation of "peer review" status is insufficient to judge quality of any particular publication. There will be "good" journals that have a peer review process, and there will be less good ones. There are probably bad ones but I'm trying to be charitable. In order to more fully understand the quality of a journal as it relates to the peer-reviewing and the authorship, a study of a large sample of journals would be required. What actually is their process? I don't think people think about this. I think they think in a binary fashion about whether it has it or not, and that's a mistake. It does not admit of variation, and this article has provided, I think, compelling cross-discipline shared reasons for agreeing that the variation exists and is important for making an evaluation.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="an-initial-list-of-job-roles-ive-had">An Initial List of Job Roles I've Had</a>

*Friday, May 24, 2024 08:54:38*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

*CEO, CTO, CFO, COO, Vice Chair, Elected Politician, President, Retiree, Owner, Chief Scientist, Chief Solution Architect, Chief Architect, Editor-in-Chief, Executive Presentor, Executive Advisor, Executive, Dev Ops Architect, Dev Ops Manager, Data Architect, Information Architect, Digital Asset Architect, System Architect, Datacenter Strategist, Disaster Recovery, Data Engineer, Editor, Author, Director, Strategist, Program Manager, Software Security Architect, Security Consultant, Project Manager, Producer, Product Manager, Migration Manager, Migration Specialist, Automtation Architect, Automation Programmer, Database Developer/Engineer, Automation Consultant, QA Manager, Test Manager, Tester/QA Specialist, Interface Architect, Cloud Architect, Risk Manager, Economist, Financial Analyst, Interface/Web Designer, Print Designer, Senior Engineer, Engineer, Developer, BD (Business Developer), SC (Solutions Consultant), PSC (Partner Solutions Consultant), Lead, MSA (Multi-Solution Architect), B2B Salesperson, Retail Salesperson, Solution Salesperson, Supervisor, Librarian, Evidence Specialist, Chef/Cook, Waiter, Contractor, Book-keeper/Accountant (Non-CPA), Lawyer/Attorney (Pro-se), Trial Attorney, Litigator, Legal Writer, Procurer/Buyer, Systems Administrator, Webmaster, Content Manager, Content Writer, Technical Writer, Manager, Peer-reviewer, HR Director, Delivery Manager, Federal Consultant, Government Consultant, Consultant, Management Consultant, Athlete, Typist, Secretary, Inventor, Marketing Director, Advertiser, Printer, Bookmaker, Journalist, Back End Programmer, Programmer, Snow Remover, Home Contractor, Analytics Director, Business Consultant, Coordinator, Customer Service Specialist, Public Relations Manager, Investor, Bullion Dealer, Psychologist, Philosopher, Moral Philosopher, Secular Priest, Ethicician, Truck Driver (Box Truck Delivery), Accounts Receivable, Payroll Manager, Cash Transporter, Depositor, Photographer, Model, Videographer, Cinematographer, Nature Photographer, Barber, Homeless Person, Camper/Hiker, Backpacker, Traveler, Booking Agent/Manager, Travel Planner, Planner, Dishwasher, Housekeeper/Cleaner, Carwasher/Detailer, Woodworker, Student, Academician, Dental Hygeinist, Archivist, Student Archaeologist/Anthropologist, Artist/Student Artist, Farmer, Gardener, Nutritionist, Daily Planner, Assistant, Transporter, Dietician, Psychometrician, Consulting Psychologist, Teacher, Tutor, Mentor, Data Entry Specialist, Communications Specialist, Early Childhood Educator, Educator, Curriculum Planner, Trainer, Training Manager, Tutorial Writer, Documentation Specialist, Leather Worker (Faux Leather), Deliverer/Delivery Specialist, Inventory Manager, Warehouse Inventory Manager, Asset Manager, Digital Asset Manager, Digital Asset Specialist, Logger, Blogger, Dissertationist, Publisher, Musician, Roadside Assistance, Telephone Support, Meeting Lead, Meeting Planner, Solution Planner, Enterprise Architect, Organizational Architect, Cashier, Front-End Developer, Parental Assistant, Parent-Teacher Coordinator, Social Psychologist, Team Lead, Governance Director, External Organization Coordinator, Partner Salesperson, Sales Strategist, Business Strategist, Corporate Strategy, Pet Owner, Pet Caretaker, Vegan/Vegetarian Meal Planner, Dog Trainer, Computer Scientist, Researcher, Mathematician, Applied Mathematician, Theoretical/Pure Mathematician, Logician, Linguist. Representative, Customer Sales Manager, Enterprise Sales Manager, EX (Enterprise Executive), Staff Manager, Contract Writer, Contract Analyst, Dealmaker, Legal Business Planner, Intelligence Scientist, Process Designer, Business Process Manager, Executive Startup Planner, Business Case Analyst, Corporate Resturcturing Specialist, Corporate Cancellation Analyst, Lifestyle Coach, Travel Itinerary Planner, Budgeter, Business Forecaster, Technology Forecaster, Digital Transformation Lead, Tourist, Product Tester, Expatriot, Restauranteur, Field Scientist, Cognitive Scientist, Mergers and Acquisitions Planner, Release Manager.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="a-model-of-business-using-tens">A Model of Business Using Tens</a>

*Friday, May 24, 2024 01:26:48*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

A model of business using tens only may be helpful for planning for feasibility and quickly making adjustments to make projections and useful estimations.

Years: 10
Customers: 1000
Cost: 10
Seats: 10
Employees: 10
Hours: 10
Space: 1,000
Salary: 10,000
Days: 100

Bringing each figure to what happens to be an accurate number for time, location, market, is just a simple scaling of the tens above. One might think: "Well, already it's decimal so why not use real figures?" I think that may affect the ability to more easily estimate, recognize the influence of the various factors of market, year, location, etc... These are then considered factors worth manipulating further. It keeps it separate somewhat from estimation but can be easily used for estimation. The mathematics appears easier for anyone including anyone who is good at math.

In a spreadsheet, factors and combinations create subtotals and totals. One merely manipulates these factors in order to determine feasibility and estimate revenues and profits.

Part of the objective of this line of thinking is to see what is minimally usable for business planning, modeling, analysis and operations. It is easy to communicate.

There is some silliness in the simplicity, but business is also a fairly simple machine that can be modeled simply. It is an input and output system of simple money. At a huge scale and at a small scale, the model is very similar. This explains why someone who owns a small business may know a lot, and why someone who owns very large businesses may still speak simply about it.

I'm experienced in business, and am aware that anyone who looks at this will think it too rudimentary. I agree it needs to be developed. I've just listed out values for certain categories and matched them to relevant tens.

More on this soon.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="illusions-of-communication-and-high-range-intelligence">Illusions of Communication and High Range Intelligence</a>

*Wednesday, May 22, 2024 23:54:35*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

One of the lessons taught in communications, which I find to be a valuable major and area of study, despite its having been identified as perhaps an easier major, is that messages may not have been understood even after there have been signals indicating success of transaction. Even before learning about communications in college, where I have taken just a single course (although there is some coverage in Psychology), lessons are taught with games. I can think of several games that were meant to teach that communication degrades as it is shared. If something is told to someone one-on-one, directly to a single person, and they share that to another person, and that person shares to another, and this happens again and again, eventually the relay of the last person may be a very poor copy of the original. Nearing the worst scenario it will say something logically and compositionally different from the first message, and will constitute misinformation. If it is fairly well transmitted, it probably will include wording that does not paraphrase the original and still distorts. Seldom will it be a very good quality copy of what was originally stated.

But degradation of messaging from a source message to later recipients isn't the only problem. There's are illusions that what has been said was even heard. Or that it hasn't been partially heard, and only partially comprehended. People of course conceal this oftentimes, particularly if they are of the disposition to conceal, but also if they are in a situation that may punish what might appear to show incompetency. Thus in business meetings, legal cases with jurors, lawyers and judges, there may very often be displays of understanding where there was little. Transactionally it is possible for people talking to each other directly to mutually not hear, not attend, and not understand, but still give cues to each other that they are mutally in agreement. Keeping the appearance of mutual agreement is well understood and is even enforced by cultures. This can create an illusion that a conversation between two or more people has had any success.

Conversations and communications that are fruitful show more indications of mutual understanding than those that do not. If there is a good degree of mutual development, it shows that takeaways and learnings of meetings and talks have caused changes in participants that match meanings of what was shared on both sides. Many conversations and relationships don't have these properties of mutual growth. If they do not have the properties of mutual growth, it may really indicate that illusions related to communication are present particularly if one believes there has been good understanding. In additition to what happens during conversations that impede shared understanding are what happens later: diminished recollection of what has transpired and memory regressions. Some seem to have learned shortly after or during a conversation but show signs later that they cannot recall what was discussed. This amounts to a vanishing of the conversations that were had, making those conversations arguably less purposeful or valuable.

Replacement, alteration, and imagination can alter or supplant earlier discussions. Some will simply substitute what they thought earlier for what was supposed to be meaningful learnings. Some will replaced what they heard with what they think they heard, what they preferred they heard, or translations that amount to large changes in what was said. Effectively what they recall is not what the conversation was, and maybe they can't play back conversations well in their minds. They may think they understood the conversation and later act as though they remember it by simply recollecting parts of the experience unrelated to the communication portion. They remember what you were wearing, what you looked like, where you both were, and maybe other aspects of the environment, which makes you believe that they understood more, while really the conversation part was lost or changed.

Judging by the assumption that I've made and the assumptions others routinely make that when a conversation was had it was nearly fully understood, it appears we are very weak communicators, even if we are good at reading people and situations. We don't really seem to analyze this much, and we hear from others little about the consequences of this topic that would be far reaching and would influence behavior extensively making talking to one another a very different activity than it is presently. We'd ask if we were heard, expect restatements occasionally, make restatements and paraphrases to check for understanding, which is something I do often and habitually, and to look for signals about any of the aforementioned illusions. We'd scan for, and check concerning, recollections, their level of degradation, alteration, vanishing with memory, and loss from inattention. We've all had sufficient socialization to know looking back on thousands of interactions that people don't really do these things actively. I'm included as someone who really has not effectively managed this–but there is the excuse for everyone that they don't really know how. It can seem rude to be too questioning, or too interested in restatement. I'm not sure anyone really has an expectation of mutual development.

Another way of expressing this is to think about what a very great exemplar of communication would be like if they really were able to manage the above, and if there are any people who fit the description. I think the reality is that there are no exemplars and none would fit the description of a master of the above. Rather, an expert communicator would be someone who exhibits *at least some of the time* a socially polite and smooth way of handling some but not all of the above issues. This means they are not developed to the point in which they could really illustrate to us a more complete resolution. Looking at this issue, it is obvious there could be no total resolution, it can only be more comprehensive and more complete, but there is no person living today who is close to what is achievable. If a person did it really well they might be so different from others in how they communicate that others would find them uncomfortable and rude by today's rules. I think pleasantness of conversation and conformity to existing rules creates a barrier to developing skills in this domain to the fullest. Also, there would not be enough willing participants to change their communication style. To do that would be to change many if not most conversations that are being had for the size of the changes required on so many points, and the need for repetition.

Witness testimony has been showed in the field of Psychology to be often very poor. This indicates that people are not the best at attending well enough to get clean exact copies of sensory information into their long term memory. They aren't really great sources of evidence of what is seen, heard or said. This shows that even for the very first transmission of information, great degradation, omission, and alteration has occurred. It also explains why in that game that teaches how information is lost with each communication and is very poor towards the end works–it simply degrades every time there is a conversation, which includes the very first one.

So when is conversation any good if communication appears to be so ineffective? When is it the best? When is it ideal? On noticing that there would be no living exemplars of the ideal, we know there is no conversation that would be free of defects. Knowing this we know that nearly all conversations are very far from what we have been assuming all this time, that there were few or no errors. Notice we mostly really do assume this in practice, but are very distant from having any living ideal. This means we are chronically affected by illusions related to communication in all of our socialization. But when does it seem to be good enough? To me, it appears to be good enough for this lifetime whenever there is a good mutual development as I was saying. Relationships can be somewhat appraised by the level of existence of mutual collaborative growth. When I was in my early twenties, already I was starting to utilize this method for determining if relationships were worthwhile, and I was using it as I was thinking about relationships I had that I wanted to be better. Why couldn't they be better? On the other side there just seemed to be stagnation and lack of growth, and reiteration of earlier thoughts that should have been altered with updates related to what was talked. Oftentimes with people it felt that conversations never happened at all, and for some it felt that way for years. How could people continue to keep saying the same things as if they had no recollection of time together? I was being influenced, why weren't they? Disillusionment with friends, family members, and others accumulated until the reality became more clear that they really were not able to communicate in a way that was valuable enough to maintain the relationships. It would be fine to see each other, but prolonged communication was really not a good way to spend time. I think most relationships can and should be evaluated this way and a very strong communicator would be more quickly able to see what relationships are valuable and simply skip some development. Other people would be found instead. I think very good conversation is not as common as people would want although it exists in mutual growth over time in some few relationships. It doesn't mean it can't occur, it just means it is much less frequent than people would think. And the issues are still present in these relationships and it is just a matter of degree.

If one really pays extremely close to one's own attention one will know that attention is very limited. Only a small piece of reality around is captured by our senses and can be stored in memory. All the time there is quite much around and near that is simply omitted from awareness. This has been proven easily again and again in the field of Psychology in well tested and accepted studies. Another humorous way to test if a relationship or conversationalist is worth talking to would be to see their view on this topic. If they think they have complete awareness, then there is a strong sign they are oblivious to their own experience. If oblivious to their own experience it means they haven't used that as a test against what they recall potentially. They may think they have perfect recollection. That is not someone to be around.

This topic is an important subtopic of the larger study of human shortcomings. The study of human shortcomings falls within the study of Moral Philosophy and Ethics at a large scale, and at the personal level. In my work, I seek to categories illusions such as this that influence how one can decide to behave. Overcoming limitations by understanding them, recognizing what is permanent and what is alterable or correctable is important. Knowing that communication challenges such as these always exists is supportive for knowing what to do when miscommunications occur and as I said, knowing how to appraise for conversation quality to improve that too but also to know who might not be worth spending too much time with, if mutual growth is at all expected. It is humorous that I have this understanding of these shortcomings but still spend little time addressing them as they relate to communication. There just are so many limitations we have, and trying to work on them all is very challenging. I have greatly changed myself over time to reflect scientific understanding of these limitations in order to improve, particularly in the area of logic, relationship improvement, elimination of cognitive biases and the like. I am certainly an expert in this domain, and still there is so much to improve upon. Imagine trying to become the exemplar mentioned above to check for all ways a communication has not occurred! It is very challenging and as was stated trying to improve is blocked by the need to conform to normal pleasantries and everyday behavior. Since communication is with others, they have to have a readiness for the same advancements. If one tries to become too advanced in this domain, really I think one simply has nobody to practice with. Instead what one can achieve is good self improvement understanding that the others who will be practiced with will remain the same and simply don't have the same project of improving conversation.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="towards-a-complete-written-strategy-and-process-of-self-treatment-until-death">Towards a Complete Written Strategy and Process of Self-Treatment Until Death</a>

*Wednesday, May 22, 2024 09:55:29*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

After posting on debunking herbal remedies, I became aware of the need for a specific process regarding medical self-treatment, and global self-treatment (for all thought and behavior), for all of life. I'm well underway for global self-treatment, and I did plan some thinking for medical-self treatment, but I'm thinking it needs to further approach something that might be more doctor replacing.

I'm extremely convinced that doing nearly nothing by eating well, exercising, sleeping, and drinking water may substitute most self-treatment that might be medical. People have long promoted preventative treatment and I've agreed, very enthusiastically, that that is needed. I think preventative treatment consists of abstaining from most things except a strict vegetarian diet, water, sleep and exercise. Once one has the habit of behaving consistently with this, it begins to feel like one is doing nothing. This is because it's automatic or strongly habituatl behavior to do these things and be preventative. But I think one could go much futher with this strategy of doing nothing once these habits are had.

Consider if you get sick. Do nothing still, or do something else? I think doing nothing (above devined) very often is enough. Take a drug or do nothing? Take an herb or do nothing? I think usually doing nothing is better. It prepares one well in one's strategy to do nothing further later when that is needed.

For pain management, I would want alcohol or opium as I stated. For severe illnesses, sometimes nothing is still the answer. Death is the answer sometimes too, but I would join that with the nothing strategy. If an illness is well understood and easily curable, I would go for the drug. For surgical procedures that are really needed I want surgery. But there are cases where I would even choose nothing. For example, I recently broke my toe and did nothing. I'm very happy with my new crooked toe. Doing nothing was really the right solution.

When you need cosmetic surgery, do nothing? I think "Yes" very likely. When your tooth requires a "root canal" do nothing? I think get close to nothing and pull the tooth potentially, depending on which. There are cosmetic solutions other than having the tooth.

Strategically nowadays I think most are in a cloud of ignorance regarding their health. They've offloaded it until something serious happens and then once that happens they become herbal gurus as a hobby. Their "knowledge" from this self-help is very dubious. Some will try to convince that having a disease creates full expertise of alternative medicine or medicine. If that were the case, don't go to the doctor, find another with the same disease. Finding a peer who has a similar issue is helpful but I'm unaware of a directory to locate the diseased for support. You still go to the doctors.

It appears to me that the strategy of doing anything but arriving at the right diet, drinking, exercise, and level of rest, is the best way to achieve doing "nothing" which is the cornerstone of a good approach. Empasis on all things is doing less, until it's obvious there is a benefit. Knowing which obvious things have the benefit need incorporation into a decision process. The overall result through life could be to have the minimal effort at preventative health and solutioning for reduced conditions that call for drugs and medical assistance, and already those are planned for too. This is all much better than letting all habits slip and offloading planning to someone else. That's another way of saying that others have little or no strategy.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="debunking-herbal-remedies-kindly">Debunking Herbal Remedies Kindly</a>

*Wednesday, May 22, 2024 08:50:43*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

After spending a considerable amount of time living without any medication of any kind, prescribed or unprescribed, I wonder on what occasion I might need an herbal remedy. Recently, I gave up all drinks except water, and for 23 years I've been a Vegetarian/Vegan. I'm very infrequently seriously sick, and the last time I was ill was with COVID-19 during the COVID pandemic. I did not receive a test at the time I got sick, so it is possible I had some other illness, but the symptoms were flulike so I took the recommended precautions to isolate and simply assumed that is what I had. Like I normally do when I am sick, I spend a considerable amount of time indoors. I mostly drank fluids and slept. The only over the counter medication I took was a product called Theraflu, which would create sleepiness, decrease pain some unknown amount, and manage flu-like symptoms with an effectiveness I'm uncertain about. Typically, I use no medication, and simply sleep and drink plenty of fluids. I control the symptoms largely by simply not being awake, and I live through the symptoms until they are gone. Now I wonder if I needed anything during COVID too.

By eating well, and abstaining from drugs of all kinds, and rarely being sick, I can't think of any need for any "remedy". I don't think about them. I get tired, fatigued, have mucous buildup occasionally, sometimes need to sneeze and cought, and sometimes I might get the "cold" (When does anyone really have a cold?), but I simply live through all these symptoms. The same solution of resting and drinking fluids is always available. Since I already eat well, there is no recommendation I require for that. I don't eat soup to make myself feel better. "Special soups" and special food substances seem to have no value for resolving the issue. I'm comfortable when I'm healthy and eating what I eat, and eating what I eat is comfortable when I'm uncomfortable. Sickness meals are questionable. Having a reserved sickness menu is a sort of folk-remedy system for pretending to resolve sicknesses by creating comfort. But it's not too different than Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner. Those are simply comforts reserved for the occasion. The occasion for special sickness soup is illness.

If someone is unwilling to admit that a sickness menu is nonfunctional for resolving illnesses, they may be unlikely to be persuaded regarding herbal remedies too. Or, if they already disbelieve in herbal remedities, it appears there is a contradiction. Both are very similar and if herbal remedies are debunked, I think recipe based remedies are also easily rejected.

The recipe I typically use is water.

Moving onto the main discussion and interest here, I want to talk about herbal remedies in particular and connect it to when ailments are really experienced. As I was saying, speaking for myself, having a sneeze, cought, mucous, fatigue, and some other discomforts does not constitute an ailment. If I have a nasal headache, a mild sore throat, headache, or some other minimal pain, I don't even acknowledge it for long. I notice it briefly and then mostly forget about it. I don't notice when it has subsided. When I am experiencing these individually or in any combination I don't think of myself as being sick or having anything requiring any special modification to my behavior except perhaps increasing sleep and water. An issue with herbal remedies is that many of them seem to be about resolving these issues which if one has a certain perspective are not issues. Some may even claim they "cure" these issues. But if I wait, sleep, and drink water, and eventually I'm healthy, then what is the meaning of "cure" on close observation? Have I cured them by doing nothing? Furthermore, speaking of these things as something to be cured seems to put the supposed ailment in a category approaching severe disease. For severe diseases I agree there are cures and a desire to be cured. But if a mild irritation is resolved by simply waiting, then the equivalent herbal treatment to me is not a treatment and not a cure. Waiting has the same result.

Arguably, some may say that using some herbal remedy will make one feel better faster at times. I would argue that thinking about it at all creates an issue requiring remedy. Thinking about herbal remedies is something to be fixed it appears. But I can agree that perhaps speeding comfort along is a reasonable result of some combinations of foods and feelings. But what is the elapsed time between the sensation that one is not feeling well and when one is feeling well again? Is it the same for most ailments and irritations if one does nothing in comparison to if one has the herbal cures? If the duration is approximately the same, then thinking about herbal remedies seems really amiss.

I would not think this way if I did not happen to never think about herbal remedies. I'm not sure I ever used an herbal remedy, excepting perhaps chamomile tea during sickness years ago, but when I had that I was not thinking I was curing anything. I was just creating additional comfort any chamomile did not appear to me to be an active ingredient. It's about the same as having soup during sickness. All of the ingredients are *inactive*. Since I never do these things it's very clear to me that I never need them. One could argue that if I were sick I would perhaps need them, but looking back into my distant history into childhood I don't think I've used herbal remedies for anything. There has been very little solution hunting to make myself feel better. If one lives without using remedies and herbal remedies and "special foods" and ignores mild symptoms, and feels healthy and is rarely sick, and is rarely uncomfortable, then even talking about these topics seems a great waste of time. What is the cause of the interest I think?

The cause of the interest appears to be a fixation and curiosity, that simply becomes a hobby of sorts that is developed further. Some work on it until it is well developed. But does anyone need it at all? What is the life-duration of the actual need for herbal remedies in life of those who don't use it, contrasted with those who do. It seems the are seldom if ever needed, and when they are thought to be needed they are simply to create a kind of comfort. But like in the medical industry, people get attention from the help they think they can provide and may earn money being herbalists or being authors of books about herbs. It seems more common for a women to be an herbalist than a man. I think fixation is a cause of prolonged interest and work on the topic and it's unrelated to effectiveness.

If it worked, or there was a great need, I'd focus on it myself too. But there is no need so I never think about it.

Here it is worthwhile to make a comparison with the medical industry. Notice I mentioned I take no drugs of any kind. That means I don't need the pharmacy, and I don't need prescribed drugs. I don't need stores that sell these things. But surely there are times when I *could* need them, and I happen to simply not be in a situation that calls for thinking about these things. I'm certainly aware I would need surgery if I broke a bone, that I would need pain medication if I had intense pain, and that I would need to seek a cure if I had a disease and symptoms that are more than mild irritations. If I had I cut I may need stitches. These are things I agree with.

Pain is one thing I'm planning for too. If I'm eventually old/elderly and am suffering from severe joint pain or other, I will certainly want a drug. Alcohol is available and may do some of the work. If that's sufficient, I'll drink alcohol. If insufficient, I'll want something more effective. Opiates come to mind. I have considered the prospect that growing opium poppy would be worthwhile, and it is true that gardeners or "herbalists" (can I call myself an "herbalist" if I understand and grow plants?) are useful here. They are basically drug dealers, like the herbalists who were marijuana enthusiasts were. Some of the herbalists are druggies or drug dealers in disguise. Interest in drugs is another avenue to fixation in plants, and to use plant expertise as a cover for love of drugs. Perhaps marijuana and opium growers would simply just have large farms to cover what they were really doing. Everyone loves tomatoes and corn, and you can go beyond farming to herbal mastery by growing other weeds, and finally you can look like that's all you do while you drug deal. I recall in entertainment that has been part of the story at least once in a television show or film.

How many kinds of drugs are needed? A Pharmacologist would state there are many and I agree from my exposure to their reference texts. A chemist would agree that many drugs exist regardless of how often needed. The cause of the large number of drugs, to me relates to the large number of illnesses that were earlier untreatable. There are many kinds of sicknesses, and if we consult the disease manual of the herbalist, we'd find it is very short; whereas if we check medicine, the list of illnesses is massive. Historically people didn't know what they were, or how to treat them. So they had them drink broth and eat plants. It is *really important* to note that the history of treatments by herbalists has been the cause of the need of medicine and obviously it can't replace medicine. It exists from the time of primitive ignorance. Now that more illnesses are known, I think some seek to expand what was known about herbal foods to increasingly apply the same ingredients to new illnesses. They create a guise that they can treat all illnesses by simply knowing what those illnesses are called and stating that the existing greens can fix them. This is extremely dubious and dangerous.

But since the medical industry is not something I use but they would like to sell me drugs, I do like the idea of having a better substitute if simple substitutes exist, but I think the substitute is nothing.

A commonality between many illnesses that call for real treatment is simply pain. Plant people and Medicine have been at odds on this point, and the criminalization of substances that work is really questionable. Marijuana certainly has been found to help with illnesses, and yet it was criminalized and sold as a drug by the medical industry to their benefit. Opium is still illegal, but opium does work for pain management, and exists as a simple plant. For that I'd want the plant over the medicine and that would put me in alignment with the herbalist. Here is a category of drugs and plant sources that *work* and *are needed* but they are not needed often in comparison with requiring no drugs. For the rare occasion of having a chronic illness or severe pain I will want the drugs whereever they come from and I nearly don't care how I get them. If pain were great enough, I'd seek to die or seek to get them illegally.

For pain it is clear that there is a need from the herbalist then, if not from medicine. But arguably I don't need an herbalist, if I just know the word "poppy" and have the plants. I can grow a plant just fine and don't need an herbalist to show me how to plant a seed. But what are the other kinds of drugs needed? The other kinds of drugs are needed for that huge variety of illnesses that were untreatable to the herbalist in history that now have solutions finally within the medical community. If I had any illness of this sort I would go to a doctor and work with them on finding a solution.

Here I understand that there is a degree in which some of these illnesses *might* be influenced by certain plant remedies. That is a crossover between medicine and herbalism that I know people care a lot about because they are suffering from illnesses that are causing them severe pain or suffering, or chronic discomfort, and I know I'm not going to be persuasive to these people about not trying all that can be tried to see what might work. In a way, they the combination and permutation people of guessing at solutions, because their situation is so problematic.

Let's say I admit it's useful to still have herbalists in these scenarios. For this I have the following question: "Why don't you always have within your diet all that's in your herbal remedy books? Why not eat all these things very frequently. Just utilizing them as ingredients, being like an eclectic vegetarian?In that case, does it not appear you're just eating more things and eating them more often?.

I mentioned I've been a vegan/vegetarian for 23 years. That means I eat all sorts of plans that get recommended to others when they have problems. I'm getting plenty of fiber and have no digestive ailments. I would agree that eating plants helps resolve that. But I wouldn't say it cures it, if people merely create this problem for themselves and experience discomfort. If I think back to all the plants I've eaten, to what extent does that make me an herbalist who just eats it off the menu? To what extent does that mean I'm resolving my issues as an herbalist would by ingesting them? Does the herbalist ingest? In that case an herbalist is nearly like a vegetarian. What if the herbalist and the vegetarian together simply ate all the ingredients from the herbalist handbooks very frequently?

It seems that herbalism vanishes. If you eat all those ingredients often you just eat and there is no herbalism. Is there a rule to eat the herbs less? No, I don't think so. I think they just don't actually use them. They *rarely* use them because they select them and pair them with issues to resolve. if they have them often they are meal ingredients. This would mean a vegetarian or vegan or anyone who simply has all these items on the menu and eats them often has eaten all the drugs frequently, and it's simply part of their diet.

Relating this to the person with severe disease or chronic illness looking for a solution, couldn't one just suggest that they eat all of the remedies? In other words, they become like a vegan/vegetarian or anyone else, who just has all those items on their shopping list and then actually eats them. Wouldn't that make the person with disease an eater like everyone else, but kindof an elite herbalist and dieter who eats every kind of plant substance available? Eat all the plant drugs without waiting for an illness and simply continuing while one has an illness too?

This seems to imply that one could simply avoid the topic as I mentioned. One can simply eat all of these things and consider themselves treated.

I'm aware though, that I'm not going to maintain such a supply, and I'm not going to shop this way. But this would mean the difference between me and anyone who does this is simply the difference in menu.

It seems much more likely to me that people have few needs of any kind and that by eating a simple but diverse-enough set of vegetables minimally they will have prevented most illnesses and "treated" some others. If disease and serious illnesses are encountered, they have the option to eat everything off the menu to cancel the herbalist. More likely though, they will need to go to a doctor.

For me, it's going to be water, rest, simple vegetarian foods, exercise, and little else. I'll wait for the disease or pain. If it's pain I get, then I'll look for alcohol and opium. If it's disease, I'll go to the doctor, so I'm not in primordial ignorance. I'll use their cures, and if that doesn't work and it's untreatable, I may eat all weeds off the menu. Maybe the herbalist is helpful for maintaining supply. In that case I'll shop at the herbalists store. But I don't think I would consult their advice for anything.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="anonymity">Anonymity</a>

*Monday, May 20, 2024 06:18*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

I've had a strong preference historically to behave in ways that are not anonymous, and whenever I've written things, socialized on social media, created accounts and so on, I've not done it with my real name and identity. However, there have been some exceptions. When logging into public wifi networks, or when creating accounts for some businesses, within the last few years I've shifted to using false names and email addresses. I figured there was no need for them to know my details and to retain and sell my information. I've also changed names on accounts that deducted pay information in a way that concerned me. There is no reason for a business I don't want to continue to work with should have the name on my credit card. This protects from false charges and so on. But my personality is really one that is about openness and transparency, and is not about acting out other personas. Some have cover stories, lie about who they are and what their history is, create fake accounts to pretend to be other people, create fake accounts to harm other people and so on, and that is not something I'm interested. Not only do I not want to do this, I actively want people to know who I am. If they know who I am then they are more likely to remember me later and my relationship to my writing. If they know who I am they might reach out to me for business. I'm not worried much about the risks of other people knowing who I am. Of course, if someone is dangerous or appears dangerous, I'm not going to divulge that information to them if I don't have to.

Anonymity is one of those topics in which culture and society are ambivalent. Forgetfully, some will say they are entirely for anonymity, while on other occasions, say they are for transparency. Contexts widely separated from each other contribute to this issue. Pen names, and anonymous authorship is something that is expected, and that doesn't sound much like a controversial topic. But imagine reading a book of 900 pages and finding out 40 years later a different person with totally different qualities wrote it. Instead of a woman, for example, a man wrote it and he's not at all like you would think. On social media, we're aware of fake profiles, but we just let that happen. Maybe the people who let that happen are the perpetrators. It may be much more common than we would think. These are two areas where all would need to concede that it anonymity and impersonation are accepted or tolerated. Efforts to eliminate it seem disingenuous. For example, certification of accounts for social media seem to trend in the direction of eliminating anonymity but has hardly had any effect. Anonymous also means something a little different, which this all more clear. An anonymous person is simply considered a regular private member of society. All are supposed to have this kind of anonymity. Laws exist that people do not need to self-identify even if police officers ask them, if there is insufficient cause. Everyone might think of themselves as anonymous when they consider in public they are just unknowns and want to keep it that way. So anonymity is widespread and we can all see it we just experience it in separate contexts that we don't always combine together as we think about it.

In other scenarios we want complete transparency, we think. We want our significant others to tell the truth about their histories, and their behavior while together. We want various authority figures and businesses to unconceal. Politicians, businesses and their financial information, doctors and medical professionals who need to share their credentials and their experience. We oddly want members of the public to willingly provide personal details if it is demanded if there is any situation they are connected with that is related to an emergency or crime. We expect and want law enforcement and the legal system to surface all they can to understand a crime, even if one was not committed, and they make public many personal details about people. That one is especially interesting because *anyone* can become someone who cannot have various privacies on this basis. They news disrespects privacy and is willing to journalistically investigate, expose, and share information about people who would otherwise be private and anonymous. 

I think almost everyone would be perplexed if asked if they can say specifically all the times in which any person *should* be anonymous. This relates to and partially explains why privacy and freedom are not well understood topics either. Together they constitute the ambiguous cloud of society and its morality and commitments.

It will take longer to expand on this topic fully to cover the range of topics which can relate, but here I want to talk about what really prompted this. "Why is it so accepted that there should be anonymous writers?" "How does this relate to the conversation we've just had above".

I was talking with someone recently and we were discussing ideas we had and talked about authoring. I told him about my desire to have a very great level of transparency, open identity, open health information, and open history and so on. I think I shared my [Open Health and Identity](open-health-mattanaw.html) chapter which shares things that many would not share that confirms much about myself in a way that goes way beyond what is normally shared. It was clear to him that with my writings I really want people to know that I'm the author. He interestingly said that he wants to write all anonymously! He was thinking of using pen names and so on, something I did not think much about or well consider, being so absorbed in being transparent and non-anonymous. We did not try to persuade each other one way or another but just respectfully shared information, and now I admit I *do have plans* to do some partly anonymous writings. For any anonymous writings I'd do, I would provide a reveal of who I was. I wouldn't want the disinformation to continue, although it's an acceptable practice and is widespread in literature. If I recall correctly, I think he was worried about risks. Someone in the audience who does not like what is written can start to behave threateningly and he may have been more perceptible to risks that may exist that may be small, or unique to his own situation and mindset. I don't feel these risks in my own world even though I have been digitally harassed due to my writings. I've found ways to manage despite this harassment others have certainly experienced too, just being on social media and dealing with people, and don't think any harm will occur just because of my writings. So I have kept them transparent. But he encouraged some ideation and expansion of view on this subject.

In addition to risks associated with being identified as someone who said something that was really not liked for the purpose of being harmed, I like the idea of anonymity in that people don't like to listen necessarily unless the profile is one that is agreeable to them. If I were a woman, for example, I could discuss things I couldn't otherwise discuss and would be heard. I'd be treated differently. The same words could come from a woman, if the anonymity is believed, and we all know it is believed. Otherwise people would have more trouble reading books from people with pen names and some women have written as men. For women to be heard this seems especially valuable and trying to think from their perspective makes having a pen name seem really appealing. Societally it is beneficial if women are attended to more often and have an audience. But for them I think they would want to be revealed eventually as the true authors so they can be attributed correctly and be credited. I want the same for myself too. So not only do I want to reveal who I am so the reader isn't feeling fooled, I want them to know who I am so I am recognized for my writing. I wouldn't like it much if all my writing were from false names and each were well known, but were thought to be really other people. Imagine if forever you had great writing on different subjects and for each book it was forever thought someone else wrote it. Your writing was from a group of good authors and not you! I would only want to use the name and persona of another imaginary author if it would allow people to read more carefully, understand, and be respectful about the material. And then, I want them to know its me.

It doesn't feel totally right still as I come to some more definite plans for using this approach. I've been thinking of different names I could use and the ways I could make it more transparent than simply keeping a lie going indefinitely. Is it a lie, by the way? Since it is so culturally accepted, it is as if all have agreed it is not a lie. I'm not sure people consider it dishonest either? I have to think of it as a lie in my way of approaching the world. It isn't immune because it is in a special category of life that has not received thorough analysis thinking of all the other topics that relate, like all those mentioned above. It's a lie to me, but it has some justification, like other lies that exist and do have good ethical rationales.

In this sitting I think that's enough of this topic for the moment. I will return to discuss this further, especially to provide my plans around the ways in which I will plan to be anonymous. Especially for authoring. What do I think it will do for me? How does it fit into a strategy? How does it remain ethical, and to what degree. Is there an aspect of unethicality to the plan and will I do it anyways because it is accepted? More on this topic for later.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="art-writings-and-music-as-last-words-of-choice">Art, Writings, and Music as Last Words of Choice</a>

*Monday, May 20, 2024 06:18*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Last words in our last moments are something we've been trained to worry about without good resolution. It would be much better if we were given simple and easy ways that are easily recollected for thinking aright about that matter. We hear about the last words of some significant figures, or some who recently passed away, and I don't recall any that were planned or what would be most wanted. People are and will be worrying not just about what their last moments will be like, but how they can be best moments. "I died the right way and I had the right things to say". Probably they should not be thinking that way and it would be better if already some better plan was had that wouldn't cause any worry. I wrote here before about this topic and how the very last things we think about might be more unexpected than at any other times in our lives. Part of the planning has to include the realistic expectation of uncertainty.

Two conversations came to mind as this writing was coalescing together in my head.One friend wrote about the excessive concern about last moments, and an online acquaintance from a shared group wrote about, and shared her recent wins in an art competition. These seem very dissimilar topics but they come together here-- art can include what one really wants to say. Writing, like art, can also include what one might really want to substitute for last thoughts. Part of the plan for last thoughts could include "What would I want to share or experience last, if I could?" Privately, one may want to think something differently near the end than what one has planned, or as stated, it might be outside of their control. But they can communicate to others what they would want to be their last communications and keep them closer as the end nears if it is expected. Why not tell others about which art, which writings, messages, music, from oneself or from others who are greatly enjoyed should substitute for actual last words and outward thoughts which might fit into the pattern of others who died. If we don't expect last words or moments to be the best, why are we sharing those? Let's share something else.

There is a tradition of last-wording that itself is unpleasant. I would worry about giving presentations in high school, and the thought creates some anxiety now. Why would I want my last moments to be a presentation to worry about in addition to the stress of dying?

These wishes can easily be included in a living will and communicated well in advance of death to a number of people, so between them all wishes are more likely to be honored. Obituaries can include these wishes which can include the substitute for last thoughts. "What I would like to be in my obituary and to be thought concerning my experience of my last moments is the following:". There is plenty of time to do this, and even I have already begin my living will at the age of forty-two. I did not yet include this but I plan to and expect I will. I will think of which writing is most apt and write something if nothing appears good enough. I will consider that edits may not happen so it has to be something I can commit too, knowing perhaps it could be improved. A draft that is more than suitable, even for later. I'll include any art I've made that is fitting, writings, and perhaps music I enjoyed, or some combination of these.

Without doing this, one has done nothing potentially, unfortunately. I'm sure most have thought about it however, but very few must have put a plan into action well before death. It's stressful somewhat to think about how some might in a flustered way try to quickly throw something together, knowing the end is approaching quickly. "I'd like it to be more planned than this". It definitely can be more planned and I think it can be a very enjoyable experience. The enjoyment of the preparation may even be a start to having something simple and easy to resolve uncertainties about last moments and how one is supposed to behave. It is strange to think that there could be behavioral expectations just before death. If we can substitute plans for these last behaviors then maybe there can be some release from social rules to the very end. Especially if it is thought of with some repetition well in advance.

What do kids think about this? If I were around kids and in a position to talk with them, as a teacher or parent, or as a tutor again, I would be interested in discussing this with them, if it's not too inappropriate. I'll assume it's possible to have such a conversation. What would they think? How would their thoughts resemble those of adults. I think maybe they would say the same things as adults and that is disconcerting. I really think people are so unprepared and so unable or unwilling to talk about these things that they haven't developed them too far from what kids would say, and maybe we'd have some things to learn about what kids would think. Social prohibitions and discomforts can cause topics to become more distant as we get older, so there is a chance that an adult can be less prepared to think aright about the subject even in maturity. One might as a mature person be too preoccupied with issues and concerns to give the topic the same treatment as one would as a kid or teen.

Preparations do not need to create pressure to *make* works of art. If they exist, that's amazing. If one has the skills then it may be fun to produce some works. Some could even be shown for the first time. Selections from others can be appropriate. All that is included as an improved substitute for last words can be used by others too–many will have a wake after death. Family and friends will come and talk potentially about you and your life. They can have something to share that's ready and consistent with what would go into the obituary, and importantly its consistent with you, your life and your wishes. The entire death production can be eased. If something new is shared and you're a writer, artist or musician, it may be kind of amazing last moment with them. Prepared for you but prepared with them in mind.
I don't think too much work is required. Reflection and selection will be adequate. Around the time of death and after the work is for everyone else. That's also what a will does. It is supposed to extend one's will to near and after death.

One can be imaginative about it, but when I imagine what seems suitable, especially for myself, I think of what is accurate and honest. What speaks about me and what I like most. But people would likely want to have less plain plans than mine and might want something funny or less about themselves specifically. It could even become competitive. That's not what I would want if this idea did come into reality for others. But competition about that still seems greatly preferable to having no plans, having actual last utterances and misfortunes shared alone, and having others dread death without having received any guidance.

Actually, why aren't people competing over their last words? Do they think they'll perform well? They seem to compete about so many things, why not the greatness of the things they say as their minds start to random a bit? It's likely because that's in bad taste of course, but also because I think people are aware they cannot control it. Historically, people have wanted honorable deaths, to die in battle, or to die in one condition or another that seems praiseworthy? There is good reason–some have and will claim and say that to have a death that is not great is a sort of punishment. Some supernaturalists, but not all and probably not most, but in large numbers, will say that if a person died in a really unfavorable way, or had really unfavorable last moments and utterances, that they have been rejected by the deities, or suffered a karmic ending. They got what they deserved and so on.

This posting is for everyone. That the above is how people think is horrendous and really they wouldn't want others to think these ways about themselves. Control is not really possible at death unless that part is planned too, which is another topic I have much to say about. I wouldn't want competition between people to be able to claim they had the best final moments or the best substitutes for final moments. Personally I like the substitution more. It can be more tasteful. It is much better than relying on nothing at all, and it can be used by everyone. Perhaps such an idea can become a real thing people mutually want to do and they will understand that competitiveness and mutual punishment is not in anyone's good interest.

Soon I will get to work on the easy task of including my wishes in my living will. I will find ways to ensure it's communicated to whoever needs to know about it. I'll likely publish it, give it to an attorney, share it with a few people, and make sure it is accessible on my person, somewhat like dog tags or health information. There isn't too much more that can be done than this at the moment, but doing this enough to know now that I did all that could be done. There still is not complete control so that has to be released from worry. Perhaps we will have a technology that is trusted for this. Social media can provide a way too.

Maybe these ideas can be connected with the motivations people have had for faking their own deaths. Some shows and movies have shared these scenarios. Someone fakes their death to see how others would react, and what they would do: "Would they be all about my money or would they be kind and respectful and honor wishes. Would they ignore my preferences?". Maybe instead of going so far as to fake our deaths, we can share some things in advance here and there, so people are aware already about how one thinks about the subject. Existing material can exist that way. This should go alongside a living will but even if a living will didn't exist there would not be nothing to go by. The combination seems best, but done well, social media and technology to simply discuss this over time could be better than a living will alone. So it seems there are many ways to arrive at a solution to this problem but one has to start and not wait until the very end.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="identification-numbers-library-of-congress-numbers-and-copyrighting">Identification Numbers, Library of Congress Numbers, and Copyrighting</a>

*Monday, May 20, 2024 05:00:39*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Writers and publishers of books and journals will eventually and often need to deal with book numbers of various kinds. As someone who has ventured onto this pathway and is now in the process of coming to routine interaction with organizations that provide these services, I have some things to say about, firstly, what the process looks like and how one work within it, secondly, what is strange about the process and what seems "scammy", and thirdly, what about the process may be something worth changing or ignoring.
One might think, as one begins book publishing, that much of this process is something that one can do on one's own. "Why do I need to work with all these organizations and why these organizations?". One will also recognize that the process is somewhat expensive, and there is more than one person to pay even for the release of a self-published book. One can publish a book independently without any numbers from any organization but one's book will have less professionalism and less potential for sales. My biggest motivation was to ensure a high degree of professionalism, by making my book more like those I've been exposed to and enjoyed.

Most have seen on a cover or on one of the first few pages of a book an ISBN and a Library of Congress Control Number. We've learned about these things in our times at school or in college. Having learned about these numbers we recognize that when we write a book we want those same numbers in our books. Obtaining them seems straightforward, but the process is a bit odd. ISBN numbers are not obtained from any government entity but the Library of Congress does have an expectation of seeing an ISBN number on applications for their control number. ISBNs have to be purchased and they aren't inexpensive. I purchased a group of 10 ISBNs for about 250 dollars, and a single ISBN cost is approaching $100. The organization that sells this is called "Bowkers". At first, upon learning that it was Bowkers and not some agency, I thought it might be a scam. Visiting the website made me wonder if it was just a third party service. It turns out those in publication are familiar with Bowkers and that is what everyone uses. After buying 10 *numbers*, which could simply be a random set of digits sufficiently large to ensure uniqueness (uniqueness isn't even necessary but that's another topic), I had an organized list on the website in which to manage those numbers. You assign each number to a book that's been written or is in preparation, and you need different numbers for different formats. A print format gets one number, paperback gets another. There is other information that can be entered but I haven't used the entire service so will have to return to discuss that further. For now I'm fine with having book numbers that I can apply to all the books I'm writing.

Bowker's, a bit strangely, offers a copyright service, called CopyrightNow. On their website there was mention of a Supreme Court Case that stated that copyrighting with such a service is required to ensure any chance of victory in a lawsuit or claim (paraphrasing). Because Bowker's is the service used, and is a quasi-governmental looking website, I thought I would try it out. Clicking links and buying things suggested is something I would seldom do, but at this point I somewhat trusted Bowkers and wanted to protect my document. If they issued the ISBNs and they were trusted for that, surely they would provided a reasonable copyrighting service that may be normal in the industry, I thought. So I began the Copyrighting process at Bowkers.

What I found though is that indeed it appears to be a scam, or an entirely unnecessary purchase. Firstly, it is a nonrefundable purchase. One buys it before seeing what one will be doing to get the copyright. Once purchased, a login is provided to another site. That site is very antiquated and upon seeing it I think almost anyone would immediately think they've been duped. It is using a database nobody uses today, that I recognized from experience with it in the early 2000s and the site has html that appears like html from the 1990s, using old features that are considered very poor in design and coding. Since I had already paid, I went through the process. Along the way I saw signs and indicators that something very strange was going on with this website but still I wanted to see how it turned out. It appears after going through it, that the service was simply a proxy: anyone could go to the US Copyright Office to register a copyright. This Bowker's service simply went to that location and did it on your behalf. But the means of doing it seemed like the use of a website that a single individual could make, and it was incredibly unofficial. There is a waiting process and it will be a while before I get my copyright certificate. I don't know what they are doing with my information between now and when they submit to the US Copyright office. If I submitted directly it would feel safer, but instead I have some strange entity handling something in advance of its being copyrighted. It was advertised to make one feel safer, but the process feels dangerous from just after spending non-refundably without knowing what the process looked like. Since this was off the official site that people use universally for ISBNs it makes me think very differently about Bowkers and makes me question ISBN numbers in general. What is this organization doing and why would they promote a sketchy secondary business? Also, why do I have to buy numbers?

Bowkers also sells bar codes. If you look at the back of your book, you'll noticed printed onto it an ISBN number combined with a bar code that can be used for scanning at retailers. This helps retailers because then they can just relate the code in their system to inventory, and can immediately begin scanning the books. But bar codes are nearly a "nothing" technology. People can generate QR codes easily. Bar codes can be generated easily. Bowkers also convinces people that they need to buy bar codes to sell effectively, and just like the buying of numbers, I wonder "why would I buy bar codes". Teenagers and young people would certainly think this is a ridiculous process, seemingly designed to take money from the technologically inadept.

In any effort to avoid in the future having ISBN numbers if they do not really seem to facilitate sales, I have opted to create my own numbering service called MYSBN that assigns a random code. This is in my recent book prints along with the ISBN. They cost nothing to generate and I'll be offering it as a service to others. Others who want to have unique bar codes could easily generate their own too. Perhaps I'll provide that service as well, for free. Since I was a Chief Architect in software guiding businesses, and I could provide this service for free, Bowker's seems especially scam like to me now. Imagine if I offered this as a required paid service for all writers to feel professional. Perhaps the programming takes me a few days. Is it reasonable to charge hundreds of dollars for barcodes and IDs to put in books perpetually for decades for something that takes minutes of programming? MYSBN may require others to begin using the service too to have really good utility and viability even for my sales efforts, but apart from sales efforts I think it will be useful independently too. I just have not yet identified all of the potential usages. It should be noted too, that Amazon uses its own ISBN-like number for its books. I learned of this today. It seems very likely that as they increased their business in publishing, they simply sidestepped Bowkers entirely. If you write a book and place it on Amazon you are given an Amazon number for your book. You can enter an ISBN too, but that is optional. If this is what Amazon is doing, then again, it appears the ISBN and Bowkers are superfluous. They are strange.

I have also submitted to get my library of congress control number and the process there is also bizarre. Firstly, finding where to do it requires more than google. It requires navigating government website pages that talk about the process but provide no links to where to do anything. After some time wasted trying to locate the place to do the work with a variety of searches, sites, and YouTube videos, I finally just found it. I can't think of a strategy to immediately arrive at it. I would post the link here for others to use, but there are indications they move pages, and after a short time I'll simply have a broken link to fix, so I'll avoid doing that. After creating accounts, and submitting information, I am required to send a hard copy of my book. It states 6 weeks will elapse before I get my LCCN ("Library of Congress Control Number"). This must slow down book production extremely, if anyone wants to get the number into their book in advance of printing. A copy has to be printed and sent to them without a number, then one has to wait all this time. If one has a publishing company, like I do, the service will provide a way to get the numbers faster, but I'm not there yet. The process of getting such a publisher account requires the submission of information that appears to be not too useful, and I wonder how it is screened. There are some signs it may not be screened without any discrimination.

Without getting an LCCN from the Library of Congress, one does not get their book entered into various catalogs and may not have their book listed in other library catalogs elsewhere. Some libraries rely apparently on the Library of Congress Catalog. I read also that the information may make it into catalogs that relate to the book industry for things one might not know that the book industry does. This appears to me to indicate that they use your information for other purposes and perhaps share or sell the information. It's like when one starts a business or changes an address with USPS and suddenly gets junk mail. The information once had is distributed supposedly to your benefit but you don't know who that is. This is an interaction with a government website, so there is a degree of trust, and an anticipation that your information isn't used in ways too against what you'd want. However, it does appear to me to be sketchy here too, I just don't know how sketchy yet.

Either way, the LCCN like the ISBN doubles the dubious numbers one needs for one's books. MYSBN can be used to instantly have a unique identifier that can be used in any database along with a bar code. I generated mine in seconds. The LCCN takes weeks, an application online, and a snail mail exchange. ISBN takes minutes, but with a questionable authority, and an expenditure that one has not had sales yet to recoup. The processes are too slow and/or are too expensive.

As I think about the quality of my book publication from my publishing company, I think of the professional quality it has. Perhaps I can omit these numbers and simply use MYSBN or my domains. Domains are yet more numbers. Is a website needed to sell the books or convey digitally that it exists? Some would really want that. Soon I'll have many domain names, many ISBNs, LCCNs, and ISSNs for my books (for my journal). That's quite a lot of administrative effort for an independent publisher. If you submit on Amazon, now you have an Amazon number too, and they'll eat into your profits. I'm very tempted now to avoid all of this and simply do it all on my own, but the biggest issue is how doing that much oneself would affect marketing potential of one's books. It does appear that the industry will have barriers to entry that would greatly reduce potential sales along normal channels like sales to book stores if I don't have the numbers that they force me to have. That don't seem necessary. That I'll have to keep paying for.

After all this effort one has not protected one's intellectual property. There is the U.S. Copyright office to work with on that. I don't know the extent to which they provide real legal protection. Copyrighting is not something I have sufficient experience with and I think unless one knows how legal disputes are settled one will feel that one is not totally protected. To avoid any copyright issues, I'm diligently managing my information and dating to provide lots of legal support and ammunition that can be used in court. But nothing of the combination of information and submission to the US Copyright office (including the copyrighting I have pending), seems to complete any goal of finalizing self-protection from infringements. Does anyone care to infringe? What is the risk and how much thinking is desirable to offset these risks? Yet more to think about for people who could simply be writing and producing.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="self-innovation-self-adoption-of-innovations-and-reality-ii">Self-innovation, Self-Adoption of Innovations, and Reality II</a>

*Saturday, May 18, 2024 23:43:00*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

One of the few creations that person can make that will endure are technological creations that will continue to be used. People die, and stories are often unconveyed after death, but technologies and tools often persist. The hammer, screw, wheel, and various other simple technologies have lasted for many generations. Tools that were used for generations are held onto as curiosities and artifacts for museums of various kinds. They are retained for learning later. This is the case for various other types of technology too. This is not a unique idea-- others have commented before that technology and the results of engineering have a usefulness that creates an unwillingness to give them up. There is a dependence upon them, and even the lineage of tools is something to be retained, since it is understood that some older tools sometimes provide better ways of doing things than newer options, and if that is understood, they are used later, perhaps reimagined as newer devices depending on earlier designs.

Here I don't want to speak specifically about the longevity of one tool or technology or another. Instead, I want to talk about the reality of the tools as they relate to designers and users. Mentioning of the longevity helps to communicate just how useful they are, and to create a clear picture of the importance of the tools in culture and their blending with everyday affairs, such that the tools have an undeniability attached to them. We depend on them, pass them to new generations, hold and use them hundreds of times, and in some cases millions or billions of times, and we are aware that without them our lives would be different and we would perhaps have a less comfortable existence. They figure into literature and works of art, and are part of the overall depiction of human life on earth.

Some work on making tools themselves, or things that are tool-like, as part of their creative efforts. Sometimes these works do not get widespread attention, or are criticized as being unuseful, unnew, or even that they are not really tools or technology to begin with. Some harsh critics will claim that these innovations are not innovations, and that they don't constitute anything that might be considered "real" technology. Some will try to deny the realities associated with what has been made.

One way to thoroughly establish the reality of such an innovation is to use it for a prolonged period of time on one's own. If this does no convince others of the reality, then in the least it will convince oneself, which is a good way to defend ones mind against the onslaught of naysayers who want to deny your creativities and advancements. Used initially, a technology creation will create pleasure; used extensively, it will create considerable confidence in what was made and what the results of it are. It begins to blend with life. It begins, through it's use, to create many effects, either in creating new things or in facilitating the realization of various goals. It can fulfill needs. After many years, the creative object has had many effects in one's life that may build to something more significant, and what was created forms a constituent part of the living process of that more significant thing. It has attained a kind of "life of its own" within the activities of at least one person, and after a long time probably it has influenced other people. It's very hard to behave with a technology for a long time without it having some impact on others, by either being a part of their world too, or by having effects that relate to them in various ways. If technologies are positive in their usage, then others very likely have been positively impacted.

Making a useful tool or creative thing that endures eventually attains a definite unchallengeable reality. It's novelty compared with alternatives is somewhat insignificant if it is well used to good effect. It's uniqueness coming from an independently creative mind creates novelty even if others cannot see it at first. If used within the family, it becomes an attractive heirloom to have and to keep around. Children seeing their mothers and fathers using the same tool over and over often consider it very special to use themselves too, and to have. It may be something to leave behind or to develop upon, to emulate. This preserves the technology and makes it a special thing to retain.

Notice after all of this from a single person, it already has those same characteristics of importance than any other technology has that were discussed above. We already agree that these technologies were valuable and figure prominently in human history. Scale of civilization causes us to prize some technologies especially because of how common they are, but we also understand that if scale is smaller, the importance is still great. Tribal heritage relating to arts and tools exist at a smaller scale but many in these tribes consider their tools to be very important and special, and think they are examples of what their culture is. At the family level, it becomes part of the family story. At the individual level, it is a part of one's life story. Using creative tools and artifacts of various kinds, especially if used over and over, blends the technology with life and creates an unchallengeability.

Personally, I really enjoy can openers. A can opener is a favorite tool and often comes to mind. I like simple can openers like those issued by the military, and have them in my possession as I travel. I have seen other types of older antique can openers and appreciate their operation and what they make possible for people like myself, who eat from cans. If I made a can opener myself, and I'd like to make such a can opener, I could enjoy it for years and it would certainly be a part of my life story. If a self-created tool is more useful than this, and has some novelty, that's even better. Even if I created a new can opener, to well, open cans, even if it does it a different way, it doesn't bother me that other devices that exist that can do the same. It would still be an interesting device with years of use, and it will still be something special to have held onto.

There are many different kinds of technology that one can create or remake in a new design. I have created other technologies that are actually new and different, that I've used for years. The use over time is proof as I said, of the reality of the technology; and this technology has yielded output that is undeniably different than what other technologies produce. It has facilitated my development in ways that no other technology could do for me, and has become incredibly well blended with many different parts of my life. It has influenced others in ways that they are unaware of. I can imagine others who could challenge the technology, but for me its well confirmed in years of use that created very great personal satisfaction and conviction. At the smallest scale in our culture it has been a part of my life, even though interestingly it has influenced others considerably too. Even if it were not adopted by others, I already know it has been an interesting part of my own small culture of one, and has had a place in the larger culture with small but frequent contributions. If it became a popular technology or not does not alter that it was already an impactful technology. Its reality is assured and its properties that are similar to large technologies we already value is already confirmed. By making such a creative effort there is an object and a story of life attached that is more immune from naysayers and people who would wish to critically object in unjustifiable ways. It has already become a vital part of an individual history.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="self-innovation-self-adoption-of-innovations-and-reality">Self-innovation, Self-Adoption of Innovations, and Reality</a>

*Saturday, May 18, 2024 16:18:28*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

I argued elsewhere, that if one happens to coin a word, and one begins using that innovation, that it already exists as a word. It's simple to immediately utilize it, use it consistently, blend it with one's language or languages, and hold onto it as another part of one's vocabulary. Mentally, I can add here, it is indistinguishable from vocabulary one has in memory. If one learns a new word, it is likely even harder to "wordify it in one's own mind" because that requires recalling it, using it, blending it in with one's regular use of one's languages, which amounts to using it in novel sentences, and so on. The word created and utilized immediately and remembered is a word even if one has invented it and all words have been invented this way.

We can have a social elicitation (see prior postings) on this point as we use it. We may recall that there is a social idea that if it is not already in the dictionary, it is not a "word". This creates an experience of disagreement in one's brain with that social rule, and a recognition of disagreement between that social rule and the reality. Without the social elicitation causing thought about the disagreement, one is aware there is positive agreement between the view that the word is a word, that the word is vocabulary in the brain, and that it has utility in the world. That it is a word according to the reality that all words were also created the same way.

Coinages can still be synonyms of other words. That is how there are synonyms to begin with too. A word already existed, but someone created another. The existence or non existence of a similar word or linguistic technology does not matter. If one creates another language one will arrive at synonyms for words in thousands of other languages, but that the new language has the word, and all the languages recreated it thousands of times does not mean that it is not a new language with new words. Can you create a new language with new words? Yes, that's how they exist. Can you create a new word? Yes, that's how any exist.

This is a great example of a more general phenomenon because I think all are well enough acquainted with word creation, and all are good enough at doing it, to know that if one creates it, and uses it, there has been a real adoption of it and real use. The real adoption and use are important as I noticed today, as it relates to the social concern of whether or not what one happens to have created is "real". People will complain about this thing not only for words but for other innovations.

Imagine you created your own mathematical approach to doing calculations of your budget. The results are always correct. It doesn't use multiplication or division. Your way of calculating is some process that is a substitute for the abacus, and it didn't exist until you made it. Now you're at trial in court, and they are trying to examine your financials. You present concepts that they are unfamiliar with. They may think "that's not regular or real" or "there is some issue with this" but it's just noncomformity. The creation of the approach and utilization is self-confirming that you use the technology and that it works, and sometimes others merely need to learn the approach themselves, to understand the reality of it. They'll complain about it, but the innovation is real.

Now imagine you create a mathematical approach of your own to solve myriad problems. This is something I'm actually doing. Let's say you learn it and develop it so well, that the methodology is a substitute for quite a lot of math and includes innovations existing math does not include. If you create it, adopt it, and utlize it consistently, eventually it blends with your life. Questions from outside as to the veracity of the approach can merely complain somewhat stupidly that it doesn't conform. "This isn't real math" just like the complaint of "that's not a real word". "That's not a real language".

The process of adoption and use creates evidence that can even require continued use to explain to others. Let's imagine I developed my mathematics to the point where I use it for everything I do math for. Let's say someone else stumbles on a paper, and plagiarizes that paper. There is some copyright infringement problem. Now we go to court. In court, they may want to hear other ways to describe what the math is doing, but what is interesting is if it's sufficiently novel, there is no other way than to enforce its use and to teach others. In my case, my mathematics is called Wanattomian math. It's Wanattomianism. To discuss wanattomianism, I use it, and its concepts. Which means as people are wanting me to explain otherwise, I simply keep using wanattomian concepts. If that's all I use, and it's all I'm familiar with, now not using mathematics of other kinds at all, it's somewhat inexplicable to others. So I just enforce the use and only use that.

Notice that when people talk math, they are stuck in existing math. They can't think outside of it. If they have to talk math with other people, they are constrained to its employment. They may have to try to teach others how to use it, but inso teaching they are bringing others into how it is used as it is.

If one created a novel language, started to stop understanding a native language, then one would also have to use that language for most things and enforce its use. Others who question it, or want to translate it, will find it is too difficult. A fundamental issue with the courts must be that one must translate a native language into the language of the law. If one is from Papua New Guinea, and one speaks one of the hundreds of languages that are uncommon there, there might be a very great issue doing justice in legal proceedings.

There may be a legal method to be more incomprehensible too. If the court cannot understand, how will they do justice? It appears normal mathematics for accounting is included in this. If you detract from normal mathematics in accounting, it may be discovered either that the incomprehensibility created support, or that the incomprehensibility ensured legal failure. If it ensured legal failure that would show a weakness in the courts, and if it offered too much support, it would show a legal failure of another kind. Likely the legal system is created partly for colonial purposes still. I think if there is a legal issue with a person or people who speak languages too distant from English that they will largely be violated by the law. This is something a historian of native tribes worldwide could talk about. It could even mean that innovations for other languages and mathematics are prohibited. If you can't speak in English and perform normal math for accounting then you are simply at a much larger risk of being violated by the courts.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="video-as-digital-evidence-for-science-and-substitution-for-witnesses">Video as Digital Evidence for Science and Substitution for Witnesses</a>

*Saturday, May 18, 2024 15:04:15*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

By the title of this brief article it would be recognized that there is very braod significance of this topic, and I do intend to develop this topic fully. However, for now I want to focus it to a specific scientific undertaking I have underway and that is my study on editing, as it relates to writing productivity, and overall intelligence evidenced in velocity of significance and ideation.

I am a very fast and skilled typist and require very little to no feedback on what I am typing for the output to be in a ready or nearly ready state for publication, depending on the type of publication. Some writing is book or journal quality immediately. Some writings are not but are of a quality that exceeds informal jourals, magazines, and internet articles. And some need some editing to be ready for even these, but are still suitable for informal publication on social media channels for conversation or for sharing of thinking. Seldom is anything so poor in quality to be like a mundane social person with an average intelligence and usually any thought whatsoever here is of a better quality than that. Even this paragraph is vastly superior to writing quality that one would expect in social media, even with some editing effort on the part of the writer, if the writer wrote anything of what was produced!

I've been collecting data on my typespeed and quality, and data on the means in which the recording was carried out. The only witness of the effort was myself, but consistency of effort and some automation of programming create log trustworthiness of the data. What is missing though is witnesses of various kinds. Corroborating witnesses of skill exist amongst colleagues and customers I've had and number in the hundreds. Former family members including my ex wife are also well exposed to the type skills I'm mentioning and would also confirm, at least with respect to what they can confirm, which certainly includes blind type speed and proficiency which is unusual. But there are no current witnesses of the data collection other than myself. Going beyond creating a trustworthy log which is something that would be trusted in courts as witness testimony, on my own behalf, I am wanting to have additional substantiation. One way to go without witnesses is to simply record on video. Videos can be edited and altered, but are still considered more trustworthy than actual witnesses when the videos themselves have many characterisitics of authenticity. Of course there is no complete proof in the form of video, witnesses, and automatic or partly automatic logging, but when it is very great in quality in and consilieant, it will be treated as proof enough. That's all there is that can offer proof.

So what I'm looking for is akin to proof. What I need for this data on typing is simiply to prop up a camera, and record myself as I do a posting just like this one. It will show the opening of applications, the automatic and manual timestamping of the documents, the automatic timestamping will exist in the video, or at least the start and end points which demarcate the data collection from beginning to end. 

The video will show my behavior in relation to the typing, where I look, where I don't, where I seem to gloss my attention, and where I focus intently (a rarity). It will show I can type consistenly in roughly the same way, with the same productivity level, with output on the screen and with no output. It will show I never look at the keys, unless there is rarely a strange character that I'm not yet trained to automatically type using "muscle memory" which is brain motor automaticity. It will show all those metrics which I'm coding for as indicated in the most recent posting. Upon completion of some number of videos, perhaps approaching 20-30 videos, the task of "proving it" will be finished. In digital evidence, if there are videos showing very completely all circumstances relevant to a situation, the witnesses who could be called to talk about what was seen would be shown to be of very poor quality and somewhat untrustworthy. This is already known in the Psychology. Witness testimony is untrustworthy and fallible in too many ways to recall and mention here. In my case however there would even be agreement with witnesses. So the scientific study underway will be shown to have a good designs as far as necessary evidence is concerned. Notice that in the sciences, data collection does not necessarily have witness OR video confirmation. They are simply trusted to be exercising dilligence. This would imply that if I am treated like other scientists, I would need nothing additional to earn trust that is due on equivalence. Instead however, what is being produced will constitute proof as far as is reasonable for anyone to collect functioning as a scientist, doing more than a scientist would do.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="minor-analysis-and-categorization-related-to-typing-skill">Minor Analysis and Categorization Related to Typing Skill</a>

*Saturday, May 18, 2024 14:36:45*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In prior postings I've included notes to indicate which writings were unedited as part of my study on editing. I've included information about how the typing was carried out, and what level of editing or reading related. I did this in an informal way that was not very specific, according to my expectations, about how the topic should be divided. However, they were accurate. These notes require some additional explanation and here I'll provided a better analysis and categorization of the process.

Some who have taken typing courses are aware of the idea of blind typing. Blind-typing roughly means that one does not need to look at the keyboard. But wanting to be *very specific* this is not entirely adequate. By saying that my typing has been blind typed, I have not been very clear, confounding two ideas. Firstly, I never look at the keyboard so it is always 100% blind typed. But there is also blind transcription which is something I do and can do, which means there is no visual input. There is also transcription without looking a the screen to see the results. That is what I'm thinking was the partial part of the blind typing. I do tend to look at the location of the cursor as I type, seeing some words. Usually with no attention, however, which means it is "blind" but there may be some effect of having feedback upon what is typed. In the near future, I will be typing with no feedback whatsoever, except confirmation that what was typed was stored and has sufficient quantity to know it has not been lost.

Here is a new way to divy the topic on the bais of the above paragraph.

Related to the typing and senses during typing:

- Type feedback proximal to cursor
- Typing without seeing keys
- Typing without seeing screen output
- Typing from mind without transcription (no visible source)

Related to editing:

- Automatic editing without attention
- Automatic editing with attention
- Reading along at the cursor
- Reading a portion afterwards.
- Reading all afterwards.
- Reading and proofreading aftwards with or without tool.
- Rereading more than once.
- Rereading with proofreading, editing for grammar and spelling, editing of sentences, rewriting of sentences.
- Complete rewrite.

Related to tools:

- Spell check unavailable.
- Spell check unused.
- Spell check utilized without suggestions.
- Spell check utilized with suggestions.
- Spell check utilized with a large dictionary, or with a small dictionary.
- Grammar check unavailable.
- Grammar check unused.
- Grammar check utilized without suggestions.
- Grammar check utilized with suggestions. 

Awareness
- Writing is appearing while writing.
- Writing was noticed only later.
- Writing is actively read while writing.
- It was automatic so it was uncertain.

There is a strange divide between reading and saying when there is output happening as one speaks. Both can happen, but at the micro level it's hard to disentangle or become aware of whether one is really reading or listing as one writes or speaks. Are you listening when you speak or are you more speaking with an auditory aspect being registered? This is different than reflecting on it afterwards, which in writing is a reading back, or reading of written material that appeared.

This method of categorization is part of the planning for having a more scientific understanding of the data, and to improve data collection going forward. The informal writing above is to be updated to include a coding scheme, so that chunks of experience are properly classified and measured. Some of what is written will admit of measurements, and some will simply apply or not (still related to measurement but without any measuremetn tool used. Like the presence or absence of a behavior or event).

Sharing this here provides some transparency regarding the scientific process for making a study or analysis more rigorous. Initially it is not possible to already be at complete rigor. There is a developmental process to arrive at a more rigorous approach, and it can be made even more rigorous later depending on the instrumentality of the rigor. It is not necessary to be more rigorous than would be instrumental to the purposes had, although it can be discovered later that the rigor was insufficient for those purposes and more rigor needs to be provided, but still not more than some threshold amount which makes it uninstrumental.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="agreement-disagreement-and-newness-as-social-elicitations">Agreement, Disagreement, and Newness as Social Elicitations</a>

*Saturday, May 18, 2024 13:34:26*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Now I'm working on identifying the sources of various social behaviors in the brain, but initially since I'm not appropriately equipped on the requisite neuroscience, I'm focusing on what I can discover introspectively. It is easy for me to identify what get's activated in mental experience when various communication channels communicate something to me. If a message is received, however it is received, it seems to activate a response from me (and likely not the same with everyone) if there is novelty, agreement, or disagreement with experience. By experience I mean nearly any information that can be loaded into the mind for reflection upon. Since I'm adept at logic and logical argumentation, the detection of errors, and the detection of thought that has more truthfulness, I'm very likely to notice, in comparison with information loaded, what agrees, disagrees, or is new. Information is compatible, incompatible, or new. Compatibility and incompatibility seem more basic to the experience. New information when recognized, is still checked for compatibility. Compatibility with experience is basic to learning too, and children as they are learning the world often see new stimuli that adults are familiar with already, that is incompatible with what can be loaded. Learning initially and for much of life is about finding new things that are incompatible with one's mind, and the mind seeks to blend that experience with what is known to make it compatible, and once compatible something akin to understanding is arrived at. When one discovers something new as an older person, incompatibilities are often less obvious and are less numerous as pieces fit in with extensive information in experience, unless the experience is something that is extremely novel and surprising. In scientific experimentation, since people have little experience with that, surprise can be generated again and again to test a person's information and prompt learning events akin to learning events in children. What is new may or may not come with explanation. Seeking to explain is like trying to utilize things that are known to develop connections with what is unknown to bring them into a mental framework. Older people are more likely than younger people to pretend they have explanations perhaps because their extensive experience confuses them into thinking that any gaps in explanation are fillable and that the superficial explanations are adequate. How people handle newness of information is an interesting topic, because when it appears they are lacking explanation, or are unable to learn an explanation provided, they don't seem to commonly abstain from judging that they can know the causes. Instead they tend to pretend they know the causes or try to disregard it as uninteresting or superfluous. Later bringing it up they may get irritated or angry, being aware they do not know the explanation but to persist in pretending they can explain it. Theh later, since they have been exposed to the stimulus the stimulus itself becomes less surprising, and they have less interest in getting the explanation right because it has become less interesting although it disagrees with experience. It can still annoy but they will cover the annoyance by claiming they can explain it otherwise oftentimes.

Newness is an addition to the earlier writings below. Interest in newness is very fast. I can be quickly identified that somethign doesn't fit into experience, which may also constitute a fast awareness of an incompatibility or disagreement. If something doesn't fit in with experience, it does not appear to agree with it. People are very interested in trying to discover for themselves with problem solving how it might fit in, which is working to make the mind agree with the phenomenon. The world's role in compatibility or agreement with the mind appears to be less important than the mind's role, because all understand that the world is natural, and real as presented, when the phenomena doesn't come from another mind that may lie or fabricate. So in relation to a mental disagreement with the world, something is to be made in agreement with the mind. This includes building out the mind to include more information and to make connections with what exists to make it cohesive and consistent. Consistency with the world is when the mind experiences familiarity, habit, automation, and expectation. When the mind experiences inconsistency, the world does not need to change, and it cannot and would not. The mind is what would do the changing and that is in the recognition of disagreement and the finding of ways to make it agree with what might already exist or what is learned in the process.

When a mind receives information that came from another mind, there is the understanding that the other mind may need alteration for agreement or disagreement with reality. Also that the other mind may present information about the world that is not in agreement with it. Conversation and passive communication with others is more difficult regarding this topic because unlike exposure to novel worldly stimulus, which forces a need for self-alteration (for those who are more rational), exposure to others involves minds in some degree of disagreement with reality. Much talk and chatter between people is about sharing, correcting, and trying to figure out what is true about reality. Reality is around and is impersonal but both are trying to resolve their various mental disagreements with it.

Since learning on exposure to new phenomena relates to compatibility/agreement and incompatibilty/disagreement, and learning is pervasive, and social elicitations relate to detection of agreement and disagreement with messages, it seems to follow that they are fundamental to life in general. All learning and all social behavior. Much learning too is simply social behavior. Here I'm mostly interested in how it relates to mental elicitations that cause the brain to begin social processes.

Social processes can be activated in various ways that are not supportive to a mind. The mind, so trained to socialize, can spend too much time just mentally socializing with it's own illusory models of other people and scenarios with them. These kinds of social process have to be evoked somehow, and this is parly why I like the word elicitation. An elicitation would be from stimulous outside the self, or would be from recollection. Recollections of what disagrees with experience is a powerful way to continue unuseful social behavior. Have you ever met anyone who you talked with before, to later find them prepared to argue with you, but their mode of argument seems to indicate they've prepared for an illusory version of you? Their thinking included harmful socialization caused by both you as a stimulus and some recollection. There are other causes for recollection. Attraction/repulsion and so on. An attraction may call someone to mind again and again. These will relate to agreements or disagreements of various kinds. There is also the dwelling because you might want something or less from someone. Even planning of what is wanted seems to relate to an analysis of what agrees or disagrees with experience otherwise planning wouldn't be quite as effective. Here it is admitted that while disagreement and incompatibility are fundamental for social elicitations, they are not the only fundamental components. Attraction and repulsion are also fundamental. Recognitions of wants/desires and risks/dangers are important. Both of these must analyze however, for what agrees/disagrees with experience, even if the mind doing the thinking relies on imagination and illusory models of how the other person happens to be.

I'm generating this analysis afresh independently, but it has been influenced by my learnings of social psychology as I was training to be a Psychologist. This is confirming, when one builds up an analysis and finds agreement with a field. It would be found that this agrees closely with existing work in social psychology and sociology. It also agrees with marketing and advertising which relates to this, and of course most would agree that it fits with experience, with certain omissions admitted. Since I'm interested primarily in my own experience of social elicitations, I curiously did not include desire. I rarely experience desire of any other person, so this did not present immediately as key to the experience of social elicitation. Repulsion however is key. This does relate to disagreements in experience of various kinds. For my own independent experience it sill appears that agreement/disagreement is the most important. Repulsions are largely caused by disagreements detected. These are disagreements of the sort that don't seem to relate to any need for additional learning, but rather are the irritants of other minds having things incorrect in various ways. Agreements also are involved, as often I hear things from others that happen to be compatible with my experience and that can be a joy. But as it is repeated, I'm finding still that these don't tend to be learnig experiences and even these have become social irritants of sorts, because of their recurrence. Recurrence can present a disagreement with various plans and thoughts too. "I plan to think mostly about what is not a recurrence" can be in disagreement with what recurs. But plans have to be harmonized with experience too, and that is part of what I'm working on here to resolve. I am more interested in canceling the irritation than altering the plans, and this too would make them more harmonious.

Now that sufficient background is established, I will continue the topic on canceling social elicitations that result in unwanted or harmful social thinking, that happens independently primarily but also in relationships that are unwanted. Unwanted relationships can be shortened, and made less frequent. Independent thinking is what is done most of life. What i'm interested in most nowadays is my own social thinking as it occurs totally separately from others and independently.

What is clear about cancelation of social elicitations and suppression of social thinking that results is more quickly noticing that one is really in agreement/disagreement and that if that is not wanted, redirection should occur. What is great about the work to cancel social elicitation is that it happens often enough for training to be realistic, whereas other types of training do not have enough experiences to train upon. Conflict training is such an example. Conflicts are so rare, that people still find themselves behaving in unwanted ways when conflicts arise, and may feel guilt and shame afterwards. But this is simply because it happens too infrequently. Old people still handle conflict poorly as a result, and it is a challenge to their self-concept when it happens. Suddenly they seem unwise and they worry about appraisals of others. Correct appraisal though may just be that they have ineptitudes in the area of conflict since it is an area where training is more difficult.

The inability to cancel and suppress social elicitations and social thinking is pandemic. But as was said it is so pervasive that self-training is easier. Willingness to work on it may be low and some may not recognize any need. But if one wants to improve it is possible, and with education it is possible to nearly eradicate it, even though it is pandemic.

The process I am working on is quite simple. A message is detected at the time, during, or after a behavior in retrospect. The behavior relates to social elicitation and sometimes is automatic without awareness. At the beginning more is retrospective. "Oh I missed that again, and behaved the same way." It is caught again and again too late, after the social thinking and elicitation, and any associated behaviors. Over time though, it is detected more rapidly and not only after the fact. Soon automation on the cancelation is experienced, and there are fewer elicitations. Catching it is faster too. With the combination of fast cancelation, fast detection, correction and redirection, and training with fewer retrospectives, the experience becomes almost only cancelation. I'm part way through this process and am not at the poitn of only cancelation. That is what I want for myself but i'm not there yet. Detection of all elicitation and automatic behavior is still a challenge but the frequency is diminishing according to the plan mentioned above.

Here I will record later whatever happens to be of good utility for furthering this process. Before yesterday, I did not have even the method of simply using agreement or disagreement as a way of noticing faster the elititation and suppressing thought about it. I used other means instead, working to ignore what was heard by focusing on various other stimuli in the environment. That has been effective but it has now been confirmed that this method above also if of good utility and should be used further. It is not yet known how comprehensive a training approach this is, but it may be that it is comprehensive enough to arrive at the desired outcome, which is simply to greatly reduce social elicitations and social thinking.

[Note: completed at 2:28 pm, in 54 minutes, without spell check, grammar check, editing of any kind, and semi-blind typed]

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="agreement-disagreement-expansion-persuasion-and-conversational-development">Agreement, Disagreement, Expansion, Persuasion, and Conversational Development</a>

*Friday, May 17, 2024 23:59:02*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

What are the various social elicitations that result in a desire to persuade or expand on someone else's communication? Conversational development has been something I've been interested in for a very long time, particularly since I noticed with some it seems not to occur even after very prolonged periods of time. Lack of conversation development is a good cause for disconnection with another person. If that person happens to have conversations with you, but reverts only to what they were saying before, indicating a failure of both to recall what earlier conversations were about, and that points of agreement were really agreement for further mutual development, then there is very little reason to continue communication. To continue communication is somewhat akin to trying to develop a relationship with a person who has a certain kind of amnesia, someone who pretends to agree during conversation, or someone who stubbornly and relentlessly holds onto a view that they repeat again and again, without altering it to include communications from you. Without sufficient conversational development there is even a feeling that the person you are talking to somehow is not a real person, and is instead a kind of bot stuck in time. Friendship and other positive relationships are about mutual exchange and joint development, and an insufficient amount of development one is justified in wondering what kind of relationship is really had. So this topic has been important to me as I have considered and reconsidered various kinds of relationships with others greatly preferring those that have characteristics of good mutual development over time showing changes in both myself and the other as time goes on. Today, however, my interest is not only in this, and I'm sharing this in order to move to another stage of consideration, concerning when to refrain from attempting to make any development of conversation with anyone else, who might be present with me, or who might be on the internet, or someone I wouldn't be talking with at all but am simply seeing on television. In myself, I wonder what social elicitations exist that would prompt me to want to think further on what was stated, written, or said, by another person wherever they happen to present a message.

When one is having conversation with another, there are various intentions and motivations that arise. Parts of conversation may be to relay facts, sharing pieces of information or news that seems interesting and useful, or to convey an argument with inferences that certain truths might exist. There are other purposes, like for the mutual enjoyment of humor, but for now I'm leaving that out. Typically when people talk they are telling each other something about the world including people and it comprises of pieces of information with various levels of factitude along with arguments that certain positions should be taken about facts. Either way, when you are speaking to someone, they wish to persuade you of some things. Firstly that what they are saying happens to consist of facts that you should take to be factual too, and secondly that there are positions they have that they are looking for agreement regarding that perhaps you should have as well. This is not totally comprehensive but is comprehensive enough to encroach broadly on the whole topic of social communication.

When talking to someone, when you are speaking, you really are trying to be persuasive about even some very basic details. You don't want to be someone who is just sharing a bunch of false pieces of information or fictions. Your appearance and demeanor are even planned to be persuasive, so that someone you speak to takes you seriously enough to assume what you state is true. So you are wanting them to hear you, understand the things you are saying includes factual truths, at a fundamental level. Beyond that kind of persuasion, there is the persuasive effort of trying to convey that certain perspectives are useful, which is a kind of acknowledgement to you, and that perhaps certain strategies, courses of action, plans, and positions, also are useful. You want to persuade regarding yourself but you also at times want to persuade that a position is good enough that others might want to have a similar position or that the person you are talking to should have that same position. Mutual development includes points of agreement, along with ideas about what is agreed upon to expand a shared perspective. Takeaways from conversations include things expected to change between both people. That includes at a minimum knowing what both discussed and being able to recall that later. Above this expectation is the anticipation that after some time has elapsed both will have self altered in various ways being mutually influenced by what was talked about. A great example of this is if a friend or colleague you talk to remembers and changes on the bases of conversation with you and you do the same. If both of you are conveying new facts to each other, agree on various perspectives that have grown on the basis of shared facts, later you both recall the conversation and both have changed, then very likely you have the kind of relationship people are wanting. If humor and fun is mixed in, even better-- you've found mutual intellectual growth and mutual enjoyment in the relationship and probably that is a decent relationship to continue to develop.Else it's not clear why one would want to develop it.

Persuasion and self-alteration then seems a basic component of a good quality relationship. It's happening often in the basic trustworthiness of stories and small pieces of information in discussion, and also in the larger level persuasions that certain perspectives are improvements that each should share in in some way that makes sense for each person's situation.

In the absence of having a relationship such as this, one still might wonder what kind of development is happening in oneself as a result of transactions of all kinds with other people, either unilaterally in watching entertainment or reading books, or bilaterally in short relationships, talking with strangers, or talking with people one would not really want to talk to.

What I'm more interested for the moment is the extent that it is worthwhile to experience any kind of social elicitation whatsoever. When does it not happen? Sometimes when one watches television, one can watch it in a way that is not too analytical, almost watching without hearing, or hearing without too much concern or attention. People listen to others somewhat like this from time to time too-- being involved only partly, and engaging very little. In this kind of scenario, one might not care too much about whether or not something is said is true, false, probable, or dubious. Listening a little more intently, paying attention, a smart person will begin to pick up on what does seem false, what seems true, and what seems probable or dubious. This can be done simply listening and being analytical about what is said, without too much time comparing what was said to one's personal experience. With a little more attention, these things are attended to with some comparison to one's own information in one's mind, and one starts to find what agrees or disagrees with one's experience. If one is attending to this extent then one may find one wants to think further on what one is hearing. It elicits what might be considered a "social elicitation" which is what prompts conversation on that point. If one is watching television or reading something, it may just create further reflection. If one is with another person, it may prompt conversation regarding it. People spend a lot of time thinking and reflecting on what appears to have been agreeable and what has been disagreeable. If agreeable it is a cause for mental expansion and sometimes the thinker will start to add pieces of what was heard to their own thinking. If disagreeable, there may be a desire to find ways to persuade the other, or to improve one's own thinking to be more persuasive if there is an opportunity for that. In both cases one starts to think independently about how to converse potentially with others (or an immediate other) who has the view. It is a social elicitation because it catalyzes social thinking that involves imaginary preparations and transactions with another or other people.

What happens if this entire process becomes less useful? Consider an older person who is well-considered, and has many true perspectives of high development. Is it useful to continue to be socially elicited on things that happen to agree or disagree with their perspective? Some old people comment on the inability to persuade anyone regarding their thoughts and positions. Above I mentioned that there are many types of relationships that are not useful because there is little mutual development. What about the relationship one has to imaginary people or the television? Combining this topic with the topic discussed immediately below, there is a very large difficulty of rational persuasion versus rhetorical persuasion and people have trouble knowing the difference. It turns out there is a lot of social elicitation that is not particularly worthwhile and the older person who has less time remaining will know this and will likely begin to decrease these elicitations. It's simply not worth socializing alone or with others on these various topics any longer.

Recently I've been thinking about the ways social interactions catalyze thinking in myself. While I enjoy sometimes hearing from others because it can be stimulating in positive ways, like the old person above I've started to notice that sometimes it's simply socially eliciting. I'll start to respond socially to stimuli just because I have various kinds of habits to do so. If I hear something I agree with, I'll start to think about how I agree and why it seems true. If I hear something I disagree with, I'll try to disregard it as something not worth thinking about, or I'll recall what I think is the better perspective. But sometimes I don't want to recall anything or think further about it at all. Who am I going to persuade? What is the benefit I will receive from thinking further on that topic? Where did the topic originate and why think about it then? The amount of ways one's thinking can be side tracked from social elicitations is quite large. Wanting to have only relationships that involve mutual progression on each side, I wonder why have these transitory relationships with television, people on social media, and random people I hear speaking in public? I want to isolate and reduce socialization, independent or with others. I want it to focus on where it is valuable, and given the above considerations and article below, it's *rare*. It's not common. In youth it is common, but after one has developed a good quality of mind on a diversity of topics, what is around for socialization simply decreases in value.

This is also about controlling the reactivity of one's mind to social stimulus. This is the reason for wanting to dissect the topic, to understand the really small ways the stimulus have an effect. Is this person now speaking trying to persuade regarding facts? Should I disregard? Is this person trying to state a position that agrees or disagrees with my own? Should I disregard its agreement or disagreement? Is this person trying to persuade me to adopt their viewpoint, or change my own? Are any of these things worth my time given how the communication began and where it came from, or where it will go in terms of mutual development? Will I be the only one developing on the basis of the communication?

In my estimation, after revisiting this and related topics many times, is that there is very clearly little value in socialization excepting rare occurrences. But the impulse to socialize is very great, even thinking alone in isolation while hearing messages and stimulus. Wanting to decrease the stimulus that is not worthwhile, is not entirely possible, and still there will be messages around. What in the messages elicit thinking that's social in nature? I believe these details are required in order to suppress the inclinations and redirect them elsewhere. If I simply hear something on the news quickly at the gym, I do not wish to socialize alone regarding it. If I overhear a conversation that is somehow agreeable to me, I don't want to imagine the ways I agree with it or expand my view. It's typically too low in value compared with independent thinking pursuits I have.

