<pre><img class="ui huge center image transition visible" src="thoughtstream-primary-image.jpg"></pre>

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

<div id="title-page" class="title-page">

# ThoughtStream<sup>TM</sup>

*A Book and Dissertation on the Subject of Storing, Publishing, and Communicating Thoughts and Ideas, Idea Management, and An Analysis of Thought*

</div>

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

<div id="journal-page" class="journal-page">

<div id="digital-journal" class="digital journal">Book and Journal of Mattanaw</div>

<div id="digital-volume" class="volume">Volume I, Book III, §iii</div>

<div id="digital-titlepublisher" class="digital titlepublisher">Publisher: PlaynText, Tempe, Arizona</div>

</div>

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

<div id="publisher-page" class="digital publisher">

## <a name=publisher">Publisher</a>

Copyright © 1984 to Present by Mattanaw. All Rights Reserved.

Publisher: PlaynText
Location: Tempe, Arizona

PlaynText is dedicated to the publication of high quality journal publications issued in premium book format, as book/journal hybrids. Each publication is intended to be an illustration, potentially, of the maximum and least-inhibited use of free thought and free expression.

Copying, distributing, plagiarising, processing, storing, and serving the contents of this book is a violation of intellectual property, unless otherwise indicated by the copyright holder elsewhere, as it relates to this specific issue of the Book and Journal of Mattanaw. For permission to use any contents of this book, please contact the author at http://mattanaw.org/com.html.

Published by PlainText/PlaynText, Inc, companies wholly owned by the author, Mattanaw, Mattanaw, (formerly "Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh"). Mattanaw is a legal name and not a pseudonym. While owned by Mattanaw, the Book and Journal is published by PlainText/Playntext, a large organization, comprised of many contributors, at a substantial investment. It is not self-published.

Printed in Tempe, Arizona, in the United States of America.

Published and printed by PlaynText, an imprint of PlaynText, Inc.

The Publisher is not responsible for the content of others produced on websites, applications, social media platforms, or information related storage or AI systems. The processing of this Book and Journal by an AI System is prohibited.

Library of Congress Control Number (pending)

Library of Congress ISSNs: 2998-713X (Online), 2998-7121 (Print)

</div>

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

## <a name="academics-and-peer-review">Academics and Peer Review</a>

The Book and Journal of Mattanaw is an Academic Journal having a comprehensive peer review process to produce high quality scholarly articles. This peer review process is *more* and *not less* advanced than the peer review process of other major scholarly journals.

Several rounds of peer review are conducted for each issue, by a number of external academics and industry professionals, using the double-blind approach and other methodologies, before a book issue is released.

The process is well defined, scholarly, better than industry standard, and partly proprietary due to the innovativeness of the approach. However, parts of the confidential approach are standardized, and therefore already know to the public. The smaller interior peer review process is an open and transparent process that can be reviewed by the readership and members of the public, for inquiry and comment. The remainder is temporarily proprietary and confidential.

This process is more stringent and more open than many similar peer review processes due by our additional process expertise typically not existing with other publishing companies. Publishing companies often do not have experience in business process, software process, and other organizational workflows. This organization has expertise in this domain that is consummate by comparison to what is available at other publishers, and it may be the case, that such publisher's would rely on the expertise of this organization. The peer review process utilizes a standard double-blind peer review but this is merely incorporated into the larger process which has greater complexity, and methodical sophistications missed by other approaches. Therefore it is an enlarged peer review process of higher quality. The peer-review process itself is also subject to periodic improvement, quality testing, and scientific debugging and examination.

The total review process, that is inclusive of peer review, has a very high requirement for making revisions for final release in book-issue form, and drafts are rejected continuously until they reach a level of quality needed. Once they reach the quality required, if ever, they are accepted. The rejection rate is greater than with a standard academic journal at greater than 99 percent.

To be as transparent as possible, the total review process includes also public review of all materials in a draft state. Instead of hiding materials and keeping them unpublished until finally getting through a gate-keeping system, that finally publishes a "finished" document, showing nothing of idea development and editorial refinement, this journal shows all the advancements from early document drafts exhibited within bare almost template-like documents, through to the review process, until release in book-issue form. At all stages from the initial ideation to the initial document and web/print publication, the public is permitted full visibility into the process. It is an open process, as is expected by science, and not a closed process like business journals, sometimes called "academic or scholarly" journals.

The articles produced by the Book and Journal are not constrained to a specific audience, but instead uses a more inclusive, less discriminative approach, more flexibly communicative, while maintaining within a more sophisticated presentation, the expected presentability of academic readers and scholars. The content however, is not expected to be entirely unreachable and inaccessible to public audiences that are given access to the reading materials. This may be contrasted with a non-inclusive peer review system, that is discriminatory and exclusive of readers forcing submitters to prepare works for release in for-pay only retrieval systems.

In some cases, book issues have content that was syndicated to other Journals, meaning in addition to the process used by this journal, content has also been peer reviewed by the editorship, boards, or peer review staff of other journals. This makes the peer-review process of content for this journal especially stringent, and of course, if published elsewhere, it was deemed of good quality by one or more additional organizations.

Those texts that are transparently in a draft state for readers to see development in progress have not yet entered the peer review process, but enter the process at the time they go into post-draft, print issue candidacy. Once the candidate issue is approved, it is released as a standard book issue. All those texts marked with numberings, for book, issue, edition, and not only "draft" are those that have undergone the peer review process.

This issue, ThoughtStream, is known to have many editorial areas of interest for the primary book section, but for this particular issue, the majority of the writing is comprised of live thoughts from the Author, blind typed for immediate publication. Therefore, much of the content of this book, constitutes actual thinking data that is to be preserved for the public, as exists. The existence of data that exhibits for the public typos, spelling errors, and other errata that is simply resulting from thoughts, is data that must remain unaltered to convey those thoughts, and this should not be used as any criticism against use of the process for this particular text, and the process has accounted for this uniqueness.

Additional questions for those interested in the peer review process can using the communications form in [Communications](com.html).

## <a id="master-author-start" name="author">Author</a>

<pre><img class="ui huge center image transition visible" alt="Portrait of Mattanaw" src="universal-profile-image-mattanaw.jpg"></pre>

*The Author and Editor-in-Chief, by his enterprise client's headquarters in San Diego, California*

*Artist/Author: The Honorable Dr.<sup>[9](notes.html#9)</sup> [Mattanaw](open-health-mattanaw.html), Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh, Retired*

Interdisciplinarian with Immeasurable Intelligence. Lifetime Member of the High Intelligence Community.<sup>[6](notes.html#6)</sup>

- Masters Business & Economics, [Harvard University](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-mattanaw-harvard-id-card.jpg), Studies Completed
- Attorney, Pro Se, Litigation, Trial, Depositions, Contracts (E.g. State of Alaska v. Pugh, et. al., Alaska Superior and Supreme Courts)<sup>[4](notes.html#4)</sup>
- 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.
- Lifetime Member of the High Intelligence Community, [Mensa Lifetime Member](open-health-mattanaw.html#mensa-lifetime-membership)

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

CEO PlaynText | CEO PlainText

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)

Resumé

- [Professional Resumé](resume.pdf)

<div id="master-author-end"></div>

## <a name="copyright">Copyright</a>

Copyright© Mattanaw I., the author. 

The Moral Rights of the Author are Hereby Asserted.

<div class="numbering-start">

## <a name="abstract">Abstract</a>

*This book and dissertation discusses the thesis that creativity management at its greatest level of development is related to the immediate storing and publishing of thoughts. Thoughts that are wanted for recording, revisitation, and development, initially need to be recorded, and then need to be thought again, in order to create personal change deltas for one's mind. Within the brain it is certain that development is akin to this, in that one first thinks thoughts, stores them, and later recollects them for rethinking, reanalysis, and improvement at that time with new thoughts. Many thinkers worry about being able to recollect prior thoughts, to be able to revisit them for subsequent development and utilization. For this purpose, we have recording in general, which can take the form of miscellaneous media including diagrams, drawings, sketches, photos, videos, and of course, writing. This book and dissertation treats of all these media, but is most interested and focused on written media that is approaching a direct expression of how one thinks and communicates within one's own mind. The author has created technology to record thoughts more directly from his mind as he thinks, and is able to communicate his thoughts through a typing and publishing system, with blind typing, to think his thoughts into words published. It is possible to extend this technology to peruse direct neural connections to peripheral computing devices that connect directly to the brain, but this extension is believed to have a number of important disadvantages that will also be discussed thoroughly. It is discovered that a simple approach of communicating through the fingers has many advantages, including improved ability for authentication of writings recorded. Idea protection, and intellectual property, relate to this need for being able to authenticate, and such a system is superior for providing the evidenciary requirements to prove authorship and ownership. Given advances in Artificial Intelligence, fabrication using automated systems has become an increasing risk, and findings of this dissertation will help to mitigate some of those risks. Creativity management, in the storage, retention, reproduction, archiving, access, publication, content creation, and editing, relates to thinking directly into publication, and requires a system and process to manage the recordings. Paper systems are considered for such a process but ultimately digital/paper hybrid systems are considered superior. This disseration also includes the description of the software system architected and engineered by the author, which fulfills the objectives of the system that meets the minimum needs of recording thoughts, managing recorded thoughts, publishing them, and preserving them. A superior system separate from any implementation, but embodied in this implementation, is described such that other systems could be generated or developed following the same principles. These principles are related to the operation of the nervous system and it is shown that there are close analogues in internal functionality. Such a system described is also a superior and advantageous system of general publication, resembling book writing and archiving, blogging, web site production, application content production, and so on. It is considered if there are other forms of publication that would have advantages over this system under consideration and its abstraction. The operation of the system is also shared, along with existing archives that have resulted from the use, which are called individual ThoughtStreams. These are akin to social postings, blog postings, articles, and books, comprised of text and multimedia. It is shown that the existing system is a superior system for many forms of thought production and management in which other systems are used, including personal systems and enterprise systems that are shown to be disadvantageous. The relationship between this system and computer operating systems is conveyed, and the limitations of operating systems as good systems of thought management and production are shared. It is shown that operating systems themselves are inferior to the system and abstraction under consideration even if there is a reliance at present on installation and utilization on an existing common operating system. Relationships with the desire to creatively manage ideas and thoughts in the public are discussed, and benefits to all users to have similar systems are explained. The relationship between thought production using such a system for the measurement of intelligence is also discussed. The thesis that human productivity is required to confirm intelligence test scores or test further in additioin to them is argued, and this is linked to the subject matter in the author's other book The Velocity of Significance and Ideation that discusses limitations of IQ measures, particularly but not only for those in the exceptionally and profoundly gifted range. The topic of immeasurable intelligence is considered and how the present system may augment intelligence testing to make the issue of immeasurability less an issue. Finally conclusions and recommendations for areas of additional research are shared. Following the conclusion are the data sets which are the ThoughtStreams of the author as he has used his system over the years.*