What is the internal socialization that is happening in one's mind? How does it relate to imagined others. In the absence of stimulus, what recollections are socially eliciting? What is the value? Notice that socialization causes one to overly value it very quickly such that one spends time on it. But one has limited time, so what are the ways to reduce this overall tendency to socialize. This is all coming from someone who is more expert these days in determining what socialization is worthwhile and what is not, and refraining from socialization even independently. However, it persists still nevertheless and is frequent. I would like to more greatly reduce my own propensity to socialize internally in all the ways it can happen to begin.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="problems-with-persuasion-social-inclination-and-conversation-development">Problems with Persuasion, Social Inclination, and Conversation Development</a>

*Friday, May 17, 2024 20:14:45*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Ever since first learning about persuasion in school, how others are to be persuaded, and the ancient topic of Rhetorical methods to increase persuasiveness, I've disliked it. After decades of revisiting the topic briefly, again and again, I've come to mostly despise how people are educated regarding persuasion. The primary reason is easy to state: the methods of persuasion actively employ logical fallacies and manipulation. The subject and its education is at odds with other subjects and education that are much better for everyone. For example, how to *avoid* being manipulated, how to be logical, how to think with correct inferences, and how to be scientific in how one arrives at factual information. These areas of education really do uplift society and individual thinkers. Once taught to think logically, scientifically, and reasonably, then one's thinking is supposed to be resistant to persuasion from sources that ought not be persuasive. The teaching implies that there are immoralities in persuasion, and that by thinking better and more logically one has become a more moral person.

Because the education goes down these two pathways without reconciliation, it encourages the world to perpetuate a divide between rational and irrational thinking. It partly causes a stark division to remain between careers and markets where manipulative persuasion continues to exist and where it does not exist. Education, being realistic too, has to prepare people for how the world is really like, so they can get jobs and have an income. So people are taught to be persuasive so they can have jobs as lawyers, salespeople, marketers, advertisers, politicians, propagandists, and business people. If one has an offering, or a product, that is not of great value, how does one sell it without learning to be persuasive and to manipulate. Even though education has to be realistic about the world and the division between irrationality and rationality, there is a mutual causality: the world influences what people think needs to be taught, and what ought to be taught to transform the world. And so we have education teaching about how to think aright, and also how to persuade others regardless of how good one's thinking happens to be.

I was definitely right to find issues with Rhetoric and Persuasion. Courses that cover logical thinking and science have the mission to change the world to eradicate these topics in their current form, and to alter them so that what makes sense becomes persuasive. Science and logic are not supposed to be unpersuasive. Instead they are supposed to provide the primary means of persuasion. A method that does not include the manipulative components and fallacies. Science and logic would indicate that if one has an inferior product, or a product that does not function, that actually it should not be sold. Nobody should be persuaded and businesses should not be seeking to persuade them in ways that manipulate them to make purchases. In the law, the side that is correct is supposed to "win". Juries and Judges are not supposed to be persuaded using methods that are outside of logical and scientific thinking to identify truth. Politicians are not supposed to be able to represent, if they are not making sense all of the time, and are not utilizing logical fallacies. But they too frequently use appeals to authority, ad populum/bandwagon fallacies, and false claims generally. Rhetoric is the art of the lawyer, business person and politician, and not science and logic. By teaching rhetoric and persuasion in schools in the traditional way, we are actually preserving a huge error in society, and causing its perpetuation.

People complain about errors in politics, in business, in sales and marketing, but they are unable to identify what the problems happen to be oftentimes. They can point out false claims, lies, and so on, but are unable it seems to identify the fundamental issues which relate to how they persuade and utilize rhetoric to get what they want. Rhetoric even teaches that if one is persuasive, one should *expect* one's audience to change their view and behave how you want. Knowing that people are untrained in being persuaded by logic and science in the correct ways instead, they are really using the solution that works. Rhetoric and manipulation work. It exists in the world and is a reality. Schools continue to teach it because they have to serve the community in a realistic way. But unwittingly they simply contribute to causing it to continue existing.

I don't anticipate any solution to this problem in this lifetime. It really means there are huge changes needed to any market that happens to use persuasion. Sales, Marketing, Advertising, and Propaganda, would have to switch to truthful information conveyance. Imagine what it would be like if all advertising were changed to simply communicate honest information. It would completely change and would not resemble entertainment and a bombardment of impressions as it does today. Imagine if politics really had to employ correct reasoning, and what would it take to encourage that change? Firstly it would require an admission that Rhetoric needs to be eliminated in favor of science and logic, so our concept of what is persuasive needs to change. To do that, education needs to not be at odds with itself on this point. Of course education would have to change extremely and people at an early age would have to learn to be *resistant* to what was historically taught. The methods of the legal system would require alteration too. Juries would have to have been educated correctly, and would have already learned to not be susceptible to Rhetorical devices that are fallacious. Argument methods in the law would need to have their technique refined to be more logical and scientific. To an extent, debate and argument in the court is closer to what is wanted, but there are still tremendous differences in that the court really will accept rhetoric and legal process rules that incorporate logical errors. Attorneys would be able to talk extensively about this issue, and what it has meant for their careers and society.

Not being able to anticipate any change in this lifetime regarding this, and knowing that even on this point about persuasion I will not be able to be persuasive, using good logical thinking that is at odds with Rhetoric, I have to have a strategy for avoiding its negative effects at a personal level. Once one has learned science and logic, and really changed one's own mind to think clearly, honestly, truthfully, and effectively, one will become aware the problem is all around, but also that one has very little power to do anything about it. The correct way of thinking is so useful in one's life however, that one would not stop utilizing it. Anyone who has been educated correctly would be extremely aware of the divide mentioned above, and would likely be irritated by the pervasiveness of poor quality thinking and persuasion, and the inability to persuade people when arguments presented and communicated are really correct. There is a combination of a desire to avoid the illogic of the world, and learning to be comfortable being around it when it cannot be removed from the environment.

For a long time I've separated myself as much as I could from advertising, and I mostly disconnect from people who are unable to understand sound reasoning. This is the avoidance part of dealing with an environment that pervasively includes untrained people and too much advertising, news and propaganda. But I continue to have social inclinations that relate to a desire to persuade others on various topics to think aright. Not having learned what should and should not persuade, they cannot be persuaded. So I wonder how much of my effort at persuading and connected social inclinations to communicate persuasively should just be eliminated. Most of my writing has a component of persuasion built in. Since the writing is about improving truth related to thinking and conduct, in the field of Moral Philosophy, Logic and the Sciences, there is a persuasive interest that others who might read the material would be convinced and feel somewhat educated or informed. The writing has a joint interest in simply learning and recording what is learned, for self improvement and self guidance, there is an assumption too that what has been written is open for others to read. If one writes a book one would expect that one has benefited oneself by writing it but also that someone would read it. What is the point of having someone read it if they will not be persuaded by some of the contents? So the writing includes a motivation of my own that is about my own development, but also something about having some expectation of persuasiveness.

Knowing that few are really persuaded, and that there is this general societal issue, and that in my experience most are resistant to change and development, I'm wanting to decrease my social inclinations as they relate to the desire to persuade. How big is the desire to persuade? I think it's massive. When we are communicating we are thinking we are providing good facts for others to use and good ways of thinking, such that if they agree, they will use what they learned. Knowing the size and extent in which people are unpersuaded and the extent that they are really would change our expectations universally about what communication is about and why it is useful. People keep trying to persuade even though their persuasiveness is limited, and of course, if what they say is not scientific and logical, and totally honest, then one should not be persuaded anyways, and this is in agreement with education. If they use rhetoric then there is something weak about what they are trying to say, and they are using manipulation instead. It seems then that communication itself ought to be different than it is, and if all were aware of these issues their way of socializing would be dramatically different. They would avoid it more, and the way of communicating would change. But if all were educated different such that all understood that science and logic were the better way, people could freely exchange facts with due scepticism, and would make inferences of better quality so one would expect more persuasion. Mutual distrust is a bigger result of the current process of communication. In conversation between honest clear thinking people, who don't want to use poor logic or rhetoric to convince, there is much greater trust.

Returning to the topic of writing which is my favorite activity, I want to do two things: continue what I was doing already and simply keep developing myself truthfully, while keeping my writing available to anyone who might benefit even if the numbers are few, *and* I want to disconnect the social impulse from the process. I want my writing to persuade myself of course, where it is correct, but I don't really want to strive to persuade anyone. As I said, they are likely unable to be persuaded. More on this must be shared than just the societal issue, because interpersonally I've seen such a small amount of development of conversation that I think people's thinking is largely in stasis. Interpersonally people are rarely persuaded, which of course is a consequence of the larger issue. Since the environment and interpersonally there is little persuasion, the social impulses associated with wanting to convince others becomes questionable. If I'm writing and I'm having a desire to persuade anyone, I'm basically irrationally imagining I'm persuading an audience that doesn't exist. Perhaps there is an irrationality in pretending to know an audience? Sometimes, what prompts writing relates also with something amiss socially that I feel I know a remedy for. The prompter is related to the desire to convince others of another way of thinking. I like to self develop on this impulse, but I want to minimize the social aspect of the impulse that creates additional thinking about persuasion. I'd rather use it to simply catalyze some self-development but understand that the inclination to persuade doesn't make much sense.

*More soon*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-joint-elimination-of-worry-and-planning">The Joint Elimination of Worry and Planning</a>

*Thursday, May 16, 2024 07:54:00*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In the most recent thoughtstream, the topic was planning and automation, and the pathway to gradually reduce planning as it is typically thought of. Here I want to discuss the relationship of worry to planning and a potential pathway for their mutual elimination.

For any particular situation type, if one has planned well, has sufficient experience, the need for having a plan decreases. One can think of their parents or elders at times for examples regarding this. When young, one might encounter a situation that is new and one might not know exactly what to do. One worries about it, perhaps at length, until one finds a solution independently, or asks a parent or elder what to do. Maybe one reads from someone else who knows how to handle the situation. These people who already know would worry less about your circumstances that you were in, because they believe they know how to deal with it already. They would simply quickly act in ways they are familiar with and resolve the situation without too much trouble if they are experienced enough. Their need to plan has diminished along with the need to worry. It is the person who found the situation new and worrisome who dwelled on the planning and the imagination of various courses of action. Not the expert.

This is the case too with very strong employees and business people. The best and most senior employees are undaunted by situations that might make a new employee nervous and uncomfortable, or scared. They may be unconcerned and able to advise regarding the situation and swiftly act as though it is simply a familiar part of the job. They may need to do some planning regarding these situations, but they will spend less time on it and have thinking characteristics that do not resemble the person who is planning it for the first few times.

Clearly we can see in these scenarios that worry relates to planning. I was writing about how interesting the topic of the extensiveness of planning is, and connecting it with worry it becomes more interesting and not less. Whenever I was worried about something there was almost certainly some planning happening. I want to avoid the prospect of a negative outcome of some kind. I have plans, and then I have contingency plans. I would even plan for what was unlikely, and if too unlikely, mostly imaginary. The person who is worried maybe worried about an imaginary risk to begin with. Worry then includes very definitely a large amount of envisioning of situations, choices and outcomes, and very definitely is planful. Since it can include only imaginary conditions and real conditions, it includes more planning and is much more ineffective. After one has been through the worrisome experience one does not worry as much about that kind of experience (potentially, although not for all), and one feels that one's planning becomes more reality based and less illusory. The worries have diminished the need for planning, and the improvement of planning ability has reduced through experience the need for more planning.

It appears then that worry and planning are closely related and are positively correlated. There is certainly some mutual causality occurring. This reveals the importance of the earlier posting regarding automation in a way I did not expect when I did that writing. One wants to become more automatic regarding habits and judgement to gradually reduce planning as far as is reasonable, not only for efficiency but to decrease life's worries. If one does not need a plan, then it seems to follow that worries are reduced. After all, how can one be worried if what was worried about is already sufficiently planned into mastery? Parents, Elders, and Seasoned Experts are less worried about all those tasks that would have worried them previously, so it would appear that it is true that if one wants to worry less one should attend to the topic of behavioral automation and reduction of planning with sufficient coverage of life, so there is less that is unexpected, or less that one might want to do that one cannot already do.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



## <a name="automatic-action-and-planning">Automatic Action and Planning</a>

*Thursday, May 16, 2024 06:59:11*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

How difficult is planning for the average individual? It seems as though that planning is so pervasive in one's life that planning itself must be something that could be characterized as a general life-long challenge for most people, but more especially those who are more average or less than average in their intellectual abilities and executive function. As one goes downwards in the intelligence spectrum, one finds that people cannot plan for themselves hardly at all and this is a cause for their being less able to live independently. It seems that it must be the case that planning is one of the fundamental difficulties faced by all people and to the extent that one has less abilities that are required to form plans and act on them, the more likely one is going to struggle. This seems to imply that average individuals are going to struggle with their planning and probably have insufficient training and support to make sure their planning is as optimal as it can be for their dispositions and objectives.

People who are trying to improve their ability to procrastinate less, stay motivated, behave ethically, and compete in the workplace, are often working hard to improve their habits. They also work to improve their ability to use written and well-prioritized lists, and to use their memory to ensure they get things done they were wanting to get done. They work hard to counteract habits that are less beneficial, and often have to spend considerable time to achieve the self-understanding necessary to know which influences have the effect of enabling them to really change their behavior. What is wanted in this process is to arrive at improved habits, so that mastery feels attained and there is less need to work on the same issues again and again. After a long period of work on this one may have the ability to stay fit, eat healthy, stay educated and informed, keep a good job and find better ones, and save or invest money. They may be able to support children in the planning and coordination of their habits so they have a chance to behave perhaps better when they are adults, with more opportunities for success and for a high quality of life. Since the objective is to have habits that relate to a feeling of mastery, and since habits decrease the amount of planning required to live effectively because the behavior includes the planning already, there is an automation of planning occurring that is beneficial. Instead of working hard, and practicing, one just automatically does what one would like to do. As one gets better and better, this gets more automated.

Consistent with the title of this article, the main thing I want to discuss here is not this, which is something I'm aware of, but the more interesting topic of the extent of possible automation of a person in relation to planning. If one practices until one has habits, and behaves in a planful way without planning as much, planning has vanished to a degree. How far can this go? Can it go until one does not plan anything? Immediately one might think that that sounds like too much, but I'm not so sure. I've made some personal advancements that may indicate that one can largely eliminate planning, until what is thought about is something that is of a different nature than regular planning. It may be possible to go further until the thought that relates to habit and personal coordination and direction really is unlike what we typically think of as planning.

Imagine if all your habits were very good quality and almost anything relating to those habits required few thoughts. For example, let's suppose you planned and practiced your way to eating, nutritional, and shopping mastery, to the extent that you really nearly automate your entire grocery-shopping and food-shopping experience. Suppose further, that with almost no thinking, you can adjust this shopping to make changes to try new recipes without planning for it, without grocery lists, and without any need to work hard at locating the foods in the store. Suppose even for novel food eating, you mostly can do it unreflectively to the extent that even new recipes require very little planning and the process from the grocery store to cooking it is largely automatic. It may seem like this is impossible but I'm pretty confident that is not the case. If one thinks it is not possible, I would ask "How far do you think you can go with planful habits? What if someone decided that they wanted to go much further than you would expect anyone to want to go with it?" Surely if someone dedicated themselves to this they would achieve something that is more than just a standard habit replacement for basic actions that one wanted to have. More advanced work results in more advanced automation. How far one can go with it seems unknown, but it also seems it is much further than people would anticipate.

Since most of what humans do with their time involves activities that separately require planning, practice and habit formation, excepting relaxation and very spontaneous action, and perhaps a few other things, it seems that all could be automated in a similar way to the example I provided with grocery shopping. One can become more automated regarding gym behavior and exercise, reading behavior, writing behavior, with the practicing of skills and hobbies, of caring for family and children, &c... If each were worked on as I have indicated above, it should be possible to achieve a very high level of global personal automation which would substitute the need for planning and basic behavioral practice. How far can one go with this. Mastery of skills is really a building up of automation of simple behaviors to ever more complex behaviors, and taking all parts of life together, it should be (and is) possible to arrive at much more sophisticated habits and automations.

What does this mean for planning? Does it mean that planning is slowly eroded until there is no need? It appears it does mean this. Those who are most ethical, and most masterful regarding their own behavior globally, would be those who have the least planning needs. I think as one advances further and further in this direction the concept of planning is altered, and what one thinks about is more abstract and general, and what is desired for alteration is more nuanced. The way of thinking about this does not utilize simple planning lists and the calendar. Instead it focuses more on psychology, introspection, and other kinds of thinking about how to influence thinking about behavior, and thinking about thinking about behavior. It's like with an organization that is already apparently running optimally and automatically (because the staff is well trained, shows up, and simply does the work routinely), but the executive needs to think through how to advance the business in ways that rely on more nuanced visions of what could be different. They changes they make may be more about minor shifts that are expected to be rewarding, because of some mathematics or financial calculations. Perhaps the larger organization model and organizational processes have areas in which some improvement or optimization can occur that could only be seen by thinking about it as a mathematician would. The shifts would be to the structure of the organization that encompasses behavior but not necessarily to the behavior directly, and even the planning for how to make the changes to the organization are so well understood that no planning is needed, but activating another process of making changes. This is realistic, if the executives are extremely talented, the organization is a good one, and they have sufficient experience, but it is only intended to be an illustration about how one may think about one's own behavior, after one has gone much further in self-optimization and habituation. 

The main item of interest here though is that self-advancement does seem to decrease the need for planning and if one is extremely advanced the character of planning may change dramatically. If people were in a communicative collective eventually, and all were really advanced together, the way they mutually behave together would also take other forms than standard planning it seems.

*More on this topic soon.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



## <a name="an-analysis-of-social-virality">An Analysis of Social Virality</a>

*Tuesday, May 14, 2024 20:59:30*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

There are two pathways all are aware of to have a viral production. The first is to put in the effort oneself, arrive at something that people like with few resources, and experience it's growth in popularity. The other is to use an existing position in the media, existing media related tools and resources, and repetitively market and distribut it to the public, until what is produced becomes popular. Either pathway, what has gone viral has traits that create interest and a desire to spread that interest to others. Outside of the topic of what happens to go viral one can see that this relates too to the topic of media control versus individual effort to gain some fame for oneself or one's creations.

What exactly can go viral is a tricky topic that many are interested in, but I have seen no published formula or methodology that would ensure virality. It is harder to define, predict, and make some individual viral thing, without a methodology, than to have a methodology that would routinely create *something* that might go viral. Media and entertainment companies like Disney, and product companies understand that not all that they create will have traits required for virality, and probably they would not want everything they make to be viral. If all that was made went viral, it would probably be disturbing. What they have is a process that creates at a good pace viral things that are sufficient for maintaining popularity and a market to earn from consumers. They make many things along the way and some do better than others, and sometimes some few of those things become extremely popular, such that growths of entire businesses result. But what those things are, will be, and so on, is unpredictable. Even sudden stardom or extreme popularity of certain people and products is somewhat inexplicable even if there was considerable investment and even if key people seem to have identified in advance traits of possible virality.

Some stars, products, and productions have received a lot of investment, and only attained modest interest, although those working on it seemed to believe with some reasonability that these things would maybe go viral. Others invest in people, products and productions, that seem to potentially have less chance of virality, and yet those things do in fact attain extreme popularity.

What is needed here is the identification of an actual formula of virality or potential virality that will make a process ever more virality producing without arriving at total ability to produce viral things or predict what they would be. Such a formula would allow us to precisely explain, as far as it is explicable, why some things in history have become as viral as they have become. Explanations for viral things in history are still elusive. One can understand afterwards that one liked something that became popular, but may have trouble identifying exactly why it became as popular as it did and how so many people were suddenly motivated to have so much interest and to spread that interest. Small factors that are present or not seem to contribute quite a lot to virality, although what is liked seems to require many traits together to get popular. What could be omitted from a popular thing that would diminish it enough for it to not be popular any longer? An exercise of removing traits can help to illuminate what was necessary for the results. It is assumed here that even if there is a large degree of unpredictability (and few things might seem as unpredictable as this), that the entire process proceeds deterministically and that the causes of the virality existed, but that identifying all of those causes may be troublesome. People are convinced that it *is* possible to become viral, and that media companies can and do produce regularly viral things. They also understand it is like a lottery ticket to individually arrive at virality, and that while it is uncommon to occur from businesses, giant companies do have methodologies that *do produce* people and things that become extremely popular. They already understand both that it is unpredictable but also that it is not inexplicable. It's simply hard to explain fully and produce a formula for.

Here I will strive to produce a formula both for the process of organically arriving at virality, and for forcing it to eventually occur with a methodology a business would use. "Organic" virality here means that it has grown naturally from people who are not paying large sums of money to force it to occur, with advertising, marketing and so on, but if they did, they did it from less resources. There are degrees in which organic growth is organic, just like with organic farming. Then there is the other approach of using vast resources to *make something popular*. A formula for each of these is important because then it will be easier to know what has any potential of virality from individual people who have few resources, and also to understand virality at a large scale where many resources already exist.

There are many different kinds of viral things, and instead of trying to cover all examples, what is striven for here is something general which have some good applicability to most if not allexamples people could come up with. Memes in social media, and viral videos will be considered, along with very popular shows, characters, and people in media and entertainment. Popular items and products from corporations will be covered. Viral ideas will be covered as well. It can be seen from this that what we call "viral" is merely an example of anything that happens to become extremely popular, human or object, which might result potentially in sales. Anyone looking for an opportunity to become immensely famous or immensely rich will be looking for something that has traits of virality, whichever category of virality we happen to be talking about.

Whenever we imagine something that has gone viral, we are actually thinking of a "small something" in the world. A small video, an individual person, product, or idea. Even if it has become so popular as to relate to many things going on in the world, it is still something small contrasted with all that exists. A viral video might be 30 seconds and include a person, who becomes famous and more viral for many videos and many appearances on television. Still that something and all those things interconnected, constitute a small thing of the world. We can encapsulate it, compare it with environment conditions, and find traits in the items, and conditions of society, that explain causally why it became viral. We want to look very carefully at the characteristics of the viral thing in all the ways that lend to interest and popularity, and the conditions in the surrounding environment that lead to readiness to become and stay interested in that thing, and to talk about it further. We'll be talking about the diverse characteristics of interest that come together to make a viral thing viral and what makes everyone interested in that thing.

Philosophically, this is of interest, because the total number of considerations is quite large, and is not so different from trying to have a full understanding of anything at all. What we have just read above is that what matters about understanding virality is understanding all that is relevant to a "something" and the environment which has to be big enough to make it popular. That's a huge interplay between a focal point and many people and things in the world. This is an analysis of situations and objects and their relationships. It's also an analysis of what is important to people, and how they might become motivated. What they might talk about! So clearly, even though virality seems like a simple topic that is easily discussed (and we all discuss it), the problems that relate to it are huge and of scientific and philosophical importance. So while we attend to the main topic of virality we will attain something much more interesting than only that topic as a result, because it connects to the general analysis of human phenomena of all different kinds.

*[Note: written in 37 minutes with no spell check, grammar check, and semi-blind typed, as part of a study in editing]* 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="writing-over-dictation-for-authentication-and-spelling-and-grammar-from-mind">Writing Over Dictation for Authentication, and Spelling and Grammar-From-Mind</a>

*Tuesday, May 14, 2024 08:44:16*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Dictation is an approach to avoid type skill and use of the hands for recording thoughts into textual format on a digital computer. I have considered this as an option for increasing writing efficiency, and to increase my capacity of recording thoughts and ideas. For a while I left this aside as a topic for consideration at another time. After having an few insights regarding this, I'm now convinced that typing is vastly superior to dictation, if one is at all interested in proving quality of mind in relation to spelling and grammar, to authenticate one's writing, and to ensure that what is written connects with how one would structure the output. How one would write also influences how one structures everyday speech at times, and both contribute to how one thinks before engaging in any outward communication. It may relate to how one thinks apart from how would communicate, but that is to be determined neuroscientifically. It may be that the parts of the brain responsible for thinking speech, and speaking, are influencing thinking that is ocurring verbally and perhaps pre-verbally in the frontal cortex away from Broca's and Wernicke's areas.

Oftentimes on the thoughtstream I have recorded thoughts that I've timed, and I've included notes indicating the total time required to perform the writing. I've also included notes that this was part of an effort on a study on editing. These writings were nearly blind typed, or partly blind typed without re-reading, and many had no spell check or grammatical checks. Spelling mistakes made are idiosyncratic and typical. Without learning specific spelling changes to make, the same or similar mistakes were made. Common typos related to my specific way of typing occur in similar ways as well. Because I've written this way, without dictation, one can authenticate that I'm the person who typed it. I've written many times that errors are useful. If there were no errors it would indicate that other tools were utilized and that the writing was not entirely from me. It would also indicate that I *needed* the tools, whereas the infrequency of errors would indicate that I did not, and furthermore, that my writing and typing skills indicate very great superiority of skill. Dictation and the use of other tools would make this unclear.

Dictation is the utilization of a software tool to do the typing. That has implications that would not be recognized and I did not think of these until today. Firstly, it will spell and introduce grammar for you. Differing dictation tools would do these differently, and if one analyzed the work, one would have to admit upon complete analysis that the writing is partly due to a specific dictation tool that did part of the writing. Perhaps it added commas where there were pauses that did not call for them. The use of commas is related to pauses in speech, but also to pauses in thinking, and if one is not thinking in pauses but is pausing to breath or for other reasons, then it has altered the writing on the basis of speech and not the thought. If one was writing, one would not be speaking, and therefore one would be introducing commas differently. I am now interested in structuring my thinking according to my desired grammatical output. At the moment however, the grammatical output is related to a combination of writing habit and mode of thought at the time of writing. Speech introduces different structures since there is a difference in how I prepare to speak and how I prepare to write.

Dictation writes the words, which means it spells them for you. Dictation makes mistakes. It fails to know when sentences end at times, and how to make transitions where speech transitions can happen in a number of ways and not only one. Does it use a period, a semi-colon, or an emdash? Does it recognize rhetorical questions that do not get a question mark? Does it sometimes choose the wrong word variant or form because it doesn't have the word in its dictionary. These are the kinds of mistakes it will make over and over. One will have to edit after the dictation is complete to be sure there are no mistakes. But I've stated already that in my writing there are very few errors. To introduce a dictation tool I would introduce the errors of the tool. These issues indicate there is a very large set of problems using such a tool if one has the objectives I mentioned above. With a layer of technology between the thinking and the writing there is an introduction of another entity introducing its own influence and the result may not be scientifically as usable, and perhaps not usable for the purposes I've mentioned. If one wants to fully authenticate the output as coming only from the mind that thought it, having an external entity involved will botch the authentication. If one wants to test a writer for spelling and grammar and use that to authenticate, it may be impossible using dictation. It is not impossible simply using a keyboard.

For future updates to the thoughtstream I intend to use a functionality that I formally had, of writing directly from a computer command prompt to the book. In addition to this, I intend to do it totally blind typed, instead of semi-blind typed without attention to what is written or re-reading. This will ensure not only that what has been written is good quality directly from the fingers, but that I don't have any edit capabilities of any kind. The tool I typically use for my writing is a primitive editing tool for the computer terminal called VIM. This does have editing and limited spell checking, but as I have it configured no grammar checks. I would like to go further, however, to eliminate these to further collect authenticating information and data on thought to writing prowess.

There will be more to say on this topic in the future as I begin work actually using this approach. However, it is clear to me that dictation is not a suitable replacement for typewriting, if these concerns exist for a writer. Sadly, if these concerns seem not to exist, fundamentally still dictation reduces the ability to authenticate writing. So in the future if there ever is a need, the use of dictation has diminished the potential of very complete authentication. Authentication of course occurs in levels, so those who are disabled or have impairment to a degree will still be able to find ways to authenticate their writing, but not to the extent to which I'll be able to do it. 

*[Note: Completed in 23 minutes, without spell check or grammar check sem-blind typed, without re-reading, inattentively seeing output on/near the cursor location in VIM. Finished at 9:07 pm]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="ideation-that-can-be-had-in-life-given-days-remaining">Ideation That Can Be Had in Life, Given Days Remaining</a>

*Monday, May 13, 2024 18:44:59*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

There is some anticipation that one will live longer until one is nearly dead. Even when nearly dead one might not know when death will occur, but its probability in relation to remaining time is more easily estimated, and is still only an estimate. One's last thoughts could be repetitively "Am I dead now", or "Is this the last thought?". Leaving out sudden death. For everyone who is not in this stage, we can use regularities in nature for other living things and people to arrive at a rough estimate of remaining life, and we'd need to change it when information changes. Speaking for myself, going with average life expectancy of males, I may live to about 83, and I'm 43 now. I won't know when my last thought will be but I can still roughly estimate how many useful ideas I'll how between now and that one.

Going with the calendar that we use that happens to be imprecise and incorrect, we can still arrive at the number of days between now and my death. Fudging the math, we have 365 times 10 for each decade or 3,650, and since I might have four decades left, that's 14,600 days. Since I have what I might call a "routine" which is a deterministic and bounded level of activity, and I often record my thinking as I have thoughts, I am in a good position to guestimate how much writing I can do for the remainder of my life, and from the amount of writing and some considerations about thinking outside of writing, just how much thinking and ideation I can have. It will not turn out to be correct but can be used for planning under uncertainty about what will happen. It can also be used to estimate total scaling of productions for my mind in particular.

This is of interest to the topic I've written about in my book "[The Velocity of Significance and Ideation](velocity-of-significance-and-ideation.html)" which is available digitally for free and in print format for purchase for those like myself who like reading from real pages. This book explains that in conjunction with intelligence testing an analysis of productions is required to estimate mental quality, and to verify intelligence itself. Many people are evaluated in total posthumously on the basis of their productions and tests. It is interesting that it is possible to arrive at a "good evaluation" by going further regarding estimating total thinking using total productivity. In order to get closer to a total analysis, one would have to bound the analysis in time from birth to death. It was missing from my book and analysis how one might go about performing this analytical task, and it may be something I recall well enough to cover in my subsequent volume that will go into more detail. Either way it is clear that any evaluation of any person in total will require an analysis using their productions to say something comprehensive about their total minds. The total mind however defined is still encapsulated by its beginning and ending. Every thought if available in that time period would constitute the total thought of the indvidual in consideration.

Have you ever wanted to be known? Exaggerated? Well if you're honest and truthful and you would like yourself to be known truthfully in total then this is something that might be useful to think about. It combines well with the topic I mention often about how one could be known very fully if one could have one's life and experiences recorded totally in slow motion. This helps one to know what one would like to omit from one's story that is in one's story whether one likes it or not. It is also a test of self-judgement regarding their mortality and level of goodness in the world. Total thinking shared would illuminate what person you were like and what your context included. The context would explain anything that might consitute what you don't or didn't like about yourself and the thoughts you were permitted by nature to have. Regardless of who you are your entirely life is explained deterministically. Even if you were not particularly good this is already explained for you later. If you were really "good" then you are in a very fortunate position, but either way that is also explained entirely in terms of deterministic nature. This does not mean there are no excellences and merits, but that requires explanation that isn't best here. I'm only mentioning this in passing as I discuss the total thinking one had and quality of mind in the course of life. 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="creativity-management-of-thoughts-and-the-book-publication-process-ii">Creativity Management of Thoughts and the Book Publication Process II</a>

*Monday, May 13, 2024 18:03:55*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

This is now a continuation of the earlier posting on the same topic yesterday. Recording was stated to be a fundamental area of consideration along with the management of the aggregate of ideas that are somehow combined. It was mentioned that this is an issue of computing or of archiving, and an development-organizational concern. In order to have anything to aggregate there has to be "idea capture" or thoughts being recorded. This implies pathways of communication. The pathways of communication involve mouths, appendages, and finger digits, until a time exists that it can come from the mind. It involves interaction with media and devices of various kinds. Writing is one of the fundamental forms of records and can result from directly writing on a page, and I do that, but more preferably to a digital record. Typing is my preferred method of getting thoughts into a record. With good typing skill it can be nearly as fast as might be wanted by dictation. Whichever pathway is used, however, capture of the idea and getting into a record precedes any need for aggregating.

Which thoughts to record is also an issue to be discussed. I will defer that for now. I'll share two important topics regarding that in the meantime. Thoughts that are shared from my experience will have two important motives for recording. The first is simply to record what is thought and lived–to have a living history or autobiography, or record of oneself. The second is that what is thought is significant somehow. Ideas that are "good enough" to be worthy of being written down. Since we don't have a means to write everything that comes from the mind, selectivity of what is written is required. Some judgement about time management is necessary to know what to write and when. If ideation is often significant and important and if one is in the minutia of interest about one's life the tendency is towards recording everything and not being selective, so for some eventually the preference will be to record everything. I've commented in various places that I would elect to have my entire life on record in slow motion, so my life could be fully recorded and understood. Having many significant thoughts is a reason for this Book and Journal and especially this thoughtstream which is an aggregate of ideas. Wanting a complete record of my history is a cause for the living autobiography underway. Having many useful ideas and a strong set of reasons for wanting to have a complete autobiography trends one down the path of doing what I've done, which trends further to thinking into records.

It would be amazing if there were source videos of all tha was heard and saw, especially if there is a history of what was attended to within those videos. There is a living blur of what is actually seen. I'd like to have the media of both what was to be experienced when I experienced it, so I can be in the world that way again, and also to have a video of my awareness and attention at the time, which is a subset of what the world provided. Both together explain the personal history.

Anyway, returning to the idea capture into writing, which is where I'd like to focus. It serves as a suitable example for other means of recording and that conversation can be developed later.Where does all the writing go? Where do you put your written ideas? How do they become an aggregate? How can they be organized? How do they remain accessible AND editable? To answer all of that I will need to present a model of my own software architecture and technology. Historically it would go on paper, and would be filed. Even if I do that today, and I do, the filing is digital. So even my paper writings end up in a digital format and may even be transcribed. So the more central question nowadays is how do ideas get recorded, filed, and managed in a digital format. Also, since one can write on a paper immediately, there is a desire for immediacy to write in the digital format. But since more is wanted to be immediate due to advances in computing and networking, one also wants to be able to retrieve, update, and store source records, preferably in more than one location so backups exist. Upon hearing this some might think "Already there is technology to do this well" and to that I'd state that one doesn't understand the extent of the problem making such a statement. It is complex and there is no existing tool system that is fully adequate for the tasks, and this is the reason why I've worked extensively on my own solution that I'm now using as I immediately record, store, backup, publish, and distribute this message.

The next posting will constitute a share of my existing model of content accumulation in an organized fashion. It will show what is possible only after a long period of development, planning and effort. I stated in the prior posting that much of what one might require *can* be done by other software providers, but that if one wants to go further or have more assurance, one will end up doing what I've done. Sharing of this system should provide the reader some good direction on how to resolve issues that could take years of organizational planning otherwise. Since more complete solutions did not exist, it should be recognized that even if it seems simple enough, readers would not actually ever arrive at a solution. 

*More Soon*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="holding-onto-content-before-sharing">Holding Onto Content Before Sharing</a>

*Sunday, May 12, 2024 16:51:00*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Anyone who is producing a large amount of good-quality content will find if they store and manage that content successfully that they will have a storehouse of material that is usable later. This is not unlike the creation of products, because once a product is arrived at, it can be sold indefinitely; even if a product becomes an anachronism, it informs educationally. As long as one is alive the material is usable. Likewise, good quality content is like having a product somewhat, although in pieces, and in specific pieces of content, it may not congeal or cohere into something others would immediately recognize as product. There are differences but very good similarities. The pieces themselves can be re-used into larger productions, and if individually they are good enough can still serve future objectives. Content had can be distributed immediately, later or both. It can be used within things to be shared later, still immediately, after some time, or both.

In my case, feeling most thoughts to be nearly complete articles, I tend to want to share immediately, but that's not always useful since the sharing is time consuming and may not be as timely as some other sharing activities. So I'm working on deferring the sharing until later. Until it makes more sense to market it or something else that relates. By market it I mean to promote it or simply to communicate it which is a basic promotion.

If one has a very large amount of content one has quite a lot of marketing potential. If one simply focuses on producing, and creating quality, greater and greater quality results, and what is had becomes more deserving of promotion. When to use the material for promotion is an interesting topic I'm exploring, and at the moment I'm not sure what desirabilities and optimalities might exist. I know I have the correct trajectory given my ample experience but I'm not sure what complete advancement on this path entails, and can say it seems to be unknown territory. This type of question is not one that a traditional marketer, promoter, or product creator and business person would really know to the extent that I'm wanting to know it.

At my current scaling, content is well developed and diverse. This is akin to not having one product but a number of products. Audiences and markets differ. What is timely or not depends on many factors which relate to different markets that behave differently. Optimally delivering materials to differing markets is definitely a complex issue and most business experts would typically have some generalizations from their experience, but they still tend to be market-specific experts, and have insufficient expertise to handle questions such as these. On the other end from being a pan-ultimate business person combined with an academic producing lots of content independently to hold onto, there is the person who simply wants to think and later talk to someone. These are also the same people. When one produces content related to ideas had, one can simply hold onto it without discussion, or can immediately or eventually share it. Some important feedback loops depend on early sharing. So simply and only holding onto materials is not the right direction. One wants to share and also hold onto what's shared and share later, and under certain conditions hold onto the ideas and develop them in isolation from others.

I'll share more on this in the future as I continue to work on it. My history has consisted of near immediate sharing, which is something I like because it gives me quick feedback and attention and it makes me feel like a transparent person, sharing what I'm thinking about. I also have work underway that is patient, even supremely patient, but I have not found an optimization between these two ways of behaving with my content, and I have not thoroughly related it to what might be timely from one perspective and another, and I have not related it to all audiences who relate to my content.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Sunday, May 12, 2024 16:15:00*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

## <a name="creativity-management-of-thoughts-and-the-book-publication-process">Creativity Management of Thoughts and the Book Publication Process</a>

*Sunday, May 12, 2024 16:15:00*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In 2017 I wrote an article entitled "[The Burden of Having Too Many Ideas](the-burden-of-having-too-many-ideas.html)" which concerned creativity management as it relates mainly to dealing with the experience one has of losing good ideas one is having when one really wants to retain them. Here I want to expand on that discussion, talking less about how one manages this mental phenomenon psycholigically, to how one manages that phenomenon tactically. Managing it tactically to the extent that I've been able to manage it is something that one will find fairly difficult without tools similar to those that I've created for myself, but it is possible to a degree using tools created by others. Since I'm focusing on my own development as I write too, I am going to constrain my focus to the tools I've created, that *relate well* to the tools created by others. Readers should be able to find parallels and find ways to achieve similar results themselves.

Here I'll start with a fundamental point of what one is trying to do ultimately when one is wanting to retain ideas, omitting the psychological for now. One does want to *record* it, either digitally or on paper, firstly, and secondly, one wants to *develop* upon that idea, and then nearly finally, but not finally, one wants it to be published or incorporated into other concrete forms somehow. Either it becomes an article, a book, a product, a business, or some entity that records into tangible form what the idea was. Along the way anyone ideating and recording will have to decide the level of development they want for the idea, and the level of attention they think is suitable for the result. Not all ideas will get a lot of attention, and that will influence the decision about how much to develop it, if one is at all attention seeking. After one has reached the point of publishing, or making "concrete" the idea in a tangible production, one can still go further. What would final consist of? Final might consist of "everyone on Earth and in the future knows the idea and holds onto it to protect it from degradation and deletion". Knowing that is very unlikely, and nearly impossible, you'll settle for another finality that relates again, to the level of attention the idea deserves, and the level of attention you're seeking. Being realistic about my own ideas, I anticipate that some that I will develop quite far will still be ultimately deleted by nature.
I'm willing to develop some ideas quite far and work on them frequently, and have other related ideas in connection with them, even if I'm the only person who benefits.

That was the gradations of recording of ideas, omitting the purely psychological work to manage ideas without paper and computers. Another important topic is retaining the recordings, backing them up, having them easily accessible, being able to edit them, and transform them gradually as they are developed on the pathway I mentioned above. This relates either to how one manages paper records, or how one manages information and data. There are some technology solutions for this, but again I found it more important to create my own. I was an advanced software architect so this was feasible to me but only after much planning and labor. It may be possible for others to utilize my solution in the future. But if one does not have suitable background for this, one can use tools. Note taking and word processing tools can do much of what I share here, excepting the publishing portion, and some of the backup and retention steps. There are other differences but for here, to keep things simple, I'll just mention that these other tools created by large software companies do provide much that is needed but not everything that one could want. Probably a suitable amount of what is needed is provided by other software companies. One wants a way to record quickly, when one wants to record, and one wants to edit in such a way that it can be stored elsewhere in a copy easily. Some note taking tools allow you to take notes on the phone, notes on the computer, take or upload photos, and aggregate them to a location that stores the data. It is important that one can download and backup that data, and have more than one copy.

Notice that this posting is mostly for people who are superabundant in ideation. One might not need quite this much if one is not having a tremendous amount of ideas that one wants to hold onto. Ideas upon development become projects, writings, and aggregate informtion sets of various kinds, and since one is producing rapidly, managing large amounts of information quickly becomes the objective. Then it becomes an exercise in computer and archival science to solve problems. There is less of a problem if one has less ideation. The more ideation that is had the more complex the result, in diversity of projects and outcomes, which means resulting data to manage, and total size of data to store, backup, and pay for to retain.

*More Soon*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="market-awareness-and-business">Market Awareness and Business</a>

*Sunday, May 12, 2024 15:36:00*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Today, just now, I did a quick posting to a social media platform a small idea that could be of use to people, particularly young people, who are wanting to get their business brands and marketing messages out. It's a simple piece of advice: whenever someone starts a new business, whether they plan to use the business or not, they get exposed to a business market that they would not now exists. Anyone who starts a business suddenly has their information about their business "leaked" or distributed to other businesses who would like to market to *them*. If you start a business, and it is new, very likely supplies will be needed relating to marketing and other goals. Some businesses that want new businesses as customers will use lists of new business addresses as leads for obtaining new customers, and they'll send them junk-mail, that does include some good nuggets, like catalogs for a wide variety of items that can have custom information added for marketing. What is interesting about this is some of those items cross over into the regular public consumer marketplace and include things that people use all the time outside of business. I was thinking of buying combs on Amazon when I recollected this option. Instead of buying a bunch of cheap combs, I could personalize all my combs and this would expand marketing potential. Even though I have a venture that has nothing to do with combs.

There are enough items in this marketplace, that one would definitely be unaware of, that it makes me wonder why I shouldn't divert my attention there for many of my purchases, because even for many of these small items I could definitely do some messaging that is desirable that may be useful for various objectives. If you're just someone from the public, maybe you still want to spread kindness, or humor, or some personal touches to items that you buy routinely that you wouldn't normally think can be used for conveying those things.

These catalogs are very large and include many routine items you'd purchase at a place like Walmart or Target, or other large store. What if a very large percentage of your regular purchases became opportunities for spreading messages or sharing kindnesses and insights?

Some people who take the decoration of their homes very seriously already are aware of the market of items that includes having custom messages, or desirable messages, displayed in the home. Country stores, that include many different home-related items that one might not expect writing, provide this kind of market to the consumer. Have you ever been in the home of someone who enjoys this? Scattered in their homes they have reminders to themselves, and hospitality messages, that are for creating a more comforting environment? Some homes have quite a lot of messaging. 

The regular consumer in the public, including myself, are often unaware of these other markets that can be used to expand one's self-messaging and messaging to others. Some box stores do have some of these "country house" items that do have messages on them, and it may be that they'll experience a reduction of sales for those if the messages on them are not attractive to everyone who might consider purchasing them. Unbranded, unmarked items are more globally interesting. If it were easy enough to customize them with one's own messages, then people buying them would readily buy unmarked goods instead of ones that already have messages on them, unless the items seem like "rare finds" that communicate just what one would like to communicate. Of course, some are purchased simply because the messaging is still quite good to have in one's environment even if not original or produced in high numbers.

An interesting question is: "Which items would you customize if customization were easy enough, imagining it's instant perhaps, if you could? What would you still want to remain message free?"

I would choose personally to have in my environment many unmarked goods. But what if I could erase them instantly too? It seems then that I would want all of them to have that potential.

Goods in the regular market don't have much potential for that unless you can mark them professionally yourself, which is an interesting and artful consideration, but is probably unrealistic. But if you can optionally mark them easily from a supplier or choose not to, it seems that is a superior supplier. But notice that is the kind of supplier I'm recommending. These business to business vendors who sell many of these goods have simply provided you the option to do these things, but do not force that you apply any customization. The items are very cheap and inexpensive, and have prices that are similar to what's already on the market at these large retailers who also have low prices. Some items don't exist in that market at all and are of *better* quality, *and* provide the option for customizations.

Later I want to expand on this a bit and talk about the related topic of general awareness of existing markets. If one does not have awareness of various markets, ones imagination is constrained regarding what one could do. This is a huge topic, and I'm using this posting as an inroads. It's a good selection though, because it relates to the initial steps of starting a business and what one learns in the process, and can scale in complexity from that beginning in early development.

Also, it is strange that a person who is not in business might even think they are not in business. Why not blend the concepts to open market options and some creativity, and access to goods that can increase the chance to spread messaging, if one has an organization or if one does not. The desire to spread messaging is already a blend of what businesses do and what individuals want to do, and in that way people and businesses are already similar regarding marketing which relates to general communication.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="road-rage-norms-as-a-failed-test-on-collective-morality-and-elder-stewardship">Road Rage Norms as a Failed Test on Collective Morality and Elder Stewardship</a>

*Friday, May 10, 2024 18:39:49*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In each society there are segments of human behavior that reveal various ethical failings that pervasively show which portioins of ethics are not observed and where. Some examples that often come to my mind are truth and education as it contrasts with advertising, and transparency and honesty as it relates to business, government, and personal secrecy and privacy. But I'm not interested in talking about those right now, because I've talked about those quite a lot already. Here I'm more interested and have in mind road related behavior. People spend a lot of their lives out on the road, with some commuting 1 hour to work and back every day. Add up the total time on the road and the cars and vehicles are where we are exhibiting a large portion of our behavior. There is no behavior that does not fall within moral or religious behavior and for any place that we spend a lot of time, some analysis would reveal whether or not our behavior is largely in agreement or not with what morality and religion would recommend or even require.

There really is no behavior that a human has that does not fit within the scope of morality and religion. If one is in one's car two hours a day, then one's religion or morality does not vanish. It doesn't vanish in the privacy of one's sexuality either.

When I was a teen I was a skilled driver, but exhibited aggression and had a tendency to road-rage. That might make you imagine I was driving insanely at the wheel at all times or something, but that wouldn't be the case. I drove too fast, zigged in and out of traffic, and when someone was agressive with me, I was agressive too. Flipping people off, slowing down traffic in response to tailgater, and speeding around were frequent.

Then, after a period of self-analysis, and a couple car accidents, I thoroughly self-evaluated it, and changed my driving habits. From around the age of 20 onwards I was a much better driver, and enjoyed for many years driving very slowly. Now I greatly prefer slow driving, and as a slow driver, I learned that driving slow is not within the rules. One must drive fast.

When in driver's ed, instructors educate us as if we are venturing on a new section of life that must include precision driving, plenty of spacing (like spacing for COVID, but for accidents), and courteous behavior. As a teen though, I learned quickly that others were irate and I was irate in return. People are simply aggressive on the roadways. The pattern of mentation on the road that one must keep up with is a certain level of irritability. Others are irritable, and they kindof expect you to be irritable in return. If they want to aggress you, they ware wanting a fight and aggression in return. If you become completely polite, and courteous, you do not escape this adult context of accelerated irritability. The rules of the road are not what was taught, and using what one has taught will not extricate one from having periodic conflicts. Now you're driving too slow, now you didn't see someone because your perception was briefly off, now your sticking out too far in traffic because you can't see around an obstacle. Psychologists, if they are good ones, would recognize that perceptual error and minor "road transgressions" must occur again and again. There is no way to ensure one never makes mistakes. This implies that on the roadways you will definitely over time be subject to agression, and it doesn't take long to provoke someone irritable, simply by deciding to drive around.

So what is this context of adults from age 18 to 90 and older of misbehavior and non-understanding regarding psychology and what must occur?

Everyone believes themselves to be morally expert (they are very far from being expert), and on the roadways they teach each other and youths to behave irritably and exhaustedly, and as if one cannot politely just notice mistakes in driving. Patience is missing. If "patience is a virtue" (a cliché), then where are the virtuous exactly.

My way is to simply drive slow. People aggressively drive around me. If too dangerous, I'll try to keep pace a bit. My way is to let errors slide. If someone aggresses me, I act like they don't exist or it never happened. I immediately forgive myself of errors because I'm a Psychologist and am aware they must recur. If they must recur then there is no learning methodology that will eradicate all errors. If I would work at the eradication, I'd be alone in my driver-morality. 

Is there any understanding about this interesting concept of driver-morality? How does one seek to analyze it, and self-alter using the analysis? If you are honest with yourself, and look at the pattern of roadway behavior, you must admit that all are lost on this question. Without a starting point or even a cross-section of religion and civility in which to discuss it. It definitely indicates a moral and ethical failing of entire cultures, who think themselves expert where they are inexpert.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-name-is-mattanaw-mattanaw-mattanaw">The name is 'Mattanaw', 'Mattanaw Mattanaw'"</a>

*Friday, May 10, 2024 02:10:46*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

The name is 'Mattanaw',

'Mattanaw Mattanaw'.

I realized I can just state my name as a mononym, as intended, but also say it like James Bond. Solutions for when society makes you use your same name twice just to have a first and last name.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



## <a name="risks-of-fictional-productions-ii">Risks of Fictional Productions II.</a>

*Monday, May 06, 2024 17:09:12*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

In the prior posting on risks of fictional productions I covered the biases and fallacies related to metaphors and similes. Briefly I discussed the risks created by writing fictional pieces without informing or educating audiences that what is shared is illustrative. What is true about fictional pieces would have a corresponding non-fiction writing that would share what it is about the analogies that hold, what about the real world has been truthfully communicated, in non-fictional prose–in other words, it would simply explain what the meaning was in a way that doesn't utilize the same fictions as the main portion of the explanation. Here I want to go further and explain more about what risks are created in the writing and enjoyment of various fictions.

Some choose to write fiction because they either don't think they could write well or with enough detail about something that is non-fictional, or they think that the literary device is better for elucidating the audience regarding parts of the real world that have not been noticed or understood. Even in the case in which people want to write creative pieces that are not intended to be as elucidating, for providing readers entertainment, they still wish oftentimes in the course of the writing to present characters and situations that convey interesting observations about the real world, and so even in the case of what is imagined to be purely creative writing, there is still a desire to convey at least some things of interest about the real world.

The quality of a final literary piece or a work of film utilizing a literary piece relates, regardless of the level of creativity, to coherence and consistency in the story, and believability. Arguably if one wrote an extremely creative piece that lacked consistency, coherence, and had events that were too fantastic, the story as a whole would be one that audiences would enjoy less. They want  to feel that they are there, in the story, and that what is occurring could occur, or at least the fits the story in such a way that it makes sense given the context. Patterns that exist in the real world regarding cause-effect and explanations of phenomena still cause expectations in readers that certain patterns exist in even purely creative pieces. Otherwise the story may seem like it has not been well written or conveyed, or is a haphazard piece resulting from brain damage, hallucination or drug use. If you consider the stories you really enjoy from films the stories tend to have much better consistency with the real world, good cause-effect relationships, and coherence which makes them much better than others that have been made. The very best are the most believable even in the more imaginative domain where much is invented and is fanciful. This exists for some shows like Star Trek, which are not blemish free, but are better than alternatives. There are things that don't make sense but very largely the story does have the properties required to make them seem realistic enough given the operation of the real world that makes storytelling even possible.

Without a component of reality, storytelling becomes impossible. That alone is a topic worth developing.

There are some gradations then between fiction and non-fiction, where non-fiction entirely attempts to convey what is only true and actual. If an author has a message, and there is something that is real that will convey it, it is much safer for the writer and the audience if the author simply writes non-fiction. In that case, if the story is entirely true, then the author and the readers are unlikely to be badly affected by illusions, fallacies, and cognitive biases that result from metaphors and similes that are inappropriately used later. Real life stories, when told well, are already coherent, consistent, and employ correct cause effect relationships. If they convey what is wanted to convey, something about the world is also directly learned, rather than indirectly learned by having to make inferences from illustrations and figurative analogies presented in fiction. The author has then focused on what is true, and has learned along the way.

Obviously though, that may be stifling to the creative and imaginative process, and what might be created might convey more and not less than what exists that one might learn about. If someone is really gifted and is really realistic in their worldview and understands actual worldly patterns of history, of social interaction, and of cause-effect relationships, and is realistic generally, then that person will already be very good at constructing stories that make sense to the reader, and have what is required in terms of storymaking-to-the-world-correspondence. The result will very likely be believable stories that one can enjoy without noticing blemishes that are too severe.

Such writers, it is hoped, could also identify what is metaphorical and separate illustrativeness from reality. They would be able to explain what the analogies and metaphors mean and what they could mean, and what might be illusory if one actually tried to run with the analogies as realities. Examples of this kind of error are shared in the earlier writing on this topic, so one should read that if one is not understanding what illusions, fallacies, or biases might exist on this matter.
But here I want to say the primary defense against bias and fallacies to begin with is the identification and correction of them, with as great a frequency as possible. One cannot totally eradicate these kinds of errors in one's mind as they happen, and at best one can train them out until fewer detections and corrections are required. However detection and correction are fundamental and will continue to be needed, and writers such as these, if they are working on that in themselves, will be able to protect audiences and themselves from fictional writing.

Whether to choose to tell a very high quality imaginative story versus whether to tell a real story seems to consist in whether or not one's creative powers are able to do what I mentioned above, and to make something that is more rich and interesting than simply choosing a real-life story. The other option I personally prefer is to just write what is intended to be told, not utilizing any story at all but just explaining, and most of my writing fits in the domain of non-fictional writing that does not employ story telling, but includes telling something about the world that is important. I would choose to write an imaginative story, dialogue, or novel, if I thought that what I would come up with would be better and less boring than choosing something in history to talk about. And actually reflecting on this now, I would probably rather do this than find a piece of history, study it, convey it, and explain what I think is important about it. But I would need to protect the reader and myself in the process by being clear that what is illustrative is really illustrative, and I'd need to be able to explain what that illustration is exactly without relying on that illustration. Some writers have written as if there was no other way to explain what is trying to be conveyed without a piece of fiction to do it. If that's the case, I believe they don't know what they were trying to convey. Rather, when conveying in other styles of non-fictional writing seem to *fail* to have the audiences understanding, which is due to natural issues with having differing abilities to comprehend, I think that is when I would want to choose to be more literary. "They will get this finally if they have a story that presents a scenario in which they can better engage their imaginations."

My choice as to whether or not to write fiction given the risks is when I think the audience will nto understand or be interested any other way.

*More on this topic soon*.


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="my-quest-to-drink-only-water-is-complete">My Quest to Drink Only Water is Complete!</a>

*Monday, May 06, 2024 15:54:47*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

I have finally completed my mission to get into the habit of only drinking water, and am ready to share some of the interesting results of the process. It has now been nearly three months of only drinking water, and there are some unexpected behavioral differences, that made the result more rewarding than I anticipated.

Firstly, I don't want anything other than tap water, although I will have bottles too. I act automatically seeking out tap water when it is available, and when I'm out I'm fine with tap water too. I permitted myself initially sparkling water and infusions of water with fruit, but after a long period only drinking plain water, I rejected having fruit infusions. I still permit myself to have sparkling if I really want it, but found it is a rarity and I almost never want that instead. I hardly think about what to drink and go strait for tapwater whenever it is available unreflectively. It's somewhat shocking just how unrelfective I am about it. Water goes into the cups and I hardly know it was refilled. Tap water always seems cool, so I'm not even needing ice, something I always especially enjoyed. Conditions would be strange to not be cool when drinking. I noticed nearly all of the time, water has the same cool characteristics that make it refreshing to drink. My concept of what was refreshing has changed and now any water is refreshing, unless perhaps if it came from an outdoor source and was hot; although typically that water is anticipated to be cool too.

The approach I used to get started was to surround myself with water. At my long-term AirBnB where I'm currently staying, I placed many cups around the room at various locations pre-filled with water. If I was thirsty I would immediately drink from them and I would fill them in advance. I would refill all of them once I noticed the supply was going down, so I was always surrounded. I carry a water bag that contains water, that for some I reason I tend to avoid, but when I'm especially thirsty and have nothing available I do drink from the bag. When I go out to coffee houses, like Starbucks, I only get a water bottle, or more recently, I order the smallest coffee I don't drink, a solo espresso, to get a larger free water, which comes from their tap. That may be filtered but I'm unconcerned about that. The key is I had water available in all locations wherever I was and drank only that water.

The second huge benefit is now any drink I was habitually or frequently having like coffee (especially) or beer, never comes to mind. At first they did spring to mind, and I would use a redirect process to catch the thought and redirect it to drinking water. The process of not drinking these beverages was successful immediately, but I did have to mentally redirect impulses to these other beverages. Now these very seldom come to mind and there is no need to redirect the thinking, it just vanishes. It feels as though they never come to mind, and actually the thought of having any alternative beverage at all seems unattractive, and even somewhat disgusting. I was not expecting that other beverages than water would seem disgusting.

Thirdly, I hardly even think about water. Drinking and satiation are also nearly automatic. I'm staying in the Phoenix area, so the only times I have a strong urge for water is when I'm out and I start to feel somewhat dehydrated or parched. Then I have to seek it out but I still only direct myself to my water bag or to cheap or free sources. Sometimes I notice I was thirsty only after I drank something. Drinking behavior and thirst are somewhat blended. I don't notice either oftentimes since the water is so often available and is consumed sometimes before I recognize it.

Expenditures are lower. That was expected. Instead of expensive cups of coffee, drinks are less than three dollars, which is a worthwhile cost for time spent at an establishment. Bars have become entirely unattractive, although I'll permit myself to go for snacks or small inexpensive foods. I have a larger project related to eating that I'll share later and this is consistent with that project too. If I want more time out writing or reading, or just sitting for food, I'm permitted although I don't do that, and if I do, the drink of choice will be tap water.

The strangest part of the experience is simply having very little drinking related desires or expenditures. Drinking is almost not a recreation any longer. If we are observant of our regular behaviors drinking things is hugely a part of what we do for fun, since it connects with eating behavior and spending time out in public. We are drinking sodas from convenience stores, juices and other beverages from grocery stores, beer to go out to bars and nightlife places, and coffee anytime we want to sit for a chat or independent time at a coffee house. But my motivation now is only to be out, and has nothing to do with the beverage.

It's almost like the drinking part of my life has vanished in any way it can exist, and my life has been extremely simplified.

It's been three months now but my objective is to make it totally permanent. Now my consideration for drinking other beverages for a purpose relate to medical needs. I have not ruled out the utility of alcohol for specific purposes. When I'm older, I may drink beer or wine to alleviate pain, or to very temporarily decrease the chance of blood clots, using it as a blood thinner. But I'm not sure if that will be necessary. Currently I don't do any drugs of any kind, including any off the counter drugs, and do not drink any intoxicants. I only consume plants (from various sources) and water, with occasional small amounts of dairy (very occasional). Although I'm wanting to live as clean as possible, I am aware that anything related to pain may call for utilizing drugs and for that purpose I'll do what I need to do, but it may be many decades before I need to have anything other than water and plant matter. This has greatly simplified life, increased my ability to control and reduce weight, reduce expenditures, stay in healthy environments, and to overall simplify my habits and inclinations. Imagine a life not thinking of what to drink and eat! Would it be boring? I have found that it is not! It simply takes a transitional period, and thinking itself has been improved by reducing demands on attention. I have experienced greater economy of thought doing this.

I highly recommend exploring this type of option. The obviousness of it is extreme, but the effects of carrying it out are unobvious. The experience is so rewarding I can't imagine myself going back for any reason.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="risks-of-fictional-productions">Risks of Fictional Productions</a>

*Monday, May 06, 2024 15:04:34*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Metaphors and Similes comprise illustrative writing that we all learned about in English class, but I do not recall a teaching for which I've had an insight later, and that's the relationship between them and cognitive biases, illusions and fallacies in which they relate. I think they are among the most severe cases that culturally we have not dealt with, and the public at large, and maybe everyone has been adversely affected.

"Why is this the case?" one might ask, and one might also say "I enjoy illustrative fictional productions that are metaphorical, and they have considerable societal value. I don't see what's wrong with them."

Imagine if I did some figurative writing about demons likening them to people who have certain undesirable traits. This would not be a unique writing, since that idea is already pervasively utilized. By writing such a thing, the reader may themselves make the connections between my characters, as they have done with film productions, and connect them to real life figures. What is at issue then, is the potential prospect of demonization of people. People who only seem to have traits that are akin to what the writing illustrates may, to these people, become actual demons, particularly if they think in a religious context. That person, to them, may subsequently be damned to them. They may actually envision that the person will face "hellfire" connecting this to other topics. But not only is the person not a "demon", which is something we are supposed to know understanding what figurative thinking is, they wouldn't go anyplace related to any figurative story relating to demons and nothing would happen to them simply because they relate to the characters I have written about in my story. Instead, the writing was figurative and those people may simply be those with some traits that, if identified correctly, are those that may be better to avoid at times. It is important to know that the story was fictional and still the people in the real world are people, and none of them are demons.

The same is true regarding anyone depicted as being "angelic". 

This is not a post about religion though. We are just aware that demonizing others happens to be a serious issue, and relates to killing and warfare. It is an especially fitting example that happened to come to mind, but is one of millions of potential examples that are not related to religion directly.

The risk is global for all metaphors, and this is only a single example. If I claim that humans and animals are "robot-like" and write a story trying to persuade others that most mammals are biological automata, I am not stating that they are actual robots. That is an illustration only, intended to show that humans and animals have traits of automaticity and pre-determination (potentially, if that is what the writing is about).

In order to combat the risk that one will think that metaphors are non-illustrative and actual instead of only illustrative, one has a very large task just like the combating of cognitive biases and correction of logical fallacies. If one utilizes logical fallacies again and again, eventually they pervade one's thinking and conversation. In fact, everyone who hasn't attempted to work hard at resolving cognitive biases and logical fallacies is especially subject to making mistakes. Another fallacy that is hard to eradicate is "ad-populum" or "bandwagon" fallacies, that are not only mistakes that people make individually, but are built into culture. Democracy itself includes processes that rely on these fallacies. The news media and advertising often uses it. If one looks closely one will see that it will be many hundreds if not thousands of years until these fallacies are entirely resolved and this would indicate that most people commit them again and again. What I want to impress upon the reader, is that in addition to this, are all the other fallacies, and among the greatest and most important of them is confusing metaphors and similes for not being only illustrative, but actual.

This also relates to the propensity to not only be subject to those thinking mistakes, but to actually contribute to them and create them. Writing of fiction is something I avoid, but in the future it may be that I'll write a screenplay, film, or dialogue (actually I do have a dialogue planned), that is intended entirely to be illustrative. What I'll do, in the writing, is indicate someplace in the beginning or end or both, that what has been written is only illustrative, and discuss the risks, just as I did here. Notice that this is not something anyone ever sees when one is exposed to any sort of fiction in literature, in television shows, or in film. One is simply presented with the story and one is not aware of any risks that might exist within it. Since everyone is subject to these biases and fallacies, and makes mistakes themselves (if one thinks one does not make these mistakes, I assure you that watching your own thinking will reveal that indeed you do make this mistake, in various gradations of severity), it follows that everyone watching is suddenly at some risk by these fictions. Suddenly what is remembered is quite a lot that is only supposed to be entertainment, and anything that relations to real life analogically is sometimes missed as being analogy only.

In future writings of mine on Human Shortcomings, which will include a variety of logical fallacies and cognitive biases that are common, with many added that are familiar, I'll give more examples. One can expect a book to be available soon from my Book and Journal at Mattanaw.org. But for now I'll trust the reader can generalize this issue and will see that the problem is as widespread that I'm indicating that it is.

Writing of literature, and the creation of film, presents risks to others. There is some danger in the writings, although of course I recognize the benefits of having great and richly meaningful entertainment, especially when it's done masterfully.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="creating-a-personal-time-capsule-to-enjoy-societal-change-more">Creating a Personal "Time Capsule" to Enjoy Societal Change More</a>

*Sunday, May 05, 2024 13:40:39*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Recently I have ventured onto a personal project to make life more interesting. Some like myself, who have already experienced culture and have seen the patterns it has offered repetitively, may think that stimulation from others and the environment is more boring. For youths, there is plenty to learn and plenty that has not been seen, and in combination the world around seems more interesting generally. But for people who are older and are more intelligent, the world starts to become routine, and instead personal projects and interests satisfy curiosities more than what the world offers.

I noticed after some long periods being away from television and the market focusing on my own interests that suddenly seeing that the world has changed can be intensely interesting. For example, not being involved in the electric car market at all, I was suddenly very pleased to go for a good number of rides in autonomous vehicles in the Phoenix area. These are called "Waymos" and upon seeing them for the first time, and riding them, the world suddenly had something highly stimulating for me again. I started wondering if it would be useful to more deliberately refrain from any entertainment or market interactions for a period of say, 5 years, with checks 2-3 years along the way would be worthwhile. After 5 years, fashion will have changed, music and entertainment will be different, and what is available on the market will have very great advancements. A check after 2-3 years would reveal if a largescale shift happened sooner than that, and if the size of the difference appears large enough, I could consider emerging from my time-capsule to interact, or to stay in my time-capsule, which is like a home-made egg, and emerge from my egg later instead of sooner.

You can create an egg you can hatch from to explore a new world if you want, and that's something I'm planning to start soon.

Another interesting thing about this project, is that it is possible to really focus on personal projects with creative freedom. In my case, my writing and project interests will no longer have connections with current events or happenings on the news. Instead of often linking my interests with what is happening around me to feel relevant, I can get comfortable with irrelevance. I'm retired so that is something I'm wanting to experience anyways, to increase my ccmforts with doing less that might seem important to others. Also, later the results of my projects may be more oddly interesting and relevant to what is happening simply because I've had free creative concentration, so whatever is odd or out of place, might end up more novel or more interesting in a strange way.

So I'm going to move forward on this project to create a self-made time capsule of isolation. I will still be stimulated seeing people around, and various differences, but I'll remain inattentive to worldly happenings outside my immediate vision. I'll take a peek out sometime in 2026/27 and see if I see what I like. If I don't, I'll remain in the time capsule until 2029. In 2029 I already know the world will be an odd an interesting place, so I'll have plenty again for a short period to be extremely stimulated, somewhat like a new kid only learning the world for the first time.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



## <a name="news-avoidance-wherever-and-however-it-arises">News Avoidance Wherever and However it Arises</a>

*Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:29:12*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

If we look closely at conversational behavior we can see that much that is talked about, as most would quickly recognize, relates to social issues that are immediately present and near, and those that relate to what has been presented to us on the news. While what is discussed in the former case may seem to be highly relevant to what one might benefit from thinking about, the latter case presents information that is vastly more irrelevant. News is thought to consist largely of topics of current events than many believe, and have been traditionally told, are important to know about to understand what is going on in the local or more distant world, such that one's interactions are sufficiently informed. Without watching the news one, we are told, would become increasingly disconnected from "what is going on" and this would decrease one's ability to act as a citizen should in a variety of their circumstances. News, supposedly, would increase one's value as a person to other citizens, and would increase a person's ability to act more powerfully and with greater value.

This can be contrasted with the view we often hear much about, that the news often presents irrelevant information, messages with excess urgency or debate, or persuasive value-related messages intended to urge you to think more about a specific topic or to take specific actions. There are some who feel strongly enough about this perspective that they don't watch the news at all or very often, and may urge others concerning the importance to stop watching the news also. This can be contrasted with the traditional view mentioned above, that advises the opposite, that one should be very aware of the news, and that one should think about what it has communicated, and potentially take actions that are consistent with messages of one news source or another. Even if those news sources tend to have conflicting or adversarial perspectives, it is thought that still news as a whole is something to watch, listen to, and act on.

Personally, I'm not fond of television in general, and watch very little of it, and sometimes none for long periods, because I'm greatly opposed to the way advertising is done. This means rarely I'm seeing any news anyway. It is implied that one will have to watch advertising if one is encouraged to watch the news, and this is something not really well considered in the traditional perspective that one should just watch news. Apart from this, thinking my time important, and my projects to be of greater value for my energy and efforts than television watching or using social media or streaming to watch news, I simply prefer greatly to stay away from the news. We can use this as a starting point to discuss reasons why the news might not be particularly valuable coming from the perspective of someone who watches none at all, and then the reader can think about what value would be provided by watching somewhat more than none, a moderate amount, to watching frequently and on many different ways it might be received.

Today I was thinking through what it would be like if I did not watch any news during some outbreak of a plague, somewhat like our experiences of COVID. During COVID, I did watch some television, but oftentimes I was unaware of the changes of process related to social distancing and who was impacted where. I learned a bit about the masking requirements when I actually visited businesses and observed behaviors, and learned of the strictness of keeping 6 feet apart the same way. I overheard chatter and spoke with employees to discover exactly what was expected and what was going on. This means that even during COVID, I was relying on observation of others and listening in public to obtain most of the information I was needing to behave like a citizen was expected to, at the time it was expected. If there were another outbreak, and I did not watch any news, AND I did not listen to others or chat with them, I still believe observationally I would receive all the social information I would need to act appropriately. I would only need to observe how others were behaving and their appearances, and try to match my behavior and appearance to theirs. If there were additional needs, perhaps relating to the need to be vaccinated, I would learn of that on my own with my own research without any passive television or social media usage, at the time I'm needing to make a trip. For example, If I am wanting to go to Hawaii, and then on to a foreign country, I would check what travel rules existed, and would simply conform to those rules. That's how I would learn if I needed to be vaccinated or not, and given the enforcement of vaccinations for COVID I would simply comply to make the travel I am wanting possible. This implies that one would not need any news of any kind even in the context of an emergency affecting rules of behavior and enforcement because I could simply utilize simple observation in public and very brief research regarding travel rules.

Emergency information is used to establish relevance for news watching. It provides an example, some would think, of vital communication required to be able to act appropriately. Other forms of information area also used to try to persuade others that what the news offers creates sufficient relevance for one to need to watch. This includes stock and market information, which is thought to create empowerment for doing business or making investments, nationalistic information used for voting, and for understanding current relations with other nations. I am certain for myself that these pieces of information are rarely shared, and even if they are of some utility, that some information can be obtained with research and conversing with others in public. However, I do very little of either, and am certain for myself that they constitute nearly worthless information. For more on that topic I'd have to direct the reader to my views regarding voting, and would have to elaborate on why I'm not interested in investment unless it's for funding my own businesses. Even these kinds of news are irrelevant to my way of living.

Another interesting way in which the news can be arguably relevant is if others who are wanting to socialize would want to discuss it, and to what extent it comprises what is needed to engage in conversations with many people who are wanting to socialize. Not finding socializing very valuable (although I do like to socialize), and knowing it is easy enough to learn from others without being the one to fully understand or have an opinion on a topic, conversation management is still not particularly challenging. Some want to have "the right opinions" on political topics, and in the context of current news, discuss it with others to try to persuade or argue their views, and have some exchange of ideas and information in the process (sometimes, since many are not honestly interested in doing much more than conveying their own opinions). Whether or not this is something someone wants to engage in, the news has some relevance to the social context, but has often simply created that social context. My personal interest is to discuss other topics that are not within the news context, and there is still plenty to talk about without the news and current events.

News watching at a large scale creates a very large social context that has been initiated by the news itself and this has been related to media control. What I was saying above about relevance reveals that even outside the social context many will argue there is relevance to the news. I have also started at the outset of this article that some will traditional argue that it is nearly a civic duty to be informed by the news. An implication of this is that some think there is an obligation to watch the news, and others will think it is necessary and relevant to be sufficiently informed. If enough people are convinced that this is the case, in addition to the people who simply watch for entertainment, there is a very large population of news-watchers that are going to be seeing the news regularly, and this seems to correspond to what happens to be the actual news watching population. These watchers will not refrain from watching in the future as that would require widespread persuasion that is not going to happen. As a result, the news media has a guaranteed pathway of setting social contexts. More than this they will have a guaranteed pathway to set the thinking context that will be shared amongst the population that makes the social context possible. All of this will not have a foundation in news relevance or actual obligation in my estimation.

Since the thinking context and social context has been steered by the news which has not been relevant to my life, and I actively avoid it, and am sometimes largely devoid of news and political context (for not being exposed to the news), the thought and social contexts around me, to some large percentage, is uninteresting to me. This implies that talking with others about these topics coming from the news often will not be very valuable to me. It further implies that conversation from others has been diminished in value to the extent that their conversation would consist of what comes from the news. This includes news about sports, about other entertainment, and not only news about current events. My interest in other people to the extent that they will want to talk about any of these things is greatly reduced. Thinking about the nervous system, any particular person will have in their brains stored information which would be worth discussing, but the interest is actually having them select those pieces of information and not what is more active or ready for activation. Impressions from the news has created a greater likelihood of activation of those topics, meaning it will be harder for them to choose a topic I'd be interested and for me to find a topic from them worth talking about, in a way that is more socially smooth. Ultimately if I'm having conversation with others I don't want it news related and I want it to relate to interesting and significant topics that touch on other brain tissue that they haven't had activated. Personal non-media related behavior is still something that is a good avenue for conversation, but since I'm not often seeking socialization for the purpose of enjoying socialization, even this is not compelling for starting conversation, and instead something to redirect conversation to an agreeable path once conversation has begun for whatever reason.

Since news is not something that is relevant to me, I'm not wanting to receive it from anyplace. If the news came directly from the news, or from another person, the information is still just as irrelevant. The analysis of the information itself would be what would surface whether or not that particular information has any value, and wherever it comes from it would have that same value, unless there is something else in the pleasure of interpersonal communication that makes that information not really the point of the conversation to begin with. In that case it's more like simply enjoying being around someone else apart from what is spoken about.

A conclusion of this is that I'm not wanting news information from any source whatsoever and even from people who would communicate it to me even if I haven't been exposed to the news. Plague doesn't even require this kind of communication, and if it did, it would be extremely focused and brief, and would constitute an extreme rarity. If I needed to know some particular social fact related to COVID I could briefly research it, or hear it once from another person, and in the total set of thoughts it would constitute less than one in 100 million. How can one convince that news is relevant if what is needed amounts to less than a hundred millionth of total thought? As one would expect, regarding myself, I do no think that news has hardly any value to me. I don't think my learning of the news would increase my value as a citizen to others. Working on projects relating to more significant topics already increases my value in a way that is more important than news could increase it. Since I want my thinking to be for me, and want to reduce the amount of thought I'm having that relates to irrelevant information, I'm wanting to avoid news wherever it comes out, and that includes in conversation with others.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="fantasizing-truth-to-understand-honest-people">Fantasizing Truth to Understand Honest People</a>

*Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:29:12*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Recently I started a small writing concerning the bewildering difficulty of communicating a large and complex personal history of success and honesty. If one's career is too extensive, included too many accomplishments, and one is a very complex person, it becomes very difficult to convey to others in a fast way that they will understand, who and what you are and have become.

Historically, I've been very much against dishonesty and fictionalization. I have a very strong distaste for fake histories, fake personas, and fabrication of all sorts, excepting those used to escape immediate dangers. Falsification, to me, is usable only when there is basically and insane person or organization against you that you need separation and protection from. More detail can be provided on this last statement to cover all cases, but I trust the reader will understand what I'm talking about. Utterly complete radical honesty is not really realistic. But *very nearly* utterly complete radical honesty is, and I'm a living example of that.

How do these two topics relate? Well, for my life, I've been wanting a way to communicate honestly and exactly my background, but my background must appear impossible to some people. They are in disbelief sometimes and try to find ways to explain for themselves "what I must really be like" but already I'm presenting what I am really like in a really honest way. Furthermore, I've collected living artifacts over the years that in combination prove what what I'm communicating happens to be true. Artifacts can't cover everything so beyond that I can only simply convey honestly what I can to complete the picture, and obviously the artifacts and the communications are consistently honest and point to more honesty in the future. My personality as a radically honest person isn't really totally understood, so the person or people I'm talking with on their own are searching and seeking still to see what might be false, but there isn't any mistake regarding my veracity.

That relates to the idea that it is very difficult to know who is honest, and mostly each and every person who isn't totally gullible or discerning of honesty, will be thinking that something must be incorrect and there must be some areas of untruth. But that doesn't happen to be the case regarding my personality and story.

The idea that is of intererst for this posting that I believe to be novel is that there may be a way to lead people to finally get out of their expectation of dishonesty to understand what really honest and truthful people might be like, especially if they are in my position having documents and artifacts to demonstrate what is said, for a very large number of claims.

I think the way is fantasy interestingly. People enjoy fantasy. What they are doing while they try to fill in gaps with another person is utilizing their creative imaginations. They do this in a way that includes making the wrong assumptions, but they refine it over time as they come to understand someone better, although they also tend to use their initial impressions incorrectly to solidify some false assumptions. They use their imaginations well and poorly, but they are using their imaginations each and every time. Once you've been introduced to someone, their imaginations are working on your story.

So what I want to convey to some people in some way I'll conjure in the future, in a forthright way, is that they should imagine that I'm a totally honest person and use the artifacts and what I say to build the picture, in conjunction with things they imagine that also fulfill the storyline of a character that happens to be truth telling. They can do this *while still* being risk averse, because in no way do I ask or expect anything of them, or want anything from them. They still have their risk aversion processes that they can use, so this can all be done somewhat separately from that ensuring their protection while they try to get the story about the other person correct. The idea is to connect the desire to understand who a person is really like with the utilization of fantasy to build out that story in the right way.

Simply imagine what I'm telling you happens to be the case. Build from that, look for defects. You will be illuminated understanding later that it happens to be true, and maybe you're on the path to really understand someone.

Now this isn't just about me. So don't think I'm just thinking about how I'm some super fantastic and honest person who wants to tell you about that, and that you should build your internal story about me to match reality. This really affects *anyone who is an honest person with a true story to tell, who consistently self-check and corrects such that almost everything is really well considered for the purpose of conveying truth*. Maybe that's somewhat rare, but I'm certain some who read this will think "this is me" correctly. Maybe such an idea will benefit somehow, once the approach includes an easy an feasible method that can be used in conversation that doesn't simply botch the conversation. Smooth and social people will understand that there is often a way to use a new social-conversational idea and it is simply a matter of eventually finding the method of communication combined with appropriate timing to make it possible to use and to recommend. I think it is possible that some large number of people may benefit.

Are you distrusting? What if someone you meet is really good and is really telling all honestly to the best of their ability with plenty of material to back claims up? Would you be willing to at the start imagine they are as honest as they say they are, imagine a fantasy of who they happen to be on the basis of that assumption, to later be illuminated that you realy know who someone happens to be without all the distrust and fictionalized imaginative explanations mixed in? If that is not something that others are willing to try, it could be that they really prefer not to know anyone and that really they would rather fill in the gaps themselves with fabrications. This makes it impossible to not know the people who are worth knowing and to know them well.

*More on this topic soon*

*[Note: completed at 4:49 pm without any edits, spell checking, or proofreading, as part of a study on editing and honesty in communication]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-enslavement-of-animal-robots">The Enslavement of Animal Robots</a>

*Wednesday, May 01, 2024 20:51:25*, Tempe, Arizona

Since the 1990s I wondered why there was not yet an appearance of any form of robot that was usable to alleviate some of the routine work that everyone was doing. Factories and in industry, already roboticization was extensive, and vehicles and other items were manufactured using sophisticated robotic appendages and other devices to perform work that was earlier performed with manual labor. These robots were not humanoid robots, of course, but simpler appendages and arm-like robots (although there are other kinds too), that did repeated tasks easily again and again. It seemed to me that they could not have been so complex to be too expensive for release into other markets. Now as I reflect on it, I think it must be true that there were other reasons for exclusive use in certain industries and not elsewhere. There are other reasons why they are not more pervasive.

I’ve argued earlier in the thoughtstream (If I have written it–I may not recall, these may just be thoughts I haven’t yet shared), that software automation is also already a form of roboticization only that there doesn’t happen to be body. So any software system that is performing tasks that would have been manually performed earlier is something I’m counting as robotic. Mechanization of industry in general including in agriculture is also a form of roboticization. A large tractor performing a large range of functions can be thought of as a robot. So these robotic systems exist and do simplify life in a variety of ways, but still we don’t have robots in our homes, or in businesses we often visit that perform human-mechanical tasks in the same way humans do. We cook our meals, prepare dishes for the dishwasher, clean around the house and so on, and much of this I would think should already be work performed by robots.

When are we going to see the benefits of roboticization directly at the individual level?

There are two ways we can benefit individually. Firstly if we obtain money from the work of robots even if we are not performing the work. That doesn’t appear to be happening and instead any work performed by robots would lead to business revenues that would mostly be transferred to the ownership of businesses. I don’t think we’re seeing much benefit from this currently. The other is to simply have them in the market doing work for us to improve our lives overall. As I said, we don’t really see this happening at present, even though robots have been around a long time and like I said, already they were performing work in the 1990s.

Eventually, what we are wanting are robotic slaves. In a sense, the work that is performed in automation by computer systems in products is a form of slave that repeatedly does the work for you. Eventually, we would like to increasingly offload work to slaves such that we have less routine tasks to perform that we don’t want to performs, and have the slaves do work in corporations and businesses on our behalf with the distribution of rewards going to everyone and not only people at the top of businesses. Slave labor, if it were not harmful to people, would be something that others would really want. Imagine if house keepers were free, drivers were free, people growing gardens, and people performing any task whatsoever as an assistant were free. We’d want them to do the work and we would benefit tremendously. We’d move from being people doing it all on our own to aristocrats of sorts living a lifestyle of much greater riches. Well, of course, slavery of people is horrible, and of course this is not what we want to do in modern times. In older times, it makes sense that people would want free or extremely cheap labor to lessen their work load and enable them to do whatever they wanted. Since this makes sense, of course it still makes sense, when it happens to be moral. The use of robots is certainly moral, and would enable us to have slaves to perform all our work for us. We could disuse the word slaves to use the word robots instead, while keeping in mind that the work that they are doing is really the kinds of work we would want slaves to be doing.

A challenge of the future will be to find ways to ensure that entities like corporations that build the robots distribute the robots to others for use in a way that is reasonably priced, and allows them to earn from their robots, without too much being transferred directly to the ownership. An example area where this would be necessary is where large portions of the work force are expected to be replaced with automation. Consider vehicular transport services like taxis, Uber, and Lyft. Now there is completely automated driverless vehicles taking the place of these services. An existing automated driverless transit service that exists now is called Waymo, and exists in Phoenix, Arizona, where I have used them frequently. I’ve used them approximately 30 times. These driverless cars can completely replace Uber, Lyft, and taxis in a large portion of the Phoenix area. Eventually, it seems very clear to me, because of the quality provided and other considerations, that these autonomous vehicles will completely or very nearly completely replace Uber, Lyft and taxi drivers, but there is no indication at all that these robotic slave cars will generate income that will be transferred to anyone other than the organization that created them, with much less provided to employees than to their ownership and primary stakeholders. This would be an example of robotic slavery that replaces work for people but does not actually create any income for them. Not only this, it should be providing income to people who might work as a driver, or potentially everyone. The effects of workforce replacement with slaves is not well understood, but distribution of rewards should be large and should go to many, and arguably, eventually, riding in these vehicles should be really inexpensive too. This is another way slaves can support everyone. If all could ride these vehicles for an incredibly low price, they all are directly improved by having robots performing work for them.

Corporations eventually with more and more roboticization would anticipate fewer rewards for their creations, but the decreased cost of living due to the roboticization combined with the increased rewards on the distribution of their return of revenue, would make earning income less important.Corporations would make less, but that is offset already by the potentially greater gains of having the robotic slaves do the work on their behalf.

Transitioning to what seems an entirely different topic, but still one of interest, is the protection of animals which may be on their way to extinction. These animals, being bio-bots like us, currently mostly exist in nature (where they are wild animals), and perform tasks automatically that are mostly directed to the fulfillment of their desires and needs. They spend their time looking for food, mating, looking after their young, and avoiding danger. Many of these animals are at risk of extinction or are going extinct. While there are efforts to prevent their extinction, the success of those efforts may be limited and may eventually cause or result in their extinctions nevertheless. For example, the protection of the Rhino does not appear to have been effective. If it is not possible to prevent them from becoming extinct, it may be possible to employ them as slaves for various purposes provided they are well treated (something of considerable importance given the cruelty of the animals in the food industry). There are some animals, including primates, that could potentially clean. They may even be able to cook, if well trained. Larger animals can perform tasks like take people around like autonomous vehicles. Humorously, it could be that people could benefit by the return of horses, but here thinking about animals that may go extinct, why not allow them to ride other large animals instead? Elephants, Rhinos, or other large animals. If they are going to be extinct instead, certainly it seems their preservation through domestication and use as well-treated slaves would be worthwhile. It may seem a stretch to think of this as a real possibility, but it really only requires the imagination to see how this might actually work. Even if these animals are not used for transit they could be employed for whatever they happen to be good at. Perhaps Giraffes are utilized to collect fruits for others, and not only themselves. Perhaps Chimpanzees and Gorillas can garden, and grow us some tomatoes that are finally worth eating again. This is really possible and while it seems a strange idea, if it is extinction versus flourishing as animals blended with the human population, as friends who perform work, I think the latter is preferable.

There is the question as to whether or not people really care about extinction, or if they only think about it momentarily then move onto other things, desiring and hoping that “someone else” will go into nature and protect them in various ways. But perhaps businesses can be opened, and trained domestication can be increased, to utilize these animals as robots while we can’t have robots. Or alternative bio-robots in a market that will grow to include options for different kinds of robots.

Already it is not unusual to have dogs carry out tasks for us that they happened to be specialized for. They work with the police and perform functions they seem to think are fairly critical. Each of the many other animals have unique traits that make them suitable for differing kinds of tasks that would need to be identified. There are other tasks that they perform as well, and obviously, by having a dog or a cat, one has a robotic replacement for a friend or family member, who often do better than humans could or would.

Some questions to ponder. What are robots usable for in everyday life? What could other alternative animal-robots do for us? How can we blend these in with everyday life to improve general well being for ourselves and the animals? How would it lessen work and increase well being, with a decreased need to gain income? What is the role of money when all work is being performed already and nobody is needing income, when we reach a state in which we really do have all the moral slavery we could desire?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="end-game-of-the-chosen-people">The End Game of the Chosen People</a>

*Monday, April 29, 2024 03:54:53*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

What could be the end game of a chosen people?

Let's say I'm a member of a chosen people. (And I happen to be a member of a group that does think they are the chosen people).

How do I complete my mission, and how does it surface over the next 10,000 years to a million years?