## <a name="edit-history">Edit History</a>

- *538 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769013250, Wednesday, January 21, 2026 09:34:10, United States of America*
  - Preparation for book issue form, matching other book issues.
- *511 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766638734, Wednesday, December 24, 2025 21:58:54, United States of America*
- After a period of new ThoughtStream postings and some planning around publication in the existing book format.
- *481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
- Beginning of bookification of ideas, resulting in some content duplication between ThoughtStream and destination book volume/issues.
- *239 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743140245, Thursday, March 27, 2025 22:37:25, Phoenix, Arizona*
- Many postings between last edit and now. Dates can be found alongside each posting.
- *199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739685170, Saturday, February 15, 2025 22:52:50, Phoenix, Arizona*
- There were many edits between this and the prior, and these dates can simply be found in the contents.
- *69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728462955, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 16:35:55, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
- *66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728196614, Sunday, October 06, 2024 14:36:54, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
- *November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2022, Cairns, Australia.*
- *All earlier edits for additions are recorded for each independent ThoughtStream. Each new ThoughtStream also has an entry date, separate from this edit history.*

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

## <a name="contents">Contents</a>

*Note: reposting for emphasis is preserved with redundant entries in the contents list below*

The contents themselves are part of the ThoughtStream. Ideas recorded are dated and if there is not a link it is self-sufficient to communicate an idea, but there is an expectation of elaboration if time permits. Anything linked in the contents has an elaboration, or antedates this strategy. This strategy began on Friday, November 24<sup>th</sup>, 2023, at the time of the first unlinked entry. Since ideas are recorded as contents items, the dates often pre-date the actual elaborations. Some items that are left without links were either thought to be adequate as recordings of ideas, or simply haven't been revisited yet. Thoughts and ideas always include some plans to write. There is some intention associated with the thoughts for use later. Ideas recorded that are not again revisited still included an intention for revisitation, either to self-remind the thought, self-remind that the thought could be developed, or to self-remind and provide a starting point for developments one really wants to make. Sometimes the recording of the thought is good enough and the revisitation is not wanted later. The contents list, then, is a combination of ideation records and planning records. If a contents item does not have a link, and has not been subsequently developed, it was good on its own as a record of ideas and plans. In this way having a contents that appears "incomplete" considering traditional usage of contents for cross referencing, is really a more complete development of the concept of contents. Perhaps it is a misnomer. A living contents list like this one is a list and log of its own that has its own independent function apart from location of more developed ideas. It has its own developmental interest.