Here are several options, and there aren't many.

1. Does my people somehow become part of an elite caste, that simply controls everything, or guides everyone, who happens to not be members of the chosen people, supposing they still exist? Meaning the chosen people lead everything, while the unchosen people do not?

2. Do my people simply remain scattered amongst everyone else, and run things partially, scattered across the globe? With the unchosen people living among us? Doing the same type of things (meaning they are chosen too?). Or, do we lead by oftentimes using manipulation to get our way while others simply don't have their say as frequently?

3. Do we eliminate everyone or eventually supplant them, or convert them, so that all there are are chosen people?

If my people are the chosen people (and they are), then it seems 1 and 2 are silly for us. 1 seems to confirm it, but is also abhorrent according to us at present. We can't just have a caste system. 2 seems silly because it is like pretending to be chosen (that is what we do now). Both one and two don't make it clear to everyone that we're really chosen either. 1 makes it seem we are morally incorrect, and 2 makes it seem we're just regular people, living with everyone else.

3 seems to confirm what a chosen people would be. Eventually, everyone else is absorbed or eradicated. If I'm working gradually to progress my chosen people, it seems that this is what I would want. Like people who want to convince all to be uncruel. In this case, the goal is to confirm chosen status.

After 10,000 years what does it look like though? Does it just stay like one of the above, or does it become something else. Does my chosen people evolve into another people, or do we remain in stasis as chosen people?

Which path do you think I should follow as a chosen person with my chosen people?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="solidifications-of-the-life-categories">Solidifications of the Life Categories</a>

*Sunday, April 28, 2024 19:16:01*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Work on the Life Categories and Attentional Management Process within Attentional Architecture has resulted in considerable advancements in life organization, with some culminating accomplishments relating to the objectives of the Personal Form. These culminating accomplishments for now can be referred to as "solidifications".

Solidifications are the automations and finished habits related to completions of goals related to the life categories. They are stable habits that are exclusionary of behaviors that are unwanted, but more important are focused positively on actions that are preferred.

The recent solidifications are those that were supported for development using the wake book, to complete goals of the personal form.

It is important now to collect, categorize, and easily recall the various solidifications. You've commented before that the culmination event of the completion of the personal form is really a completeness that does not require additions; however, additions to this culmination are still desirable. The finishing of the personal form's objectives have resulted in a lifestyle that is adequate, creating personal contentment, but there is much to do that is interesting that will result in more improved plans and behaviors.

It is not clear yet how you want to organize solidifications because they are very cross relational in the life categories. It appears they will be complete interrelational habits, that will fit into a number of categories, that you will want to track in parallel.

Below is an example solidification relating to food and it's relationships to the categories. Solidifications can be represented in a hierarchy or as a graph overlay. There are numerous representations of the solidifications but they have increasing abstraction and generality.

- Cycles and Shifts
- Mind and Mental Development
- Meditation and Mood
- Planning and Visualization
- Humor
- Fitness
  - Free, Market Harvestable or Forageable Food, Water, Can, Plant, Protein, One-meal, Tastybag, Cooking Free
- Health, Cleanliness and Hygiene
- Nutrition
  - Free, Market Harvestable or Forageable Food, Water, Can, Plant, Protein, One-meal, Tastybag, Cooking Free
- Property and Organization
- Rest and Rejuvenation
- Environments
- Outdoors and Travel
- Livelihood
  - Free, Market Harvestable or Forageable Food, Water, Can, Plant, Protein, One-meal, Tastybag, Cooking Free
- Relationships
- Music and Art

It appears after some brief reflection that the life categories and the larger goals of the personal form and AMP are more general than the solidifications. However, listing the solidifications seems like it will provide more clarity as to goal completenesses. For the above interrelated solidification (unnamed), it can be seen it relates each of the categories of Fitness, Nutrition, and Livelihood very obviously, but less obviously it relates to the other categories to. These appear to be highly connected behaviors that simply satisfy a large amount of goals for each of the categories.

The union or conjunction of all the solidifications will together satisfy the total goals of the life categories in another way that encompasses all that one does. Description of each with all the interrelationships further illustrates the cause of selecting the life categories as a suitable set for covering all activities, objectives, plans and so on. Solidifications and Life Categories together provide a way of summarizing what one does. The life categories alone don't describe on their own without supporting writing what it is that one has done or has accomplished. They constitute a schematic framework usable at all times by a person and any other person.

For yourself, the summary description of your behavior will be well characterized by adding the complete list of solidifications in addition to the log of plans, personal form data, and living autobiography that relates to the life categories.

This will be expanded upon further in the near future.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="animals-thrive-amongst-corpses">Animals Thrive Amongst Corpses</a>

*Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:29:12*, Tempe, Arizona

Imagine you decide that you wanted to live out in nature alone, as a hermit of sorts. Or imagine, you spend a very long camping trip out in the country, also alone, for several months. After a long duration spending time in the country, one would become very attuned to the behavior of insects, small and larger animals, birds, where they life and what paths they tend to take, and the context of trees, plants and other flora in which they live. You’ll come to understand the ecosystem and its interconnections.

Part of the ecosystem and its interconnectedness of course includes feeding behavior and the death and dying process. You may see birds eating insects, you may hear predators eating small animals like rabbits, and you will likely see many dead organisms that haven’t yet been consumed by scavengers, other animals, and microorganisms. In a system such as this, it would be the case that there would be dead things all over. Either dead animals that are fresh kills, recently dead animal carcasses waiting for scavengers, or older dead carcasses awaiting decay, eroding, and consumption by microbes.

This is all something we’ve learned about in school, but what might be missing from this observations is that animals seem to thrive amongst corpses, scattered all about.

The observation of animals also shows strong indications that very often they are peaceful and are thriving. The visible dying of animals seems somewhat absent from the scene except more infrequently. Sometimes injured animals are stumbled upon, but that is somewhat a rarity compared to the scale of death that is really occurring. Dying animals must be hiding or finding safer places to be out of view while they are in the final process of dying. Much more visibly, we can see animals that seem to be doing well, or at least have better health as they seek out food and resources.

Certainly many animals are actually doing well and are enjoying themselves and their surroundings. And they do this within the context of death. Dead animals and organisms are strewn over the landscape. Dead animals of a similar type are nearby or have been nearby. They eat and live near dead animals of all kinds. It’s extremely familiar, yet on observation many are enjoying things and are thriving.

What here is different between the animals living out in nature and humans. Humans are certainly living in nature too, even if their construction leads them to create a divide between the artificial and synthetic, and the natural. They are still just on earth and in nature. Where it relates to death, humans have created a strong demarcation. Death is not in view. The dying are separated and the oldest of us are not often in public. Nearly they are never in public. But animals thrive even amongst the corpses.

We bury the dead using planning that is old and needs revision. They are buried deep or are cremated, and their corpses are out of view. Animals cannot feed on them, and in a sense, they go to some waste; although it is true too eventually something will benefit from their decay. It just takes much longer. But the animals and things we live in at this time, can’t benefit directly from the human corpses. We package them up tightly and bury them deep, without any intention to revisit them.

Humans are uncomfortable about death, but pretend to have resolved it using a process that keeps it more out of view. It becomes a topic to think about late in life for many who don’t experience it until old age, when peers are more frequently dying and when they of course have to think about what happens when their approaching demise finally occurs. They think of this once it’s closer in view. Or they suddenly and unexpectedly think of it when someone they know dies that they were not anticipating would. Other times when grandparents die, the process is not analyzed thoroughly and instead what is focused on is grievance. The fact that death is not in the open does not much come to mind and has been largely unaddressed.

What would happen if humans and their deaths were more open and if their bodies were not so carefully placed in cemeteries? What is the difference from this way of doing things from a natural life in which animals simply die scattered in the open and are consumed?

What would it cause us to think about population management if people did happen to have their corpses strewn in the open? Would we eventually see too many corpses of our kind, and think to ourselves that even our bodies excessively pollute the beauty of the surroundings? Or, would it seem something so familiar that it is no longer something to concern us and instead, skeletons and corpses are common enough that we are comfortable with our own prospects of finally becoming corpses too, and nothing more?

This is a topic worth spending some time dwelling on, because even imagining such a scenario helps to gain comfort that there is no afterlife, and also, that one can thrive just like animals do in an environment in which death is not hidden. The imagining of it is still helpful even if others prefer to use a less openly knowledgeable approach. People say that nature is beautiful and the world is beautiful, but they have omitted this kind of thinking from their estimations. I think they could arrive at the same conclusion recognizing that nature already is beautiful without or rules and systems, and that even if death were entirely in the open it would be quite nice. How could one like nature if one didn’t already have comfort with the corpses and pervasive death of animals? Finally, you’re an animal too. For those who can’t imagine that they are animals it seems they are further separated from being able to enjoy nature as it is and they would further rely on fictions, and the hiding of information, to continue to enjoy the beauties they select. They are merely being selective about what happens to be beautiful and not beautiful, while they’ll say things like “life is beautiful” thinking they have understood that to be the case in total.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="plans-for-site-updates">Plans for Site Updates</a>

*Monday, April 01, 2024 22:09:40*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

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

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

Feeding and Digestion Doesn't Correspond to a Diurnal Cycle



## <a name="feeding-and-digestion-doesnt-correspond-to-a-diurnal-cycle">Feeding and Digestion Doesn't Correspond to a Diurnal Cycle</a>

*Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 12:14 PM*, Tempe, Arizona

An important activity I’ve been involved in relates to the identification of natural cycles as they exist and to what extent they correspond to the divisions we have in place with are calendaring system. More about this can be found in my article the calendar solved in my book and journal at Mattanaw.org where I provide my solution to the calendar problem as it relates to astronomy and the earth’s cycles. Some of the biological cycles that are outside of our control fall within diurnal cycles which are cycles of days corresponding to the rotation of the earth, with different lighting for different seasons. Some of our biological cycles correspond to the diurnal cycle and can only for a short time be separated, including our sleep requirements. It is true that this cycle influences the sleep behavior of many kinds of animals across the earth and so presents a hard biological limitation for many organisms and clearly relates well to our present system of calendaring and ideas about what our organization for planning should be like regarding that. But there are other cyclical or potentially acyclical behaviors we engage in that do not actually correspond to the diurnal cycle and for these we simply force them into our calendaring system, and this has many effects as to the veracity of our knowledge about these behaviors. An example of this happens to be our eating/feeding behavior and the eating/feeding behavior of other animals.

There is an exception, in that the sleeping behavior implies that there is no feeding behavior during the sleep. So one will only be eating at times when one is awake.

Our eating and feeding behavior does not strictly fall onto a diurnal cycle or the daily organization of the calendar. However, we have scheduled our food consumption to align with the calendar. Some eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and would be willing to enforce upon others that these scheduled feedings were necessary and natural given the world’s organization. However, it has merely been forced into the calendar this way, chunking these three meals together and placed on a timeline of days. But one does not need to eat according to this schedule and one does not need to eat every day. One does not need to eat every other day. One could go four days without eating or hardly eating or longer and would be fine. This is because our system of self-nourishment using existing resources within our body does its work gradually, and not in a punctuated way over a timeline. Your body will grab resources as resources are consumed and are needed.

Our bodies also are not punctuated regarding the basic needs level of creation and utilization of energy. There is no time that one is living that there is not some energy utilization occurring, and within the body, there is no time that there is not some chemical conversion of resources to energy. If one does not eat food for several days, the conversions of bodily resources to energy just continue, and are able to sustain the main functions for a prolonged period of time without having to eat again. Also, since a prolonged period of time without food can exist while one remains very healthy, it means the starting of the period of non-eating and the period of resuming eating can be at any time within the survivable period of abstinence from food. This implies very clearly that the eating behavior does not relate to the calendaring schedule as it presently exists. If one has no food, then suddenly has food four days later, perhaps living as an ancient human, then one’s sudden scarcity of food and one’s sudden arrival of food have not fit with the calendar either. This can be due to all sorts of circumstances which may create an appearance of partial randomness.

Since naturally humans have evolved without their feeding behavior being related to any particular calendaring which was only poorly conceived recently and several thousand years ago, it is known that our actual bodies have assumed that our energy needs and eating behaviors are unrelated to scheduling and calendaring. If one were not to observe social norms and eat as one likes as if the daily scheduling of feeding did not exist, then one would actually begin to act more closely to the assumptions of the human body, and the assumptions of all the bodies of other organisms that happen to feed when they can. If one were to alter their eating behavior to ignore the scheduling one would more closely understand the actual and natural cyclical energy needs of their systems, and their feeding behavior would be more closely connected with a naturalistic calendar, and not the incomplete calendaring framework that we happen to use that we are forcing various behaviors into.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>





## <a name="imagine-if-the-world-was-mutually-intelligent-and-intelligible-and-mostly-in-agreement">Imagine if the World Was Mutually Intelligent and Intelligible, and Mostly in Agreement</a>

*Sunday, March 24, 2024 17:43:53*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="response-to-an-online-friend-regarding-his-diety-related-argument">Response to an online friend regarding his diety related argument</a>

*Wednesday, March 20<sup>th</sup>, 2024*,&nbsp;<time>1:58pm, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Commentary of the Logical-Scientific Proof for a Diety by Mr. Iakovos Koukas

This posting is in response to a recent brief article provided by Mr. Iakovos Koukas, who wrote initially two attempts at a logical proof for a deity, following up with what he believes to be a logical-scientific proof for the Abrahamic Deity. My perspective happens to be that no such proof can be created, that such a proof created will be stronger if atheistic terms are substituted, and that ultimately the atheistic perspective is the one that has the full science and logic behind it.

My perspective differs from that of Mr. Koukas, in that I'm convinced that there is no tenable pathway for the development of a purely logical argument, and additionally that there is no logical-scientific argument that will be successful.

I promised Mr. Koukas a response to his proof, and here I provide a summary response with some primary criticisms of interest. My response, however, is long and elaborate, and instead of being written in an article format, it will simply become a new published book of mine. I'm averse to providing fast responses to arguments if there is an opportunity to create finality to a subject and to provide a fuller expression of my ideas. Concise responses don't address the full complexity of my thinking and a really good handling of the subject matter. 

Somewhat recently I was approached for interview by Insight Journal, by Mr. Scott Douglas Jacobsen who is an interviewer of the Extraordinarily Intelligent. Instead of writing a normal interview response, I wrote and published an entire book of it. That book, [The Velocity of Significance and Ideation](http://mattanaw.com/velocity-of-significance-and-ideation.html) can be found below. The book is relevant because it addresses the analysis of intelligence using informal conversation and the ability to at high velocity develop and ideate at high significance. The conversation between myself and Mr. Koukas can be used as another datum usable for that particular thesis. Transactions within the High IQ Community sometimes fail to exhibit transactional ideation at increasing sophistication and meaningfulness. At over 200 pages, Mr. Jacobsen commented that it is the longest response he has received to date from any extraordinary member of any High Intelligence Society. In a similar way to my response to Mr. Jacobsen, I intend to respond to Mr. Koukas elaborately and at length. This will deal with the arguments Mr. Koukas has provided, but more importantly will handle all similar arguments in the History of Philosophy that have been written, like Anselm's Argument and the The Ontological Proof. In this way I will be able to refute the argument of Mr. Koukas in detail but also refute the direction, putting an end finally the perspective that there can be such a successful line of argumentation.

This is the related book:

http://mattanaw.com/velocity-of-significance-and-ideation.html

Since that is underway but will take some time, I wanted in the meantime to provide a briefer response that readers of Mr. Koukas can use for the analysis and evaluation of his argument, and to provide Mr. Koukas some valuable feedback.

In earlier conversations with Mr. Koukas I impressed upon him the need to formalize his proof, since earlier proofs he provided were only in natural language and did not provide the requisite proof-like form. The comment was intended to show that the proofs earlier provided were interesting, but were not yet in that format anticipated within the field of Professional Philosophy. Mr. Koukas kindly developed his argument further getting his draft closer to a developed article that would be more acceptable within the field. Here I argue that while it is more developed, it is still not complete.

Here are the primary points of argument given my review of his argument, which can be found below. These are not all the arguments I have contrary to this paper, and as I said it will take a while to fully explain the entire rationale in book format. But in the meantime I've provided some critical objections.

1. A list of equations close to the fundamentals of science does not demonstrate anything in particular. But can confuse readers to think that since there was an appearance of technical detail, it is something to be trusted. However, these formulae are listed but not employed.

2. The list of specific premises and arguments, while they provide logical formulae in the form of the Predicate Logic, do not actually take the form of a deductive proof. They are a list of formulae only without any deductions or inference steps being shown, or any relationship between them. As such, its not a logical proof.

3. The choice of the Predicate Logic is questionable as it does not have the proper truth preserving characteristics to determine validity such as Sentential Logic. This would be clarified as the proof itself is finally completed (if completed) with the chain of thought, and modes of transformation shown.

4. Terms do not have the appropriate operationalization or clarified meanings that make them suitable for inclusing within the logical symolism or natural language arguments. We have a definition for the deity using words like "omnipotent" which simply are not usable.

5. Proposed mathematical formulae do not have a clear explication as to their representation. These formulae appear to have been prepared to give the impression that such a formula exists or is representative, but intead it appears to be a start at trying to mathematize abstractly a concept that doesn't appear truly represented by that mathematization. The formula I have in mind in particular is Mr. Koukas's Integral from infinity to infinity with abstract parameterization expectations of dimensional and dimensionless parameters of any kind. 

6. The Predicate Logic expressions appear to be trending towards an attempt to copy an existing proof, with a plain substitution of the actual terms to use his own. This is to be confirmed. In other words, it doesn't appear to be a unique development but rather an attempt to take a existing formulae that appear to work separately and plug in terms relating to religion. This would happen when the attempt at a logical proof is not one that is original, or ready for proving, but instead finds a proof and simply inserts values, so the proof form that couldn't otherwise be achieved is simply reused. If this is the procedure it will be obvious that the logic was borrowed from a source in which the proof was correct, but new terms relating to religion were input instead of the original inputs. It would have been correct or nearly correct in the original context but incorrect in the new usage. 

7. There is a fundamental circularity to his argument. Science and logic, if it proves the existence of a diety, should build up the existence of that deity in the argument. Like proving the existence of a particular entity like miscellaneous atomic particles or the electron. In other words, the argument identifies what is to be defined. But Mr. Koukas simply defines it, immediately employs it, then states that it's been proven. As defined he's already convinced it exists without any additional proving.

My initial conclusion regarding this brief article is that it is simply incomplete, but also that it does not appear that it could be completed. I think it will be abandoned in development. I think this article is an example of an honest attempt trying to press it towards Professional Philosophy, and it's on its way in that direction, but is not quite there in its execution, and I'm pretty certain upcoming obstacles will cause a desire to discontinue that development. The mathematics appears to have been plucked out from elsewhere and included, but not utilized, and I think it will be truly difficult to utilize in a way that brings required rigor of argument. In my estimation it appears a reference or study list on certain formulae of the sciences, and an explanation of inputs, but these are out of context and do not figure into the argument in a way that is traceable to a logical argument. They are listed but are not used. Mr. Koukas uses them to explain how the formulae relate to orderliness, but that is something that is agreed upon already, that science illustrates orderliness. Nearly any fundamental equation could be used for this purpose and the selection appears somewhat arbitrary.

Within the article, Mr. Koukas discusses several formulae he thinks relate to fine-tuning which I would agree relates to orderliness of the universe. He explains these and provides some details about the variables as inputs. But then he simply states that these indicate orderliness of the universe. This is no different than if someone, an Atheist, argues that the universe is simply orderly, and provides the very same mathematical formulae or any number of additional fundamental formulae. For example, I could write an atheistic version of the same argument exchanging terms and providing in my list of formulae such as one relating to the fine-structure constant, that I was recently studying from the CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry:

In terms of other fundamental physical constants, α may be defined as:

α = e^2/4πε0ħc 

e is the elementary charge (1.602176634×10−19);
h is the Planck constant (6.62607015×10−34);
ħ is the reduced Planck constant, ħ = h/2π (1.054571817...×10−34)
c is the speed of light (299792458 m⋅s−1);
ε0 is the electric constant (8.8541878128(13)×10−12 F⋅m−1).

Here I've done that in seconds merely copying from Wikipedia, which is similar to what he would have done. The explanation of the constant would simply be a summary of what is provided by Wikipedia or the CRC Handbook. Including it for relevance the purpose of developing it into a fuller article is reasonable, and Mr. Koukas is being transparent about sharing his developments this way which is appreciated, by including the formulae he wants to focus on and use. But it has to be admitted that listing them as he did in the prior article is an indication that it is in a draft state and not a complete state, and as is they are simply usable to see where he is going with his argument, but don't constitute any part of a proof that actually utilizes them. They are simply mentioned.

I could list interesting formulae again and again and it would be a mistake to think such a list simply justifies any particular conclusion relating to orderliness, other than what it happens to describe on its own, or in conjunction and concert with related formulae.

It will be interesting to see what Mr. Koukas's finished production will be regarding his logical-scientific attempt at a proof. My expectation is that he will arrive at an issue in choosing the appropriate logics for his deductions and will fail to weave in the mathematics, in a way that takes it from providing an ostensibly good argument that other Christians will accept, to one that is a really good argument that scientists would accept.
I don't think it will be possible to arrive at a cohesive proof. Most importantly I don't think he'll arrive at a good definition of terms, which is more damning because without such definitions the proof is meaningless, and of course, atheists argue that the terms relating to dieties are vacuous. I happen to argue they are fictions. 

After this commentary, the next refutation of Mr. Koukas's argument and similar arguments that have appeared in the history of Philosophy will be in book format. This will take some time but it will be circulated within the High Intelligence Communities. There will be no additional commentaries between now and that time.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="cosmological-arguments-for-a-diety-and-other-related-arguments-from-originating-in-myth">Cosmological Arguments for a Diety and Other Related Arguments From Originating in Myth</a>

*Sunday, March 17<sup>th</sup>, 2024 11:55:00*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

*An Initial Draft*

**First communication**

Until today there are no empirical evidence for the existence of a theistic God, but there are compelling reasons and indications to consider His existence based on logical arguments and observed phenomena. One such phenomenon is the fine-tuning of the universe, which provides a logical reason to believe in the existence of a cosmic designer. The logical argument derived from fine-tuning strengthens this notion, offering logical support for the existence of God. I am presenting to you here the formal logic of the fine-tuning argument.

The formal logic of the fine-tuning argument:

Premise 1: The universe shows a remarkable degree of fine-tuning, where small changes in the values of fundamental physical constants or initial conditions would make the universe inhospitable to life.

Premise 2: The fine-tuning of physical constants in the universe can only be the result of either chance, physical necessity or design.

Premise 3: The fine-tuning of the universe cannot be reasonably attributed to chance alone, as the likelihood of the observed parameters occurring randomly is exceedingly low, approaching zero within the context of known probability distributions and the limitations of our observable universe.

Premise 4: The fine-tuning of the universe cannot be explained by physical necessity alone, as there is no theoretical reason why the fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe must take on the values that allow for life.

Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe suggests the existence of a cosmic designer who deliberately set the parameters of the universe to permit the emergence of life. 

The above mentioned designer is equated with God, because His traits of omnipotence, omniscience and transcendence align most closely with the attributes necessary to account for the fine-tuning of the universe.

**Second Communication**

An additional compelling logical argument supporting the existence of God lies in the complex information encoded within DNA. Here is its formal structure:

Premise 1: The genetic code, found in the DNA of living organisms, contains vast amounts of complex and specified information necessary for the development, functioning and reproduction of organisms.

Premise 2: Information, particularly complex and specified information like that found in the genetic code, is typically associated with the activity of an intelligent agent.

Premise 3: Naturalistic explanations alone, such as random chance or natural selection, fail to adequately explain and prove the origin and complexity of the information found in the genetic code.

Premise 4: Empirical observation and scientific inquiry consistently demonstrate that complex systems with specified information, such as computer programs and written language, invariably originate from the deliberate action of an intelligent agent.

Conclusion: Therefore, the presence of complex and specified information in the genetic code, which parallels the patterns observed in human-designed systems, suggests the involvement of a conscious, intelligent and all powerful creator, commonly referred to as God, in the design and development of living organisms.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

### Lack of Logical Formalization

Here we will convert the initial communication with its argument into a more formal translation and variant in order to more fully clarify what is being argued and what the structure and constituent parts happen to be.

Initially we need to consider the lanaguage itself and its employment of various key words that are meaningful for *any understanding* of what is being communicated, not only to identify the formal logical translation of the argument, but to understand what it is about and what it could be about given differing minds with differing word-understandings. All concepts used in an argument constitute premises for the argument. Firstly, they constitute claims as to the meaningfulness and usability of the terms. They pass or do not pass various validies associated with conceptualization. These are what is sometimes referred to, similarly, as hidden premises. There are premises assuming that the words have particular meanings and are meaningful.

Below is a listing of all concepts and terms.

1. The (indicating unity, uniqueness and oneness).

1. Premise 1
1. The
1. universe
1. shows
1. a
1. remarkable
1. degree
1. of
1. fine-tuning
1. where
1. small
1. changes
1. in
1. the
1. values
1. of
1. fundamental
1. physical
1. constants
1. or
1. initial
1. conditions
1. would
1. make
1. the
1. universe
1. inhospitable
1. to
1. life.

1. Premise 2
1. The
1. fine-tuning
1. of
1. physical
1. constants
1. in
1. the
1. universe
1. can
1. only
1. be
1. the
1. result
1. of
1. either
1. chance
1. physical
1. necessity
1. or
1. design.

1. Premise 3
1. The
1. fine-tuning
1. of
1. the
1. universe
1. cannot
1. be
1. reasonably
1. attributed
1. to
1. chance
1. alone
1. as
1. the
1. likelihood
1. of 
1. the
1. observed
1. parameters
1. occurring
1. randomly
1. is
1. exceedingly
1. low
1. approaching
1. zero
1. within
1. the
1. context
1. of
1. known
1. probability
1. distributions
1. and
1. the
1. limitations
1. of
1. our
1. observable
1. universe.

1. Premise 4
1. The
1. fine-tuning
1. of
1. the
1. universe
1. cannot
1. be
1. explained
1. by
1. physical
1. necessity
1. alone
1. as
1. there
1. is
1. no
1. theoretical
1. reason
1. why
1. the
1. fundamental
1. constants
1. and
1. initial
1. conditions
1. of
1. the
1. universe
1. must
1. take
1. on
1. the
1. values
1. that
1. allow
1. for
1. life.

1. Conclusion
1. Therefore
1. the
1. fine-tuning
1. of
1. the
1. universe
1. suggests
1. the
1. existence
1. of
1. a
1. cosmic
1. designer
1. who
1. deliberately
1. set
1. the
1. parameters
1. of
1. the
1. universe
1. to
1. permit
1. the
1. emergence
1. of
1. life. 

Contextual information

The contextual information provided gives the interpretation context for the various words that appear in the main argument. These are analyzed to understand the meaningns of the words as they are employed above.

First Paragraph

1. Until
1. today
1. there
1. are
1. no
1. empirical
1. evidence
1. for
1. the
1. existence
1. of
1. a
1. theistic
1. God
1. but
1. there
1. are
1. compelling
1. reasons
1. and
1. indications
1. to
1. consider
1. His
1. existence
1. based
1. on
1. logical
1. arguments
1. and
1. observed
1. phenomena.
1. One
1. such
1. phenomenon
1. is
1. the 
1. fine-tuning
1. of
1. the
1. universe
1. which
1. provides
1. a
1. logical
1. reason
1. to
1. believe
1. in 
1. the
1. existence
1. of
1. a
1. cosmic
1. designer.
1. The
1. logical
1. argument
1. derived
1. from
1. fine-tuning
1. strengthens
1. this
1. notion,
1. offering
1. logical
1. support
1. for
1. the
1. existence
1. of
1. God.
1. I
1. am
1. presenting
1. to
1. you
1. here
1. the
1. formal
1. logic
1. of
1. the
1. fine-tuning
1. argument.

Last Paragraph

1. The
1. above
1. mentioned
1. designer
1. is
1. equated
1. with
1. God
1. because
1. His
1. traits
1. of
1. omnipotence
1. omniscience
1. and
1. transcendence
1. align
1. most
1. closely
1. with
1. the
1. attributes
1. necessary
1. to
1. account
1. for
1. the
1. fine-tuning
1. of
1. the
1. universe.

We can see that not all of these conceptual premises in the above listing of concepts are ones we would want to dispute or refine at the outset. Some are those that are not especially interesting as part of the structure of the argument utilzed for the accepting or dismissing of the proof as a whole or in its parts. However, some of these concepts do require additional explanation, definition, explication, and so one before one can understand what is being argued, and what the structure of the argument really happens to be. Some concepts here do not seem to pass tests of conceptual validity, including an ability to really identify a meaning that is not disputable, which is part of the test of operational validity in the sciences. Here will be provided some example concepts that appear usable, and some that appear unusuable. Those that are considered unusable will be noted, but this will not impede the continued analysis of the structure of the argument to get an an improved formalization. An improved formalization can always include substitute concepts and expressions, if that appears necessary. It will not remove the utility of first arriving at a better formalization so that it is better understood what formalization would look like upon completion of the process. The argument can be refined by the writer to be a better total argument with a very clearly explained argument formalization, which is another way to say this is how a more full understanding of the total argument is arrived at. This will give opporunity for strongest presentation the author can provide for the argument, giving due opportunity before full criticism is lofted at it. This is a principle of charity within Philosophy which includes a readiness to understand an argument in its apparently strongest form in order to attempt to refute it in its better form.


## <a name="ai-removal-of-operational-concepts-from-language">AI Removal of Operational Concepts From Language</a>

*Sunday, March 10, 2024 19:29:17 PM*, Tempe, Arizona

If operational concepts in the english language, and other languages, were removed, leaving only nearly operational concepts and well-operationalized concepts, what would you still be able to talk about?

What would you be unable to talk about?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-everyone-disagrees-with-your-theory-it-is-easy-to-demonstrate-you-are-the-source">If Everyone Disagrees with Your Theory, It Is Easy to Demonstrate You Are The Source</a>

*Sunday, February 25, 2024 13:32:40*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

If everyone disagrees with a theory you have, and you actively work on it, the likelihood that a colleage or someone in the field will be able to steal your theory is diminished extremely. By the time anyone is interested enough to want to steal or borrow your idea, your work, if you've been disciplined, will already be comprised of a long history of dated evidence that precedes whatever tthey do, and it would be very difficult for them to build a story that demonstrates that they were first. Additionally, the story of your work would be detailed and complex, and clearly and neatly explain the growth of the work and the conditions of the origination of the idea and subsequent related ideas.

This means that the work you've created and any subsequent explanation of the work will be of a superior quality and will make it quite difficult for others to merely take the work. It will be too easy to demonstrate that your work and efforts preceded theirs, both in originality and in complexity.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="gaining-audiences-and-intellectualism">Gaining Audiences and Intellectualism</a>

*Sunday, February 25, 2024 12:51:20*, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Gaining audiences may be quickly related to the desire for attention, partly to the self for having a communication with some number of people, and partly for gaining attention for the sharing of information about the self more generally. Another way of expressing this is to say some want to gain momentary attention, and oftentimes this type of attention is less than desirable than an attention to one's life more generally. One concerns quicker interactions, and can be fulfilling, but that fulfillment is not the same as that type of attention that is more wanted regarding having others appreciate and understand themselves as people, more completely.

Typically people seem to be rather dissatisfied with the level of attention they receive in their lives. Oftentimes, considering the population as a whole, this discontent with the attention received from friends and people on social media, and in audiences through entertainment, is expressed in the claim that one should put family first. Because with family one fits in, is well understood, and has a durable attention that is more inclusive of one's experience than brief and transitory and less frequent interactions with others. The quantity of interactions one has is related to the ability to totally self express and be understood in the larger way that one typically wants after discovering that other forms of attention are not as fulfilling apart from the short communications that occur, that may still be very rewarding.

But many often experience that their families are resistant to understanding them too. They get stuck in the past and have difficulty understanding what has changed, and what their world looks like outside the family. This is one reason why some strive to find others to have better more complete communication with, but typically they settle for briefer communications and time with these others to have attention to other aspects of self that are not noticed or not well exhibited with family and those who are closer.

From this we can see, using our own experiences, that it may be unrealistic to expect that the self is known well by anyone, particularly as one's life increases in experience and complexity over time. If one's history and self gets very complex, then it becomes difficult to convey in a holistic or summary way, who one is, what one has done, and what one really cares about. It also appears, that the above considerations, indicate that any relationship will be one that is not entirely fulfilling, and instead one will have to learn to be contented eventually with different forms of relationships that simply provide access and understanding of part of the self, even if that is not what is really wanted. I don't think there is any relationship that will truly lead to the contentment expected or wanted, unless somehow one is able to find a friend or partner of many years who has very good similarities of personality and intellect, and as rarity of personality and intellect and other traits of self increase in rarity, the likelihood of having this diminishes, and of course almost all relationships have a life cycle. If one has it for a period it cannot expect it will be permanent or remain kind indefinitely; or one may suffer a serious loss and this other person may die earlier than hoped. Of course all will die and so one will be left without the other, and will unlikely have the same opportunity again.

Relating this to the topic of audience building, the same issues appear to exist, but that may not be obvious at the outset. We can see today people building personalities and profiles online on various social media platforms, and elsewhere, initially with small chunks of information being shared with hopes of attention concerning those shares. These still constitute micro shares of life that may result in satisfaction, and some audience, but it will be experienced later that these many shares and communications have not transformed into any good knowledge of self. Entertainers and social media influencers eventually will have to be satisfied with a very incomplete knowledge of self even with large audiences.

If one is an intellectual it is quite hard to have an audience of any kind on any communication channel. But it is possible if one can't have the attention one is looking for to have social groups of somewhat similar mindsets to have brief communications and interactions that may be enjoyable. These will be composed of smaller groups typically. For some few, fame through these smaller groups may still be possible, but it appears to me that even if that occurs, one is in a situation that is not too dissimilar from where one started, except one will have had an accomplishment directly related to the relay of the message to a larger group that approves of the message, and that of course is feedback that one is doing well with what one has communicated. But still, there will be few rewards regarding the transmission of self to this audience, and probably the audience cannot put all communications together to form a complete understanding of either the messages or who you happen to be.

Audience building is uniquely related now to existing channels of communication that typically have obstacles to getting famous or reaching a very wide and receptive audience. If one is an intellectual, one is very unlikely to have an organic interest from the community that quickly vaults one into the spotlight. If one is young and attractive, and shares what is more of basic interest to audiences, this is much more possible, but still incredibly unlikely. And if fame is attained that way, it was not the other way, the way of sharing intellectualism or sharing details about self. It was more along the transitory path of fulfilling people's basic desires somehow in a brief way. Furthermore, it is very hard to hold one's audience's attention for a long time, or to share what is much longer and detailed. Videos shared on social media nowadays are often only seconds long, and these are those that are quickly shared and become popular rapidly. People have a strong disinclination to read postings if they are of the quality of larger texts, so intellectualism comes in quick chunks that are not too much longer than memes. The difficulties of producing longer content greatly limit one's ability to have a continuous and connected message disseminated, and these messages often are unable to hold attention and simply pass with very poor quality transmission of communication.

Additionally, those who gain significant attention in social media face the fact that those who do gain attention very often play a complex posting game with more than one account to increase the reach of the messages and to build a larger audience. This means the time to devote to gaining an audience places one in a strange game with software providers to find tricks using more than one account to forcibly get more attention. In the future this may be something that will be impossible, if there are constraints set on account setting related to identity information. Currently on some social media channels, creators will have a large number of separate accounts to share and re-share messages. The time to create and manage these accounts, and post and repost messages, requires a commitment to playing within this game to see if one can eventually force attention or finally get enough to get it to self-perpetuate audience increases. Also, the method employed may seem one of "cheating" or of "finding holes in the system" to make it finally happen. This is a very different activity from creating and disseminating what one wants to share or discuss. This implies the likelihood of having a huge audience is very low, and again if this content shared includes intellectualism it is unlikely there will be interest even with all of the efforts. 

What is missing from social media is a clear vision as to the likelihood that one will gain attention from one's efforts. There appear also to be fabrications in likes, followings, suggesting numbers may not be real even for those who have apparently large followings. Those who have large followings oftentimes still do not attain a large audience off platform or attain any fame, and this is related to media controls that exist in media channels off of social media.

For anyone sharing intellectualism, it appears one will have to be greatly contented with the activity of producing the intellectualism apart from the communication for self understanding, with the knowledge that brief interactions will be somewhat rewarding, but not incredibly so, and longer interactions and concern with the intellectualism will be very low. Considerable effort could be put in to try to gain a large audience, but requires spending an incredible amount of time within the games that are social platforms, for forcing a larger reach. Even with reach intellectualism can't hold attention effectively; instead people want less of that. The implication is that even for briefer messages, the communications will not be to a large group of interested people, and won't be very fulfilling anyways. Eventually one will likely want someone to "know you better, for who you are more largely" and for that we've seen that the most likely path is via family, and long term one on one relationships, either in sexual partnership or in friendship. But these are not especially contenting which is the driver for wanting to have a larger audience.

If you consider extremely famous people, like Robin Williams, Jim Carey, Michael Jackson, and politicians, one will recognize that one *doesn't know these people at all*. They will know that as well as you do. They are recognizable, and they get transitory attention, but they do not have the fulfillment of having great quality mutual knowledge with another unless it is someone who is close, who is a long time friend, partner or family member. What they've built that is rewarded by the audience appears to be career related, but not especially message related.

Some like myself, are somewhat disinterested in earnings off of intellectual productions. Which takes out of the picture the rewards of having a career of it. So what are my objectives then? Well, firstly increased self understanding and knowledge that results from the work itself, and secondly, to have periodically rewarding shares that do include brief moments of connection, and thirdly, opportunity for those who might be closer to have a better knowledge of who I am. But the way I manage relationships isn't especially concerned nowadays and likely never will be, with having and holding partnerships of the romantic sort, or really close friendships, like those that exist in childhood. So the most honest reaction to this is that it is for my own self-development and for brief interactions.

Being realistic this way again completely rules out any chance of a very large amount of mutual understanding with any other person. Since audiences had only appears to relate to brief connections, sometimes only one-way because one cannot speak with large audiences effectively, it implies that no other person would have anything but the briefest communications from myself. Some might think, this is a negative but probably realistic take on the situation of audiences, intellectualism, and deep connections with people, but I don't see it as negative really. That's how it actually exists. What seems to be a negative outcome is the fact that so many never come to this realization and end up feeling a loneliness late in life that shouldn't exist, and regrets concerning the quality of relationships had. The quality of relationships had can simply never be that fulfilling, and instead what is needed to a much greater conviction that one has to be happy with one's own activities and life, in the absence of really incredible connection. Additionally, in my estimation, people *exaggerate* the quality of their interactions with others when they do happen to have high quality marriages and relationships to speak of, because they feel a pressure to say so, and want to self-justify their own commitments. An analysis of the relationships of others and overall outcomes of life nearing death, I think would show, that really people with good quality intellects simply did not actually find a suitable audience of any kind for the depth of connection they were wanting, and I think that is a cause for the commitment to religiosity to an extent because it promises, although falsely, that one will have a perfect audience later that will totally understand the self in a way that no-one else did, or that there is someone or something onlooking at all times that sees everything that is done, so somebody is seeing it, it just doesn't happen to be a person. 

Sometimes on social media this surfaces in the comments that other people make. They have yearnings to have someone who will finally be the person to understand them more fully and completely. Suggestions I think, given the above will be largely amiss. What appears to be needed is a much more realistic perspective. For people who are wanting to be better understood they will need to look to family, or create families, and find some good quality potentially longer term relationships. I think overall they will not find what they are looking for but this may distract them a while from what is missing. Additionally, brief interactions with like-minded people in various social groups may provide rewarding transitory interactions. But there does not appear to be a solution that will give them all that they might be looking for. Instead they get part and early on should content themselves without having all of what they want, because it was never rational. Somehow this expectation was never made realistic in any teaching we've received, and so people keep searching for what can never be had.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="tasks-for-the-day-within-the-life-categories-template">Tasks for the Day Within the Life Categories Template</a>

*Monday, February 19, 2024 17:02:56*, Tempe, Arizona</time>*

U2FsdGVkX19WVCrftkQQOSO8A8QWlcyhqBjN3SQuDSkFmw5TXfy6YZ6rgjiQZeWDffIYs+lAi1lePAtIZ5brD3bUSLQUwXsylLKwUvkCSyhM3W6nkzKxHOqsAT3b2ub8GSu91vObgs43a2tEpj/JrDAmBIvZMdqQru/ZBpD5Dkrje3VnEUkMCXvjEbp+3GXEjPPXIml49YaxKPIfghgVbya+3s88Ad0Dza23YIC5TPWETWnlGlJGAkVCNyZ1xXWNm/GMXd7jLQCc2lWGpMWH36EX27DfS8Xz14IKrlKjPEjPO95egizyzkr8h7sfLO23pkGPl2FqFRj9PMnyMMh0GoEaGr5zIlexeMTK6mCPAsaE9QAVdbVQDKCMrCuuyn6Wr8EYgo3ArlIU+ezr5Y0J9QLzxXjUweAnkJEodXZb8MCP5hq6s8kEznLgVEg2VjiKe7JOU7HL5iJnSJQTzpIWOBKsjKCf5r1SQEWzYkt3W4yJh6wmkmkAaOEA5/TmpjCVjtWIQOusu3q24VrNkMvipRYKXzhaUCuOk+1knBY5zqRzRPyHevMeOIvI70ugeq6T0Tdx7v7rf1jspT3PtGIfebzwRaulA6+7HMXgSYDM0TtgV5c6z9dsCePIP/ETbvpHyYN50E2Rz1+m1HfncGEWRfUnca7b/siV7AYVbDVUrqZI1l+7jhht6fO8LfrPTpQum0cYhGc3csk+hg7x1cPVxksB2WQ51QXWSbmHTwqxgGdpIGq9itQGKFqIyxRAmjNV7i2pGz0tJdIuIJovGWoZpbnomcXFTOTWJw0HXUzU4o9Yjz0LyifEctGVUrFE8gsXwh2rpa8qcVVxC1+Iv/c8r5/FK7VW9BeVi3+3dNCErlDqAwxdD0PvUaQZooWd4Z+YqZoU7kCfhRuZyvo6fTd0K7fhcsichCj1O2vPvdYc0BEXwOFeYzf83u1vBG8pUUSprNGarPzKxPO2NKoUwZBxQHBlc0iAYscrsduvO4X+EL8g8khP4dwirHYoDdDHBFXlNLSJ6e/CObpd1rwjvT+0D9GfPhYa3rpXTj7xpy0aXoh/5flNObxgyo8kw9r7II4UAoihbEZQJkiEFHkwK8WnDZEK694xJ0x1O51bMVhJWmU1v6gxw0IKjsWhgiebIThysID/A88M9Eiu7TjtXfwe7vQre3azODYgit7mVks49PcUvisji6IH3RcSUjxprQvHv1vEYyg3vrzEwbboSbi9opjdwyI5gtTmr5Z4PsIVJxGqkXXtGLH9PWGgYvM/kPfbofqyrnL6rg94+xd/0YPjA3Dp3bEPTilh8+mL0GgSJp5tilF1P6Jcjh0debYdzwwSHBU+rpc0jy6nK0euaNJUnrw+F5CHP5CQLgkTftbH5HRKezebhrSHCbNp72lb1yeAbrPKQV9zoCGvdD6WKFJPNfqROPS4m1lIll+KeWiWpqwxnQo3EPXvwgzedusYlXVa9RPQzKuKTlDcehlJSRB0akOYvOE4JqybbtmexbcKyRFffrAZoM1jb2QMEz9ATsPhchey5n+XFP9Yfr2mPkd0JwcxF8GMZ6amw3OO1bjuJDrVk+KZIh2urkvOiZ5fv+R+xHQowuVTdx2WHesWWtjSe2Lpt/vxsKEvIyV81R/8EbbnRNHQn1VdSdYed53b7pAQWgOJ45jHG1SnVr1kTgAXTm4RIc+gxu4xtZey0Hp+ZvyeUenOxBlNbCYJ4xdWNjy5xM4MJB6QB8q/pFqsdJt5Ztr18/A0zUZTuycYvQOucCK8El4eFVhdyNzDz+9dH3iO

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="requiring-vulnerability-to-be-compelling">Requiring "Vulnerability" to be compelling</a>

*Sunday, February 11, 2024 18:15:46*, Tempe, Arizona</time>*

There is this idea that to be compelling to your audience, sometimes you should be vulnerable.

But

I'm not vulnerable OK, so we're going to be compelling in other ways.

"Be vulnerable"

...

"Pretend I can't work through things with my strong emotional abilities?"

What is my EQ if I didn't solve it?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="using-verbalizations-to-filter-out-verbalizations-of-others">Using verbalizations to filter out verbalizations of others</a>

*Monday, February 05, 2024 00:44:31*, Tempe, Arizona</time>*

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="unique-names-more-final-identity-and-natural-taxonomy">Unique Names, More Final Idenity, and Natural Taxonomy</a>

*Sunday, February 04, 2024 00:10:43*, Tempe, Arizona</time>*

*Draft to be Updated*

### Unique Names in Scientific Taxonomy

Within the sciences there is an ongoing issue of how to depict life on earth in terms of names and relationships, and similarly, there is a need to classify within astronomy all objects of the universe, including their histories, interrelationships, and lineages. We are familiar somewhat with the naming of objects within our solar system and within other systems in space, and likewise we are familiar with the taxonomy of organismal life on earth includine all animals, and of course living humans. Animals, unless they are human beings, are not often individually named unless there is a reason for researchers to track and understand specific animals for specific reasons. Animals within the home are given names that are not entered into any taxonomy or ancestry to understand their interrelationships. Humans, however, uniquely have family lineages that are documented in geneological records in the form of "family trees" that somewhat resemble the "tree of life" that is the taxonomy of the animal kingdom.

A complete classification of animal and human life would include more specific records and naming conventions that would go down to the individual animal level. A complete graph of the entire animal kingdom and lineage and interrelation of celestial objects would also go to the object level, where object naming makes sense, to have a complete depiction and representation of the universe. As scientists continue to collect data, find patterns and interrelationships between objects, and better understand lineages, various graph representations like simple trees are updated to including increasing information, and this includes greater specificity in the naming conventions.

Here, however, my interest is more about humans and their names, but it is necessary to first revisit the objective of organizing objects in the univers and organisms on earth to better understand the insight under discussion here. That is, if we want to have a better understanding of ourselves, and our place in the Earth's history, and history of the universe, we will need to revisit naming, such that there is a better system for categorizing and "addressing" and "identifying" specific objects, including human objects. The objective of arriving at a better system of naming people and placing them within the earth's history is expected/anticipated to have positive results for individual living people, and this also is in mind while talking about the topic of taxonomy somewhat separately.

In our taxonomy we have two interrelated pieces of information that come together to give the visual and verbal representations. Firstly, we have of course family tree diagrams, and species lineage diagrams, that look like hierarchical trees. These tree diagrams are related to a naming convention that is designed to provide also a hierarchical way of organizing the information. These do not actually do the job so well as people envision, but for now they do provide a decent way for understanding interrelationships and for knowing the scientific names of each animal that has been named thus far. For example, for humans, the name Homoplaces us in a large group of other relatives that are humanoid or are human-like, and provides a hierarchical understanding of lineage like a family tree. We understand by all names that contain "Homo" that there was a very related species that existed that has become extinct, like H. Neanderthalensis, H. Erectus, H. Habilis, and others. By Homo Sapiens, we have a step down in the lineage, having ourselves H. Sapiens Sapiens, and H. Sapiens Neanderthalensis. This indicates that we had an even more closely related relative (that is apparently extant within our species due to blending), that was formerly distinct. Homo Sapiens Sapiens, being our species, is a class name and not the name of any individual, and in the taxonomy of life on Earth, there is no greater specificity provided. However, that specificity could be provided by blending with this taxonomy the other more specific taxonomy provided by geneology, including family lineages.

When we think of any particular person's name, like my former name "Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh", we can see there wasn't a very good systematic way of choosing the name, akin to the planned nomenclature of classes of animals in the sciences. It is possible to have such a naming convention such that the naming of specific humans can have greater specificity, be related to older style geneological family trees, and be related and inserted into the taxonomy of organisms on earth. We know already that our naming of newborn babies does not have a scientific classification scheme. Instead it has a traditional scheme that is only somewhat good at placing family relations in a mostly paternalistic pattern. It is well known that this scheme is limited, and by making it a scientific scheme, it will become possible to blend existing human life and it's lineages with the larger taxonomy of animal classes to give an increasingly precise representation of our total earth history and our individual relationships to that history.

Already we know that each individual animal has unique traits and genetic instruction information that can supply worthwhile scientific names or IDs for each of them. A person's DNA can be utilized to generate a succinct scientific ID for each and every person, and this can corresponded to a chosen name that also follows rules of uniqueness to pair the actual name of a person with their totally unique DNA identifier.

Using this information, the family tree, the total animal taxonomy, and our knowledge of the lineage of planetary and celestial objects, we can come to a total name that maps to the entire graphical or hiearachical representation of the history of objects, including people. People are not only in the lineage of their parents, and recent ancestors, but of course are in the lineage of distant ancestors, and planets/stars. Since the total verbal name of any person can map to the tree, just like a scientific name of an animal matches the hierarchical graph taxonomy, the total name of a person can tell his/her entire position in the history of the universe. This would be the matching of one's DNA ID and chosen name on a new scientific scheme to the Homo Sapiens Sapiens classification, traced back to the beginning of the animal kingdom, and traced further back to the origins of the Earth and the Solar System. Eventually one could have a name that is somewhat like:

Milky Way > Sun > Earth > (many interstitial names) > Homo > Sapiens > Sapiens > Family Tree Names > Individual Identifier.

A topic of interest highly relevant to the above is the representation of such names and hierarchies in a digital format. Of course, this information would need to be stored in information systems. Within our information systems, we have various ways of organizing the information, but since humans want to be not only named but be communicated with and identified, addressing is discussed in the next section. A system that provides unique identification of objects with mapped usable names is DNS and Domain addressing.

### Computer Addressing and Domain Names

Whatever naming system is used in the sciences to give individual humans totally specific names, the system must have a very large name space. This means whatever naming convention is used, there has to be enough possible names to hold every person. Within computing, IP addresses were provided to give numerical names to machines with sufficient name space to have enough for every entity that would need addressing. IPv4 was a standard that was temporarily usable in this way but eventually it was known that there would be an insufficient pool of names for all that would require the addressing in the future. To overcome this, IPv6 arose and is slowly being implemented to proved the required namespace for the growing number of machines requiring it. These digital names do not have a hierarchical taxonomy, but provide enough names to be mapped to every individual living person. Each IP address can be matched with a new scientific identifier for each individual living human along with their chosen name that also follows a new scientific scheme. The chosen name roughly relates to domains, since domains provide the "human usable" simplified word based way of referring to human objects.

From this and the above it can be seen that it is possible to have a digital system that provides the required uniqueness of IP, that can be mapped to totally individual scientific names and chosen scientific names of each individual that is living, while providing the addressing that would make it possible for each person to store and serve content.

### References

Mattanaw. (2021). *Personal Identification, Naming, and Species Membership*. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. [http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership)

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>




## <a name="thought-into-music">Thought Into Music</a>

*Thursday, January 25, 2024 15:13:12*, Tempe, Arizona</time>*

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="fitness-is-solved">Fitness is Solved</a>

*Wednesday, January 17, 2024 17:17:35*, Tempe, Arizona</time>*

Recently I have noticed that fitness is very basically a finite and repetitive activity with very little expertise that cannot already be had at a very young age.

Fitness is not physics. Fitness is a topic that is very enjoyable to learn because it is so basic and can be immediately utilized, creating a feeling of the usefulness of what is learned.

Strength training, if one joins a gym, quickly becomes a repetitive activity that depends on repetition for personal development. The recurring gym visits and exercises and slight changes to the exercises is what creates fitness success and noticeable improvements in appearance, attractiveness, and physical abilities.

But the repetitiveness somehow was not noticed in relation to the learning required for "sufficient mastery" and "expertise". Since it is so repetitive, it is very low on the learning requirements for doing well and attaining mastery.

From those who are especially developed we hear again and again that consistency and discipline are required, along with proper nutrition. But even the messages from these people are extremely repetitive and arguably what is conveyed has not departed from fundamentals. The fundamentals that are learned in strength training classes when young, and in textbooks and bodybuilding manuals like the "Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding" seem to be unchanging, and when one is really experienced in the gym one might notice that very little learning was required to advance further, indicating that once the fundamentals were mastered the subject could be brought to a close, except for minor additions and refinements. This means that the experts of bodybuilding and of certain sports are not so different than the youths of those sports, and it must be admitted, those who reached maximum success sometimes did so when they were teeenagers, or were in their early twenties, winning competitions and gaining medals in the Olympic games.

The repetition of fitness also ensures that the repetition required for easier learning already exists.

It is unlike very challenging subjects like those in the sciences or others that require problem solving on new problems that appear along the way.

The sciences and challenging subjects to not "give to you" repetitiveness needed for mastery the way fitness does. Fitness provides to you immediately repetitive "already solved problems" that do not require sustained thinking without trying to *create repetition* of complex thoughts and studies. The studying is in the gym and what is needed to be learned is always in view and is of very low complexity.

It could be that fitness is among the easiest subjects to master.

There is also a finite pool of activities in the gym that could be listed out very easily. Taking bodybuilding as an example, or plain strength training, one has already a list of equipment and uses. These uses relate to muscular functions which involve only a small set of muscle groups. The human body does not have that many muscle groups. If one thinks there are a lot of muscle groups one has not acknowledged that lists of 50 large vocabulary words are easily mastered. Once you know the key anatomy related to musculature one remembers them as easily as "shoulders, biceps, pectorals, and glutes". The anatomy is simple and would be only a tiny portion of what is learned by a doctor, and one masters these quickly in gross anatomy and physiology in high school. A highly intelligent person rapidly would achieve boredom regarding the muscle groups. So there is a small set of muscles, small set of equipment available, and listable but small set of exercises and variations, and once learned, there is not much more to know.

Listability would quickly counter any arguments contrary to this perspective, because in practice all exercises performed by all exercises including all variations is not a large list, and this comprises all activity up to the expert level. Anything that one might think one needs to know will relate to an easy list to memorize and use at the gym.

An example that might be useful relates to fitness of the bicep. If one knows how to curls in strength training there is really *hardly anything more to know* regarding bicep development. Once simply adds variations to the only movement the bicep can perform and its small minor movements. If one masters curls, one simply adds weight and repetitions, and later variations. A gifted kid can learn all of what is needed to be known fundamentally about curls in a day and may utilize that information for the key activities of development until one is old, with the result that they'll reflect later that really there was little to know.

Doing bicep and tricep exercises may be simpler than learning to handle a knife to cut onions. 

This does not mean there are not interesting learnings along the way in the journey of personal development. Instead, the point is to share that one in the gym becomes like an *obsessive compulsive person* without knowing it, doing the same things over and over again without ever noticing the pattern or trend, to let go of learning more. Reconsideration needs are too minimal. Being a person who has used the gym for decades I'm certain that my behavior, which is similar to others I see at the gym who have had success, includes a certain excessive reconsideration and rethinking of exercises in such a way that one has thought about the same learnings again and again without any special gains.

Fitness as a whole appears to be solved. Nutrition as a whole appears to be solved. Knowing this results in a reinterpretation of actions at the gym that detract from thoughts that could be developmental on other topics, even while at the gym. It results in a reinterpretation in what experts have to provide. What bodybuilders and other experts in strength training provide in video content on social media and in various books, really does appear to be a simple redundant repetition of fundamentals. If one has a specific need related to development, one has a hard time finding it because it has not been realized that what is taught is simply contributing to a sea of ideas that already amount to fundamentals. Fundamentals have been taught too many times in fitness and for some reason, it has not been acknowledged that fitness is not an intellectually demanding subject and one can bring it to a close rapidly to see better mental development.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="caring-and-insults">Caring and Insults</a>

*Sunday, January 14, 2024 02:26:16*, Tempe, Arizona</time>*

It does not appear our cultures have resolved the issue of harassment and insulting behavior, and the moral evaluation of reactive behavior that seems uncaring to manage or control the harassment, that appears to be less caring.

Minority groups in history were mercilessly and relently attacked with psychological warfare in the forms of social bullying, insults, and harassments. These people, who may have included some of the most caring individuals that existed among human beings, were then attacked again, if they did anything to protect themselves, for being "uncaring" in their attempts to manage.

Even in current day politics, politicians are often attacked with plain insults in order to thwart their efforts or even end their careers, and sometimes the harassment includes the most crass and uncouth of social verbalizations. The politicians, after being subject to gang attacks, are then judged on the basis of their responses to the behavior. If they manage the bullying with like-behavior, they are then considered to somehow be uncaring or morally blameworthy regarding their behavior even though the gange consisted of majority members in the population.

Certainly, they cannot be judged in this way in a way that has any ultimate truthfullness, so if there is a need to manage their behavior with behavior in-kind it will never have the sort of moral blameworthiness the majority hoard will pretend it has. They behaved the same way, in greater numbers, often in concert, and with definite malintent, and with insufficient cause, and certainly no moral calculation.

They forget their religions entirely, and show to others they have no religion of worth.

As a person who has faced gang harassment by members of the population for various reasons relating to my various successes, I have come up with a methodology to ruthlessly and mercilessly attack them to manage my attention, mood, and their behavior, using verbal insults and comments regarding their inferiorities and commitments that are foolish. I share the blunders of them and their heritage, their parents, and their many failures that seem to be unchangeable into the distant future. So in a warfaristic way, I attack. However, I never create the problem, never "start the attack", and typically patiently do nothing for a long period until it seems it is better to manage than ignore.

This can be done in a way that is somewhat automated. One can simply attack without any concern about what is said, operate using roughly the same list, and use creativities in a similar way to what was done earlier, to make it a very easy process that requires low effort. It's like fighting with people after becoming a robotic expert boxer or mixed-martial artist, without any concern of the results to their minds. What is useful about this automation of approach which I call "human canning", to humorously remind myself that they are often doing "canned uncreative behaviors themselves as copies", and that what I offer in return need not have any intellectual value and can simply be used repetitively. By doing it this way, I can separate my moral worth from any behavior which is sensical and justifiable to offer an in kind reaction, that instrumentally is meant to manage them and my own attention and health.

When one attacks others who are attackers sometimes there is a feeling that what one has done might not be fully justified from a moral perspective, and that instead it would be better to perform other behaviors instead. But over time it appears that one does not have recourse to all instruments of ignoring and avoiding those behaviors of others at the same time, and there is a point in which the automated retaliation is more useful and more easily performed. But this is not retributive as some might expect. It is simply to instrumentally manage conditions. There is no need, at all, to justify in a recurring way to oneself, in order to self-justify, behavior of this sort. One is normally caring and if others cannot behave, one may need to invoke a protective process. This isn't too different than defensively spraying someone in the face with mace, or with shooting them with a weapon if thing escalated too far. If a gang is mercilessly and relentlessly attacking without good cause for a prolonged period of time, than quite a lot is justified already in the reaction. Probably too little can be done than what is actually justified, and again this relates to the non-retributive nature of the management. It isn't to attack and retaliate to punish them in a way equal to what they have done, but instead to simply make sure one's conditions are improved and to manage one's own mind and health and well being.

If one could push a button to instantly stop bullying or harassment after it's lasted for a long period that would be justified already. That button may simply be to brutally and mercilessly attack their minds with verbalizations in an automated fashion that is akin to pushing a button that stops the behavior.

Historically, in the civil rights movement and before the civil rights movement, american blacks were attacked probably every day so often, and in so pervasive situations and locations, by children and adults, that nearly any reaction of any kind was justified up to and including murder. So if in an automated fashion their situation was managed with verbalizations that simply created in-kind attacks, at a necessarily smaller scale, then obviously it is already justified and it is best if those actions are separated from one's self-appraisal concerning moral worth. Especially if the cause of more negatively evaluating one's worth is due to the expectations of the attackers to continue behaving in a way they expect, before, during, and after they attack. Their morality is of a lower worth already and they are behaving like primitive savages and their thoughts and judgements can be duly cancelled from any consideration.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="baffling-life-histories-after-excess-success">Baffling Life Histories After Excess Success</a>

*Tuesday, January 09, 2024 15:05:37*, Tempe, Arizona</time>*

*To Add*

<pre>#hashcat1 #hashcat2 #hashcat3 #hashcat4 #hashcat5 #mattanaw.original #mattanaw@mattanaw.original</pre>

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="there-arent-really-any-competent-voters">There aren't really any competent voters</a>

*Monday, January 08, 2024 13:23:27*, Tempe, Arizona</time>*

*To add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-decision-to-use-steroids-or-not-in-bodybuilding">The Decision to Use Steroids or Not in Bodybuilding</a>

*Sunday, January 07, 2024 15:52:16*, Tempe, Arizona</time>*

<br /><img class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="" src=""><br />

<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="07012024153912-choosing-whether-to-take-steroids-and-growth-drugs-and-my-decision-to-stay-natural-into-old-age-landscape-mattanaw-1-master.mov"></video>

[Landscape Master](07012024153912-choosing-whether-to-take-steroids-and-growth-drugs-and-my-decision-to-stay-natural-into-old-age-landscape-mattanaw-1-master.mov)

<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="07012024153912-choosing-whether-to-take-steroids-and-growth-drugs-and-my-decision-to-stay-natural-into-old-age-portrtait-mattanaw-1-master.mov"></video>

[Portrait Master](07012024153912-choosing-whether-to-take-steroids-and-growth-drugs-and-my-decision-to-stay-natural-into-old-age-portrtait-mattanaw-1-master.mov)

An issue with bodybuilding is that one is ineffectively able to communicate transparently what has contributed to personal excellences and what has not.

I've chosen to be a natural bodybuilder and athlete because I want to know for sure what has been the results of my efforts, and have the transparency possible from drug avoidancce to be able to talk about it candidly without personal risks.

However, I want the same for bodybuilders who do take drugs and hope they can achieve transparency with more openness, and I'm seeing some evidence from some online that this is happening gradually.

I am not totally opposed to steroid use and am still considering it for when I'm in old age, in my 60s or 70s, and to even know what to do, I would need to rely on the expertise of bodybuilders who have the real experience already about what to do and what not to do, and what gains relate to what levels of drug use.

<pre>#steroids #tren #hgh #bodybuilding #natural #decisions #compeition #transparency #selfknowledge #excellences #merits #understanding #phoenix #arizona #mattanaw.original #mattanaw.original</pre>

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



## <a name="monthly-anniversaries-and-making-the-new-years-resolution-useful">Monthly Anniversaries and Making the New Year's Resolution Useful</a>

*Sunday, January 07, 2024 15:19:41*, Phoenix, Arizona</time>*

<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="07012024144249-monthiversaries-and-monthly-new-years-resolutions-landscape-mattanaw-1-master.mov"></video>

[Landscape Master](07012024144249-monthiversaries-and-monthly-new-years-resolutions-landscape-mattanaw-1-master.mov)

<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="07012024144249-monthiversaries-and-monthly-new-years-resolutions-portrait-mattanaw-1-master.mov"></video>

[Portrait Master](07012024144249-monthiversaries-and-monthly-new-years-resolutions-portrait-mattanaw-1-master.mov)

When I was married, I celebrated monthly anniversaries with my wife, for a period of not quite 19 years.

Recently, I was commenting that the New Year's resolution is a cultural fail that cannot succeed because it is forgotten too early in the year, and is not repetitively revisited often enough.

It could be useful to simply revisit New Year's resolutions with a montly approach, making a New Year's Resolution a big thing every year, but something to think about every month with a renewed monthly celebration of the current year and it's changing months.

I called this the "Monthiversary"!

There can be a monthiversary of the new year too.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="enjoying-time-alone-at-bars-and-restaurants-reading-and-writing">Enjoying Time Alone At Bars and Restaurants Reading and Writing</a>

*Saturday, January 6<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:32pm, Gilbert, Arizona</time>

<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="06012024232905-enjoying-time-independently-at-bars-and-restaurants-mattanaw-1-master.mov"></video>

[Master](06012024232905-enjoying-time-independently-at-bars-and-restaurants-mattanaw-1-master.mov)

For this posting I was wanting to share with others that they need not feel anxious about going out alone to dinner and bars for independent enjoyment without anyone else and without socializing. Some, I'm aware, are nervous about going out and having fun alone in social settings without others. While I'm out alone I'll simply work on the computer, or will enjoy reading and writing. I'll keep entirely to myself, and use a considerable amount of time doing these things at a relatively low expenditure. It's fun to go out in public and simply read and write in one's journal, and it isn't restricted to coffee houses. You can do the same thing at restaruants and bars while enjoying drinks or dinner entirely alone and without any social pressure or reason to think that one is doing something out of the ordinary or something that would cause any reasonable person to socially judge in a way that is meaningful.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



## <a name="in-context-productions-relevance-and-thinking-about-anything-anywhere">In Context Productions, Relevance, and Thinking About Anything Anywhere</a>

*Saturday, January 6<sup>st</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>3:42pm, Gilbert, Arizona</time>

<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="06012024164239-anxiety-producing-content-anywhere-landscape-mattanaw-1-master.mov"></video>

[Master](06012024164239-anxiety-producing-content-anywhere-landscape-mattanaw-1-master.mov)

<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="06012024164239-anxiety-producing-content-anywhere-portrait-mattanaw-1-master.mov"></video>

[Master](06012024164239-anxiety-producing-content-anywhere-portrait-mattanaw-1-master.mov)

I've had the intention for a very long time to produce more video content with my conversational speaking that has been valued by friends, family, and colleagues over the years. While my writing is of very good quality, and communicates in an intellecual way what I'm wanting to say, it lacks the clear intention, emotion, and expressiveness that exists in my day-to-day conversation that is as intellecual. An effect is that readers may not recognize the kindness and playfulness that exists in my postings even where those postings may be provocative or may cover content that some would consider challenging or dryer. In my converstion with friends and family, intellectualism has been mixed with humor, goofiness, and kindness. These are not opposed and the same messasges that are found in academic like writing I've presented and are communicated in the full mode of expression in normal face to face conversation. I've been wanting to revisit many of my earlier writings and postings to provide video contenet that clarifies and provides a more human delivery of the meanings. But while writing and posting comes very natural to me, I do have some anxiety preceding recordings that has caused me to delay my video productions efforts for a number of years.

What is the cause of these feelings of anxiety that relate to the video recordings?

Firstly, there is some connection with social anxiety that has existed since childhood classroom experiences. Sudden heart pumping mixed with a dimished clarity of audience understanding and knowing what to say results in a resistance to wanting to do a recording. That the audience is not well understood contributes to the sudden anxiety that arises, and does not exist at all with even limited familiarity. Once I start speaking, and once I've gotten somewhat familiar with an audience, the anxiety subsides and I have no issue speaking well. In fact, my careeer has depended on very high communication and presentation abilities. I've overcome this issue in the work and academic environment, but not so much for making recordings.

Oddly, this momentary feeling has thwarted my effort for a very long time. I've been wanting to make videos since doing skits with friends twenty years ago. I've been wanting to make video content since the onset of this blog, about 7 years ago, but have mostly only done video productions that did not include myself at all. I've produced many scenic videos in national parks for example, but none of them included me or my thoughts. This is how I do want to produce those types of videos, but there was not supposed to be that sort of favoritism in producing and posting. I wasn't only supposed to be doing natural scenic videos! I have much more to provide in personal videos sharing my thoughts and many talents.

More recently I've been motivated finally to make videos with myself and my thinking as the focus.

It appears also that will slowly train out any remaining social anxiety I experience at the outset of certain socialization opportunities.

Anxiety is not the only thing that has contributed to unwillingness to create video content. Also is the feeling that whatever I'm thinking about or am wanting to say does not connect with audience, and somehow does not match the context in which the productions will be taking place.

So now, as I write this, I'm reminding myself of some facts that may contribute to my being more willing to simply post anything I wish to post about wherever I happen to be.

Firstly, if one is an intellectual, such as myself, there is already a loss of audience. Struggling to find my audience to begin speaking is a mistake, and instead I would be much better off simply posting how I think on a routine basis. This way people can self-select who might want to hear more and I don't need to think at all about what the appropriate audience happens to be, and I may surprise myself about who would gravitate to my thinking.

Secondly, almost anyone I have ever known has enjoyed my thinking even when I express it in a way that is closer to my natural way of communicating, even if I am sharing complexity. If they are not understanding all of it, they are undersrtanding some of it. Also, I think they recognized the generosity in my communication. I've been open and honest and did not keep my ideas to myself. Probably they felt they were being included in creative happenings of importance that that the generosity was really honest and unreflective, and that I would really share mostly anything with them without being exclusive given who they are. Typically I like who I talk to and "open up" with them without knowing that's what I'm doing. So perhaps I should let people decide for themselves what they like or not, and what they want to be an audience to, and recognize that in my history of human interractions it is almost always positive. It is uniformly a good experience with only some few strange interractions where some are more combative or more threatened for various reasons relating to their own earlier experiences.

As I go about doing my normal things during the day, my thinking might be about things totally separate from where I am and what I happen to be doing. I may be thinking about moral philosophy, mathematics, or other abstract or general things much disconnected from what I'm doing. For example, I used to like to read and ponder my readings while on the eliptical trainer at the gym. So while I'm enjoying the eliptical trainer, and the gym, and the experience of feeling my own fitness, I might be thinking of something that has nothing to do with any of that. Some intellectuals get criticized for this, but it is no different than if someone is thinking about their personal relationshihps while doing those activities. So everyone and not only intellectuals, of course, think of things in detail while they are doing activities, and there is even something offensive about thinking that all would not be doing this. Worry cannot exist if people are not thinking of things that are very different than what their present context would cause one to expect, and planning of one's life obviously has to happen at work, and at the gym, and at the grocery store, including family and relationship planning, and so certainly people think of things that are outside their immediate doings. What I would stay about intellectuals is that the range of what they would be thinking about that would be imaginative would be larger than what is average, and so when one is doing grocery shopping, one might be thinking about a formal mathematical proof for example on a topic that has no relationship to grocery shopping.  And this is enjoyable to the thinker.

How does this relate to my resistance to making and posting videos? Somehow I think it causes me to believe that there is an insufficient level of planning in environment in video and the relationship to the planned audience. Somehow I think "it is not a good time for the video" because I should have a better place to record thoughts related to that specific type of subject matter, and that I should have a better way to say what I want to say so that it connects with the audience, and connects the environment to the audience. This has created a desire to keep postponing the video for better conditions. But the planning required to create those conditions takes away from the spontaneous motivations to actually make the videos, and so the videos never actually happen. This is a cause for my procrastination regarding video productions.

Others on social media do seem to post content that better relates audience, context, and messaging. Particularly if the videos are quiet, or are extemporaneous. People post themselves exercising at the gym for example, sometimes saying very little. This matches messaging with context, and is easy to digest by the audience. Or sometimes, people posting while working out will give tips related to the content presented, again matching the messaging, context, and expectations of the audience. Other postings from people of all different age groups involve immediate interesting happening in environments. Perhaps someone posts a sudden funny animal behavior, or someone posts a natural disaster as it is happening. Once again, this matches up those three components of production, and it does it in a way that results in proven success. Rarely, I would say, am I ever wanting to post content in this way, because what I'm wanting to share does not involve happenings in my environment. Instead it relates to mental happenings that relate to curiosities and things of interest relating to my writing. Observations on the world and life, and various conclusions that may relate to moral phiilosophy and ethics are usually what I'm wanting to produce about but that does not relate at all to waiting for things to happen in my environment, to make things happen in my environment, or to spontaneous things of interest that occur suddenly in my environment on some occasions. Interesting things do occur and sometimes I video those things, but much more frequently I'd be more interested in my own thoughts even than those spontaneous interesting situations! What one is thinking about has an interest that relates to the importance and significance of the thoughts being had.

Like I was saying though, people do think of things that are unrelated to their environments, obviously. But I see less compelling postings and content that create a mismatch of message, context, and audience. But some is quite good, it just makes for less of the overall content that one is exposed to on social media. For example, there are postings from people who are just sitting in their cars, enjoying their thoughts and relfections on happenings that were recent, or have little to do with their vehicle, or recent or present circumstances creating the context for their sitting in their vehicle. These are the postings where people just share interesting thoughts, and in these postings it appears that they are not too concerned or anxious about what they will be sharing. Their readiness to do this provides some inspiration for me to do similarly, because this format is much closer to the expected format of my usual future shares.

But notice that in these postings, they still match their messagew to an environment that is still not wildly disconnected from their context. It is disconnected, but not in this way: people are expected to not be thinking hard about driving while in the car. It is their personal space to meditate and think upon any topic. They drive around not thinking hard about what they are doing but instead ponder other happenings. There also appears to be a similarity with this and with postings that might just be of talking while at home. At home there is no need to match the context to thoughts. One can sit on the couch or lay in bed thinking about all sorts of different things, and one's postings in these contexts will be recognizable by the audience to be normal places to think those things.

What about thinking about sports while sitting at a desk and posting about it though?

What about thinking about philosophy and posting about it while playing basketball?

These seem to be a little more outside the norm of video productions but this is closer to what I should be doing if I am to post candidly about myself.

Trying to sponteneously post a video about philosophy while playing basketball would create a feeling of anxiety for being too irregular, and for creating a lack of matching between context, audience, and message.

As I think about this though, probably no video could not be too unakin to the videos of in-vehicle monologues.

Why not take the monologue into any environment and simply share any thinking as it happens to have interest wherever it occurs. It may lose some audience but it may not be worth any of the stress or anxiety that it produces, blocking the videos for thinking there should be greater planning.

I don't think i've yet reached here the subject matter that I've indicated I would speak about with my chosen title, but I can add more later in a future posting.

More later!

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



## <a name="new-years-resolution-as-an-indicator-of-irrationality-and-a-cultural-failure">New Year's Resolution as an Indicator of Irrationality and a Cultural Failure</a>

*Thursday, January 4<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>1:58pm, Gilbert, Arizona</time>

<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="04012024140111-new-years-resolution-as-a-failed-cultural-strategy-portrait-landscape-mattanaw-1-master.mov"></video>

[Master](04012024140111-new-years-resolution-as-a-failed-cultural-strategy-portrait-landscape-mattanaw-1-master.mov)

<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="04012024140111-new-years-resolution-as-a-failed-cultural-strategy-portrait-mattanaw-1-master.mov"></video>

[Master](04012024140111-new-years-resolution-as-a-failed-cultural-strategy-portrait-mattanaw-1-master.mov)

After thinking more about new year's resolutions, after my earlier posting, I realized that there is something more fundamentally at issue with it.

I was mentioning that you will definitely forget that there even is a New Year's Resolution by April or May, and d probably before that.

But why don't you know that already?

It's infeasible for sure then.

But what does that mean for everyone else?

Everyone is insanely using the New Year's Resolution once a year and then totally failing at the resolution part.

The resolution part.

If there is success it is because the discipline and the cyclical work on a daily or weekly basis continued, but even then I think it is forgotten that it was connected with any New Year's Resolution.

That this is a cultural thing that so many people have adopted is really bizarre.

It's not from a Religious group but calls for self alteration, and everyone has adopted it, but nobody has determined if there is any moral or religious justification. Like with other things people simply adopt because others are doing it, this was adopted without any reflection on the commitments one already has. It's one reason why people are morally a cobbled mess.

It utilizes a methodology of moral self-alteration that can't work but all have chosen to utilize it.

People are more lost regarding self-change than they think.

How many resolutions do you have per year. It seems you wait for a New Year's Resolution.

Are the other changes you make "resolutions"? 

Additionally, how many strategies that are forgotten part of the way during the year, and disused most of the year, could be considered good strategies for change?

Why is it that people don't know that they forget these strategies?

If they all once a year start the "strategy" of a new years resolution, promptly forget it, disuse it most of the year, and then forgot that they didn't use it as a group, then continue to use it every year, isn't that a kind of collective irrationality that is quite serious. A holiday compulsion?

The strategy didn't work for anyone and they couldn't remember that, and kept going with it.

Is this degree of ritual justified outside your religion?

It is a cultural failure.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



## <a name="pro-semitism-as-affirmative-action">Pro-Semitism as Affirmative Action</a>

*Monday, January 1<sup>st</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:42pm, Tempe, Arizona</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Monday, January 1<sup>st</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:42pm, Tempe, Arizona</time>

## <a name="the-size-of-the-viable-exercise-routine">The Size of the Viable Exercise Routine</a>

*Sunday, December 31<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:52pm, Tempe, Arizona</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="drug-strategies-and-transparency-among-new-and-experienced-bodybuilders">Drug Strategies and Transparency Among New and Experienced Bodybuilders</a>

*Sunday, December 31<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:52pm, Tempe, Arizona</time>

Development of musculature among men can be easily segregated as one knows into two groups, which includes those who take no drugs, and those who take some number of drugs related to the growth. This topic can be expanded to include the topic of all human performance, but I think for now it is better to focus on the branch of human development in which drug use is accepted and mainstream, and that is modern bodybuilding.

This is especially important regarding the health and planning of males.

Men want to exhibit excellences. They want to attract mates. They want to have relationships that are rewarding to their potential spouses or temporary sexual partners. They want to witness the effects of their own planning and work, and maximize to the best they can, the results they have from work that they've committed to.

We've all agreed that bodybuilders and strength trainers often take steroids and other growth enhancing drugs.At the higher levels of skill, in sports competitions, we allow, within bodybuilding, bodybuilders to exhibit their results even though we know that they certainly took drugs.

The drug use entailed possible issues with law enforcement. The buying, dealing, and avoidance required strategies. Are the young aware of these strategies? Are males in general aware of these strategies? To what extent do we think that this behavior is moral if it is plainly against the law.

We tend to think, that there is a justification for the use of these drugs, in the exhibitation of human excellences and the possibility of having those excellence by a means that is not possible otherwise.

How much growth and recovery is possible with the drugs, and in what dosages? This is important. How much or how little is required? A little may be more justifiable than a lot. A little may be something that may allow for legalizing substances. Large quantities may be less justifiable, but what are the risks? But more to the point of the topic here, how much of these substances are being taken by these various exemplars of muscular development? How much was used for each drug for how long? What really went into creating the effects that are shown.

It appears to me that there is an admission that bodybuilders are doing drugs, and on social media people are more willing to be open and candid about the fact that they are using various substances to support recovery. But what tends to be missing, I think, is how much?

There is a very stark difference between the so called 'natural bodybuilder' and the committed drug using bodybuilder. One can very easily identify who is doing drugs and who is not, after a certain early stage in muscular development with drugs.

I'm personally committed to disusing drugs for muscular development. But I confess as a male, the recovery times for exercise can be very long. Especially during aging. I may permit myself to use performance enhancing drugs at a certain age, when recovery is so poor that livelihood is simply diminished. I don't think the proper route to achieve the results is through the medical profession. If bodybuilders in their youths had substantial gains, and this was celebrated in victories in sporting matches, why would I not take these proven drugs myself, to do the same, at an age in which muscular recovery is difficult.

Keeping a spouse or girlfriend from straying may depend on this. (Although I think that depends on quite a lot more).

But even at the age of 60 years old, if I were to choose to finally go down this path, of doing steroids for enhancing my development, or improving maintenance, why is it the case that I would have no knowledge at all, about what is required for what, given it has been so long since bodybuilding has been in the spotlight.

One can become famous for drug use.

Many bodybuilders who are quite effective, and successful, may be doing less or equivalent levels of work to natural bodybuilders, or people like myself, but are simply using small or large quantities of drugs. Meanwhile we praise them for their efforts, but they are equivalent efforts, and drug taking efforts.

Again, I think there is a big miss in the sport of bodybuilding, and muscular development. We are entirely aware of the benefits of steroids and growth hormones, and other drugs for development, and we see the results often. But we are not well educated concerning it.

To create fairness in the sport that accepts the use of drugs, there is not only a need to compare people by their results and their methods of excercise that result in those results, and their diets, but also the specific drug cocktails they are using, the frequency, and the dosages. Otherwise we have no idea what contributes to the success really, and we don't know what the relative merits of specific bodybuilders are, and we even forget that there are people with lesser effects that are not doing these drugs at all, with perhaps greater merits.

This is an important topic for understanding the merits of various athletes and independent exercisers for understanding merit.

I cannot know my own merits in any comparison with bodybuilders, unless I were to do drugs with them, and secretly use it how they use it, without proving that information transparently.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="new-years-resolutions-as-infeasible">New Year's Resolutions as Infeasible</a>

*Tuesday, January 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>3:07pm, Phoenix, Arizona</time>

<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="02012024145556-the-new-years-resolution-as-infeasible-mattanaw-1-portrait-master.mov"></video>

[Master](02012024145556-the-new-years-resolution-as-infeasible-mattanaw-1-portrait-master.mov)


<video controls="" type="video/mp4" src="02012024145556-the-new-years-resolution-as-infeasible-mattanaw-1-landscape-master.mov"></video>

[Master](02012024145556-the-new-years-resolution-as-infeasible-mattanaw-1-landscape-master.mov)

There are several issues with the New Year's Resolutions that people have been making for a long while, that may not have recieved suitable attention, if the issues have been noticed by many at all.

Firstly, there isn't any special reason to rely upon the year's cycle to decide upon which changes one should make in one's life. While it is fun and interesting to consider the prospects of the upcoming year, and think about what major changes or advancements could be had on an individual level, the yearly cycle is far to long to utilize it for making personal changes. 

Much shorter cycles are needed.

Revisitations are necessary.

Is it really the case that people will defer their changes for the next year? Morally, to make changes that are needed, they need to be planned othwerwise. Feasibility matters more. One does not want to find later that the changes that one wanted to make did not happen, were forgotten, were not revisited often enough, and were not considered 'moral' at all.

Which changes in a person's life are moral changes?

Maybe one wants to adopt a new hobby to improve one's life and stimulation/education. Maybe one wants to stop smoking, or to make a change regarding one's health. A New Year's resolution plan may be a simple promise to lose some weight, improve athletics, diminish drug use, or to improve one's business or employment situation.

Yearly thinking that one will do these things is insufficient. This involves habits. Habits that result in behaviors that occur more than once a day. Instead of yearly, it is much better to realize that behavior isn't even on a daily cycle. It may be within recurrences of habits that are happening in individual days.

The New Year's Resolution appears to be infeasible and there appears to be very little evidence from others that there are accomplishments that have hinged on it. We are not seeing on social media or elsewhere special thanks and moments of gratefulness pinned to New Year's Resolutions.

Instead of the New Years Resolution, I would substitute what people are already aware of: periodic commitments and revisitation of those commitments on daily or weekly cycles. Perhaps a habit that would enable that approach is journaling or personal data collection. Commitments to journaling and personal data commitments, resulting in consistency of effort, do have results that are reported back to us as reasons for success.

Who has forgotten their New Year's Resolution mid way through the year? Who has asked themselves at the end of the year, when their New Year's Resolution of the prior year was forgotten. I would venture to say that most resolutions are forgotten and abandoned already in January.

Like I said, thinking about what the upcoming year might be like with improvements is fun, and probably worthwhile; but it has to be included within some methodology that includes cyclical revisits that are more frequent, otherwise the commitment will not exist.

I think on reflection most will be able to conclude these resolutions are infeasible.

There are other reasons to think them infeasible. The level of planning of the New Year's Resolution seems to be of simple ideation regarding what one hopes to happen, but not concrete plans or recordings. If one thinks carefully about this one will see that this type of planning is nearly a substitute for planning with hopes alone, and hopes alone result in infeasibilities in action.

Real plans, real frequent use, and commitment result in the changes that are wanted.

If one has a New Year's Resolution that includes these efforts then I would offer congratulations, because the moment of the year that is special was used in a way that could really result in effects.

But I don't see it as a likelihood that our common holiday behavior of forming wants and hopes for the future and our future selves will include a shared period of discipline.

It appears resolutions on an annual cycle without such efforts is an infeasible approach to producing what people really hope for themselves.

There is a somewhat sad message in this. What has been connected with a holiday regarding personal change was never really a good approach. Most if not nearly all resolutions were abandoned.

Successes were had but they did not relate well to the resolutions. They resulted more in the disciplined recording and planning and frequent revisitation for the personal absorption of learnings for new habits instead.

But there is a way, on a personal level, to do more, to make New Year's Resolutions something worth doing.

But one will be in a very small minority engaging in this behavior.

Can we help to make New Year's Resolutions holiday related still and include the required commitment and planning for personal change, making it feasible, rather than infeasible finally?

What is required to do that?

What an amazing holiday it would be, if all could actually use the new year to achieve this, without instead merely ideating upon what they would like for their future selves, that they may not have without existing or new commitments on a schedule that is not annual?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="answer-to-a-question-regarding-how-I-depleted-my-liquid-funds-during-retirement">Answer to a Question Regarding How I Depleted My Liquid Funds During Retirement</a>

*Wednesday, December 27<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>9:55pm, Mesa, Arizona</time>

[Acquaintance] I travel perpetually. I come from a consulting background and have a long history of living in hotels, driving rentals, and flying all over. This history has lead to habitually spending to maintain approximately a similar livelihood (but I am adept at quickly reducing my lifestyle). However, after retiring I did take steps to reduce my spending and for a long period I was doing a combination of luxurious living, and adventuring outdoors, hiking and so on at very low cost. Part of this relates directly to my field science efforts studying homelessness, and this served to create a lower average expenditure. But total expenditure was still somewhat immoderate, since I preferred so much travel still. I greatly reduced my cost of living as my savings was depleted, and anticipation of sale of the property created a reasonable expectation of incoming funds before depletion. However the sale and work to access funds post sale resulted in a protracted period of issues that caused for total depletion.

I have much greater fund access now so it is highly unlikely I would run into a similar predicament. But if I did, I would probably simply consult again temporarily, interrupting my retirement, to quickly have a large amount of incoming funds again. My career is lucrative so willingness to simply work again would create the needed protection and I could quickly retire again after an engagement.

But I'm highly frugal too. There is a superficiality to my lifestyle that can give the wrong idea as to my commitment to materialism. But instead I'm highly interested also in having a highly self sufficient lifestyle at extremely low costs. This is what originally enabled me to build some wealth and enable my retirement. I enjoy living in luxury and also frugally on extremely limited resources. But not on nothing so much!

Most choose one or the other but I enjoy both. It may appear there are contradictions here but there are not.

[Acquaintance] the biggest contributing factor to the depletion was false expectation of a faster transaction. It took months!

[Acquaintance] the justification of this lifestyle relates to trying to achieve maximum life variety and stimulation.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="answer-to-a-question-from-a-friend-on-the-effects-of-ai">Answer to a Question from a Friend on the Effects of AI</a>

*Tuesday, December 26<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>10:59pm, Phoenix, Arizona</time>

I will think this over as it is becoming increasingly relevant, and I've been becoming increasingly more interested as a result.

I'm a technologist who has worked in the global enterprise computing space so should have something meaningful to add, but I like that this is something to return to later, for additional thoughts, since I'm not having quite enough of them to my satisfaction presently. I do want to relate this to economics too.

In my estimation, Bitcoin was an amazing idea for a technological advancement, but thought after reading the bitcoin paper that key problematic areas relate to the actual programming and maintenance of the software. I thought of the simple solution as one that is institution replacing, and not merely a software offering. This implies that the software would be, well a huge thing, and not merely a small solution, and that there would be an institutional replacement that would entail long term maintenance. This maintenance requires updates to cloud infrastructure, and actual programming to ensure it is operable. Unless at an institutional level this is adopted, and understood, I don't think it's a true candidate for replacing existing methods of managing transactions.

How is this relevant to the present discussion of AI. Well, AI could create a situation in which the maintenance of the solution and the programming is not human, and is easier, but at some risk if there is not sufficient areas in which human interjection is possible that is not loopholed for simply adjusting the system to the benefits of elite. This would affect the entire economy.

Elite intervention into AI systems that preserve their influence and expand upon it is a risk to anything in which AI is utilized.

But I don't think this sort of change would occur in the next 10 years. In the next 20 years, I think it will be utilised, as elite becomes increasingly aware and adept at garnering support on the clout that AI is gaining. I think AI will become a sort of expert that cannot be contradicted by ordinary people, while special controls will still exist for manual alterations by those who have power.

There seem to be signs that this is happening already with media control, and I'm seeing some indications of trends of companies in using the influence that AI has to justifying their own programs.

I now think we really will have some dystopian effects of AI but this may not actually prohibit the advancement of the living conditions of regular people. It will likely result in the increasing inability of regular people to influence the system or see past what is presented to them to understand that they are being actively controlled using marketing that is also utilising AI for the purpose of controlling what stimulation exists. People are and will be walking around more thoroughly influenced by marketing, advertising and propaganda, and television entertainment programming that is intended to steer them unwittingly. Notice that this is already a concentration of media and entertainment and of advertising and marketing. Increasingly people will be channeled without their knowledge that they are simply being directed on various pathways that they did not decide. This was achieved by pervasive AI personalisation and marketing set by those who are in positions to decide what types of directions people will be set in.

The financial system is showing signs of convergent efforts to eliminate cash. The elimination of cash will result in a more controlled employment to bank relation, and universal credit situation, in which all are more completely understood regarding their behaviours for work and spending, and there will be additional directions set for people to follow that will be justifiable by an increase in living conditions, but a decrease, and a dramatic decrease, on ability to choose how one will work, create new businesses, and spend.

In Australia it is very close to a cashless society and unless one has a credit card, one will be harshly controlled regarding one's lifestyle. One will not be able to eat at restaurants, and may not be able to book hotel rooms.

AI will probably be combining data from law enforcement surveillance (something I was involved in) and spending information, and financial information, to arrive at more complete pictures of people who are to be controlled in various ways. The objective by the elite will be to improve their well being while they are directed in ways that they cannot see or understand are not within their choosing. Some who are highly intelligent will be really angry about this change of conditions, being able to read more closely what is going on but will have no ability to influence due to media control and inability to influence in democratic processes. Thus those here in the Ultranet, being rarities, will see the condition and will have even less power to influence it.

A timeline I think could be set on this. Cashless in some countries will be near completion within five years, although I don't think people will understand they are cashless. Rather that conversation will not occur or will be rare, and they will simply give up their abilities to spend with cash. Other countries will follow within 20 years, as long as their infrastructures are developed enough to be able to manage the change.

Ability to set up corporations will also slowly vanish, but I think again people will not really know it. Instead there will be hindrances that are very great that will simply make creating and owning a business infeasible unless one is in a very special position to do so. So examples will continue to exist but they will be rare. Their rarity will be unknown, so people will have plenty of examples of success stories in mind, but there will really be no way for regular people to be able to successfully set up these businesses, or they will be constrained in income to the extent that opening a business will simply result in an employee like experience. Platform control will be the business that will control businesses within. I'm seeing trends of this on AirBnB, and POS systems like Square, that excessively involve the platform in matters that are really usually only for businesses to decide. Owners will be less like free owners and simply will resemble software users, and will face many obstacles.

Software automation was already a methodology intended to lessen the need for software workers. Even a website is an automation contrary to publication in print. Standard and basic software offerings were already replacement technologies. I think we'll see an increase in software automation independent of robotics that will increasingly gobble jobs greatly decreasing the need for all sorts of positions. Recently I was thinking about how machinery in agriculture replaced crop growers. Any type of machining and mechanisation is intended to create a greater yield than workers can achieve without that technology.

I think we have an incipient "What do we do with ourselves" that will result in social surgences that will come in the form of complaints and activism. I can't yet say when that will happen, but I think the newer generations of extremely young school age children will want to complain that they have controlled stimulation and can't well choose what they will do with themselves outside entertaining themselves.

We could see however in the future and advancement on providing ways for individuals to do meaningful leisure activities, like sports, art, and academics, but many will not be happy with the attention received. There may be great difficulties for the less intelligent to find ways to express their talents. Probably this will be the source of complaints and activism. I think there will be a point in which entertainment becomes overwhelming.

"All I am is Entertained" and it is AI driven, and much is altered and is not *real*. Meanwhile, employment and spending will be too controlled.

More later!

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="text-template-for-the-life-categories-and-example-utilization">Text Template for the Life Categories and Example Utilization</a>

*Saturday, December 23<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>1:41pm, Anchorage, Alaska</time>

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

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="file-types-and-required-accounts">File Types and Required Accounts</a>

*Saturday, December 23<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:14pm, Anchorage, Alaska</time>

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

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="ak-activity-plans">AK Activity Plans</a>

*Friday, December 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>10:35pm, Anchorage, Alaska</time>

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

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="post-bank-payment-plans-set-1">Post Bank Payment Plans, Set 1</a>

*Prepared: Tuesday, December 19<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>10:05pm, Dallas, Texas</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="donation-request-methodology-and-printout">Donation Request Methodology and Printout</a>

*Prepared: Wednesday, December 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:27pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="upcoming-plan-to-utilize-just-100-dollars-as-a-wealthy-homeless-camper-for-a-period-of-1-month">Upcoming Plan to Utilize just $100 as a Wealthy Homeless Camper for a Period of 1 Month</a>

*Saturday, December 9<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>10:15am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

After a period of approximately two years fully retired, living off of cash on my person, I've come to a point in which all of my assets have been depleted. For a period I will now not only be experimenting with homelessness, camping, and such, I will be *actually homeless*. I was not expecting or fully anticipating this scenario, and humorously, in my possession is a $393,000 dollar check that I've been unable to cash or place in a bank account, due to a combination of withdrawal and depositing rules with banks here in Florida that have not been helpful, and my name change to a name that I only now discovered is too long for banks to want to see on checks. Authentic IDs like Passports and Social Security Cards still truncate names, because of data and print limitations created by the agencies that issue the cards. My name is much longer than what my official IDs show. One might think the banks would allow longer legal names to appear on checks, but they don't want to see your real name, just what matches a passport or other ID card. The large check in my possession was received after a very lengthy land transaction, regarding my property in Alaska. I signed the title documents using my full legal name, and the new Deed for the buyer has my full name as well. The title company said they can only use the name that is shown on the deed and the signature in the transaction, and unfortunately that name cannot fit on any ID card, and because of that the banks cannot deposit or cash my check!

My full name for those who might be curious is "Mattanaw Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh Mattanaw" and that is what the check shows.

Because it took so long to get the sale, and to receive the check, I depleted all my remaining assets that I did not think I would deplete. While this is an undesirable situation, it is fortuitious for my study, that I already entitled "On the Overlaps of Homelessness and Wealthy Camping". I also have a scheduled talk in May 2024 for Mensa Sweden on this subject. Before it was a field study only guided by the recognition that my travel experiences as a high income person resembled the travel experiences of campers, and both resemble homelessness. But now in this situation I am really a homeless person with wealth. The wealth just happens to be temporarily unusable and inaccessible.

Currently I have only $120 dollars in my pocket and intend to spend 20 today to have only $100 remaining. I intend to try to stretch the $100 for a period of one full month, to prove a plan around high frugality, that also includes planning around food selection and nutrition. For a long while I was thinking that a combination of foraging and very inexpensive food purchases would allow for a *very inexpensive* and sustainable way of living, that would enable a "homeless person" to have a good quality of living that is incredibly inexpensive.

But there are definite risks to this arrangement and plan, and I do anticipate some challenging conditions, and perhaps some mishaps. If there are any mishaps I will need to actively ask people for food funds like a normal homeless person for a period, but this will be informative. It may even be necessary for entirely understanding homeless living. I have plans for my method of requesting that will include pointers to my current work underway for the study, so any requests I make will not appear to be as basic as that of a standard beggar. This I have related earlier to the relationship between homelessness and intelligence, and I believe that this is an inverse relationship. This explains why the signage we see from homeless people is of such poor quality, and includes messages that are not those that people would be well inclined to give for. Additionally, my habits are quite good, and my appearance is clean and tidy. I also have some good looks and a good level of fitness. Not being homeless a long time, I cannot say what reduction would happen if I were living that way for years, so I don't want to be too judgemental. But I do want to mention that smart planning and living can lead to a homeless experience that is probably irregularly normal and apparently healthy, and I would attribute this to my mind and level of intelligence. This might seem a sensitive topic, but if we are to resolve homeless conditions, we are going to have to acknowledge uncomfortable issues. Firstly, those who are homeless and in a poor condition may simply be handicapped, mentally retarded, or may have a diminished IQ or acquired decline in cognitive capacity. I have no such issues and this would explain greatly why they are in the condition they are in and I am not, and likely would not ever be in, depending on circumstances.

I will leave more about this in my upcoming book on the topic that I expect to complete within a year.

After the one month period, if there are not further banking issues, I will have nearly $400,000 in my bank account again, and this will greatly change my circumstances so as to explore the overlaps again from the perspective of the wealthy traveler. For this I will simply resume my travels in North America and abroad like I've been doing recently, before this predicament, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Mexico.

Now, regarding the $100 dollars. Here is the plan regarding food and weight.

Currently I weigh a little over 180 pounds and want to reduce anyway to around 150. I've been wanting to experience being much thinner, although I do like the bodyweight I'm at, and wanted already to reach my goal of being 150 pounds, when I was in Hobart Tasmania. This means I have 30 pounds to lose, which equates to 3,500 calories per pounds or 105,000 calories. This is all part of my food supply, and so I am entering this food into my dietary planning.

I am wanting to consume a relatively unsustainable average daily amount of calories near 1,200 calories per day. For days I feel I have an aggressive hunger, I will eat substantially more. For other days, I may eat less. I am unopposed to having no food at all for some days in this upcoming month. It does not harm one at all to have no food for a day or two.

The 1,200 calories per day for 30 days, amounts to 36,000 calories of food, that I will need to buy using the $100 dollars. Combined with my self-eating with weight loss, that is 141,000 available food calories for the month. Only 36,000 calories have to be paid for at the grocery store or with any possible foraging. Since I'm fairly unaware of the foods that are locally edible in Florida, I know I will greatly depend on the grocer, but there are some foods I've located that I know I can eat like dates from palm trees, and I will consume those to add additional nutrition. The 36,000 calories I need to buy have to be purchasable with $100 dollars. I have considerabl experience with eating frugally so I do not anticipate issues or unsuccess, although I do anticipate some discomfort. Here are the foods I plan to purchase:

- Oatmeal, instant, here about $5.00 per bag, supplying 3,000 calories per bag.
  - oatmeal has extremely good quality protein, coming close in quality to that of milk. Additionally it will supply the required carbohydrates.
- Flour, whole or white. I have not yet checked the cost but estimate it will be $2.00 per 2lb. bag here.
  - Flour will provide the inexpensive calories, also in carbohydrate form, and some protein.I am not averse to eating plain flour with water, or making cakes that would be similar to what would be prepared for crackers, and dough that is similar to that which would be prepared for noodles.
- Oil. The most inexpensive oil although olive oil is my preference. Unknown cost at present. I will update here once I shop the local markets. This will supply the requisite fats.
- Cans of beans and vegetables. This will supply additional protein and nutrients that are omitted above in the other plain ingredients.
  - Cans of chickpeas or beans range from $1.00 to around $2.50 for standard sized cans. It is expected that cans will be less than 2.50 for any can I would buy. I do not intend to eat canned goods every day. Instead, I will eat canned goods on days in which I think the nutrition is required, given earlier days of eating very simply.

I have estimated every 5 days I will need $12.00. If this is accurate, in 30 days I will spend $84, and will have $16 dollars remaining for emergency purchases. 

This will be the most frugal I have ever been in my life although I have been very frugal in the past. I consumed primarily oats in New Zealand and Australia for sustained periods and had very good health and weight loss. I have also gone periods with no fat consumption at all. In my view we have excessively tied nutrition to daily requirements that are about averages needed for consumption over longer periods. The daily requirements do not entail true daily needs. One can easily not eat for five straight days and have excellent health. True nutritional requirements appear to not be well understood, but certainly are about maintaining health and vitality over a number of days and not just one. For example, I know in this diet I will be lacking certain nutrients like copper. But how much copper do I require for a month? I think none. But how much copper do I need for any particular period of time? Well that is related to the way my body utilizes and depletes copper gradually. It is not related to any immediate need of copper.

This plan begins tomorrow. It begins tomorrow not from choice as I indicated. I actually need to do this or I will experience actual mishaps as a homeless person, who happens to have a check for $400,000 dollars.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="backup-and-redundancy-plan-and-unrelated-tasks">Backup and Redundancy Plan, and Unrelated Tasks</a>

*Wednesday, December 6<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:35am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

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

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-american-flag-is-only-blue-and-red-and-is-basic">The American Flag is only Blue and Red and is Basic</a>

*Tuesday, December 5<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>9:03pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

The love of flags is contrary to the time required to create them, their excessiveness basicness, lack of beauty, childishness, and degree of unconcern in their creation.

If you don't believe me, recall quickly, if you can, the flags you've seen to date.

Stripes, few geometrical figures, and very little artwork exists within them. 

In fact, it appears what is common to them is a kind of stupidity of art.

Some will tell you that flags contain white. They do not. Rather, there is a canvas of white envisioned already. On these canvases of white, simple rectangles are drawn, or quilted. Attached to fabrics without color. Canvas.

Any child can create some of these flags. Any elementary school child can make a block of red, and block of green, and place them on a white canvas.

Flags of all nations are basic creations. Salutes and so on to flags are a kind of abomination.

The flag of the United States is no exception. Our groups are international so those of the United States have no cause to think this is offensive. It is one simple flag among others.

Here is a way to think about the original creation of the flag of the United States.

- Cut a large sheet of paper into the dimensions of all other flags (non-unique).
- Place a blue square in the corner.
- Use a ruler to place 13 red rectangles.
- Cut from the blue square a single star. Use that star again and again, to place 50 stars.

Job done!

I bet you can think of other childish ways to remake it with ease.

The American flag is blue and red.

It is excessively simple.

It is hardly any art or effort at all!

Put anything up the flag pole and force the meanings! And it will be something people will think they need to protect!

Has anyone noticed that flags are moronic? Your nation has a rectangle?

Then you forgot earthday with planned warfare!

Flag the earth now with another rectangle?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="completion-of-the-mission-of-the-personal-form">Completion of the Mission of the Personal Form</a>

*Sunday, December 3<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:06pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

The personal form, as recorded at

[http://mattanaw.com/mattanaws-personal-form.html](http://mattanaw.com/mattanaws-personal-form.html) | [PDF](complete-16102019-personal-forms-all-christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-mattanaw.pdf)

had many different objectives to innumerable to relist here, but the primary objective of attaining a level of personal discipline and completeness in reduction of behaviors to only those that are desired is now complete.

Much was realized and made successful along the way as there were gains made, and goals completed. However, in the course of collecting personal data, and trying to obtain specific goals in different categories of life, it was noticed that discipline would flag in one category that was gaining insufficient attention, while another was being improved upon. There were weightloss goals completed along the way, financial goals, career goals, fitness goals, etc... completed. But it was found definitively that an all-at-once completion was not possible. Instead incremental categorical goals were possible while others would have to wait until later for completion. There were improvements and regressions.

However now I can state that full attainment of the primary goals have now been definitively achieved. If there is any regression from this state I will record the regression here, but it is not anticipated that any meaningful regression will occur.

The primary objectives were to be entirely plant-based, drink only water, maintain weight, nutrition, finances, stay clear of alcohol, live free independently of debts, achieve retirement, achieve career success, academic success, remove the need to masturbate, remove the need for pornography, &c... Masturbation was not explicitly listed because it was thought that would provide too much information on the form later upon being read by others, but this goal was encoded as "-m", which is the negation of masturbation. I'm not opposed to masturbation, and actually advocate *for* it, but for my own personal progression I did revert to my earlier view that I would simply prefer to not do it at all. Much can be said on this and I expect to say more on my page about sexuality.

The most important goal of all was to be water and plant based only. No alcohol, no coffee. At the time of the writing of the personal form alcohol was not an issue. Coffee was not considered an issue. But coffee became an issue since I excessively drank it from youth. Alcohol became something to be concerned about later but nothing even close to alcoholism. Just habitual beer drinking for leisure and fun. Nicotine more recently became an issue with dabbling in cigar smoking in Las Vegas. This switched to a brief period of cigarette smoking, which is still mostly disgusting to me, and finally vaping, at a small amount of nicotine. Completion of this elimination is now done.

I now only ingest water and plant matter, but permit myself dairy on occasion, if I want it. That is a choice made upon long maturation as a vegan, thinking that some small quantity of dairy in my behavior is still an insignificant negative as compared to life contributions to that cause, and health attained in regular vegan behavior. More will be said later about this as I share more about the vegan lifestyle which I think is not totally opposed to the lifestyle of meat eating people. I've discovered a large convergence that requires rethinking how one discusses the topic and the differences in commitments people have. But that is tangential and the more important point is that I've completed entirely this mission of only having plants and water. I've been successfully vegan and vegetarian though since year 2000, 23 years ago.

The start of the personal form was approximately June 2006. This means it took 17 years to bring this effort to a finality. More will be said on the chapter on the personal form and data collection about the long path of habitual changes and discipline required to get to this point. The dedication towards this goal I think is unusual considering the total human population.

An interesting point regarding the finality of this arrival of this goal is that the goal itself is not quite as important now, and instead the mission with the personal form has transferred to the mission of managing attention and increasing writing and media productions. The attentional [architecture](architecture.html) includes objectives that exceed those of the personal form but are an outgrowth of the personal form. But even this has progressed to such an extent that the behavioral goals associated with it are already complete, and that anything extra is extra.

This date, December 3<sup>rd</sup> marks the transitional date to completeness. December 4<sup>th</sup> is a kind of purity date of completeness. If this turns out to be false due to an unexpected small regression, then that will be logged and recorded.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="affidavit-of-the-authenticity-of-the-book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-at-mattanaworg-as-a-testament-of-mattanaw-for-the-living-will">Affidavit of the Authenticity of The Book and Journal of Mattanaw at Mattanaw.org, as a Testament of Mattanaw for the Living Will</a>

*Prepared: Saturday, December 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>21:13pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="affidavit-concerning-vegetarianvegan-and-water-lifestyle">Affidavit Concerning Vegetarian/Vegan and Water Lifestyle</a>

*Prepared: Saturday, December 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>21:13pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="affidavit-concerning-mattanaws-abstinence-from-drugs-sex-and-alcohol">Affidavit Concerning Mattanaw's Abstinence From Drugs, Sex and Alcohol</a>

*Prepared: Saturday, December 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:39am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

Being first duly sworn, under oath states:

1. I am totally teetotal regarding alcohol. I use do not drink or utilize alcohol of any kind. I never have alcohol on my possession, and I never buy it from any person or establishment.

2. I am totally teetotal regarding drugs. I do not use any over the counter medication, drugs prescribed by doctors, drugs from any illicit source, or any drug whatsoever. I never have drugs in my possession, never exchange items with others, never carry items from others, and never ask for, buy, or solicit for purchase, any drug from anyone whatsoever. I have never, and will never, be involved in any sale of drugs, possion of drugs, &c... anything involving drugs.

3. I only consume water and plants, and infrequently dairy products. I have an entirely vegan and vegetarian lifestyle and only consume plants and water, and occasionally dairy products.

4. I only ingest non-drug substances. By one through three it should be understood that I only consume the set of ingredients that are water, are plant-based foods, or are dairy foods. All else is excluded from this list. This means nothing else is ingested. This means no alcohol, drugs of any kind, including any not mentioned, are not consumed. 

5. I do not put anything that is not food or water into my mouth at any time.

6. I do not "inhale" anything other than air/oxygen, and would refuse to inhale anything else. If anything is in my environment is perceived to be chemical, I exit that environment.

7. I do not consume anything that has a chemical formula sold as a single ingredient. I do not consume sugar. I do not consume any additive, except for preservative additives.

8. I do not engage in sexual activity of any kind.

9. I do not seek out any dating, or sexual friendships from the opposite sex, or anything that could be construed as leading to a sexual relationship from anyone of the opposite sex.

10. I am heterosexual only, but do not do not engage in any sexual behaviors at all. I do not seek, converse, or "look for" anything leading to a sexual relationship. I generally refrain from touching others, except for fist taps. I do not masturbate, and I do not view pornography. 

11. I am not a homosexual. I am not attracted towards males at all, have never been attracted to a male, and never have any sexual contact with males. I do not watch any pornography. On social media I avoid contact with images of males. I prefer images of females, and am attracted to females. But I do nothing that is ever a movement towards any sexual behavior whatsoever.

12. I am fully functioning sexually, am healthy, and have a very good anatomy, but do not engage in any sexual behavior whatsoever.


Dated at Miami Beach, Florida, this day _      _, day of _        _, _           _.



Notarization

Subscribed and sworn to me by Mattanaw, this _     _, day of _     _, _          _.



Notary Public in and for the State of Maryland

My Comission Expires _          _.


-

The following affidavit was used as a guide, from when the author was trial attorney and witness in his land case in Anchorage.

[cert-signed-and-notarized-affidavit-of-mattanaw.pdf](cert-signed-and-notarized-affidavit-of-mattanaw.pdf)

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="be-concise-but-you-missed-this">Be Concise But You Missed This</a>

*Friday, December 1<sup>st</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:39am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

Be concise, but you missed this...

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="Authoritativeness and Uses of Single Forms of Identification">authoritativeness-and-uses-of-single-forms-of-identification</a>

*Friday, December 1<sup>st</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:39am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

Identification over the years has changed quite a bit in a way greatly unfortunate to the user of the IDs.

Before proceeding let's consider some important pieces of information:

- It was oft-repeated that the Social Security Number is not an identifier, but should not be given to anyone.
  - This was especially repeated by older people who would now be elderly.
- The Passport is the authoritative international travel identifer.
- The Driver's License is the authoritative inter-state driving identifier.
  - Those who do not drive are asked for their driver's license.

A purpose of an authoritative single ID is to provide instant evidence that one is who one claims to be, and has the priveleges attached. Above we've seen that passports are the single piece of evidence required to show that one is who one says one is, and that one has the priveleges attached, relating to travel restrictions, and also to nationalization. It is a picture ID. It also provides signature confirmation. Above we've also seen that the driver's license is a singular identifier for immediately showing that one is who one says one is, particularly required in the context of driving. It also provides verification that one has the priveleges relating to driving and interstate travel. It also establishes that one has some connection to a state resembling residency.

An authority figure, or member of the public, can look at one or either of these documents and confirm that the person is as depicted, has or had that name, and is the person who the person claims to be, and has the priveleges attached mentioned earlier.

Obviously there is more regarding potential uses and priveleges attached, but for this conversation being complete and comprehensive is not possible and would create excessively lengthy discussion.

This use of single identifiers by authorities for international travel and for interstate driving is considered adequate to them. If you present a passport you can travel, you can use it to show your nationality in a foreign country, and you can use it to show your nationality in your home country. But obviously there are *many* risks associated with this. Likewise, you can use your driver's license with an authority figure and show your nationality, your state connection, and your priveleges for driving, and it is accepted as sufficient by itself to do this by authority figures such as policemen. There are still many risks with accepting this as a single form of ID.

The conveniences of only needing to provide a single ID however are obvious. What is the point of having multiple IDs carried along with you to establish who you are? It is possible that you might have one or none. You also are not obligated, it is said, to carry an ID with you in many if not most circumstances. But if you need to have an ID you don't want to have many. You want to only have one, or else there is a burden of maintaining a personal process of having and protecting multiple IDs, greatly increasing the risk of losing one or multiple IDs. That could lead to a lengthy process of having to obtain not only one replacement ID, but a number of them. This would come at a considerable time loss, loss of resources, and would create personal risks, depending on circumstances. Having one ID that is adequate protects alternative IDs that are also adequate, and diminishes the risk of a huge impact of losing multiple IDs.

While these authorities mentioned above can accept a single ID, we have somehow allowed a situation in which institutions can demand multiple IDs, despite the fact that there are fewer risks associated. They will claim there are more risks associated but there could not be more risks than with international travel. They use this perception, often falsely created, to gather more information about you than is necessary.

An example is in banking, where many conveniences have been lost.

I was issued a large check recently, in the amount of $393,000, and I went to the bank to either cash it, or obtain some smaller amount of cash along with a cashier's check. The check was issued by Well's Fargo as part of a Real Estate transaction. The bank visited to get the cash was Well's Fargo. The funds were in a verified escrow account in which funds could be instantly confirmed. The customer of the escrow account is a title company in which they do many large transactions. The name on the check was the same name as what was on my passport. I went to the bank with the passport and the check, expecting service to receive the funds: and it was important that the funds were released. However, the Bank sent me on a long pathway, without any indication the result would be favorable to actually releasing the funds, of confirming in myriad ways my identity.

There was a time in which a bank would make payment simply if the name on the check matched an authoritative ID.

What are some other places that require many forms of ID and papers, to get authorizations?

Keep in mind you can terrorize another nation with your passport. What is the need to have many IDs with such a low amount of risk to make simple transactions, and to accomplish very simplistic forms of business? Where is the convenience? Why is it so convenient to use the Driver's License, and the Passport, in situations that may present large risks, whereas, it is so difficult to use a singular form of ID to get any simple tasks done that elders would have demanded to be simple?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="affidavit-concerning-name-change-of-christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-to-mattanaw">Affidavit Concerning Name Change of Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh to Mattanaw</a>

*Prepared: Friday, December 1<sup>st</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>10:20am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*Did you change your name?*



*What name did you choose and why?*



*Are you in the process of changing your names in various systems?*



*Have you used this name actively?*



*Do you use your old name?*



*Are there any organizations unsupportive of your name change?*



*What actions or ordeals existed regarding your name change?*



*Have there been any negative impacts regarding your name change?*



<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="affidavits-attesting-to-living-autobiography">Affidavits Attesting to Living Autobiography</a>

*Thursday, November 30<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>5:23pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

One learns, in the court system, that witnesses are trusted regarding the affidavits they submit, sworn under oath on text, and notarized. This is the case even if what they submit or record on the affidavits happen to include predominantly lies and fabrications.

When one writes an autobiography, one is testifying as to one's own life. One needs artifacts to substantiate one's personal history, working as a personal anthropologist and archaeologist and historian. Legal documents are part of the total history of artifacts that one might have, and it includes ID cards, medical records, bank documents, birth and marriage certificates, and actual legal materials used in the court system, if there were any procedures. For example, one may want to talk about the significance a traffic accident or a divorce had in your life.

If one used an affidavit to explain an event, or circumstance, and that document is trusted in the legal system, implies that others including the legal system would trust it within an autobiography.

Why not then simply create many affidavits in advance on any topic of interest that figures well into the living autobiography?

Why not make the living autobiography and books attestations to the court system?

Affidavits are officiated documents, sworn under oath. They get notarized by a public notary. One could make an entire autobiography an affidavit, if it is well enough written; although affidavits need not be well written.

I'm in the process of accumulating affidavits that constitute usable legal materials in legal proceedings, that will figure into my living will and living autobiography, and will also constitute the entire living autobiography and will too. 

All will be wrapped in affidavit, and include affidavit.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="my-commitment-to-chastity">My Commitment to Chastity</a>

*Thursday, November 30<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:43pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

Some who have been exposed to my writings and various postings would recognize that I'm a single male. But many would not know or recall that I was married for quite a long time, nearly 20 years, to my very first girlfriend. My ex-wife and I went to the same school system and are from the same town. We went to different elementary schools, but went to the same middle school and high school. While we went to different elementary schools, many of our friends from those different schools were blended together subsequently in our middle and high schools. So to a very large degree our experiences were blended together backwards in time, from the time we were first put together in middle school, to when we were born. We were even born in the same hospital, in Olney, Maryland.

We first became committed to a monogamous relationship November 29<sup>th</sup>, 1998. I have original correspondence between the two of us, from this time in High School, in our senior year, in my Book and Journal, at Mattanaw.org.
From that time we celebrated anniversaries on that date, and considered ourselves having a relationship equivalent to marriage. When I say we were married for 19 years, I am using that agreed upon anniversary date. We didn't really believe in getting formally married, until a time arose in which it seemed to make sense to combine finances. There were other reasons why I proposed at the time I did, but we finally got married, October 4<sup>th</sup>. I have my marriage certificate posted on my open health and identity page chapter here:

http://mattanaw.com/open-health-mattanaw.html#marriage-certificate

We did not celebrate the date of actual marriage as our anniversary, but continued to celebrate that on November 29<sup>th</sup>. We were evntually divorced, in January of 2018. The entire duration of my relationship I was entirely committed to monogamy. I never cheated and took passes from women as a kind of threat, although I did not openly express that or show any indication that that was how I felt. I kept my distance from other women and was mostly averse to any kind of touch contact.

While married I had a healthy sex life and could not of course consider myself chaste during that period. But my inclinations were still to monogamy and having a sex life that did not resemble in any way one of promiscuity, or even of interest in sexual relations with others. Mentally, even within my thinking, I did not think about sex with others. However, I did indulge in pornography. I don't consider that to be an exception. It does not involve other real people from one's environment. Rather it is a way to more completely satisfy sexual desires, since a monogamous relationship does not result in complete satisfaction in sexual relations. Particularly if it lasts a long period of time. Nevertheless, my sex life was complete, and I had enough that I really am not too interested in having any more, after divorce. It is a part of my life I really want to close off.

For the last several years, I have totally abstained from all pornography too. While I think self-satisfaction with or without pornography is a commendable way to live life as a single person, because few risks are presented to self and others by living that way, I am personally even trying to avoid that behavior. I've gone long periods without masturbation and currently I do not masturbate at all. Although, again, I find no issue whatsoever with that behavior and even find it commendable if it fits into a lifestyle that removes risks to other people and oneself. If one only masturbated then one would be no risk to others at all with cheating behavior, promiscuity, risk of STDs, and so on. It is an expected behavior among single people, and to urge single people to do more than this by engaging in promiscuity or formation of other relationships, is a kind of immoral pressure placed on them. Our culture really does immorally peer-pressure others into behaviors that creates risks to their well being and the well being of others. There are no good plans for ensuring unwanted children are prevented, STD/Is are prevented, and that cheating behavior is eliminated. Tinder and other applications of that kind, including dating applications, can expose good people to others who are already in relationships for sex. Tinder an other applications can also expose oneself to the risks of being a kind of promiscuous paid or unpaid prostitute. Lastly, there is even social pressure to prostitution. I have not been exposed to this but understand it does exist.

Being suddenly divorced in 2018 from my girlfriend from the 1990s, whom I met in High School, suddenly made me single in a very different world. I never had a date in my life, as I told many colleagues. I didn't know how to date, and didn't know anything about dating on social media.

Realizing that I was not really wanting to date, or do any online dating, I decided to completely refrain from any pressure to utilizing online dating applications. There have been many over the years that came and went, but I used none of them. I refrained from using even regular social applications for that purpose. Effectively, I'm entirely chaste in my online communication regarding sexuality, or anything verging on sexuality, unless one went further back into my history of earlier teenage years, in which I used AOL humorously to chat sometimes sexually within that community. That was during the period of low understanding of sexting and cyber-sex. All was text based and utilized no audio-visual, and was oddly uncontrolled and ignorant. Anyone who used AOL in the nineties would have humorous stories about the nature of online chat-groups and discussions with others to whom one discovered there.

After being divorced, I did go to bars and restaurants and suddenly had solo-interractions with others in a happenstance way. This was a lifestyle I was also previously unfamiliar with. This did lead to some very few friendships and dating opportunties. These were brief, but I did have a handful of dates, or singles date-like encounters. Is a first meeting with another person of interest a first date? Perhaps it is. In that case I have to say I did have some dating adventures. But these were very few. Less than ten total, between 2018 and the present. A few could be characterized as unwanted dates, since my inclinations were only friendly. I have only had two sexual encounters after being divorced in 2018 and I can say they were unnecessarily stressful. They made it obvious to me that our culture has provided very poor sexual planning, and mitigation of sexually transmitted disease and other risks.

For over one year now, I have elected to be one hundred percent chaste. This is a permanent election. I will never be in another sexual relationship of any kind nor do I want one. I will not date, be in a relationship, or get married again.

Soon I will write up an affidavit about this and get it notarized. So legally, I will have testified as to my chastity.

Why would one want to do this? Well, it creates a way to show to others that one is not a risk in any way, which is another thing I desire. I want a legal way to make it clear to others that in no way can I risk the relationships of others, in no way can I be a sexual "threat" to others, and in no way even be thought of as having sexual motivations of any kind. Males would understand this. They can be accused of anything. If at some point in the future, I attain a greater level of fame, I need a way to eliminate any risk of false accusations. But apart from this, just being a male, one feels a risk of false accusations.

Having already had a satisfying marriage, I can continue to think that that marriage completed my sex life. Furthermore, it really did.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="id-and-bank-activities-and-plans">ID and bank activities and plans</a>

*Thursday, November 30<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:01pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

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

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<a name="current-thoughtstream"></a>

## <a name="gold-wiring">Gold Wiring</a>

*Monday, November 27<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:01pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

When one procures gold from a bullion dealer, there are a few options provided. Firstly, one could procure a small amount of bullion, under $10,000 and not sign any documents at all, using cash. One can procure more than that too, but if more is wanted, more documents are required as one scales to huge amounts of gold. From conversations with one gold dealer, my understanding is that 24 ounces of gold can be procured at the current price without signing more than what is required for a transaction over $10,000. If more than that is wanted, additional documents must be signed. In order to avoid all of this, one is simply slowed in the process of obtaining bullion with cash. Everyday one can get 24 ounces of gold and fill out the 10K paperwork, or everyday one can get less than 10K in gold and fill out no paperwork at all. I've followed the process of daily visits for less than 10K in gold, platinum, and palladium, in order to get a larger amount without worrying about any documentation.

If one does not want to make purchases with cash, one is able to make purchases with wire transfers. I'm exploring this for the first time now. After having made a large real-estate transaction, I'm wanting more bullion. My objective is consistent with that in development in my [Human Banking](human-banking.html) chapter of this work. It is also consistent with the developments and explorations of the world of wealthy homelessness. I have a field research study underway called "On the Overlaps of Homelessness and Wealthy Camping". Wire transfers are subject to the same rules. For this particular transaction, should I move forward with it, I'm required to fill out the documentation for tax purposes for transactions exceeding the 24 ounces I mentioned earlier. I think that's a 50k limit but don't recall for the moment.

What is interesting about this is that I'm doing this transaction via a third-party wiring. The title company issued the funds, and provided an initial check in the amount of 393,000 dollars. But the bank refused to cash it, or provide any funds in a smaller quantity in cash, and has asked for smaller checks. I have asked the title company to provide smaller checks, and they exhibited reluctance to do so. My current bank Discover Bank, an online bank, has set limits that are lower than what banks with branches set for accepting deposits. So they cannot accept wires over 250,000 dollars or take checks over a small amount under 100,000. So I cannot wire to the bank. But I may soon discover I can wire to a bullion dealer for bullion. In that case it seems banks can be totally bypassed in favor of wire transfers to other parties. That may open the potential scenarios for obtain funds without banks. Well without a specific party to transactions functioning without banks. One could then wire to other people to handle funds on your behalf, for an exchange.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="checklist-for-attacking-the-bank-to-provide-my-funds-owed-to-me">Checklist for attacking the bank to provide my funds owed to me.</a>

*Sunday, November 26<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:01pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

- Create articles for publication on social media, for re-use as Op-Eds in the newspaper.
- Create videos for sharing on TikTok and other social media.
- Create a video to send to the local news.
- Write letters to Wells Fargo Executives.
- Write letters to local politicians. 
- Communicate with the other banks, urge them to release the funds.
- Record all communication.
- Start a documentary.
- Prepare legal case.
- Begin log of damages.
- Below were added Sun Nov 26 12:10:42 EST 2023
  - Talk to Bank Managers at multiple banks.
  - Talk to other banks about their policies. You can use this to identify fake rules.
  - Write an affidavit.
  - Collect research.
  - Go through their website, and collect evidence.
  - Ask for signatures of support.
  - Gofundme.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="withdrawing-large-cash-amounts-from-banks-issuing-their-own-checks-refusals-and-pathways-for-obtaining-cash">Withdrawing Large Cash Amounts from Banks Issuing Their Own Checks, Refusals, and Pathways for Obtaining Cash</a>

*Sunday, November 26<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>10:19pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

I "learned online" that banks issuing checks, like cashier's checks, can cash the entire amount for you if you only go to the issuing bank, request the funds, and wait for the transfer to be arranged. The idea here is you sell you house, say for $200,000 dollars, you receive a check, and you can obtain all cash for that transaction by merely bringing that check to the issuing bank. You may need to wait two weeks or so but they are supposed to arrange for the cash to be delivered, and you can then receive all your money at once. They are supposed to do this for you even if you have a checking or savings account elsewhere, and simply can't or won't deposit the funds there, or even if you have no bank account at all. We are told there is no obligation at all to have a banking account, and for those opting to be partly or mostly free of banks, this is the way to receive funds when one sells one's home or otherwise receives a large check.

Recently I received a check for $393,000. I am wanting to use no bank whatsoever to obtain my funds. I am following this pathway of the person who has no banking account at all, wants none, and simply wants to obtain the funds owed.

In order to do this, I followed the above advice. The check was issued by Wells Fargo, by a title company. It is held in an escrow account. I took the check to a Wells Fargo branch, expecting to perhaps wait for two weeks to receive my funds, all in cash. But I found at the bank they will simply refuse to give any cash whatsoever, and complain of giving any cash more than $10,000 dollars.

After some debate with the tellers, and a conversation with the bank manager, I was told I could take $40,000 in cash that day, and get a cashier's check for the remaining amount, of $353,000 dollars. I thought this a good solution, perhaps better than receiving all the cash at once, at least for my needs, and agreed to wait for the transaction to be processed while in the same branch. I waited for one hour, until closing time. Seeing closing time approach, I anticipated that the branch manager would decline to provide the cash and cashier's check, perhaps doing nothing at all, only using the time to tick-away the day.

The branch manager emerged after a long wait and informed me that he could not provide any cash for the check. He could not fulfill on the solution he offered after finally being able to talk to him, after first receiving misinformation from tellers. It appears the entire visit was misinformation and wasted more than one hour of my time, and my time is valuable. I have logged one hour of personal work time lost to this effort. I am retired but I invest my hours into my own company doing scientific research and planning for my publication company.

He said that he called a higher office for approval for my request and that it was flatly denied. He said he thought in the future it would be denied again. The implication is that they refused to provide my money, even though their bank issued the check, and provided no means to obtain the money. They told me they could "open an account", but that is simply a mechanism for them to retain their own money, slow depositing, and obtain more information from me than I would like to provide. The bank manager told me he could not split checks, either, but that they could cash checks split. What is humorous is *they split the checks for themselves*, since they are the issueing bank. So for me to obtain all the cash, they want to write more checks that I will bring back to them, with the same or similar result.

I would like to pursue this further but escalate the issue. However, I have no experience with bank escalation. Does anyone here have a strategy I could use, to ensure I can receive all the cash, from this bank that is refusing to honor it's own checking?

A second resort is that I can ask the title company to work, again with Wells Fargo, to issue smaller checks. However, this is a fun process. Maybe I want all cash for my checks later too. Maybe I'd like to send people checks with money that they can use for cash. Is there a way that I can ensure that I can get my cash?

Thinking back in time, I thought the name had to match the check, and they simply were obligated to disburse. It is understood large quantities of cash may require some delays and planning, but not flat refusals.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="my-introduction-to-mensa-sweden">My Introduction to Mensa Sweden</a>

*Thursday, November 23<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:18pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

My name is "Mattanaw", formerly "Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh", a retired management consultant and Chief Architect of various global corporations. Many here have probably been exposed to my numerous writings in our shared groups Mensa groups in the social communities and journals, and my Book and Journal at Mattanaw.org. I first joined Mensa in 2014, but I was identified as gifted as a small child in my school system in Maryland, where I was born and raised. While I was born in the United States I see myself strongly as a global citizen, and while that's hard to make a reality, I spend much time abroad in locations like New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, and Canada, and expect soon to have residence in Sweden and Europe for a long period. I am an executive presenter, and may be presenting at the upcoming Mensa Sweden AG, on two topics in which I am expert. The first concerns management of creativity, and the second concerns my scientific field efforts at eradicating homelessness. That talk is called "On the Overlaps of Homelessness and Wealthy Camping."

Despite my history being a software architect and management consultant, my primary are of expertise is Moral Philosophy. This relates to our interesting theme of gaming, as I will explain momentarily. I have a nearly completed B.S. in Philosophy, a B.S. in Psychology, and I'm working on a degree in Management, with a focus on Economics and Finance, at Harvard University. I first began my more definite project on Moral Philosophy in my early twenties, although thoughts and materials from the 90s and earlier in my life figure into my work often, and are archived on my website at Mattanaw.org, where I present my life work.

Although I was a software architect the technology of focus was not gaming systems, even though I come from the generation that was greatly influenced by the onset of video gaming technology. It is a somewhat good demarcation to separate generations because my parents and those who were born only several years before me either had no gaming exposure, or developed very little interest in video games. It is interesting now to think of how my writings and research, and my software expertise, relate to the planning, execution, and limits of gaming systems. Also, moral philosophy has a gaming aspect, as it relates to  managing one's personal attention and one's behavior in this life which might be thought of as an RPG like game. RPG games, in a way, model and simulate real life behavior, and when one plays these games one is exposed to another world and environment in which one does familiar things. One makes decisions that bear on the outcome and one does well or not depending on how one chooses. I have a chapter in my book on the planning of attention, using process diagrams that are suitable for the planning of software systems, video games, and our use of our attention in life, and within organizations. For those who are interested, one can read my growing work "The Architecture of Ethics" here:

http://mattanaw.com/architecture.html

I will also be discussing this as it relates in my talk on creativity management at the Mensa Sweden AG, should the proposal for my talks be approved.

Video gaming for enjoyment has been a very large part of my early life, up until I was about 23 years old, when interest began to wane. My parents utilized video game systems to keep my siblings and I entertained, and out of the way, doing something known to be somewhat positive. I don't know what the impact to my mental development was, but I think it was largely positive, although it did detract greatly from my school interests while young. My first game system was an Atari-like self-contained unit that I began playing sometime between 1983 and 1985. I was born December 18<sup>th</sup>, 1980, so I was a small child excelling already on simple Atari video games. Later I spent many hours in arcades, playing a combination of pinball games and video games, while that was extremely popular, exciting and competitive. I had a large number of gaming systems, since my parents were very generous buying them, and around Christmas time especially, I recall having memorable experiences opening boxes of gaming systems, like Sega Genesis, Nintendo 64, Playstation, and some lesser known systems like Panasonic 3DO. Having many gaming systems and an expertise in the range of gaming platforms led me to form friendships in my neighborhood and have a draw to my home where friends would return again and again for fun times. As I write this now I am recalling some memories that were forgotten but highly formative.

I also had quite a bit of talent with Chess, and spend a very large amount of time playing board games with family, like Monopoly, and games more suitable for family fun with youths who are developing. We had a large collection of board games and had much fun playing these together as a cohesive family. Gaming had a good role in keeping us doing things together in a positive way for long periods of time, most memorably during the holidays when we were off from school.

Nowadays my interest in gaming is contained within my interest in planning and guiding organizations and developing my system of ethics, as I stated earlier. I think software planning was somehow left out of moral planning, and the evaluation of various ethical systems. I think they are incomplete because they do not include them. If they include them they become more detailed and useful. 

If one is interested, one can watch for the upcoming Mensa Sweden AG in May, and check for my planned presentations and talks. In that case there will be opportunity to discuss this topic, particularly as it relates to my presentations on creativity management, and "The Overlaps of Homelessness and Wealthy Camping". The latter topic touches on gaming as it relates to the experiences of making choices as a homeless person, in the system of law that makes for a survival game like experience.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="accurate-and-easy-descriptive-skin-complexion">Accurate and Easy Descriptive Skin Complexion</a>

*Monday, November 21<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:44am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="facebook-and-using-sentiments-in-marketing">Facebook and Using Sentiments in Marketing</a>

*Monday, November 21<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:39am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

Most users are aware that Facebook has provided ways to give emotional reactions to postings, but not all may be familiar with marketing methods that relate to this tool and potential misuse.

Being from the technology industry in an elevated status, working with businesses on marketing strategy and software related to marketing approaches, I can share with you some issues I see that relate to issues with Facebook's system for controlling, with a very short list of emotions, reactions you can provide to their system. I can also share reasons why their approach likely exists, and side effects for regular users.

This is an important topic because for some it greatly affects how they interact with businesses online, and with friends and family, and in any conversation had with anyone on Facebook.

Since the start of Facebook as a public company it was very interested in how to gain revenue via advertising. There was a period when the media portrayed Facebook as being "at risk" for being apparently unable to gain sizeable marketing revenue required to keep it a strong business. Not too long after this Facebook became a success in its approach that it needed in order to stay alive.

Businesses do not want negative feedback. Any business that can receive reviews online knows well, that if they get a single bad review, it can look very bad for their business. They will want to control perceptions regarding that review, potentially have it removed, and will offer responses to make it appear they are willing to resolve problems, or else deny them outright. Businesses oftentimes create false reviews of their own businesses to counter negative reviews to ensure their ratings don't drop excessively.

Notice that on Facebook, the way you interact with each other includes the ability to write comments or interact with likes and emoticons. This supplies data to Facebook on what they think you and other users think about a product, or other people's postings. You don't have many options. You can simply write comments that provide information about how you think or feel, and you can provide likes or emoticons. You have few options for the likes and emoticons. You have seven ways to tell a business or another person roughly what you feel, and most have noticed that these do no provide the full range of your natural reactions.

The easiest reaction is the like or emoticon. The next level of interaction is to write a short comment. Beyond that you can write lengthy or numerous comments to share how you think and feel. Most will share only simple short interactions. Emoticons and likes therefore will be the most common ways people quickly and easily interact with a business or with other people online.

Notice that a business is not a person. How you interact with businesses, you would think should be different than how you interact with people. However, Facebook blends these by providing the same means of interaction. This is important for the remainder of this posting, because I claim here that their way of gaining advertising revenue has constrained and distorted all your interactions with other people outside of business.

Since businesses do not want negative feedback, and want to communicate to other people and other businesses "good news" about their products and marketing offers, they are extremely motivated to have feedback that is positive only. It is not an understatement to say they *never ever want negative feedback*. We are all aware of businesses in the past that have even asked for "five star" or "ten star reviews" from customers, to nudge them towards not providing anything less than a perfectly positive response to them. That information is presented back to potential buyers. That information is used by businesses to communicate to others, that what they have is really excellent. They don't want to have anything that brings down anyone's perceptions about the quality of what they are offering.

As I mentioned, Facebook offers exactly seven like or emoticon options that people can use for their most frequent interactions. Now it is important to discuss what those are. There is a "like", a "love", a "care" that greatly resembles "love", a "wow", a "sadness" that has a positive aspect, and "anger". The first five options are roughly equivalent to "like" if one thinks carefully about it. In social sciences, these would all be grouped together as a "like" too. The "sadness" emoticon can be variously used for gentle disagreement when the user doesn't want to say anything in comments, doesn't want to indicate they feel anger, or does not have a better option to show they do not like the advertisement or posting. However, this emotion is also related to caring. Oftentimes, and more clearly, people will use the "sadness" option to show they are caring, actually feeling a sadness for someone or something, or that they agree with the sentiment of the post that is expected to provoke sadness in others. Use of this emoticon in these scenarios is akin to "liking" yet again. Importantly this is clear, whereas, using it to disagree is unclear. This means when analytic data is gathered from marketing it can be used to indicate that there is a positive engagement for whatever interaction happened, regardless of the way it was used. So going through our list of 7 options, six of six so far really are likes. They would be used that way. Businesses, again, don't want to share data on dislikes.

Let's now consider the seventh option, which really is the last. You have to look through six options that are all akin to "like" before that one is seen. Sometimes its position in the list is forgotten. If one really disagrees with a post, or dislikes a post, even if not very strongly, it appears this is the only option available to use, to make it clear what one feels. But it is too strong. This means most will be disinclined to use "anger" except in very few circumstances. This means that if we analyze the use of the emoticons we would find that very few are expressing their natural disagreements or dislikes at all, and are rarely choosing "anger" as their way of expressing it. This means it gets chosen unoften. There would be a good balance between the uses of "like" and "dislike", meaning that the seventh option would be selected very often, and nearly as often as "like", if not more often. In order for the public to express their true feelings of dislike, they only have one option. They have six for "like" and one for "intense dislike". It should be obvious to the reader at this point that Facebook is simply controlling interactions to report "likes" for businesses.

While one can choose to provide information in comment boxes, this information is likely ignored largely for reporting purposes; or, if not ignored, reports concerning comments can simply be omitted from being used. This means both Facebook and Businesses can choose to share reporting information with others, including investors, that simply excludes comment data. Instead they share the larger amount of data including public selections of sentiment. It is important that when someone selects their option in the list of like and emoticons, they are directly choosing the sentiment themselves. This could be used to show that people who clicked really did feel the way they did when they clicked it.

This is very different than comment information. Comment information can be analyzed by sentiment analysis tools and AI. When I was working at Adobe Systems, responsible for selling their software and architecting solutions for partners and customers, there was a sentiment analysis tool that we offered. This tool, Adobe Social, would examine text from users and report the emotional summary of what was entered. It was intended to reach into all social media, but Facebook created a policy eventually that blocked it's ability to connect to their specific data. Facebook decided it did not want external software to scan it's comments. There may be many reasons for making this decision, but one reason of interest might be that they don't want to use that data anyways, because it could be used again, to report negative sentiments more accurately. Additionally, since users directly chose their sentiments themselves, this data is more valuable because there is less risk of a faulty tool falsely reporting sentiments. But more importantly it give Facebook more *control over the user* to ensure they can only select one of seven options in reporting sentiment. This means very likely that even though Facebook users can say anything they want in the comment fields, the preference would be to simply use what appears most positive in reporting. That would be the likes and emoticon entries selected by the users themselves, constrained to have only 7 options, 6 of which are likes only. This is attractive to businesses because their reporting would then only reflect positive interest. Comment data can be then ignored, and negative comments could be excluded, or considered uncertain because there is not an automated tool checking for sentiment in that way, by an external provider, that might not do it correctly, or in any case, would provide more negative information than would be wanted by businesses.

Imagine if negative comments were automatically scanned by AI to lower ratings of businesses on Yelp, Google, or other systems providing ratings. Businesses certainly would not want that. Instead they want more control over removing negative feedback, to keep a pristine image, even if that pristine image is a false one. Again, that's like wanting five star reviews, even if the buyers of the product or viewers of marketing have negative thoughts about it, and may have provided comments or data in writing that suggests they had negative experiences or dislike the offerings.

It is unfortunate that this type of marketing control carries over in Facebook to conversations. Because there are few ways to choose sentiment for control over data for businesses, there are few options for choosing genuine sentiments in relating to other people. People are unable to dislike as much as they do, and if they do choose to dislike, are prone to over exaggerate by selecting the "anger" sentiment.

There could be one additional very harmful side effect to this arrangement in the software. It could be that Facebook not only does not want reporting of negative sentiment, they may not want people on their platform who express negative feelings.

Another purpose of Adobe Social and other sentiment analysis tools is to scan for text that indicates problem people. This is not only used potentially in social media, but at work. It also uses social media to gain information about employees. An example I remember at work is that Human Resources at a company may want to know, or to validate, that an employee suddenly has a very negative mindset, or is harmful in various ways. They may use it as a kind of health check on employees. If an employee is identified using software to be erratic on social media, expressing too much anger or even hatred, the business may plan to contact the employee to do a "check up" of sorts. They may even choose to fire on the basis of poor information. This is part of brand protection. If an employee is suddenly expressing hate, or seems to be acting poorly online, even if not at work, they may seek to self-protect the business by firing the employee. It is unfortunate but this is really how companies are seeking to use sentiment analysis software. They've been doing this for a long time now too. It was about ten years ago that I was exposed to Adobe Social and it is anticipated that this technology has been greatly expanded by major software providers.

But companies working on marketing businesses want to show a polished and nearly perfect image of them, in order to ensure they want to continue doing business. They would not want to mine user interactions in writings of users to see if there is negative feelings. They wouldn't want to use that to impact their ratings. Again, they want to control their ratings to have a perfect image. In order to do that they would want to use Facebook reporting on *controlled sentiments*. This makes Facebook very desirable even though it controls the user in what they can input. Unfortunately there are huge social side effects to this since it is also desirable that the user has consistent interactions between businesses and other people on Facebook-- there would even be a desire to confuse users into using only positive interactions everywhere to ensure they continue to do so when they are also confused that they are commenting on an advertisement. Some have complained that Facebook has created a system in which postings from businesses excessively resemble postings from friends. I've often commented or clicked "like" to things that looked like they were shared by friends or acquaintances, only to notice afterwards that they were really postings shared by Facebook advertising for social influencers I don't know, and businesses and groups I did not ask to see. Oftentimes these are personalized so it looks like things I would sign up for, but instead Facebook Advertising is simply smart enough to show me things it knows I might be interested in from interactions elsewhere.

Returning to the point about not wanting folks on social media who are negative, consider if a Facebook user very often chooses the angry emoticon. They actually would be a negative impact on their business and reporting. Very likely Facebook would scan for users who use that emoticon and treat them differently, and potentially more frequently lock their accounts. Many have told me about "Facebook Jail", which is simply a temporarily disabled Facebook account due to bad behavior. I have not ever been in Facebook Jail, or had my Facebook account locked, due to bad interactions. Overwhelmingly my reactions and communications on Facebook are positive, and that may be a reason I've never experienced this personally. I post extremely often and have had many disagreements, yet I have not ever been targeted as someone to have their account temporarily locked. It could be that those who have been locked out of their accounts exhibited unwanted behavior enough times with angry reactions that they are desirable for purging.

Consider if businesses could choose to have anyone who would rate their companies low removed from social media platforms, such that their ratings remained high?

Since Facebook already eliminated what is needed to balance liking with disliking, which is as frequent a sentiment if not more frequent, it isn't absurd to think they would take actions to lock or eliminate unwanted users damaging their advertising revenue.

Before concluding, let's consider the importance of the minimal selection of sentiment related options provided for disliking, versus liking postings. If Facebook wanted to provide you with an opportunity to share yourself truthfully, they would provide a means for you to share your sentiments accurately, whatever they are. If six of seven sentiments provided are equivalent to liking, correcting that issue would require at least five more sentiments equivalent to disliking. Wouldn't that seem like a dramatic change on Facebook? It would greatly change the experience. But it would also greatly increase the truth of the sentiments everyone can provide in their postings that they hope reflect their minds. Users really do want to be able to provide negative-ish feedback and ratings. What is the use of a rating system for businesses if one cannot state what one's less satisfactory experiences were, in a way that the businesses would have to deal with?Since this action has not been taken, to provide a way to give true sentiments, one's feelings are skewed. This has impacted millions of users of Facebook-- all users in fact.

All users of Facebook have been skewed in all that they've done!

To conclude, it appears that Facebook has been able to increase its profits by providing businesses protection from negative feedback. This protection utilizes a sentiment gathering tool, that is the same tool used for regular communication. This communication crosses into normal discourse and private conversations with family, friends, and acquaintances on their messenger application. This application is touted as a kind of replacement for telephone and text messaging functionality on cell phones. Many rely on it. Many have private conversations on it. Their conversations and special messages were skewed towards the positive artificially, simply to train the users to use the same methods as they talk with businesses. Their communication then is on a business-driven pathway, not a personal pathway.

It has made all communication on Facebook falser and more dishonest. It has created a situation in which all the history of communication on Facebook between regular people is less true. Minds on Facebook were steered to falsity and fake sentiments.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="changing-and-partly-disusing-the-phrase-i-am">Changing and Partly Disusing the Phrase "I am"</a>

*Monday, November 20<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:56pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="brain-dividedness-as-an-outcome-of-non-synonymous-multilingualism">Brain Dividedness as an Outcome of Non-Synonymous Multilingualism</a>

*Monday, November 20<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:31pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-need-to-finally-understand-whale-and-dolphin-brains">The Need to Finally Understand Whale and Dolphin Brains</a>

*Monday, November 20<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:31pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*To Add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="updates-to-the-solution-regarding-wetness-in-the-field-study-on-homelessness-and-wealthy-camping">Updates to the Solution Regarding Wetness in the Field Study on Homelessness and Wealthy Camping</a>

*Monday, November 20<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:31pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

Following the prior notes regarding solutioning for camp wetness, the following was completed:

- A new white sheet set was purchased for some cents over $10.
  - The white sheet provides fabric to keep things in the interior space of the bag dry by drawing some of the excess moisture.
  - The white sheet makes for a very luxurious drop cloth for the beach. The secondary fitted sheet covers the sleeping bag well, making the beach experience appear more plainly normal. Both are white and again, creates an appearance of luxury approaching what is used by the resorts for their lawn chairs. It is more luxuriousu than what is normally used by beach goers, so the appearance not only is regular, making it appear not a camping experience, it creates an appearance of status and familiarity with beach-going.
  - The white sheet was noticed to be something useful to escaping periodic quick downpours. All loose possessions on the beach can be scooped up into the sheet if there is not enough time to repack everything in the waterproof bag.
  - It was noticed the white sheet can be used in conjunction with tent poles to create a sun shade that would be attractive and within the expected range of designs that would fit into the beaches theme.
  - The sheets can also double as a cover to one's clothing when one is in the rain, wearing a poncho. This would protect clothing and undergarments from saturation.
  - Being thin, the sheets are expected to dry fairly rapidly in the sun and should not require frequent cleaning.
  - Since the author lived in Miami Beach and used the sheet method earlier for laying on the beach, instead of using towels, it is known that there is little or no need for cleaning even after repetitive usage and easy access to laundry in one's home.
- The sleeping bag was recovered along with the wet clothes from stash, and dried in a dryer, in preference for the pathway to dry sooner.
  - Cost to dry was only one dollar and fifty cents, and not eight dollars. It was decided to test only drying the wet, sandy, and somewhat stinky laundry, to see if the outcome was good enough. The funds allowed for 30 minutes of drying in the industrial dryer. All was nearly completely clean, excepting some down in the sleeping bag above the head. The laundry did not smell after drying, and retained some scent resembling chocolate or cocoa butter from someone's laundry earlier. All sand was immediately collected by the dryer, except some in the interior of the sleeping bag. The sleeping bag was then pulled inside out, and the remaining san again immediately was collected by the dryer. It appears from this that the value of washing the wet clothes is greatly diminished. The clothing is nearly as clean as if it were washed. Savings off the estimated amount to spend was $6.50. This implies that drying alone may be enough to reduce additional costs for keeping clothing clean. It appears good dry cleaning exists running clothes in the dryer only.
  - Performance of the sleeping bag was extremely good on a two night usage. Sleeping in it felt luxurious on the beach, and was warm and dry, despite having some lingering wetness to some small amount of down in the head area.  

From the experience of using these solutions for two days it appears the strategy for remaining completely dry is nearly complete. It was noticed that the poncho material, however, is still inadequate for rain protection, since it does not provide enough material. It is adequate for the upper body but could not be used as a cover for the sleeping bag. It was considered that an additional poncho costing roughly two dollars may completely cover remaining needs, but if not, additional plastic material will be obtained to cover any remaining unprotected areas needing it. The feet are to be covered with simple bags tied above the ankle as was done when the author was a child. This is expected to provide adequate dryness to shoes and feet, and there are additional socks in case any wetness penetrates the bags. Additionally, it was considered that the shoes and socks can simply be removed for a period of intense downpour to briefly escape any risk of getting shoes and socks wet. Shoe wetness is especially important to avoid, so this requires additional consideration and testing for feasibility.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="you-are-an-organism-and-you-have-organelles">You are an organism, and you have organelles</a>

*Saturday, November 18<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>13:05pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*To add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="religion-as-the-slowest-education-pathway-with-the-least-iterations">Religion as the slowest education pathway with the least iterations</a>

*Saturday, November 18<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>13:05pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*To add*


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="plans-for-resolving-some-specific-aforementioned-homelessness-and-wealthy-camping-issues">Plans for resolving some specific aforementioned homelessness and wealthy camping issues</a>

*Saturday, November 18<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>13:05pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

The primary areas of immediate interest for resolution relate to clothing and controlling for wetness and cleanliness in a shortage. Currently I have two pairs of shorts, two t-shirts, one hoodie, a sleeping bag, 7 pairs of socks, and a sleeping bag. One t-shirt, one pair of shorts, the sleeping bag, and 5 pairs of socks are saturated and dirty, and are accumulating stench, at the early stages, being bag kept.

Objectives:

- Reduce laundromat needs. While using washers and dryers is inexpensive and effective, the repeat use of these will quickly dwindle funds for a homeless person.
  - Reduction of laundromat needs is consistent with a strategy that:
    - reduces wetness, primarily.
    - utilizes other dry methods of cleaning, and methods of controling for odors.
    - utilizes alternative methods for drying, like sun drying.
  - Issues:
     - sun drying in a popular area, may signal homelessness and appear unusual. 
     - sun drying requires considerable time to remain with the clothes being dried.
     - sun drying for the author/researcher has an unknown duration, having limited experience doing that in the Miami Beach area, where plenty of sunshine exists, but humidity also diminishes the rate of evaportation.

- Make wetness an impossibility in all conditions, with free plastics and fabrics already in possession.
  - wetness appears to occur even if waterproofing and water resistance exists, so condensation and seeping through permeable walls needs controls perhaps with an absorbant textile.

- Guaranteed warmth even without a sleeping bag.
  - Currently the author/researcher has a sleeping bag of wealthy quality, from REI, made of goose down with a semi weather-resistant shell.
    - It was demonstrated that the sleeping bag will become totally saturated if exposed to shower.
    - The sleeping bag is currently at risk of being stolen or lost, because it is stashed. It was stashed after saturation, when a focus existed to get out of the rain.
    - The sleeping bag can be damaged, lost, stolen, or otherwise made unavailable. The sleeping bag is identified as too important for managing warmth. An alternative path with free materials is desirable to manage the warmth instead.
    - Miami has a warm climate, even in rainy conditions, although risks to temperature management is known to exist when rain continues, and wetness may occur. So there is a diminished need to maintain warmth, which may create potential solutions for using less insulating free materials as a substitute for the more reliable sleeping bag.

Priorities

Of the above, plainly, making wetness an impossibility appears to solve all the issues of concern. Until there was an adverse event of wetness, there was no perceived issue maintaining homelessness at all, in the Miami Beach environment. Dirtiness of clothing and the sleeping bag was due only to the wetness. The inability of the clothes to be dried immediately is what resulted in storage in bags, without air transfer, resulting in their becoming increasingly smellier. Before that, clothes could be worn for seemingly indefinite periods without any need for cleaning. This implies laundromats only come to mind in this context once wetness has ocurred.

The wetness then is primary. Now that clothing availability was halved, specifically due to the saturation, there is increased risk to well-being, because any additional wetness would create a funding requirement to buy more clothes quickly. Particularly since no method for immediately finding suitable replacement clothing for free, with good appearance, has been identified.

Since the clothing *has been saturated* there is an immediate need to clean and dry them and the sleeping bag. However, skies are cloudy. Weather indicates low chance of extended showers for approximately one week. Reports are changing increasing the probability of showers, showing earlier entirely clear skies, and recently changing, to show partly cloudy skies, with a ten percent chance of rain every day for the week. At the end of the week, showers are expected.

Right now, it is unwanted to use funds for laundry. So I must examine options.

Don't utilize a laundromat.

- There is a small risk of wetness to clothing currently worn without any backup at all.
- Prior exposure to wetness was unexpected and unplanned for. But for the period in which it was unplanned for prior to the rain experienced, there was no cares or concerns about wetness. There was no concern about inadequacy of clothing, although periodically it is remembered, that risks of getting dirty from foodor unknown source of staining, would require switching clothes.
- The period of time needed to wait for clothes to dry may be long, because the skies are not sunny, and the humidity is higher, and waiting alongside possessions in the open to dry may take far too long.
- It appears there is no immediate need, but the lingering issue of having increasingly dirty wet clothes and possessions is cause for worry and annoyance. The task remains incomplete and is totally necessary.
- Not using the laundromat would save approximately 8 dollars, estimating without knowing the actual cost of specific machines at local laundry facilities.
- zero dollar expenditure if this path is used.

Utilize a laundromat.

- Immediately and totally dry clothing and sleeping bag.
- Cost is 8 dollars, unrecoverable.
- Expected outcome, however, is that it will never happen again.
- Leaning towards this as the solution for the current condition, because it may be permanently solved, resolving any need for laundry in the future, because now there is also sufficient planning and training.

What is the larger cost of an 8 dollar deduction?

That is a question for later consideration.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="backup-tasks">Backup Tasks</a>

*Friday, November 17<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>17:19pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

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

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="problem-solving-issues-of-interested-related-to-the-study-of-homelessness-and-wealthy-camping">Problem solving issues of interested related to the study of homelessness and wealthy calmping</a>

*Friday, November 17<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:43pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

In the ongoing study on the relationships between homelessness and wealthy camping, I've identified some areas of interest for further examination. Without a resolution to some of these issues, total comfort even for the wealthy homeless, those studying homelessness with experiential field work, those taking camping extremely seriously in order to attain maximal mastery, and the homeless themselves, would not be entirely possible. The level of comfort I'm working towards is normal comfort. The same level of comfort that would exist in a normal mode of living, which is simply that style of living that includes a normal home dwelling, normal financial status, and a normal level of access to assets and various public services. Also is the normal level of access to electronics, electronic charge, batteries, and so on. Also is the normal level of appearance and health, which requires clothing and shoes that have a good appearance.

The following issues must be solved:

- Elimination of wetness, and finding easy and fast methods of drying.
- Methods of obtaining new clothing quickly, that has a good appearance.
- Identification of plants that are forageable, when there is an absence of foods available, and for increasing the diversity of diet for periods in which only the least expensive foods are consumed, like oats and flour.
- Increasing of the comfort of doing nothing at all for extended periods of time, in all climate conditions.
- Temperature management for all weather conditions, particularly for those climates that are already more suitable for homeless living: those that are already warmer and drier.
- Perpetuation of drinking water access.
- Perpetuation of basic food access even without any funds.
- Living without any shelter, utilizing bushes, overhangs, sleeping bags, bags that keep dryness, plastic materials for shielding rain, etc...
- Strategy for ensuring wifi access exists.
- Strategy for ensuring computing devices are available.
- Strategy for obtaining fast employment. If too slow, starvation or excess risk to being criminalized would exist.

Solving of the above issues would result in
- Perpetual basic food access with diversity of nutrition.
- Perpetuation of basic water access.
- Elimination of the need of any kind of shelter whatsoever.
- Ability to work.
- A calculation of earning capacity through requests for donations.

Some items above may be less essential than others. For example, it might not be necessary to find employment. For some employment is impossible, so the plan must include a strategy for living well without employment.

It appears requests for donations is potentially totally required, if one is to avoid engaging in theft. However, it may be that free food sources that exist utilizing scavenging may still be sufficient to cover most needs that are funding related.

For the present conditions in the study, defense against weather seems most important. The study is now taking place at Miami Beach, Florida, a former place of residence of the author. Conditions in Miami Beach are very optimal for homelessness. Comfort is often easily achievable. However, if it rains for an extended period, quickly temperatures are decreased and ability to remain dry is made difficult. Waiting through long rainy periods while businesses are closed creates long periods of waiting, with diminished access to resources. Recently the author had an unplanned experience having many possessions flooded. This was due to lack of planning and unexpected change of weather during sleep. Risks to the homeless do include decision making mistakes and mistakes due to lack of training. This means solutions for the homeless would need to include training for strong proficiency of self-management during the entire range of potential conditions faced, and this training would be not unlike the training gained by those who join the military forces, who become field practitioners.

It is very likely that the most adept homeless people would include those who were in the military and received training already.

Homeless simulating wealthy campers would be at more risk of disaster in unexpected circumstances. These travelers may have satellite devices that are popular nowadays that include an option for SOS, or signaling for help if there is an emergency. The homeless do not typically have this and would need to begin to ask for assistance if there are issues. It is already known that issues and complications in the outback areas, forests, remote territories, and so on, would create situations in which emergency response would be supportive or necessary. Pilots are aware of this and so are seamen. It doesn't appear that anyone who has received training in any of the areas in which emergency conditions are sought to be avoided with planning expect to have so much planning that emergency could not occur. So it appears there is another fundamental need of the homeless, to have very clear emergency assistance pathways that do not create additional risks.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="warfare-census-and-demographics">Warfare Census and Demographics</a>

*Prepared: Tuesday, November 14<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>~1:40pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



## <a name="falsifications-and-infeasibilities-of-historical-methodology-and-practice">Falsifications and Infeasibilities of Histocial Methodology and Practice</a>

*Prepared: Tuesday, November 14<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>1:40pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="wealthy-and-luxuriant-beach-camping">Wealthy and Luxuriant Beach Camping</a>

*Prepared: Tuesday, November 14<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>1:40pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="aimless-behavior-and-work-labor">Aimless Behavior and Work-Labor</a>

*Prepared: Tuesday, November 14<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>1:37pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="broadening-synonyms-of-anti-prejudice">Broadening Synonyms of Anti-Prejudice</a>

*Prepared: Monday, November 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>8:14pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="common-retirement-struggles-part-i">Common Retirement Struggles, Part I</a>

*Prepared: Monday, November 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:36pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="reinterpreting-the-role-of-normalcy-in-morality-and-the-relationship-to-determinism">Reinterpreting the Role of Normalcy in Morality, and the Relationship to Determinism</a>

*Prepared: Monday, November 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:45pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="stock-in-nations-and-single-combined-retirement-and-basic-income-accounts">Stock in Nations and Single Combined Retirement and Basic Income Accounts</a>

*Prepared: Monday, November 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:19pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-full-extent-of-marketing-practices-and-making-it-identical-with-education">The Full Extent of Marketing Practices and Making It Identical with Education</a>

*Prepared: Monday, November 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:19pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="pulic-blood-storage-and-replacement-stations">Public Blood Storage and Replacement Stations</a>

*Prepared: Monday, November 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:15pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To Add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="oblivion-in-the-afterlife-as-contrary-to-equality-and-being-aligned-with-hate">Oblivion in the Afterlife as Contrary to Equality, and Being Aligned with Hate</a>

*Saturday, November 11<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:47pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

The duration of our lives is well understood. We know well we will live anytime from conception to approximately 130 years as a maximum. Most will die between the ages of 60 and 90 years old. But that is *not* what we are told is the true duration of our lives, if we are religious. If we are religious, we are told additionally we have forever.

Taking the duration of our lives that we know we have, to be a fraction over forever, the current life is really nearly nothing. As time goes on, it becomes negligible, nearly nothing. Consider after one million years, our life over the afterlife might be:

75/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000... years

Equality hasn't been established in our current life. But if the afterlife is taken from other groups, we are saying they are more unequal than people may have considered. Those with the afterlife have everything, people without have nothing.

Saying other cultures and groups are not going to make it to "heaven", are not going to have an afterlife, are not going to have a *continued life* of that length, really means all they get is that fractional amount, that is nearly nothing. Everyone else has a continuing durable life that goes on forever.

By claiming that a group is a "chosen people", or a "select few", who will make it to the afterlife, while everyone does not, is a real genocide, if the afterlife is real. Everyone dies, but the few keep living. It is worse than merely shortening life from 75 years to 40 years and younger for a large group, or exterminating a group. They then only lost some few number of years. But by saying that all but a select few will have an oblivion at about 75 years old, they lost:

999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,965... years. Plus forever.

The afterlife might then be considered a form of hatred. It is *exclusive* in each religion. Everyone who is not in the select few are purged. They have oblivion. Nobody else dies!

Our current systems of religion are immoral. They do not really support equality, if they really believe in the afterlife the way they say they do. Cultures and peoples and religions simply cannot have the same rewards, if some are said to have oblivion approaching as something deserved.

It is strange that people could have believed in cultural and religious equality *without discrimination*(!), if they believe that some live forever, while everyone else does not.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="introduction-to-mensa-sweden-under-the-gaming-theme">Introduction to Mensa Sweden Under the Gaming Theme</a>

*Prpared: Friday, November 10<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:21pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To add

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="color-palettes-for-social-justice-comfort">Color Palettes for Social Justice-Comfort</a>

*Prpared: Friday, November 10<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:10pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*to add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="every-animal-is-deformed-already">Every animal is deformed already</a>

*Prpared: Friday, November 10<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:50am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*to add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="cloud-surfaced-earth-hypothesis">Cloud Surfaced Earth Hypothesis</a>

*Prpared: Friday, November 10<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:50am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

*to add*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="on-partial-self-marketing-removing-propaganda">On Partial Self-Marketing Removing Propaganda</a>

*Tuesday, November 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:57pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

To what extent does anyone posting on social media have to become like a marketer to be heard.

On Instagram, TikTok and so on, it seems influencers and posters gravitate to becoming a sort of "false excitement" type to gain influence.

I don't want to excessively fault this behavior. Instead, I'm curious here what is necessary to have attention. 

How does this support folks here? Well, those who are very intelligent might have a distaste for advertising and marketing, since there is a convergence of false enthusiasm and false messaging. People here might want intellectual conversation and may want to present messages that are of good quality and length, well delivered, without a propagandist methodology.

This relates somewhat to my earlier video post here. If one becomes a marketer of sorts with one's personal messaging, one may begin to decline one's communications. Quality goes down, becomes less reflective of intelligence. It becomes more reflective of working towards popularity. Popularity including with those who might not understand the full messages from one's mind.

I've decided in my Book and Journal, and postings to various locations, not to follow this path in self-marketing. I'm a supporter of the idea that one can self-market, and should, in order to find a good career pathway. I've been successful at that.

Beyond normal career pathways, if one is wanting attention, on the media and in social technologies, one works differently. One becomes more interested in doing something that will catch attention with excitement. Perhaps with tricks, teasers, and underdelivery. Pretending to be bigger than one really is. Pretending to have a quality of life and intellect that is less than it is. Pretending to have something more to teach than one really has.

Instead of this, I want to have conversations. Occasionally, I'll exhibit my lifestyle and current thoughts, like a normal logger. But what I don't want to do is start to share my life in a way that is becoming increasingly more like a false media personality. Or an advertiser wanting attention and other related things in return, like money, without providing anything of durable interest.

Instead I'd like to just keep working steadily on providing value. I want it to be consistent with my mindset and manner of thinking.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="software-tasks">Software Tasks</a>

*Monday, November 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:43pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

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

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="study-of-ones-symptoms-as-knowledgeable-symptomology">Study of One's Symptoms as Knowledgeable Symptomology</a>

- *Monday, November 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:41pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>
- *Post Prepared: Monday, November 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:25pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

Even the very smallest sensations can be classified as symptoms. What is your digestive tract doing, as a result of the foods you were recently eating, over the last few days? If your digestion is uncomfortable, that is a sensation that might be considered a symptom of what was eaten in conjunction with the state of your digestive system and related organs. If your digestion is more comfortable than usual, you may have more pleasant feelings in your digestive tract. Maybe you feel emptier and lighter than usual, and perhaps you feel as though an upcoming movement will be easy. You may know what you ate and perhaps you deliberately chose your foods to have a better digestive experience. In this case, again, you experience sensations that reflect the state of your system, that could be considered symptoms relating to the combination of your digestive processes and your eating.

Even your thought may be considered part of the symptomology of sensations. We need not call thinking sensations, but we can see the interrelationship easily. If one ate well, had good feelings in the digestive tract, and then experienced some happiness at one's choice, one's positive mood and temporary elatedness or comfort, then those feelings, thoughts and experience too fit into the symptomology.

In Psychology symptoms are mental. In Physiology, they are more generally biological. Physiological symptoms, or all symptoms of any kind, are sensations that relate to a combination of situation and bodily state, and choices about how one conducts one's life. This includes decisions about how one conducts oneself in feeding behavior. What is eaten and when, and how that fits with one's knowledge of one's own physiological system.

Even digestion is a part of moral planning. If one eats and lives well, has positive digestive sensations often, or very frequently, one knows this improves happiness, confidence, well-being, and long term health. These influence how one performs in athletics, work, and longevity. Longevity is connected some think with excellences in how one has lived, although it is known that that is not necessarily all it's about. However, if one is planning for good health with reasonable longevity, one can take better care of family, friends, and has opportunity to provide mentorship later in life to others as a teacher and elder.

If one's digestive system deteriorates, then one will surface new sensations. These sensations may include some that are interesting and mildly desirable. Some sensations may be negative, and more connected with what one would expect from a medical condition or ailment. Both positive and negative or wanted and unwanted sensations come along with various conditions and diseases. It would be a mistake to think conditions do not offer opportunities for self-examination sometimes, and learning creates the chance for expanded self-knowledge and potentially better health in the future. One sometimes learns to have a better diet after learning that a health pathway resulted in a real diagnosable condition came to exist. It certainly had some negative and positive sensations associated. The full combination of results that one notices from one's experience would figure into a comprehensive symptomology of human experience.

I wanted this posting to not only be about encapsulating experience in symptoms, understood as sensations, but to communicate an additional message about the usefulness of this perspective in medical history.

Currently doctors collect and record information in such a way that they may be expecting and anticipating language about sensations that are closer to diagnostics. They may not be using the word sensation. Instead they may be asking about your experience with a readiness to classify them already as negative symptoms. If you talk to a Psychologist, they may already be lead by their industry to hear for dysfunction. Perhaps you are having experiences and sensations related to sleep experience. While you tell them your experiences, you might both be ready to conclude something like "It appears you are depressed." Instead, I think it is possible to let a doctor know that whatever is discussed is mixed between positive and negative. It includes positive sensations and negative ones. If one is accurate, one merely relays one's experience without concluding anything as to even symptoms. This article states that a total symptomology could be considered more detailed if it focuses more specifically on sensations. However, the medical profession has not adopted this point of view. Within this view there are positive and negative symptoms. Within the medical profession, this is not what is expected. So here what I'm saying is that until that time, it may be better for people to let doctors know that they are not talking about symptoms but positive and negative sensations, with less immediate interpretation in relation to conditions and diseases.

Doctors are the creators of medical records usually. You arrive at the doctor's office, they interview you and look you over. You talk. The doctor quickly writes things down. These things written are in the language expected by the medical profession and that language may not support your long term interests. Sometimes, they may fail to translate your speaking accurately. They may even record your experiences as symptoms. They may build a case that something is wrong with you when there is not anything wrong at all. So doctors, being the recorders of your medical history, do so in a way that doesn't necessarily include your written input, may include expectations built into the medical industry, and may go into permanent medical and personal history with erroneous information or assumptions.

It seems thinking about this that one might want more control on what gets recorded. I have not experimented with this yet personally, but it may be possible to bring in writing that would go into the medical history on arrival. Write the experiences down, and ensure that those writings are gathered along and filed with anything that is written down. Medical data input into systems is also out of your control. You may want your medical records after a visit, so you can confirm that their entered data includes your writings that you brought along. Also, you may have opportunity to review the doctor's notes. They are yours and you paid for them. You have the chance to explain miscommunications and make corrections. If they don't accept your reading of their documents with a readiness to alter and correct them, they almost certainly are not operating in your interests. In that case they merely want to control your medical history without receiving your input, even if there are errors. The preservation and enforcement of retaining errors in medical records is not consistent with oaths and vows of medical professionals to never do you harm.

It is your living history in your medical records. Here it is suggested that perhaps it is more in your control than might be anticipated. Here it is also suggested that what you share can be both positive and negative intermixed, concerning your sensations. With a sophisticated view about human symptomology, you may be able to dodge the false or erroneous recording of information and symptoms you don't have, that could lead to independent diagnosis that is incorrect.

The cause of my thinking and recording this information was a recent conversation with myself about sensations. I noticed that sensations are symptoms, and that they cover all experience one might have that is wanted or unwanted. Seeing that symptomology has a diagnostic focus, from my learnings in college, in the field of Psychology and Biology, and some medicine, I noticed how it might be helpful for everyday doctor visits that everyone has. I hope this has been helpful to expand potentially the idea of symptoms to sensations and thinking, to perhaps broaden our ideas about symptomology that may allow us to have more accurate, rewarding, and self-protected experiences with doctors. It may help us better self-examine and understand ourselves too.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-replacement-of-pascals-wager-is-easy">The Replacement of Pascal's False Wager is Easy</a>

*Sunday, November 5<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:01pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

People remember "Pascal's Wager" and use it again and again, thinking it authoritative. However, it is foolish, old, and meant to confuse and manipulate. People simply remember it, and keep pretending they can use it as an authority of sorts. There is no such authoritativeness. That it can be recollected so easily is really a kind of halt on civilization.

The replacement is basic. Firstly, people simply decide yes/no regarding the afterlife. They use no probabilities at all. However, probabilities could be used, to demonstrate they are unavailable for a reason. First I will share the main decision tree without probabilistic thinking. Then I will share the decision tree with probabilistic thinking. You have to add in the probabilities, doing work. Probabilities don't require no work at all. You must actually find the probability, or estimate it using evidence, and then use it. But really, the way people actually do this is they've chosen 'yes/no' already.

What you do or not after selecting one path or the other revels few action options. If the afterlife is true, you choose it, and do whatever it takes. Otherwise you are a fool. If the afterlife is false, and you choose it, you are a fool, doing whatever it takes to secure nothing. If you choose against it, you wisely have a true life.

The truth is not optional.

*Yes/No Decision Tree, and Outcomes*

- There is an afterlife.
  - Choose true: do whatever it takes to have the afterlife.
  - Choose false: don't do enough and fail to have an afterlife.
- There is not an afterlife. 
  - Choose true: live life as if it's all you have wisely.
  - Choose false: do whatever it takes for an afterlife that doesn't exist, live falsely. 

That's really done.

*Probabilistic Decision Tree*

- There is an afterlife = 100
  - Choose true: do whatever it takes to have the afterlife.
  - Choose false: don't do enough and fail to have an afterlife.
- There is not an afterlife = 0 
  - Choose true: live life as if it's all you have wisely.
  - Choose false: do whatever it takes for an afterlife that doesn't exist, live falsely. 

Now some think there might be a probability of the afterlife, so let's do one more:

*Probabilistic Decision Tree*

- There is an afterlife = 50%
  - Choose true: take it totally seriously and do whatever is required to secure it?
  - Choose false: fill in with another probability, then decide.
- There is not an afterlife = 50% 
  - Choose true: live life as if there is not an afterlife, trying to be true to that?
  - Choose false: fill in with another probability, then decide.

The tricky part is what to do if you think there are probabilities to fill in. Afterlives in the religion are said to be hard to have. This means you may need to allocate a lot of time/effort to securing the afterlife, doing all that is necessary to have it, only on a 50% probability, if that's what you think it is. This may explain why people pretend there is an afterlife for sure and do very little, while thinking they should life life "to the fullest" without becoming preists, monks, nuns and so on.

I would be interesting in how people can say exactly how they know already how to behave with different percentiles filled in.

Hypothesis: they don't know.

Hypothesis: true human behavior is really more like the first decision tree, they just suffer uncertainty.

It appears to me the correct pathway is number one. I assign a zero probability to the afterlife, understanding the fictionality of it. I assign a 100% probability to having no afterlife. Thus it becomes a simple decision with a true/false pathway. The best options are the first pathways in that decision tree.

Other variants of this could be created but I'm confident results are the same.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-idea-of-lobbing-in-business-and-intelligence">The Idea of Lobbing in Business and Intelligence</a>

*Sunday, November 5<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:46pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

In business, there is a concept called "lobbing". "Lobbing" happens when a person, or group in a business, identifies a task that can easily be performed and simply passes it to another person or group, instead of doing it. When this happens, one might think "Who can do this task I or we don't want to do myself or ourselves? Who else can have responsibility for it? Who can be accountable for this instead of me or us?" The recipient often sees this clearly, but sometimes, the work is simply performed and completed. It was someone else's work.

It's like someone "lobbed" a hand grenade to someone else or another group. If not a hand-grenade, a ball or some object. It is metaphorical of course. Minimal effort is carried out and it is simply "chucked" to the other group or person.

I'd like to extend or play with this concept a bit further and use it for things it isn't strictly normally used for. Let's use this term in social media. It doesn't really fit the original usage, but has the laziness of "lobbing" I like. It also has the "take-creditness of it". It also has the pretense of having done the work by delegating, using someone else, and doing minimal effort to get some special perceived reward.

In business what gets lobbed might be something like an idea that one will take credit for later. You can pretend you delegated it if you lob it over. So now an idea or task was carried out, that you can even pretend you or your group "thought of first".

There are some in the high intelligence social communities who do little more than lob. They don't share there thoughts that are really their own. They don't use their own words. They don't do their own research. But again and again, they'll lob memes, they'll lob the research of others, and they'll lob questions to groups. They'll mine answers. They'll use people in the group and pretend they are "members" somehow. The person who made the lob takes credits for the thoughts of high quality thinkers. Often it is unclear if they are good thinkers themselves. They use the writings and thoughts of others and present them as their own.

This is so common, one might really get confused and think that these "lobbists" really are as intelligent as they portray themselves to be. They'll pretend the thoughts and findings of others, and memes, are like the thoughts that go through their own minds. But being poor at expressing their unique thoughts, rarely doing so, they haven't communicated their own thoughts. They lobbed over, or "chucked" into the group, something from someone else, or some other group. They do it again and again. Sometimes if one wants to see the thoughts of the person or people doing this, you cannot find them.

I wrote about the need to demonstrate one's own work and actual thought with productions. I did a long interview concerning the detection of giftedness in communication. If one has intelligent thinking, independent communication in one's own mind is happening, at high velocity of creativity and significance. If that thinking is real, communication pathways people have, will express the same kind of thinking. If instead, the people lob thoughts of others, they really are potentially scam artists. The writing below is an interview about this topic in which it is discussed the detection of high intelligence scam artists. One red-flag to be used in the detection, is impoverished unique communication, evidenced extensively in lobbing. Uniform lobbing is a sign of fraud.