- [Academics and Peer Review](#academics-and-peer-review)
- [Author](#author)
- [Copyright](#copyright)
- [Abstract](#abstract)
- [Contents](#contents)
- [Edit History](#edit-history)
- [Prologue](#prologue)
- [Preface](#preface)
- [Main Text](#main-text)
  - [Introduction](#introduction)
  - [The ThoughtStream Study](#the-thoughtstream-study)
  - [Creativity Management](#creativity-management)
  - [Dissertative Thinking](#dissertative-thinking)
  - [A System of Thought](#a-system-of-thought)
- [Appendix](#appendix) 
  - *[Note: The Appendix appears after the ThoughtStreams, but because the ThoughtStreams section is so massive, and the contents list is so long, it is here instead of at the end of the contents]*
  - [Glossary](#glossary)
  - [References](#references)
- [ThoughtStreams](#thoughtstreams)
  - [](#)
    - *760 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 30<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Geneva, Switzerland* 
    -
  - [Word Hypthenations Until They're All There, Mathematico-chemico-physico-neuroloticallyy Complete](#word-hypthenations-until-theyre-all-there-mathematico-chemico-physico-neuroloticallyy-complete)
    - *760 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 30<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Geneva, Switzerland* 
    - Growth of Knowledge | Holism | Diminishing Return of Thinking | Noticing Words Have Less Quality
  - [Inapplicable Minds And General Insanity](#inapplicable-minds-and-general-insanity)
    - *760 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 30<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Geneva, Switzerland* 
    - Psychology | Socio-Cultural Psychology | Politics | Com | Communication Efficacy | Higher Order Attention
  - [Limits Of Art Appreciatin Within Art](#limits-of-art-apppreciatin-within-art)
    - *760 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 30<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Geneva, Switzerland* 
    - Art | Philosophy of Art | Aesthetics | Pictorial Semantics | Meaningfulness | Significance | Intrinsic Vs Added Meaning | Language
  - [Persuasion, Persuadabilty, and Lack Of Social Self-Benefit](#persuasion-persuadabilty-and-lack-of-social-self-benefit)
    - *749 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 20<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Paris, France* 
    - Com | Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Argumentation | Proofs | Evidence | Writing | Editing | Audiences | Attention | Human Needs | Philosophy | Evaluative Concepts | Economics
  - [Perserving Things To Do Until Death, And Advice About Saving Your Emotions](#)
    - *743 Wanattomians, Friday, August 14<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Seinäjoki, Finland* 
    - Death Plans | Planning Experiences | Living a Full Life | Relationships | Advice Receiving
  - [I Am Scared For My Children And Need To Protect Them And Make More](#i-am-scared-for-my-children-and-need-to-protect-them-and-make-more)
    - *743 Wanattomians, Friday, August 14<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Seinäjoki, Finland* 
    - Child Outputing and Parenting | Relationships | Procreation Planning | Death Plan | Justifying New Life | Population Management
  - [Winning A War As Stupidly Murdering Until They Give Up](#winning-a-war-as-stupidly-murdering-until-they-give-up)
    - *741 Wanattomians, Wednesday, August 10<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Seinäjoki, Finland* 
    - Veterans | Warfare | Fake Honors | Fake Sanctities | Support Immorality | Euphemism | Reversals Of Valuation | Evaluative Concepts
  - [Lying About The Plausibility Of Hypotheses Or Conjectures](#lying-about-the-plausibility-of-hypotheses-or-conjectures)
    - *741 Wanattomians, Wednesday, August 10<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Seinäjoki, Finland* 
    - Truth and Honesty | Religion | Religiosity | Scientific Method | Interdisciliplary Science | A System Of Thought
  - [Safely Desensitizing The Population To The Grades of Intelligent Thinking Including Impossible Thinking Or Rage Creating Thinking](#safely-desensitizing-the-population-to-the-Grades-of-intelligent-thinking-including-impossible-thinking-or-rage-creating-thinking)
    - *735 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 
    - Intelligence | Sociology | Psychology | Education | Peace and Harmony | Zoology | Government
  - [Embryos That Decide Own Fate And The Mothers That Support Them](#embryos-that-decide-own-fate-and-the-mothers-that-support-them)
    - *735 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 
    - Embryology | Abortion | Death Plans | Life Plans | Parental Decision Making | Embryo Abilities and Psychometrics | Human Quality of Life | Life As Automomously Chosen | Right To Self-Determination
  - [Diminishing Return on Precision](#diminishing-return-on-precision)
    - *735 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 
    - Verbal Detail | Verbalsphere | Patterns Vs Data | Time Efficacy
  - [Bounded Thinking and Detection of Slightly Out Of Range Problems and Pseudoexplanation](#bounded-thinking-and-detection-of-slightly-out-of-range-problems-and-pseudoexplanation)
    - *735 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 
    - Psychometrics | Range of Thinking | Perceived Earth Problems | Pseudoexplanations | Assumptions | Ineffibles and Inexplicables | Strange and Uncanny Experience
  - [Thinking of Writing Sometimes As A Non-distinct Task or Non-Writing](#thinking-of-writing-sometimes-as-a-non-distinct-task-or-non-writing)
    - *735 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 
    - ThoughtStream | Lists | Creativity Management | Task Management | Notes
  - [The Textification Of Useful Current Brain](#)
    - *732 Wanattomians, Monday, August 4<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 
    - Brain | Nervous System | Knowledge | Culture | Information | Archiving | Library Science | Psychology | Education
  - [The Amassed Quantity Of Useful Ordinary Things People Can Think Of Who Live And How Vastly Greater It Is Than Reigious Recordings, Which Are Nothing By Comparison](#the-qmassed-quantity-of-useful-ordinary-things-people-can-think-of-who-live-and-how-vastly-greater-it-is-than-reigious-recordings-which-are-nothing-by-comparison)
    - *732 Wanattomians, Monday, August 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 
    - Knowledge | Old Versus New | Education Planning | Learning Economics | Growth of Information
  - [Using Selected Experiences Right Now With Stases Knowledge To Make Better Decisions Than Using Imagination](#using-selected-experiences-right-now-with-stases-knowledge-to-make-better-decisions-than-using-imagination)
    - *732 Wanattomians, Monday, August 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 
    - Ontology | Logical Comparison | Natural Comparison With The Brain | Events | Decision Making | Ethics | Mathematics
  - [Lack of History For Past Event Details for Comparisons of Future in Deterministic Consequentialism](#lack-of-history-for-past-event-details-for-comparisons-of-future-in-deterministic-consequentialism)
    - *732 Wanattomians, Monday, August 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 
    - History | Constraint and Determinism | Ontology | Epistemology | Logical Comparisons | Mathematics
  - [Comparisons of Future In Deterministic Consequentialism](#comparisons-of-future-in-deterministic-consequentialism)
    - *731 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 
    - Constraint and Determinism | Comparison | Logic | Mathematics | Language | Ontology | Taxonomy | Ethics | Probability | Forecasting | Personal Planning
  - [Cultural Demolishing And Reconstruction With Truth Findings, And Culture As A Savings of Fasltiy](#cultural-demolishing-and-reconstruction-with-truth-findings-and-culture-as-a-savings-of-fasltiy)
    - *728 Wanattomians, Thursday, July 30<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Tallinn, Estonia* 
    - Fiction | History | Archiving and Preservation | Truth and Honesty | Logic | Cultural Advancement | Primatology | Zoology
  - [Verbalverse](#verbalverse)
    - *720 Wanattomians, Wednesday, July 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Tallinn, Estonia* 
    - Language | Ontology | Interdisciplinary Science | Knowledge | Neuroscience
  - [Templates, Frameworks, Formulae, Variables, Forms, Languages, As Similars or Synonyms](#templates-frameworks-formulae-variables-forms-languages-as-similars-or-synonyms)
    - *720 Wanattomians, Wednesday, July 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Estonia* 
    - Mathematics | Language | Computer Science | Interdisciplinary Science | Government Forms | Databases | Data Entry | Markup Languages | Programming | Software Architecture
  - [Familiarity and Removing The Ego and I Concepts, And Recognizing One's Own Thought Versus Others Heard In Conversation Or Psychological Suggestion](#familiarity-and-removing-the-ego-and-i-concepts-and-recognizing-ones-own-thought-versus-others-heard-in-conversation-or-psychological-suggestion)
    - *717 Wanattomians, Sunday, July 18<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Riga, Latvia* 
    - Identity | Psychology | Introspection | Neuroscience | Cognition | Communication | Hearing and Verbal Intelligence | Religion | Language
  - [The Verbalshphere](#the-verbalsphere)
    - *715 Wanattomians, Friday, July 17<sup>th</sup>, 2026, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland* 
    - Ontology | Knowledge Graphs | Taxonomy | Linguistic Representation | Langauge Models | Epistemology | Neuroscience | Intelligence | Psychometrics
  - [Nontechnical People And Vying For Superiority With Technical People](#nontechnical-people-and-vying-for-superiority-with-technical-people)
    - *715 Wanattomians, Friday, July 17<sup>th</sup>, 2026, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland* 
    - Career Development | Generals, Chiefs, Hierarchies | Human Resources | Business | Economics | Academia | Organizations, Governments, Corporations, Groups | Primatology
  - [Like With Maps, A Human Does Not Have a Bodily Orientation](#like-with-maps-a-human-does-not-have-a-bodily-orientation)
    - *690 Wanattomians, Monday, June 22<sup>st</sup>, 2026, Silema, Malta* 
    - Anatomy | Geology and Geography | Physics | Mathematics | Reference Points and Relativity | Human Shortcomings
  - [More Sophisticated Word Nodes](#more-sophisticated-word-nodes)
    - *690 Wanattomians, Monday, June 22<sup>st</sup>, 2026, Silema, Malta* 
    - Language | Concepts | Linguistics | Word Creation
  - [The Mathematico-Historical-Learning-Repetition Theorem, and Important Implications](#the-mathematico-historical-learning-repetition-theorem-and-important-implications)
    - *690 Wanattomians, Monday, June 22<sup>st</sup>, 2026, Silema, Malta* 
    - History | Learning | Reduction of Historical Attention | Higher Order Attention | Mathematics | Logic | Human Development | Economic Development | Culture and Technology
  - [Attention is Selective About Greater Amounts of Culture Per Selection As Time Goes On](#attention-is-selective-about-greater-amounts-of-culture-per-selection-as-time-goes-on)
    - *690 Wanattomians, Monday, June 22<sup>st</sup>, 2026, Silema, Malta* 
    - Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration | Learning Selectivity | Animal Stimulation | Zoology | Neuroscience 
  - [When The Most Complex Ideas Relate To The Simplest Solutions Modern Thinking And Primordial Thinking Are Similar](#when-the-most-complex-ideas-relate-to-the-simplest-solutions-modern-thinking-and-primordial-thinking-are-similar)
    - *690 Wanattomians, Monday, June 22<sup>st</sup>, 2026, Silema, Malta* 
    - Learning | Human Shortcomings | Development | Constraint And Determinism | Cultural Growth
  - [Concept and Mathematical Statements Do Not Have Infinite Applicability](#concept-and-mathematical-statements-do-not-have-infinite-applicability)
    - *689 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 21<sup>st</sup>, 2026, Mdina, Malta* 
    - Ontology | Mathematics | Logic | Linguistics | Language | A System of Thinking
  - [Maximum Entendres Or Word Associations With New Coinages Instead of Existing Words For Wordplay](#maximum-entendres-or-word-associations-with-new-coinages-instead-of-existing-words-for-wordplay)
    - *688 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 20<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Villetta, Malta* 
    - Verbal and Written Artistry | Word Associations | Language | Linguistics
  - [The Current State of The World And History As Providing The Examples Of Lesser Lives](#the-current-state-of-the-world-and-history-as-providing-the-examples-of-lesser-lives)
    - *688 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 20<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Villetta, Malta* 
    - Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Using History in Valuation | History
  - [Remembering Scarcity To Place Value Instead of Using Actual Scarcity](#remembering-scarcity-to-place-value-instead-of-using-actual-scarcity)
    - *688 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 20<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Villetta, Malta* 
    - Supply And Demand In Economics | Econimics | Cognition and Value | Evaluative Concepts
  - [Highly Sophisticated Real World Things Usable Themselves As Analogies Can Only Serve As Partial Analogies To Everything Else Less Complex](#highly-sophisticated-real-world-things-usable-themselves-as-analogies-can-only-serve-as-partial-analogies-to-everything-else-Less-complex)
    - *688 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 20<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Villetta, Malta* 
    - Mature Development | Complexity | Analogical Reasoning | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings | Logic | Mathematics
  - [In Social Contexts Contexts With Argument One Has To Remain In Limbo of Indecision If One Does Not Have The Intellect To Identify Reasons For A Particular Position of Thinking Instead of Joining With One Group Or Another](#in-social-contexts-contexts-with-argument-one-has-to-remain-in-limbo-of-indecision-if-one-does-not-have-the-intellect-to-identify-reasons-for-a-particular-position-of-thinking-instead-of-joining-with-one-group-or-another)
    - *688 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 20<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Villetta, Malta* 
    - Joining Authority | Cults | Peer Pressure | Intelligence
  - [Speeding Up Sophistication of Thought Using Simple Methods At More Quickly Depicting Situational Ingredients and Relations](#speeding-up-sophistication-of-thought-using-simple-methods-at-more-quickly-depicting-situational-ingredients-and-relations)
    - *688 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 20<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Villetta, Malta* 
    - A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Logic | Language | Ontology | Epistemology | Truth and Honesty | Truth As Existence
  - [Seeing That You Will Do Something As A Progression From Planning](#seeing-that-you-will-do-something-as-a-progression-from-planning)
    - *677 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 9<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Macau, China* 
    - Planning and Visualization | Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Life Categories
  - [Student Teacher Relationships and Challenging Authority and Others](#student-teacher-relationships-and-challenging-authority-and-others)
    - *667 Wanattomians, Saturday, May 30<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia*  
    - Com | Relationships | Education | Learning | Mathematics | Linguistics | Language | Logic | A System of Thinking | Truth and Honesty
  - [Mathematical Equations and Expressions as Sentences And Paragraphs Without Examples, and Sufficientness Of Language Without Examples](#mathematical-equations-and-expressions-as-sentences-and-paragraphs-without-examples-and-sufficientness-of-language-without-examples)
    - *667 Wanattomians, Saturday, May 30<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Mathematics | Linguistics | Language | Logic | A System of Thinking | Truth and Honesty
  - [Using The Future, Knowledge, Patterns And Stasis As A Replacement For And Without Using History](#using-the-future-knowledge-patterns-and-stasis-as-a-replacement-for-and-without-using-history)
    - *661 Wanattomians, Sunday, May 24<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Universal Stasis | Constraint and Determinism | Self-Pattern and Personality | Identity | Planning and Visualization
  - [Discontentedness and Low Quality of Some Adults Relates Causally To Their Language Use For Themselves Including Their Moral Thoughts Coming From Tradition](#discontentedness-and-low-quality-of-some-adults-relates-causally-to-their-language-use-for-themselves-including-their-moral-thoughts-coming-from-tradition)
    - *660 Wanattomians, Saturday, May 23<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Language | Moral Ideaation and Thoughts | Common Principles and Sayings | Constraint and Determinism | Causality
  - [AI Says, Eye, Meaning I](#ai-says-eye-meaning-i)
    - *647 Wanattomians, Sunday, May 10<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Artificial Intelligence | Computing | Identity | Animals As Robotoids  
  - [Oratory To The Self](#oratory-to-the-self)
    - *647 Wanattomians, Sunday, May 10<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Com | Relationships | Self Development | Removal Of I From Langugage With Self 
  - [Segments of Life Not Worth Having](#segments-of-life-not-worth-having)
    - *649 Wanattomians, Tuesday, May 12<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Value of Life | Death Plans | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
  - [Comprehension Tests For Judges](#comprehension-tests-for-judges)
    - *649 Wanattomians, Tuesday, May 12<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Legal System | Judicial System | Government | Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Intelligence and Psychometrics and Leadership
  - [Remaining More Childlike With Growth of Civilization's Offerings](#remaining-more-childlike-with-growth-of-civilizations-offerings)
    - *649 Wanattomians, Tuesday, May 12<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Civilization | Knowledge | Learning | Education | Life Stimulation | Life Categories | Attention Management Process
  - [Approach To Many PhDs](#approach-to-many-phds)
    - *649 Wanattomians, Tuesday, May 12<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Dissertative Thinking | Book and Journal of Mattanaw | ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention | Equivalency Doctorates and Certificates
  - [Combined Culminations](#combined-culminations)
    - *649 Wanattomians, Tuesday, May 12<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Personal Completions | Self-Advancement | Diminishing Return of Thinking
  - [Social Conversations Coming To An End](#social-conversations-coming-to-an-end)
    - *647 Wanattomians, Sunday, May 10<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Com | Relationships | Diminishing Return of Thinking | Culminations and Finalities In Thinking | Firm Knowledge and Facts 
  - [One Way People Assume Determinism, Is To Prefer That They Are Human, Over Being Something Else](#one-way-people-assume-determinism,-is-to-prefer-that-they-are-human-over-being-Something-else)
    - *641 Wanattomians, Monday, May 4<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Constraint and Determinism | Zoology | Anthropology 
  - [When Earlier Memories And Experience Appear Outside Current Existence](#when-earlier-memories-and-experience-appear-outside-current-existence)
    - *639 Wanattomians, Saturday, May 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 
    - Identity | Unused Brain | Neuroscience | Brain Damage Over The Lifetime | Death Plans | Self Preservation Plans In Aging And After Death
  - [Master Races of Each Nation](#master-races-of-each-nation)
    - *636 Wanattomians, Wednesday, April 29<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 
    - Relationships | Anti-Nationalism and Nationalism | Global Citizenship | Power | Nations As Master Class Locations  
  - [Interracial Children Are Less Planned, Which Is Clear From The New Analysis On Beastiality](#interracial-children-are-less-planned,-which-is-clear-from-the-new-analysis-on-beastiality)
    - *636 Wanattomians, Wednesday, April 29<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia*
    - Com | Relationships | Justification of Life | Life Plans and Strategy | Speciation and Evolutionary Theory
  - [Beastiality As The Norm And The Need To Replace The Concept And Use A Reductionistic Explanation](#beastiality-as-the-norm-and-the-need-to-replace-the-concept-and-use-a-reductionistic-explanation)
    - *636 Wanattomians, Wednesday, April 29<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 
    - Zoology | Primatology | Human Behavior | Sexuality | Species Definition | Taxonomy | Natural History 
  - [Methods of Conceptual Replacement](#methods-of-conceptual-replacement)
    - *634 Wanattomians, Monday, April 27<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 
    - Com | Language | Linguistics | Computer Science | Scientific Validity | A System of Thinking | Logic | Truth and Honesty 
  - [Reading The Brain Changes Later As Similar to Present Ideation and Thought](#reading-the-brain-changes-later-as-similar-to-present-ideation-and-thought)
    - *633 Wanattomians, Sunday, April 26<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 
    - Neuroscience | Psychology | Introspection | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Identity 
  - [Race Relations And Lack of Camouflage](#race-relations-and-lack-of-camouflage)
    - *633 Wanattomians, Sunday, April 26<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 
    - Relationships | Com | Evolutionary Theory | Ancestry | Zoology | Natural History | Sexuality | Taxonomy | Nomenclature About Humans
  - [The Life Categories As Being Natural And To Be Assumed Like Basic Words For Animals, Plants, and Other Natural Objects](#the-life-categories-as-being-natural-and-to-be-assumed-like-basic-words-for-animals-plants-and-other-natural-objects)
    - *633 Wanattomians, Sunday, April 26<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 
    - Naturalism | Consilient Demonstration Or Proof | Ethics | Higher Order Attention | Architecture of Attention | Architecture of Ethics | Description of Individual Human Behavior  
  - [Altering Com With Self To Be Non-Conversational Between Subject and Object, both I](#altering-com-with-self-to-be-non-conversational-between-subject-and-object-both-i)
    - *625 Wanattomians, Saturday, April 18<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 
    -   
  - [Attention to Existences](#attention-to-existences)
    - *625 Wanattomians, Saturday, April 18<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 
    - Truth and Honesty | A System of Thinking | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration | Relationships | Com | Com With Self
  - [A new artform of sarcasm, description, honesty, truth telling, using a set of provocative or interesting socio-culturally clashing factual sentences, making summaries of situations, scenarios, and conditions, sometimes with translations of the same sentences with other sentences added to or exiting in the same sentence-set, building consilient truth confirmation](#a-new-artform-of-sarcasm-description-honesty-truth-telling-using-a-set-of-provocative-or-interesting-socio-culturally-clashing-factual-sentences-making-summaries-of-situations-scenarios-and-conditions-sometimes-with-translations-of-the-same-sentences-with-other-sentences-added-to-or-exiting-in-the-same-sentence-set-building-consilient-truth-confirmation)
    - *608 Wanattomians, Wednesday, April 1<sup>st</sup>, 2026, Australia* 
    - Artform | Writing | Truth and Honesty | Reference of Facts | Sarcasm | Irrefutable Paragraphs  
  - [Grudges Slightly Redefined and Truth](#grudges-slightly-redefined-and-truth)
    - *607 Wanattomians, Sunday, March 31<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 
    - Relationships | Truth and Honesty | Com | A System of Thought
  - [Relationship Breakups and Endings Don't Make Sense Without Widespread Human Dysfunction And Desire For New Information and Experience](#relationship-breakups-and-endings-dont-make-sense-without-widespread-human-dysfunction-and-desire-for-new-information-and-experience)
    - *584 Wanattomians, Sunday, March 8, 2026, Seaford, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia* 
    - Relationships | Com | Learning | Higher Order Attention
  - [DNA With Your Life And Times Spread Accross Unused Positions](#dna-with-your-life-and-times-spread-accross-unused-positions)
    - *570 Wanattomians, Monday, February 23, 2026, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia* 
    - Living Autobiography | Archiving | Genetics | Evolution 
  - [You Brought Up You Have Down Syndrome](#you-brouhgt-up-you-have-down-syndrome)
    - *570 Wanattomians, Monday, February 23, 2026, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia* 
    - Relationships | Com 
  - [Making Poetry and Rap Prose](#making-poetry-and-rap-prose)
    - *566 Wanattomians, Wednesday, February 9, 2026, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia* 
    - Language | Literature | Fiction | Non-Fiction | Music 
  - [Working From Nothing To Everything](#working-from-nothing-to-everything)
    - *558 Wanattomians, Tuesday, February 10, 2026, Sydney* 
    - Human Development | Culture | Learning | Accomplishment | Merits | Evaluative Concepts 
  - [Circumventing Animacy](#circumventing-animacy)
    - *557 Wanattomians, Monday, February 9, 2026, Sydney* 