[http://www.mattanaw.org/velocity-of-significance-and-ideation.html](http://www.mattanaw.org/velocity-of-significance-and-ideation.html)

One might think that this might not be true, but then only one forgets one's work life. If one at work is really only stealing, only lobbing, and never exhibiting talents and thoughts that supposedly are of a quality that they claim exists in their heads, they are doing fraud at work. If you haven't experienced this, that is a point of confusion to me. It would also indicate, you aren't aware that this happens.

In these communities, I will continue to use the word "lob". You're a "lobb artist" might be something that I'll state, from time to time. Trolls are not the only issues in groups. These frauds that just keep lobbing are pretending to be intelligent very likely. The frequency of lobs is under consideration. Sometimes people will of course share memes and thoughts of others. When a pattern of behavior is evident, it appears fraud is possible. They plagiarize and seldom do anything that's their own.

Obviously I could be targeted for the same, and expect it. But an important issue is that I've shared enough that it is obvious that I'm immune to this. I hope others immunify themselves as well, with honest and genuine, original thinking.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="naturalistic-description-of-attention">Naturalistic Description of Attention</a>
  
- *Monday, October 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>3:24pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>
- *Entry prepared, writing not yet started: Friday, October 20<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:03pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>


An area of Moral Philosophy that I've spent quite a lot of time over the years developing is the management of attention. I've written much on this topic, and have worked hard on developing my own attention, with considerable success. However, I noticed I have not spent much time writing a naturalistic description of normal attention in human beings.

It is clear to me, particularly observing differences between myself and others, having undergone already considerable development, that such a treatment does not exist and has not been made available to people, so that they can see what normal attention consists of, and how they might want to control it in various ways in order to improve their own behavior. Improvement of behavior relates to truly embodying moral and religious characteristics, and not only speaking about them. Education relates to self-training, and people certainly can and do improve themselves often, but that improvement does not have the scope or specificity of the kind of self alteration at the psychological level that I'm speaking about.

This is not a long posting like some others I've been sharing. Instead of going into various areas of needs for a description of natural attention, I'll list some areas in which we are certainly impoverished for not having this work, and the work I've been preparing for several decades.

One: What is natural sexual attention and its relationships to relationships and their maintenance and need for dissolving?

Think of how relationships can live and die due to attention? And that there is little guidance.

Two: Attention as it relates to "tells" or "social cues" about how one thinks and behaves for real, and privacy.

Three: Attention as it relates to self-organization, and efforts to more globally improve one's life.

Here, I can point the reader to a special work of mine, of data collections on my own attention and behavior over the years. Follow the link below to my binder of personal data, and look particularly at how it expanded until the end. It was very well developed at the end.

http://www.mattanaw.com/complete-16102019-personal-forms-all-christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-mattanaw.pdf

This is a large document and takes some time to download, but is worth it. Let me know if you have trouble with it and I can find an alternative way to send it. Image scans can also be seen in the last section of this page:

http://www.mattanaw.com/mattanaws-personal-form.html

A primary finding was that hard work is required to track the categories of living. This relates to how we manage and organize our attention. Much is omitted from these data forms because of the time to fill them out. But beyond this, there is limited amount of thinking time in the day. An implication is that we have not trained our attention fully to scan our lives in the various categories to really develop them all in parallel. If you think I'm incorrect, consider if people are able to maintain their athletics over the years, jointly with family management, relationship management, work, financial management, health, nutrition, skills for cooking, resting, meditating, etc... You'll see that they are universally not uniformly well-developed in combination. Instead people seem to be able to focus on a few categories and not them all. Believe it or not, that is due to limitations on attention, and inability to develop attention and time management further, in a way that results in efficiencies and motivations that ensures parallel development of all life categories. 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="thinking-of-me-as-a-very-old-person-is-appropriate">Thinking of me as a very old person is appropriate</a>
  
- *Thursday, October 26<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>~4:00pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>
- *Tuesday, October 24<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:24pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>
- *Entry prepared, not yet started: Monday, October 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:20pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

In the High Intelligence Community, and in psychometrics, some still discuss the origins of IQ and it's original meaning that is the cause for the abbreviation, relating to "Inteligence Quotient". That quotient is no longer used, but still, we have the lingering history of meaning built into the acronym IQ, that really does still stand for that same phrase.

In the phrase "Intelligence Quotient" is the word "Quotient", which one would recognize from school years as implying division, and fractions. The original quotient related to one's mental age, versus one's actual age. The actual nomenclature was "Mental age over Chronological Age". The idea was that, if measing children in particular for giftedness, one would consider where there mind seems to fit in relation to their peers at different ages. Precocious children seem much more like older children in various ways relating to their mental abilities, although any parent or educator will tell you, they still are children of their own age in many important ways. But the idea is still useful and interesting for detecting which children might be especially gifted, as certain mental abilities are unlocked earlier, likening them more to older peers than children their own age. Various causes for separation from other children come to exist. They are too unlike children their age and very similar to children older than them. They are somewhat at risk of children their own age, and somewhat at risk *to* children their age.

When I was a child, I too was identified as being gifted, and was briefly raised a grade level. Behaviorally, though, in many ways, I liked to play and sport with peers very close in age. Sporting does not call for being elevated in grade level. Instead, for youths, one wants to play sports with those who are physically more equivalent, or physically unfairnesses come to exist. While I excelled at sports, in retrospect I wonder how much my comparative abilities related to actual physical talents. I had them, but I think perhaps mental abilities came to the fore there too, making it possible to excel with less perhaps. I state this without diminishing too much my physical gifts, because they are extensive. But I was never especially tall, large, or effortlessly dominantly strong. Strengths related to mental energy and mental exertions and endurance, that created good growth potential.

Mentally however, I was very unusual. I got along with peers, but remained intermixed with the regular student population, despite being placed in gifted and talented, partly because of parental decision making. I enjoyed my peers to a great extent anyways, too. But there was always a strange separateness.

In friendships I would do most of the talking. Later, it became obvious listening was limited in friends and close connections. I was typically the driving force in conversation and activities with peers.

I had an odd interest in pleasing adults. This lead to being strangely formal, careful, and patient. My skills in adulthood with various social formalities were not really learned as an adult but were already instilled probably as an elementary aged child. I would work very hard to please adults, and over time recognized a great futility in that effort. I was challenging of the views of instructors and that seldom was received positively. I had a scientific mindset as a young person and discussed sensitive topics dispassionately and scientifically. As an adult I still cannot understand extremely the causes for wanting to avoid topics that simply can be discussed like a doctor would. Discussions with peers on topics of sensitivity like sex life and so on were very easy for this reason, and I was a source of knowledge and positive mentorship, very early in life. Friends felt they could talk over these topics with me without receiving any shame or embarassment. As children I think it is easier to "turn off" sensitivities if the method of presentation feels scientific and matter of fact, and non-sensitive, but caring. This may be true in adulthood too, but probably a certain portion of the population shuts down due to increased sensitivity. My openness in face-to-face conversation is still appreciated by others. It doesn't appear to be well appreciated in a text based context, where sophistication in social cues and interpersonal emotion management is missing. I had very strong emotion management skills as a kid and could easily guide others to positive, honest, and humorous experiences, that were gentle, kind, and professional almost. This aided me in my career and in any job I ever performed.

Since I was intermixed with the standard population of children, it would not be easy for an outsider to immediately distinguish my mental traits from those of my peers. Simply looking, I looked like a kid like anyone else, and so, there was nothing incredibly special to witness unless one cared enough to observe closely. My giftedness in schools came up sometimes for GT meetings, but largely waned as school years passed on. I had much more attention in elementary school than later, where awareness of my GT status must have been much more known. Less kids, and better information sharing about fewer children.

This posting isn't really about my life as a kid though. Only to mention that at that age, there were mental traits that certainly were more like adults than a kid. These were separable from physical traits that were normal for my age, and since that is more connected to visual "sizing up" of people, physical traits overtook mental traits in comparisons.

As an teenager and adult, I was still oddly more interested in people older than myself. I still retained long term friendships with friends my age, but still, there was a much greater comfort with older people than younger people. I was always very able to get along with people who were far older in a way that seemed to open conversation that was meant for *their peers* and not only for me. I would have conversations that were more in their age range, I could feel, and I think I left impressions that they were talking to someone who was older than my appearance would serve to indicate.

More natural friends of mine, and more natural colleague relationships, trended later to be skewed towards people older than me. Physical sporting relationships, still seem to be skills and ability based, so I really still like to work out in gyms and work on fitness amidst people my age, and somewhat younger, because I have been able to maintain good fitness health. But for conversation, which is my main interest in friendship, I greatly prefer time with people who are older than I am, and sometimes much older.

After becoming divorced recently, I discovered that conversation isn't really as rewarding unless with women who are much older than I am too. I had some few dating and bar-room encounters with much older women. While I'm now celibate, and largely was since divorce, I still enjoy these moments with older women.

Since I'm retired at 42, and have had a career now that's been elevated early, my recent colleagues, friends, and acquaintances are all older. My life has also gone very far along in experience to be so comprehensive to resemble people in their elderly years. I've also had some elderly friends in the High Intelligence Community, because our mode of conversation, interests, and backgrounds align. My very best friends in the High Intelligence Community have all been much older. Some who I have the best conversations with are in their sixties and seventies, and conversation is never out of parity.
 
Mental Age over Chronological age is certainly a concept that is not distributable across all areas of development. Some traits I had as a teen were like fifty year old men. Particularly regarding manners, when I was showing them fully. Some thinking in Philosophy for example, was perhaps older. In reading I gravitated to older thinkers, like Bertrand Russell, who wrote quite a lot in advanced age. Most of my reading from a particular author was from him. Conversation included a large and developed vocabulary and words and experiences discovered in older writings of older people. This too indicated a sort of mental age that was not commensurate with my own. Physically my athletic age would not correspond to chronological age, but would be younger. Musically, and culturally, I enjoy things that are from the regular population that are sometimes from what youths enjoy. This means I would be conversant in youthful things that would cause one to perhaps say makes me similar to younger people. But this is true of many older people too, and musically I have had intersts in classical since a child too. While friends were listening to rap I was often listening to organ, harpsichord, oboe, or other instrumental music. 

Conversation, it appears to me, may really be the best way to understand mental age versus chronological age, and is a cause for wanting to divide children in youth. I've written a posting on this, regarding identifying intelligence via the [velocity of significance and ideation] and person demonstrates. As one gets older, or gains more experience more rapidly, being highly intelligent, one increasingly shares messages of greater density and significance. Topics touch on more experience than others would recognize. It becomes harder for people to relate, if there is not a similarity of mental age relating to quantity of experience accumulated. Children who appear to be similar to older kids are those who are gathering experience faster. Later in life these children will become adults who will resemble much older people even while younger.

These days, if I'm looking for excitement, I'm still young enough in appearance to put myself amongst people my age or younger. But if I'm looking for conversation, it's much more appropriate that I'd be talking to people who are older, and sometimes much older. While they may wonder about having friendship or acqaintanceship with someone who is considerably younger, I don't feel that same concern. Instead, I just enjoy it and want more of it.

Being someone who has provably immeasurable intelligence, there is even the idea that I would relate well to people who would be even older than is possible for humans to live. People die typically between the ages of 74 and 100 years old. But if someone is very intelligent, then they will gather experience faster, and may resemble *would be* 110 year olds, 150 year olds and so on. I've even likened myself to a vampire in some ways, being serious, taking out the negative aspects of vampiry, like eating people and enjoying blood. Instead, vampires may be very old and look young, and have vastly more experience than their peers-in-apparent age. It's not a terrible analogy, thinking of highly intelligent people as being peers only in apparent age with those who look like them. Their brains are different and really they have gathered experience that eventually is like the experience of more than one century for others. What is lacking is direct experience, but even these people, like myself, are curious in older things, older books and so on, and will really read them, causing more to be in common with those closer to living in those times. If one focused on reading works from the 1700s, one would have much more in common than would be expected with people who lived, thought, and spoke the same way as those books evidence for us. If someone was alive from the 1700s they would likely enjoy conversing with people who are younger but quite smart who absorbed minds of others from the 1700s through writings.

What is missing from this post is why I think it is quite appropriate to think of me as someone who is significantly older. To think of me as an old person, despite appearances. Some of what relates to that is written above, but more information needs to be provided that is more directly related to that particular point.

*More Soon.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="proving-determinism-with-an-approach-of-self-neural-inspection-in-conjuction-with-introspection">Proving determinism with an approach of self-neural inspection in conjuction with introspection</a>
  
*Sunday, October 22<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:11pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

Some who are thinking of the topic of free-will versus Determinism have taken the path of physics to at a very small and wide scale demonstrate that the universe is entirely causally explicable, and that this applies to human behavior. While this is interesting, I think oftentimes people on the free-willist side will be enabled to keep seeking refuge in whatever unknowns exist, claiming that somehow freedom is contained there, and that their brains rely on that closely. This delays conversation and proof substantially. This has been done again and again, and in the current day, some will bring up "quantum entanglement" as the are in which the unknowns that exist are pretended to create questions around the non-existence of free-will. The free-will that exists suddenly is somehow explicable in quantum entanglement.

I'm a Determinist that has assumed there is no free-will most of my life. I've integrated this view into my behavior, moral perspective, and expectations of others. I'm definitely of the view the Determinism is true, and also that it is easy to demonstrate, and not that hard. While most of my views about that are to be written in a book planned for that, I will share one additional methodology that has an experimental trajectory that is viable, and expected to allow people to gradually see for themselves, observing themselves, that they do not have free-will, and that nonexistence doesn't hurt them in any way. Rather, it helps them.

The experimental pathway is this. Eventually brain scanning technology is made available to people either via their smartphones or via headset technology like the Oculus 3, or other VR system. The person wears it or has it near. The person also receives some basic training on introspection. While people all have the ability to navigate their own minds, by thinking about how they think and feel, there are certainly big differences between people in their ability to do so.

The brain scanning technology will allow individuals to in real-time see their brain states as they think. This means not only will they be able to think about how they think, and just think, they will be able to see what brain activity is happening for all thoughts. This will enable them to connect their thoughts to their brain states as they happen, and see what changes as their thinking changes.

What is really interesting about this is they will be able in time to see what they appear to be able to change for themselves. They will see how their learning changes their brain, how their reflections result in structural changes. They will see how forgetting might relate to brain structure they remember. Some brain structure went missing or became different! They'll notice the changes that are happening from sleep. For those with especially good memories, they will be very adept at tracking brain changes as they relate to the thoughts they've had.

Here's where the simplified proof against free-willism comes in. Once noticed, I think intuitively the reader will recognize it illustrates Determinism is true, and that there is nothing that exists that is free-will. One will know what the constraints of change are gradually, and see what slowly changes, and what apparently never changes. They will have emotions, and changes of feeling, and changes of certain thoughts that appear to relate to brain structures that also do not change much in structure or behavior. They'll see that they can't change them with thinking any way in particular. They can try, and yet when they observe the brain states, they do not change, and correspondingly, when active, the feelings, sensations, and certain underlying thoughts do not change. This will serve to demonstrate that the degree of constraint of those systems, and a stability of unchange that reveals that they simply don't have any freedom to alter those systems, or have a greatly diminished ability to control those systems. This experience will also be recognized as something obvious on reflection. Change deltas of people are very small.

Additionally, they will recognize more clearly they cannot just think anything. Their brain will navigate what they know, how they imagine, and they will have feedback showing which brain areas do that again and again. Later, they will recognize what *learning* does for their brains, and see that *those areas were forever unavailable* unless they learned them. Thus they will become better at seeing that options for choice are unavailable if there is no brain tissue or states that exist for it. They will get a clearer idea that what is not in the brain is not available for choice. They will get a better idea of what is available for choice and why it is there to begin with. This will reveal the importance of constraint over misconceptions of overly broad freedoms.

The scope of thinking and change in the nervous system will become more apparent. This will allow to define the extent of constraints. The constraints will be seen to be very great. Freedoms one enjoys in regular behavior are unaltered, so constraint begins to appear less an enemy, and just something that is expected and natural, and universal.

Actual causality of thinking will be more related to brain tissue and state. Causality of thinking will be illuminated by being able to introspectively think and see the brain state, and switch to another seeing that brain state. One can then deliberately return to another brain state and see that the brain state really is realted to the causality of those thoughts. One will see how deliberation and selection of thoughts *also* relates to brain tissue and state.

Not much more needs to be said about this presently in my estimation. The combination of being able to introspectively think and observe one's brain activity that corresponds will be enough to prove finally that free-will is not real. Instead all is causally determined in animal organisms.

It can also be seen that the discussion of "quantum entanglement" is not necessary and is probably an irrelevance to hold onto a freedom the people think they will lose, that is really illusory. Medical understanding is primarily what is needed to understand that determinism is real. It will be found, unfortunately, that these experiments will seem unnecessary for proof. Everyday self-examination will be shown to always have had sufficient information to convince that causal determinism was true. We are animals that are medically and biologically determined.

*[Finished at 4:34 in 23 minutes, semi-blind typed, without edits as part of a study in Editing.]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="it-is-possible-to-share-everything">It is possible to share everything</a>
  
*Sunday, October 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:58pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

The meaning of "everything" has to be clarified here. My point relates to the context of this writing, the ThoughtStream, that is a place to share anything I happen to be thinking about. It is a blog page within an Book and Journal, and as a "blog", it is a web log, but one can think of it simply as a public but personal journal. I have another similar blog page, called SocialNuggets, that is the primary location of all social content that is suitable for social media pages, where informality and media is expected, and not only text. Between the two of those locations and the entire Book and Journal I've been striving to share all I can about myself and my thoughts. Many writings, like those that go into a personal journal or diary, are shared in these locations. Diaries include thoughts to selves that are private but not only those that are so private that they could not be shared to others, but simple thoughts of importance to record and hold onto.

But what cannot be shared in these types of writings that are private-like but are also public?

If nobody reads them they feel safer, and of course, personal websites are often unread, or have a low readership. But they are consumed by search engines, tools like AI, and do provide the public a record of something that can be legally used whenever there is a legal contest. I have had legal contests and in one, my public profiles were used against me by my opposition.

It seems as though one cannot share whereabouts of exact current locations. However, in my case I travel, so my location changes often. Sharing something about my whereabouts does not typically provide so much information that one can search and find me with ease. I am not trying to remain elusive necessarily, but this observation is relevant to what can and cannot be shared. If one shares on social media platforms images, oftentimes those images have GPS encoded information that can be used to determine recent locations. Also, my postings tend to have timestamps, or hand written but accurate times logged. This provides information about recent whereabouts. If you post your vacation images someone could potentially travel to go and see you. But few worry about that, and either way, it does not imply that by the time someone seeks you out, you are still there. Posting at your home location may actually provide a way for someone to quickly find you, and legal process servers can and do use that information to find you to serve papers. There may be times in which it is unwise to be that current on social media. However, if I lookat my Book and Journal, and various pages, I see that it includes materials going back to the 1990s. Certainly over 99.9% of the information on the website then, is historical information. This means for those considerations one simply wants to have some minor controls, perhaps, on current details.

Anything on the website can be used for legal purposes, but if one reflects that one already has public social media pages, and a long hisotry of it, one knows that quite a lot of personal information is already out there that vultures can use to try to harm you in various ways. Expanding on that information is successful self-marketing, so self-marketing appears to be at odds with the desire for secrecy. My finding thought is that the infrequency of use of the pages, and my want for having an accurate living autobiography and personal record, greatly outweighs other considerations. Some seem to be hesitant about what they would share in great detail, but consider authors too. They might write many books and share their autobiographies with the effect that they are well known but could be attacked. However, these objectives are goals most would like to achieve if they can. It appears still one can easily share very large amounts of personal information with limited risk, that already exists for almost everyone to an extent.

If much is shared, as it is in my case, it is harder to scan and read and understand. In my legal cases, attorneys chose to use easier locations like LinkedIn and Facebook. Reading through my entire Book and Journal with many hundreds of thousands of words, and many tens of thousands of images, is difficult, costly, and one finds too much that is relevant. Not knowing what is relevant, it is hard to find anything of interest. They did not utilize my website in court.

I have an open identity. I have a chapter in my book called "Open Health and Identity" sharing my medical records, identity files, and many other items of interest for establishing authenticity and identity. There are some claims that public health data cannot be shared, and identity information cannot be shared either. Having a long history sharing this information, I'm confident it has *helped* rather than hindered, because real risks of utilizing that data results in criminality to others, and hasn't happened; whereas there have been many situations in which building trust has been needed, and for that purpose I simply shared my records. Again and again you have to share your identity and establish credibility in new relationships, and for that purpose my openness has been useful and successful.

I have a history in computer and data security so I'm aware also of security risks. This is not a posting for that, but in passing I would mention that openness still seems to greatly improve security conditions rather than diminish them.

So what is new regarding this posting about being able to share "everything"?

What has been missing is a way to share personal or business IP information, involving my plans, designs, and information relating to customers I've had in the past. Also the sharing of personal notes, that seem to be something worth discarding and keeping. I don't want to rely on tools from others and strive to use my own. Sometimes I kept simple notes in text files and other places that I did not want to place on my log. However, those tools consume the information sometimes, and instead of simply using the tools of others and letting them consume my information without providing me a great storage model, I could simply store that information in my thoughtstream. I began doing that recently.

More recently, I realized that even more sensitive data can simply be shared. I have a message encryptor tool on my website that can simply encrypt information I've written into ciphertext. For data that seems more important to retain but not share totally open, one can simply use this tool and post the cipherdata into the log. Posted and timestamped, later it can be openly decrypted, such that it has still been shared with a good data retention model, still be synchronous and sequential, and still be create openness. It is simply temporarily locked although it is open and public.

One can see such a posting here, where I recorded my plans for the continuing maintenance and improvement of my software system which constitutes personal and business intellectual property of great value:

http://www.mattanaw.com/thoughtstream.html#planned-completion-of-key-workflow-related-functionality

Using the strategy of temporarily encrypting open postings makes it so that some of the prior considerations are not as important. One can really share anything textual or image based in the same personal log and keep it open.

One can say that I have not "shared it" if it is public and locked. But that would only be partly true and is a matter of degree. It has been shared, is timestamped, is public, is consumed by web crawlers, and can be decrypted. Later it will. The only matter of importance is it is not decrypted and cannot yet be read. So one can temporarily share with self something usable that others cannot understand, in a public way, *briefly controlling* the potential negative usage. I was saying above that *current risks* relate to travel for example. Risks have a start and expiration. With intellectual property and in business, there is a time of value and utility, and confidentiality is impermanent. Oftentimes between businesses I've had NDA documents, or non-disclosure documents, and those only last about 2 years or less. Which means even public sharing of data that would fall under NdA can be performed, keeping an accurate record, even an accurate personal legal record, of the same data, that can be unlocked at a time of expiry.

Much can be shared that one would forget about.

One can play and use my message encryptor tool for free. It is fun and can be used for sending mail messages that are encrypted, and can be used for sending any textual content whatsoever in a way that it can be decrypted by passwords for free. It is safe and easy to use, and no data is sent to my server. It is kept on the client. One can steal the page and use it for one's own purposes too if one wants. It is an Open Source Tool that I created, using the existing cryptojs library.

http://www.mattanaw.com/message-encryptor.html

I hope this was interesting to those wondering about what can and cannot be shared, and the exploration of sharing increasingly private information for one's personal benefit, to become more transparent and organized. As I move further along in this exploration, my finding is trending towards the view that total openness is possible, as long as some very minute and timely safety details are kept sane. One does not need to be so open as to risk one's life to achieve a very extreme openness. If one considers that one only needs to temporarily expand on security, doing things like what I've done above, then one can feel incredibly open and honest, share more, and still remain secure.

*[Finished at 3:30pm, in 32 minutes, without editing, semi-blindly typed, without re-reading. Unedited as part of a study in editing.]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="planned-completion-of-key-workflow-related-functionality">Planned completion of key workflow related functionality</a>
  
*Sunday, October 21<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:36am, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

[encoded data, 5120 characters]

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="planned-update-to-publishing-method-of-underlying-software">Planned update to publishing method of underlying software</a>
  
*Saturday, October 21<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>10:58pm, Miami Beach, Florida</time>

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

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="regret-and-you-cant-even-want-the-right-things">Regret, and You Can't Even Want the Right Things</a>
  
*Saturday, September 14<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:32pm, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</time>
  
For some I think, who are approaching death, there may be a realization that their plans and pursuits had too many defects, and that there is not enough time to change course.

It may happen very late in life.
  
Some choose silly objectives. Large families of strangers (discovered later), car and property collections (nobody cared about what you had), and excess social concerns (caring about what people care about). Later in life it is discovered that much was illusory in the plans and activities one was involved in. This can result in regret-- "If I had another life, I would do this and that differently."
  
I have another perspective to share.
  
You are unable to identify what morality consists of. Otherwise you'd already be able to identify a good and worthwhile plan, and already know what is not regretful about it. But if you are regretful, or might be, you couldn't even see morality correctly.
  
For those who regret. I would have you consider that maybe you don't want the right things. Late in life if regret creeps in, you might want to think:
  
"I couldn't and can't know what to want anyways. If I lived to 10,000 I would discover over and over I couldn't ever plan anything I wouldn't regret to substitute with another."
  
"Partly because I'd like to BE SOMETHING ELSE."

However that is not true of everyone and is not true of myself for example.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="repetition-of-example-uses-of-the-my-moral-attentional-processes">Repetition of Example Uses of the My Moral-Attentional Processes</a>

*Sunday, October 8<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>8:00pm, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</time>

Earlier I wrote an example real-life recalled usage of my attentional processes listed in my chapter discussing [attentional architecture](architecture.html#attentional-architecture). At the moment I don't know what I titled that piece but it was posted via this ThoughtStream. It was a recollective stream of consciousness of the earlier process as it was performed, and I could remember the usage very clearly. Here an in the future I will provide additional samples in which the utility is demonstrated clearly, which will provide additional substantiation of the routine dissertative thinking interconnected with the process that results in books like [The Velocity of Significance and Ideation], a book whose contents explains methods for identifying giftedness of thought. Posting this way will enable me to demonstrate repetitively and conclusively that the moral-attentional process combined with dissertative thinking improves quality of thought and provides opportunity for its real life demonstration, in an intellectual way. The takeaway of this will be that the process itself has clear benefits of utility, and also that the thesis of "The Velocity of Significance and Ideation" regarding the use of productive intelligence to estimate degree of intelligence is true, and self-applicable to my own thinking and writing. 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="#when-what-you-are-is-not-what-you-want">When what you are is not what you want</a>

*Tuesday, October 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:31pm, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</time>

Suppose you could ask an old dog if they wanted to be in heaven with you. The dog is sick and elderly, and uncomfortable all the time. They lived from 17 to 21 in a deterioration.

They might just answer with 

"Not if I'm in it"

Because at that age what you are is what you don't want.

...

Now thinking about probability, very likely old age will have discomforts that last.

Now thinking about birth and probability, very likely many will not be who or what they want.

And yet morality has left out a death plan.

...

"I'm the animal that doesn't like what it is" is what people think at times.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="interview-from-scott-douglas-jacobsen-of-insight-journal">Interview from Scott Douglas Jacobsen of Insight Journal</a>

*Monday, October 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>6:23pm, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</time>

This is the source interview on intelligence from Mr. Scott Douglas Jacobsen that culminated in my related book shared earlier "The Velocity of Significance and Ideation". He noted in the introduction that this was the longest interview he received to date, with the second longest being that from  Hindemburg Melão Jr., creator of Sigma Society, and self-proclaimed candidate for the smartest individual in Brazil. The population of Brazil is 200 million.

This Journal has also posted some interview responses from my favorite Moral Philosopher who I acknowledge in my works, Peter Singer, of Princeton University, and links to his answers are of interest to see a person who has influenced me deeply. He is world renowned and has many publications worth reading. His responses concern animal ethics and the utilization of AI in relation to moral issues relating to animals. I mention this to provide some understanding that this interviewer is one who has serious intent and does have some very good quality responses from significant figures. This places me in some good company, and for that I'm fortunate for having had the chance to be interviewed by Mr. Jacobsen.

Posted from Ipanema, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

https://in-sightpublishing.com/2023/10/01/mattanaw/

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="arecentexaminationofothecalendaryear">arecentexaminationofothecalendaryear</a>

*Sunday, October 1<sup>st</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>3:13pm, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</time>

arecentexaminationofothecalendaryearforthepurposeoffurtherunderstandingthe[completedsolutionofthecalendar](the-calendar-solved.html)revealedsomeadditionalseriousissuestothestudiesofcalendaringthatarebothhistoricalandcurrentherewewillenumerateseveralseriousflawstothecalendaringsystemandcalculationsofthesolaryearandrelatethemtothethesisalreadywrittenwithinthatsametexttheequationsforthecalculationofthetropicalsolaryearhasbeenlocatedandwaswrittenby[kazimierzmborkowski](the-tropical-year-and-the-solar-calendar-kazimierz-m-borkowski.pdf)thefollowingweretheissuesidentified

- namingconventionsaboutthenonpropernameofthecalendarhavenotbeenmadeconsistent
  - thereareusesofthetermsastronomicalyearsolaryeartropicalyearandyearandtheremaybeotherexamplesofalternativesynonyousnames
- researchregardingthelengthofthecalendaryearexcessivelypointsthereasercheratantiquatedhistoricalcalculationsthatarenearingtheprecisionofcurrentprecisionratherthanprovidingquickaccesstothecurrentcalculationmethodsthathaveconfusinglynotarrivedatmuchgreaterprecision
- precisionhasnotimprovedmuchbutitmustbeagreedthatthecurrentprecisionevengeneratedbyformulassuchasthoseintheaformentionedacademicarticalarenotaspreciseastheyshouldbegiventheprecisionofastronomicalequationsutilizingmanydecimalpointsandthisappearsanerrorofdisinterestwithintheastronomycommunity
- [thecalendarsolved](the-calendar-solved.html)providesthesolutiontothecalendaringsystemreplacingthoseimplementedbytheemperorcaesarandpopegregoryanddoesnotrequireanylimitsontheprecisionthatcanbeascertainedandvariationsofmeasuresincalendaryearsbecausetheendoftheyeariscelebratedandoverlayedonthenaturalandunarbitrarylistofdaysatroughlythesametimeeveryyearandeverytimethereisanadvancementonprecisiontherecansimplybeaminuteshiftofsecondseveryyearathetimethattheyeariscommunicatedtoalltohavebeenelapsed   - theimplicationofthismethodofcalendaringisthatitbothadoptsthemorehistoricalprecisionsoverlookedbutalsocanadapttoanylevelofprecisionarrivedatbyastronomersastimegoesonandinstrumentationandstudiescanconfirmevergreatercalculationsitisalsocertainthatthissolutionisthepermanentsolutionbecausenoadditionalchangeswilleverberequired
- thesystemofutilizingleapyearstoaddadditionaltimetoyearsperiodicallyaccordingtotheoldercaesarianandgregoriancalendarswasfoundtobeentirelyantiquatedyetithasnotbeenrecognizedthataneasysolutionsolvesitpermanentlyandmakesallyearsconsistentwithnoneedforleapyearsoradjustmentsintothedistantandnotonlytheforseeablefuture

additionalobservationswillbeaddedinthefuturebutinthemeantimeitisagainstatedthatthewanattomiancalendaristhecalendarsolvedverilyandthatanylaterimprovementtothecalendarwouldmerelyapproachthesolutionalreadyknownandinsteaditisrecommendedtodisuseleapyearsentirelyandsimplyadoptthewanattomiancalendarthatmakescalendaringeffortsentirelyunnecessarynotonlygroundsofinstrumentalnessandutilitybutonthegroundsthatintellectuallytooitissolvedandthesolutionissimplerinusagethanallcalendarsthathavehithertoexisted.

finishedat359pmin46minuteswithouteditingsemiblindtypedwithoutspellcheckinalllowercaseaccordingtotheabandonedancientwritingmethodoftheromansoftypingwithoutspacingorpunctuation

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="my-introduction-to-mensa-sweden">My Introduction to Mensa Sweden!</a>

*Thursday, September 28<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:42pm, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</time>

I am a long-time member of Mensa America and Mensa International, having joined in 2014. I was first identified as having Mensa level giftedness as an elementary school student, where I was tested by a visiting psychometrician, when other students in the school were also tested. I was separated for the special giftedness program in the State of Maryland and offered opportunities to join the well-known programs at Johns Hopkins University in the same state, a program that was joined by some well-known notable figures. Although admitted and separated, my parents did not encourage my work in separate programs, and for a long period I was mostly disinterested in giftedness. After becoming a Software Architect, and engineer supporting the President of the United States, then Barack Obama, I decided to get tested again, using the Stanford-Binet 5 and Wescheler (WAIS-IV) tests, and again confirmed my childhood scores. After confirmation in 2014 I entered Mensa, and shortly after became a Mensa Lifetime Member.

I am the author of [The Book and Journal of Mattanaw](http://www.mattanaw.org) at [Mattanaw.org](http://www.mattanaw.org). This is a privately produced Book and Journal that has objectives of promoting a better moral and ethical understanding, using my history of professional moral philosophy and science, and career background. I am a trained Psychologist, am trained in Philosophy, and have another degree in Computer and Information Science all in the University of Maryland System. I'm not a student of Harvard, although I already culminated my career and am now retired, working previously as Chief Architect at Adobe Systems, and Advisor/Architect at a number of very large enterprises known worldwide. I am currently President of Social Architects and Economists International, and consult periodically when interest is sufficient, or there are retirement related funding needs. I am also CEO of Plaintext, a new publishing company related to the publication of my book and journal.

In my career I became a very experienced presenter to leadership of global corporations, and am now focusing, in addition to my writing efforts, on sharing my experience and knowledge on diverse topics, in support of moral efforts internationally, and also for resolving issues like homelessness. I travel extensively, and think of myself as a non-nationalistic global citizen, even if that is a hard mission to make a total reality. I've lived across the United States in many locations and own an 80-acre parcel of land in the State of Alaska. I've lived in Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand, partly for retirement and for business interests. Next year I intend to live in Sweden and Northern Europe for a period. Typically I try to stay in the warm summer seasons in places that are not too cold, and alternate from hemisphere to hemisphere. I'm currently residing in South America, in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.

Some notable facts about myself include my history of flying planes, and flight training. I'm an endorsed solo pilot with 103.5 hours in the Cessna 172. I enjoy athletics greatly and am a skilled basketball and soccer player, and I enjoy many other ways of staying fit, like weightlifting, running, walking and hiking. I'm intensely interested in ethics, logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, and use my Book and Journal as my main outlet for my writing and creative interests. Oftentimes these writings appear in the various Mensa Groups in which some of us share good conversation, including the Mensa International, and other Mensa Facebook Groups. I am a member of Mensa New Zealand and am pending inclusion into Mensa Brazil. I anticipate that some here would have enjoyed some of my writings already, since they've been published for many years, and I look forward to forming some new friendships in Mensa Sweden as we become more mutually acquainted. I may be presenting at Mensa Sweden's AGA in May, 2024, and that is yet to be decided, but I would be very happy for invitation and inclusion to share my talks that I've planned and prepared.


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="radioactive-data-storage-radio-communication-and-increased-capacity">Radioactive Data Storage, Radio Communication, and Increased Capacity</a>

*Thursday, September 28<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>3:49pm, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</time>

A long while ago I recall seeing an interesting posting about the prospect of having a new storage device that utilized cubical crystals, with information stored and retrieved within the crystal using lasers, that would write to it using three dimensions. I read that this device, using this very small crystal, that was perhaps a 1cm x 1cm x 1cm cube, or a cube of s similar size, would hold terabytes of data. This was during a period in which gigabytes of storage was still somewhat expensive, and the idea that such a small device could retain terabytes was very attractive.

Now utilizing microSD cards in the one half gigabyte size, it is clear that it is very easy to store huge amounts of data on very small devices. It is already somewhat strange that I can use such a small device to hold so much data, at a cost that has been under $100 dollars USD for several years now. Before relying on that media, I used the Samsung USB Bars which are USB devices that are also small, that could hold 128GBs and 256gbs. Now it has stopped its growth at 256GBs and this was my cause for moving to microSD.

The cheapness of the cost of the microSD for 512GBs has caused me to wonder at the costs of computer hard drives purchased from manufacturers including nearly the same amount of storage. The microSD is the size of a small SIM card, and is actually somewhat smaller. I've complained that it seemed a computer system could include more than one computer system functioning independently with more than one microSD card built in, and perhaps an array of microSD cards that could store huge amounts of information at low cost and size. Phones could hold easily in volume no less than twenty of these microSD cards without an apparent weight increase. Since now MicroSDs can be purchased at 1TB for $100 USD, it seems manufacturers could procure them very inexpensively, and provide phones and laptops with seperate internal systems so one can have more than one computer in one device, and also provide much more storage capacity than they currently provide, at very high costs. My most recent cellular phone purchase was for an iPhone12 Max Pro, which has 256GBs of data. It was about $1,000 USD. For my laptops, typically I choose those with smaller hard drives, using the hard drives for minimum application storage, and offloading data storage to my microSD cards. What is funny about that is I am using computers that still cost about $1,000 or more, being Apple products, but the application storage is only 128GBS while I have very large amounts of storage, much more than the computer provides, on tiny wafers of microSD cards. I have about 12 micro SD cards that costed a little over $100 each, I believe, when there was a brief cost increase, and two smaller hard drives. Together the micro SDs offer about 5TBs of data storage, and I have additional TBs of storage on the hard drives. Combining the 10 microSDs it is humorous to see how much data can be stored on devices that can be easily lost. But these are preferred because as I travel the world, I have a large amount of storage with devices that weigh nearly nothing at all, and I can redundantly store those devices so one or more could be lost but I would still retain my data. Furthermore, I can geographically redundantly place them so that I have all the storage safely backed up.

The above indicates some of my solutioning for my technology that I have developed but not the entire system. I mention this to make it clear I am very familiar with, utilize, and depend on, very small storage devices with very great capacity, so I can safely store large amounts of mental information and life-assets. I also have a scaling plan for the software and storage as market costs change, so I can safely update my storage to include differing devices with greater amounts of storage, as I scale and as the market changes. I've done that in several iterations already over the last decade. And of course all have experienced growth of storage from simpler computer devices since floppy disks and before that time. The earliest storage device I used for external data management was the large floppy disk that we like to remember "really was floppy" and later the 3.5 inch hard floppy disks. After that I used hard drives and zip drives. Zip drives were basically larger and thicker floppy drive-like devices that were input like floppy disks but had characteristics of cartridges. They had quite a lot of storage, but the shift to flash and usb greatly improved portability and easy of use. The zip drives still required a slot on a peripheral device that allowed for inputting the cartridge, and were somewhat like small disk drives or VHS/Beta video drives. Or like musical casettes, except again, they were read like floppy disks and had the small metal sheet that slid to reveal the drive within. I also used like others tapes for other readable media, which we forget really were storage devices, read-write audio tapes and cassetes, vinyl records, film for storing photographs, paper photographs, books and print paper of course, card files for reading (scantrons in education), and cds, DVDs, and larger capacity read/write disks for computers. I never used BlueRay or other more advanced DVDs thinking them antiquated by the time they came out. Recently I was forced to use cds once again because of interactions with the legal system as an attorney self-represented in a land-related prescriptive easement case. One can see from the above I'm very familiar with the range of storage devices, have used quite a lot, and it traces back to the 1980s which was very close to the beginnings of computing. I was Chief Architect at Adobe Systems nearly a decade ago, and was trained in Computer and Information Science in the University of Maryland System. In my education I was exposed to some other forms of storage, but these forms of storage were not too different than I was utilized and was exposed to already, having fortunately been born near the earliest consumer electronic computing device stages.I was young enough to have been exposed to some of the very earliest personal computers, word processors, video gaming systems, and used devices that appeared earlier than these in school, since they were still being used due to existing technology investments.

What is common to most technologies used before I saw this crystal devices is storage in two dimensions. Read-write storage on musical recordings like records were simply etchings onto a plastic-like vinyl material. I remember as a kid playing records that were made of hard plastic. Cassetes utilize a still available medium of tape storage that records audio and data. Microfiche is a film based information and document storage that is fading, but still exists in Anchorage, where certain older legal documents can only be researched using it. But to the present day, looking at all the other devices, they still were 2 dimensional. This includes compact disks that are basically small records, hard drive disks, floppy disks, and flash media like USBs and MicroUSBs. The implementations of the newer small devices and SSDs are not something I've inspected, but quick observation still reveals to me that these are not utilizing three dimensions the way one would want to, to have an extremely large set of storage on a single small device, using layers of sufaces that are microscopic. To give an example, consider if a compact disks surface were represented three dimensionally such that there were thousands of compact disks in three dimensions, for a small thickness. It could be that some current Hard Drives with very high capacity do some of this three dimensional storage, but as far as I know, this is limited. And probably by how it is written.

The crystalline three dimensional storage was expected to finally store on three dimensions using movements of more than one read write laser, that would pinpoint positions in the crystal to store and retrieve information. Writing was stated to degrade the storage, so read-write was not something that could be done too many times without degrading the crystal. But oftentimes we do not write entire disks often, and maybe this storage method could still successfully write to the entire cube thousands of times. I was excited about this technology because it seemed to create potential for scaling of personal productions. Nowadays my interest has transitioned from simply intuitively recognizing that vast storage was interesting, relating it to potentially storing also quantities of information similar to what is in a human brain, to actually needing such a storage to support the scaling of my productions, which exceed that of many enterprise corporations.

Seeing that the market trajectory does not include an easy pathway to store all of one's information in a cost-effective way, while one scales one's own media productions, is something disconcerting. It seems by this time that one should be more able to utilize a single device, or an array of small devices, to store huge amounts of data. But it appears the market only provides ways to do it minimally greater than what is mostly average at a reasonable cost. This issue relates also to the number of ports on a computer, bandwidth of radio communications, and so on, making it more difficult to scale to large amounts of productions, particularly when moving about, than one might realize. I will say more about this in the future.

Thinking about the crystal device that appeared about 10 years ago in print, and how it did not come onto the market, recently I had an idea about an alternative that might be of interest to those who are interested in computer storage, and the possible future for improving computer storage. I think I've thought of a possible device that may exceed even the storage of this crystalline storage that would be written upon with lasers.

The idea is that since radioactive material and elements exist that can transmit radio waves, there may be a way to combine communictions with storage on three dimensions. Like the crystal structure, there could be a storage devices utilizing elemental radioactive elements that are not harmful to people, or are shielded, or are used in quantities that are so low that they couldn't harm anyone. With x-rays we already know we can shield with lead. We also know that low exposure isn't serious, and that there are differing radioactive materials that are less risky than others. Radioactive materials provide a radioactive signal we know for many years into the future, with a predictable degradation. We know this because radioactive waste for example stays radio active for a much longer period than humans want, staying radioactive for thousands of years, making it hard to eliminate and treat as separate waste. In the production of nuclear energy we have refuse that we don't know well what to do with, where to put it, and how to store it, such that future people are not impacted. While this is something we do not like or want, we did get communicated to concerning half-lifes and degredation mathematics indicating that radioactive materials do remain radioactive in a way that may be extremely useful in other contexts. It may be that it would be useul in combining storage technology and communications.

The storage device may work as follows, although feasibility is not assured without sufficient research and development. I don't know for certain that this would work but still communicate it as a possible area for advancement. In three dimensions radioactive material is stored in a particular configuration that represents an empty state, ready for writing. This is the initial format. The radioactive configuration at the elemental level provides the image of the device, and the radioactivity and configuration can communicate the image to a sensing device, that can ready immediately its state. So initially it communicates via its radioactivity, something sensible, relating to the initial empty state.

Akin to the lasers that combine to write to the 3D crystal is an approach that reconfigures the elemental radioactive material to differing positions or configurations that represent the data to be stored. Perhaps a single text file is written to a location, or a single image. The radioactivity of the substance then communicates via its radioactivty to the sensor(s) that read the differences, or the actual structure of the medium. With this then is a read-write method using radioactive substances, and a possible approach to direct communication to the medium. It may be that peripherally available computers can read from teh same device using sensors that pick up the radioactivity. Perhaps it is not necessary to have direct sensing at a very close distance, like in a normal hard drive. Already there are devices like geiger counters that detect radation, and the level of radioactivity, and these devices are old, and don't need to function at immediate touching proximity. They are operated by hand at a distance. Signals increase as one gets close, and if radioactivity is high, but signals are still received at a distance. If information encoded is captured at a distance in a consistent manner from material it may be possible to indirectly read from storage without radio communications that are now standard, like wifi, bluetooth, infrared, or through routers and radio devices. Instead the configuration of the elemental radioactive material in conjunction with the radioactivity of the medium could work with sensors that are external for more quickly and more directly communicating information. Currently data has to be processed through many systems and protocol layers for transport. In computer and information science one learns of the OSI Networking layers, that relate to networking and digital security, and the total architecture of a computing system. Much of the existing layers could be bypassed potentially if a receiving system can simply pick up the configuration of a three-dimensional radioactive medium. 

Since the configurations could be elemental and potentially manipulatable using lasers, magnetism or other, we would have a more atomic method of storing information, meaning we are already at elemental levels of information storage. As storage and computer technology increased in storage capacity, we knew that the smallness of the electronics would dictate how much could be stored. Intel for example had to produce processors that were smaller and smaller to process more data. Likewise in the history of storage, the movement was from small to smaller. If more is written to the same disk, it means that smaller writing is required. The limit of the smallness is on the atomic or elemental scale. If one can write to a medium with a configuration of atoms, one has gotten very close to what is possible for potential storage. So a device like this may be useful for finally having maximally dense information storage, so we can have devices that would probably exceed in capacity what brains can store. Additionally however, would be the possibility of using natural radioactivity to communicate the storage, without processing in between, and with less networking protocols. Here we may have one potential idea providing a pathway to combining storage and communication.

If we had brains that functioned like this device, we would remember more, but also would have methods of reading other brains at a distance.

*[Completed at 4:41 pm, in 52 minutes, without editing, semi-blind typed, without spell check.]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Tuesday, September 26<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>6:41pm, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</time>

## <a name="the-end-of-randomness-randoness-in-uncertainty-and-cryptography">The End of Randomness, Randomness in Uncertainty, and Cryptography</a>

*Tuesday, September 26<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>6:41pm, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</time>

Approximately one-half decade ago I devised a strategy for utilizing true randomness of user input in a computer system. One might wonder what one would want to use such a method for, but there are a wide range of applications, including making random passwords that are closer to what is naturally considered too complex to predict. In physics and the sciences there is not an agreement as to whether randomness exists at all, and it appears it might not on the regularities experienced in nature. In Philosophy arguments about physical determinism and free-willism have related to uncertainties and apparent randomnesses that seem to exist in the movements of electrons, in quantum slit-experiments often referenced, and in brownian motion, a topic of interest to scientists such as Einstein and others. While there is disagreement concerning whether or not such randomness exist, probabilistic natural laws and natural laws expressing regularities in mathematics, conjoint with everyday life regularities of planning and historical reconstruction, cause one to want to accept complete Determinism. I have accepted complete Determinism on grounds of regularity for my Moral Philosophy on inductive grounds, but I have not completely discarded the idea that there could be some randomness in nature that is or is not regular that feeds into processes that are regular. On this topic we often find the religious refuge of those wanting to preserve their traditional viewpoints, but those viewpoints fail whatever refuge is attempted.

The device I envisioned is a simple one and not theoretical regarding feasibility. It is a truly simple system to create. One only needs a peripheral device with an object and sensors taking in information from a physical thing presenting sensory data too complex to understand due to the understanding of brownian motion, complexity, and apparent irregularies in natural behavior of objects. I've used the example of the "snow globe" to devise and build such a simple system, with optics similar to those collected from an optical mouse. If one requires a good cryptographic encoding of a document or text file, one may use software to do the work, but that software will sometimes require mouse input that is created by the user, that is seemingly random. One simply moves one's mouse around a while as data about the mouse's position is collected and encoded in text, that is subsequently used in the encryption in a variety of ways. Movements of the users hand really do show characteristics of randomness and unpredictability although the behavior of the person moving the mouse does show regularity. To control for that regularity, to avoid detecting any pattern of mouse usage, it is recommended to simply move the mouse around longer. But in this system, no user input is required. Instead the optical instrument is pointed into the "snow globe" detecting random minute movements and positions of floating, rising, and descending particles, or particulate that is the "snow" in the globe. For those who may not know what a snow globe is, it is simply a glass dome or sphere containing a Christmas or Winter themed scene, with material inside, upon being shook, results in an appearance of falling snow. The movements of the currents, and small movements of *things in the fluid* exhibits a good randomness that can be detected by the optical tool like the mouse on a surface. This is then used to rapidly build data that is random, or seems to be random, with great complexity. It is not repeatable. Patterns would be hard to utilize. The result of the movements is due to physical causes that are not well understood and are thought to be random from true randomness in nature. While I disagree with the hypothesis that this is random, I can't prove that it's not random. It appears it is not for a variety of reasons I'll share, but in any case, it's complex enough to cause us to think that this device really would provide random input at a fundamental level of randomness supposedly existing in nature, based on what the physicists would tell us about the state of their understanding.

Some inputs of randomness like the future digits of pi that have not been ascertained, and the pattern of static exhibited in radio or television static could be used, but I have thought that these show sufficient recollectivity to indicate there is still a knowable pattern. For example, once PI is calculated, it is recognized it is one number or ratio calculation. If PI is known then it is not random any longer. One could still collect intervals of hard computations of PI and it would appear random. Static is recognized as such. If static were truly random, it is not clear it could be recognized as static. It appears to me this indicates again, that once one "understands static" as a thing, one would eventually understand the pattern. Complexity determines for us what appears random. Static information gathering would result in an unrepeatable gathering, which would allow us again, to devise a similar system to the snow globe approach, because the input involves data and pattern complexity that one cannot predict using a recognizable pattern. If one knew all the digits of PI then one could break any PI related input, but that depends on computing power. If one has sufficient computing power one can select unknown intervals of PI and use it in a similar way, although someone with the same computing power would be able to break a setup using PI calculation as an input.

From the above, it can be seen that, since PI is weaker than the others, that complexity of input seems more important than actual randomness for cryptography. As long as the input is complex enough and not repeatable it does not matter if it is truly random. Thus it appears randomness is not required.

Apparent randomness and complexity together do provide a system in which one can arrive at very good cryptographic strength, and so such a system like I devised would be one that would be especially strong for protecting documents and messages using also some mathematics and software doing the actual encoding and decoding.

In any computer system not actually utilizing a device like that I've mentioned relying on an *external physical method* of grabbing information that is complex and random from a physical level, instead using only the computing system and software, is fully deterministic. Cryptographic algorithms taking the input using the math and software use math and software that is fixed. This component of the cryptography is entirely deterministic. Furthermore, input from the system like the generation of random digits is also software and hardware based and is fully deterministic. Some systems allow for highly difficult to remember passwords to be generated from the software, and that can also be fed into the crypographic algorithms for encryption, but in that case all is fully deterministic, and would be fundamentally weaker than the system setup I devised that relies on what even the best physicists would consider to be random information.

Recognition that the entire computer system is deterministic is important, and I will share more in future writings on this point. The idea that seemingly random things like PI's digit expansion is really deterministic is also important. The physical idea that there is randomness in Brownian motion and in quantum experiments of particles and electrons is something I will challenge. It appears on future work it may be possible to put an end to the idea that there is randomness in nature, and the work of physicists is in that direction. The idea of randomness relates to "I can't tell if there is anything law-like governing this yet". The goal of science is to finally eradicate uncertainties and replace uncertainties with knowledge.

It may be possible that certain underlying controls of nature are not accessible for our observation. We rely on complex machinery and tools like CERN to study partical collisions to unearth tidbits of information on subatomic particls, and that is very hard and costly to do for some small results. Results may be large for technology, but they seem small regarding determining finally what the patterns are that would allow us to conclude that there is no randomness. Randomness is not something that is assumed, but is rather something that tells us there is more to know, and that knowing it may be difficult unless there are other arguments and techniques that can be devised that sidestep observational difficulties, to show us we are in better than a probabilistic system, but one in which we can always make predictions in principle. That would prove finally that Determinism is actual "all of the way down" to a fully reductive physico-mathematical level that opens up methods of fully determining natural systems. If the smallest natural systems having some characteristics of apparent randomness are shown under the surface to really follow regularities we expect, then we will know for certain that they collect such that all nature can be shown to be totally predictable in principle and fully regular, even if complexity gives us the expectation that we will not have enough computing and predictive power to utilize it at all scales. Mattanaw's Law already states that it would not be possible to represent information fully enough in any computing or natural storage system to have the power to predict the future, even for somewhat small scales.

*[Finished at 7:16pm, in 35 minutes, with no editing, spell check, semi-blind typing, without reading. [Editing](http://www.mattanaw.org/editing.html)]*

The timing above relates to my book [The Velocity of Significance and Ideation](http://www.mattanaw.org/velocity-of-significance-and-ideation.html). For those in the profoundly gifted range it may be required to illustrate dissertative thinking conversationally to show there is no lopsidedness between mental internal communication and thinking and outward expression.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="purely-intellectual-morality-and-resistance-to-application-and-learning">Purely Intellectual Morality and Resistance to Application, and Learning</a>

*Monday, September 25<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:38pm, Rio de Janiero, Brazil</time>

Yesterday, while walking along Copacabana in Rio de Janiero, I began reflecting on the gulf that exists between intellectualized or mental morality, and moral behavior. While thinking about this topic I recalled my earlier studies on morality, about twenty years ago, which included the observation that there is a difference between what one thinks is correct intellectually, while there is a gulf between that idea and behavior. Self-training and education is required in order to, personally, make the transition from having an idea about what a more excellent set of behaviors would be, connecting to a moral view, and actually having those behaviors and acting a certain desired way automatically. While most can tell when they learn something about a self-improvement goal that they have not reached that goal, it appears additionally that many have an idea of morality that they would utilize for judgement of others, even while it should be known to the thinker that that morality is intellectual and is not actually related to a commitment in behavior the thinker has, or a commitment to the behavior that exists in others. Sometimes people will have an idea about what is best concerning behaviors, and expect others to engage in those behaviors too, even before a commitment to personal change has been made, and that person himself/herself simply hasn't habitualized it to automaticity yet. We see this again and again where there is a contrast between expectations of others, particularly those in media and entertainment, and public officials, while the person with the expectation cannot or does not really behaviorally exhibit what would have been expected. If we dwell on this topic and combine it with other observations from this Book and Journal we would arrive at a more clear and comprehensive idea about what hypocrisy is and was, and the extent to which people are truly hypocritical.

Just before I began thinking of this I was thinking of another topic in which there is a serious flaw, and that is the issue that nobody really understands the laws. While one might think one knows the law, it can be easily demonstrated that one cannot recite usually even a single written law, which as a rule has more detail than one expect. Lawyers also do not memorize the laws but only get a better sense of them and how they fit into the legal system, that they are educated more about. But lawyers are typically specialists and would recognize that they too, don't know and cannot recite most laws that exist. 

This issue extends into morality, but is far worse. In religion people have been judged for their ability to recall scriptural verses. If one is good at recalling and repeating what was written, one is thought, if one is not only relying on memory and is of good intelligence, to likely have a good idea, compared with others, about their religion. However, these could be compared with lawyers who only have some recollection, and like everyone else, memory is really very poor about verse and nobody can well recall all that is written within the religious texts. But morality for the everyday person goes beyond what is written even in religious texts and this is obvious when one looks at what one recalls as far as hearsay rules of society are recalled in short phrases. This means that what would need to be recalled is much greater than just what's in a religion, and really would include laws additionally because following the laws is thought to be within the required moral conduct of a nation. The phrases from culture have not been recorded like the laws in a way that provides easy reference in libraries, so much is unwritten. The result is not only that people cannot recall what is written, they would disagree about what has not been written that they think should be. The complete normal ethical system that one thinks one belongs to then, is unknown in a worse degree than what was stated above about knowledge of law.

Relating the first paragraph with the next two, we find that much of what we think is morality is a list of intellectual ideas recalled, that poorly represent what it would actually be. People quickly recall and generate more moral ideas themseles, that are thought to be what people should act on. These can be thought of as poor-quality intellectualizations of how one should act and behave. These may or may not correspond with actual behavior, as we'll see shortly in more detail, and if there is a discrepancy we have the issue that this is a mental morality that is not within behavior sufficiently. This means there are rules in mind that are not followed and would not be followed. Because moral rules are often unwritten, and laws are not recalled, people disagree even about the purely mental rules, and debate if they should ever act on them. It follows from this that much moral thinking and debate is simply a mental exercise that is largely unrelated to behavior, and we can anticipate disagreement rather than agreement about what it means for behavior. It also means people will be chronically calling each other hypocrites because they both cannot agree as to the rules, and clearly see that the rules are not well used and exhibited in real behavior.

When we connect this to education the issue becomes more clear and obvious and in different ways. Teachers often teach mathematics, grammar, and a range of topics that are never applied. I have discovered that mathematicians often do not apply math to their own behavior or their own field, but more than this, the math they teach is often never applied in the world by themselves or their students, even on the topics that relate. People complain because they do not obtain jobs that relate, and so can never use it. Likewise the instructors have been criticized for having jobs that teach, but do not do, what is taught about. The range of what education provides is large, and contains much that is useful, but it goes unused oftentimes, and people admit this and complain about it often. People learn skills they cannot apply, and they learn teachings they cannot get jobs for. They also learn so much, they have few chances to really utilize each thing they learn, which means they will not behave in any way utilizing what has been learned. They may recall sometime what they have learned but they will need to agree that they do not utilize it often. If one considers the full range of all learned in education one will need to agree that due to the size of all that is learned, there will rarely be matching situations in life in which that same knowledge is behaved upon. It follows from this that most of what is learned involves rules that become mental recollections.

Additionally and somehwat unrelatedly, is something I want to share about learning and change. Recently I shared an article *[The Calendar Solved](the-calendar-solved.html)* that offers a solution to the calendar that is permanent. The calendar has gone through a number of changes over many centuries to correct for differences in years, since it is known that the year is not exactly 365 days but has an extra fractional day. We corrected for this using the leap year. But more corrections are needed to finally get it right, and that is what the solution in the article is about. Once one learns this, one has to consider how one behaves. Since it is solved it really implies that all would need to adopt it, since correct. Since the current calendar is functional and there are many investments in this calendar it will take a long time to change, but the change is required, if one wants to be honest about progression of science and learning and education. If I were a teacher of astronomy and geology, or history, I would teach this in my class. But I would be unable to change my behavior about the calendar much regarding existing calendar use, although I have decided to use my own instead. I'm an example of someone changing behavior on the basis of what is learned. Students in the class would likely hear it, understand it, and perhaps remember it, but would be unlikely to be able to behave regarding it. Likewise, even if it became widespread knowledge that this new calendar is the solution, it would take a very long time for others to adopt it and make personal changes, and things like the annual celebration of the New Year would also need to change in simple ways.

Learning something new makes demands on how one should behave. Firstly, once someone has learned it, they have already changed their mind. They may not agree that any behavioral change needs to be made immediately. But they would agree that some changes are needed eventually. This leads to a disparity of knowledge and behavior. But that makes sense because how to behave on it is slightly different at times from learning new facts, which do not seem to call for any specific changes. One person commenting on my new calendar solution said it seemed to her that there was no need to change the existing calendar because it, paraphrasing, "would do the work into the forseeable future", and I agree with that. However, it was learned by her that it was incorrect. What she was wanting was to simply resume using what existed, because it worked, but not to utilize the learning. Mentally we both agree what is the right calendar (I think she understood), which means we both would agree on what the correct astronomy, geology, and history is to teach about it. By not taking steps to use it in practice, we teach students who cannot use it, but need truth. Also, if we decide to not take steps on our own to revise the calendar and holidays related to the New Year, we are deciding to learn something that we will not use. The result is that there is a resistance to change on the behavior, but a willingness to learn that is somewhat stifled, within one's mind.

Here we have an example of an inability and resistance to matching up what is our mental rules, even in education which would touch on all learning and knowledge. We have new rules about the calendar that we agree with and cannot follow. We may use it for moral judgement of software companies who continue to use the old calendar, but they cannot yet adopt or change for it. We see the world unchanged as we learned something new that relates to the behavior of everyone.

Education is largely that-- knowledge that seems to relate to required changes in behavior of ourselves and others. This means there is a disparity as I said above between what is known and what is expected potentially of others, and oftenties teachers have not utilized what they are teaching. This informs us about the nature of hypocrisy and disparities between learning and action from learning. It also informs us about morality. Learning happens fast, but there is resistance to using it, even though there are expectations generated that make us want others to follow the rules even if they are not utilized broadly.

Connecting this with the observation that people don't really know the laws or moral rules, and would disagree on moral rules if they were written, and not know most later in attempts to recall, we can see there is a huge disparity on what would be true and what could be carried out in action. What people carry along with them in education and their knowledge of laws and morality is often mostly mental, and disagrees with what others think. And since there is a limitation on application of anything learned that calls for new behavior, it appears that not only are the moral rules and laws are often unknown, or purely mental, they *cannot* be applied as well as we might think. Moral rules are those we sometimes think *must* be applied.

*[Finished at 5:24 pm, without spell checks or edits, semi-blind typed, unread]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<a name="scaling-water-in-ultralight-hiking-a-query-to-the-ultralight-hiker-community">Scaling water in ultralight hiking. A query to the Ultralight Hiker community</a>

Of interest to the HighIQ Community regarding water needs and scaling on the lowest level, from homeless upwards, when traveling.

Thursday, August 10th, 2023, 12:00pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

What do you consider the maximum amount of water comfortable for your trips?

Under what conditions would you expand you water load?

I’ve got an extremely minimal pack now, with all contents fitting in my 30L Hyperlight 4oz stuff bag. I have a secondary small pack if I need to expand on water only, otherwise it goes into the Hyperlight 4oz.

That water is still annoying. I find the primary scaling of weight is now on water. I’m in Arizona hiking, and water sources may be too spaced out, finding some sources dry. So I mainly need to carry water.

My setup now includes expansion up to 10L, but that is for very long distances expecting no water, ~20 miles or more, upwards of 30. I’m about to test this out.

But the 10L seems like it’s high side? What is the max you carry? What supports mostly any distance for you on average, in your hiking climates?

[This posting pertains to my study on Homelessness and Wealthy Camping]

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-meaning-of-rock-paper-scissors">The Meaning of Rock, Paper, Scissors</a>

Wednesday, August 9th, 2023, 12:36pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

[A shorter piece, to invite a greater readership, without edits as part of an ongoing study on Editing, Productivity and Intelligence]

http://www.mattanaw.com/thoughtstream.html#the-meaning-of-rock-paper-scissors

Most have played the game in childhood and probably as an adult too, “Rock, Paper, Scissors. Since all have played it, I don’t think any introduction to the game is necessary. Instead I’ll jump straight into what I think may be the meaning of this game we played for so long, but didn’t think much about the possible meaning.

Of course the game has been passed along without explanation. It is like a cultural recording, like a tribal story, or game-ritual, that has meaning but the meaning has been lost. Fortunately, I think we can reconstruct possible meanings.

As I was walking around Flagstaff, Arizona recently, I had the insight that this is probably a play on the alchemical reduction of life to basic elements. Early attempts to reduce the world to “Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water”, to do similarly to what greeks like Democritus were doing, with his early theory of atoms. Worldwide, people wondered about what might make up the contents of everday things. Was there something fundamental that was the building blocks of nature? What are they? Some cultures would have one view and others another. In time there would be perspectives that would state there were one, two, three, or four basic elements. Others would think there are more. Later of course, we have our real periodic table of elements, closer to the truth.

“Rock, Paper, Scissors” I think is a twist on this. Instead of telling what is fundamental regarding the alchemical, or the elemental, it tells what is fundamental regarding competition and warfare, legal, cultural, and military.

According to this view, Rock is blunt weaponry, Paper is legalism and recordings, and Scissors is editing and omission.

Thinking through the game, it makes sense: When a player uses rock, it wins over editing and omissions, and lies. When paper is played against rock, it wins in history, and sometimes legalism, like international law, or adversaries using force and not rules. Scissors wins over paper, because paper is not comprehensive enough and there are also deliberate omissions and deletions, and editorial lies. The interaction of them all, is the general play and competition between these forces of government, aggression, and lies/omission.

“I can edit that or you out” versus “I can hurt, scare, or kill” versus “this is the governmental code and rules you have to follow and our history.”

I thought about this in greater depth of application than this and am convinced that this is likely part of the correct interpretation.

Connecting this with the elemental, being more speculative, it says “You can skip thinking about that and focus on what matters, and I think the alchemical theory is false anyway.”

Let me know after thinking about your enjoyment of the game, your thoughts about elemental theory, and your view of the social world. I’d be curious to hear if you think this story is one that has now the right explanation after all this time of not having one.

[Finished at 12:50 in 14 minutes with no spell check or edits as part of an ongoing study of Editing and Intelligence]

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="linguistic-associative-graphs-brains-and-adaptive-organs-like-skeletons">Linguistic Associative Graphs, Brains, and Adaptive Organs Like Skeletons</a>

*Monday, August 7th, 2023*,&nbsp;<time> 12:33pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA</time>

[Unedited as part of a study in editing, but still of excellent quality]

While driving in New Plymouth, New Zealand, I thought through and intended to write and share concerning an interesting finding I’ve discovered, concerning the operation of mind-like behavior in bones, and the relationship to the nervous system, and our desire to organize and re-organize our minds as they relate to vocabulary. This finding relates directly to my writings on ethics relating to our desire to structure our lives, using our verbal systems. If we are attentive about how we try to organize our behaviors, we utilize and develop upon transformations of words and their combinations. Interestingly, it relates to adaptivity of organs, including the brain of course, but other organs that respond to environmental stimuli and stressors resulting in change of their configurations. The example I currently have in mind that would be elucidating to others are bones. The muscular system and it’s attachments would provide another good example, but since I broke my toe recently, and did not treat it and observed the interesting changes it made over a year, I am especially interested in the example of bone reactivity and change.

Bones are not typically thought of as being “minds” and of course, they don’t think, but they do have similarities to the design and growth of real machine learning and artificial intelligence systems, which are meant to emulate brains, but actually also show characteristics of growth like bones. Notice that AI systems are not minds. We liken them to minds, and want them to resemble minds, but their system architecture is unlike a brains, and do have characteristics similar to bone growth. I was pondering concerning the extent in which bones could in the future be utilized as artificial intelligence systems, still with outputs that are likened to minds, but are not the same as them, like current AI systems.

Not all can be discussed here, but some key insights are worth sharing that would relate to later developments on the topic that I’ll make, that may stimulate others to similar observations and efforts.

In the media we’ve seen some examples of the creations of AI systems in structural engineering, supposedly exhibiting more optimal results than what might be created by a human designer. Human designs of homes and structures are typically rectilinear, and gridlike, wheras these computer designs had unexpectedly curvy and porous results. These curvy and porous results resemble tissues in certain ways, including brain tissue under very close examination, but more obviously bone tissue. Bone tissue, it would appear, is responding to the world in ways to develop with a similar pattern of non-grid-like, supposedly more optimal designs, created by AI systems. This woudl suggest that the non-rectilinear biological pattern has charactistics of greater optimization than what humans like to make, and is more like what AI might create, depending. There are certainly optimizations related to grid-like rectilinear patterns, but what we can see is that there is a trend away from that for certain systems.

Notice that an AI system doing this work is doing it independently. Likewise, when I broke my long toe beside my big toe, its growth was done independently too. I could look at my toe and be fascinated and curious about what it was doing, but there was no way I could know the resulting structure. It was entertaining to see what my skeletal system would do for me in creating a new toe that would still function but be unlike my other toe, on my left foot, that was somewhat symmetrical to my first right toe. The asymmetry in a skeletal system is of interest because in total it reflects the responsiveness of the system to differing influences and inputs from the mind and from the world outside. The stronger side, showing differing structure, is more optimally related to my behavior, and ultimately this relates to ethics too. Now I may want to train the left in order to improve my personal excellences in athletics, health, and longevity. It would also support my ongoing ability to support others in their related interests.

My right toe now had a joint that did not function for a long time. Now it functions, is much larger, and is somewhat bent. It was somewhat usightly to me despite being interesting, because of its difference from my left toe. But over time it has become more attractive, such that as I sit here now, I wonder if my feet would be better in total if the left was the same as the right!

If an AI system included sensors that watched the development of the toe and the resulting structure, it would have information about the changing toe heading towards optimization. If the complete toe was read by the sensors on completion, the final system would be a storage system approximating a machine learning system. Bones then would contain information, like a database, about the optimal structure of the toe. If someone wanted to use the AI system to understand toe optimization, the AI system would need to load the information about the toe, which is similar to loading the database. It would then observe patterns, including patterns stored on its development. This would mean the bones are really like physical Machine Learning databases complete on existing optimizations. In the medical field it is already known that imagery of the details of the bones surfaces and interior structures would need to be studied, likely in visual form for humans, to understand the seemingly intelligent but mindless growth of bones. The medical doctor, seeing the structure, may recall why they love their jobs. “Look at how this had developed without any need of surgery! What are the patterns contained in this growth that I can see faintly but incompletely?”

Simply speaking more about this topic would reveal increasingly greater relationships between AI, the nervous systems of people, data, and natural optimizations of non-mental organs.

Being a former software architect in technology and a long time consultant of large businesses in technology, I’m certain that these observations are correct. An interesting implication is that bones are like AI/ML and that bones themselves could be used as part of new AI systems, comprising part of the designs of those AI systems, meaning they are AI-like, or AI-component like. You could have a mind-like AI using bones.

Some may read this and want to go further into intelligent design, but I would resist that inclination. While this optimization exists in nature, and is AI like, I don’t myself interpret nature in this way. I also think it is possible to exceed nature in the designs, although that would be a growth of nature. More to be said on this topic later.

Notice the mind of the doctor is made of nervous-system. The nervous system too develops in response to stimuli in nature and stresses, including anything going on in the nervous system itself, like when you are simply thinking without interracting with your environment. The nervous system’s pattern of growth is not rectilinear, but includes structure that is curvy, porous, and somewhat like bones. The analgoy between the nervous systems and bones is only a partial analogy, but it must be admitted it is not gridlike. The design of AI systems has aspects of grid-likeness and not, and where it is not grid-like, it is more like an associative graph. Thinking primarily about our verbal systems, we already have the idea of a ‘tag cloud’ in web technology, showing more unusual and less rectilinear relationships of different levels of strength between words. Some words are heavily used and others are not. These are directly related to brain storage. These two also have optimizations that are natural and are not like the organization planned by any person. Everyone’s brain and verbal system developed in a natural way, with brain tissue results and verbal graphs that are not rectilinear and do not have the tidiness that a human would want to create. There is a natural tidiness that exists but that wasn’t anyone’s plan. Even if someone tries to make their verbal thinking more ‘tidy’ the resulting brain structure takes control and it will be optimized in a natural way, somewhat resembling the responsiveness to bones and the environment.

This has implications for the moral planning of one’s life, as one thinks through verbal thoughts. At the moment I’m not prepared for the development of that topic needing to ‘reload’ earlier thoughts on the topic of interest and relevance. I will share more on that topic later, but for now can say, implications exist that would simplify the personal planning anyone might make in their own life.

[Finished at 1:19pm, with no edits, in less than 48 minutes (likely completed in about 40 minutes), for the purpose of continuing my study in editing]

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="today-i-ate-my-first-ant">Today I ate my first ant</a>

Monday, August 7th, 2023, 12:13pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

Wanting to further my foraging abilities, I’ve been thinking through eating insects like grasshoppers and ants, while trying to be as caring as possible, being a vegan not wanting to create cruelty.

I look at grasshoppers and think, still, I’m not ready to try it out. They look like they are enjoying themselves somehow too much to do that. Yet, perhaps.

Ants seem more favorable for eating. I was learning they are antiseptic and unlikely to create illness, even without cooking them. Raw ants in many varieties can be eaten unreflectively it appears. Large ants are the most attractive for a feast, but seeing them so clearly, again, I wonder if they are enjoying themselves.

Today without thinking much about it, having a very small ant walk over my hand, I simply quickly ate it directly. It was very tiny, and had very little taste. The texture was not at all bothersome, but seemed somewhat firm and hard. Not unpalatable at all due to the hardness, however.

This was the first deliberate eating of a non-plant life form since just before Thanksgiving, year 2000. That’s 23 years nearly now.

I find it likely I will expand on my eating of ants. Have you eaten any insects? Howdo you feel about it? It seems a plentiful food source to eat ants while hiking and foraging. In Australia recently, I was driving among the termite mounds, which extend beyond what can be seen immediately. Thousands of square kilometers of free and easy food maybe.

I’m studying homelessness and wealthy camping currently, and the overlaps in experience that exist. It seems possible that ants are a truly free and valuable food source, for wealthy people hiking in their premium ultralight gear (like myself), and homeless people alike. A short walk from a city into the forest would yield large supplies of ants, and harvesting would be simple.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="ai-translation-of-egyptian-hieroglyphics">AI Translation of Egyptian Hieroglyphics</a>

Monday, July 24th, 2023, 9:07pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

A response to a fellow HighIQ community friend regarding the translation of Egyptian Hieroglyphics. May be useful to others. Originally posted yesterday.

The most current AI would probably on memory tell the meanings. This is because they would have been trained already on the glyphs. If they were not trained, then humans would need to verify. Only after scaling past human verification to a method in which cross-ai verification in conjunction with humans is arrived at, would AI be able to start to test its own results. After a stage in which humans and AIs work together on cross verification, and test-retest replication (many replications and improvements over time), I think AI only testing can happen. But that would be on new data and many test runs in which the results are thought by humans to be better than the earlier results provided. Trust is created in the authority of the AI, and subsequently AI can do all the work.

There would be a stage of total dependence on human verification until humans feel exceeded (meaning they can’t verify but repeatedly it seems more precise).

Probably much is lost on Egyptian Hieroglyphics I think. I don’t think reconstruction of the past is something AI can do with insufficient data. A single hole would still be guessed at as to how it should be filled. It would be probabilistic translation as it is now.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="on-the-idea-that-laypeople-cannot-find-issues-in-expertise">On the Idea that Laypeople Cannot find Issues in Expertise</a>

Thursday, July 18th, 2023, 3:08pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

Regarding a meme joking about how people should not expect to know more than experts:

Let’s reconsider. While this is funny, because most could not surpass the knowledge of experts, it is correct that experts do not rely upon data/information as much as one thinks. They are people with specialized training, and in that training read some papers, and documents. These documents were poorly remembered. Key insights remained. The aggregate of key insights does not include all good insights and unfortunately here is pinned to data/information from source research. Since reading is limited, and minds only contain key insights, it follows that there is little in minds that is comprehensive. Much is missed that they have not covered. I find it personally easy to find what has been missed or else find where there are gaps. Gap filling with plain knowledge is possible in these scenarios to arrive at solutions. This is why the lay person resists the idea that they cannot have knowledge. Much is obvious regarding gaps in people who are uncombined. Here we have high intelligence that is inexpert, except where it was certified expert.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="quality-in-thought-sequences-of-individual-minds-versus-conversations">Quality in Thought Sequences of Individual Minds Versus Conversations</a>

Monday, July 17th, 2023, 9:57am, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

[Written without any edits as part of a study in editing]

If one pays attention to a normal conversation, it doesn’t typically take logical steps. When thinking alone, I find it easy to proceed in a roughly logical way, such that the chain of reasoning is clear, and one sentence leads into the next, and various conclusions follow from earlier premises and logical steps. Any leaps made are easily accounted for. This does not appear to exist in shared conversations. A conversation of two or more people does involve sentences and turn taking in which sentences are supposed to relate to one another. One person often builds off of the sentences of another or finds relationships in which to add and speak concerning. Within these conversations it does not appear often there would be discernable logical progressions anything like what is achievable by a single person or mind. There appears to be a reduction of quality in shared conversations versus independent conversations with the self.

A conversation with the self may be as rigorous as a mathematical proof that follows rules of logical inference resulting in apparently valid results, from good premises. One can proceed in a roughly scientific fashion too, utilizing facts which are trustworthy as premises, and drawing inferences. Most conversations with the self would not be mathematical like this, or really formally logical. But conversations with oneself can proceed in a way that is more consistently and reliable of good logical quality. It does not appear that conversations with others often or nearly ever proceed in a way that is even basically clearly logical.

One can notice this by looking at how sentences appear in sequence, and looking for any logical development of any kind which can be used to extract something akin to a logical argument or logical flow similar to what can be done independently.

This is partly due to the people involved in most conversations, but also due to the nature of conversation between differing minds. Even if the people involved are able to arrive at a kind of conversation that has sentences related enough together to approach the kind of argument that could be created by a single mind, it is likely that a written recording of this argument would require reworking the conversation into something better than in the source. But a single mind seems to be able to better craft something approaching a finished argument the first time. An example would be a writing which has a logical flow which is direct from the mind into a recording.

I think this would be verifiable by using dictation tools to record what is said in complete conversations, to show that transactions are not approaching the quality that is possible from a single logical thinker.

[Finished without any edits at 10:12 am, in 15 minutes]

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="comfort-with-inaccuracies">Comfort with Inaccuracies</a>

Friday, July 14th, 2023, 5:53pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

A large portion of the human population that I would quickly devalue and consider dangerous includes those who are too comfortable with inaccuracies. These are the ones who will speak and defend anything they’ve spoken, or those who will speak and alter later without concern about gaslighting.

Some appear to not know when they are inaccurate or not. This includes the unintelligent or people who are simply unable to notice defects. Some do not seem to want any inaccuracies to be corrected anytime soon; they are fine with inaccuracies and have no special motivation or desire to see them corrected. They can simply let things remain inaccurate, and may want inaccuracies.

There are limits with how accurate things can be made, and there are time constraints in the process oftentimes. However, this post more concerns things in which accuracies are easily had, or are had without too much effort.

These are people to be avoided:

“I can’t tell it is inaccurate, or I will watch and enjoy inaccuracies come into existence and will let them remain.”

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="new-religious-products-and-stagnation">New Religious Products and Stagnation</a>

Saturday, July 15th, 2023, 8:15am, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

[Note: written without edits as part of a study in editing]

It was stated in an earlier post that products that appear to be complete, particularly ones that have durable qualities of finishedness, resulting in an inability and unwillingness to change them. These products tend to have a design that seems refined, and a manufacturing result that is of good enough quality to execute the design exactingly. There is a blend of vision and product execution. Finished products of high quality are those we appreciate, want to continue to use without alteration, and are those we find more attractive and aesthetically pleasing.

However, it was also noticed that these products appear to have an associated stagnation. The ability to visualize how these products can be improved is stifled. Organizations that produce such products have difficulty making changes which would result in alternative designs and manufacturing processes that would result in sufficiently different products which would be better. It was noticed that different or new organizations may be more successful at creating a better product eventually, and such a product would likely come into existence despite appearances of perfection in the existing proven product.

Stagnation has a relationship to perceived completeness of a product (Ref http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#stagnation-and-completion ). If movements cannot be made, it is thought that maybe the product is done. Sometimes development is simply challenging and improvements are hard to be arrived at. Othertimes, the product really does seem to be unimprovable without an alternative design that would effectively result in a new kind of product. Products that are finished or appear to be finished but are not, involve visible stagnations, or inabilities to progress.

The above ideas, it must be noticed, are not only applicable to products but to people and culture. Here I want to focus attention to the relationship between this and religion. Religious views are extremely stagnated. Alternative conceptions of better ways to guide life would certainly exist in the future. I would argue that i’ve developed an improvement myself. Either way, religions offer a product of sorts. The product is expected to create people who are of better quality and these people can also be thought of as products of sorts too. The religion itself and the people are under development. When there is little change, or little development, people can get confused as to whether or not their product, their religion, is complete or not. They may also be confused, in this context, as to whether or not they are complete. Stagnation is a sign that there is perhaps a confusion as to the completeness. Either there are reasons for the religion simply being unable to be altered and progressed, making it appear to some as complete when it is not, or the design of the religion itself and the realization of the design in the creations of those within the religious organization have reached a pinnacle. Having reached a pinnacle of design and its manifestation, there is a kind of finishedness to it. The finishedness, however, does not mean there will not later be a substitute that is superior, probably created by another organization, that does not have the limitations of movement and flexibility to create new designs, that plague the religious organization that offers its own product, that cannot be switched dramatically without great resistance. Notice that religions only change slightly. They cannot change greatly. This suggests that when changes are sufficiently slow, and there is stagnation, one can anticipate there is a false sense of final completeness associated.

Few, I think, have entertained this kind of persepective regarding major religious institutions, but it does seem to provide some clarity and elucidation. Each religion is old and certainly stagnant. They feel antiquated. They feel like they cannot be changed, and certainly, their organizations are ancient in origin. They appear to be unable to incorporate many changes that have arisen in modern times. That options exist suggests that they are product like in their offerings, and that one can be a substitute for another. Each product is taken to be complete and final. Yet alternative designs are certainly possible, and occasionally do result. Scientology is an example of a recent religious offering that has gained a following, and people with different developmental qualities and results.

It appears to me that there ought to be an understanding that products will certainly be superseded by others. This view is damaging to the excess commitment people have for their choice of favored religious products, and for their thoughts that their utilization results in final people, that cannot be improved upon in subsequent generations, using entirely different religious products.

[Finished at 8:59 without edits]

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="readings-from-other-nations-and-languages">Readings from other nations and languages</a>

Thursday, July 13th, 2023, 1:19pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

[Note: written without edits as part of an ongoing study in editing]

Periodically I return to thinking about how little is known about the popular writings of other nations, and writings in other languages. Reflecting on the history of my reading, most books were sourced from searches or references relating to the English language, and any works coming from elsewhere were older documents, with sufficient interest generated historically to cause an investment in translation. This, however, does not mean that these are the only valuable books which could be read from other languages, and of course, they have libraries of materials which have not been translated. Most books I have read are not the most popular in the English language. These books would appear in libraries, but would likely not be in collections in other nations. The intersection of the set of books in libraries in other nations and the set of books in English speaking nations may not be very large. This would imply the most knowledge is not accessible outside of one’s own language, and resides in the set that includes only books that are in a single language, considering only individual titles and not copies, since of course, some books have many copies.

My partial reading list ( located at http://www.mattanaw.org/reading.html ) indicates definitely a strong bias towards the English language and is a sign of probable ignorance about valuable works that may be relevant that exist in other nations and languages. Thinking about how biased this is I wonder about how lacking my search for quality reading material is, and what the effects of national separation have been on my ability to know. It isn’t hard to infer, though, from this experience of one’s own reading, that we are greatly affected by national divisions that have been created not only by linguistic boundaries, but by travel boundaries, and arbitrary geospatial boundaries.

Today, as I was remembering some works that I have read that I forgot to include on my list, I remembered the Federalist Papers of the United States, which I read partly over 20 years ago. Having just spent considerable time in Australia and New Zealand (I see myself as part Canadian, Aussie, and Kiwi these days, for substantial time or work in these countries), and having observed the boundaries around media information available, and differences in knowledge of history and politics, I wonder why I would care again about the Federalist Papers. Upon recalling this book, I did think to myself I would like to read it more fully; but then reflecting on things like the currency in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and all other nations, which include no American figures, I wonder why I would not instead read the equivalent documents of importance in these other nations. They are very different. Entirely different history and figures. Stories are complex; so complex, that like Americans, people cannot really comprehend or understand it any longer, without devoting a very large amount of time to learning it summarily only, and sometimes only verbally.

Knowledge exchange between nations appears to be planned to be low. Australia shows news from the United States on normal television and includes some channels we have in the United States. This means they are simply watching American television. Australia seems quite American in a number of ways which seem to relate to entertainment. Their speech is easy to understand, and it appears over time there may be a blending. Oddly, the situation is not likewise in the United States. We are not really watching Australian television. Considering television is always on, Australians probably feel in many ways they are American, if not only partly, for watching the same shows and news for decades. In Australia they show American news, not only American programming.

This appears to be less the case in New Zealand. I have not gone through all channels, not being much of a television watcher, only watching when I have hotel rooms, and/or when I have sufficient interest usually in learning a region. In the United States, there is no Kiwi news (New Zealanders refer to themselves as “Kiwis”), and no Aussie news. In New Zealand, there is some exposure to entertainment from the United States, but not as pervasive an inclusion of news or media channels on regular television. So in New Zealand one feels less related to the United States, but in Australia, one can sometimes forget one is not in the United States.

It appears that differences in exposure to news and channels relate to higher level media controls. This, of course, appears to be related to controls on learning and human behavior. For a long time I have been critical and aware of international boundaries that relate to keeping people separate for objectives that are not known. Problems around this have been articulated by some like Noam Chomsky in his famous work on media control, and his positions that he’s been vocal about in his political advocacy. Intellectuals who travel must eventually understand that they cannot be completely “global citizens” even where it relates to information. Eventually some may be overcome when translation becomes automated and digitzation results in the ability to access a larger pool of valuable works. However, it appears, still, interest in performing automated work of translation, and costs of storing translated works, will result in a still fractured and divided source of total information. Making translations available to everyone is about storing information, finding ways to make it available digitally, and translation, and not only translation alone. These costs are huge, but automation will make it more possible to increase the quantity of available information. Media control, however, appears to be something that will take much longer to over come, and false divisions and controls on information will probably still encroach on attempts to make new translations freely available.

For a period Twitter and social media was celebrated for opening national boundaries to global conversation, and comments online often include free translation features that are useful. But work of intellectual importance, that have made it after much effort into printed publications, are still unavailable across national boundaries.

A strange thought is how we would decide what to watch, if suddenly all channels from around the world were made simultaneously available. It seems that this would be possible already to being to provide if not through the web, initially with some inferior network limitations on streaming. Would you watch television from a country we have not been checking on often, like Mongolia, or Yemen? Suppose all was translated: wouldn’t it be incredibly fascinating to suddenly understand the day-to-day interests of people living very different lives elsewhere, facing different problems, and being shown different issues on the news?

Sometimes it is strange to recall that entire lives are lived every day in extremely different cultures that one knows very little about. Your entire life and all its details are repeatedly lived differently by millions in Nigeria in a culture and context that is unimaginable without a long visit. Suddenly, their lives could be made available to us for daily watching. Every day we could potentially be watching what the Nigerians themselves are watching. Would this not result in a feeling that we are suddenly Nigerian too? This must be the effect that television from the United States is having in Australia. Millions are watching it everyday. But it doesn’t go the other way around, and this is due to media controls.

It would also be strange, if suddenly college courses required literature from China, Russia, Argentina, Brazil, and any other nation to be required, not simply to be diverse, but because of the quality of the authorship. Suddenly it would be obvious that we were artificially separated from great minds of other nations and languages. Their books are expected to be interesting and special, not only because leading thinkers have different minds from each other, but also because cultural differences and linguistic differences are expected to produce different kinds of thinking, that others ostensibly say they value. This implies that high quality thinkers of other nations and other universities globally are producing materials that are different and probably surpass in a number of ways what exists in English literature.