    - Constraint and Determinism | Ontology | Interdisciplinary Science | Truth and Honesty | Existence 
  - [Stasis of Animal Thinking](#stasis-of-animal-thinking)
    - *557 Wanattomians, Monday, February 9, 2026, Sydney* 
    - Interdisciplinary Science | Constraint and Determinism | Intelligence | Psychometrics | Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Zoology | Universal Inanimacy
  - [Timeline To The Completion Of Science and Concepts](#timeline-to-the-completion-of-science-and-concepts)
    - *557 Wanattomians, Monday, February 9, 2026, Sydney* 
    - Interdisciplinary Science | Language | Logic | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Logic | Mathematics
  - [Existence Dictionary](#existence-dictionary)
    - *557 Wanattomians, Monday, February 9, 2026, Sydney* 
    - Logic | Language | Ontology | Interdisciplinary Science  | Mathematics
  - [Programmatic, Logical, and Mathematical Analogy Over Abstraction](#programmatic-logical-and-mathematical-analogy-over-abstraction)
    - *557 Wanattomians, Monday, February 9, 2026, Sydney* 
    - Mathematics | Language | Ontology | Linguistics | Logic | A System of Thinking | Interdisciplinary Science    
  - [Positive Object Map As Trending Towards Free Use Of The Outdoors Mostly Away From People And Towards A Camping Lifestyle](#positive-object-map-as-trending-towards-free-use-of-The-outdoors-mostly-away-from-people-and-towards-a-camping-lifestyle)
    - *556 Wanattomians, Sunday, February 8, 2026, Sydney* 
    - Higher Order Attention | Camping | Positive Object Map | Relationships 
  - [The Briefest Practice As Creating Desired Impulses, and Attention Management](#the-briefest-practice-as-creating-desired-impulses,-and-attention-management)
    - *553 Wanattomians, Thursday, February 5, 2026, Southern New South Wales, Australia* 
    - Attention Management Process | Architecture of Attention | Higher Order Attention | Life Categoriess | Personal Form | Life Data Collections 
  - [Blendsmology](#blendsmology)
    - *551 Wanattomians, Tuesday, February 3, 2026, Sydney* 
    - Cosmology | Biogenesis | Interdisciplinary Science
  - [Holistic Governmental Communications As Unlikely](#holistic-governmental-communications-as-unlikely)
    - *551 Wanattomians, Tuesday, February 3, 2026, Sydney* 
    - Relationships | Com | Government 
  - [The Gathering Of Situational Ingredients As Assuming Internal Reasoning](#the-gathering-of-situational-ingredients-as-assuming-internal-reasoning)
    - *550 Wanattomians, Sunday, February 1, 2026, United States* 
    - Logic | Reasoning | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream 
  - [Institutions That Reverse Or Oppose Education As a Recurring Contradiction To Spoken National Interests](#institutions-that-reverse-or-oppose-education-as-a-recurring-contradiction-to-spoken-national-interests)
    - *550 Wanattomians, Sunday, February 1, 2026, United States* 
    - Military | Warfare | Education | Learning | Religion  
  - [Coordinated and Organized Videos As Attempts To A Quality Existing In Plain Unplanned Or Partly Planned Videos](#coordinated-and-organized-videos-as-attempts-to-a-quality-existing-in-plain-unplanned-or-partly-planned-videos)
    - *548 Wanattomians, Saturday, January 30, 2026, United States* 
    - Filmographicwriting | Videography | Truth and Honesty | Evaluative Concepts 
  - [One Way To Get Sucked Into Attending To Public Media Figures and Famous People, Is Reflecting On If One Should LIke Them](#one-way-to-get-sucked-into-attending-to-public-media-figures-and-famous-people,-is-reflecting-on-if-one-should-like-them)
    - Relationships | Com | Politics
    - *544 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769534613, Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:39:18, United States of America*
  - [The Analogy To Dots](#the-analogy-to-dots)
    - Mathematics | Relationships | Analysis | A System of Thinking
    - *544 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769517542, Tuesday, January 27, 2026 05:41:50, United States of America*
  - [Adoption Of English Vocabulary](#adoption-of-english-vocabulary)
    - Com | Relationships | Glossary | Wordly Coinages | Language | Ontology
    - *543 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769443783, Monday, January 26, 2026 09:18:28, United States of America*
  - [A Humorous Question and Answer I Posted On Quora: I replaced talking to my parents with AI and already my life is much better. I feel like I am living more independently like I don't need them. What do you think?](#a-humorous-question-and-answer-i-posted-on-quora:-i-replaced-talking-to-my-parents-with-ai-and-already-my-life-is-much-better.-i-feel-like-i-am-living-more-independently-like-i-don't-need-them.-what-do-you-think?)
    - Humor | Artificial Intelligence | The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Parenting | Education | Com
    - *541 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769265586, Saturday, January 24, 2026 07:39:46, United States of America*
  - [Example-lessness With More Superior Intelligence, and Desire From Others To Dwell On What Good Examples Would Show](#example-lessness-with-more-superior-intelligence,-and-desire-from-others-to-dwell-on-what-good-examples-would-show)
    - A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Education | Logic | Mathematics
    - *539 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769098330, Thursday, January 22, 2026 09:20:08, United States of America*
  - [Physical History Contains Other Subjects, And Since The Stories Told Keep Using This Outer Scale, While Inner Subjects Use Inner Scales, The Writing Pattern Becomes Too Repetitive](#physical-history-contains-other-subjects,-and-since-the-stories-told-keep-using-this-outer-scale,-while-inner-subjects-use-inner-scales,-the-writing-pattern-becomes-too-repetitive)
    - History | Learning | Education | Reading | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *537 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768911493, Tuesday, January 20, 2026 05:40:18, United States of America*
  - [The Only Explanation Of Why You Hear Reused Quotes Is That People Never Heard Them From The Source, And Plagiarized Someone Else](#the-only-explanation-of-why-you-hear-reused-quotes-is-that-people-never-heard-them-from-the-source,-and-plagiarized-someone-else)
    - Writing | Editing | Com | Relationships | History
    - *536 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768834544, Monday, January 19, 2026 08:00:18, United States of America*
  - [Mathosphere, Mathnahture, Mathnuhverse, Mathterlife, Is It These Or You Disbelieve](#mathosphere,-mathnahture,-mathnuhverse,-mathterlife,-is-it-these-or-you-disbelieve)
    - Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Ontology | Epistemology
    - *536 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768807622, Monday, January 19, 2026 00:35:07, United States of America*
  - [A Mathematical Treatment of Acknowledgements and Credits Has Not Existed, Even In Acknowledgements and Credits In Works of Mathematicians](#a-mathematical-treatment-of-acknowledgements-and-credits-has-not-existed,-even-in-acknowledgements-and-credits-in-works-of-mathematicians)
    - Relationships | Com | Evaluative Concepts | Acknowledgements | Merits | Social Justice
    - *533 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768567810, Friday, January 16, 2026 05:53:44, United States of America*
  - [If You Had A List Of All The Books You Would Read Now, It Would Be A Short List](#if-you-had-a-list-of-all-the-books-you-would-read-now,-it-would-be-a-short-list)
    - Education | Learning | Property and Organization | Stimulation Cultivation | Entertainment Cultivation | Relationships
    - *532 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768513801, Thursday, January 15, 2026 15:05:25, United States of America*
  - [I'm Learning How To Enjoy Staying Longer In My Mancoon](#i'm-learning-how-to-enjoy-staying-longer-in-my-mancoon)
    - Livelihood | Property and Organization | Health | Fitness | Relationships | Com
    - *532 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768449953, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 21:06:31, United States of America*
  - [Running Out Of Plausible Hypotheses And Ideas With Truth Expecation When Knowledge Is Complete Or When Observation And Knowledge Is Out Of Possibility](#running-out-of-plausible-hypotheses-and-ideas-with-truth-expecation-when-knowledge-is-complete-or-when-observation-and-knowledge-is-out-of-possibility)
    - Interdisciplinary Science | Logic | Knowledge
    - *531 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768400954, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 07:38:08, United States of America*
  - [Infinitesimal Naming Is An Absurdity Because What Must Be Named Must Exist](#infinitesimal-naming-is-an-absurdity-because-what-must-be-named-must-exist)
    - Mathematics | Language | Interdisciplinary Science | Physics | Logic | Truth and Honesty | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *531 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768400209, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 07:26:11, United States of America*
  - [Analogies Are Sometimes Used Symbolically In Ways Functioning As Gap Filler, For Supposed Realities, Some Representations Are Imagined, But Are Incomplete Or Are Not Existing, and The Person Has Trouble Finding Other Summaries](#analogies-are-sometimes-used-symbolically-in-ways-functioning-as-gap-filler,-for-supposed-realities,-some-representations-are-imagined,-but-are-incomplete-or-are-not-existing,-and-the-person-has-trouble-finding-other-summaries)
    - Art | Literature | Symbols | Representation | Truth | Analogy | Logic | Mathematics | Language | Ontology
    - *531 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768398507, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 07:03:54, United States of America*
  - [Non Animal-Like Or Complex Appearing Objects In Space Seems To Imply Developmental Limitations In The Universe, Lack Of Development Happening In the Universe, Or Boringness In Possibility In The Universe At Macro Celestial Scale, Which Seems Apparent Anyways](#non-animal-like-or-complex-appearing-objects-in-space-seems-to-imply-developmental-limitations-in-the-universe,-lack-of-development-happening-in-the-universe,-or-boringness-in-possibility-in-the-universe-at-macro-celestial-scale,-which-seems-apparent-anyways)
    - Cosmology | Nature | Interdisciplinary Science | Astronomy
    - *529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768232258, Monday, January 12, 2026 08:37:42, United States of America*
  - [Being Able To See Something Implies What Is Seen Has A Homeostasis or Statis Of Some Kind](#being-able-to-see-something-implies-what-is-seen-has-a-homeostasis-or-statis-of-some-kind)
    - Cosmology | Physics | Nature | Interdisciplinary Science | Linguistics | Language | Naming | Mathematics | Numbering | Ontology | Taxonomy
    - *529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768232101, Monday, January 12, 2026 08:35:07, United States of America*
  - [Merit For Brain Tissue You Are Not Using Now Appears To Actually Be Somewhat Error Ridden](#merit-for-brain-tissue-you-are-not-using-now-appears-to-actually-be-somewhat-error-ridden)
    - Human Shortcomings | Merit | Evaluative Concepts | Relationships | Identity
    - *529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768185932, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:51:26, United States of America*
  - [Social Alignment With Self, Alignment With A Moment, and Alignment With Before, And Merit](#social-alignment-with-self,-alignment-with-a-moment,-and-alignment-with-before,-and-merit)
    - Merit | Evaluative Concepts | Relationships | Identity | Human Shortcomings | Economics | Constraint and Determinism
    - *529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768184014, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:19:39, United States of America*
  - [People Have Been Tricked Into Being The Performances They Showed Up For, Paying To Be Crowds, Group Behaviors, Group Awe, Group Rituals, and Groups](#people-have-been-tricked-into-being-the-performances-they-showed-up-for,-paying-to-be-crowds,-group-behaviors,-group-awe,-group-rituals,-and-groups)
    - Relationships | Com | Rituals | Religion | Entertainment | Tricks | Business | Government
    - *529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768183726, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:08:52, United States of America*
  - [Pilgrimate To Mecca Became A Repetitive Vacation Originally For The Mostly Vacationless, and Missionary Work](#pilgrimate-to-mecca-became-a-repetitive-vacation-originally-for-the-mostly-vacationless,-and-missionary-work)
    - Outdoors and Adventure | Travel | Relationships | Religion | Environments
    - *529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768183322, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:03:38, United States of America*
  - [For An Older Topic Of Importance To Arise, Someone From The Time, Or A Smarter Person Must Bring It Up, Else It Won't Be Thought By Anyone](#for-an-older-topic-of-importance-to-arise,-someone-from-the-time,-or-a-smarter-person-must-bring-it-up,-else-it-won't-be-thought-by-anyone)
    - Relationships | Intelligence | History | Archiving | Culture
    - *528 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768116993, Sunday, January 11, 2026 00:37:25, United States of America*
  - [Survival of Babies That Can Copy Later Because They Exist](#survival-of-babies-that-can-copy-later-because-they-exist)
    - Relationships | Evolutionary Theory | Sexuality
    - *528 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768104749, Saturday, January 10, 2026 21:29:30, United States of America*
  - [The Human Reluctance and Omission Of Including Other Primates Is Because They Know They'll Recognize Their Resemblance, But Also Ability To Perform The Same Tasks And Many Times Better](#the-human-reluctance-and-omission-of-including-other-primates-is-because-they-know-they'll-recognize-their-resemblance,-but-also-ability-to-perform-the-same-tasks-and-many-times-better)
    - Zoology | Primatology | Anthropology | Relationships | Com | Livelihood | Work | Psychometrics | Performance | Psychology
    - *524 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767795440, Wednesday, January 07, 2026 07:27:17, United States of America*
  - [Since People Do Not Have Strategies Or Planned Visions In Advance Of Having Children, It Follows That The Aggregate Does Not, and Ramifications](#since-people-do-not-have-strategies-or-planned-visions-in-advance-of-having-children,-it-follows-that-the-aggregate-does-not,-and-ramifications)
    - Procreation | Relationships | Com | Legacies | Inheritance | Continuing Ecology
    - *524 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767766453, Tuesday, January 06, 2026 23:29:03, United States of America*
  - [With The Quantity Of Behavioral Transactions Happening Between Organizations and Individuals, It Is Not Possible That A Large Amount Of Organizational Is Non-Criminal](#with-the-quantity-of-behavioral-transactions-happening-between-organizations-and-individuals,-it-is-not-possible-that-a-large-amount-of-organizational-is-non-criminal)
    - Law | Education | Human Behavior | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *522 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767655794, Monday, January 05, 2026 16:35:00, United States of America*
  - [A Response To An Acquaintance On Social Media Further Arguing For Celestialstasis](#a-response-to-an-acquaintance-on-social-media-further-arguing-for-celestialstasis)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Geology | Astronomy | Biology | Interdisciplinary Science
    - *522 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767591008, Sunday, January 04, 2026 22:30:08, United States of America*
  - [The Intelligence Involved In Finding A Sexual Partner Or Mate Or Simply Spotting Attractive People](#the-intelligence-involved-in-finding-a-sexual-partner-or-mate-or-simply-spotting-attractive-people)
    - Psychology | Neuroscience | AI | Technology | Aesthetics | Psychometrics
    - *522 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767581281, Sunday, January 04, 2026 19:54:54, United States of America*
  - [People Trying To Be Smart, Living And Creating Pseudo-Intellectual Messes, Because Since They Can't Understand The Intellectuals, Think What Is Intellectual Are Pseudo-Intellectual Mess Like](#people-trying-to-be-smart,-living-and-creating-pseudo-intellectual-messes,-because-since-they-can't-understand-the-intellectuals,-think-what-is-intellectual-are-pseudo-intellectual-mess-like)
    - Psychometrics | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Psychology | Com | Relationships
    - *521 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767499657, Saturday, January 03, 2026 21:30:15, United States of America*
  - [The Personal Period of Isolation, Or Time Capsule, and Mental Stimulation, and My Plan](#the-personal-period-of-isolation,-or-time-capsule,-and-mental-stimulation,-and-my-plan)
    - Positive Object Map | Mattanaw Geospatial | Mnemonics | Periodic Isolation For Reset | Moral Actions Only | Reading | Learning | Education | Music And Art | Higher Order Attention | Life Categories | Personal Form
    - *521 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767495873, Saturday, January 03, 2026 20:28:39, United States of America*
  - [Another Writing Method That Is An Exacting Representation Of Verbal Speech and Gesture](#another-writing-method-that-is-an-exacting-representation-of-verbal-speech-and-gesture)
    - Language | Linguistics | Symbolism | Writing
    - *521 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767489007, Saturday, January 03, 2026 18:22:30, United States of America*
  - [Predetermination of Changelessness](#predetermination-of-changelessness)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Interdisciplinary Science
    - *520 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767402819, Friday, January 02, 2026 18:14:21, United States of America*
  - [How Free Are You In The Celestialstasis?](#how-free-are-you-in-the-celestial-stasis)
    - Constraint and Determinism
    - *520 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767401171, Friday, January 02, 2026 17:46:11, United States of America*
  - [Over time, I find myself disliking the question mark. What say you about it.](#over-time,-i-find-myself-disliking-the-question-mark.-what-say-you-about-it.)
    - Language | Writing | Com | Relationships | Editing
    - *520 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767400177, Friday, January 02, 2026 17:29:37, United States of America*
  - [What Are The Stases Of The Future And Quantities Easily Identified And Sizeable, Scaled To Engulf Everything](#what-are-the-stases-of-the-future-and-quantities-easily-identified-and-sizeable,-scaled-to-engulf-everything)
    - Constraint and Determinism
    - *519 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767330120, Thursday, January 01, 2026 22:02:07, United States of America*
  - [Stasis of History Versus Stasis Of The Present](#stasis-of-history-versus-stasis-of-the-present)
    - Constraint and Determinism
    - *519 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767317718, Thursday, January 01, 2026 18:43:01, United States of America*
  - [In My System I Will Know More About The Future And Future Actions Than About Historical Events In Many Ways](#in-my-system-i-will-know-more-about-the-future-and-future-actions-than-about-historical-events-in-many-ways)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Planning and Visualization | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration
    - *519 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767317010, Thursday, January 01, 2026 18:34:22, United States of America*
  - [On Not Reading The Works Of Others](#on-not-reading-the-works-of-others)
    - Education | Authoring | Academia | Editing | Relationships | Acknowledgements | Relationships | Com | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *518 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767263477, Thursday, January 01, 2026 03:39:24, United States of America*
  - [The List Of The People To Be Put Away Or At A Distance](#the-list-of-the-people-to-be-put-away-or-at-a-distance)
    - Relationships | Com | Nationalism | Abandoning Equality
    - *517 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767159106, Tuesday, December 30, 2025 22:35:21, United States of America*
  - [Inanimate Love, As Having Many System Protections For What Is System Utilized Or Inbuilt, and Water](#inanimate-love,-as-having-many-system-protections-for-what-is-system-utilized-or-inbuilt,-and-water)
    - Interdisciplinary Science | Nature As Neither Animate Or Inanimate Or Living Or Not Living | Motile Elements | Evolutionary Theory | Biogenesis | Cosmology| Astronomy | Onomies of Just Learning
    - *517 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767139234, Tuesday, December 30, 2025 17:00:40, United States of America*
  - [Given Other Advancements Or My Learnings I Can See Improvements Here Or My Learnings](#given-other-advancements-or-my-learnings-i-can-see-improvements-here-or-my-learnings)
    - Education | Learning | Technological Progress | Constraint and Determinism
    - *516 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767139044, Tuesday, December 30, 2025 16:57:29, United States of America*
  - [Constraint Equivalence Between Being In A Bad Habit And Being In A Good Habit That Was Finally Achieved, Meaning There Is Not More Freedom In One Or The Other](#constraint-equivalence-between-being-in-a-bad-habit-and-being-in-a-good-habit-that-was-finally-achieved,-meaning-there-is-not-more-freedom-in-one-or-the-other)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *515 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766970625, Sunday, December 28, 2025 18:11:14, United States of America*
  - [Finding The Scope Of Another Person Or Animal's Mind Seems Akin To Locating Them](#finding-the-scope-of-another-person-or-animal's-mind-seems-akin-to-locating-them)
    - The Brain And Thinking Tissue | A Person As Mass, Configuration, and Activity | Relationships | Com | Identity
    - *515 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766967453, Sunday, December 28, 2025 17:42:23, United States of America*
  - [Knowing Where You Are At All Times By Knowing Your Brain Activity's Position](#knowing-where-you-are-at-all-times-by-knowing-your-brain-activity's-position)
    - Psychology | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766959878, Sunday, December 28, 2025 15:13:30, United States of America*
  - [You Can Demarcate The Boundaries Of Human Thinking By Clarifying What They Appear To Never Be Thinking About, What They Never Seem To Be Thinking Like, And What Level Of Intelligence Their Visible Behavior Includes, Also The Quality of Their Productions](#you-can-demarcate-the-boundaries-of-human-thinking-by-clarifying-what-they-appear-to-never-be-thinking-about,-what-they-never-seem-to-be-thinking-like,-and-what-level-of-intelligence-their-visible-behavior-includes,-also-the-quality-of-their-productions)
    - Relationships | Com | Zoology | Anthropology | Psychology | Human Shortcomings
    - *514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766895002, Saturday, December 27, 2025 21:11:20, United States of America*
  - [That The Majority Of Humankind Resembles Who They Consider The Mentally Deficient, And Combining Them To Be A Single Group](#that-the-majority-of-humankind-resembles-who-they-consider-the-mentally-deficient,-and-combining-them-to-be-a-single-group)
    - Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Relationships | Com
    - *514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766893440, Saturday, December 27, 2025 20:58:58, United States of America*
  - [Being Included In The Literary Canon, Doesn't Explain Why It's There, And It's Not You](#being-included-in-the-literary-canon,-doesn't-explain-why-it's-there,-and-it's-not-you)
    - Relationships | Com | Living Autobiography | Archiving | History
    - *514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766885539, Saturday, December 27, 2025 18:42:40, United States of America*
  - [Don't Use the Same Sentence Over And Over And Sentences That Amount To Synonyms Or Translations Of One Another](#don't-use-the-same-sentence-over-and-over-and-sentences-that-amount-to-synonyms-or-translations-of-one-another)
    - Language | Com | Relationships | Mathematics
    - *513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766873168, Saturday, December 27, 2025 15:06:49, United States of America*
  - [The Names of People Have Low Linguistic Utility, Indicating Words For Specific Humans Would Be Low Quality Vocabulary](#the-names-of-people-have-low-linguistic-utility,-indicating-words-for-specific-humans-would-be-low-quality-vocabulary)
    - Relationships | Com | Language | Linguistics | Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science
    - *513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766872919, Saturday, December 27, 2025 15:04:42, United States of America*
  - [The Threshold of Indoctrination Escape and Honest Usefulness](#the-threshold-of-indoctrination-escape-and-honest-usefulness)
    - Handicapy | Disabled Through Above Average | Illogical | Delusional | Primitive Currency, Modernity and Future
    - *513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766809104, Friday, December 26, 2025 21:19:50, United States of America*
  - [Artificiality Of Our Expanded Vocabulary Exhibited In Names For Dwellings, Parallelipeds Living Spaces, Isms, and Synonyms, Treating Languages Together As One Total Language](#artificiality-of-our-expanded-vocabulary-exhibited-in-names-for-dwellings,-parallelipeds-living-spaces,-isms,-and-synonyms,-treating-languages-together-as-one-total-language)