It would be a huge mistake to think that English literature really completely covers all that might be produced by other nations. And that is a mistake I’ve made in my reading list, but there aren’t great ways to overcome the limitation of finding and translating good materials, and making them accessible for my own reading purposes. Since I am primarily a reader biased to the English language, stuck in what I have available and what has been made to appear interesting, and my experience is not unique, it appears others probably are nearly entirely biased in their reading lists too. As a reader of mathematics, science and philosophy, I have been exposed to great international works which have been translated, but if one goes by frequency of presentation of information, looking at my reading list and history, at work and in college, it really is nearly entirely biased towards English writings and of course, this is partly due to media control across national boundaries. Media control is not only about what is on television and entertainment, but all information. Media control is information control.

[Completed at 1:55 pm, in 26 minutes, without any edits, spell-check, proofreading, or re-reading, as part of a study in editing]

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="generalized-human-hierarchy-for-ranking-and-titling">Generalized Human Hierarchy for Ranking and Titling</a>

*Sunday, June 26<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:36pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA</time>

Hierarchies used for ranking people in order of importance recur in many human contexts without any apparent awareness of the reword done in each context, what was already done in another. The result is that we have a fimilarity between organizations wherever there is a desire and need to rank and title, but differences in how the ranking and titling is done, and a perception that changes to the way of ranking and titling would require independent effort, and not the use of a ranking and titling standard, competitive with other standards. Not yet understood and unstandardized, organizations unfold in ways that are self-determined, with resulting rank and title systems that have some familiarity to those existing at other organizations but with idiosyncratic differences, resulted from unguided growth by vague emulation.

Recently, I was reflecting on the large number of synonyms that exist for "high leader" roles. This large number of synonyms might lead us to think that our extra vocabulary around names for leaders is inefficient, and also that it is somewhat strange, that one organization would choose one word for a leader role, and not another. Desire for importance seems a motive for avoiding the use of just a single or small number of titles for role, because by having a new title, or one slightly different than the one expected, creates a chance to have special importance.

In choosing how businesses are organized, if one is a founder, one sees that the entire structure of the organization is open for their determination. They can choose what the leadership structure will be, and what to call each of the roles within the leadership. Owners can be given titles or names that are somewhat lofty to create an impression to others that those who are members have some special greatness about them. There is some consistency within business leading to mutual comparison and relative "fitting in" regarding how one chooses these titles. Creating a business is somewhat like creating a government in which an organization will be lead, with knowledge that the organization that's not in the ownership or immediate leadership will be beneath, and may never be owners or members themselves. These workers or employees are also placed into a hierarchichal strucutre, in which titles for jobs will be created, along with gradations in the jobs relating to room for people to have "advancements" and "promotions", increasing their relative power and compensation in the organization. There are few organizations in which there is not a feeling of a mostly traditional hieararchy in which people are given titles which function to show their relative importance, compensation, and some summary descriptiveness about the role that they perform. However, businesses do differ significantly in their resulting hierarchy specifically, and this appears to be caused primarily by their being a business functioniing without definite standards.

Militaries, hospitals, businesses, religious organizations, and nations all have systems of ranking that really are quite similar in their function, yet there are still no standards the cross these domains. It appears however that the method of creating and organizing human hierarchies is roughly similar whatever the organization is that has a hierarchy. That they all use hierarchical schemes is also telling regarding the simililarities betweent he organizations. They can know that they need and want hierarchies, but they cannot know how to do it well, and rely on copying what has been seen in other existing hierarchies already observed.

Below are some words used for the title of the highest leader. These words really mean roughly the same thing despite utilization in differing domains.

Pope, President, Leader, General, CEO, Chief, Cardinal, Director, Manager, Sultan, King, Queen, Monarch, Resident, Executive, Judge, Professor, Doctor, Master...

The list is really quite large, and on only a small amount of reflection, it does appear humans have chosen to simply rename the word "leader" over and over. They've had different motivations for this, but regardless, a cause is not having a *system* of taxonomy and structure for organizations. A pope is simply a leader of the church. A cardinal is a leader of a subset of the church. A  President, or CEO, or owner, is a leader of a business. A director or manager, is a leader of a subset of the business. An organization with more development may have a CFO, who is a leader of the financial portion of the business. In that domain, there may be an Account Manager, who is a leader of a subset of the business. What is common in this scheme is the hierarchy, and hierarchies within hierarchies. Leaders are simply roles in which some subset of the organization falls underneath them, in certain ways.

What varies greatly also are the sizes of organizations and their level of development of their heirarchical structure. The mililtary would be an example of a very large hierarchy with many titles and gradations between titles. Organizations of one person, when companies are created, have self-designated Presidents and CEOs. This would be an example of a great error, or a symptom of not having a system of forming hierarchies. A President that has no hierarchy underneath may simply be someone pretending to be like a president of another organization that may have a hundred thousand employees, or someone pretending to not be a simple worker. They may be pretending they could ever have a useful or successful business or any structure in their organization. It is just them and they are instantly president! When I created my business, I was instantly President of my own company.

It appears that as people are creating various organizations, or managing organizations that exist that are separate, they continue to be motivated to play with their particular hierarchy, to do new things that would differentiate their organization or people in various ways, and create a different perception in those who are inside and outside the organization. Motivations for making modifications seem to relate to competition. Simply not having a hierarchy that is the same as another may create a differentiation that has many ramifications for the success of the business, including its ability to attract and keep employees, and for marketing to others that their organization has different traits, and has a different offering. Companies will try to argue that their organizations are simply "better to work with", and that might be relating to reasons including "how the company treats its employees," or "the quality of its work environment", or the power of their leadership in their industry. Organizations will strive to make their leaders appear more and not less important than the leadership of competing orgs, even if those competing organizations are larger, offer a better product or service, is more experienced, or is more generally powerful. 

Names for members of hierarchies can be used to trick others regarding who is in charge of what and when. An owner of a company can put considerable blame suddenly on a director, when there is business or legal crisis, even though the fault is entirely on the owner. Employees can be given titles like "President" or "CEO" even if they are not owners or have little total control over the business. This gives the impression that certain people who have such titles at large companies are really responsible for whole organizations or are the causes of certain decisions. People may come to believe that they receive the bulk of the pay, and are earning more directly from the margins of earnings atop wages of staff; whereas, in reality, the owner may be unknown and receive these funds more directly, without any contributions at all, or with very periodic decision making only. The President or CEO can be someone who simply redirects attention away from real owners to keep them protected, and also to have a way to direct all blame. It is possible to have an organization blame a President, after an event causes public unrest, with the objective of protecting the real ownership. As owner of my company, I could easily hire a President, who would then be paid fairly well, and would be the apparent leader to others. However, mostly this person would be an employee who is puppeted somewhat in their leadership role. If there was any situation with accusations of mismanagement, I could fire this person and people would believe the issue was taken care of. Meanwhile, I'm unknown, and am still earning a larger amount of money for doing less.

I myself have fallen for the idea that a presented leader must actually be the leader. It is a common illusion. It is hard to know what exactly the title means when it is used. If one is totally ignorant about the financial and founding organization of a large business, and its history, one will not know really if the leader of that organization is the leader of that organization. With research one becomes less ignorant, which may cause some to think "well, people can just research specific organizations to know more" but the work associated with such research is not great enough to overcome the issue that for all organizations unresearched there will be an illusion as to the leadership.

My primary interest for sharing this post relates to the fact that a single word really could be used to designate all leaders, with the addition of a standard for describing, in a more detailed way, what that leader does, and how that leader relates to real hierarchies.

It appears to me, that the actual structures of organizations are complex and not cleanly hierarchical, meaning we pretend there is a hierarchy akin to that which the business may "draw up" given its way of assigning titles and relationships among employees.

A hierarchical model may represent a single view into the organization model of the whole which would include much more detail and may not be cleanly hierarchical. But more likely, a published organization chart would have inaccuracies.

A hierarchical model may be one in which to *force* an organization, and it also may be one to misrepresent one. A complete description of an organization would indicate some striving for a clean hierarchical model, but the actual description may not benefit from hieararchical visualizations of it. Visualizations of the complete description would require probably more sophisticated graphs, that would show what the role of the "envisioned hierarchy" is within the organization apart from an attempt at description.

This relates to my view that people are organizing things in a "straight and rectilinear" way, when oftentimes the more optimal organization would be one that is less tidy and orderly and more akin to structures seen in nature.

Problems that organizations face when leaders are trying to structure them are natural problems. They seem to try to solve these problems with a desire for tidiness that is akin to house cleaning and organization. Tidiness is not a mark of problem solving necessarily, meaning that a tidy organization does not mean it has been optimally organized or that its problems were solved therby. Instead, one is quickly confused into thinking something has been improved or that problems were solved, by tidinesses. A tidy hierarchy is a way to make it appear the organization is tidy, and functioning optimally, but the  result may really be an angry staff, but a nice looking diagram. 

It does not appear to the author that there would be an inexhaustible number of potential organizational models due to the constraint that humans have for advancement. If not for some basic constraints around organization which are the cause for their becoming hierarchical, there may really be a massive number of possible organization types in which the constraints would move to being human or animal constraints, or successful prolonged grouping and work.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="changing-processes-of-morality">Changing Processes of Morality</a>

*Thursday, June 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:40pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA</time>

Edits required on process improvements and degradations relating to system behaviors including idividuals and groups, implies that one's moral system is one that cannot be entirely unchanging. This is and has been an assumption of the author, and is implicit in the edits of his gradually improving system of ethics on the process components. But it also implies that ethics cannot be static and unchanging, and "planned in advance", and debunks religion, and it's commitment to ancient and unchanging dogma, wherever that dogma is not taken to be literary history, and is considered to influence behaviors of individuals and groups. It's age would be akin to if I created my moral system in my youth, then followed it without any addition or alternation the remainder of my life; civilization being young, created a sketch process and demanded it to remain largely unchanging. Yet civilization is wanting of changes. The processes of a young person or young civilization on moral behavior is not inclusive enough of learning either; indeed, the goals of the author here are to expend and improve the process to be increasingly inclusive of new relevant knowledge and information, and it doesn't appear there would be final terminus of the process. If the author was to create a final process, and make it into dogma and scripture, subsequent moral practitioners would be required to do the same; however, this is not at all in keeping with the goals of the author. Improvements to the process are part of moral learning and creativity, and moral self-modification and improvement. I am a changing persona and my moral learnings would conform to a changing process of behavior, even if merely descriptive and not one that guides future behavior. The implication is a more scientific view of my life is included in this, for allowing for changing descriptions of my life related to actual behavior, while also recognizing processes and rational behavioral plans and real target habits exist that are also changing as I learn. This includes all planning behavior, which also falls within the total description of me. This book includes my living-autobiography.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="a-strategy-for-creating-a-taste-for-your-bag">A strategy for creating a taste for your bag</a>

*Thursday, June 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>6:02pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA</time>

An issue with improving habits around nutrition is periodic triggers to eating, that associate with unwanted foods and drink. For example, a gas station that one frequents may be a trigger for sweets and drinks, or alcohol. A bar that one has enjoyed frequently, becomes a trigger once it is nearby, resulting in desire to sit down for drinks. Shopping at a grocery store, has aisles that may attract if one has been down them, having candies, snacks, already-prepared food of poor quality, etc... The list of possible triggers to eating in a way that is recognized to be contrary to one's nutritional goals is huge, and in my history has been an obstacle to progress. Historically, I used a strategy that is not the focus of the present post, but I'll mention it in passing. That strategy is to recognize all triggers, and find alternate paths away from the triggers even if it means going to new locations that one ordinarily doesn't go, and additionally, to focus on visual plannin in advance, about what paths will be taken and what will be eaten that's better, that's substituting positively for what is wanted to be avoided. The reason for this is that it appears to be easier to make alternative plans that are better and attractive and follow through on them than to simply combat the various triggers in one's environment. My earlier thought was that driving home from work was a cause for desire for satisfying certain food and drink cravings, since I was in a weakened cognitive state from working all day, and that the triggers caused decision events in which I was less equipped to think rationally to choose options that were not as desirable, the nutritious options, or no options to control spending. Also, choosing a positive alternative route home that had none of the triggers only involved one commitment, of redirecting my path when I left work, in a context without the triggers nearby. It was then easier, to drive the alternative path that had no triggers, and sometimes, one will find, the alternative path results in having no decisions arise at all concerning cravings, and one simply makes it home without issue. It is a simpler way to alleviate the burden of repeated decisions required when triggers to cravings would be numerous, creating numerous decisions, following one's normal pathways.

This writing concerns, however, a new option that only recently came to mind, approximately 17-20 years after having started the above method. It appears they could be used together to improved results. This new idea is to transfer interest in things in the environment as providers of food and drinks, to one's own bag. This is simple enough, and some have done this, simply by being prepared with already prepared foods, snacks, and drinks. I've done the same. What is different about this idea, however, is the addition of an attempt, using the psychological methods of reinforcement and conditioning, to make the bag itself, which can be a purse, backpack, or other bag always had nearby, an object of desire or trigger of desire for food and drink. Additionally, combined in this same process, is the creation of a search habit, for food when it is wanted on recognition of a sensation, to immediately go into the bag for the item. The result is that the bag itself causes a desire for food, but if the desire also comes from a sensation of feeling famished or thirsty, the bag is still the object of the food search. Either way the bag becomes the source of the food. Repeated satisfaction in the food and drinks contained then reinforces positively the process, making it more desirable to repeat again and again, making it a habit. Once a durable habit, one can stop thinking about how it was originally formed and simply enjoy its repetition, until a time in which *another habit competes with it for behavior*—at that time a return to retraining the habit with the same process is required.

There is a cyclical need to retrain habits once they begin to be subsituted by other candidate habits that may be less desirable. If more desirable, one simply learns the new habit and replaces the old one permanently.

The assumption in the above method is that foods and drinks placed in the bag will be those that are known to be of good nutritional quality. It may be desirable to choose options, that are satisfactory even with some degree of overeating and drinking, because, if the bag becomes a source of desire, one may repeatedly want food or drink at a greater frequency. This may be a limitation since having no food at all or no drink, for some, may encourage eating nothing or waiting a prolonged period, but this would not be the same type of person as that mentioned above, who is succumbing to triggers for buying poor quality food and drink at various businesses. But if all in the bag is not too calorific, this may not be an issue. My typical strategy additionally is to eat only late at night. The time in which I would be wanting food nowadays would be when I'm famished and haven't eaten for a very long time. At these times I would prefer to have my bag available as the object of my eating desire, or my area to search once I notice I'm hungry on other sensations.

My preferred drink for my bag is water. I've noticed that water is also, of course, a substitute for food, and will be practicing utilizing it in advance of using the bag for any food contained. Foods that will go into the bag are to be decided, but may include, somewhat eccentrically, my more recent preferences: oats, really inexpensive nuts, like peanuts or sunflower seeds, and fruit. I have not decided proportions, but since I tend to overeat peanuts or sunflowers seeds, I would carry less of those particular foods. I may make simple additions and modifications to make it sufficiently attractive to make the bag really potentially a possible object of desire itself. However, these foods are certainly somewhat low calorie, of good quality, vegan, and their choice is consistent with my moral goals and objectives.

The method to be developed further, which will be here written, is precisely how the bags attractiveness is to be increased using principles of psychology. Already having done similarly in the past, as indicated in my [personal form](mattanaws-personal-form.html), I am confident it will be simple to succeed in conditioning my interest in the bag. There are a number of ways it can be achieved, and in practice I will see what works, and record that process here. Here are initial ideas on how I may begin:

- *Associate my bag with dinner.*
  - I eat once a day, when I eat, it will come from the bag. This assures that everyday already, I'm using the bag to obtain my food. This will create feedback loops on the dinner, relating to the bag, with positive association of the result of the meal, of feeling satisfied and comfortable. Since a person can store food anyplace for dinner, or stage it anyplace temporarily, food that is had for dinner, can come from the bag everytime. This may not be as easy for others having differing diets, of foods that are perishable or odd to carry, like meats and eggs, but is easy for most of what is in the grocery store, including produce. The food I'm eating is also simple, which is consistent with other goals I have around minimizing costs and making the food more basic, for training in camping (notice the listed foods above are suitable for camping). It is easy to make, then, the bag a place to store the food for when you will eat it, forcing one to have repeated positive results, at the time of eating from the bag.
- *Carry the bag everywhere.*
  - This is the easier portion for me, since I already cary bag everywhere. This process is tailored to my needs, but a similar process could be used, to utilize a purse or other bag that is expected to always be nearby. I have three bags that I use. My primary bag is a small backpack that is intended to carry water for fitness, but it has a large compartment that can easily also store food. Since it already contains water it is a good candidate for this method. I also carry a larger backpack, when I'm travelling around or hiking. This would become the new bag serving the same purpose when the smaller bag cannot be carried. I also have a handbag (coach purse used as a briefcase), that could also be used to carry a good quantity of high quality foods and a water bottle (the cause of my knowing the purse is an option is that I carry one!).
- *Make a positive event of its use, and planning.*
  - When the bag is utilized, or when I think about the bag, I will try to think of the enjoyment I will have with it, satisfying my goals around nutrition, and enjoying the taste of the food and water whenever I have it. Visualization of the positiveity of its use is done when it is not used but recollected. If food comes to mind from a sensation, I will try to relate it to positive interests in the bag. The foods in the bag, I will remind myself, are delicious and satisfying. Having them will consistently result in good satisfaction, and feeling of accomplishment. When I'm actually eating, I enjoy what I'm eating, and enjoy that it came from the bag. When I think about plans to eat, I will imagine them positively. Thus I am reinforcing the use and planned use of the bag, simply by thinking positively about what it does for me. 
- *Pretend the bag has the tast and satisfaction of the food.*
  - Here is a mind trick in which I will attempt to make the bag taste like cool ater, creating thirst-quenching satisfaction, and to make it taste like my foods, at the time that I'm wanting more, after having already been satisfied by some of it.

This may not be a complete strategy, however, in my experience it appears this will work effectively. The association of my bag with a single dinner, means that every meal I have will include the bag without any exceptions. If I eat, the bag is involved. This is facilitated by my normally only having one meal, but enables eating on other occasions, for having the food in the bag. Also, since I predictably eat dinner, and dinner recurs, involving my bag ensures training. It means the bag will be involved and will be part of the goal of conditioning it to become attractive on its own. The usage at dinner creates sufficient repeated use.

Carrying the bag everywhere ensures the presence of the bag at other times I may be wanting to eat or drink, on sudden sensation, or to combat possible purchases at locations involving triggers (this happens despite the usual of eating one meal a day). This creats not only sufficient repeat use, it makes sure it is always present. Being always present, it is available as the primary source for satisfying thirst and hunger. If the bag itself does become tasty, then it is more likely that it will be a first searching point for food/drink. This point then ensures, sufficient repeated use for training, and sufficient usage to ensure the success of the objective to be able to use it anytime food or drink is wanted, and not only at dinner.

The first two points pertain to frequency of use and spatial presence of the bag, and routine usage at dinner creating good conditioning opportunities. Additional conditioning is performed by the last two points, which involve emphasizing repeated positive thinking about the bag in relation to the food/drink, search, and finally to make the bag itself a target of hunger. If a psychological study were performed, it would not include conditions so desirable as these, for frequency and opportunity of conditioning, and availability of subjects. What is missing somewhat is isolation of certain relevant conditions, which is needed for confirming causality, but it does appear that one will see clearly that the process has caused the results once it is successful. It could be that one could suddenly have the successful outcome for other reasons, but those would be noticed along the way also, and it is not thought that there would not be additional learning along the way. However, what is interesting, is that despite having no isolation, and a single subject, the causality will appear to be well known on post analysis. Being able to identify the causality is not only about the experimental design, but the mind analysing. Some, unable to identify for themselves good steps to arrive at an objective, may do things along the way to cloud what has occurred. Meaning some, for not having as good quality of minds, or as good quality in planning, may become confused as to how the success has finally resulted. I can admit, to an extent, this appears pervasive regarding weight loss, and there have been instances of my own weight loss in which the central causes resulting in success involved in my behavior may have been unknown. Nowadays this would not be the case for me, but historically it was, and for many wanting to lose weight, it is possible to have success and be unclear as to why it finally worked, and cannot be perpetuated or repeated easily later.

The final result of this effort to make the bag tasty and an immediately thought of place to search for food, is to make the bag related to the only two starting ways in which one seeks food or drink: 1) one thinks of a food of interest and targets it directly, or 2) one becomes aware of a want for food and finds a place to obtain it or search for an option. The result of this process is that the bag is tasty itself and contains tasty options, immediately thought of and present to mind from habit of eating it. Additionally, all searching and shopping is eliminated. One simply has a search habit of going directly into the bag if there is any strong want of food immediately, and of course, at mealtime, when it regularly happens anyway.

What is missing from this process is that the bag cannot contain all food that one will need. One can imagine that if all shopping has been eliminated, the bag is filled with all the food one needs all of one's life. Which is a humorous way of looking at what is wanted to be achieved, to have a tasty bag in which all food wanted and needed is already in it, and additionally, it never runs out.

Of course it runs out, however, so one has to shop or procure food. Water procurement is easy in that one really emphasizes always having it and does not tolerate waiting to refill. Refilling with water is a priority and it is filled often.

Regarding food, the objective is to refill it daily at a minimum, from a source that is *detached* from periods of high appetite or craving. Appetite and craving is managed entirely by the bag, which means there need to be times of shopping without a feeling of need to reload the bag. This connects with other advice I've used for myself around shopping when not hungry. Shopping when not hungry allows one to purchase more rationally, and to get foods that one does not simply want immediately. Food shopping happens when there is no strong food desire, and fills the bag, and creates a surplus (if needed) that itsef can be used to refill the bag. This is equivalent to filling a kitchen with suitable foods which then are transferred to the bag.

*[Written in one hour and 14 minutes, without edits or spell check, finished at 7:16pm]* 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="demographics-you-dont-have-that-are-you">Demographics You Don't Have that are You</a>

*Wednesday, June 21<sup>st</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:50pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA</time>

There are numerous social issues that are pretended to be solved, or are somehow perpetually out of attention, and awareness, that have serious pervasive consequences.

Here is a list of the things you do that you did not supply demographic data regarding:

- You drank while you were pregnant.
- You smoked while you were pregnant.
- Your baby has unknown developmental deficiencies since you didn't really follow any health plan, and drank and smoked, and substanced.
- STD checks aren't between all sex encounters.
  - *Maybe you did one STD check, probably none, and yet you had sex how many times? Your spouse cheated.*
- The condom slipped off and your privates rubbed together outside of the condom.
  - *You have no sex plan*.
- Right after drinking you drive, and you *don't* know your blood alcohol percentage.
- Your spouse cheated, you don't know, and you didn't have them use protection or STD testing, between all sex encounters.

What are the causes of tiny heads?

But you solved the afterlife.

Which other demographics matter? What is your religion and did you drink when you got pregnant?

You can't know if your spouse has STDS but you pretend you can know for dating?

There are areas in which as a group there is a pretense that there is a solution, but there is apparently none.

Do you even care about STDs?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="you-should-have-thousands-of-std-test-results">You Should Have Thousands of STD Test Results</a>

To what extent have you aggregated your STD test results, monogamous or not?

You should have thousands of test results by now.

Sexually transmitted disease testing and prevention seems to dumb our population. It is pretended that anything reasonable is done at all by anyone really.

In response to saying something like this, I would anticipate "societal protection" responses, that support rationalization:

"I use condoms each and every time I'm with my partner" as though genetalia don't rub together, and as if that were actually honest.

"My cheating husband has no STD tests at all, and never used a condom."

This problem is not solved. Not only is it not solved, it is as if nothing has started for finding a solution.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="adding-philosophical-discourse-to-the-high-intelligence-community">Adding Philosophical Discourse to the High Intelligence Community</a>

*Sunday, June 18<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:54pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA</time>

*[Written without edits, and spell checks, in a single sitting, as part of an ongoing study on editing, and the value of certain forms of edits, and editing processes]*

Since the departing of William M. Fightmaster, there appears to be a dearth or scarcity of truly philosophical conversation of good quality in certain High Intelligence groups in which he formerly participated. After he died, there was, over a period of time, a noticeable decrease in postings of the same quality and character, which seem to have been primarily created or contributed by him. His many postings were more academic in nature, and where characteristic of philosophers who were academics, and his were sharings that seemed more directed to creating awareness of philosophical topics, shared in a way consistent with what perhaps may be shared by other Professors of Philosophy, coming from philosophy departments in university institutions.

He was sharing openly with our groups topics to discuss with material references from good sources, and also background information and summaries of readings from earlier philosophers, so readers were aware of some background and direction for future explorations and investigations. As a student of Pychology and Philosophy, like him, I am able, and have been able, to verify the authenticity of his shares. He was sharing good quality philosophy that was real and consistent with what is presented by other philosophers who are current, and still professors at various institutions. His citations were accurate, and his descriptions of the thoughts of others seemed accurate to existing trusted readings, providing corroborating primary or secondary source materials, which would justify his postings.

He wasn't incredibly opinionated regarding his materials and invited open conversation and lively discussion. Threads in which he was included, and those he created, were a source of good intellectual conversation which seemed to enrich the high intelligence community. Now that he is not around, after some number of years, his contribution to the quality of discussion is more obvious, and now there appears to be a clear difference in the quality of conversation and contributions. I think people in our groups are ready for high quality discussion, but the starting points for their development seem to have been reduced without his frequent contributions.

I first joined the High Intelligence Community after years of studying philosophy and psychology independently, mostly keeping all conversations and thoughts about philosophy to myself. Even while at the University of Maryland in the Philosophy Department, I was more often wanting to think alone than with others, because the controversial nature of philosophy lead to a style of conversation that did not seem to promote growth or mutual development. Instead, conversations flagged after focusing on specific topics presented by instructors, and seemed more about quandries and puzzles that did not appear to have good direction for self-improvement. Many who are exposed to philosophy and some parts of psychology and the sciences that are more theoretical, or less obviously connected with everyday self-improvement, probably felt the same way as I did. Having perhaps less interest for independent study, Philosophy and certain theoretical topics may have seemed 'pointless' will less real-life reasons to think the topic worth considering further. However, Prof. Fightmaster invited conversation in a way that was unusually consistent with the objectives of real philosophers who really are able to make connections between the subject matter and real life. He had many admirers and friends and it appears it was because he offered significantly improved mutually collaborative conversations that show the real value of philosophy and topics he was interested in. He provided real academic avenues for people who may not see the value of philosophy and theoretical topics, in a context in which people really were wanting to have that kind of conversation, and he appears to have won much admiration and friendships as a result.

He and I quickly gravitated to discuss with mutual interest and recognition of understanding of the importance of Philosophy and mutual understanding of what it requires concerning logic and skepticism. Finding him to be reputable, I spent much time communicating nearly exclusively on threads that included contributions of his as well. Seeing each other as being akin in various ways we developed a personal relationship and friendship which extended into in-person visits and conversations outside of the social groups like Mensa. I was a guest in his home a number of times, and once attended a party including others who were caring about his friendship and involvement in the comunities, at a time when his health conditions were deteriorating and it was becoming clear that probably he would eventually succumb to terminal illness. He passed away not long after, and is now noticeably absent from discussions all over the intelligence community's discussion forums.

I think there is a need in the High IQ community to introduce topic matter and a familiar style of collaborative discourse that he was providing, and that I found stimulating and congenial to my own intersts. He provided somethign to the community that I was intensely wanting, and appreciative of upon finding it. I don't think he is the only person to be able to stimulate with new and intersting conversations on topics of theoretical interest that are foundational, and supportive to minds that are wanting better complexity and solution. But to contribute in the way he did would require substantial efforts and time; being a retiree, he was able to spend more time than others in posting to the group and sharing comments. Others however, I think could provide excellent contributions, perahps if certain suggestions are observed which would relate to his contributions, and would relate also to what is simply done in academia. It's the sharing of topics of real interest, and invitation of a quality of communication that exists in academic publications. He would provide numerous background sources to back up sharings he made, which would create seriousness and reality to the discussion, and provide material that readers who are unfamiliar need, to be brought into the conversations. Here in our groups we have scientists and philosophers, and business people, who ceratinly could delve more deeply into interests they have that are foundational or "cutting edge" with sufficient personal background and research to supply information with some basic preparations and citations, creating collaborative high quality discussion. Folks may not be able to spend as much time developing the conversations but periodically, I think it would be a great contribution, if some could sometimes contribute in a similar capacity.

In my many sharings over recent years, I have taken an alternative course of sharing edgy philosophical topics embedded in my own reflections or remarks, in a way that assumes that others could recognize the significance or philosophical directions, thinking it could perhaps stimulate interesting conversation, and sometimes it did, but I think not with the same results as what Mr. Fightmaster would produce, by sepaking to tohers as a teacher would. Here I believe I will transition my own writings to be more in keeping with useful conversations I've had with Fightmaster in a more academic and invitational format, that may help benefit in the ways that I was mentioning others could do similarly, in their own areas of interest. In other words, as I write this I'm forming plans for how I contribute to the high intelligence community, in ways that are more similar to what I've done somewhat, with Mr. Fightmaster, somewhat following his lead, in earlier conversations. For me this is a return to a more academic style of communication, with recognition and appreciation for what Mr. Fightmaster has done for our community, and I'm also inviting others perhaps to be more ready to share in a more academic style, to have longer more worthy conversations, than some that are created that detract perhaps from the value of the community.

Of course people want to socialize, so I'm not thinking that socialization should end in favor of more difficult sharings and conversations that require some background reading, research or career development. Instead I'm thinking it would be great for an increased quality of contribution of the other type so that there isn't an unbalance felt, and that there might be a real feeling of interest and cultivation of mind in the various communities.

It would be noted, probably, by other folks who have been in the communities many decades, that there are times in which there would be really good quality contributions, and other times, in which there appears to be less. I'm feeling from what I've seen over the past few years that perhaps quality has diminished from the period of a few years earlier. Then again, it depends on where one goes for conversation, and who it is with. Mr. Fightaster leaving may have simply left a noticable decrease of a certain kind of conversation I myself enjoy, but I have to also say, that with his departing it does make it appear that the groups have diminished somewhat in the availability in what I'm wanting for myself and found gladly on first arrival.

I was focusing this on philosophy because typically philosophy involves conversation on topics of intense interest for being on the edge of intellectual exploration. It touches and includes various fields, as long as they are foundational or are on the edge of mental and learning adventures. Others, doing similar things, in technology and the sciences, and engineering, are working on "cutting-edge" ideas, and foundational or novel areas of cultural development. I am including these others in the above remarks and am wanting to hear more from them what they can share about what is of interest in their own minds, for mutual conversational development and enrichment of the community.

In other words it would be nice to hear the more advanced academic developments of folks who have much to share even if they don't have much time, in a way that is "teacher like", providing some background information and ways to learn, in a way exhibited us already by folks like Prof. Fightmaster, Ph.D, Psy.D. The way he was sharing is what is of interest and not that he was an advanced acedemician. He was inviting others into conversation in ways that was collaborative without expectation of PhDs or advancement in a university setting, making it possible for others to interat in a similar way without having had that background. It was a feeling of having a familiar university level conversation with wider participation made possible. It's not to be forgotten that people are able to contribute in the same ways without having the same backgrouns, and of course we are in a group with a very diverse participation. Furthermore, it is not clear who will have important and unexpected contributions.

A characteristic of these conversations was respectful and interested communication, and expectation of collaboration, and much less that is rude, reactionary, or quickly written with an objective of thwarting the conversation, or its value. Conversations have still been inviting of diversity of opinion and debate, but the debate was of a type more characteristic of kind and civil conversation, which is celebrated within Philosophy, where it is possible to be skeptical of all sorts of thoughts, and supportive of ideas that are unconventional, or often rejected.

*[Completed, blind-typing, without reading or editing, or spell check, as part of my ongoing study on editing]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="status-on-the-current-project-regarding-homelessness-and-wealthy-camping">Status on the Current Project Regarding Homelessness and Wealthy Camping</a>

*Saturday, June 17<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:39pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA</time>

In earlier writings I've discussed an ongoing project I'm working on connecting the topics of homelessness and wealthy camping, with the goal of resolving related issues. Efforts to dates have resulted in some insights of significance, requiring some additional testing and validation, including:

- *Compliants.* Complaints, including anonymous complaints, even for issues unrelated to the behavior of a camper or homeless person, may be a primary cause for being unable to enact solutions. "We simply don't want someone here that often, or sleeping, or camping, or looking like a traveler, or looking like a possible homeless person. I don't want to see that here, knowing I have to pay for where I live, and cannot travel around myself, or because I simply want to control real estate around me and not merely what I myself own."
- *Finding a place to sleep*. Homelessness and rapid travel of wealthy individuals includes a related problem of finding, spatially, a place to sleep near to the location where sleep is desired. If one does not feel an urge to rest or get sleep, or if businesses near are open and there are inexpensive things to do out, there isn't a very strong need for being anywhere near a bed one is allowed to use. However, if one really does want to sleep, and one is *not* near a location where sleeping is acceptable, suddenly one needs to potentially have travel arrangements, energy, and reservations, or a suitable place to camp, that is a good distance from one's current position. Wealthy travelers, campers, and homeless people would all face these issues over and over without good resolution.
- *Inability to define the problems due to complexity*. People have been unable to articulate what the problems of homelessness really are, and what is to be solved, versus retained, about homeless life and wealthy camping. If people want to be tourists or backpackers exploring the world, clearly there is an urge to retain parts of the experience of homelessness, since travelers spending little are going to be livingin a way that is somewhat closer to the homeless people, and they will be facing problem solving situations that resemble those problems already faced by homeless people. Also, homeless people themselves may want to live frugally and cheaply, and without making payments often in the market to ensure they live easily within what is possible to them given their resources. Homeless people want to live without annoyance from others, just like anyone else, and want to live cheaply and freely, on less resources. An implication is that they don't want homes. Instead, they want to be left alone and want to live well without as much expenditure, particularly in the form of rents. If one can remove rent payments one can live well as long as there aren't complaints and special security risks. However, it appears law enforcement creates some of those risks rather than working to resolve them. They are working for someone else to put the homeless in jail potentially or to purge them, and are not working to protect them and ensure they are comfortable. These and other issues indicate that homeless people may want to be homeless, which means that the problems they want solved are not problems that end homelessness but problems that relate to living like a camper. "I want to be homeless and the issues around homelessness are not those that others coming up with solutions would say they are. People who are not homeless or are not travelers are unable to articulate what the problems are but are somehow the people offering solutions, and of course, their solutions have not been able to survive given other social arrangements and pressures which may be for making homeless living difficult."

It's been important to me to arrive at key occlusions that exist that have prevented others from being more successful than they have been in any projects for solving homelessness. It is interesting that in all the time in which solutions have been attempted or proposed, for various homelessness related issues, there has not been a need to introduce causes to keep homelessness. In other words, it appears it has been solved to keep homelessness, and that solution already exists and is living in the world. Complaints and controls around the market for sleeping, including requirements to have a suitable bed at a hotel or in a residence, appear to be key incredients in this issue. Also the role of law enforcement is extremely important, because they are the ones responding to complaints, and are effectively the existing solution for preventing wealthy camping and homeless living. Where one is allowed to sleep, is also related to the controls that exist with law enforcement, particularly if one thinks that it is dangerous at night, and one must be on property that one pays for or owns already, meaning there are transit, market and property requirement that all connect to ways to involke police. Those who are more adept at complaining and getting police favor would be those most able to ensure that issues around homelessness still exist. A person who is having difficulties related to homelessness are experiencing those difficulties partly because of who would complain to police. In locations where there is more money and power, homeless people and travelers can be complained about much more quickly even if their behavior is not related to anything causing complaint. One can simply dislike wealthy campers and homeless people, and use one's power with law enforcement to ensure that they have irritating police encounters that could lead to arrest, and inability to continue their pursuit of healthy wealthy camping and homeless living.

Currently I'm focused on what the life of people consists of when they decide they do not want to be in the rent market. Rent makes up a significant portion of one's living budget, but few really consider that they could remove renting and owning homes from their expenditures. There are claims in the United States and elsewhere about rights to choose lifestyle and certainly that includes ability to choose how one spends money on sleep arrangements. If sleep is the primary need one has identified for being a consumer of homes and apartments, and hotels, then one may want to continue to rent and purchase accommodations. However, if one has decided that what the market offers is not good enough, is too expensive, or is otherwise only something to have occasionally, and not all the time, then one has the freedom, some might think, to spend money otherwise. With funds made available due to a decision to no longer rent, one has had a substantial income increase, even if one is living on savings. Suddenly, one may have another $15,000 a year to spend on other things, which may enable being able to survive well on existing resources. One may not spend much on other things apart from rent, if one is living frugally. Living frugally is arguablly, extremely limited, given this huge cost increase in expenditure if one chooses to live in a residence. Keeping those funds to use otherwise is an intelligent choice, and so one may want to not have a home and live more as a traveler or camper, than spend those funds. Even if one is wealthy, one is supposed to have the option of where to spend extra funds, since as a consumer, one can have any position one likes regarding making purchases in the market. On may refrain from renting simply to choose how one will retain, manage, and spend wealth. Even if that wealth is very great. We have some exmaples of wealthy people, like Warren Buffet, who pride themselves for living in regular homes. I once read a book, "The Millionaire Next Door" which explains that the demographics of wealth reveal that wealthy people are not really ostentatious on average, and instead choose to spend their money on more basic homes than one would expect. This means the wealthiest, most well planned families regarding finances, are choosing to spend a certain way that supports keeping that wealth and ensuring habits are good for preserving and increasing wealth. One does not need to have several million dollars, or billions of dollars, to follow their leads. Actually, these people are often advising others on how to attain the same situations for themselves. Their recommendations are often to do the same, or spend even *less* for not having enough yet, to have even a modest home. Some have stories, of before they were wealthy, explaining that they did what they needed to, to live in a car, live with other roomates, or live in homelessness temporarily, in order to make sacrifices to gain wealth later. They tell their humble starts to their success stories. This implies, that for many people who did become wealthy, they would advocate very frugal living, making big drops in their budgets for paying rents, or any rent at all, and further, they live in success still living in modest conditions. This means they advocate to *never* be wasteful regarding resources and instead to live as cheaply as one can, even making what they call, again, sacrifices in rent, to eventually get to the point of having substantial resources, still in an inexpensive home. 

It is important I think to think more about why they would advise sacrifices, and why they could even be sacrifices. Living inexpensively, in a vehicle, or in a camping scenario, or at someone else's home temporarily, or with family, or in an RV or tiny home, etc... clearly may include some discomforts. But why advise that type of living? Also, why advise that type of living, to celebrate a living hardly better later, once wealth has been gotten?

Here is where I can offer some expertise as a wealthy traveler and camper, and someone exploring what it means to live closer to homelessness in a huge variety of living conditions. This includes years living in hotel rooms. That sounds irrelevant, but it is not: it involves choosing how and where one wants to live, and there are sacrifices, including strangenesses around relationships requiring "permanent physical addresses" and "mailing addresses". Even if one is wealthy, and traveling hotel to hotel, suddenly there is pressure to stay in one place, to have a mailing address and physical address. But as a consumer of the rental market, I can choose *anything* I want to spend my money on, including totally homeless life in hotels. I've lived this way for years. 

I've also lived trying to camp, stay in hostels, stay in AirBnBs and more short termarranged housing. I own a large plot of land in Alaska where I've lived for long periods in an RV, totally off grid, with no water and no septic. This type of living also requires making what some would call *sacrifices* relating to entertainment, transit around havin wifi/cellular, and strangenesses around rules with addresses, since my property is a vacant parcel, and they don't allow mailing boxes near the home, if there isn't a permanent dwelling. This creates a good amount of complexity for managing life, particularly if one is maintaining a business and is actively working.

But there are rich people who were advocating worse living conditions. Living temporarily in vehicles like cars, or living more like a homeless person, simply finding places to sleep. Many stories from famous people tell about doing this for long periods to create habits and savings to make steps towards wealth and work success. Some tell stories of risking everything including all funds and taking on credit card debt on risky business ventures, with the result of sleepinging in cars, or sleeping in offices for long periods. Anyone living in the United States knows probably there are *too many* stories like this, not a shortage of examples.

> *People will use stories of their temporary homeless life, or frugality in residence, to create credibility on their success story. Meaning some will lie.*

There really are too many stories like this in American Popular culture. Wealthy people want and need to prove they *did it all on their own* and in order to explain it, will tell their stories about how they had nothing in the beginning, and how having nothing was really important for teaching lessons required for finally becoming rich.

But why are we advocating these sacrifices, what are these sacrifices, who are they for, and what risks do they create? Firstly, it seems that to preserve merit in having a good success that one has made for oneself, *everyone* needs some story about having nothing. So everyone is told that *to do it on their own* they need to have started basically with nothing at all. To prove it, one needs *street credibility*, which includes stories like living with danger in one's life, or living without a place to go and maybe nothing to eat. For everyone else, who hasn't started totally from nothing, one is still getting advice from rich people like Warren Buffet, or those who lived in cars, who say that making big frugal changes to lifestyle results in sucess. So now one is told to live in vehicles, camp temporarily, live in offices (like living at your employers place?), sleeping where one can, taking uncomfortable offers from friends an family to have cheap temporary places to stay. All of these things create social risks (now your friend later reminds you of how poor you were and how you didn't get success on your own), security risks, and risks of looking like one is doing something wrong. So now you're living in your car, or on the street, and you are a problem and you are not someone to be cared for. How can this type of life be *suggested* by people who are successful later, if the risks are this great?

People don't really consider living this way, and really do not consider themselves free about their rent arrangements, beecause they understand it is risky to try to live one one's own according to suggestions like these. 

But the risks are not really well understood such that they could be listed by people. People don't really know what the risks are well, and cannot explain them, if they have not perhaps attempted living that way, or have not been exposed to information from those who know. When I was young, I just vaguely knew I would not want to not have a home or a place for mysel. I didn't seriously consider that choosing not to spend money that way was really an option. That one does not think to budget out rent is an interesting tell, because it shows that people are really not as free as they might imagine, given that option can never come into their thought at all. Instead they automatically know they need to spend on rent, and do not take it out of their budgeting.

But the rich people still advocate starting out in a way that is extremely frugal, with risks maybe not totally remembered or recollected. One reason why, may be, that they noticed that they really did have that option. They really did budget in a way to take out rents. They did something *unusual* and they know it. Later in life, they forget the risks and discomforts. Also, they somehow survived without serious outcomes, while others, certainly, end up uncomfortable, or really do have consequences realted to law enforcement that make it seem much more impossible an option.

> "I tried to live as a homeless person to improve my life but instead was criminalized and accused of miscellanous unsolved petty crimes, or worse, something serious."

Homelessness is a tell that one does not have a lawyer. This means one will not succeed very likely, if one is suddenly targeted by police.

. "I was just sleeping in my car in a parking lot, but suddenly I was arrested for criminal trespass, and accused of theft. Now I think it unwise to try to live without rent."

A famous person may have gotten through possible predicaments without serious risk. I've slept in cars, travel vans, RVs, and have been approached by police on many occasions. All were unwanted and unnecessary. I've gotten through it without issue, but I'm also white, intelligent, I have good self-presentation, and am less likely to be targeted more thoroughly or in a more severe way, by police. If I was black, or hispanic, there may be someone with my likeness out there, already accused of a serious crime. Now, there is risk of a visual match. Since trespassed, why not accuse them of other serious crimes that happened at night? 

Famous people may have forgotten risks is the point here. But they tell the stories because they *did*:

- Actually save tons of money by living this way,
- Recognize that doing so created the savings possibility,
- Not get seriously jeopardized, but do still recognize that it was something hard to do,
- That it seems necessary, if one is to learn to be totally frugal.
  - There is a message "You will not be able to save with that rental cost existing, at all, in your budget, if you don't have resources." Particularly, if you have little and you are going to need *extra* to make business purchases and investments.

Who has ever started a business and wanted to pay their rent, and rent for an office? I temporarily did this and it felt like an incredible, and somewhat depressing, waste of funds. What is advised is to have *no rent* at all! What one feels when one has an office is "Why am I not at home in my home office," and if one can do much of the work without an office, and one already dislikes rent, then one doesn't want any of it, particularly given the costs. Real estate for a new lawyer's basic office might be more than their own rent at home. So a starting lawyer could make a foolish move of having 1,500 in rent and 2,000 in office payments. Interestingly, those people who made business success stories, living without rent, would  have had other real-estate concerns and issues related to their business, and would advise to minimize those costs too. For example, when you start a business, it needs an address, you ned bank accounts with addresses associated. So one may not be following the rules either when starting the businesses. One may be breaking a good number of rules to make the sacrifices possible to begin with.

> "What was you mailing address on your driver's license, when you were living in your car?"

If you advised concerning the American success story from having nothing to being rich then you would be aware, that this may include having an incorrect driver's license, and mismatching information on all records requiring ID and address.

Then, the postal service handling mail has rules around post office boxes, correct addressing, and so on, meaning that one may need to break rules to get mail, while one does not have a home, temporarily living in a vehicle, or in someone else's home, or in a hotel, or in a tent.

It is really strange, that advocates would think it both necessary, for learning and saving, and also a sacrifice, despite being part of a global American dream. How can all these examples of success stories from nothing exist, and continue to be advocated, while maintaining beliefs that there is good opportunity in America?

> "It is required to suffer and have risks for any life improvement if one is starting with few resources, and it's good."

Not only is it "good" it's been a "dream", a "real possibility", drawing people from other countries to follow similar advice, with good expecations, and not expectations of dangrous risks including criminalization and permanent poverty.


*[More to come]* 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-the-news-isnt-interesting-others-likely-became-less-interesting">If the news isn't interesting, others likely became less interesting</a>

*Friday, June 16<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:30pm, ASU, Phoenix, Arizona, USA</time>

*Or, using the news to, in advance of socialization, know if socialization is worthwhile.*

In the earlier posting below, it was discussed that people tend to think they are conveying their personal value when they discuss current issues on the news, which may relate to politics or religion. If some major event or movement exists and is in the news, people will think they can convey their own value by talking about their position and thoughts on what the news has shared. Notice they do not discuss, or seldom focus attention on, issued considered closed or settled, or old, or out of memorty. People really do focus on what has been presented to them recently on the news and media.

Now, suppose nothing of interest is going on in the news. Suppose there are no major events, and no major movements. What is presented on the news may appear more mundane, less interesting or catastrophic, and perhaps less related to personal worth, that is expressed in shared thoughts in conversation. Now, having less of interest to talk about, and less that is perceived valable, there will be less that appears to connect what they wish to talk about with the larger world around them. They may become more interesting on communicating about what is nearer to them, or what is more of personal social interest.

In order to have something to think about, to convey self worth, it appears there is a complete reliance on news and media sources to have something current, that appears larger than their own social context. Otherwise what people will discuss and talk about would be spatially local, and appear basic, and more like small town talk.

It may be possible to use the news and media as a way to recognize what people *could* talk about, to keep themselves interesting to others. Maybe people are not conveying their own value as much as they are keeping themselves interesting, they think, to have attention.If one can observe the news, and media, and roughly guess at the probable thoughts probable minds will be having, one can then avoid having any conversations with people who would only say what is expected.

People who would oppose such a view, would not have a reasonable argument, since having expected conversations with others is not anything anyone really advocates. If too known, too repetitive, and too expected, a person will look for other sources of stimulation and interest. They do not owe interest from poor sources of information that's too predictable or repetitive. But interestingly, it does appear to be a common thing in etiquette, for people to think they are deserving of being heard, regardless of who it is they want to take attention from. However, behavior and other recommendations clash with this perception of rudeness, in trying to manage attention.

It appears possible to simply periodically observe the news and media in order to estimate the relative unvalue of the thoughts of others. However, if the news becomes of better quality, it is not clear that the thoughts of others outside the news would become any more valuable, given the news is more sophisticated than they are.

> "If the news were more sophisticated than most of the audience, and more informative, they audience would not be able to copy it into their conversations, or have reasonable positions."

This seems to provide additional information, regarding why regular people seem so perpetually unuseful as sources of information and quality of conversation. Even if the information sources get better, until it exceeds their sophistication, they won't be elevated. It would make it obvious that instead of listening to others, the news is adequate on its own.

But if the news is of poor quality, then thoughts and reflections on what is conveyed may appear to exceed what the news has provided, making it seem as though regular people are more valuable, but that is only an illusion created by having simpleton-news.

The relationship between the news and demands of others to be heard suddenly, about what was on the news, by listeners, is a strange topic. It clashes with what is taught in education: one should direct one's thought and attention to learning from valuable and trusted sources of information, not everyone. People in academics would likely greatly enjoy people in their environment in which they can have conversations about what may be more valuable, versus regular people from the public who decide to rely, contrary to what is taught in education, on the news and what is given in the media. And each other! The respect wanted to the process of listening to people reacting from the news, because it is democratic, is simply contrary to what all have been taught. 

More basic pieces of information supporting the view that higher moral behavior, and better ethics, requires a method for managing attention, in a way that is more consistent with what is taught in higher education, and what is more consistent with rational selection and habit building.

> "Choose your friends wisely"

indicates a non-democratic viewpoint that most accept. Expanded upon it's:

> "Direct your attention to what is worthy, excluding all else."

Of course, any attention to something, completely excludes all else that could be attended to.

One ought not choose plain friends, who react to low news and stimulation, with a probable mind, that is probably low quality. Going further to attention to all, and not just people, one wants to have a smart family, and not a randomly generated family! One wants to reach intelligent books, and not nonsensical misinformation. One wants to have a nice environment, maybe one more heavenly, to use an analogy that the low people use. 

Nice things to have, hear, and see, and smell, etc... Not people reiterating the news, in a canned fixed-patternlike way.

You interacted and shared the news according to a fixed pattern, known-inferior?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="inability-of-others-to-contribute-useful-thoughts">Inability of Others to Contribute Useful Thoughts</a>

*Friday, June 16<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>3:45pm, ASU, Phoenix, Arizona, USA</time>

Just moments ago I was reflecting more on what it is other people can really contribute that is valuable to me conversationally, or informatively. 

Earlier I mentioned that most people have highly probable thinking, as opposed to those who are more intelligent, and are not too into common sources of stimulation (socialized probable thoughts), who have less probable thoughts, more likely to be separable from common social thinking. These people are less worthwhile as targets of conversation, or as worth attending to when they try to force their presence or messages on your attention.

Oftentimes when someone thinks they have something valuable to offer, or complain concerning, it has these two aspects:

1. It does not include private information.
  - Their value would not exist in their privacy, and perhaps their privacy counters their value.
1. It often includes what has been on the news.
  - The information did not come from their mind. Rather, they watched TV, took in some highly probable thinking, and reacted to it.

People do have a tendency to relate important thoughts to religion and politics, or current events in the news. They obtain their sense of their own importance by their support or non-support of various religious or current event issues, which are put in front of them. These are probable pieces of information they did not create. But more importantly, they are unable to create topics of interest. They depend on these topics to have a reaction to them that somehow creates value, they think, relating somehow to themselves.

In democratic nations, by reacting and supporting or opposing a view, or happening, one thinks one has automatically become valuable, because there is a supposed inclusiveness in the democratic system, which is thought necessary to keep it going. However, this is a very unreflective way of arriving at self importance, and anyone can do it! Even those with probable thoughts, or copies of thinking from the news and media.

This also relates to the view that young people really do not have valuable thoughts to hear. Around end of high school, and early college years, young people begin to think the way to show their value is to participate in common disagreements that are current to their time period. Their thoughts are considered something worthwhile in that it shows they are getting involved, and are doing something adult-like, consistent with the ways that government and entertainment function, according to some unspoken words about timeliness. This is why they talk about LGBTQ+ism and gay rights so often.

However, adults also instantly discard their thoughts oftentimes, seeing their activism as naive and well, practice at becoming an adult. There is something bizarre and foolish appearing about young people zealously supporting something they learned recently on the news.

What could these activist kids have to offer to politics, if they did not find something from the news to react to? Would they be creating things anew, afresh, to share with us, including new improbable thoughts, and improbable solutions? Or, is it more likely that these kids, like the adults that think their activism is cute, really just repetitively choose topics from the news, and pick some side that seems to exist, to team regarding it, and talk over it or gesticulate openly, with zeal sometimes at rallies, using probable thoughts, conversation and sentences, that can be known in advance?

Let us imagine an approach to understanding whether or not any regular people will have something of value to offer, or not. One can first think, well, what has been on the news? Also, what are the repetitive supposedly important common religious views, and their possible relationships to news events? Ok, now what are the ways that people team and oppose each other? Knowing these things, one can fairly predict, without extreme accuracy, but good accuracy, the kinds of things people will say. "I think gays should be allowed to be married," and "I think women should be able to have equal pay," and that "student loans should go down, and debts forgiven." What of this is of value really, to me? What can they say or do that would convey from them to me, something of a useful exchange, particularly given that, someone like myself would have something interesting and new to contribute, and not something merely a routine "unsolved problem"?

I was walking by a guy at Arizona State University today, and he tried to get my attention for something not worthwhile, and not well communicated, and I thought to myself:

> "What could he really do for me, LGBTQ+ me?"

Now I'm required to disclaim that I'm not against something one might cherish concerning current events in LGBTQ+ welfare. But instead, I'm going to say "One cannot infer what I think from this...""

But back to this thought "What are you going to do, NEWS me?"

This really does appear a reasonable approach to handling information from others particularly when the person who approaches, or is wanting of information spreading, is someone who does not appear to have anything obviously valuable to offer, from a fair sizing up of their face and body, an clothing. What does anyone share that is new, interesting, improbable, or valuable in relation to educating others. If one just reflects: "This person is a private person who really cannot share without believing they risk their own life, and when they do share, is in a common news-fed way, relating to instant antagonisms between teams... Going on probability, their minds will be probable. I can safely ignore."

Going on probability the minds will be probable, really does allow one to unlisten to all that people might say, knowing in advance that really, people are disenfranchised and have nothing to offer. 

They actually go further than having probable thoughts and probable minds, but join in a system of voting and politics that is channeled and controlled. They "joined in" on a news system and information sharing social process that makes their minds more probable, thoughts less interesting, more in control.

If I decided, as a media organization owner (I'm not that), I could simply raise a new topic of supposed political importance, and watch people become self-important. I could predict and watch how they would team. Their superficial thoughts, and wild anger act activist rallies that might result.

If I created an issue around marriage, I could predict in advance most that could be said about the topic, that would be unvaluable, that would be common too. Their preferences can be seemingly known in advance, because what they would probably think, with probable thoughts, that's political and religious, would be what they think raises their own value. Raising their own value with their words and actions, they are communicating, they may not realize, their supposed preferences.

I don't believe their behaviors would indicate they have the same preferences, particularly considering what they keep private, but I would be expected to *believe* them, when they are talking in a context that is supposed to be showing their value.

There is an attentional process that is reasonable here, that could be added to the relationshp management part of life, fitting into the attentional management process I've written concerning. It is that you can expect that people will try, when they want to convey their value, something that seemes canned and related to the news. For that no listening is required.

Just now I noticed a thought of interest. If people are canned, they need to know the ways in which they appear object-like and not humanlike in their behaviors. If they are more object-like, they may dislike their own self-objectification. They may come to recognize that their behavior is a simpleton-pattern, self-objectifying and predictable. It is much better for me to oppose that politically and one method of opposing is by not listening to them. 

Recalling additionally, that one only hears what is near, or what has temporary access, there is no rudeness in not listening to what has merely presented itself, while all else, that has not been presented, has gone unheard. One can simply not hear along with all else that exists that is not heard. This had to be written because there are people that think that anyone who is present needs to be heard. This does not work well when the thinker considering listening has value, but those around have little to offer. That one person, and important listener, who many want to listen to him/her, has many more situations in which they really need to decide not to listen. Whereas the people who want to speak, who people don't want to tell anything to, can believe that all need to hear, for having no instances of people who want them to hear something.

More on this topic later, but a tentative supporting confirmation exists above in refraining from listening to people who are effects of news.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="inability-to-intuit-that-significance-precedes-persuasive-language">Inability to Intuit that Significance Precedes Persuasive Language</a>

*Thursday, June 8<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:49am, Santa Ana, California, USA</time>

Today, just now as I was reflecting on the posting below, [The Life Categories, Language, and Brain](#the-life-categories-language-and-brain), I came I think to a solution to the issue of communicating new significant thoughts, or ideas, to people who are unable, apparently for reasons of having a differently organized mind with respect to language, including words and relations, and knowledge. There is an excessive expectation in thinkers, including myself, who have many significant ideas, to speak and write in a way that is accessible and persuasive to others. The ideas had, which are significant, already involve language immediately available to thinker. If a person is strong at communication and verbal thinking, then already that thinker, will use language alone, independtly, to self-explain, summarize, and develop upon the same thought. Communicating alone, there is no special need, to go any further on persuasion; believeing the thoughts already important, the thinker is persuaded by the idea's meaning and interrelationships with other knowledge, and relationship to life and the environment, so there is no audience requiring any pressure to accept some learning. Persuasion is a kind of pressure applied, to get others to want or succumb to a messageor learning. Oftentimes, people do not want to hear new ideas, or accept them, or understand them. Oftentimes they cannot understand the messages. This is due, partially for having different brains with verbal mappings, (Ref further into [The Life Categories, Language, and Brain](#the-life-categories-language-and-brain)) and relationships. So when a thinker, who already understands and can communicate an idea already understood, and already understood to be significant, tries to speak with others, they either don't understand, or resist somehow, and we think that plain or simple language and persuasiveness will overcome this, and make them able to think what the thinker does. There really is a want, for the thinker to have an audience who can reiterate with understanding a confirmation of what was communicated. They want to hear that others are understanding and *see the significance*.

This a solution to stay aware of this, for someone like myself, because there isn't a great reason to expect myself to change how I speak, for others who either won't understand or won't be persuaded. The idea that simple language is required, is missing that that an audience will really not resist what is heard once understood, or that they can understand. Furthermore, the thinkers like myself, believe already that the thoughts *do include plain language*, which explains the irritation had, when others expect other words and other ways to express. Sometimes they want examples crafted for them, or special illustrations. If the knowledge is missing in someone to quickly recognize the significance, then what is needed is more knowledge, and not plain language or illustrations. How they get the knowledge is something of interest. Certainly if they can arrive at a similar enough language organization of brain, they will have a better chance at understanding, like anyone who ends up actually understanding already. But how do they arrive at that? By learning new vocabulary, and getting prepared with new teachings and relationships, etc... This resembles trying to teach someone something new, to get them to a greater sophistication, to finally arrive at the more significant thoughts. This takes time. That it takes time, already debunks the idea that the significant thoughts should have another kind of simple land persuasive expression, for *immediate* understanding. The duration of time required to arrive at thoughts was ignored and is actually necessary. Instead what was substituted was "you need to think more simple and do certain steps, before I can understand or accept", but this was only a false path set by the audience.

> The requirement that a thinker have simple or plain language, and be more persuasive, is a false-path misdirection, of those who may not be able to understand, and may not have a short pathway to understanding something important.

These people will also say, "it isn't important" without understanding. They'll say "if you can't it simply, you don't know it." This last example, is plainly a way out for some audience members who know they are not smart. A thinker who arrives at a mathematical treatment of a topic, that in mathematics is said to be "elegant", has arrived at a great level of simplicity in complexity, that an audience will never understand. This means they have not lacked simplicity at all. They have not had a way to persuade, or provide knowledge, to people who could not have had enough time to learn the information, or people who never could learn the information. The requirement set up for these thinkers, is a requirement of instant communication. But for significant thoughts, this is not possible.

This creates an issue for people, like myself, who have highly important significant thoughts often, using language already felt to be simple, in communicating with others. I think now, reflecting on this, that the reality, a reality resisted, is that people cannot understand and cannot be communicated with, regarding highly important thoughts. There is a want to share share, and give to others but they cannot receive it. Not only that, they don't want it. The proof that they don't want it, is the false expectation of instant persuasion simple words without new knowledge, is for making the thinker have more work to do, for no achievable goal. It is often also a way, to make the thinker believe, that their thoughts are not actually understood by the thinker.

Again, a thinker who has really already had a significant idea or thought:

1. Knows what they thought, and identified it as important.
1. Has the words required to have to begin with, to arrive at it.
1. Can speak about it using the words they have.
1. Words had already, include all of the simple words.
1. If the thinker continues thinking about the same idea already understood, they will re-use their own vocabulary.
1. To have the idea, new words are not required, because that would imply new words are required for learning thoughts, already learned. Since learned, and known, the vocabulary was sufficient already. Nothing additional is needed.
1. A significant idea, is one with many associations.
1. An idea with many associations, has many words related, including simple words.
1. A thinker who is good at communicating alone, and is highly verbal, will be able to use those words, already known to be associated, to contiue thinking about, summarizing, and expressing the idea, independently. 

A thinker has all of this already. Simplicity and many ways to say the same, including ways to say what is important about it. Why they like the idea. Why they think it important. Why their minds led to that point, of having the idea with the words they learned already.

The have all this

AND they want to give it to others.

For free oftentimes!

People in the audience are not "loving" if they are not understanding the causes of not being ablel to receive it, and are ready to call it nothing, by saying that the thinker doesn't even understand their own thoughts. "If it's not simple, then the thinker doesn't understand it" is really disgusting and repulsive. It's ungrateful and anti a willingness to share. Consider the best things are:

*Significant.*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-life-categories-language-and-brain">The Life Categories, Language, and Brain.</a> 

*Tuesday, June 6<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>5:34am, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA</time>

At the time that I first created the life-categories that were intended to provide a mechanism for staying aware of the various parts of life requiring attention, it became clear that there were many different categories that could be chosen alternatively. The primary focus of selecting those categories, were related to my specific purposes and my interests, and what I thought to be important areas of my life to manage and collect information regarding. I spent time over a period of two years using and revising these categories. 

After a long period of discontinuing active development of my personal form, I returned recently to work on the life categories in the development of this Book and Journal. I have altered the priority of each of the categories to suit my recent needs. However, I did not much alter the actual categories used. This was due to my recognizing that they really were adequate as they were, provided complete coverage of my life, and could be modified at any time depending on my later needs or goals.

Another early observation relating to the categories of life is that people with different interests and backgrounds, and people wanting to choose categories using differing languages, would choose other words, and not the words I was using. Part of the plan of these categories was to allow for modification, and anyone who wanted use the system, modify it, or create systems of their own, would want to use their own words, as long as additionally they had adequate coverage to encompass all that was important to them in their own lives.

The key criteria of the life categories is maximum coverage with an easy to manage sized list of categories in which to focus attention on parts without forgetting any for too long a period of time. Additional information on this approach can be found on the section about the personal form itself. Our purpose here differs somewhat from a development on the life-categories themselves, and is more about the importance of resisting excess structuring and restructuring of them. They are modifiable, of course, as I said, but one need not dwell excessively on organization, once it is known that comprehensiveness is attained, and the requisite attention is achieved, by usage of each of the categories. Some may experience a desire to represent life in a way that is extremely accurate by revising and re-revising this list of life categories, which is a kind of taxonomy of a person's life, as it relates to categories of interest and behavior. It may not be immediately recognized, by systems of taxonomy, like the taxonomy of the earth's animal kingdom, can be organized and reorganized many times, and is incomplete and not complete. The current nomenclature for annimals surely does not adequately represent the structure of the history of animal life and the ancestry and relatedness of the different organizms whose names appear in the lists of extant animals. In different languages outside English and Greek/Latin, there are other languages, like Chinesse, which could be used to name the animals differently, and alternatively represent their ancestry and relations, according to different assumptions about how life on Earth evolved. Within the taxonomy of primates, including humans and their ancestors, there would be differing opinions about the lineage, and the meaning of various fossils that have been proposed to have latin names, with partly guessed positions and ages in the history of the human lineage. Even the human portion of the taxonomy, Chinese and other language speakers would likely greatly disagree with the current usage in English/Latin/Greek, and probably the name "Homo Sapiens Sapiens", which redundantly includes the word "wise" twice, for our subspecies, would not be accepted. 

Working on my life categories, and thinking about larger issues about how to choose names and arrange them according to life-structure, I have recognized that the objective to perfectly describe using relationships of words seems an incorrect approach. If we look far into the distant future, it can probably be seen that even if we diversly created taxonomical systems to represent the history of earth's animals, we would not find a final taxonomy that represents it in the way we want, in all the ways we want. Here we might say the representation of the animal kingdom as we have it is somewhat like representation of the earth's globe in different map forms. Without an exacting knowledge of Earth's history, we do not have a globe; by that I mean, we have to rely on maps that are not precise like an image of the Earth from outside, including all the spatial information desired. Being able to image the earth well, we have good globes that provide the full information we are wanting. When we can't use a globe, however, like map making in history, when maps were made with incomplete views, different types of maps that had differing levels of descriptive truth were created to fit needs. But these were greatly inferior to a spherical globe based on space-imagery. As an analogy, we can see that we do not have detailed history of the Earth. It is really lost and appears to be something we can only reconstruct somewhat poorly. Since that is the case, we cannot have a taxonomy that will be a final one, and instead have to rely on a  "partial map" to continue the analogy, of the structure of animal life. Since all maps of this life would be partial maps, Chinese Maps, English Maps, and maps from any other group creating it, would be unable to come to a desired exactness that is final. Moreover, being maps and not globes, different versions would be needed to depict different things desired, for not being able to show all that is desired at one time, in the right way. Maps look different in how they appear as partial maps because they cannot be spherical. Being not spherical, they have to make concessions in what they show and how. There are many ways to depict a sphere as a rectangle, or other geometric figure. Using other geometric figures, one loses sphericity. Cartographers, the map makers, have known that to create correct distances, representations of areas, and correct directions, require different partial maps with different geometric properties. We've seen the defects in maps, when we view a globe and see that Antarctica is smaller in appearance, than on the Merkator projection map, which shows Antarctica as the largest of all the continents. This map is one used in flattened form on Google Maps (if not a very similar projection), and that used as an instructional poster in classrooms. If one were to use language alone, entirely, to describe the world, without a globe, one would be even more limited in how to describe it. In times before we had a globe, if we tried to write in words what was in the partial maps, we would have something in language alone that is of perhaps less quality still than what is in the already limited maps. Notice that our system of taxonomy for representing animal life does not include a globe with a video of how life evolved from the beginning. So what we are doing with our taxonomy of animal life is using language to describe what we have only very incompletely known in visual and historical data.

Language is an important cause as to this limitation on our ability to represent, and accurately describe, parts of the world and our own lives. Focusing more on the topic of our lives, recalling our lives are still natural phenomena in the world, with more or less complete potential data, that we simply are unable to capture, we can see that again, we can use language to represent ourselves only incompletely. We have a similar issue of trying to use simple words to "correctly" represent the structure of our behavior and interests, and parts of life requiring our attention. One person would not choose the same words as I have when I started my own life-categories. Someone from another language, would think that some words are more central than others for classifying nearly the same things, but this too would have effects on how to organize things further, or more fully describe life, when details are sought, and interrelationships are considered. The categories of life are not distinct. For example, while I'm focused on the category of fitness, I'm often aware of other categories like nutrition, which includes cooking, and health. One could combine them all into a single category creatively if one wanted to. However, I kept them separate because of how I choose to organize my own behavior and attention. Similarly, one could use more than 15 categories or less. It is optional how many categories one might use for organizing and desribing one's own life or the lives of others.

However, there are other interesting things worth considering here aside from this admission about some arbitrariness of choice of category arrangement, and of admitting that options appear to be necessary for others to find the categories useful for their own ethical interests. This relates to the observations above that there seems to be no way to choose, in any case, if numerous options are created, to decide what "finally" represents life most accurately, or most usefully. Usefulness is a primary consideration too, like in map making for navigation. This system is intended to be a tool for aiding in life's planning, information collection, and behavior management. It appears that there is something fundamental about the need to resist trying to organize and reorganize this, and I've actually gone through the process of doing such reorganization a number of times. Early choices do not seem much worse than later choices, and in some ways they were better. I've made improvements which are instrumental and allow for more precision, but I could be more precise still. However, it is extremely useful as is. If I were to spend much more time organizing and reorganizing, it would be much like the organizational problem many people feel when they are wanting to find perhaps some "perfect" system of organization, that feels "finished" and not merely extremely comfortable and useful. Many people have the urge to organize and reorganize to the point in which they may feel a sense that they cannot solve some perplexing problem about their specific situation requirng organizing. It may have not come to their attention that there is no final solution, and that instead, there is a level of good utility and usefulness, that relates to certain comforts the person has. This same tendency to organize perhaps too often without a great gain in usefulness, to get to a mental comfort level, exists in wanting to represent life on earth totally accurately, and for organizing one's entire life categories in a way that is best for one's goals and improvement objectives.

Now it may be seen how large this interest is in organizing and reorganizing things in life, and this is particularly true of the organization of one's mind. Consider that most aretrying to problem solve in their mind variousissues that they face, which requires words and language, and decisions about their importance and arrangments. People will find new words to describe more accurately situations, and make distinctions and new words, in order to arrive, again, at something that feels comfortable and "more final" regarding answers. If situations are complex, then again there is this feeling that perhaps more time organizing and finding new information and vocabulary, will allow for describing it entirely accurately, with all problems comfortably solved. Culturally, as knowledge progresses, we have new words and new information which leads us to think we are doing better and better at describing situations, and solving problems thereby. A great example of this is in our development of medicine, with creations of new words for illnesses and new words for underlying things which are important for finally understanding what was and is important for treating and curing illnesses. Still, it can be noticed that medicine is far from any final taxonomy or description of science as it relates to animal life, including human life. The taxonomy of the animal and plant kingdoms are still related to an understanding of medicine, as one needs to know a bit about relationships between animals that are test subjects, and humans who are administered drugs. The drugs are coming from chemicals and plant organisms which also need to be well understood to research further, what might better resolve medical ailments. So while in medicine alone this issue exists regarding wanting to find a taxonomy that is final, it relates still to the taxonomy of the entire earth and the scientific descripiton of all that exists. It does also touch on physics and chemistry and the origin of life, and sources of matter. Medicine also relies on technologies that make use of x-rays, which implies similarly, that information about electromagnetic spectrum is also required for advancement. It is not clear which, if any information about the universe would be unuseful for the further development of medicine and its description and taxonomy, and larger taxonomies.

Here we can transition to considering the importance of the brains organization and representation of language. Earlier I mentioned that different people in different cultures using different languages would use different words and relationships to describe the same world and lives within it. This implies that their brain structures have different organizations than the brain structures of those with different vocabularies in different languages. Between individuals, too, there are different selections about what words to use, and anyone who chooses to independently create life categories would have different words and relationships in mind between the words. All would be doing something related to trying to describe life and the world, and in this case, a person's own life. But it is important to recognize, that this really does imply that people have different brain organizations relating to the words stored in their minds and their relationships. Also, the readiness of the brain to utilize some words over others. If everyone on earth was asked individually to describe their life using a set of categories first that they could choose, and the relationships later, using sentences and paragraphs, they would all do it differently and their way of doing it surely relates to the organization of tissues in their brains.

While driving around New Zealand this year, I was reflecting on some significant observations around this and the requirements of learning both for humans and for computing systems, that utilize machine learning for standalone use or with early artificial intelligence. The brain, and computing systems, rely on training in order to develop further. Networked computing systems in machine learning rely on huge amounts of information and training in order to finally "learn" what was presented to it. One machine learning system would not have the same resulting memory or physical representation of what was learned, depending on how it was exposed to the information and training, and the order of exposure. Also, different machine larning systems, learning for example, different plants on earth and their relationships, would see images of plants, and videos, and words, from data/information sets that are different from each other. If one software company created one machine learning system, and another another, they would not have the same result, and would not have the same sophistication. Different AI systems resulting from work at software companies would result in consumers having preferences for one over another. Sometimes consumers would want only one superior option, and other times, some consumers would want one that does some things well, and another if it does other things better. The point is that these systems would have partial views of the earth's information, would have learned differently, and would have different internal representations of what is thought known. Additionally, the behavior of the system would vary. The above can be very quickly understood as an analogy for human life, since many people and many learners are exposed to information differently, with similar effects upon the brains representation of that information, with the effect that their behaviors differ. One person if they seek to describe their life using life-categories and sentences/paragraphs related to those categories, would do so differently. Some would do it in a nearly globally superior way. Some would do it well in some ways, while others better in others. Some finally, would not do it so well. This depends obviously, like with computer systems, on the level of advancement of the brain, or the quality of the system. It simply varies from one system to another, if human or if not.

As I was relfecting on the organization I chose, I noticed that some categories have larger interest than others, and some words are called to mind more easily, and during the time doing the personal-form collecting data on my behavior, some categories were much more useful than others and received more attention. This would relate well to my actual life as it would describe what I was doing versus what I was not doing at all. My life has depended on learning in a way that has been different than for others. I was exposed to different languages, culture, and regions than other people. I learned in a school system that emphasized certain books and courses and goals that were not emphasized in others, particularly if one considers this internationally. The sequence of my learnings differed from others. There are things others learned early that I learned late. There are easy things I have never learned. The implication is that my brain structure is different from others, and this includes, of course, words and relationships between words, and different strengths of associations, and readinesses to bring some words to mind versus others. My creation of my life categories relates to the vocabulary I prefer and my history of learning as it relates to describing my life.

The way that life is presented is not planned entirely. Different people are exposed to information and situations and stimulation that is mostly organic, or asystematic. What this means is that it is not systematically prepared information, quite often, that supplies the learning experiences. In my case, I've done lots of reading and have had an extensive education, using materials that were systematically prepared. However, there is some lack of overall planning even in these materials which leads to an organic or asystematic aspect to the overall learnings even when they were well prepared by experts. Most of my life information, of course, came from experiences with nature, and with people, which was unplanned an organic. A cause for my system of ethics is that I, like others, were not prepared with a systematic and correct overview of all learning, particularly learning relevant for the rational planning of one's life and one's behavior, and training in relation to that information. This Book and Journal filled this void, and I had to create it myself. The life categories are an important ingredient in this overall effort. 

Since my life-categories related to learning that was organic and asystematic, any systematization created is from a brain whose organization is different and somewhat arbitrary compared to brains of others. Again, others would do it differently. And again, others would however, arrive at similar results. Even if myself and others did much to develop this system, there would be no final result that had all the strengths one wanted all at once, with no limitations. Each system would also, I noticed, be very comprehensive, and likely one could utilize one or the other, without too much loss. Similarly, like the brain itself learning, the system can be changed and switched as needed.

Focusing now on the organice way that stimulation is learned from the environment for humans, animals, and for computing systems, it can be seen that it is a necessary requirement that minds would all differ. No two humans have the same mind. No two machine learning systems would have the same result. The way to make two minds or two systems the same, would require similar hardware and biology and precisely theh same perspective, and learning of the same systematically presented materials. This is of interest to my article Abandoning Equality, which is a writing about the expectation of inequality between people, and not equality. Likewise, we here can see, that people would differ greatly just because they learn things in an organic way, in different places, and in different languages after languages are acquired, and in different times, and in different orders. Historically, people were extremely different from people now, in how they organically intook information that was available in their environments.

A system of taxonomy and life-categories which describe extremely well would be approaching what we might call an optimal system, that is approaching what we find desirable in utility and accuracy and detail in descriptiveness. However, we have already said that each would have strengths and weaknesses, and without extremely large minds, and without complete information, there could be no optimal finished system. Instead, what we would be looking for are roughly optimized systems. Humans, it should be noticed, do understand their own lives and can self-describe in ways that are much better than certain animals and machine learning systems, presently existing. Also, some people, who are considered less advanced or deficient, are thought to have ways that are less optimal for self-understanding or describing with words. Having a system such as that here described indicates it is possible to have still a better system of self-description and self-organization than which commonly exists. It appears also, of course, that this system is a novel system, and represents a state of high advancement in taxonomy of life and ability to self-describe. Others, not having such systems, however, are on considering the advancement of life on earth, and culture, pretty good methods for self-understanding. What may be said, then, is that there are some who have more optimized ways of self-understanding, and additionally, people in general, are a trend of earth neuroscience towards brains that are more optimal than what existed earlier, in the development of animal life. So there is a range of optimization on this topic. Also, I stated that people learn in different orders and in different ways. If we take people who are already somewhat optimized, taking optimization to be a relative thing and leaving plenty of room for growth for millenia to come, it can be noticed that this system can also be learned by others. Also, I stated that others would choose different words, but can have quickly the same comprehensiveness. This means with some time, alternative usages of a similar system such as this would result in others being able to have differnt systems of categories and descriptions that have properties related to optimality.

This is a promising development as it relates to potential learned of another approach to ethics and management of one's interests, training, and behaviors. That was not my initial thought causing this direction in the conversation, however. What I wanted to indicate, is that with different exposure to information, we have different brains with different words and relations that are somewhat trending towards optimization, and that being useful already, as parts of living minds, adapted to life and living life somewhat effectively and well, that there are similarites of interest between brains even though they differ. The structure of lexicons and relationships of words, and models of life-categories, and life, vary and are partly optimal, and are useful. This offers great support of the view that trying to find a final arrangement and taxonomy is an incorrect objective, although improvements and progress is had and can continue; and it also supports the view that allowing for change in the system via learning, and change of needs is valuable; and also supports the idea that there is some interchangeableness in the system, in that different people can be effective with different sets of categories, and that one person can use this system, and develop or change it to their benefit, and that people use it differently over time. Overall this supports the idea that human brains and machine learning systems find optimizations on a spectrum related to organic learning from the world's stimulus.

If one were to graph the life-categories and relationshps, and caluculate relative importance of words in their behavioral usage, frequency of thought, perceived priority in life management, what would be found is something that appears unplanned as a model. It would look like a set of nodes, and connections, with different weights and values. This would relate, in various ways, to underlying brain, that itself has the characteristics of having strong and weak associations, and different networked nodes, with differing thresholds related to readiness to think one thing or another. These look somewhat unplanned and tangled in appearance. The structure appears somewhat like what is thought to relate to models created by artifical intelligence software for optimizing problems in the sciences. These systems also have networked nodes, relationships that are stronger and weaker between nodes, with different information stored in different ways based on the exposure to information. All of these indicate that what results in the optimization that has resulted, from learning on organically presented stimulus, has an appearance of non-humanlike organization. In other words, what your brain looks like, what your eventual system of life-categories and relationships in the categories, and description looks like, and what the machine learning system/AI system looks like, is something that is not systematic, like what a human would plan, wanting to be really orderly and exacting in drawing it out. Humans want a kind of orderliness and structure which appears to not approach what this tendency is towards optimization. That is not to say that optimization does not occur from deliberate human planning; but it does appear that human planning results of rigidness in results. Square buildings, rectangular hierarchical diagrams, straight ways of lining things up, and not other ways of organizing which are closer to those resulting from organic natural growth. It is also noticed, that trying to arrive at an optimal way of organizing over and over, results in something dissatisfying in the rigid, straight lined results, that don't solve all problems and don't have properties of final optimization. 

The interesting webbed and irregular networked organization resultin in nature, and in the brain, and in the linguistic representation not excessively planned or controlled in a system like this, and the similar structuring in machine learning systems, which were created by observing natural minds and how they learn, appears to approach optimization, whereas, the rigid and sometimes obsessive organization into linear structures trends towards optimization somewhat less. Also, the organic way of learning, which is asystematic, we would think, would already have such characteristics potentially, and we see also in the growth of animals and plants in nature, similar odd webbing and patterns of growth that have curves, nodules, and less exacting geometry related to our way of learning mathematics. Our way of wanting straightness, and precise geometrical figures relate to our way of learning those things. Similarly, however, the beauty of nature is compelling, but we are unable currently to use what we see in nature that appears irregular to guide our way of organizing much of what we do. Instead, we rely on the rigid and simpler structures that were made available to us in education. What nature has optimized is much more complex and much less well understood. This includes the nature of the brain itself, and it's tangled way of organizing information that it was exposed to.

There are many systems in nature which grow in response to stimulus in the environment that results in what we consider optimized solutions, that are really somewhat optimized solutions, including examples like the arrangement of bone tissue, muscles, plants relying on sunlight, &c... bones have an odd appearance relating to the handling of stress and strain, and has a webbed like appearance, also with lines that are not perfectly straight, and nodes and grooves. These are optimized with relationships to nutrition in the environment and ability to handle gravity and forces relating to specific behaviors. Plants grow in unusual ways, not straight ways, in order to have adequate sunlight, and the result is something also somewhat of a networked organism, with webbed vascularization, and networked branches and connections between branchs, with differing sizes of branches. Much in nature follows this type of pattern, and the organization relates to stimuli coming from other sources.

At this juncture, it may be noticed that this can be taken quite a bit further if one includes all of earth's history, recognizing that ancestry includes strong and weak associations, more growth in some areas and less in others, and an irregular total graph. The ways that ancestry happened related also to stimuli in the environment, and social forces, and disasters &c... which relate to ability to reproduce or not, for individuals and entire groups of people. This here would be where the topic would relate to a natural and somewhat optimized description and representation of the history of life on earth, and its growth, improvement and evolution. Here there would be a good point of departure, to in detail consider Darwin's theory of evolution and advancements in evolutionary theory. Notice already, there were views as to the supposed "perfection" in nature, from the religious, which exists also in evolutionary scientists, who admire greatly the seemingly extremely well adapted traits of plants and animals, ability to live well under various conditions in their environments.

This system of nomenclature is simple, yet is comprehensive. It allows for change and adaptation. It can be expanded on to include additional detail as far as is necessary or is instrumental for describing a life and for aiding in the planning of ethical and moral behavior, and general training for goals and objectives. Limitations on ability to represent, relate to optiimizations that exist from not trying to be too rigid with organization. Any system or taxonomy aiming to describe life appears to have a limitation that exists already in describine and naming the animal kingdom. The description of the animal kingdom, welldone, would have those characteristics of organic development, and partial optimizations, similar to what we saw as necessary in brains and computers systems. Language itself, being formed on the basis of organic infomration exposure is also a system that has optimization properties that when graphed would show patterns of non-straightness and webbing like what is seen in nature. It is expected that a system of life categorization and description, is one that will have properties like this system, and would probably require a starting point like this system anyways in order to advance to later stages.

*[Finished at 7:41 pm in 2 hours and 7 minutes, without edits, partly blined typed, without a reading, without spell or grammar check. Typed on a flight from Honolulu to Portland, Oregon]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="the-intelligent-who-cannot-find-real-games-to-enjoy">The Intelligent Who Cannot Find Real Games to Enjoy</a> 

*Tuesday, June 6<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:48am, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA</time>

*Or: The choice of child's puzzles to mathematics and reading.*

Since young I wondered why people seem to have been unable to notice that the puzzles offered by mathematics, are sufficient to supply the same or similar interests thought to be had in doing popular puzzles. I think it is arguable whether people truly find published puzzles that fun, even though they do them, but assuming they provide some amusement, or some somewhat pleasant way to use time, when nothing else seems better to do, in order to focus on what can be done instead that is at least as enjoyable or more enjoyable, but more importantly, useful. Math, reading and learning area all available activities at the time that puzzles are chosen, except that people don't imagine them to be options, perhaps for not recognizing, yet, that there are similarities.

Also, when young, I was exposed like others to a range of popular puzzles and puzzle games, that existed in our culture, in print in newspapers and periodicals, and in other types of physical games. I remember playing parlor games, card/strategy games, chess, crossword puzzles, puzzle-piece image recreation puzzles, word finders, and so on... The list of puzzles experienced by anyone from my generation or older, in a print or tactile format must be very large. Sudoku also existed, but not until I was older, in my later teens perhaps. 

Here I will focus on chess, Sudoku, and crossword puzzles. These are all puzzles thought by the intelligent to be worth their time, perhaps for all of their lives. People in the high intelligence community, like Mensa, may have extra interest in puzzles, and Mensa has been a publisher and releaser of various print and tactile puzzles that are or were new, and wouldn't otherwise exist.

These types of puzzles, chess, Sudoku, and crossword puzzles, have some things of interest in common. For example, none of them model life, the way that it is claimed, mathematics or the sciences do. Each option, limits people's minds as to which games to play. When the time comes to choose a game, one recalls these, if one plays them, and then plays them again. If the game is chess, this can be a serious problem, as the repetitiveness of the game may not even be noticed by those enthusiastic about it, and they may choose that game, a bit too often.

These games, are also not great learning opportunities. Not only are they not great learning opportunities, people have difficulty explaining why they are worth doing. Sudoku somehow "ensures one's mind stays agile and, well, works". Some will try to borrow the utility of math and claim it exists in Sudoku. Chess, others will argue, is a kind of intelligence test, and of course, it is not, but certain people will think that showing some skill is a way to show that some smarts exists in the player. Chess, likes sports, also has an unadvanced analogy to life, people think, forgetting that such an analogy, could be quickly written down by, *someone*, and once known, doesn't require playing chess. Chess includes a skill of using certain mental powers, somewhat different than those for Sudoku and crossword puzzles, but these powers, particularly visual-pattern recognition and planning powers, exist doing almost anything complex outside. Crossword puzzles, supposedly advance one's vocabulary, by playing similar games over and over, with exposure to new hints at words, and new word problems and solutions. However, I think it irrefutable, the puzzles are often poorly created. The word problems are ill conceived, and answers are, well, often not answers. They words that fit into blocks that are solutions to hints, or word problems, that just sometimes slightly or partly relate. "I can guess the word that fits into the box, but the puzzle part, is well, not that well authored." The crossword enthusiast, like the chess person, and the Sudoku person, thinks they have some special vocab by doing it. But clearly, the Stanford-Binet test, can let them know what their relative standing as to vocab is, and in one sitting. I.e. Crossword puzzles, chess, and Sudoku, and many other games, allow one to pretend one is smarter than one is.
Doing these things over and over really does indicate some dysfunction in choice of activities.

Sudoku is another game, of a single type, that can be done repetitively, with a pose that one is doing math somehow, and one is good at math. However, math does not do one thing over and over again. Math has a problem set that could be done forever, with new and different real problems, and solutions that can be applied to life. Sudoku doesn't appear to have many analogies to life. Also, Sudoku really would be something that a mathematician would be interested in, as a single problem only. A mathematician would be strange, to keep doing the same problem over and over after understanding it. It is a math problem that scales in complexity. In this way it is like the size of a chess board, which could be much bigger and include more pieces. Sudoku has easy puzzles, and harder ones, but the format is recognizably identical. A math problem exists in, perhaps, saying what is identical. The test author would know what that is very likely, but the audience would not. Meaning they may have not recognized what it is yet. However, that didn't stop them, from playing over and over the same problem-set.

Sudoku specifically prompted me to again and again, become somewhat annoyed, at the inability of people to see how pointless and wasteful the activity is. Mathematics textbooks include sometimes thousands of new problems, each different, that would create skills that can be used for real creative productions and learning applications. Somehow, the way in which people were exposed to math, and learning, has caused them to not realize, that all of that learning really could be fun. Particularly, if the posturing about the puzzles is true: "I like visual problems and like to relate them to real life learning" (chess), "I like vocabulary, which learned would allow expression, and perhaps new ways of thinking and communicating about life" (crossword puzzles), and "I like digits, which can be used for real world scientific applications, and for personal hobbies and projects" (Sudoku), then why not use what is more useful instead, related to learning that you would claim is vital. Is that a hard puzzle to really solve, that math and reading, and learning, with books and math, and logic, and science, really are better.