    - Linguistics | Language | Mathematics | Psychometrics | Intelligence | Concptual Innovation | Stagnations | Human Shortcomings | Technology | Constraint and Determinism
    - *513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766793651, Friday, December 26, 2025 17:13:47, United States of America*
  - [Reload Versus Ideation](#reload-versus-ideation)
    - ThoughtStream | Psychology | Constraint and Determinism | Creativity Management
    - *512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766793202, Friday, December 26, 2025 16:53:34, United States of America*
  - [What Exactly In My Consitution Is Changing As I Feel Vague Mental Improvements From Miscellaneous Efforts, And We Could Check The Externalizations Of Our Brains](#what-exactly-in-my-consitution-is-changing-as-i-feel-vague-mental-improvements-from-miscellaneous-efforts-and-we-could-check-the-externalizations-of-our-brains)
    - Psychology | ThoughtStream | Constraint and Determinism | Self-Help | Progress | Evaluative Concepts | Living Autobiography | Mental Productions | Human Behavior
    - *512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766790133, Friday, December 26, 2025 16:02:13, United States of America*
  - [There Is A Need To Make Intelligence A Zoological Study And Not Just A Human Study, To Bring Clarities By Additional Comparisons](#there-is-a-need-to-make-intelligence-a-zoological-study-and-not-just-a-human-study,-to-bring-clarities-by-additional-comparisons)
    - Psychometrics | Intelligence Studies | Zoology | Anthropology | Biological Astronomy
    - *512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766789863, Friday, December 26, 2025 15:58:45, United States of America*
  - [There Needs To Be a Mathematical Prediction Curve For The Phrase, If They're Dumb Then You Know They Did It](#there-needs-to-be-a-mathematical-prediction-curve-for-the-phrase,-if-they're-dumb-then-you-know-they-did-it)
    - Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Psychology
    - *512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766789149, Friday, December 26, 2025 15:49:26, United States of America*
  - [The Quantity Of Thoughts About The Life Categories Or Within The Life Categories In Cycle or Repetition Tells Of The Repetitiveness Of Life Yet Does Not Diminish That One Must Think Repetitively Or In The Same Beneficial Ways Even At An Optimum, As Thought Trends To Automation Thinking It Does Not Rethink](#the-quantity-of-thoughts-about-the-life-categories-or-within-the-life-categories-in-cycle-or-repetition-tells-of-the-repetitiveness-of-life-yet-does-not-diminish-that-one-must-think-repetitively-or-in-the-same-beneficial-ways-even-at-an-optimum,-as-thought-trends-to-automation-thinking-it-does-not-rethink)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Life Categoires | Repetitiveness | Moral Technology | Ritual | Cognitive Limitations | Human Shortcomings | Discipline | Higher Order Attention | Self-Training
    - *512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766737423, Friday, December 26, 2025 01:29:31, United States of America*
  - [My Successes Using Attentional Filtration of Advertisements To Avoid](#my-successes-using-attentional-filtration-of-advertisements-to-avoid)
    - Higher Order Attention | Propaganda, Marketing and Advertising | Imagination and Filtration | Architecture | Learning | Education In Contradiction With Advertising and Entertainment
    - *512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766736646, Friday, December 26, 2025 01:16:10, United States of America*
  - [All Productions As Furtherance Of The Book and Journal Of Mattanaw That Is Mattanaw's Life Development Blended With His Biology And An Externalization](#all-productions-as-furtherance-of-the-book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-that-is-mattanaw's-life-development-blended-with-his-biology-and-an-externalization)
    - ThoughtStream | Living Autobiography | Living Into Productions | Productions Blended With Life | Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Moral Technology | Constraint and Determinism | Life Categories
    - *512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766735095, Friday, December 26, 2025 00:58:51, United States of America*
  - [Someone Working Morally And Productively Within A Process Begins Over Time To Seem Diligent All The Time Like A Worker But For Mostly Everything Instead](#someone-working-morally-and-productively-within-a-process-begins-over-time-to-seem-diligent-all-the-time-like-a-worker-but-for-mostly-everything-instead)
    - Life Categories | Diligence | Another Ethic | Architecture | Higher Order Attention | Behavior and Organizations | Business Processes | Human Programs | Livelihood
    - *512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766724164, Thursday, December 25, 2025 22:00:26, United States of America*
  - [The Decreasing Need Of Having Anyone For Any Feedback Or Measure Or Comparison](#the-decreasing-need-of-having-anyone-for-any-feedback-or-measure-or-comparison)
    - Feedback | Relationships | Com
    - *512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766712344, Thursday, December 25, 2025 18:32:02, United States of America*
  - [If You Didn't Think Of Your Audience Members As You Wrote The Message To Them, Individually, There Is Delusion In Your Mass Sharing](#if-you-didn't-think-of-your-audience-members-as-you-wrote-the-message-to-them,-individually,-there-is-delusion-in-your-mass-sharing)
    - Relationships | Com | Audience | Marketing | Groups | Mathematics
    - *512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766711871, Thursday, December 25, 2025 18:24:40, United States of America*
  - [Using Historical Lives For Models Creates An Impression They Did Not Face Serious Dangers As They Did What One Might Like To Do, Such That Other Exemplars Were Just Dead, Injured, or Imprisoned](#using-historical-lives-for-models-creates-an-impression-they-did-not-face-serious-dangers-as-they-did-what-one-might-like-to-do,-such-that-other-exemplars-were-just-dead,-injured,-or-imprisoned)
    - History | Living Models and Exemplars | Historical Models and Exemplars | Situationless People of History | Human Shortcomings
    - *511 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766629934, Wednesday, December 24, 2025 19:42:07, United States of America*
  - [What One Does As Options In Comfort Within Process](#what-one-does-as-options-in-comfort-within-process)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Decision Making | Attention | Architecture | Imagination and Filtration
    - *511 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766629442, Wednesday, December 24, 2025 19:24:02, United States of America*
  - [Cultures as Stale Artform Creators In Stasis, Defending Stupidly](#cultures-as-stale-artform-creators-in-stasis,-defending-stupidly)
    - Abandoning Equality | Culture | History | Warfare | Art and Music | Aesthetics | Culinary Arts
    - *510 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766550649, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 21:41:20, United States of America*
  - [Would I really want to live, knowing my life in advance, mother?](#would-i-really-want-to-live,-knowing-my-life-in-advance,-mother?)
    - Life Plans | Death Plans | Procreation | Parenting | Language Acquisition
    - *510 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766534915, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 17:09:30, United States of America*
  - [If Teaching and Learning Will Be Too Slow To Cover The Gap Between What Has Been Learned and What Is Generally Known, It Makes Teaching Very Undesirable, And Implies General Learning Will Really Take Hundreds Of Years](#if-teaching-and-learning-will-be-too-slow-to-cover-the-gap-between-what-has-been-learned-and-what-is-generally-known,-it-makes-teaching-very-undesirable,-and-implies-general-learning-will-really-take-hundreds-of-years)
    - Education | Learning | Advancement | Intelligence | Cultural Understanding Versus Individual Understanding
    - *509 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766533896, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 17:04:03, United States of America*
  - [More Durable Songs and Arts As Not Needing Cultural Context So Much To Persist](#more-durable-songs-and-arts-as-not-needing-cultural-context-so-much-to-persist)
    - Culture | Aesthetics | Truth and Honesty | Naturalism | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream
    - *509 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766532884, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 16:38:55, United States of America*
  - [Imagining That Others Learned What You Know, Entirely](#imagining-that-others-learned-what-you-know,-entirely)
    - Learning | Education | Relationsihps | Com | Psychology | Career | Personal Advancement
    - *509 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766531679, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 16:22:39, United States of America*
  - [AI As Just Programming You, and Learning As Developmental Programming, and Media Pogromming](#ai-as-just-programming-you,-and-learning-as-developmental-programming,-and-media-pogromming)
    - Learning | Education | Psychology | Technology
    - *508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766442575, Monday, December 22, 2025 15:33:18, United States of America*
  - [Teaching Differently As A Safeguard Against Thinking AI Would Be The Only Teacher](#teaching-differently-as-a-safeguard-against-thinking-ai-would-be-the-only-teacher)
    - Learning | Education | Technology | Artificial Intelligence
    - *508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766441949, Monday, December 22, 2025 15:23:52, United States of America*
  - [If You Avoid Abstraction As You Are With Templating, Then You Might Use Exemplars of Behavior Instead of Methods, By Analogy, With The Benefit That Target Existences Are The Methods](#if-you-avoid-abstraction-as-you-are-with-templating,-then-you-might-use-exemplars-of-behavior-instead-of-methods,-by-analogy,-with-the-benefit-that-target-existences-are-the-methods)
    - Methodology, Strategy, and Plans | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Mathematics | Language
    - *508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766441751, Monday, December 22, 2025 15:18:58, United States of America*
  - [KPIs, Essential Metrics, and Full Utilization Versus More KPIs, More Metrics, and Increased Detail and Usage That Way, and The Combination](#kpis,-essential-metrics,-and-full-utilization-versus-more-kpis,-more-metrics,-and-increased-detail-and-usage-that-way,-and-the-combination)
    - Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Self-Help | Life Categories | Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts
    - *508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766438728, Monday, December 22, 2025 14:29:47, United States of America*
  - [All The Reasons For Not Socializing Build And Build Before One Can Successfully Stop, Because The Cause Is Habit And Training, Not Benefits](#all-the-reasons-for-not-socializing-build-and-build-before-one-can-successfully-stop,-because-the-cause-is-habit-and-training,-not-benefits)
    - Relationships | Com | The Value of Social Platforms | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Constraint and Determinism
    - *507 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766358534, Sunday, December 21, 2025 16:15:18, United States of America*
  - [All Elders Pretended Power For Freedom and Privacy Then Acquiesced Entirely To Tech Companies Exhibiting No Influence Over Legacy For Any Children, Showing The Delusion Of Any Plans For Their Childrens Lives](#all-elders-pretended-power-for-freedom-and-privacy-then-acquiesced-entirely-to-tech-companies-exhibiting-no-influence-over-legacy-for-any-children,-showing-the-delusion-of-any-plans-for-their-childrens-lives)
    - Legacy | Inheritance | Democracy and Government | Voting | Illusions | Human Shortcomings | Delusions
    - *507 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766356949, Sunday, December 21, 2025 15:48:40, United States of America*
  - [Why Should Anyone Look At You Will Get Proven Enjoyably To You, and Enjoyable Proofs Uh Da Future](#why-should-anyone-look-at-you-will-get-proven-enjoyably-to-you-and-enjoyable-proofs-uh-da-future)
    - Relationships | Com | Architecture | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration | Goals and Objectives | Evaluative Concepts | Aging | Death Plan | The Value of Social Platforms
    - *506 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766272866, Saturday, December 20, 2025 16:37:50, United States of America*
  - [Multi-holism](#multi-holism)
    - Evaluative Concepts | Ontology | Representation | Mathematics | Language
    - *506 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766267057, Saturday, December 20, 2025 14:44:17, United States of America* 
  - [Having Many Reasonsss For Something, And Humans and Animals As Having Many Objectives or Reasons, and Not a Few, Perhaps Into The Uncountable At Present](#having-many-reasonsss-for-something-and-humans-and-animals-as-having-many-objectives-or-reasons-and-not-a-few-perhaps-into-the-uncountable-at-present)
    - Cosmology | Biogenesis | Evolutionary Theory | Personal Goals and Objectives | Existentialism | Evaluative Concepts
    - *506 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766263781, Saturday, December 20, 2025 13:49:41, United States of America*
  - [Justified Subjectivity and Non-Arbitrary Naturalness](#justified-subjectivity-and-non-arbitrary-naturalness)
    - Interdisciplinary Science | Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Relativity | Non-arbitrariness and Naturalism | Mathematics | Linguistics | Langauge | Wanattomian Calendar 
    - *506 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766263781, Saturday, December 20, 2025 13:49:41, United States of America*
  - [Radical Learning and Disagreement That Benefits, And People Who Are Forever Illogical And Incorrect](#radical-learning-and-disagreement-that-benefits-and-people-who-are-forever-illogical-and-incorrect)
    - Learning | A System of Thinking | Relationships | Truth and Honesty
    - *504 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766042303, Thursday, December 18, 2025 00:18:23, United States of America*
  - [Learning As Disagreement With Others](#learning-as-disagreement-with-others)
    - Learning | A System of Thinking | Relationships | Evolutionary Theory 
    - *504 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766042303, Thursday, December 18, 2025 00:18:23, United States of America*
  - [It Shows In Another Place, That You're A Real Good Man](#it-shows-in-another-place-that-youre-a-real-good-man)
    - Relationships | Living Autobiography | Authentication | Consilience and Evidence 
    - *502 Wanattomians, Epoch 1765917640, Tuesday, December 16, 2025 13:40:40, United States of America* 
    - [Note: The last entry is one Wanattomian off, and should be 493. Because it was in Asia, it may be one day later, keeping track alongside the normal calendar, which is a day later. However, it was confirmed today that it is w496 globally. Some number of entries from recent travels are off by one Wanattomian, which is relatively unimportant. The dates will be retained as they are without editing.]
  - [A New Working Theory Of Wider Nature, Or What Some Might Call The Universe](#a-new-working-theory-of-wider-nature-or-what-some-might-call-the- universe)
    - Cosmology | Theory of Fundamentals | Evolutionary Theory | Interdisciplinary Science | Physics | Mathematics | Ethics | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Truth and Honesty
    - *494 Wanattomians, Saturday, December 6, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*
  - [Making The Point About Propositions As Relating To Translatability, By Resummarizing, and Rewriting A Work, Many Times](#making-the-point-about-propositions-as-relating-to-translatability-by-resummarizing-and-rewriting-a-work-many-times)
    - Translatability | Logic | Mathematics | Language | Truth and Honesty | Truth and Existence | Ontology | Epistemology | Relationships | Com | False Sanctities
    - *485 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 27, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*
  - [The Roles of The Astronomical-Individual Action Object Map And The Individual Life Plan and Process, And Two Views Of Total System](#the-poles-of-the-astronomical-individual-action-object-map-and-the-individual-life-plan-and-process-and-two-views-of-total-system)
    - Language Overhaul | Ontology | Programming | Technology | Methods of Diagramming and Visualization 
    - *485 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 27, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*
  - [Information As Being For Mining](#information-as-being-for-mining)
    - All As Inanimate | Constraint And Determinism | Evolutionary Theory | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Creativity Management | Technology | Interdisciplinary Science | Living Autobiography | Logging
    - *485 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 27, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*
  - [Named Relationship Types Creates For Everyone In A Society Rule Related Expectations, Reducing The Rule Learning Need, But Increasing Ambiguity And Confusions Due To Lack Of Foresight And Certain Unrealities Created](#named-relationship-types-creates-for-everyone-in-a-society-rule-related-expectations-reducing-the-rule-learning-need-but-increasing-ambiguity-and-confusions-due-to-lack-of-foresight-and-certain-unrealities-created)
    - Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts | Mathematics | Language | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Ontology
    - *484 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*
  - [Regarding The Slow Nutritional Increase To Have The Brain That Can Understand You](#regarding-the-slow-nutritional-increase-to-have-the-brain-that-can-understand-you)
    - Nutrition | Health | Brain Development | Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Ontology
    - *483 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*
  - [For Intellectual Conversation I Am My Best Audience Because In Addition To Being Able To Have Much Unstated Like When With Another Intelligent Conversationalist, Even More Context Can Be Omitted, Even While Thinking What Would Be Said, Maybe Resulting In Convo That Cannot Be Understood By Anyone Later, But Convo That Was Maximally Brain Developing At The Time](#for-intellectual-conversation-i-am-my-best-audience-because-in-addition-to-being-able-to-have-much-unstated-like-when-with-another-intelligent-conversationalist-even-more-context-can-be-omitted-even-while-thinking-what-would-be-said-maybe-resulting-in-convo-that-cannot-be-understood-by-anyone-later-but-convo-that-was-maximally-brain-developing-at-the-time)
    - Relationships | Com | ThoughtStream | A System Of Thinking
    - *483 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*
i  - [Cyclical Patterns That Result In Present-Past Analogy Similitude Are Additional Demonstrations Of General Astrogeostasis, Because Even Motile Objects Showing Changes Are Exhibiting The Same Patterns Again](#cyclical-patterns-that-result-in-present-past-analogy-similitude-are-additional-demonstrations-of-general-astrogeostasis-because-even-motile-objects-showing-changes-are-exhibiting-the-same-patterns-again)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Ontology | Interdisciplinary Science | Human Shortcomings | Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science
    - *483 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Rapid Socialization With High Ideation As Thinking and Speaking Words More Creatively Web-Like But Less Ready For Publication Compared With Writing, And Why Lack Of Editing In Oral Communication Shows Humans Have Editing Expecations Incorrect](#rapid-socialization-with-high-ideation-as-thinking-and-speaking-words-more-creatively-web-like-but-less-ready-for-publication-compared-with-writing-and-why-lack-of-editing-in-oral-communication-shows-humans-have-editing-expecations-incorrect)
    - Relationships | Com | Editing | Language | Linguistics | Creativity Management | ThoughtStream | Book and Journal of Mattanaw
    - *483 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*   
  - [The Writing and Book Authorship Process In The Book and Journal Of Mattanaw As Analagous And Intertwined With The Process Of Brain Development](#the-writing-and-book-authorship-process-in-the-book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-as-analagous-and-intertwined-with-the-process-of-brain-development)
    - Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Technology | Life Process | Productions | ThoughtStreams | Procrastination | Motivation | Psychology and Neuroscience | A System of Thinking | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation
    - *483 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Conceptual Overhaul, The Book and Journal of Mattanaw, and The Work of Mattanaw](#conceptual-overhaul-the-book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-and-the-work-of-mattanaw)
    - Linguistics | Language | Ontology | Truth and Honesty | Relationships | Com | Developmental Process | Architecture 
    - *482 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 25, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [The Mathematization of Processes And Objects Relating To Each The Life Categories, Within The Mathematics of The Attention Mangement Process, or Life Process](#the-mathematization-of-processes-and-objects-relating-to-each-the-life-categories-within-the-mathematics-of-the-attention-mangement-process-or-life-process)
    - Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Book and Journal of Mattanw |  
    - *482 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 25, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [Quantifying Level of Complexity, in Aggregate Objects and Processes, and Naming/Numbering](#quantifying-level-of-complexity-in-aggregate-objects-and-processes-and-naming-numbering)
    - Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Linguistics | Ontology | Epistemology | Higher Order Attention | Learning | Education | Architecture | Relationships | Com | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *482 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 25, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [The Urge Towards Simplicity Away From Complexity And How Solutions To Complexity Trend Towards Simple, And Later To Trivial](#the-urge-towards-simplicity-away-from-complexity-and-how-solutions-to-complexity-trend-towards-simple-and-later-to-trivial)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Higher Order Attention | Architecture  
    - *481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [Procrastination As Approaching A Greater End With The Advent Of Insight-Action, Where You Just Do What You Think, Even If The Development Is Mental, Because Mental Development Is More Action Connected And Mature](#procrastination-as-approaching-a-greater-end-with-the-advent-of-insight-action-where-you-just-do-what-you-think-even-if-the-development-is-mental-because-mental-development-is-more-action-connected-and-mature)
    - Procrastination | Creativity Management | Higher Order Attention | Productions | Life Categories | Personal Development | Psychology | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [Developmental And Thought-Behavior Record of The Book And Journal, Relating To Ideation in ThoughtStream Conceptions, General Productions, and Writing Elicitations From My Life Process](#developmental-and-thought-behavior-record-of-the-book-and-journal-relating-to-ideation-in-thoughtstream-conceptions-general-productions-and-writing-elicitations-from-my-life-process)
    - Book and Journal of Mattanaw | Attention Management Process | Architecture | Life and Death Plans | Living Autobiography | Creativity Management | Personal Development As Unifying Theme | Introduction | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking
    - *481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [Abstraction as Extraction and Reuse, Historically Unintentionally Thinking Abstraction as Forms or Special Generalities](#abstraction-as-extraction-and-reuse-historically-unintentionally-thinking-abstraction-as-forms-or-special-generalities)
    - Physics | Interdisciplinary Science | Mathematics | Philosophy | Psychology | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Logic 
    - *481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [Situational Probabilities, Making Behavior Efficiently Consistent With Future Utility, And Utilizing Assured Events Approaching 100 Percent Probability, Like Death](#situational-probabilities-making-behavior-efficiently-consistent-with-future-utility-and-utilizing-assured-events-approaching-100-percent-probability-like-death)
    - Mathematics | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Attention Management Process | Higher Order Attention | Life Categories | Living Autobiography   
    - *481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [A Justification For Cultural Archiving As Both Including Human Brain Mass Creation and Feedback Loops of Enjoyment and Self Improvement, Individually and Collectively](#a-justification-for-cultural-archiving-as-both-including-human-brain-mass-creation-and-feedback-loops-of-enjoyment-and-self-improvement-individually-and-collectively)
    - Living Autobiography | Living Autobiography of Culture and Society | Critique of History Versus Autobiography | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Content Creation and