One might think that "doing math" and "reading" and "writing" or doing other productions may not include enough to do, somehow. But the comparison of things to do, in the entire available things to do in math, in reading, in writing, and in personal projects, is more than three puzzles. Instead of three, you can substitute in the number of puzzles you yourself can imagine as options, that you would really choose at the time that you decide, you need something boring to work on. That number is very small and finite. People are not powerful at considering options, when the time comes, to do something other than, sitting and staring, and contemplating good actions. Reading really includes all books and things written. All writing, really includes, all you can develop with your mind into print. All learning, really does include discovering something interesting, if looking in the right places, with good questions, and does not require pretend analogies to life, like chess. You are actually learning things in life, that can apply to life. In math, there really is every textbook ever written, that has millions of problems contained. The objective of this math, is usually real life problem solving. Problems are created for the puzzle mathematicians, so one does not have to become a real mathematician to enjoy it. In other words, you can just buy textbooks and have plenty of real world puzzles, created by someone else, just like Chess and Sudoku. Sudoku, has this special thing in which not only is it one type of problem, authored by someone else who maybe was a mathematician, but the users believe they are doing math, without any mathematical expressions of any kind. The test-user, is not a mathematician or puzzle-mather. They aren't doing math at all but believe they are because digits are present. Here as I write this, I can feel the Sudoku puzzler's presence, wanting me to at least notice, that they do mental arithmetic from elementary school, while they do Sudoku. But they'd want me to say it in a way that makes it sound better, by leaving the elementary nature, of addition, and whatever small skills and tricks are employed.

I have noticed, since young, that some few observations about these games, are enough to make them unworth my time and attention. Let's consider some examples. Each greatly diminish interest, but together they make the games seem foolish.

- *Some puzzles are conveniently scaled easy puzzles, made to be just hard enough, for you to think they are unmasterable, but easy enough for you to learn how to play them.* 
  - Chess is an example. Chess is simply a scaled mini-puzzle, like tic-tac-toe. It really is fully-deterministic. Some claim ineffable freedom exists in chess, but that's because they don't really honestly have a mathematical approach to thinking about chess. It is a game that is set on an 8x8 board, and not a 64x64 board.
- *Relatedly, if made smaller, they become children's games. What does this say of the slightly larger version? Sudoku could have less rows and columns. Crossword puzzles could have shorter more common words. Chess could be on a 4x4 board. Making them smaller makes them easier games, too easy to want to play. Well, what does that say about the *slightly larger games* that normal average adults enjoy? Some people even call the games of other adults "Child's games", noticing perhaps that there really is a similarity to the games children were playing. They just got slightly more complex. 

*[More to come]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="cannibalism-and-wartime-disrespect">Cannibalism and Wartime Disrespect</a> 

*Friday, June 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>9:04pm, South Pacific, Australasia</time>

If I'm not mistaken, there were instances of cannibalism during Vietnam. Likely in all or most of the wars that have existed, in which dead remains would lie a long period, and hungry soldiers were around?

> How do you not taste the enemy?

Also, during the reactions and response to 9/11, some of those angry, and in favor of military action, were calling the middle easterners "Sand Niggers". Once again, I think most wars, had phrases to disrespect the race and heritage of the enemy peoples. Formerly "equal people, and culturally equal national friends".

It seems, does it not, that warfare includes, obviously, disrespect? It also includes dehumanization, and instances of cannibalism.

I can't imagine myself at any time in the future really respecting thoroughly and soldiers or veterans.

Respect the anti-sandniggering cannibal?

This sort of respect is not really required, even if people think it is required during

celebrations.

Remember the disrespect.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="i-didnt-invent-your-privacy">I didn't invent your privacy</a> 

*Friday, June 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>8:45pm, Sydney, Australia</time>

Zoology on a personal level can continue, including speaking about explorations and findings, and learnings, without a concern about your views on privacy—your views on sensitivities and offense. 

I didn't invent your privacy.

Are you sensitive about your inventions?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="people-didnt-solve-conversation">People Didn't Solve Conversation</a> 

*Friday, June 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Sydney, Australia</time>

In everyday experience, we hear and become involved in conversations that are undesigned and unplanned in how they are conducted. A conversation is thought to be a simple thing, when it is not a meeting, with an agenda or a purpose in which a number of individuals are present. Still, in that context, it appears there is no plan or design, and no variety of methods, in which those meetings can be carried out effectively. One method I am aware of, which appears very antiquated, for handling meetings in certain formal settings, like in politics, is Robert's rules of order. However, this method appears extremely suboptimal and unfit for continued use in our more modern context, and what was created has the appearance as an early attempt at meeting structure and process, and not a well developed process.

The purpose of this specific note-taking is more about the simplest form of conversation, between two people. A simpler form of conversation exists within one person, but this is the simplest in which there is more than one participant and two different minds. Conversations between individuals do not seem to have a planned structure, or a method with much variety; instead, they are done in a way that is not well understood in the sense that participants cannot easily describe the method they are using. Oftentimes, conversations between two people have a back-and-forth like nature in which one person begins speaking, speaks for a period, and then stops, or pauses. The pause or the stopping is a time in which the next speaker thinks either the prior speaker has finished or the prior speaker has provided enough silence for opportunity to jump in and start a turn. There is turn-taking in the conversations. In this turn taking, people seem to desire to have some parity in time taken to speak. This is part of the reason for equal time allocations in Robert's rules of order. There is a desire for fairness in the conversation, for equal hearing and speaking time. This seems to be wanted in most conversations although in some there is a clear power disparity in which one speaker is given more importance or more time, and that may happen when a younger person is speaking with an elder, if someone is speaking with a paid expert on a subject, or if there is something else special about one of the two participants thought justifying temporary unfairness; i.e., if a speaker is having a birthday, or if a speaker is intended to be the focus of attention for having some special need.

These differences in situations create a difference in the expected parity in the turn taking of conversations, but what is interesting is that still there is a desire, particularly if one is moderately talkative, that there is some turn-taking that trends towards parity.

There are other situations which indicate that value in conversations might be developed further if one speaker gets much more time or all of the time in a conversation. It may seem odd to hear that a speaker may get all of the time in a two person conversation. However, if one considers that one signs up for lectures, and pays for time with an instructor, not to speak but only to listen, take notes and learn, without asking an questions potentially, then it seems less odd. One could have had arranged time with a lecturer to perform the same lecture to them as a single audience member. Notice, however, that when there is no audience, and there are only two participants, it does seem odd that the lecturer would not suddenly become a plain conversationalist, interacting in a normal way with a student. When not in lecture, students may believe they can get personal time from their instructors in which they can have a conversation that seems to trend towards parity in exchange, or taking turns, in what is said. There is an idea that respect would result in some consideration for the students thoughts, and that suddenly there may be equal time between the two participants.

The format of speaking and pausing and accepting a transition to a new speaker is a bit strange in my estimation. It appears to be something lacking in sophistication, and the lack of planning and method seems to result in conversations that are lower in value. A student sitting in lecture listening to a high quality professor may be involved in a conversation that is of superior value, and this shouldn't be too shcoking if the listener is paying large quantities of money for the experience. Likewise, the instructor or lecturer may be very well compensated for only speaking and providing very little interaction with listeners. If there were a transition to another format in which the same lecturer were interacting alone with a student it is not clear if the lecturer should not still mosty speak while the student remains silent. Personally, not thinking my lectuers typically of this quality, I don't think this type of scenario would often occur; however, there have been courses I have had in which the lecturer really was doing a great job of informing me, and members of the audience, with very little need for questions or discussion of any time. Paying for high value thinking, I appreciated when lecturers could share their knowledge for the entirey of class time without hearing from any inferiors in the audience.

Another area of interest, aprart from time management in conversations, and the back-and-forth turntaking of discussions, is personalities and vaying values in the participants. There is not equality in conversations (ref [Abandoning Equality](abandonging-equality.html), which is clear when one considers parents speaking with their children. In almost every conversation there will be different values between participants, that will relate to diverse traits and skills and knowledge. Some converse poorly, and some rudely, even if they are not contributing value. In these scenarios I see again, a lack of method for handling the conversations. Still there appears to be an expectation of parity in time, although some talk too little and some steal too much time. Some do not listen well. Some of little more than what they'll say next. There is a tremendous variety in the ways conversations can unfold between people with differing traits, but there appears to be very little variation in the key methods employed for managing conversations. The mothods wouldn't be defined for us in any designs or plans, but there would be exemplars of excellent conversationalists who know how to manage many kinds of conversational situatinos so as to extract value. But these socially skilled conversationalists probbly still adhere to some expectation of partiy in time, and in some unstated rules about provind equivalent back-and-forth.

Historically I've been quite skilled at conversation management, but I confess I greatly err on the side of ensuring the other party feels they've had some degree of parity in the conversation, or perhaps more time than they should. I wonder now if there is an alternative method or approach that can used that could yield more value, that would greatly decrease the speaking time of others, and their opportunities to speak, including at times when I'm waiting to think of what next to say, or to find the right way to express a complete thought. I'm also not especially desirous of managing the emotions of the participation; it may be that, more valuable interactions will include ones that less satisfying to the other participant. Occasionally provoking frustration in the other may nevertheless result in a better conversation exprerience. I am thinking about my own benefits as they relate to the conversation; however, it is not clear to me that this wouldn't also result in a more valuable conversation *despite* any lessening of positive feelings, or creation of negative emotions. 

A more mature perspective in work is one that understands that interactions have a sort of cycle to them, or, that work goes on and the results of the interaction can change greatly in time. I've had negative conversations with colleagues that lead to long term friendships or connections. Put another way, in general, it appears a leader in an organization is a better one if they know the likely outcomes in long periods of time of all sorts of events, including ones that are negative that turn positive. This knowledge can allow one to perceive and know that future effects of seemingly negative events may better than worse.

There is also a science to changing ways of interacting with others so as to gain information about the relationship quality. This is another example in which less positive conversation experiences can lead to longer term gains in certain kinds of knowledge.

This is an exploratory posting in this subject. Prior interests in conversation have been about using them to appraise values of relationships, and for utilizing written formats instead of spoken formats to better track what was said, and to watch developments. In my history I've been greatly annoyed by the inability of others to recall conversations, making it difficult to have good interpersonal growth. I've also been interested in the quality of conversations as it relates to intelligence and creativity. Here I'm more interested in the strangeness of the expectation that there would be parity in conversations in a give-and-take format, where participants are not equally valued. It appears that this may be something very difficult to change due to possible potential social side effects. One example, is that in conversations with certain parties, they think any disagreement and potentially other modes of discussion as threatening authority, and may be willing to take actions simply for having a different way of transacting, even if there is no legal cause for it. I was thinking about this today as I was considering that certain authorities or people in businesses may want to take action as if they had legal power, simply because they percieve there is disagreement, or a challenge to their authority. Nevertheless, I intend to do some testing in my own conversations to shift away from the typical method of give and take to:

- periodically speak at the same time as others to keep my side going during unwanted interruptions.
- to keep speaking without giving time to the other for extended periods of time such that they may wonder if they would have an opportunity to speak.
- to end conversations as soon as I'm done speaking, or after providing myself a considerably longer time to talk.
- to never respond, or seldom say anything, and to stop listening, to people speaking to me, to tune them out or otherwise unsure their speaking is diminished, to increase the value of the conversation. (value to who is a topic of interest).
- to have longer delays in speaking but to repetitively inform the other that I have more to say and to be patient with my pauses.
- to speak more slowly sometimes but without saying any less.
- to speak in a way that is more approaching my value even if it goes beyond certain age-related obstacles (I.e. unconcern about the age of the person I'm talking to, and/or speaking as I often do as someone older, which is normal given my history in business and well developed backround, and status as retiree).
- To interrupt much more often with certain people. 

I may follow up with some results of these experiments in the near future.

Initially I think I will start simply, by either taking all of the time, or by giving none of my time. Doing all I can to simply control pace without stopping speech, with interrupting, and demands for continuation during pauses when unfinished, and by failing to listen while not saying anything to someone speaking to me. It appears silence is usually an option even in cases where there may be some demands for interaction.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="rudimentary-advice-and-adults-ready-to-do-little">Rudimentary Advice, and Adults Ready to Do Little</a>

*Friday, May 26<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia</time>

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="childish-advice-mattanaw-1-web.jpg" src="childish-advice-mattanaw-1-web.jpg"><br />

Often we see advice in social media that is rudimentary and childish, about how to "never give up" or how to accumulate small changes by consistent self-improvement. Here is an example of childish advice given by adults. The receptiveness of the audience, indicates that the advice provided still has not been learned, despite how basic it is. If learned, it would not be reshared often, or shared by those who are elders. But it appears elders are quite receptive to messages such as these. 
 
Consider the advice in the image above, which was shared by an executive who appeared to be approximately sixty years old. People receiving the message were receptive an willing to reshare it, and comment on it as though it were exceptionally useful, applicable to their own lives. However, it appears to me that this is a very defective meme that should be recognized as excessively rudimentary and repetitive to anyone who is not deficient. It is like learning about compound interest yet again, as an elderly person, but with a formula that isn't a formula at all, but merely an example of exponential growth arbitrarily selected in a juvenile way.

Consider:

- The view that such a message is still useful to an adult is an indicator that many perceive themselves to be very close to immobility regarding self-improvement. If this is the case, why suddenly would such a message encourage a change. Instead, it is a sign that such changes cannot be made despite decades of rethought.
- The equation of compound interest is well known and taught in high school. If it cannot be remembered or has not been self-trained, then by 60 years old, if the advice is still shared, it is evidence that the person has not learned it, thinking it still valuable. Reminders should not be necessary any longer either.
- People who are highly intelligent who still find messages like this useful appear to not have utilized their intelligence on their own behavior or development on the sophistication of their advice giving or receiving.
- The equation is falsely to suport the point, like a bar graph skewed to be persuasive and misinformative. 1.01^365 isn't any representative model of growth on consistent behavior, but is instead used to say "Look, .01 will increase fast over time like compound interest." Unlike compound interest, it uses a useless equation without any variables. "You'll become a 37" which seems a reasonable increase from being just a one. But notice that if instead of 1.01, 1.9 was chosen, then you would equal 5.559866e+101, a number so large it can't be written out by a calculator. "You'd be that big a number." Alternatively, if 1.000000000001, then you'd be approximately 1 later too.

The time it takes to explain what is wrong with such memes is enough for readers to TLDR response anything that debunks the message. The result is that such messages go undebunked and people continue to use them, share them, consider them as worthwhile unreflectively. However, they've not realized that this message includes childish content that shows their advice is primitive, and exhibits their inability to improve, or use models that use real math, but instead uses childish ways of demonstration.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="some-comments-in-mensa-to-someone-claiming-special-knowledge-on-real-creativity">Some comments in Mensa to someone claiming special knowledge on "real creativity"</a>

*Monday, May 15<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Tasmania, Australia</time>

[HighIQ Community Member], appreciate your history in there. You can see my history here too if you're interested: LinkedIn.com/in/mattanaw. Very large creative demands on my mind that had to result in decisions and tangible products of various types. I would disagree with you on this statement, selecting it out as being, still, the key area of contention in your earlier comment: 

"But I was talking about what I personally consider a deeper kind of creativity -- what I consider real creativity."

Here is where I would say, there isn't any "real creativity." Coming from a background in Psychology, if you are making the claim that real creativity cannot be measured, I would say you've missed operationalization of the concept, which requires validity tests, which would come to a point of "how do we measure this?" Taking your statements as relating to a hypothesis about deeper creativity, you would need to construct a scientific experimental design, that would allow you to collect data to show that it isn't measurable. Furthermore you would need to define the word clearly, and have parameters relating to other things that are measurable, allowing for the planning of data collections, that relate to statistical significance, which is a huge miss in scientific studies, BTW. If you think this through, I think you will find it is a way to separate out something to make it have a special place, that is not measurable, and maybe not physiological. Using measurements of what exactly would allow you to show this? If you developed such an experimentation, I think it would result in a reductio ad absurdum to your hypothesis assumed true, which would show that it is really measurable, and not something different fundamentally from creativity. But doing such a thing you would create greater clarity on creativity.

But I really do think, on grounds of introspection, and knowledge of Psychology/neuroscience, that the growth of productions and mind is related to active creativity and neurodevelopment that is physiological and measurable. If there is something underlying what is in our awareness about our creativity, which is certainly the case, then it is physiologically explained, and not introspectively explained. The physiological explanation would include why you have creative growths you are aware of, but also those you are unaware of. On this point, again, I think there isn't a good reason to have a special thing separated called "real creativity" that is somehow more ineffable. 

This error I think is similar to the one found in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in which the author writes, extensively, about how quality cannot be defined and never could be. He creates a special somewhat mystical place (you didn't say "mystical" I know), for "quality", pushing it into ineffability. When I read it, I thought "But I can explain quality..." but what I could not convince this person probably, is that it doesn't have the special place he wants for it, for other reasons he has that he did not share. Probing further into your statement, I would wonder, what this view achieves for you personally, over and above your reasons for thinking it truthful. Why do you find this idea attractive? Does it help you have an improved self-concept in some way? If so it may not actually be as defensible as you think, and I feel very confident I could explain the experience in detail. 

If you were to share with me what your experience of real creativity is, in detail, I think I could explain why it is measurable and better explain what it is, and relate it to my experience. But, on a hunch, on experienced judgement, I would guess if you think you can't measure it, you may not be able to explain how you experience it. But then that makes it a physiological subprocess under your awareness, and neuroscience would explain it better.

Going further, pretending the statements came from someone else, someone I don't know well, like you, I would say maybe this view also relates to religion. And in that case I would also relate it to other things, like a belief in a soul, or a belief in an afterlife, in that creativity somehow connects to something supposedly "deeper, more real, more meaningful that simply cannot be expressed." But spending time with me would really reveal, I think, that it can be expressed, but expressing it shows that it is not that, and not connected with those things; and that more detail would be surfaced, than the detail which is shared. Indicating that it hasn't been thought through completely.

You have other comments earlier in the group that indicate to me you have some interest in the creative process and what creativity means for you. I write about this actively. I would be interested to see what you have written about it, and can also share with you what I think might relate from my own writing. Or else share more thoughts like these that also, sort of feed my other writings in various creative/productive ways.

[Note: Written in 14 minutes.]

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="can-you-unpriest-a-monk-or-is-a-monk-alone-a-priest">Can you unpriest a monk, or is a monk alone a priest?</a>

*Friday, April 19<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Queenstown, New Zealand Time</time>

Can you unpriest a monk, or is a monk alone a priest?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="a-pathway-to-recovering-brain-material-related-to-memories">A Pathway to Recovering Brain Material Related to Memories</a>

*Or: Using Content And/Or AI to Support and Recreate Brain*

*Thursday, April 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Queenstown, New Zealand Time</time>



<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="when-can-you-sell-a-photograph">When can you sell a photograph?</a>

*Thursday, April 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Queenstown, New Zealand Time</time>

A common question of interest is whether or not photography is an artform, or whether or not soon it will become too easy to be artistic.

Related to this question is what of the experience is artistic, or produces art, that is supposedly in the photograph. 

Finally, there is the question of what photos can be sold, and what the justifications are for selling and procuring certain photographs.

Before I being to say more: pointing a phone at something of interest, that is itself artistic is an artful find. It can be used to preserve something artful. It can be used to archive artwork, and to collect meaningful visual experiences. Sometimes the experiences themselves contain something which precedes whatever medium is used to do any more. Some won't take photographs, or as many of them, because they think that the photography diminishes rather than enhances this experience, which may lead to artful productions later, of the same kind or other kinds.

When I was in my teenage years I used disposable film cameras, and would refuse to take pictures of myself, or to hand my camera to others, to take pictures of me when they volunteered kindly to do so. To me, at that time, a photo was going to be a memorial of what I saw that I enjoyed, from inside my head, through my own eyes. Even seeing myself on a photo from my camera indicated there was an experience someone else was having that I did not have myself. I wanted my camera to be like my eyes in a way. Since then I've decided that recording my life is valuable, and took many photos of myself and my companions in a selfie style. 

Like this complaint I had, regarding photography and the art, and what it means in relation to experience is not something that others have not thought about, sometimes in other ways. Recently I had a conversation in which my companion was saying there was something he disliked about the order in which photos were taken in relation to experiences had that would prompt photographs. He also did not like that a photograph cut out or selected only a portion of the experience. To him the experience was more than the photographs produced and somehow the photographs falsified themselves, and diminished the experience itself; so instead he would not take photographs during certain better moments. Related to these complaints were various ideas about photography as a less artful form. I will not say more about these but he had numerous ideas about why he had some distaste for photography.

To some of the above I was able to provide what appeared to be persuasive points. He seemed to agree with some counterpoints, although I would admit still, there is something about photography that certainly *can* take away from natural experiences, which were the focus of our talk. I will share these persuasive points momentarily.

In another conversation just earlier, I heard from a photographer who was telling me that he did not like to take photos of other artworks, thinking that it was something approaching theft; or if not theft, trying to recall correctly, something not his, and instead he preferred to photograph natural settings, landscapes in particular. There was something of an issue with the relationship to another art producer, versus a relationship to nature.



<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="revisiting-the-parenting-plan-as-providing-reason-to-live">Revising the Parenting Plan as Providing Reason to Live</a>

*Thursday, April 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Queenstown, New Zealand Time</time>

*[Note: Unedited as part of a study in editing]*

I'm not fond of the phrase "Reason to live" thinking that there are many reasons that can be provided when a persons birth has a high probability of resulting in a fulfilling life. I prefer instead to think that a person may have a very large set of expectations which individually and collectively contribute to a likelihood of a satisfying animal existence.

Many have complained that they need such a reason to live. Instead of already receiving something from their parents and environment as children which show, clearly, that forethought existed in a certain kind of plan, also answering "what is my plan?", they are produced on sexual desires alone nearly.

I have said before that people ought to have a much better strategy regarding if/when to have sex, not faulting individuals who have a deterministic history resulting in sexual acts; but that more generally people can get into population planning, STD management, relationship risk management and life plans for selves and future others, and by doing so create some distance from history in its prior lack of strategy. Before desire alone, like animals, ensured that new animals would be produced. Reflecting on how humans procreate, they really do act similarly. Where there would be claims to plans, and strategy, of parents who pretend having made sound decisions, instead are lack of writings that support, and lack of anything that can be given over to the child to demonstrate that such planning existed before they were born. Even among married couples who have ideas about what a family may consist of, is lack of clear vision of what their kids would look like, what there characteristics would be, and a probabilistic idea about what their advantages in life would be, that would create a high quality life as a person.

Instead, later, oftentimes, parents claim they need "salvation" and a "life savings", financial and spiritual, to make the next "better life" available. It is told also that this next life is not one that is assured. "Reasons" are taken from sources claiming to have a way to survive life well and be "granted" an afterlife, but these do not come from parents but from ancient peoples instead. A modern and thoughtful plan would not come from such a source, and would be satisfied if it came from parents who were concerned about the freedoms of their future children, to live and learn in a way they choose for themselves, but with the traits and advantages which make a good future likely.

Suppose a parent or parents were to create such a plan for their children. In this plan would be somethihng relating to expected appearance and traits of the animals which would relate to traits the parents themselves enjoy. For example, a parent who thinks themselves unattractive, might produce a child also unattractive, and potentially unhappy. A parent who is unhealthy, may produce an unhealthy child. A wife who does not thoroughly enjoy the traits of her huysband may not like her child's traits; and if so, the child would not enjoy perhaps their relationships with women, who think similarly, or a mother, who might deride their traits which are the same as those deridden in her husband. The same is true the other direction, considering the traits of women and their desirability.

This plan relates to all traits which can be known that are of interest for determining if a life is a beneficial one. Intelligence is to be considered. Region where one lives needs to be considered, which means situational information is vital. Level of income and money, and availability of resources is required. If not, parents can simply create poor starving children, and claim there is a plan from another source, rather than realize that they animalistically, as animals too, created children out of sexual desire.

To me, having done perhaps a large amount of work which would prepare me to formulate such a strategy, I think I could arm my children, if I were to think it likely they would have genetic traits worth having, with a plan that would make it clear that the vision was appropriate to the decision for having them. "My father really did have a high expectation that if a baby was born, it would live well later, and I'm that child. He could not envision my traits in advance, but had a probabilistic expectation that I'd have an excellent life. This also gave me some direction as to what to do in life to continue to have such an expectation: by using my beauty, talents, living situation, region, and many other factors to my benefits, to have a happy and fulfilling experience."

Such a plan would be truthful and honest, and this would create a parental bond of trust. A plan coming from parents that is honest in its vision and expectations, and predictions, would be enough to make questions such as "What is my life for, and what is my plan, and what are my reasons for existing" unreligious, and more scientific, and immediately relevant.

*[Note: Unedited as part of a study in editing]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="modeling-skepticism">Modeling Skepticism</a>

*Thursday, April 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Queenstown, New Zealand Time</time>

When you are theorizing, how do you model the level of skepticism appropriate to your thoughts?

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="updating-theorizing">Updating Theorizing</a>

*Thursday, April 13<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Queenstown, New Zealand Time</time>

*[Note: no edits in accordance with the earlier mentioned project in studying editing.]*

An issue that exists in the scientific community, that is general to its work to be performed, and its manner of explaining its results, is the wording around what is a "hypothesis", what is a "thesis", and what is a "theory". All have had some confusion or concern about precision concerning what a theory is apart from a hypothesis, and all in science are concerned with research and papers, in which a thesis is to be had and demonstrated.

There are several problems. Firstly, there is the problem of lack of complexity, since a hypothesis may be composed of several subhypotheses, revealing that a model would exist for each and every hypothesis which would relate to what has been thoroughly demonstrated, and what has not been demonstrated and is really "theoretic". The word "theoretic" has been used to discuss what is not demonstrated but appears to have truth. This confounds theory and hypothesis.Underlying a hypothesis containing nested hypotheses, and within it, are premises of certain sorts which are themselves complex, which come together, which are to form a rigorous scientific demonstration or proof, which has mathematical aspects. These premises are to have a logical structure. All together a work, or set of researched works, or works, is to combine hypothesis and logical structure to fully demonstrate, or prove out, what is required for the thesis. The result of this is supposed to resemble scientific method, in that the outcome of the work is really one that has the sufficient number of components and connections between components explaining thoroughly what is to be demonstrated. This includes statistical data related components, observations, experiences in other researched papers, and logical arguments which bring together all to really convince readers that the primary hypothesis is a true one.

Above more than one other problem exists in how these hypotheses are linked together, and what to call each independent already existing hypothesis, regarding its state of maturity in its own development towards becomine a theory. A theory is supposed to be something that has already some weight in evidence and prior work, and is trending towards truth accepted. However, since there are different kinds and levels of assurance as to quality of prior work, each theory and hypothesis really would benefit from having different names, and a different nomenclature, capturing what is uncertain about each.

A theory is a longer statement of sorts, and a hypothesis is a shorter statement that is supposed to be testable. Both resemble each other, but differ regarding the levels and kinds of existing work has been done to support both. 

A 'theory' is confused with 'theorizing' because a theory, we are told by some in the scientific community, is a statement of sorts in which theorizing has been complete. This confuses the language.

This brief writing is intended to reveal that a new nomenclature would support clarity around what a hypothesis is more particularly, and what its level of related skepticism should be. Arguably, theories which are secure in existing work are still hypotheses under this way of looking. Theories are still questioned later. What are the questions and concerns regarding theories which are accepted? Which are the questions and concerns about theories which are less accepted. Classify these concerns and you have the solidity of the theory, and hypothesis, and ways to talk about the solidity, apart from the usage of two words which have confusions.

More to be added later regarding what such a nomenclature may look like if developed, providing some pathways for the work of others, if I do not continue further to work on the issue myself, working around the words theory and hypothesis to simply provide more detail and clarity regarding what we might be skeptical about, and what might go past skepticism to natural understanding of the world.

Thu Apr 13 15:11:14 NZST 2023

*[Note: no edits in accordance with the earlier mentioned project in studying editing.]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="a-comment-in-the-high-iq-community-regarding-claims-that-certain-rarities-are-really-not-so-rare">A comment in the HighIQ community regarding claims that certain rarities are really not so rare</a>

*Sunday, April 6<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Invercargill, New Zealand Time</time>

*A comment in the HighIQ community regarding claims that certain rarities are really not so rare*

Productions of folks don't seem to support this at all in my view. If we were to aggregate productions of each of those who are supposedly 1 in  24,500, we would not see quality or significance which is approaching what should be had on criticism relating to subtests of intelligence [Edit: for those who are IQ 176 vicinity]. For example, we would see productions which are thought to be of better quality, with better significance, and less defects (a subtest), less pattern mistakes (a subtest), less vocabulary sophistication or word combination (a subtest), less memory length of written statements and compactness of meaning (subtests), etc... through all the subtests. Less indications of visual/written match of ability, which indicates lopsidedness in productions. Why would there be lopsidedness of productions? Individuals who have claims such as this, are to be measured on productions to determine in what ways there is a match or mismatch with intelligence measures that are test based, because the skills used for the test are to be self employed in productions. If not there is lopsidedness that debunks.

In our experiences reading high quality materials of various sources, and artistic works, we can see how rare these are. Not that they need to be developed to this extent with practice for signs to be evident regarding non lopsidedness of productions and testing. A child can show productions that are showing that there is not a lopsidedness with less development and resources. 

Aware that Mark posts all that may be of interest including what is easy to agree with or not, I don't think this is a share indicating agreement, and so I don't anticipate any interpretation that I'm somehow trying to be contradictory with the purpose of the post, which is informative and for keeping folks perhaps current.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="if-we-dont-ever-do-it-we-are-patterned-away-from-it">If we don't ever do it we're patterned away from it</a>

*Sunday, April 6<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Invercargill, New Zealand Time</time>

If we don't ever do it we're patterned away from it

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="explorations-in-greater-freedom">Explorations in Greater Freedom</a>

What hand symbols or gestures are you disallowed from using, in your freedom of speech, and how does that relate to artful symbology, and your artful expressions, which are symbolic and analogical, and meaningful, and communicative? What say you, Communications Doctorates?

*Wednesay, April 5<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Invercargill, New Zealand Time</time>

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="my-history-of-writings-in-the-high-intelligence-community">My History of Writings in the High Intelligence Community</a>

and my book, [*Book and Journal of Mattanaw*](http://mattanaw.org#introduction)

[*Important Note: Unedited as a result of my ongoing study on editing, for some reasons provided below.*]

Thu Mar 30 14:14:21 NZDT 2023

Some may have noticed that my long history of writings in the intelligence community had characteristics that did not necessarily resemble writings of a book or academic articles. This was deliberate.

In order to carry out a personal project of building a website or blog, or a book, or any writing whatsoever that is expected to be sold, there must be content. There must be sufficient writings the justify the effort of collecting them together, and for anyone who has blogged, they know that there must be enough writing and material to justify paying for a server, a domain name, applications such as a webserver, and anything else that might be a costly investment. A complete book requires a design, and a complete site requires one also, but if there is no material to include, one designs a site or book before there is anything to put in it of value.

Recently I have thought of putting together a living will in order to make clear to people certain things I really do not wish to occur after my death even though that control does not exist in great measure. There are finaincial things of interest, and assets come to mind, when thinking of waht happens when one dies. But what also about one's wishes? Wishes is an expansive topic including how one is remembered, and how one's thoughts and productions might be used later, if one is an artist or creator. One would not want one's artworks to be defiled or used for other purposes. Similarly, people make provisions for their own bodies, so that their bodies are used in a way that seems compatible with one's wishes, if one takes the time to think carefully about what those are and is not satisfied with simply being buried in a cemetery only, according to custom's of others and normal practices where one lives.

I'm not here going to discuss fully what my complete set of wishes would be in life and at and after death. Instead I want to focus on what is relevant to content that might be created for a book, or website. How could these relate? Firstly, I have stated before that I am much averse to quotations. I would not want to be an author that is known for small excerpts of works unread, taken out of context, repurposed for intents that are customary or highly different from my own intentions. Like being burried in a cemetary according to the customs of others, I don't want my ideas to simply exist in someone else's context. Much better than this is to be understood. For someone like myself, I have already discovered it is not possible to be understood because the bulk of materials I have produced are too large, and will be much larger on development, for anyone to read in detail. But, if my wants were recognized, and they do not appear to be recognizable, people would think as they quote, that they have not fully understood; but part of my wishes would be that people simple recognize that fact, if any quotation is made. Being not famous enough for quotation perhaps, I wouold think the same of any excerpting, or selection of sentences, which results in a few words or phrases, or a sentence, or small number of sentences. Knowing that it is not interpreted correctly without a thorough reading is already respectful of the situation of the author, and of people's thinking more generally when it cannot be easily encapsulated, or cannot be encapsulated. That people are aware they need to read all or most of a work in order to fully understand a meaning, even of a component part of the work, is already enough, perhaps, for people to see that they could read what else exists to achieve that, and perhaps some might. Even if no one did, the recollection of my view on quotation, and short sentences, would be known enough to create the right way of looking at excerpts or fragments of what gets used, and what is remembered. Not everything can be remembered. People will select small fragments and excerpts.

As a retired, former expert software architect, trusted to guide international corporations and governments, I know well what an appropriate content and writing strategy is. I would be the person entrusted to guide all on this topic!

Creating my own Book and Journal has been a long process. It's not finished and is a work in progress that will go through all my life. Knowning *in advance* that such a process requires content to justify the design, I perused materials from brief articles with social intent rather than those which would be of academic intent. Earlier articles seemed very much what like short blog posts that one finds on the internet. Later, I became interested in sharing my mind, closer to its operation in real time, on topics that are often socially critical, in a format that allowed for errors, blemishes of various kinds, justified on grounds that such writings would be draft if found in handwritten journals, and would be forever in draft if in conversation, where many errors happen, but people listen; furthermore, unedited *streams of consciousness* writings, which we learned about in our educations as youths, have the strenghts of sharing something untained by editing. If I edit a work, I have not shared precisely what I was thinking and how I was thinking it. As a typist, I can really type as I think, and leave those thoughts in place without alterations. Doing this fulfill other objectives related to creating artifacts of self, but that writing is for another time in the same book and journal.

Being able to write in such a way that is somewhat similar to what is done between friends and amongst others in social media, where formality is not expected, and where much is allowed and permitted regarding sharing *authentic things* as people might say, I have been able to amass much content which could and was used for justifying the existence of a site, domain, server, design, and book. Since my book is also my living autobiography, and the reader is also experienced in social media, it can be seen that blending such social materials does allow for a timelined living autobiography. Suppose you were to collect all your writings together from social media, all your videos and photos, and retain them for yourself as a photoalbum and journal. Would this not enable you to create your own living autobiography, from what you've already done? The author knows and knew this has not existed, and it is a difficult thing to have and retain, and organize what has been put on software products not independently owned. These things are lost forever, and remain disorganized, with no way to download and organize those materials, to have them in the same way that photo albums and journals are had.

So much of my earlier writings are about my life and thoughts, but were very limited in that they did not provide my thinking as it related to earlier book plans which were more of an academic or intellectual quality. This also relates to somewhat undesirable expression in the form of sentences and short phrases, full of blemishes, which are nice too remembering life, that result in a misundersanding of sorts about what one is doing, and what one really wants to say, and how one would like to be remembered, or read in the future. I have stated above that I'm not in favor of quotations. Yet I made plenty of quotations myself, simply posting on social media sites that require a certain small amount of text and no more.

A reader who has seen much of these writings may be surprised that my intention earlier was to use my own writings as a source to show limitations about using these short writings, over longer ones. Knowing how some people think, I was aware that some could even claim there is a hypocrisy in someone claiming that quotes are unwanted or have fundamental issues, who also quotes, and uses short excerpts of text, instead of longer ones. 

As I said above, I don't expect that people would necessarily be able, or have time, to read enough to refrain from relaying my thoughts in a way that is not short. My practice also explains why quotation exists, and why people deal in short sentences and phrases, and why so many authors, unfortunately, have been disfigured in time, being shared only in pieces that could be had or recalled. It also explains somewhat, the interpretation of fragments from writings which do not exist entirely, that are still used and interpreted, despite a permanent lack of material which would provide an ability to interpret. Some fragments have been used to create false views about authors, simply because it could not be admitted that their works were lost. The works of many authors like Epicurus, Epictetus, Aristotle, and others are permanently gone. This implies they really cannot be known. Yet charitable interpretation to their fragmentary sources has not been applied in a way that is uncommon: to protect them from mythologization and fictionalization. Once cannot know an author if their works have been lost!

My writings to date have allowed me to build a considerable work of living autobiography, justifying investments, and now I can transition to writing more in an academic and intellectual way, that will help to explain my desire that people are rightly interpreted; myself included. If one cannot be righly interpreted, one can receive a charitable omission from making any further fictionalizing commentary! Or biography!

This writing is primarily to explain the earlier postings over the last few years. What they mean in context somewhat. They have enabled me to justify continuing writing and maintaining my publishing technology. Others will face the same issue as this when they plan any type of website, blog, or journal. Large organizations face this. What content do we have to share? How fast can we get content? What will fast content look like compared with slow, torturously edited and updated content? In my case I used content and materials suitable to my long term objective, that was faster. The fast content really did serve my purposes and is interesting in my estimation. It provides artifacts and data about my life, and a primary source commentary of the type of life I'm living, which is similar to the lives of others, who are contemporaries, like the reader of this posting. It enabled my objective of having a finished book, with the structure required to incorporate all my other productions, written or artistic.

What is difficult in this process is that one knows that the earlier writings are not the ones one would want to be interpreted using! One wants it to be finished! In my case I chose for structure and direction, knowing that later works would clarify earlier ones, and that I would not *finish* really, but would have a good product at death. But if I died earlier, all interpretations of my mind would have been done with fragments, and it would have to be admitted I would be unknown.

[*Written in 41 minutes with no proofreading and no edits*]
 
Finished Thu Mar 30 14:55:42 NZDT 2023

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Sunday, March 12<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:21 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time</time>

*You like the younger version of your spouse compared to the older*

## <a name="a-mathematical-proof-like-demonstration-of-preference-of-youth-to-age-in-aesthetics-from-sexual-preferences-and-cultural-example">A Mathematical Proof-like Demonstration of Preference of Youth to Age in Aesthetics from Sexual Preference and Cultural Example</a>

Recently I made a statement that someone I had some relationship interests with was hot to me, although she was older. I used the example of her daughter to confirm why she was attractive. This indicates that there would be a preference I would have for her younger self to her older self, which is true. I utilized the younger self to make it more clear why the later version was attractive. Just like how someone would argue that their wife is attractive to them, for being a progression of the younger that is pleasing.

An ethical maxim that existed in recent history was to check the appearance of your potential spouse's parent to confirm that they will still seem attractive to in their expected aging. If the parent of the potential spouse did not seem attractive, there could be reasons for not going forward with a desired relationship. Since marriage is a long term commitment with unexpected changes in time, information regarding expected change matters, where it exists. There is a family resemblance in aging, that is medically utilized. It would be medically utilized for predicting age related conditions which relate to visible appearance.

Reasoning steps:

1. At the beginning of your relationship, you find your spouse attractive.
1. Considering the incremental changes of your spouse in time, you use the historical maxim (a heuristic axiom or theorem), to know the future appearance, and a series of appearances from youth to old age.
1. The series of change of appearance is decremental with respect to preference, also using the historical maxim as a justification for continuing a relationship, versus preferring it more.
1. You find the mother attractive, but less so.
1. You will find the daughter more attractive to the mother.
1. Now relating this to my actual scenario: I find the mother attractive.
1. The daughter is an example of the earlier appearance of the mother in the series.
1. I find the daughter more attractive than the mother (but ignore it).
1. I find the mother attractive.

This isn't done obviously and requires more steps than simple mathematical steps alone (needs statistical steps). But the mathematical component of the proof with the series does seem to have a usable generalization.

It might be fun to find other ways to express this proof formally, so that you can explain why you like younger people and older ones too. You may realize or help others see that, there is a series in aging as it relates to attractiveness, with this assumption already existing in culture, and an expectation that it would not relate to specific numbers of years of age. (One can make this same argument in favor of Indian arranged marriages). I leave it to the reader to decide independently what it might imply regarding various parts of relationship ethics.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Saturday, March 11<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>3:38 PM Lower Hutt, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="making-good-encyclopedias-available-offline">Making good encyclopedias available offline</a>

In my effort to solve issues of homelessness and wealthy camping (they relate), I have discovered the issue of needing to be stimulated with information if in the back country, offline, for extended periods of time. If satellite technology is available and energy too, then this is not an issue. But at present, even with Starlink, it's not very movable or feasible, or simplistic to resolve. If one is in another nation, in a sedentary remote position, Starlink may solve it. Either way, offline resources for backups in these conditions are needed.

I came to the conclusion that scanning the Columbia Encyclopedia would be wortwhile and would provide endless reading material. Wikipedia would be excellent, too, but it is largely not usable. Some notes on this topic were exchanged in the high giftedness community between myself and another very intelligent person. He suggested that The Tormont Webster's Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary is another good option.

Below are some notes of mine, to his share, which was in response to my comment regarding the Columbia Encyclopedia, which I own but have not yet scanned.

Response 1:

After looking at Kiwix, wondering how they could earn after noticing the difficulties of handling a 92 GB complete English wikipedia, I saw they are doing their work for enabling people all around the world, with offline computing only. I looked for other offline ways of using wikipedia, and there are none, unless one writes what Kiwix does, and I think that's not worth it, due to unmaintained data APIs. So my little project of working to have off-grid reading, went to the discovery that this need is the same as for gifted kids worldwide. Gifted kids without resources. I think it is an amazing idea. Intentions may not be amazing from what I'm seeing since there is an odd board group or advisory panel for it. But, it seems cool. Much better would be unlocked wikipedia with easy html download. For this group and any folks enabling the gifted here, and I know there are some, I think this may be another thing of interest. So now there are three somewhat compact large-scale encyclopedias that are potentially usable for offline use (the one in OP for scan, and the Columbia Encyclopedia for scan. They seem about the same length and are reasonable for scan and storage).

Response 2:

<Kind commenter>, btw, I'll have the Columbia encyclopedia in my possession not too long from now again, when back temporarily in AK. I was thinking to scan it for offline use. KiwiX is the offline wikipedia. It seems glitchy and a little problematic, but an alternative. Since the Columbia Encyclopedia it is out of print, I may be able to share it, once scanned. In that case we can all have it. I was wanting it for off grid camping and vacation, for ample reading with minimal connectivity and load. I'm carrying just one book now and already it feels too heavy, and it isn't enough reading material. This encyclopedia looks very nice. A lacking of the Columbia Encyclopedia is that its illustrations are not in color. Makes a little more classy though, but nevertheless, color is wanting here and there.

This information should be valuable to anyone who wants a condensed form of high quality encyclopedic reading material.

These comments were from within 2 hours ago, posted in a private High IQ community within Mensa.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


*Tuesday, February 28<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>8:17 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="mattanaw-says-you-need-not-join-moments-of-somebody-elses-silence">Mattanaw says you need not join moments of somebody else's silence</a>

Rock Lizard.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


*Saturday, February 25<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>5:46 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="plans-for-the-evening">Plans for the Evening</a>

Today's plans for the evening, on returning home, after enjoying some time at the gym in Wellington, and perhaps a jog doing some exploration, is the following:

- Work on incorporating creative productions process workflows into the mind and habits.
  - Process and push new media album to cloud.
  - Server checkup.
- (Mental Development) Productions: Save new diagram on sensory-attentional process.
- Environment: Add music to playlists while being entertained:
  - Listen to male opera singing, and vocal training, and scales.
  - Listen to instrumental scales, and whistle along.
  - Put Etudes from Chopin on playlist, and if there is time read along from sheet music.
- Evening Routine: Get things ready and plan for tomorrow (including camera). 


<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


*Thursday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:36 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="suffixed-and-prefixes-and-interfixes-that-didnt-dictionary">Suffixes and Prefixes, and Interfixes that didn't Dictionary</a>

The potential dictionary size is vast if you simply build on your already attained mastery of wrapping and interstitialing fixes.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


*Thursday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:36 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="mocking-shit-faux-jargon-like-boomer">Mocking Shit Faux-Jargon like "Boomer"</a>

Boomer is a word that has been used by the media with full commitment but is truly shit jargon.

Shit jargon is something that needs to be recognized within the process of evolving the shared scientific vocabulary.

If it comes from the media, is a generational concept, as a rule it should be rejected as shit jargon.

Recently I updated my glossary page with words I coined. One coinage is the word "Cageism" which is interesting itself. Suffixing to expand vocabularies in a false way, while disabling people from using their mastery of the approach to coin new words is also worth making fun of. For this purpose we will join generational concepts with ways ofusing the word ["Cageism"](glossary.html#cageism):

*Related coinages: Cageism, cageist, cageophiliac, encageophiliac, cageophobic, cageomaniac, encageomancer, cageonometray, cegeonometrician, encagenobstectrics, millenialwokeuncageists,genzrevertocageophilistinism, boomercageist, unsuffixingcageist*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


*Thursday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:02 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="redoing-strange-grammatical-constructions-like-variations-on-lay">Redoing strange grammatical constuctions, like variations on 'lay'</a>

In the near future I will begin changing some english usages to use my own versions of poorly done grammatical variations in English. Obviously I will not attempt to cover the language exhaustively. However, any parts of English that seem a "reference nuissance" or nuissance offensive to natural mastery" that I am wanting to change will be changed. 

The variations of the word 'lay' may be one such starting point, except for places where i've already done it, as with [superpluralification](glossary.html#superpluralification).

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Thursday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>1:55 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="first-of-the-author-and-firsting-behavior">First of the Author and "Firsting" Behavior</a>

In my [lists](lists.html) page that includes my lists of obvious errors, falsities, and likely areas of untruth, I wrote about what I think of as "firsting". Firsting is "He was the first" type statements about famous figures, false leaders, messiahs, prophets, [cult](cults.html) leaders, and others who want to claim more for themselves than is honest or is documented for posterity.

L. Ron Hubbard in Scientology had a booklet with false firstings. It is unclear if it was of his preparation or the preparation of a mythologizer (Ref. [bibliography](bibliography-citing-and-referring.html) the work Two Lives of Charlemagne). Either way there are numerous obvious firstings, that have the following characteristics:

- They are testably false
- Some are untestable, but are obviously false
- Some lack primary source documentation (corroborating materials from Hubbard or other sources).
- No access to history in which to independently want to make the claims (versus simply hearing lies from a motivated person who wants something).

The implication is that they are obviously false statements, that for others may appear possibly true, but for those people, they would have no way to verify, and would have nothing but claims to think it true. 

However, that does not mean that nobody really "firsts" anything, and I argue in many locations for many purposes that each person is entirely unique, and is a first of sorts by default, which ensures they are [unequal] to others (Ref: [Abandoning Equality](abandoning-equality.html)). So firsting is something easy to do really. When you do things you are firsting becaue you are connected with the complete description of the situation in which you do it, and already you are unique, so what you do is unique. This I have used to argue that history never repeats itself (which is really just a recalled phrase anyhow).

What I am using as a heuristic device is using utterances of claims to firsts and similar statements as invokers of skeptcisim and cause to think cautiously. The utterances I have in mind are "monumentalisms" trying to make what one has done or what another has done as some monumental achievement worth durable respect or maybe separation from others as especially unequal or high in worth. Obviously there are reasons to think some as great, but firsting is a red flag as to false motivations and bad salesmanlike intentions.

This work does have the property of creating firsts in the world, and later I will list many meaningful ways in which my work really does do something either monumental, or does something leading to something that is monumental in an important way. There are huge differences between this and firsting. Namely this work has these properties:

- A primary objective is honest recording of history to create artifacts.
- Artifacts then can be used to test history and provide primary source materials to people who want to see if any big firsts really are true.
- I am making the claims and not someone for me. This is important because if Charlemagne wrote his autobiography, it would agree in many ways with the version of Einhard, but not of Notker the Stammerer, who was a mythologizer. This means that it is important that peole who do something important tell their own story so they are not falsified by either a mythologizer or someone who pretends to be a follower with bad intentions, or anyone else with an interest in tampering, slandering, or making something excessively great.
- The document form itself will be unusual to history. This means as an artifact those things which are listed as firsts will be clearly firsts, although it is understood that failure to preserve other parts of history could result in an inability to compare. If this exists, then ther may be a difficulty in inability to compare with what has not been preserved.
- The author expects the reader to be skeptical.
- The author expects truth-testing processes to be utilized. 
- The author will be obviously unmotivated about making things great by keeping things proportional to what they achieve.

## Tentative Conclusion

In my work from the early 2000s I mentioned that this total work is partly an attempt to arrive at trustworthy conclusions which seem to be durable (Ref: [Rational Times](rational-times.html). Much is tentative in what we conclude from our analyses of things, but oftentimes we do arrive at hard and definite conclusions which are durable or permanent. A permanent conclusion is that whatever you make as a fiction is a fiction, and is therefore permanently false. We can easily recognize permanent falsities and these constitute more trustworthy truths. Much harder is representing nature in a way that is complete. In this we are often close, and close enough to have something duruable, but not far along enough to not already intuit that our representation witll not be supplanted later by something more clear, detailed, and integrated with other truths, which themselves will likely have more clarity and details. Certain truths later will have more power (akin to unlocking nuclear weaponry with physics).

A tentative conclusion to move forward with, directed simply at myself too, might be:

You certainly are creating many novel and important firsts with this work you are doing. These firsts are of a type which have little relationship to "firsting" which is a really abhorrent behavior, but does involve red flags, which should invoke skepticism in others, concerning how to validate or confirm that those firsts are really firsts, and if those firsts really have any special importance. The list provided will provide a reader with a definite set of testable claims as to achievements. This list combined with an honest approach at self-verification, and corroborating artifacts, and evidents of positive intentions and motivations of the author, along with other truth validation techniques, will provide readers and the author himself with ways to recognnize that caution resulted in verification, and that caution resulted in showing an example of where others are obviously firsting.

When I say this is tentative I also think it tentative in keeping with the objectives of the thoughtstream during more rational moments. I do not think subsequent thoughts will not elaborate on this tentative conclusion to create a writing that is of better quality on the same topic. Also I don't think this written tentative conclusion is a total representation of my way of thinking which includes other durable conclusions that are unstated and need to be written out or connected with this. This paragraph above and earlier statements however trend towards a better statement and are more trustworthy than others which might be less rational. This writing is part of a more [Rational Time](rational-times.html) in life, which is worth recollecting. The conclusion has not been written in logical form to allow for logical analysis assuring soundness, but that is a formalization requirement that is not always possible due to life-complexity. Aspects of parts of this argument can certainly be shown reasonably efficiently and will be recorded later (time and life permitting), providing adequate expectation that the author's thinking results in soundness more generally. The writing provides the datum required for inductively and statistically arriving at that expectation. In this way perhaps later with adeequate time a finite number of well chosen arguments, in conjunction with all artifacts provided, will allow for a validation that the author's mind will result in sound arguments of high complexity. I already intuitively knows this to be the case but has much more work to ensure the reader is able to have what is needed to confirm this in my mind. In this way also there is agreement between the objective here, the tentative conclusion above, and the goal to ensure the reader can tell that I am not doing any firsting behavior, which is done by others who are and were unable to do the same. This message should be a note indicating that such an effort really would result in significant firsts by the author, if the reader simply compares this with what they have been exposed to (particlularly by comparing with old dictatorial politician's claims to greatness, of the 1900s, and not those who were perhaps honest and dictatorial in history).

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Wednesday, February 20<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:55 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="new-reading-of-schopenhauer">New reading of Schopenhauer</a>

Today, after having it long in my possession, I began reading "The World as Will and Idea" also known as "The World as Will and Representation". 

At this point in the development of my work I don't think I require this reading in moral philosophy. Already I've read enough and my project underway has a completeness in its trajectory, indicated in my earlier remarks on coherence of work and editing. I hae much to say regarding reading versus preserving creativity. 

Now and in the future I intend to read additional works of philosophy, but with efforts made to ensure my work trajectory remains distinct. This does not mean I do not wish to be influenced by new ideas. The tree of work I've had growing for the last twenty years will remain mostly the same tree even if I am influenced in various minor ways. 

I need to say much more on my creative process which has included readings in the past which were very influential but never so influential as my own thoughts had in reaction to these materials. 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Wednesday, February 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:45 PM Palmerston North, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="what-internal-implementation-disputes-exist-in-the-brain-and-how-does-the-brain-resolve-those-for-us-with-or-without-our-participation">What internal implementation disputes exist in the brain, and how does the brain resolve those for us, with or without our participation?</a>

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Wednesday, February 20<sup>nd</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>1:29 PM Palmerston North, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="knowing-if-and-when-processing-is-parallel">Knowing if and when processing is parallel</a>

A moment ago as I was thinking over how to include my sensory process in my attention management process, I realized there is more than one way to achieve the same or a similar implementation, with a similar functional result, in that the sensory process could be one that is called at the outset of the process and just before exit, and operate in parallel for the same duration, or could be included within the process and be thought of as a way that the process itself is carried out. This appears to have implications outside of this interest which is more general and interdisciplinary.

For example, as we think, we are not certain of the implementation in our brain of our learned skills and way of thought. It is not clear precisely how two parts of a process or two processes which relate but are not controlled together are structured physiologically or biologically, or how they operate for a specific duration. More unrelated parallel processes are assumed to be parallel but may not be parallel depending on the interpretation. Because the brain is a network unlike a plain activity diagram process or coded program, it's definition and modes of function may not permit of a siple distinction of parallel or non-parallel processing and instead would probably be better modeled using a more detailed way of thinking allowing for complex interactions and blended storage (networked shared and unshared nodes, connections, and loose transactions.

For programming there is a question as to what differences exist choosing to implement code one way or another. With regard to architectural decisions around parallel processing, or parallel definition, there appear intuitively to me to also be many possible ways of considering, but even if still complex it is much less complex than decisions in the networked system, if they are planned for in advance especially. The software arhcitect's job is mostly to plan well in advance and potentially face social judgement and various real-world problems if things are not planned well initially. A brain, however, is not pre-planned in its implementation but is a learning system that gets defined and redifined, stored and restored, structured and restructured as time goes on. This is considering the program as separate to an extent from hardware, or physiological instructions and precursors.

Even more complex would be to think similarly concerning interaction of physical rulesof nature, and potential implementations of those rules (i.e. how the rules really work and what their structures are). What the structures of the rules of the implementation of nature is omitted from the idea mathematics represents nature. Without knowledge of the implementation of mathematics, it is not known from mathematics what may vary in the rules, or how they really model nature and how rules interact. Instead we have something that is more representative of behaviors rather implementation.

There appears to be an arbitrariness in my decisions as to whether to make this process parallel or to include it within the single process, although my behavior will depend on which I choose to some degree. Both processes which might be parallel or combined are also arbitrary. Resulting behavior is more optimal than before even with the arbitrariness. For now I can't measure the difference between one or the other or see what might be preferable. It seems there is an arbitrariness that is insoluble, which explains why programmers never can agree regarding what is optimal regarding architecture and programming language choices. Maturity in software architecture seems consistent with this perspective but not in a perspective that thinks too quickly that one is certainly any better than the other, where such uncertainties exist.

*[Written in 21 minutes semi-blind typed, some confirmation reading along the way on the spots being typed, no spell check or proofreading. Has not been read yet.]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><em>Thursday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2023</em>, <time>2:36 PM
Wellington, New Zealand Time</time></p>
<h2
id="suffixes-and-prefixes-and-interfixes-that-didnt-dictionary"><a name="suffixed-and-prefixes-and-interfixes-that-didnt-dictionary">Suffixes
and Prefixes, and Interfixes that didn’t Dictionary</a></h2>
<p>The potential dictionary size is vast if you simply build on your
already attained mastery of wrapping and interstitialing fixes.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><em>Thursday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2023</em>, <time>2:36 PM
Wellington, New Zealand Time</time></p>
<h2
id="mocking-shit-faux-jargon-like-boomer"><a name="mocking-shit-faux-jargon-like-boomer">Mocking
Shit Faux-Jargon like “Boomer”</a></h2>
<p>Boomer is a word that has been used by the media with full commitment
but is truly shit jargon.</p>
<p>Shit jargon is something that needs to be recognized within the
process of evolving the shared scientific vocabulary.</p>
<p>If it comes from the media, is a generational concept, as a rule it
should be rejected as shit jargon.</p>
<p>Recently I updated my glossary page with words I coined. One coinage
is the word “Cageism” which is interesting itself. Suffixing to expand
vocabularies in a false way, while disabling people from using their
mastery of the approach to coin new words is also worth making fun of.
For this purpose we will join generational concepts with ways ofusing
the word <a href="glossary.html#cageism">“Cageism”</a>:</p>
<p><em>Related coinages: Cageism, cageist, cageophiliac, encageophiliac,
cageophobic, cageomaniac, encageomancer, cageonometray,
cegeonometrician, encagenobstectrics,
millenialwokeuncageists,genzrevertocageophilistinism, boomercageist,
unsuffixingcageist</em></p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><em>Thursday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2023</em>, <time>2:02 PM
Wellington, New Zealand Time</time></p>
<h2
id="redoing-strange-grammatical-constuctions-like-variations-on-lay"><a name="redoing-strange-grammatical-constructions-like-variations-on-lay">Redoing
strange grammatical constuctions, like variations on ‘lay’</a></h2>
<p>In the near future I will begin changing some english usages to use
my own versions of poorly done grammatical variations in English.
Obviously I will not attempt to cover the language exhaustively.
However, any parts of English that seem a “reference nuissance” or
nuissance offensive to natural mastery” that I am wanting to change will
be changed.</p>
<p>The variations of the word ‘lay’ may be one such starting point,
except for places where i’ve already done it, as with <a
href="glossary.html#superpluralification">superpluralification</a>.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><em>Thursday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2023</em>, <time>1:55 PM
Wellington, New Zealand Time</time></p>
<h2
id="first-of-the-author-and-firsting-behavior"><a name="first-of-the-author-and-firsting-behavior">First
of the Author and “Firsting” Behavior</a></h2>
<p>In my <a href="lists.html">lists</a> page that includes my lists of
obvious errors, falsities, and likely areas of untruth, I wrote about
what I think of as “firsting”. Firsting is “He was the first” type
statements about famous figures, false leaders, messiahs, prophets, <a
href="cults.html">cult</a> leaders, and others who want to claim more
for themselves than is honest or is documented for posterity.</p>
<p>L. Ron Hubbard in Scientology had a booklet with false firstings. It
is unclear if it was of his preparation or the preparation of a
mythologizer (Ref. <a href="bibliography.html">bibliography</a> the work
Two Lives of Charlemagne). Either way there are numerous obvious
firstings, that have the following characteristics:</p>
<ul>
<li>They are testably false</li>
<li>Some are untestable, but are obviously false</li>
<li>Some lack primary source documentation (corroborating materials from
Hubbard or other sources).</li>
<li>No access to history in which to independently want to make the
claims (versus simply hearing lies from a motivated person who wants
something).</li>
</ul>
<p>The implication is that they are obviously false statements, that for
others may appear possibly true, but for those people, they would have
no way to verify, and would have nothing but claims to think it
true.</p>
<p>However, that does not mean that nobody really “firsts” anything, and
I argue in many locations for many purposes that each person is entirely
unique, and is a first of sorts by default, which ensures they are
[unequal] to others (Ref: <a href="abandoning-equality.html">Abandoning
Equality</a>). So firsting is something easy to do really. When you do
things you are firsting becaue you are connected with the complete
description of the situation in which you do it, and already you are
unique, so what you do is unique. This I have used to argue that history
never repeats itself (which is really just a recalled phrase
anyhow).</p>
<p>What I am using as a heuristic device is using utterances of claims
to firsts and similar statements as invokers of skeptcisim and cause to
think cautiously. The utterances I have in mind are “monumentalisms”
trying to make what one has done or what another has done as some
monumental achievement worth durable respect or maybe separation from
others as especially unequal or high in worth. Obviously there are
reasons to think some as great, but firsting is a red flag as to false
motivations and bad salesmanlike intentions.</p>
<p>This work does have the property of creating firsts in the world, and
later I will list many meaningful ways in which my work really does do
something either monumental, or does something leading to something that
is monumental in an important way. There are huge differences between
this and firsting. Namely this work has these properties:</p>
<ul>
<li>A primary objective is honest recording of history to create
artifacts.</li>
<li>Artifacts then can be used to test history and provide primary
source materials to people who want to see if any big firsts really are
true.</li>
<li>I am making the claims and not someone for me. This is important
because if Charlemagne wrote his autobiography, it would agree in many
ways with the version of Einhard, but not of Notker the Stammerer, who
was a mythologizer. This means that it is important that peole who do
something important tell their own story so they are not falsified by
either a mythologizer or someone who pretends to be a follower with bad
intentions, or anyone else with an interest in tampering, slandering, or
making something excessively great.</li>
<li>The document form itself will be unusual to history. This means as
an artifact those things which are listed as firsts will be clearly
firsts, although it is understood that failure to preserve other parts
of history could result in an inability to compare. If this exists, then
ther may be a difficulty in inability to compare with what has not been
preserved.</li>
<li>The author expects the reader to be skeptical.</li>
<li>The author expects truth-testing processes to be utilized.</li>
<li>The author will be obviously unmotivated about making things great
by keeping things proportional to what they achieve.</li>
</ul>
<h3 id="tentative-conclusion">Tentative Conclusion</h3>
<p>In my work from the early 2000s I mentioned that this total work is
partly an attempt to arrive at trustworthy conclusions which seem to be
durable (Ref: <a href="rational-times.html">Rational Times</a>. Much is
tentative in what we conclude from our analyses of things, but
oftentimes we do arrive at hard and definite conclusions which are
durable or permanent. A permanent conclusion is that whatever you make
as a fiction is a fiction, and is therefore permanently false. We can
easily recognize permanent falsities and these constitute more
trustworthy truths. Much harder is representing nature in a way that is
complete. In this we are often close, and close enough to have something
duruable, but not far along enough to not already intuit that our
representation witll not be supplanted later by something more clear,
detailed, and integrated with other truths, which themselves will likely
have more clarity and details. Certain truths later will have more power
(akin to unlocking nuclear weaponry with physics).</p>
<p>A tentative conclusion to move forward with, directed simply at
myself too, might be:</p>
<p>You certainly are creating many novel and important firsts with this
work you are doing. These firsts are of a type which have little
relationship to “firsting” which is a really abhorrent behavior, but
does involve red flags, which should invoke skepticism in others,
concerning how to validate or confirm that those firsts are really
firsts, and if those firsts really have any special importance. The list
provided will provide a reader with a definite set of testable claims as
to achievements. This list combined with an honest approach at
self-verification, and corroborating artifacts, and evidents of positive
intentions and motivations of the author, along with other truth
validation techniques, will provide readers and the author himself with
ways to recognnize that caution resulted in verification, and that
caution resulted in showing an example of where others are obviously
firsting.</p>
<p>When I say this is tentative I also think it tentative in keeping
with the objectives of the thoughtstream during more rational moments. I
do not think subsequent thoughts will not elaborate on this tentative
conclusion to create a writing that is of better quality on the same
topic. Also I don’t think this written tentative conclusion is a total
representation of my way of thinking which includes other durable
conclusions that are unstated and need to be written out or connected
with this. This paragraph above and earlier statements however trend
towards a better statement and are more trustworthy than others which
might be less rational. This writing is part of a more <a
href="rational-times.html">Rational Time</a> in life, which is worth
recollecting. The conclusion has not been written in logical form to
allow for logical analysis assuring soundness, but that is a
formalization requirement that is not always possible due to
life-complexity. Aspects of parts of this argument can certainly be
shown reasonably efficiently and will be recorded later (time and life
permitting), providing adequate expectation that the author’s thinking
results in soundness more generally. The writing provides the datum
required for inductively and statistically arriving at that expectation.
In this way perhaps later with adeequate time a finite number of well
chosen arguments, in conjunction with all artifacts provided, will allow
for a validation that the author’s mind will result in sound arguments
of high complexity. I already intuitively knows this to be the case but
has much more work to ensure the reader is able to have what is needed
to confirm this in my mind. In this way also there is agreement between
the objective here, the tentative conclusion above, and the goal to
ensure the reader can tell that I am not doing any firsting behavior,
which is done by others who are and were unable to do the same. This
message should be a note indicating that such an effort really would
result in significant firsts by the author, if the reader simply
compares this with what they have been exposed to (particlularly by
comparing with old dictatorial politician’s claims to greatness, of the
1900s, and not those who were perhaps honest and dictatorial in
history).</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><em>Wednesday, February 20<sup>nd</sup>, 2023</em>, <time>4:55 PM
Wellington, New Zealand Time</time></p>
<h2
id="new-reading-of-schopenhauer"><a name="new-reading-of-schopenhauer">New
reading of Schopenhauer</a></h2>
<p>Today, after having it long in my possession, I began reading “The
World as Will and Idea” also known as “The World as Will and
Representation”.</p>
<p>At this point in the development of my work I don’t think I require
this reading in moral philosophy. Already I’ve read enough and my
project underway has a completeness in its trajectory, indicated in my
earlier remarks on coherence of work and editing. I hae much to say
regarding reading versus preserving creativity.</p>
<p>Now and in the future I intend to read additional works of
philosophy, but with efforts made to ensure my work trajectory remains
distinct. This does not mean I do not wish to be influenced by new
ideas. The tree of work I’ve had growing for the last twenty years will
remain mostly the same tree even if I am influenced in various minor
ways.</p>
<p>I need to say much more on my creative process which has included
readings in the past which were very influential but never so
influential as my own thoughts had in reaction to these materials.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><em>Wednesday, February 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2023</em>, <time>2:45 PM
Palmerston North, New Zealand Time</time></p>
<h2
id="what-internal-implementation-disputes-exist-in-the-brain-and-how-does-the-brain-resolve-those-for-us-with-or-without-our-participation"><a name="what-internal-implementation-disputes-exist-in-the-brain-and-how-does-the-brain-resolve-those-for-us-with-or-without-our-participation">What
internal implementation disputes exist in the brain, and how does the
brain resolve those for us, with or without our participation?</a></h2>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><em>Wednesday, February 20<sup>nd</sup>, 2023</em>, <time>1:29 PM
Palmerston North, New Zealand Time</time></p>
<h2
id="knowing-if-and-when-processing-is-parallel"><a name="knowing-if-and-when-processing-is-parallel">Knowing
if and when processing is parallel</a></h2>
<p>A moment ago as I was thinking over how to include my sensory process
in my attention management process, I realized there is more than one
way to achieve the same or a similar implementation, with a similar
functional result, in that the sensory process could be one that is
called at the outset of the process and just before exit, and operate in
parallel for the same duration, or could be included within the process
and be thought of as a way that the process itself is carried out. This
appears to have implications outside of this interest which is more
general and interdisciplinary.</p>
<p>For example, as we think, we are not certain of the implementation in
our brain of our learned skills and way of thought. It is not clear
precisely how two parts of a process or two processes which relate but
are not controlled together are structured physiologically or
biologically, or how they operate for a specific duration. More
unrelated parallel processes are assumed to be parallel but may not be
parallel depending on the interpretation. Because the brain is a network
unlike a plain activity diagram process or coded program, it’s
definition and modes of function may not permit of a siple distinction
of parallel or non-parallel processing and instead would probably be
better modeled using a more detailed way of thinking allowing for
complex interactions and blended storage (networked shared and unshared
nodes, connections, and loose transactions.</p>
<p>For programming there is a question as to what differences exist
choosing to implement code one way or another. With regard to
architectural decisions around parallel processing, or parallel
definition, there appear intuitively to me to also be many possible ways
of considering, but even if still complex it is much less complex than
decisions in the networked system, if they are planned for in advance
especially. The software arhcitect’s job is mostly to plan well in
advance and potentially face social judgement and various real-world
problems if things are not planned well initially. A brain, however, is
not pre-planned in its implementation but is a learning system that gets
defined and redifined, stored and restored, structured and restructured
as time goes on. This is considering the program as separate to an
extent from hardware, or physiological instructions and precursors.</p>
<p>Even more complex would be to think similarly concerning interaction
of physical rulesof nature, and potential implementations of those rules
(i.e. how the rules really work and what their structures are). What the
structures of the rules of the implementation of nature is omitted from
the idea mathematics represents nature. Without knowledge of the
implementation of mathematics, it is not known from mathematics what may
vary in the rules, or how they really model nature and how rules
interact. Instead we have something that is more representative of
behaviors rather implementation.</p>
<p>There appears to be an arbitrariness in my decisions as to whether to
make this process parallel or to include it within the single process,
although my behavior will depend on which I choose to some degree. Both
processes which might be parallel or combined are also arbitrary.
Resulting behavior is more optimal than before even with the
arbitrariness. For now I can’t measure the difference between one or the
other or see what might be preferable. It seems there is an
arbitrariness that is insoluble, which explains why programmers never
can agree regarding what is optimal regarding architecture and
programming language choices. Maturity in software architecture seems
consistent with this perspective but not in a perspective that thinks
too quickly that one is certainly any better than the other, where such
uncertainties exist.</p>
<p><em>[Written in 21 minutes semi-blind typed, some confirmation
reading along the way on the spots being typed, no spell check or
proofreading. Has not been read yet.]</em></p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="upcoming-thoughtstreams-self-created-textiles">Upcoming Thoughtstreams: Self-Created Textiles on an Animal-Creativity Spectrum...</a>

- Self-Created Textiles on an Animal-Creativity Spectrum.
- Seeking information and imposition of information, and killing the old "nature nurture" convo stagnation.
- Equivalent Classification Schemes, Life-Taxa, Bio-Neural Representations, Weathering, and Flexibilty of Life Categories.
  - Ref: [Pattern History of Your Tissues](#pattern-history-of-your-tissues).
- Training AI to Know Your Real Face with Static Data, and "Close Enough You?"

*[In the list above, I left some title-like capitalization, and some without, but all was written in the same sitting. I.e., could not be used as an artifact indicating alternative authorship or times of authorship. May indicate a problem in historico-philologico-archaeological methods.]* 

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Wednesday, February 15<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:38 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time</time>

## <a name="pretending-one-is-not-procrastinating-and-unchangeable-occlusions">Pretending one is not Procrastinating, and Unchangeable Occlusions</a>

*Wednesday, February 15<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:38 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time</time>

There are two ways to appear to oneself that one is progressing or is active, and that is by moving around or thinking with greater rapidity. A person who is not particularly creative, will not be creating new movements or new thoughts while doing these rapid things. This means nothing new could be done in the thinking or the moving, but what is thought is using recollections of what was thought before, and what is done, is mostly using movements of what were done before. Speeding up thinking with caffeine or drugs or some other stimulation, and movement after frustration, or from a desire to escape stagnation, will increase rapidity, but will not increase it much in the way that may be really desired. It is likely that there is an illusory gain, in those who are really immobile in relation to creativity, in simply increasing rapidity of thought and behavior, which includes all that one does in life. It explains somewhat the use of drugs and preoccupation with bodily movement in those who are more active, but not creatively active. One can use fast communication and "fast thinking" with high productivity, and one can use something like moving around often at work as an indicator that good work is being accomplished. Even gains may indicate slowness, concealed in the form of focused fastness. Bodybuilding may be the result sometimes of a perceived inability to progress. One can go to the gym and simply feel like something is happening, and still have good progress on something in which consistency guarantees the results. One can also do drugs to increase the feeling that one is making mental progress that would otherwise feel like is not ocurring.

I am greatly interest in increasing one's ability to not procrastinate. Speaking for myself, someone who procrastinates very little but occasionally on certain areas where gains are desired, I want to clearly distinguish between two things:

1. Ability to remove obstacles to progressions that can happen, and
1. Knowing what cannot happen, or knowing what limitations on progress exist.

I think people appear to be quite a bit slower than they think they are regarding their ability to progress various parts of their lives, and substitute frivolous behaviors, or use of drugs, to create an appearance for themselves and others that they are more productive than they are. This is even *if* they are overcoming certain kinds of procrastination.

One could think of procrastination in another way. What are my ongoing unchangeable versus changeable occlusions that exist inside me and outside me that slow my thinking and actions? What would reduce these occlusions, and how much reduction of occlusion is possible?

If I move around fast and think fast frivolously, that occlusion still remains that I'm pretending does not?

Some may pretend to be mathematicians for example, and spend quite a lot of time moving around, buying books, and reading about math, and quite a lot of time talking to people about math, and yet not do math, because of a permanent occlusion which is:

"I don't really have a good aptitude for this."

This must occur for many who come to believe at an early age they would like to do math, but discover they aren't that interested, or work around it actively, but not *on it actively*.

One may not really be procrastinating if one cannot do something, and people really need to identify what they are capable of in order to determine the distinction. Likely they already know. Sometimes some small bits of additional information are required to confirm. Knowing that one cannot do something well, or that low interest exists, seems easier than trying to overcome procrastination all of life.

## References:

- [Procrastination](procrastination.html)
- [Strategies for Managing Procrastination, One](strategy-one-tips-and-tools-managing-procrastination.html)

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="practentice">Practentice</a>

*Sunday, February 12<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:47 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time</time>

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="automatic-weight-loss-and-general-life-excellences">Automatic Weight Loss and General Life Excellences</a>

*Sunday, February 12<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>2:48 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time</time>

Recently, I've been able to get myself back into a state where I'm losing weight habitually without any effort. Today, while walking, thinking about certain improvements I'd like to make, including getting off coffee and only drinking water or citrus or foraged herb infused waters, I noticed I have not been recognizing my fitness accomplishments. Originally my [Personal Form](personal-form.html) was intended for tracking fitness and weight loss, with the goal of habituation and automaticity. I did not want to need to think about realizing goals for weight loss especially. Just before starting the form I was at nearly 270 pounds. Gradually that form shows my weight diminishing. Later I was able to maintain a much better weight around 190 pounds, mostly without thinking much about it. Now, however, being older, and having some different health goals, I want to be thinner. Returning my attention to weight loss I've made some changes, which took conscious effort. I had to focus on this periodically for a prolonged period of time. Now, I'm losing weight rapidly, and am forgetful even of my fitness *gains*. This caused me to think again about how nice it is to attain automaticity in goal realization, by habituating a plan. Not long before today I noticed that my plan was really trending towards automaticity. It appears, this current plan, may be one that has more perpetually the benefits I'd like to have which may be over and above what I accomplished earlier with weight loss, and constancy of somewhat unattentive monitoring.

There are parts to the plan which are not deliberately only for weight loss. Firstly, I mainly eat a single meal a day, mostly at night. This has been largely habitual for a very long period of time now, so is not the main focus of new accomplishments. I made budgetary changes relating to the category of [livelihood](livelihood.html), which relate to my goal of alleviating homelessness by walking and camping, and using public transportation more often, which relate respectively to [property-and-organization](property-and-organization.html), and [fitness](fitness.html). The budetary consideration involves eating cheaper basic protein rich foods and fruits, and keeping transit costs low not having a car. Not having a car implies walking more often (and running the way I do things now). Eating protein rich foods and fruits once a day implies reduction of calories. In combination both bring down weight. My current focus on wanting to decrease coffee intake relates also to increase of water, which is what I call "water worship". "Water worship" is sarcastically mocking religion in that worship is largely staring and thinking about something a while (some idol). Making water a sort of idol, (for fun), I will eventually consume just that. Currently I drink no alcohol, which means I have no alcohol calories, which relates to [nutrition](nutrition.html) and [health](health.html). In my plans I relate each of the [life categories](life-categories.html), which can also be seen as early as 2006 in the [Personal Form](personal-form.html), which had the purpose of gathering minimal health information along key categories especially, with some practice gathering more informaiton as well. The outcome here is that I have been able to cdreate a situation in which my expenditure is lower and I'm automatically losing weight, and am becoming more healthful. As a vegan who excercises I'm already healthy. However, I wanted to lose weight and make various improvements and have been able to achieve that. Automaticity is what is most wanted, and it's funny to make bigger gains with thoughtlessness than attentiveness! Abdominal muscles are being revealed without my thoughts as to how to get better abdominals. A humorous thing for men, is accomplishing this with greater ease not thinking about it. Having it perpetually requires that one is already habituated to behave in a way that retains it. Some are obviously able to do this already. The objective of the Personal Form and the Life Categories, and my moral philosophy and ethics which is more than this is to automatically be excellent in various domains in which one can be excellent without excess or otherwise detracting effort.

Earlier I wrote about [Related Accomplishments](related-accomplishments.html), which provide other examples across life which relate to the successes of this ethic, which are small things and large things, comprehensively covering all I do and am. Today this reflection on my not even recognizing the gains I'm making, is another confirmation, after many confirmations, that just regarding health/fitness/nutrition, I'm repeating again the expected excellences of this plan. But this plan covers all else and for each of the others I'm now reminding myself of the other accomplishments too.

One can be a scientist of sorts, replicating the results of the plans one had earlier that one looked away from to focus on other things. An early goal of the Personal Form I had was disuse. Once I was finished with habituating the effects I wanted, it meant I learned and integrated the plan, so I could stop training and simply live that way. Then I could focus on other things to improve. I did know, however, that people tend to unknowingly do things which can gradually steer habits away from where they were. For that reason I already knew and planned to use the form, when I thought I needed it again. Currently, I'm using the form in a more developed mnemonic state, described in [Attentional Architecture](architecture.html). Now the personal form and the attentional architecture are better fit within my larger system of ethics which is slowly being shared here in my Book and Journal. It is important for the reader and myself to recognize that this small sample experience is connected with the total ethical method which is true and corresponds with a true understanding of naturalism. Here it may feel unnatural to discuss these other topics relating to naturalism and philosophy to discipline relating to personal development on life data and processes. However, a more holistic understanding, being what people are supposedly searching for, would imply ease of integration. For me it is natural to quickly relate these, but as I write, see that for the reader, there could be some feeling of oddness in making such transitions. Ethics requires a person to develop excellences on the basis of observations of their behavior, and moving themselves, including their minds and bodies, to new minds and bodies. This implies a need for making observations, either collecting or remembering data, and making changes to alter the data. The results of changes of data connect with visible results. One can also focus on the visible results taking less data, but the two approaches harmonize. For example, as I lose weight I see it of course and know it relates to the plan. If I'm wanting to better understand the total ways in which such a methodology can be used or should be used realistically for improving my life, I need to be knowledgeable more about my psychology, and the world around me. Occupationally, I would not know what to do if I did not think this way. Any category relating to life at all is included in the plan or is adaptable to the plan. I have already had the accomplishments in occupation which relate and demonstrate. I have had accomplishments in each and all of the categories which demonstrate. Thinking this way allows someone to carry over successes in something like fitness to other aspects of life, which is a way of looking at fitness which already existed. However it is inadequate. This method in the Book and Journal of Mattanaw is and has been adequate for a more maximally general purpose which is close to what people want when they are looking for guidance in their lives as wholes.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-as-uncharacteristic-of-the-views-of-others">Book and Journal of Mattanaw as Uncharacteristic of the Views of Others</a>


- *Title mistake corrected. Wednesday, February 22<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:26 PM Palmerston North, New Zealand Time</time>
- *Original Posting: Sunday, February 12<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>1:29 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time</time>

*[No edits as part of a study in editing]*

Thinking about how this work might be used within a work of history, relied on as a primary source artifact saying something about a time or place, this would not be usable to characterize the thought of large groups of people. Instead, this work is really uncharacteristic. Certainly elements of what are contained would say something of the current period, because the current period supplied the raw material for thinking and the outcome of this work cannot have an entirely new vocabulary. However, combinations of words, and sentence strings are more improbable than those produced by others. There would be less matching of thoughts in sentences here with thoughts that might be had or might be recorded by others. In life the author has been mostly differentiated from others regarding opinions and thoughts on all matters whatsoever. The author knows this but since youth thinks independently on his own plans and objectives, in order to remain closer to what appears to be truthful about the world and life and planned behavior. While stating that this work is uncharacteristic of others, the author thinks still there would be many people who would look at various paragraphs and agree even if they believe there are omissions or incompletenesses. There might be significant overlaps between what others would think as true and what they read here, *even though*, I think separate thoughts of others would reveal that the work here is uncharacteristic and not the usual. What I think this would lead to is that others would find what is here written often truthful, but not of their minds or of other minds they would know, and they would not be able to expect or anticipate what is here written. Being able to anticipate what is here written would imply the thoughts are more probable, and expectation is built from what one has experienced often, or has at least experienced personally. This is an argument also one might say that human animals occasionally emerge the reveal to others what is true more completely than what they would arrive at, and that no other around, or no collection of others, would be able to replace that thought. Meaning that thinker and those thoughts that are true (even with certain omissions and incompletenesses due to the nature of mind and communication), that individuals are sometimes the only way to get certain pieces of information from a truth-system that is more holistic and accurate, and improbable from nature. This author is not religious but nevertheless sees inside the idea of revelation what might be true about special teachers. Writing as I do I'm motivated by my own skill and results over time in my life and have been a special teacher to myself, having none that could produce what I've produced, because of its being uncharacteristic. Often I'm revelaing to myself what would not otherwise be had. Already there is thought to be a pantheon of sorts of academic professionals, including teachers who are hierarchically better than others, and who are sought for more information by many people. Firstly, they trust their own information, if they are really of the quality others think they are. Switching attention to myself I've found good information in the writings of others but I have not felt satisfied that these others would be able to teach what I need in a way that I could not better do myself. I would not substitute my head for theirs, and I would not want to substitute my knowledge for theirs, excepting to add detail in any special area where their attention really appears to be deep and accurate. In this way again, I've found myself uncharacteristic, even considering those who are special teachers to others. This way of thinking is self-confirming I think of the idea that there can be special teachers, and forms of revelation, and that this writing is uncharacteristic of the thoughts of others more generally. 

There was another point to make however regarding the meaningfulness of this work as an artifact of history. I think as a historical document one would have to first realize that this thinking is atypical, but would typically have points in which others would have some agreement as to truth. I think there would be many points of agreement with people who are prepared to disagree. In particular I think religious people would read this document already with intentions to contradict it, without necessarily having real logical contradictions. Observations about history I think would be useful even if atypically thought or expressed, and this would include observations that are general. Of great importance, obviously, is that I am writing something I think conveys many general truths, and this would include observations which are universal. Truths about people and the world. This is separate from who has arrived at these truths. That is what I said would be uncommon. Observations like those which are found in [Preliminaries](preliminaries.html) are ones that are often univeral to all people during the current time. For example, the [Human Shortcomings](human-shortcomings.html) listed, and the commonality of assumptions found in [Assumption Elimination](assumption-elimination.html). Observations like that people really think they are separate from animals is something that is really important for history. Currently and looking backwards in time, for a long period many or most thought they were not animals. Right now, today, many or most people do not think they blend in with animal nature, or if they think they do, only have that opinion in a fractured way, while mainting that we are not in other thoughts, particularly religious ones. For the historian of the future, a document like this would be supportive of trying to show that at this time and before, people were very confused about what they were, and how they fit into natural history. Regarding this, this time period will be seen, and should be seen, regarding this particular point, as a largely primitive time period. As a point of etiquette, this topic is mostly glossed over or covered up, creating an impression that maybe people are scientific in their opinions as to animal nature, and that they are no longer superstitious. But when this conversation is forced, it is found that it is against etiquette, and that people do not often hold naturalistic views, and that they are unable to do so in a uniform way, maybe for not being able to talk about it often, due to etiquette breach. In this way this work is uncharacteristic in its commitment to naturalism, and would be useulf for historians of the future as a social commentary, regarding certain unpopular thoughts, and the level of knowledge of the general public concerning areas which should involve true assumptions, if modern.

*[Written in 28 minutes without spell check, or edits, blind typing. Has not yet been read. 1:57 pm]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="ends-and-lifecycles">Ends and life-cycles</a>

*Sunday, February 12<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>12:55 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time</time>

Life-cycles like the birth and deaths of animals, and discrete organisms, can be thought of as having beginnings and ends on the object level, but also have many beginnings and ends, in between that are of importance. For example, for a human, death can be very uniteresting. One may be elderly and die very slowly as an organism, after already having many end moments, near death, involving the mind, and various activities like conversation.

The words "beginning" and "end" are each not as clear as one may think they are and again, in my view of things, description is much better at times to attain better understanding. "End" is something that is matched to many different kinds of phenomena, but has some emotional connections apart from any specific phenomena. Thinking about the end of life and the end of enjoyable activities, relationships, and so on, make some connect more sadness with the word "end" than should be transferred to other kinds of endings; and also to the same endings where they would be better understood if described without using the word. Some will try to achieve a "flip" on a sad interpretation to make it a happy one, by saying things like "ends are new beginnings" and the like, and while there is may support better descriptions it is a primitive way of doing so, and it excessively binaries the mind and world in its way of trying to deal with emotions.

I have not liked the insistence on a positive ending in literature and life for any particular thing which may have a story. People are lead to incorrectly infer that if some particular ending event seems negative or sad, then an entire life or entire story has been totally affected. A simple observation that comes to mind is that ends seem to be more related in time to the surrounding events of the end. By this I want to create attention to the fact that a death does not retroactively change anything preceding the death, including all the truthful story leading up to the death. In a way, periods long preceding a person's death are immune from alteration by the death, or various other end of that life.

If I were able to write my entire autobiography up to and including very last moments, as though I could drop my pen right as my brain stopped functioning, I would want it to be as accurate as nature, without any concern for any ending. In a way an ending is not a "special event". If you start to write differently for the ending to make it "big" or "extra meaningful" what is being done is falsification of a later part of life.It's similar to trying to make larger or more meaningful any particular earlier time in life taken randomly perhaps. The ending can come quickly and randomly... Meaning it may not have any association with any other kind of happening which would be considered to be of higher value. There are special events and happenings in life, but that does not mean an ending to life will align with that kind of event. Most likely it would not if it is simply a death event after long sickness, and likely that would be in a situation in which it seems little is going on.

Moving back to the earlier point, there are many kinds of life-cycles in the body, and in behavior which include onsets and offsets. As one moves through life many things life-cycles complete. I was thinking yesterday regarding life-activities that people will gradually diminish all activities until there are none but thinking, and biological processes. I was also thinking earlier in earlier postings on thinking aright about death without fearfulness, that our nervous systems also often permanently lose access to certain parts of the brain, and prune them until they are don't exist. Various tissues have life-cycles of their own. The life-cycles of tissues/cells and biological materials result in life cycles of brain activity. There are all different kinds of ends and deaths throughout life in a single organism.

Stopping now on this thought to do something different, I want to write that ends of an organism, again, do not cancel ends that occured earlier. Things are ending along the way often. We're familiar with ends, and most ends do not bother us and do not get story magnification. Old ends have true stories which can be told that would not change because of new stories. Considerations like these enable me to think that any particular later end for me isn't one that would have any special magnified sadness or happiness about it, or culmination that would change the story backwards in time. In psychology, to change one's ealier story for the later is a form of psychological fallacy, and others who do such a thing are considered oftentimes harmful or abusive. Traits for often doing such a thing are estimated as lower, and pathological. While I do see certain personalities as more harmful than others, I'm not sure I would agree with this way of approaching the topic, but outside of psychology it is still logically incorrect to infer that ends of stories imply changes to earlier portions of stories, and natures data going backwards in time is unchanging. The psychological idea of gaslighting is related to an already incorrect illogical way of thinking, and unscientific understanding of the way the world works. I think this creates an approach for doing literary criticism that would lessen the value of approaches to literature that put too much emphasis on the ending, either of the book or the story it tells.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="pattern-history-of-your-tissues">Pattern-history of Your Tissues</a>

*Friday, February 10<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:34 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time</time>

Although people at birth are unlearned and are composed of unloaded hardware in ignorance, and are similar to each other in being infants (ref [Abandoning Equality](abandoning-equality.html)), their DNA instructions which are not of their creation do seem prepared somewhat for the context in which they will encounter world-information, although the preparedness precedes greatly the exposure to information. The brain tissue and its instructions were due to arrangements which were earlier, and much earlier, and primordially earlier depending on which part of the system is analyzed. Your ability to utilize certain information from the world relates to some brain components which are certainly of animal preparation. Their sexual desires that assured their side-effect babies, preserved some traits that you still now have, including sexual desires that assure side-effect babies for the future.

In order to understand the interplays of you, which is information joined with old instructions for tissues, you would really have to read zoology, exposing yourself to yet more information, of a kind appropriate for claiming that kind of tissue. You hardly need to know much of your lineage in the modern time, which means you don't need to know your genealogical history much, or perhaps your family preceding your experience, to know your tissues and its way of sponging. More of interest is your life interactions during your living, and the pattern-history of your tissues.

When were each of the pieces of your nervous-system prepared earlier and when were the first rough equivalents already appearing as your pretend equals in prehistory? How prepared were those tissues for cultural information, including 20-year current fashions? What relationship between tissues and cultural information are a progression or not on ideas about what is jealousy provoking at a basic level? How do you fit into this time in a way that can't be unfit, and how do you compare with that which might seem more optimally combined?

*[Finished in 25 minutes with minor edits, at 11:59 AM]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="thinking-of-salt-as-a-drug-and-not-a-mineral-nutrient">Thinking of Salt as a Drug and Not a Mineral Nutrient</a>

*Thursday, February 9<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>3:56 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time</time>

*[Unedited as part of studies in edidting]*

Recently I was pondering over my planning for my salt intake either on dependency to what is sold in stores, and independency using what exists in nature. Thinking further on how I would utilize store-bought salt, like the very fine-grained iodized salt used in the United States, and similar salts here in Australia and New Zealand, I recalled my earlier removal of salt from my diet, and reflected on my current behavior, adding salt to my food and not only sometimes having it administered to me in prepared foods. When I do add salt, I experience, like others, after effects which include uncomfortable water retention and sluggishness. Salt, on researching it's effects, has something akin to a half-life, or elongated period of time of secretion from the body which takes several days or longer. Utilization of salt within the body is not somethign simple but goes to the electrical, and is involved in heart functioning, and is expelled in complex ways, not only through the kidneys but through the skin, as a result of maintenance of body heat. Trained doctors would not be able to tell you what the complete actions of salt is, and where and how it is stored at any particular time in the body, or what it's electrons end up doing. They could tell you some of the functions but not all of them. For the non-physiologist wanting to understand one's own salt intake, one does need to know a little about how it is retained and expelled over time. This is also complex and not easy because it depends on other factors like activity, level of hydration, and actions of other foods and drugs. If one wants to reduce salt in the body, one can do little more than wait, hydrate, and exercise. Exercising will expell water and salt. Not consuming more and waiting simply lets the body do it's normal process of expelling salt in a way that is also unique to the individual.

Not having any salt at all, one will eventually run low enough to die. Salt must be consumed. However, it is not clear that salt needs to be consumed with anything else if one already has access to it in nearly pure form. Salt is used to flavor food, but I have also recently noticed, that I can achieve flavors approximating saltiness with citrus fruits. I then considered that flavorful foods can be created without any salt at all, and that some foods, like soups, which are saline solutions, require an excess quantity of salt before salt is detected; whereas, other foods require very small quantities of dry salt in order for the salt to be noticeds. Application of a small amount of salt to something and eating it will enable tasting the salt, like if one exercises vigorously, let's the sweat dry, then tastes the perhaps invisible salt remaining. Salt in combination with food seems a risk, whereas controlling the application of salf seems less so, and creates a greatetr likelihood of noticing the taste.

I devised an experiment while walking about here in New Plymouth, New Zealand. I will take a small quantity of table salt and scatter it over a paper with a grid of centimeters. It will have a uniform layer of salt at a known volume and weight. This will enable visual recognition of quantities of salt. I will then check the quantity of elemental sodium in the salt by checking the type and getting the data online. This will enable my usage of salt outside of food as a controlled substance, or drug that I can administer on my own. This will be useful to ensure I do not have too much, but it will also enable me to make sure I don't lose too much fluid while I'm doing my back country hiking for my homelessness eradication project. While hiknig around water is important to conserve so I can use the salt to control my depletion of liquid.

After doing this, I will liquify the salt with water and dry onto the paper uniformly, so the paper becomes like skin with dried salt from exercise. I will then cut the grid, so I have little pieces of paper with somewhat precise amounts of salt that I can use, like a drug dealer would, for controlling quantities like pills. A square centimeter of paper will then relate to a precise amount of elemental sodium. I can then just eat the papers, or else leave them in my mouth until unsalty, to get my salt, like an anmial with a salt lick, or your drugging on acid when they were a teen.

I will then go back to my earlier behavior of not even having or thinking about salt, in my own cooking. Periodically I will have food already prepared and will then have uncontrolled amounts, but other times, I will not use salt, and I will only use it as a drug for complete control.

Salt usage in unknown quantities does present a real health risk, and many know about issues with salt. However, my interst for the present is knowing about how much one has and what it's effects are, immediately as it relates to taste and comfort, and also over time as it relates to a variety of physiological states. It really can be managed in a drug like way. Of course it also is a drug like all the other chemicals in foods, which we learned in chemistry and biology. If people and children were educated to use specific already measured quantities of salt with known amounts of elemental sodium, from childhood onwards they would know more than doctors likely about the effects of salt on their own bodies. Considering this, one has to wonder why it is sold only in unmeasured piles. Extra packaging is not desirable, but there were sugar cubes before. Salt cubes and sugar cubes both could enable learning in children and in adultsfor their own health benefits and for becoming more like scientists.

*[Written in 24 minutes with no editing, no reading, semi-blind typed (seeing somewhat the type as it flows from the mind inattentively), no proofreading, and no spell check. I did not read it yet. Finished at 4:20 pm]*

*Author: Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh*

- Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
- B.S. Psychology, University of Maryland, 4.0, Summa Cum Laude<sup>[1](notes.html#1)</sup>
- B.S. Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland, 3.91, Magna Cum Laude<sup>[2](notes.html#2)</sup>
- B.A. Philosophy, University of Maryland.<sup>[3](notes.html#3)</sup>
- G.E.D., State of Maryland, Montgomery County, 1999.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

- [cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu](mailto:cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu)
- [christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org](mailto:christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org)
- [mattanaw@mattanaw.org](mailto:mattanaw@mattanaw.org)

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="air-insulation-in-clothing">Nearly Free Air Insulation in Clothing</a>

*Thursday, February 9<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>5:04 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time</time>

In my learnings working in the fireplace industry while young I discovered that a layer of air is considered among the very best insulators, and this, along with reflection, is the reason why the thermos is so effective, and why some building insulation systems and ventilation systems work as well as they do. While thinking again on solving issues relating to homelessness and wealthy camping, and thinking to myself that I'm not quite as equipped as I should be for warmth in my current camping research project, I began thinking of makeshift ways of using air to create temporary insulation underneath clothing. The goal is to add warmth at the lowest possible cost for those who are only partially prepared or have insufficient resources: like wealthy campers who did not buy enough expensive gear, and the homeless who have insufficient funds and planning abilities. Recently having purchased inexpensive plastic freezer bags in large quantity I considered that I could fill bags, seal them, and distribute them under my garments to test the amount the would insulate. Likewise, while sleeping in my sleeping bag, I will arrange bags filled with air, first breathed at 98.6 degree Fahrenheit, to see again what is accomplished for insulation. Thinking myself an energy producer until death, I wonder how much I can achieve with simple heat-filled air gaps, with methods of air circulation to release moisture. From what I know it appears that it is feasible to have systems using air in clothing and in sleeping bags, and it seems unfortunate that designs for such systems have not entered the market. Initially my purpose on this project is simply to heat with free things. Organic matter is also something I may try to surround myself with to stay warmer, but air insulation seems promising for creating new clothing. If useful enough it may be worthwhile to encourage some growth along this direction, which would also help for potentially creating needs for recycled plastic materials. 

- Air is an extremely good insulator, particularly if you include air circulation, but also quite good simply with a seal (thermos).
- There can be more than one air layer, including one's that are sealed and others that ventilate.
- It can certainly be used somehow in clothing.
- A person is a producer of warmth, and warm air. It is fun to produce warm air and I can't stop.
- Sleep systems can make use of air insulation almost certainly, even with ventilation.
- Reflection in conjunction with heating should enable slower release of heat from pre-heated air, and retaining of heat produced by the body.

It appears a combination of reflection, air, and heated air production, and ventilation, can in various combinations fulfill a large range of needs related to inexpensive but effective clothing from cheap plastic sources, and also create solutions for wealthy campers, and for homeless people who may be willing to have less comfort even in the solutions they are supposedly receiving. This means it does not need to be the best solution, and maybe among the worst, to support the needs of the homeless, and it would still potentially be successful.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="quick-remark-on-what-some-call-lateral-thinking">Quick Remark on What Some Call Lateral Thinking</a>

*Wednesday, February 8<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>5:04 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time</time>

A comment to someone who was discussing their lateral thinking and interest in brainstorming:

I'm a bit of a lateral thinker too. Any particular thing I'm working on has many aspects which lead some to perhaps think there are tangents occurring. But really it's relevant lateral thinking happening. Without that kind of thinking holism is not possible, at all. Some will have to be thinking in a lateral way to see how situations are larger than they are at a really close view of one main interest. Brainstorming is doing that. I enjoy white boarding sessions in which related ideas come together to "become something". If they did not become something there would be an unreality to what is being done, and disconnectedness and fracturedness would reveal that people are simply thinking separate things without an ability to combine them. Lateral thinking without synthesis would be a kind of change of spotlight without any ability to put pictures together, and then I think people think it is not lateral thinking. Although it is just without synthesis perhaps. Someone with ADHD may have issues with such a thing.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="development-on-homelessness-solutioning-and-example-of-my-attentional-management-process">Development on Homelessness Solutioning and Example of My Attentional Management Process</a>

*Wednesday, February 8<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>3:14 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time</time>

*[Unedited per usual as part of a set of studies on editing]*

Today after waking from my AirBnB in Waitara, NZ, I decided to take a walk to the bus to take a rider into the larger town of New Plymouth, where I would sit for coffee and write. Taking the bus is consistent with my plan now to experiment in distriuted livelihood and to increase my walking and self-reliant transportation (without a vehicle). I've driven over 750,000 miles to it is an interesting change to be using public transportation, bicycles, and walking on foot (although I've also been a bicycle commuter). As I walk around and take various forms of transportation, I connect the activity to my [attention management process](imagination-and-filtration-dark-green-notebook.html#attention-management-process-and-application) that I've created, as part of the self-training progression of my personal ethic. Walking is an especially good time to be using this process, and most would agree that walking is when good reflection often occurs for people. I often use this process while walking especially, but I do also use it for other activities while I'm awake. Transitioning to the bus, I switched again to use this process mindfully thinking about what I was doing, sitting on the bus enjoying sunshine through the windows and sights I was seeing, that are still somewhat new to me. Actually utilizing the process, I stepped into consideration of the various life-categories in sequence, starting with [Cycles and Shifts](cycles-and-shifts.html), which relates to cyclical biological behavior, and cyclical life plans, which in our culture relates to the [calendar](cycles-and-shifts.html). Being on the bus I thought about how my transit plans relate cyclically to my scientific and experiential study of distributed livelihood intended to solve problems related to homelessness and related problems faced by wealthy campers and travlers. Monthly now I travel to a new location, which indicates I have a monthly travel cycle in which I have a new temporary residence. On arrival in recent cities, I'm doing related cyclical research on aspects of the new place, particularly map reviews of the cities and spaces nearby. Not having knowledge of transit infrastructure including bus and train maps, I review maps to see how I will move in and out of specific areas of interest. I do this when first arriving at a city, before quickly learning how their particular bus system operates, receiving payments. I then learn the extent of the system, and connections to other systems. I reflected as I was on the bus, that an upcoming campint trip had some planning vagueness as I did not choose yet the specific areas suitable nearish to ends of the bus lines. This was something I was going to need to decide. Wanting to improve upon this cycle, and on the travel method incorporating camping, and research method for rapid understanding of cities and transit and avenues to areas of interest connecting with my needs and objectives, I thought that I would do a map review while at the coffee house, to identify good camping spots. These would be spots outside the city or on its outskirts, reasonably near for foot travel to the bus lines near their ends. I recognize this is not the only approach that may be used for camping planning but it is one that relates to my expectations of comfort and relative isolation. I then determined that what was needed during my cyclical arrivals at new destinations which are more adventurous, or plans before arrival, which are more for creating more relaxed less exploratory initial experiences, was clearer knowledge of the locations of terminals of bus lines towards endpoints and the geographical/climate conditions of areas near those locations, and land-ownership conditions, which might impact rules for camping. Thinking that there would be many locations which would be suitable, I would think about how I would analyze maps to enable intuitive and quick identification of areas, resulting in nearly automatic decisiveness, which is similar to the decisiveness experienced by readers of maps who are trained on specific usages for long periods of time, like drivers wanting to easily get to destinations with specific driving needs and preferences. Having a large number of locations quickly identified, I would have something akin to "many potential dwelling locations" automatically known. Making it fun and short with a phrase I called this to myself having "Many homes." I then thought about how homeless people may not have self-training for comfortably deciding among many known safe options. This would imply that a problem faced by homeless people is one of imagination and one of indecisiveness in relation to viable options and alternatives for safe sleeping and camping. Instead homeless would likely choose something near and less safe and comfortable, for not having a better strategy and self training which would exist for a camper who is wanting to have a reasonable location on lands that allow it. A camper who would have many options for this. Wanting to resolve this difficulty for myself as an experimenter in this type of livelihood, I have trained over time to get to a point in which I could make a small advancement on my plans, relating to a number life-categories, while utilizing my attentional process, which is part of my moral-philosophical ethical project, and writings. If successful on this particular effort I would have training which could potentially be used to train others to live in ways that are appropriate for wealthy campers and homeless people alike. At time of this realization I thought it would be wortwhile to incorporate into my plans for writing during the day at the coffee house at Starbucks in New Plymouth. This is where I am now completing the writing which traces back this development beginning with the starting of my activity method beginning when I was leaving my AirBnB this morning.

A purpose of the above writing is to provide a narrative of the utilization of my attentional management process that I have written about and created a technical architecture for, [Attentional Architecture](architecture.html#attentional-architecture). The beginnings of this architecture were in writings from approximately 2006 in my [Personal Form](mattanaws-personal-form.html). An intial review of the personal form and attentional architecture would not reveal really clearly utilization. However the utilization is made more clear by a narrative sample usage of the form connecting clearly with process diagrams. The process diagrams are well tested and well used, with many hours of usage and usage of approximately 45 days in its present version. This provides also an example of how my thinking in my project relates to its management within this process.

*[Written in 31 minutes partly blind typed without edits, except for one typo briefly noticed. It has not yet been read, spell-checked, or proofread by the writer. Title now being added post-completion. Added two links afterwards as well. Finished at 3:45 pm]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="commant-and-response-to-cyclical-euphemization-process-and-anticipated-word-expiry">Comment and response to "Cyclical Euphemization Process and Anticipated Word Expiry"</a>

*Wednesday, February 8<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>3:03 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time</time>

Below is a comment I received regarding my article [Cyclical Euphemization Process and Anticipated Word Expiry](#cyclical-euphemization-process-and-anticipated-word-expiry). This comment was received in a social group to which we are both members. Context was not provided for interpretation, and my comment beneath creates context establishing relevance to this comment, and gives reaction to what is perceived as an attempt at being helpful.

In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of postcultural
consciousness. Therefore, if semantic materialism holds, the works of Gibson
are not postmodern.
The primary theme of the works of Gibson is the role of the reader as
artist. Derrida uses the term ‘capitalist theory’ to denote not deconstruction,
but predeconstruction. However, semantic materialism suggests that the
establishment is part of the defining characteristic of language, given that
the premise of Foucaultist power relations is valid.
The subject is interpolated into a semantic materialism that includes truth
as a totality. Therefore, many discourses concerning postdialectic narrative
exist.
In Pattern Recognition, Gibson denies Foucaultist power relations; in
Mona Lisa Overdrive, although, he deconstructs surrealism. But
Foucaultist power relations implies that the goal of the poet is social
comment.
In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between
without and within. Lyotard uses the term ‘Foucaultist power relations’ to
denote a self-justifying paradox. It could be said that Debord promotes the use
of postcultural capitalist theory to attack sexism.
“Society is intrinsically used in the service of class divisions,” says
Foucault. Lyotard uses the term ‘surrealism’ to denote the role of the reader
as poet. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a Foucaultist power
relations that includes consciousness as a whole.
In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of
subdeconstructive sexuality. The economy, and therefore the futility, of
surrealism depicted in Gibson’s Neuromancer is also evident in
Pattern Recognition, although in a more capitalist sense. However, Marx
uses the term ‘semantic materialism’ to denote the absurdity of neotextual art.
The subject is interpolated into a cultural paradigm of narrative that
includes culture as a totality. In a sense, if Foucaultist power relations
holds, the works of Gibson are modernistic.
Sartre uses the term ‘poststructural deconceptualism’ to denote not
discourse, as Baudrillard would have it, but subdiscourse. Thus, a number of
desublimations concerning semantic materialism exist.
Marx suggests the use of surrealism to modify and analyse class. But
Finnis[2] holds that we have to choose between
Baudrillardist simulation and neotextual semiotic theory.
Lyotard promotes the use of surrealism to deconstruct hierarchy. Thus, many
theories concerning a mythopoetical paradox may be found.
Bataille suggests the use of semantic materialism to challenge sexual
identity. Therefore, a number of discourses concerning Lyotardist narrative
exist.

Below are my responses to this comment:

Thanks for sharing. I have a background in Philosophy so this is appealing. The readings referred above are more continental than my philosophical learnings, and are of interest perhaps, in addition to what you are trying to convey, as areas of possible exploration where I might need them in relation to my larger work (Book and Journal of Mattanaw). It appears you have shared this because the observations here on Gibson, relate, in a variety of ways, to the understanding of the lexicon within a cultural total, interpreted correctly, along Foucalitian, Deconstructionist, Materialist, Early Economist, Sociological and Artistic cultural perspectives. I have not read Gibson so this provides some interest for pursuing that potentially if it seems instrumental. The connections to surreal art are of interest and my own ethical studies include aesthetic considerations too, but without any specific focus on artistic school, as much as a focus on psychology (perception and sexuality).

Relating to the OP though, I think the relevant concern for that particular posting, is one pointed out already. The planning and evolution of terminology and changes as they relate not only to scientific development, but reactions of public to changing utilizations which can include those perceived as harmful. Your writing above applies to that in particular because those who are affected and impacted may not understand their own cultural influences.

When I share from my blog or copy-paste sometimes the formatting is thrown off, and line breaks don't work correctly with word wrapping. It appears for this reason that this is copy paste. Did you happen to copy paste this from any work that is your own or did it come from another? My assumption is that this is your writing which is nice, but I don't want to assume that, if copy pasted from an unavailable resource.

mattanaw.com/thoughtstream.html

<group member> it looks like this is a literature review to place Gibson in context for some additional writing. In that case knowing the source would be especially interesting. I'm interested in reading more concerning this. If it is an excerpt you like from elsewhere, thanks for saving and sharing. If it is your own writing, I'd like to see more of what you've prepared, or see later what is next.
This is good here: “Society is intrinsically used in the service of class divisions,”

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="cyclical-euphemization-process-and-anticipated-word-expiry">Cyclical Euphemization Process and Anticipated Word Expiry</a>
 
*Tuesday, February 7<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>11:17 AM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time</time>

*[Unedited without proofreading for an ongoing set of studies related to editing.]*

For a long-enough period of time people have been exposed to a process in which words that were originally well-intentioned or jargonized became insults or offensive terms after public alteration of the original usage. Some examples:

> *[It is known that the history of this needs to be revisited perhaps for a better tracing of pathways and for better exmaples]*

- Manic Depression, which became:
  - Bipolar Disorder (which is now offensive, and may pend changes).
- Retardation, which became:
  - Menally Handicapped (which is now offensive, and may pend changes).
- Autism, which grew to include
  - Aspergers, which was altered to become
    - Autistic Spectrum (development more on scientific advancement),
    - Or for some Neurodivergent (which may be less offensive).

Earlier these terms were yet earlier terms that were changed to be euphemized or professional terms instead, with specific meanings, which were then converted to insults by members of the public. After children and adults and other nonspecialists alter the terms to be derogatory, their offensiveness increases until there is a desire to change the words, even for those in a professional occupation making specialized usage.

It was perhaps noticed by some few who realized that this is simply a cyclical process that is inevitable, as words for diseases, conditions, and various states of being that are considered undesirable inevitably become words that are used to demean and disparage others. A new word is introduced that is intended to euphemize an older word, or supplant depending on interpretations, with the intention that a scientific interpretation is used that is objective or more descriptive, and not at all intended to offend or insult. Sometimes the objective is purely advancement on science, and sometimes it is to aid in improving public welfare for people who are mistreated. Either way new terms that relate to personal details which are considered undesirable will become words that will be used to offend or demean others who do not have those same characteristics, just as someone is likely to use the words "dumb" or "stupid" for people who are neither. The cycle is related to the fact that people do not want to be like those who are lesser in value along certain measures.

While words are updated and altered to attempt to satisfy people who may be damaged by the words, or those who think they are supportive of alleviating harmful affects, others are annoyed that the change should be required, for being more objective and understanding of the specific meanings of the concepts in their more scientific application. Professionals and others may think the words suitable, given their usage, and their ability perhaps to refrain from using those same terms to harm people. In the field of psychology, certain words are known to be harmful to patients and people in the public, and within the field they are more disciplined in their avoidance of these words. Educated people may not want to often revise words for purposes that are political or unrelated to scientific goals.

It is suggested here that since this cycle seems to have inevitability to it, because of the change of concepts from advancement in science, and the expected utility of the words to harm others, that a scientific treatment of the process itself be used for planning the professional lexcion. If it is understood that there is a natural process to the evolution of words which includes modifications to preserve feelings, and to decrease immoral or abusive behavior, then it appears professionals ought to incorporate it into their professional ethic, and utilize it in their planning of their own fields. With this understanding it would be more clear to everyone which words will likely require changes. Having all people aware of the types of words that would likely end up in this cycle would perhaps create better human awareness around the evolution of words, and of moral practices concerning their usage.

An alternative would be to train regarding this cycle, and instead of making the changes to words on the basis of expected usage by the public for injury, make the changes pre-emptively on the basis of improvements which would occur anyways, in the science. Redefinition and reclassification is required as knowledge grows. Instead of utilizing the same words for words that are targeted for being part of this cycle, these words are simply changed to be more descriptive and current. In this case most is achieved by the dvancement of science, and all those who understand the cycle, including both professionals and people in the public, will know to wait for words to change as they become increasingly misused for aformentioned reasons.

*[Written semi-blind typing, without edits or spell check, without planned composition, arrangement, or development of conversation, from thoughts on the topic which pre-existed partly, however. Incl. awareness of the cycle. One minor typo fixed after. Completed at 11:44 a.m. in 27 minute]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="familiarity-with-self-is-not-a-clarified-representation">Familiarity with Self is Not a Clarified Representation</a>

*Monday, February 6<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>9:38 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time</time>

Yes, you and others are self-familiar.

But what organized true representation did you make of that familiarity?

Did you write a true autobiography?

Did you depict your life true in visuals and sounds?  

Familiarity is done by having normal animal functioning.

How good is your self-familiarity is only shown with the quality of your clarified representation,

otherwise it is not clear how well you know yourself, 

to yourself,

or anyone else...

A clarified representation is something you have that is not in you that requires your own independent creation.

Familiarity with self is not a clarified representation.

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="combining-widely-separate-situations-and-the-brains-reactions-to-that">Combining Widely Separate Situations and the Brain's Reactions to That</a>

*[Written without editing for studies in progress]*

*Monday, February 6<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>4:19 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time</time>

One of my interests in my writings is the proper understanding of truth as it relates to situations, and models of situations. In order to arrive at a good understanding of large situations, like for Earth as a whole, one must be able to consider patterns and analogies, and similarities, between situations that are contained. Before recently, one was mostly only able to do so by comparing and relating in one's mind what one has learned from experience during exposure to separate situations, and from using what has learned from other's explanations and recordings of situations, as poorer but useful substitutes from more direct experience. As we are increasingly able to store audio-visual materials showing diverse situations, and presenting these situations quickly for comparison, we are more able to see relationships using better copies than what humans could earlier relay only with verbal communication and artwork, we are increasingly more equipped to compare realistic or nearly realistic situations to understand larger situations, like for Earth more wholly.

More recently I began reflecting on how this relates to the experience one has psychologically in relation to mobile applications that can present short pieces of situational information in quick succession to a user. Social applications currently exist in wide usage that display short videos and images to users very briefly, before moving on to present new videos and images that often includes very different scenarios, sometimes widely separated in time and space. One might see an image of a display of talent from a young person wanting exposure in North America, then suddenly see something about animals in Asia. Video content and images appear to be shorter and smaller partly because of software and video scaling limitations in the architecture of the applications, but the resulting experience is also one that has desirable aspects, relating to experiences we've already had watching the news or other television shows that show one thing of high interest, but move quickly to another. Listening to musical mixes in some night clubs, DJs quickly move from one track to another in a very short period of time. These experiences indicate that people do enjoy oftentimes having more types of stimulus for shorter durations than longer types of stimulus for longer durations. Taking this further, it may be the cause of choices of song length, television show length, and movie length. Historically I have preferred very long movies, and longer songs, but there have been plenty of counterexamples to this preference even in my experience. Additionally, after certain extended periods of time, other limitations like limitations on comfort and need to use toilets and restrooms interrupt, and need to eat and get rest from stimulus exposure, cause a more definite need for moving on to other activities and behaviors.

Considering, from one's own experience, the range of experiences of various kinds of entertainment, their formats and durations, one can see that certain social media exposures really do include a somewhat new experience. Videos are much shorter, and one can scroll through several videos in seconds if one can immediately see they are not of interest. These applications have millions of users and millions of videos, from diverse situations all over the world, and in seconds many can see many videos from many places, watching only for short durations. The size of the total data of video content and user experiences of that content is very large, and again, is unique to the total human experience from pre-history to the present day. There are two very interesting considerations which relate to this unique and new phenomena. Firstly, there is now data about a larger number of situations which may be quickly compared, because of short formats, and because of the largeness of the datum, and range of spaces and times in which users can share content concerning. Again, these videos include vivid content which is much better in quality than descriptions that would have existed in human verbal communication earlier. Verbal communication about interesting events also, from our experiences, was longer in duration and one could not simply jump between verbal descriptions with the rapidity that one can switch between highly vivid audio-visual content. Secondly, this data, and our experiences with the data, can tell us something about our own brains and to what extent it appears that humans were equipped for such experiences, switching so rapidly between different kinds of situations, invoking different mental events, emotional and intellectual.

Observing my own mental experiences with these applications, especially TikTok, over several years, I have found that strange combinations of experience sometimes prompt unexpected mental connections and emotional associations that do not seem to be entirely normal, given the history of human experience. There have been times in which the emotional response of some materials appeared to be transferred to subsequent materials, which did not have situational relationships in nature, apart from what has been enabled by the application itself, in being able to show very unrelated things in a short time.This seems to indicate some things about the brain and ability to disable certain reactions, between exposures to different situations. For example, if one is exposed very quickly to a victim of an injury on TikTok, one may have an emotional response that is culturally or personally appropriate to that exposures. Perhaps one feels saddened for a victim, their appearance, and angry about their experience. TikTok sometimes shows burn victims who wish to share information about their lives. A user can watch the video and feel this for a period of perhaps 30 seconds; or, the user can simply feel a reaction to an extremely momentary exposure, and move four or five videos along, briefly seeing each video and quickly deciding that something else is wanted. They may then see another video of interest, perhaps seeing someone attractive doing a workout. Clearly this would be a very different kind of content; however, oftentimes, elements of the one situation resemble elements of the next, even if the content is quite different in terms of potential emotional reactions. One can see something and still have an emotional reaction to the prior video, and transfer it somewhat to the new video, even if the new video seems different from the one preceding it. The extremely diverse number of situations that can be experienced in succession should be evident considering that any user from any place on earth may post something with different intentions and interests. Quantifying situational diversity is not something that is immediately achievable and probably does not exist, but certainly there are more than trillions of combinations of aspects which constitute the total earthly situations. On the app, one gets sexualized content then immediately after, violent materials. Then lovable animals, then scenes of sports. The result of the strangely large pool of unrelated content presented to users in quick succession are mental events which are unusual.

In everyday experiences sometimes we are interrupted quickly in what we are doing with catastrophe or suddenly unexpected situations. Perhaps a person has a sudden health event that one never experienced, while working. Perhaps one is enjoying a drive, before suddenly being investigated by police in a very aggressive fashion. The emotions of the one experience often influence the reaction to the other experience that prompted very different emotions. Having relaxing driving experiences suddenly becomes something related to avoiding aggression. Work suddenly becomes a health risk. Typically, there is consistency in the experiences which does not involve quick changes, and so one can have many drives that are long and enjoyable, and one can have exhilarating days of work, if one is doing something one really enjoys, that unlocks potential. Or one can simply do days of work in comfort in a routine, without any feeling that there are risks. This seems to indicate firstly that one does not expect rapid successions of real events, and one's brain certainly would have been evolved in an environment that does not have great leaps between situations frequently. One often does not enjoy sudden changes of situations. There are examples in which sudden changes of situation create excitement too, but again in normal human experiences one does not change space and time quickly, but rather can only switch environments within one's area somewhat infrequently and at a pace not nearly like that which is provided now by TikTok and other social media apps. It appears then that the brain has not necessarily been equipped to move so rapidly between widely different kinds of situations, and that sometimes if it is done, it is unwanted, with side effects, and other times, it is stimulating and exciting. When I've used these applications, I have alternated between really enjoying the experience, and really disliking it. And I have experienced odd psychological side effects, transferring emotions and sensations from one situation in which I'm exposed, to the next which is largely unrelated.

It is unobvious whether this kind of experience falls under the total experience in which humans can have and get familiar with, without any especially negative near or longer term consequences, or if there are more serious consequences because of the newness of the phenomena. It is not clear if the brain is general enough to handle all kinds of learning situations, or if it is better to keep experience closer to what is closer to that in which it was originally evolved.

Either way, the data and the application, presents a set of useful scientific opportunities for understanding how the brain functions, what its preferred functions are, and for learning about the Earth and its interrelationships.

*More soon*

*[Written in 47 minutes with no spellcheck, no edits, mostly blind typing with reading or feedback of what is typed at the time it is typed. Finished at 5:06 pm]*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="upcoming-initial-postings">Upcoming initial postings</a>

*Tuesday, January 25<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>9:09 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time</time>

Items to post concerning from recent thoughts:

- Topic shifts in discussion, interjections, rules of collaboration.
  - Involves thoughts I developed while in bed late last night.
- The life categories and structure of organization of one's life.
  - Will appear here or on the existing [life categories](life-categories.html) section.
- Writing off the recent [notes regarding objectivity relating to ritualization for more probable recollection](#notes-objectivity-in-symbolic-ritualization-for-more-probable-recollection).

This post is in keeping with permitting myself to include some planned tasks openly via thoughtstream. [Sharing of Tasks and Plans](#sharing-of-tasks-and-plans).

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="cohesive-visions-plans-and-post-editing">Cohesive Visions, Plans, and Post-Editing</a>

*Friday, January 20<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>8:24 PM Sydney, Australia Time</time>

When one writes concerning a topic of high complexity wanting to eventually bring it to a cohesive work, that reads well, has good transitions, and is well encapsulated, one needs to either have a vision as to what the work will need to become, or one will need to eventually come to a vision of what the work can be that is more simplistic. The present work will be demonstrably more of the former, although does include elements of the latter; the reason for its having elements of the later is creativity which occurs along the way which influences thoughts about what might be better concerning the vision. Obviously creativity along the way to a better result which realizes the vision is desirable. Sometimes it may give new pathways to better projects. In my case, however, I am mostly simply realizing an original plan and that is and will be demonstrable. This is important because it indicates early recognition of significance, ability to write things that might be incoherent to others, for their complexity, but later bring all together into something that is really obviously coherent and consistent with the initial vision and its significance. In fact, I could have written about how it could be combined, but doing that would in an unsatisfactory way speak of something that is better revealed at a time when it is spoken of better.

This is very different from another pathway which might be had. This may consist of more narrow visions had separately, written about without a vision as to synthesis. Some writers may enjoy writing this way thinking of each as a separate project. Some writers who do not have a corpus or body of work that obviously fits together as a singular piece of work of many pieces, are sharing with us that they did not have such a vision or work, but rather had separate visions or works. This is not necessarily something that diminishes the quality of what they are doing, depending on what their focus or goals happens to be. For example, a film maker, should not be expected to create movies with interesting widely separate situations, in a way that they fit with the each other as singular works. They may seem quite different, and that may be what indicates the quality of the creativity of their creations. They are able to "get out of" one way of doing something, to do it very differently to arrive at a better final piece of another kind. If one writes one biography, certainly it should not be the same work as another's biography. Because of personality there will certainly be aspects of method and style included which may allow one to identify the cdreators influence. But this is not really something deliberate, but more accidental. Novels, works of different kinds of art, and different genres, need not be part of a single work. The artist for these pieces may more deliberately want to separate them. Actors do this when they want to make sure they don't transfer something from one character to the other, falsifying the future characters, by giving them traits that they would not have, brought by a separate entity, the actor, having nothing to do with the character itself within their situation or creative universe.

Writings that are separate or visionary that have some complex aspects that are not part of a vision, will seem erratic or chaotic, and perhaps irritatingly disjoint, such that if they are encountered together, may seem to indicate purposelessness, or lack of goals. Many writers write this way. Collections of their writings may appear very incohesive. Arguably some may say they have not yet finished, and so, the vision that holds them together must wait. However, typically, signs and indicators as to vision and pathway would be easily spoken concerning without revealing everything. In these cases it is highly likely that if something of the vision cannot be said, and sufficient short indications as to directions are not provided, they do not exist, or are also fractured and not systhesized. Articulation of the significance of the work in some few statements that don't reveal and do not share something that is inadequately stating something that should be stated later should still exist. Apart from writings of complexity that have this characteristic of perpetual analysis paralysis as to holism, or even incremental separate synthetic part wholes, we have most other people who think more simply about things separately and narrowly, without writing. These thinkers are still mostly doing what this paragraph indicates they are doing. They think about something of interest temporarily, bring it to a point of personal satisfaction, and then jump to another topic, think about it, and bring it to a point of satisfaction. They jump around unable to bring them all together in a singular or somewhat holistic vision or thought plan. If they were to write, they would have a similar chaotic work of many writings about different things that don't come together coherently. As with an artist however, these works would come better into view looking at the life of the person, and seeing their personality. However, they would like as part of their lives and personalities something of a clear vision that brings these pieces together.

All who would be included in the prior paragraph would have to, afterwards in writing their autobiographies, or in writing what they think joins their mental content and their written content, do post editing. They would have to look at their lives, and their writings, and find hidden connections. They would have to admit, that if they found it, it was when they found it that they found it, and not earlier. They would not be able to say "This was my plan all along" but rather, in a retrospective, these writings and these thoughts, and these actions, come together in such a such a way. I think most would be unable to bring it together even in post editing, although reading repeatedly ones writings may provide new insights which would result culminating thoughts joinging things together creatively. If done later in life, this must consist of very pleasant moments of finally arriving at something from a sort of incohesive collection, to something that feels holistic, and maybe is. However, I think that would be really rare. When I speak of holism in any case, I'm still thinking of partial holism, as I've already written about the impossibility of any kind of perfect holism. Yet there is a desirable holism of life plan and "making sense of things", of "coming to an understanding" of life. This is not merely autobiographical. It is more because a successful autobiography truthfully tells life as it happened in a shorter format; whereas, coming to an understanding and telling one's life story includes that one came to an understanding and may actually include writing about that understanding which can communicate it to others. Better still is if the life itself also included the plans which include the understanding, and culminate in greater undersrtanding, were always cohesive, and required less of this post-editing. In that case attribution of the understanding to each earlier phase in one's autobiography is honest. For others who attain later and attribute it earlier are really falsifying their own life story.

Post-editing of a collection of writings to achieve understanding is not something that is undesirable but rather something that might be the best that one can strive for given one's abilities.

Yourself as an animal can only achieve what is possible to it given it's nature. It's abilities and it's properties. One has to really consider in one's planning if one is going to realize one's goals what is possible given one's abilities. One's executive functioning in the brain is related to one's plans for oneself and also the realization of those plans. If one has good executive functioning concerning planning of what is realizable, one would already choose something that is attainable or not given one's nature. Not all should plan for a work such as this one, and many would do well not to. 

*Written in 27 minutes without edits or spell check, blind typing with only part screen reading, Friday, January 20<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>8:51 PM Sydney, Australia Time</time>

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="paper-and-energy">Paper and Energy</a>

*Friday, January 20<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>7:28 PM Sydney, Australia Time</time>

Recently, as I was thinking about my offgrid living plans, and travel plans, regarding my computers and my devices, I realized that I could accomplish most of what I want to accomplish, even for months at a time, with few batteries, as long as I shifted my attention back to paper. My writings can continue on paper. My artwork I've been wanting to do, is of course, something that can be done on paper. Sheet music can be written onto paper. Paper, unlike all my computers, and phones, and so on, is very lightweight. It would enable my backpacking to not have these devices and instead have paper and writing implements, and would make travel much simpler.

Thinking about this on the train in Sydney this early evening, I realized that there may be a benefit to thinking about paper books, and paper to write on, as having battery power. What are the energy needs of paper once you have it? What are the comparable energy needs of computers and phones, for doing similar tasks.

My primary tasks of interst involve what I've included above, but also archiving. Eventually, my writings will be in a digital format for archiving, and for later publication, returning what was digitized back to paper again. Writing is something I use to occupy my leisure time for fun, and also to continue my book and journal that's in progress. Artwork, and sheet music involve plans for additional productions which I intended to be digital primarily, but now am considering doing on paper, if energy considerations make it more worthwhile.

## Paper Energy Requirements Contra Electronic Devices

My iPhone battery life appears to have the following key energy limits:

- Duration in usage: 1 day.
- Duration of single charge when off: 30 days or more.

The iphone battery life in usage is really some number of hours less than 24 hours. But I have noticed, it holds a charge that satisfies me for roughly one day before it needs to be recharged. For this reason, I simply say my phone can last one day if I use it. If I do not use it, it can last more than thirty days turned off. In cold weather I believe it may last only a day or two turned off.

My computer battery life appears to have the following energy limits:

- Duration in usage: 2 days.
- Duration of a single charge when off: 10 days.
- Cold weather duration of a single charge when off: 1 day.

I know my computer will completely lose it's charge if left in a cold car overnight. For example, I lived in the state of Alaska. I did not always bring my computer inside, and sometimes did leave the computer in the car. Returning to computer not long after, I would find it's battery empty even if it was fully charged before.

Now let's consider energy requirements of paper.

- Duration in usage: depending on the paper, up to 700 years.
- Duration in storage: depending on the paper, and storage conditions, perhaps several thousand years. Perhaps more if stored in resin.

Paper appears to exceed digital devices in terms of energy requirements very greatly. What are some implications of this? Below are some implications that directly relate to my plans regarding the archiving of my book and journal:

- *Final archival format is not digital because it will be lost.*
  - We saw that a stored book may last more than 700 years in a library. This is excluding the fact that it can be copied and reprinted again and again, meaning it can be stored 700 years many times. There are risks that the books would be burned, lost to water damage, or some other hazard. For this reason they are usually copied and stored in more than one location. However, these risks only become probable over very extended periods of time. A book in a library will almost certainly last a very long period of time. 
  - Comparing this to digital books. With digital books, there are many parts of the technology with interfere with reading access, which eventually can come together to total and probabl loss of that book, even in the near future. Firstly, with a digital book, the screen goes off. Paper, the screen never goes off. With a digital book, you may need a password or security step to access for reading. It is mixed with other things you have, that make for undue protection of the book. Without the password or security step to gain access to the device, not only may you lose the book, everyone may lose it. It's archival potential has been eliminated. If any part of the device is damaged, it may make access for copy, retreival, or other impossible. Hardware failure is nearly certain to occur within 30 years, even if there is no accidental breakage. Software limitations placed on digital computers have planned obselescence. This means that the book will not be accessible on the computer, or readable using software on the computer, after some passage of time. Regarding this book, which is on a website, I have to apply a security patch to the server, or allow the cloud provider to make software changes, that can interrupt the server, and make the book inacceissible. This may happen in a timeframe of just a couple years. Browser technology may be unable to render books in my format in the near future. Storage media used apart from the computer systems that allow you to see your books, which are similar to storage of books that nobody can open, eventually degrade. How they are organized becomes confusing, and easy to lose, since all is on a chip, whereas, in a library, there are many books that are not likely to be lost all at one time. If you have a chip you may decide to just throw it away, forgetting what's on it. It may break, and I've had chips break (mini SIM cards). Whereas, my library was an annoying possession to have that could not simply be eliminated when I wanted to rid of it.
  - A website, printed as a book, has longevity that the website or file cannot have, because of these many parts of the technologies that can fail.
  - The point of this as it relates to batteries is that along this entire path of digital storage for archiving are all these problems AND related energy requirements, because the entire systems are electrical systems. Paper archiving requires no energy, is not utilizing any parts that depend on energy, can fail to supply energy, can fail to supply signals using energy, can fail to display a screen using energy and the like. Whereas, with paper, it's always on. It is accessible. It is harder to lose, and harder to get rid of. It requires no energy in the lifecycle regarding its own presentation, and self-storage of the content.
- *Paper and Pencil never turns off, is not unavailable if there is no energy supply, is lightweight for not requiring battery storage, always can show what it will show, even if energy is not supplied, and it would not be supplied.*
  - When I'm traveling on a hiking trip, to read and write I really would prefer to have my computer systems and phones working indefinitely, but that's far from the case. All devices if used will certainly have no power at all within 2 days. However, I considered, if I'm only using paper, for writing, artwork, and music creation, I can still scan and archive them digitally at a later time, and return them to paper again. However, I then can use it for my entire trips. I will not have to worry about losing battery as I do my work. I can live offgrid for months and have no worries concerning my abilities to continue my work and fun tasks recording my thoughts and reading them again. Taking a single hard copy book alone with me, printed on fine paper, I would have many pages to read and recall at low weight, without any chance that I would be unable to continue reading for extended periods of time. Total weight of some paper and some implements, and a lightweight book of many pages, is much less than for carrying devices, computers, solar generators, cables, etc... But again, all can be returned to digital format later if necessary. 
- *Creation format and archival format as paper has many benefits*

*[More soon]*

*Finished without edits in 40 minutes. Friday, January 20<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>8:08 PM Sydney, Australia Time</time>*

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="notes-objectivity-in-symbolic-ritualization-for-more-probable-recollection">Notes on Objectivity in Symbolic Ritualization for More Probable Recollection</a>

*Wednesday, January 18<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>6:51 PM Sydney, Australia Time</time>

Write about the universal applicability of a symbol like the fitness template. (It should seem somewhat ridiculous because of the arbitrariness of it). 2 minute analogy to a lecture in college or theological seminary which is expanded into a 90 minute paid course lecture. Ease of learning it. Secular understanding provides the feeling of practicality and willingness to use and find interest in one's own life. Arbitrariness seems ridiculous but also is creative, which indicates people can create similarly without support, and enjoy the ridiculous arbitrariness of it while having the usefulness, and having something shared with animals. Feels more obviously proven in development of examples in culture and seemingly interpsecies behavioral analogues. That it corresponds to a need in morality which explains its historical usage in parts of religions, with examples of religions that can be recalled. While the choice of symbolism and specific ritual may be creative, and arbitrary, and have a sense of ridiculousness associated with it, it is also unarbitrary, because of its history in nature it appears to have evolutionary utility. And it relates to cycles of attempts to rehearse what is not often recalled otherwise; thoughts and ideas are encouraged in the brain, to increase probability of recollection later when situations would make it useful. If related to emergency response, or related to having certain behaviors in important contexts which could relate in death, serious injury, illness, or psychological damage, which may be lifelong, training provides similar examples. Acronyms in emergency training are used so those trained more easily recall what is wanted to be done during emergency situations. If what is trained is not done during emergency situations, the person may be considered incompetent at their job, although it is understood that emergency response can be more high-pressure with less time for decisions than other contexts. Yet that is the reason for the ritualization, and training, to create higher probabilities that thoughts will occur when wanted, and behaviors will occur when wanted, which is the same thing which has caused the formation of symbolism and ritualism described. This would be an example of a really objective moral proto-design, which before was more natural in its manifestation, of people who were ritual in behavior but could not explain using objective grounds why. This non-objective natural origin is a cause of trust in one's group but distrust in another. Because it is not known why really but appears to be of great importance, and is arbitrary to the culture that created it, with a feeling of ridiculousness that results in cognitive dissonance when challenged, even if the challenge is for learning. 

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="18012023075349-notes-objectivity-in-symbolic-ritualization-for-more-probable-recollection-1-mattanaw.png" src="18012023075349-notes-objectivity-in-symbolic-ritualization-for-more-probable-recollection-1-mattanaw.png"><br />

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Preface: Opening task lists and current work plans.*

*Started Writing: Thursday, December 1<sup>st</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>7:23 PM Cairns, Australia Time</time>

## <a name="sharing-of-tasks-and-plans">Sharing of Tasks and Plans</a>

Before I was using a log to keep track of my backlog of tasks, but I've decided not only to open up my life via wthis website with health and identity information, and various thoughts as experienced, but to open up to include some immediate plans relating to work projects I'm conducting.

There may be very little interest in some of these task lists that I'm producing. However, as a log, and part of my living autobiography, it provides more information about my activities as they are happening.

A few writing projects are incomplete on this site including the following which I hope to complete in the next few weeks:

- finish interview regarding charlatans of the high intelligence community.
- add more content regarding intelligence related to communication of significance and density of meaning in the fastest typing.
- completion of the list of favorable moods that I'd like to be able to experience on-demand. This relates to the writings on the life category of Mood and Mediation, and Higher Order Attention.

This is the very first post of this type including items from my personal task backlog. I have not yet determined exactly how much I should be sharing from my backlog. Historically that information was somewhat confidential to me, particularly as my tasks related to my business. Customers would certainly be protected and I could not provide backlog tasks related to work performed for them. However, for work items in my business that I create for myself in my business, I am contemplating sharing those. It does not appear that there is anyone who could take and do those tasks, and combine them into a meaningful plan that would be competitive against my plans. This would be another progression in my attempt to see what needs protections and what doesn't, finding that more and more can be open, reducing privacy but increasing various freedoms from having to protect.

*Started Writing: Thursday, December 1<sup>st</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>7:30 PM Cairns, Australia Time</time>

*[Finished in 7 minutes, without approximately 7 minor typo fixes, with spellcheck, no grammar check, and little self reading (semi-blind touch typing).]*

*Author: Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh*

- Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
- B.S. Psychology, University of Maryland,
- B.S. Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland,
- B.A. Philosophy (Nearly Completed, 2003), University of Maryland.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

- [cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu](mailto:cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu)
- [mattanaw@mattanaw.org](mailto:mattanaw@mattanaw.org)
- [christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org](mailto:christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org)

[http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sharing-of-tasks-and-plans](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sharing-of-tasks-and-plans)

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


*Started Writing: Tuesday, November 29<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>1:53 PM Cairns, Australia Time</time>

## <a name="im-not-that-into-relationships">I'm not that into relationships.</a>

What were the obligations you were thinking I had?

What control do you feel thinking about that, regarding my relationships?

[http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#im-not-that-into-relationships](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#im-not-that-into-relationships)

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


*Preface: Brothers who aren't.*

*Published: Sunday, August 25<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>3:08 PM Cairns, Australia Time</time>

## <a name="solving-your-problems-by-calling-each-other-brother-or-sister">Solving *your* problems by calling each other Brother or Sister.</a>

You know how people at one time called each other "Brother"?

I was just thinking to myself. You say this because you are in a situation in which you think people will endanger each other, but you are similar enough to each other, that you think pretending you're family will support kindness.

Now imagining myself in this context, where people say "Brother" perhaps in the 70s and 80s, or whatever period this was most used:

"I appeared here and there were too many of you. You are a population problem. I'm not solving your problem by making you family even symbolically, such that I forget what metaphors are. Instead, you're not my brother, and well, I'm not sure I need to talk to you either."

Doing otherwise somewhat makes you responsible for others poor behaviour. Ok some of you can't control yourselves. If you think calling each other brother will help you, go ahead. But I prefer wide separation from problem people.

Strangers with problems.

Legally do you want to be brothers? How fake is your brotherhood here.

*Author: Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh*

- Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
- B.S. Psychology, University of Maryland,
- B.S. Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland,
- B.A. Philosophy (Nearly Completed, 2003), University of Maryland.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

- [cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu](mailto:cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu)
- [mattanaw@mattanaw.org](mailto:mattanaw@mattanaw.org)
- [christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org](mailto:christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org)

[http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#solving-your-problems-by-calling-each-other-brother-or-sister](http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#solving-your-problems-by-calling-each-other-brother-or-sister)

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


*Preface: Building on earlier work on the morning and evening routines, using the life categories.*

*Started Writing: Tuesday, August 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:23 PM Cairns, Australia Time</time>

## <a name="making-the-morning-and-evening-routine-mnemonic-connect-with-the-memory-journey-methodology">Making the morning and evening routine mnemonic connect with the memory journey methodology</a>

The memory journy methodology in mnemonics has been used by memory games competitors to achieve very good quality results that showcase what is possible for our memory skills.

I've used the memory journey in my early twenties, when I first learned about it, from a source unknown but probably while I was in college studying Psychology, but later also in the book Mind Performance Hacks. Using this method I've also had good results, and used it for things like remembering shopping lists, and for remembering things to do in the course of my day.

The memory journey is simply walking through a familiar location mentally, while along the way storing and retrieving things you need to remember, in places which have also been called "memory pegs". I would walk through my childhood home, always in the same way, looking around from one room to the next, in the same order. Along this pathway would be locations of interest which are the memory pegs, or storage locations, where things could be placed. If I had a shopping list, I might put something at the doorway when walking in, perhaps "broccoli". I'd find the brocolli at the entrance when I walk through that path, and when I was shopping, I'd remember that I need to buy brocolli. Walking through the remainder of the home, a very large number of objects can be seen and recollected. While I used it for lists probably not exceeding 30 items, others have used it for recalling hundreds if not thousands of objects for memory competitions. There are many other methods that can be used, and I'm not a memory competitor and could not tell you them all. However, this method is reusable and certainly effective. It is re-usable and each time you can add new objects to the journey. Another tip regarding the memory journey is that it is easier if vividness of story is added to the journey. I would make nonsensical and absurd things happen at different locations in the journey for new list items, that would help me remember. Maybe I step on the brocolli walking through the entrance, and squash it, releasing a stinky odor. This makes it really easy to recall later when out shopping.

*The memory journey, however, does not have to be only an unreal journey.* In my morning routine, the goal was to go through a sequence of tasks that all relate to my various life categories. The objective was to complete all that's necessary in one's day in a very short period of time, perhaps less than two hours every morning. When I devised this, I was working long hours, and wanted to ensure before work, that I was already clean, exercised, practiced some mediation, and completed certain other tasks that would ensure I was mostly feeling finished with doing what I needed to do for entire days. Since the list included a sequence of steps, each relating to a life category, there is something to remember, if one is not referring directly to the personal form. I had these steps listed on my form so could simply read it. But not wanting to be permanently dependent on a list, written down, I recognized eventually it is better to simply rely on the habits that were formed, and memory. Automaticity is desired. I would often write about Habitualization/habituation after practice as a goal of using the lists. Now again wanting to use my morning and evening routines, I'm wanting to build on what I did earlier, and simply use my memory to recollect. I've created a new way to walk through the various categories that I'll record here soon, which is a mnemonic method.

The morning routine, being a set of tasks done in sequence upon waking, has a journey associated with it already. When you arise in the morning, you go through a sequence of steps in your environment where you arise. If you wake in your bedroom, you'll often use the restroom, after walking through a hallway, and then, if you recall your steps, you will walk to other parts of your home, going through different rooms, seeing different things and completing different tasks along the way. This is a retraceable journey. It is easy to forget, in the morning, if one has not done a morning routine or one has not done one in a while. I'm in a state of requiring retraining. The mnemonic approach to remembering the steps is good, but an additional real-world recollection aid will make the process better. I've used this as well. This method is to leave things you need to remember alone the paths you regularly take in your home. For example, I've put water at various locations around my home, to ensure I'm drinking enough water. At this moment, in my home, there are water glasses filled, all over in different rooms. Walking along my morning routine pathway, I will find water. Water and hydration is on my list in relation to the category of nutrition. The effect is it forces you to remember, but it also appears, makes it possible to aid the memory journey, since now there is an expectation of seeing water along the path visualized. It is not only added to a memory peg with the imagination, it really exists along the path. This is a new development and I'm working to ensure that other things I need to remember also exist along the path and that it is blended with my memory journey which is imagination based.

Along the path at home, messages can be left, as is often already done, and not only objects. Today I put my memory cards on my counter beside my couch to ensure that when I sit, I resume my photography productions. This is something I think most do. It is highly useful to train to do this often, even outside of the memory journey. 

When you leave someone a message who leaves with you, you'll put it someplace you know they'll see it. A place along their pathway, which might resemble your own. What is different here, is adding messages to *your own pathway* along a total journey through your home, that you will take over and over, so you are completely reminded about all the steps, and don't miss out on steps when you are really performing them.

I will add more later on these developments relating to these cyclical routines soon, and also on my new method of focusing attention in periods where there are many distractions, to things that are consistent with rational plans. This will help so one is not redirected away from their more rational goals and plans.

*Ended Writing: Tuesday, November<sup>nd</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:52 PM Alaska Time</time>

*[Finished in 29 minutes, without edits, spellcheck, grammar check, or reading. Semi-blind typing while partly attending to what is written on the screen.]*

*Author: Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh*

- Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
- B.S. Psychology, University of Maryland,
- B.S. Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland,
- B.A. Philosophy (Nearly Completed, 2003), University of Maryland.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

- [cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu](mailto:cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu)
- [mattanaw@mattanaw.org](mailto:mattanaw@mattanaw.org)
- [christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org](mailto:christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org)

[http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#making-the-morning-and-evening-routine-mnemonic-connect-with-the-memory-journey-methodology](http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#making-the-morning-and-evening-routine-mnemonic-connect-with-the-memory-journey-methodology)

<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

*Preface: On finishing with others concerning voting.*

*Started Writing: Thursday, November 17<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:14 PM Brisbane Time</time>

## <a name="foolishness-of-the-common-trust-in-voting">Foolishness of the Common Trust in Voting.</a>

<a name="abstract, Teaser, Contents"></a>

Abstract, Teaser, Contents:

Voting in democratic nations has a cermeoniousness which has resulted in creating voting events which are national holidays. The cermeoniousness of the voting process includes repetition year-by-year in a way that is familiar and similar from one voting even to the next, which resembles celebration of holidays like Christmas. People are brought into a similar mindset during each event and tend to recollect similar feelings and similar ways of thinking and speaking for each event. When voting comes around, we know how to think and feel, and speak, in ways that are supportive of the voting process, implying that between us, and for each event, there is much similarity. What is uncommont to these various events are new ways of handling ceremony, changes to rituals, changes to ways of thinking about voting, and recommendations for improvements. The process of voting is considered universally to be received, and is treated as complete, and not something ready for updates. Voting is something mostly discussed vigorously during voting, and lesser so outside of voting. In this way also it is similar to holidays. People think about it intensely at that time [Mattanaw, 2022], but less outside of that time, again like Christmas or New Years, or like birthdays.

Voting is at a stage of low growth, and is of low sophistication, and not high maturity. Sophisticated new thinking during times that people think about voting, has not been applied to the voting process itself. Instead ceremoniousness has resulted in a feeling of constancy about voting process between votes, and being understood and common, means all can or think they understand it. Sophisticated critiques of voting process, and sophisticated ideas about voting, have not been sought or shared during times when people think most about voting. I have found that I am largely a solitary thinker about voting when I want to consider how voting might be improved. More than this, however, I've determined, that my behavior is inexclusive regarding this; anyone who wants to improve voting and achieve a greater level of personal sophistication would need to do so alone. We have not been given a way to vote on an individual level either, and so one must work entirely independently arrive at a solid process for arriving at a vote that seems sophisticated, and satisfying.

Sophisticated objections to voting do not exist and would seem contrary to ceremony around voting. This would be a cause for reactions against well-intended objections to current voting practices that might result in improvements. Lack of knowledge of the sophisticated objections to voting imply that one has been unable to speak openly and utilize open political thinking and criticism about voting itself.

Some objections to voting inclued, among the contents:

- [Voting as ritual recollection](#voting-as-ritual-recollection)
- [Value of education is left out of voting](#value-of-education-is-left-out-of-voting)
- [Freethinking in politics applies to itself](#freethinking-in-politics-applies-to-itself)
- [The field of human resources is not used](#the-field-of-human-resources-is-not-used)
- [Voting appears primitive once one considers growth and improvements](#voting-appears-primitive-once-one-cosiders-growth-and-improvements)
- [Diversity is left out of voting](#diversity-is-left-out-of-voting)
- [Voting improvements have been disincentivized](#voting-improvements-have-been-disincentivized)
- [Abstract, Teaser, Contents, Back to Top](#abstract-teaser-contents)


<a name="voting-as-ritual-recollection"></a>	*Voting as ritual recollection.* Voting is a sort of holiday. As a holiday, it has a ceremoniousness, which includes ritualization and desire to repeat things as they are recollected precisely. It is governed and protected also by rules. The making voting a holiday means it is uniquely resistant to criticism, and critical thinking, and thinking generally as it is not recollection, but new thought. It has not been considered if voting should pertain to voting itself. It does not allow political consideration but ceremonial holiday repetition. This may explain why politics has been considered an activity that one should not be open about, alongwith religion. It also explains why people tend to have the same perspective: as with other holidays, the repetition of those holidays and ways of celebrating results in not only similar sentiments over time, but similar sentiments between people. We know that those who celebrate Christmas tend to think similarly about Christmas, celebrate it similarly, speak about it similarly, and celebrate it ways that are very similar over years. Christmas ceremonies within families resist change. Those who desire to stop celebrating are strongly pressured to continue celebrating. Voting is also a national holiday, blending religion with politics.

<a name="voting-as-ritual-recollection"></a>	*Voting appears primitive once one considers growth and improvements.* Using one's political mind for evaluating voting results in a perspective that is solitary. However, being supposedly a fundamental process, one would think it would have maximum attention, and maximum sophistication. However, it appears it is more simple, and more religious than other democratic processes. Thinking carefully about even voting has been a practice of mine for a long period and my finding was that I was totally alone doing it. Furthermore, I found that people have been unable to retain what I've stated to them in conversation concerning voting. However, they are trained on recollecting every year what has been ceremonial concerning it. Something as important as voting should be something that is maximally sophisticated, which implies it has and receives maximum attention, and has maximal acceptance within the democracy; however, the reality is it is a protected topic. People assume it is complete, but it is in the beginning stages of development and is at a state of very low maturity. Since people have not discussed this, none can state my position regarding why I would consider it to be of low development. I have never heard anyone say anything regarding the maturity of the voting process. If the voting process is on a stage of maximal maturity, at a point where it is space-like in difficulty of improvement, then growth inhibitions would be natural, and would relate to education, and finding of talent to improve it. However, even the talented have been indoctrinated into thinking it is a final and complete system. It has not been acknowledged that it can even be improved, or that voting is only a component of a system of politics, that can be worked on somewhat separately from other parts of the system. That it's not a component implies that other parts of the system are also in a state of low maturity, because to make changes in one part of the system, should be simple for not impacting other parts of the system, while curently, we can expect if one changes voting, one will have many interrelationships that must be fixed in other parts of the system. At present, dependencies between parts of the system are not known, discussed, or tracked. For the reader, this should indicate, that the voting process is not only low on its own, is very low in ways that will be revealed later, as the total system of politics is eventually developed and improved. It will be shown, that the process by which it grows is slow and stagnant, and it hasn't really developed on its way of developing. It doesn't quite know how to grow, and the rates of growth will later show that it largely preserves immature processes. Discussing voting is something that has been disallowed, in a system that is supposed to be encouraging free communication, and the result is that critiquing voting is a solitary activity. I would expect, potentially, I may be the only person thinking in this way regarding voting. "Someone, somewhere, surely is thinking about this?" But I have no reason to expect so, other than that I cannot be the only one on this topic, who would see the mathematical aspects of voting. But I don't think the sophistication would exist in anyone else very likely.

Sophistication of objections concerning voting, then would be rare and unknown, particularly if they are takenn in combination, when the number of objections is large, and independently rare. I would expect and anticipate that readers would find these objections to be largely unspoken from themselves and their peers, which means they can test in their own lives that voting appears to be a ceremonial repetition of recollections, that are mostly common, and unsophisticated. Each of the sophisticated objections regarding voting have an aspect which appears to require greater mathematical treatment. The mathematical treatments of each do not exist.One could research and find parts of mathematics that would apply; however, that they have not been applied, and are unknown to all who vote, indicates that there is uncommonality in it. That few would think to apply or use any mathematical understanding concerning this indicates it is at the lowest stages of understanding, and uncommonality.

Some key objections to the voting process as it exists calling for a better more mature voting system, includes:
 
**That it has not considered that people are fundamentally unequal and not equal (Abandoning Equality, Mattanaw, 2022)**. Instead, it entirely conceals diversities that are directly relevant to quality of selection. Details: All people in our system believe that as they are educated they are improved. This implies that all who have improved are more valuable than when they started. That this applies to all people is known. This has not been used to improve the voting system so votes are weighted according to education. People are not equal regarding ability to learn. Being unable to learn, the handicapped and mentally retarded have been included with the same strength as the smartest, most able, and most intelligent, in our voting system. Being more able to vote, they are more able to self improve. Self-improvement is believed to increase personal worth for all people. This has not been included in the voting system at all. 

**The Job Description is Unknown.**


**The discipline of HR has grown to become huge, and relatively mature, but does not exist for selecting political candiates. HR does not use a voting process for selecting candidates.** Human Resources is trusted for all large enterprise corporations, but they use a system closer to dictatorship and totalitarianism, in order to achieve their success. It isn't democratic at all; yet all voters support and have been selected using HR processes. This means they have trusted a totalitarian/dictatorial corporate whatever process, that is non-democratic, to select them, but they do not use a similar process for finding political candidates. If they are asked how to use it for selecting political candidates, in a way that would be trusted, they would not know how.In fact, they have never spoken concerning that.
	
**Voting with polling is nearly primitive.** All it does is take yes and no reactions from people. There is no influence with speaking.	


**Voting creates a fixed unchangeable voting power of influence, but working towards persuading others, and having a media presence, does not, and is much more powerful.** For explaining this I have included diagrams. Fundamentally, if you scale your sophistication in trying to influence politics during voting, you focus exclusively on persuasion and media messaging, to change the votes of others, because you cannot do anything to improve yourself to improve the power of your own singular vote, in a way that would compete. In order to increase your voting influence, you *must* shift to persuasion and speaking, and not in a format that is unlikely to succeed. Media influence and propaganda guide and sway, in a way that communicating with friends does not. Since we are told we are not to be political in conversation, it is known already, that it is an inflammatory topic, and people are often unwilling to be persuaded. However, they are willing to listen, change, and be educated by the media. In fact, voters only know what is going on, by the news, and political marketing. Here I am unwilling to dwell on the power disparity between an individual and the news, but instead only want to share, that an individual voter would need to scale only on this side, and become like a media organization eventually, to grow influence in voting. One's voting power is unchangeable by education, personal growth, having a better mind, and anything related to growth that really does imply inequalities. One cannot become an expert and get more votes. It is possible, that one may not grow, and only improve abilities to message, and greatly improve one's influence of other voters. One might want to think about which influencers seem to be basic in their intelligence, who still have influence, and still have an audience. You have no audience but someone who is an athlete does. The implication is they have greater power in voting than you do, regarding something unrelated to what is required to guide good politics.

**Tasks in Politics are Unknown.** There is no list of upcoming tasks and policy changes that are anticipated and needed within the work being done. Instead, the people who don't know the job, in their parties, advertise what they will do, which does not include tasks within the actual organizaiton. The organization doing the work would provide a list of clear work tasks that require completion, policies that need change, and jobs that are open, and so forth. They would also be able to list definite jobs and projects completed, who completed them, what they were. Technology organizations would go further to measure the rate of change if they can, and they track all tasks being worked on and what was completed, and report on that work, and prioritize that work. Voters have no knowledge of what work is really done, has been done.

**Policy Changes Supercede People's Roles.** In politics we are concerned with what changes, and what remains the same. We talk about policies when we discuss what changes or stays the same. Policies are central to changes of all types. A politician will be working for changes of various types that fall within the job description. Prior tasks are known regarding changes to make, if they are tracked. Work completed is tracked, and work to be performed is tracked. Knowing what work must be done, and what work is going to be done, voters can see what policies will change, and how, regardless of who will be doing the work. Work tasks can be added by new employees. However, these are tracked. In technology and business, employees can recommend changes are added and prioritized for the backlog. Employees in large coprorations already do and adopt this, and see it works. 

Voters are not given any method to know this information, which would be a vital part a job. If a voter has such information, they would be incline, as they do within corporations, to be fixated on what will happen next regarding the changes, and not who makes the changes. Within a corporation, employees who really care about change appear to be somewhat unconcerned about how the changes happen, knowing that jobs shift, and people come and go. When someone is included, who appears to be opposed to what they would like to happen, they will start to be resistant, because what they would like to happen will be thwarted. This means that in a business context, they are not especially concerned, necessarily, who is doing the job, as long as they are doing it well, and are making those changes that are needed, that relate to policies within the company. In politics this includes projects, programs, and large-scale changes, that are big enough for people to be wanting to look at, in the limited attention they have during voting.

**Voter Research is Infeasible.** I have argued while still young, that I felt unprepared in my education about how to actually vote as an individual. It does not appear this is very difficult to teach people, particularly if the system is sophistiated enough to include people on how they can arrive at good voting decisions. Instead, they are not given any method in which to arrive at a good vote. This would include how to become informed. Instead, they are reliant on media and news sources, and potentially advertising, rather than trusted sources of information. In academics, trusted sources of information, disinclude even wikipedia. While studying at Harvard University, I was informed that I could not cite wikipedia, because Harvard does not accepts wikipedia as a trusted source of information. However all voters rely nearly exclusively on media, news, entertainment, and advertising, which are all far more untrusted within academia. Having this information in academia is considered not researching, not a success story in research. This means what people are doing to be educated is considered what one does when one is not educated. If one is to use this type of information in academic papers, or nearly anyway in advanced education, one is showing how uneducated one is, not how prepared for voting one might be.


Another way to put this is that whatever change happens, would be in writing.

It appears that whoever is hired, would have similar work to do. This work would include a finite list of tasks which would already be known. Additional tasks could be added. However, the tasks to be done were added by who and how? Where are they? It appears voters alternatively should be voting on what it is that should be achieved, by whatever candidate is best qualified. In my history of criticism of government, I've argued to others, that one must be able to speak about specific changes that are anticipated, if one is to be successful not being ignorant concerning political happenings. If one knows much about a topic, one will discuss specific policies, programs, and changes to be made, and what has been done. Policy expertiseis what is desired to make policy changes. Whenever there is an important task to be completed, that is political, it involves a program, project, or policy, which will be changed. It is possible to have votes regarding the specifics of policy changes, with more unconcern about who is doing the work, like normal jobs. Having a written 

**Writing is Necessary to Track Changes.** Writing is needed to know what has changed regarding the job description, tasks to be done, tasks completed, and all that has been suggested in policy changes. Having this in writing would make it possible to create creater collaboration with voters, who might be interested enough, to read the specifics of anything related to voting. 

Part of the purpose of this article goes along with my personal moral goal of finding times in which to discontinue various efforts of work, where it is not particularly valuable, by getting to point of conclusiveness which is jusitifiable. The goal is to finish various topics which I can no longer make developments on when they are no longer valuable in relation to my own personal growth paths and interests. In this article I believe I have arrived at a completion point regarding voting, and can pass the work to someone else, who is more interested; or else to everyone else, who has not started. I can also share here, that I am capable of continuing, but am not sufficiently incentivized to think concerning it further, on my own, to the extent that I have. If paid, I would consider working further on it. In this way I am able to include this within my system of ethics which I have devised, which works towards arriving at points in which improvement are not really possible or valuable. It does not appear I need to think further regarding voting, or to participate in voting.

<a name="voting-as-ritual-recollection"></a>

#### Voting as Ritual Recollection

Voting as a Holiday

It is a ceremonial repetition of a process which ocurrs periodically, over some number of years. Those voting events that are for presidents and prime ministers are the major holidays, while the lesser holidays, might be those that are for many representatives, because in those elections, there are too many people for people to focus on simultaneously, or maintain an intense interest concerning; or those that are smaller exlections, with smaller voter bases, that are held for smaller regions/land-areas and towns/cities, which may have intense interest in certain locales, but not a large enough interest to promote the event, to a national holiday of sorts.

And of course, there really is an election day, at least in the united states<sup>2</sup>, for the presidential elections<sup>3</sup>.

Recently I've written that holidays control how one thinks about what the holiday includes, and also controls the frequency and character of your thoughts concerning it. Since celebrated as a holiday, it is given some automatic religious qualities. Since celebrated intensely, and on a schedule, one cannot maintain those thoughts over the remainder of the year. Remaining days may have other holidays which will steer and guide attention. So one forgets elections and redirects attention away from voting, once the holiday has ended, and begins to think about it again, when others cycle back first, to make preparations related to the ceremonies. 

There is a span in which it is appropriate or inappropriate to think intensely or communicate about voting as it pertains to election. If one keeps raising the topic of voting too early or too late, using thoughts similar to those that would arise near election time, they will be discouraged either by lack of interest of the other parties involved, or because social interest is not great enough for the speaker to want to resume naturaly. It is when others begin talking about something that one becomes increasingly interested and ready to maintain interst.

This is well known with Christmas, where probably the greatest span of time is allowed to others for celebration, planning, and communication about it. People are reminded about Christmas by the market, as it returns to its cyclical plans; and others once they begin to plan their ritual ceremonies. There is also a period afterwards where people are allowed to maintain interest, as they remove decorations, return gifts, and finish thinking about what has transpired. Like with Christmas, it appears interest is maintained for a longer period leading up to the holiday, but for a shorter period following the holiday; following the holiday, another holiday is known to be approaching, and people tend to shift attention to what will be coming next, rather than spending time allocating their minds to what has already happened, because of course, one must plan to live for what is next and not for what has already happened (even survival requires attention to shift to what is next, and one may already be thinking much about what is next even during the holdays). Much is not thought about that is recent during the holdiays, but that is also generally true, as the news is able to shift people's attention, such that earlier events of supposedly great significance are no longer considered.

For the remainder of this article I will focus my attention on the larger voting events, like that for a president or prime minister.

Voting is performed in a very similar way each time a vote is held. Attitudes and opinions regarding each recurring election, also appear to be mostly traditional recollections. People are encouraged to vote without thought as to the circumstances and views of individuals; it is recommended and urged universally. People celebrate their act of voting, by wearing pins, and in voting appear honestly to think themselves as having accomplished something of value. Those who did not vote, are silent about not having done so, which is indicated by the contrast between the ostensible universality of the celebration (few openly say anything negative about voting), and the actual numbers of votes which are reported as received and counted. Over a long period I have explained to others during elections reason for not thinking that voting is as valuable as people think it is. However, I've never heard others say the same as I do. During elections it appears I'm nearly a sole dissenter.

<a name="improving-voting-alone"></a>

#### Improving Voting Alone

Even saying that I'm a dissenter concerning the voting process, I would suspect that many readers would make false inferences concerning why. I would also anticipate a negative attitude in response, and more false inferences about what it might mean concerning my other views. Suddenly some will think, I'm against people being considered during planning that will affect them.

Even more irritatingly, some will assume, evening knowing who I am, that somehow my views would be unsophisticated on this topic. However, being a ceremonial thing that everyone is aware of, one can quickly tell that the standard views about voting are really basic and unreflective, and being ritual, mostly remembered and repeated. They are hardly considered anew. I would ask the reader to confirm, from their own experience with elections, how often they've heard something new about voting, and how often they've themselves considered what process alternatives to voting might exist, and how mathematically, voting might be improved. People do not even think in this way about voting, which indicates that minds, as they relate to voting, are themselves not complex. On other topics, when sophistication exists, there is questioning, probing, and creation of new ideas, often with a desire for greater detail and greater complexity. Those thinking about voting with a clear view abou the purpose of voting, would also be those that would notice where there are errors, problems, and potential pathways at solution, or actual solutions, which would do a better job at achieving those goals which voting are meant to achieve.

An illustration here might be the comparison of business versus ceremony. 

In politics we expect those who are employed to have a business-like attitude towards their work, in order to make quick improvements based on what custsomers, here citizens, really want and need, and pay for. Yet we elect them with a ceremonial attitude, and those involved in doing elections do it without much changes, implying that they make little changes in what they do, and how they conduct and carry out elections.


<a name="sophisticated-objections-contra-simpletons"></a>

#### Sophisticated Objections Contra Simpletons

What are some sophisticated objections to the voting process?

- *Voting is too simplistic*.
- *We should be seeing process developments improving elections*.
- *Policy centric politics is superior to electing representatives*.
- *Voting has social objectives that are forgotten during elections*.
- *It is unknown how to vote*.
  - This is one I've been saying since very young: we have not been educated on how exactly to prepare for an election, either in research, or in how to form a judgement concerning that research. We have no clear way to ascertain which facts we need, if those facts are available, and how to move from those facts to a judgment. We are not clear if security clearances are required to ascertain the requisite facts. We are not certain what the job consists of that we are thinking we are hiring for.
- *Voting is hiring but that appears unknown, and HR Process is not used.*
  - There is an entire discipline of Human Resources that is ignored in electing an employee. Hiring is not performed by a group of those who do not understand the work to be performed closely, and without a job description, and list of work items to be performed. Hiring at a corporation for important roles is done by a small group at most, if a group has any role at all. The final hiring would be done by a corporate executive in conjunction with human resources, or simply by the executive. One expert understanding somewhat what is needed would do the hiring. If a company is large enough, it is understood, that an employee requires a very good understanding of the work before they are hired, so that they understand what they will be doing. Not only that, so anyone who also might be hired knows precisely what they are doing. Given you can run for President when you turn 35 if you are in the United States, AND you are hiring agent as a voter, you should know, extremely well, what the job consists of. You are a candidate and you are hiring! However, you know very little about it, and must admit that as true, as the job of President is as unknown to you as any job in any large company is. You would not know what an executive of a large technology company would be doing, and yet you think your country has enabled you as a candidate and a hiring, voting member.
- *Elections are performed without a list of political tasks to be performed*. 
- *Not voting is a political position*.
  - If one chooses to not vote, it is a viable political position. People are told they have a voting right, which is anonymous. Having a voting right that is anonymous, they are allowed to vote however, they like, and this includes abstaining to mark that they have not considered voting for one candidate or another as representative of their minds or interests. Furthermore, strategy in politics can include *any* strategy considered valuable or workable, for political goals which might arise. I think it plausible that if everyone decided not to vote, if the elections were exessively rigged, as a way of showing that nobody is supporting any candidate, and that the election itself is failed, that it might succeeded in showing that. If it did, then it would be a viable political strategy. Even a necessary one depending on circumstances. Being a first voter to encourage such a process is reasonable, even if is "conscientous objection", which is an encouragement of activism at the individual level if one notices something is not correct, even alone. However, regarding voting, it appears really people would be punished for being a conscientious objector. Some even think there is an obligation to "do the right think" which implies that one sometimes must be a "conscientious objector" who would be socially punished.


<a name="voting-ensures-you-did-little"></a>

#### Voting Enusres You Did Little

Let us consider a more serious objection in more detail. It is this:

>> Voting reduces your voice to an singular momentary act, or checkmark.

Imagine you are working very hard for some job you might have, or have had, working for a company. Imagine you work there for five years. Every day, let's say, you drive to and from work for 30 minutes, sometimes in traffic, and at a cost. Every day, let's say, you work ten hours. For this company you do more, and you are paid fairly well, you are somewhat appreciated for your voice, and your thoughts, which you are required to use orally, and in writing via email. 

Now, let's consider voting day. Maybe you drive 10 minutes to your local voting location, and walk in, wait in a line, then you check a box, make a mark, or put a slip in a box. Maybe you punch a couple computer keys. It is done anonymously.

Do you really think you've done a job worth celebrating?

Now compare this with someone who has chosen a job relating to politics. They might work to steer people's views for years full-time. They might use their voice along with politicians who hear them for a period of 5 years, or decades. 

Strangely, but predictably, voters think they have achieved something worth celebrating in a ritual fashion, having been reduced to no words in actual political process. People can speak all they like in conversation.

To include 

- Size of impact if you steer votes versus voting (even if you don't vote). 
- A democratic method in which polls result in complete steering of people to options, while allowing for perceived freedom (via forced choice).

[Include information about your divorce, and your knowledge on psychology and customer service regarding this. Note that the article doesn't imply research. It implies sharing research, which is a recovery of what one has been exposed to in Psychology, and has used in life.]

Voting also ensures that you cannot grow or diminish your influence by learning more, or by having ill health. Voting ensures that mentally retarded have the same influence as the most educated, most trusted authorities, including those who might have some knowledge and quality of judgement for most topics that voting could relate to. General intelligence that is advanced then cannot utilize voting any more than a mentally handicapped, brain damaged, or generally cruel and deficient person. Quality of moral disposition, even if proven by revelation of all private moments, could not be usable to increasing vote strength. It is always one, and will always be cancelled by those who could not do the same.

<a name="voting-ensures-you-did-little"></a>

#### Voting ensures no matter your personal growth, you are equal to the lesser, and that you are always canceled by greater numbers of people who forgo the same growth. 

People who really are unconcerned with growth, or are unable to grow, and actively prefer not improving, will always have a group of people who will cancel your voting power, even if you have grown, become more educated, more moral, more public, and more immune to any personal criticism than others. Your former self would cancel the vote of your later self even if your later self is known to have critical information that was lacking in the former self. Given everyone was a child, this means that your older self would largely cancel the mind of your lower self, and you did do that, as you replaced later knowledge with earlier misguided information and you replaced ignorance with organized brain tissue. An implication also is that the younger cancel the older. It is known that the interests of the youth must be attended to; however, the interests of the youth includes all people who were younger than their grown selves, which would include votes that people might wish to cancel, once they are grown into their later selves. Many who reflect back to their first voting experiences would understand, that they may not have chosen as they did later, but more importantly, consider themselves better than they were when they had their first voting experience. Since most think they improve with maturity (they don't in all ways), they would recognize that their earlier selves probably shouldn't cancel their later selves in voting. Knowing this would apply to all people who have grown, it means we naturally want the youths to have less voting influence if we relfect on oursleves and extens what we learn regarding our own growth to all people.


<a name="completing-the-topic-of-voting"></a>

#### Completing the Topic of Voting

Can one read such objections as those above and still really think of voting the same way, with the same seriousness, and desire for unchanging ritual ceremony?

There are few incentives to work on improving voting, but sufficient sustained personal interest. My primary interest in voting appears to relate to my knowledge of the issues and the frequency of being reminded about the ignorance that exists, and urges in the media to vote, coming from those who appear to be recollecting only. People repeat the ignorant cycle without changing much thinking concerning it, and each time the topic arises, the incredible ignorance comes into view, and there is a desire to communicate the issues. However, having communicated the issues, I've found that even friends and family members fail to understand, remember and retain the information, and return for each voting election, with a mind wiped clean except for what is recollected from traditional indoctrination. The conversations repeat, in the same way, and with the same information, as is to be expected with the ritual.

If I were suddenly asked to work on this process, in an planning and architectural leadership capacity, like in my work for large corporations, I would do so, because under such circumstances I would be paid, and I might have a reasonable chance of succeeding, and would likely have a receptive audience. Until such a time, I'm not adequately interested in resuming thinking on this. In my personal life, it is much better to abstain from further consideration, because really the topic appears complete, in the sense that the objections sufficiently justify disinterest and inaction.

The next time elections come around, I will not be celebrating, joining, critiquing, or working to improve the process, any further than I've done, pointing out clear and obvious areas of concern, and potential pathways for improvement.

*Ended Writing: Sunday, August 7<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>4:49 PM Alaska Time</time>

*[Finished in thout edits, spellcheck, grammar check, or reading. Finished at 4:30 pm]*

*Author: Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh*

- Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
- B.S. Psychology, University of Maryland,
- B.S. Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland,
- B.A. Philosophy (Nearly Completed, 2003), University of Maryland.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

- [cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu](mailto:cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu)
- [mattanaw@mattanaw.org](mailto:mattanaw@mattanaw.org)
- [christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org](mailto:christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org)

References:


Notes:

<sup>1</sup>. Proper nouns for job titles are not capticalized within Mattanaw's evolving system of writing. These result in an automatic respect which has not been justified.

<sup>2</sup>. Proper nouns for names of countries and holidays are not capticalized within Mattanaw's evolving system of writing. These result in an automatic respect which has not been justified.

Link:

[http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#foolishness-of-the-common-trust-in-voting](http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#foolishness-of-the-common-trust-in-voting)

Log:

- Started at 12:14 pm, November 17<sup>th</sup>, 2022 Brisbane Time.
- Stopped at 2:16 pm, November 17<sup>th</sup>, 2022 Brisbane Time.
  - 2895 words, calculated using Unix wordcount, wc program.
  - 9.65 pages, computed assuming 300 words per print page.
  - Few edits, very little reading of what's typed, partly blind-typed, spell check shows 16 uncorrected typos.
  - Slow pace. Unrushed.
- Started at approximately 2:00 pm, November 20<sup>th</sup>, 2022 Cairns Time.
  - Spent roughly 2 hours writing.
  - 6366 words, calculated using Unix wordcount, wc program.
  - 3471 new words, calculated using Unix wordcount, wc program.
  - 11.57 new pages, computed assuming 300 words per print page.
  - 21.22 total pages.
  - Few edits, very little reading of what's typed, partly blind-typed, spell check shows 16 uncorrected typos.
  - Slow pace. Unrushed.


## <a name="notes">Notes</a>

To Add

## <a name="references">References</a>

To Add

## <a name="glossary">Glossary</a>

*Fleurifigate*

Fleurifigation is writing that is performed without any feedback. It is akin to thinking and speaking, in that what is thought and spoken does not have opportunity for review at the time that the thinking and speaking occurs. Thinking does not have a chance for edits before the thoughts are complete; instead, thinking happens, review takes place in the mind, and some subsequent revision takes place, if the thinker wishes to improve on those thoughts. However, those thoughts that are considered further are as-is, and are a one time occasion. Likewise, speaking aloud does not permit of alteration as the speaking has happened. Speaking, like thinking, can be reconsidered after what was spoken was said, but what has been said is complete. Subsequent expressions in oral communication happening afterwards on reflection may be improvements on what was said but do not replace what was said. Thinking and speech are each performed in sequence and are forever unalterable as they occur. Fleurifigation is the writing act that is akin to the thinking and speech act. It is writing from the mind without revision directly to a medium without chance for revision. Unlike writing, thinking and speech does not include a recording that can be experienced nearly in parallel with that thinking and speech; typically, as one writes, one can see the output. If it is written with a keyboard typically there is a screen showing the output nearly in parallel as one is doing the typing. Writing on paper is similar, as one writes, one can see the output on paper, and the output on paper is happening nearly in parallel as one is making pen or pencil strokes. Fleurifigation however, is the writing or typing act in which one does not get to see the results in parallel to the activity. Fleurifigate writing shows no feedback of what is written to the writer. One way this can be achieved is to write without being able to see what is being written by covering the hand and the paper, or by keeping the hand and paper entirely out of view so the writings on the paper cannot be seen. Fleurifigate writing, the kind that the author spends time doing, is typing on a keyboard without at all seeing any characters, words, sentences, or paragraphs appear on the screen. The writing is done "blindly" with the words only being recorded into the computer using a program that provides no visual of what has been written as it is recorded. 

Fleurifigate writing is writing directly from the mind through the fingers. In addition to being written as one thinks, the thinking includes little to no editing within the mind. Instead what is thought is immediately typed, making the mind flow through the arms, hands and fingers, onto the keyboard, and into the computer. The result is that what has been written is closely related to how one is thinking as the writing comes out, and there is no opportunity to make changes as the writing comes out.

Fleurifigation creates the opportunity to examine the mind of the writer by reading over the recordings. It provides a chance to time the mind as it thinks, by having a start and end time to each writing. It gives a scientific way to analyze the quality of thinking occurring and the quantity of ideation. This relates to the efforts that are communicated in the book *The Velocity of Significance and Ideation*, which argues that intelligence can be verified or confirmed, and perhaps accurately measured, using communications, which allow for more direct examination of the brain as it thinks. The speed of the writing indicates to some extent the speed and quality of thinking. The speed of the writing also exhibits the quality of the virtuosity of the writer or typist, because errors may be collected, and compared against the quality of what remains that is error free. The significance of the writing can be examined, in a similar way to essays examined in college admissions, but are better than these because they have come directly from the mind without chance to edit. The more significant the writing, the more sophisticated the thinker is. The speed of the typing and recording also expresses the velocity of the thinking during writing, and provides information about the fastness of the communication of significance and ideation. As one writes, one is having ideas too, and the speed of ideation "on the fly" can be captured by using timed fleurifigations.

Fleurifigation can also provide authentication of authorship. Speeds of typing, errors made, word choice selected, and sentence construction, and way of punctuating, leave a signature in the writing. This signature is the unique writing style and execution of the thinker doing the writing. Using this writing, subsequent writings can be used to confirm that the author is really the author versus another person or an artificial intelligence system.

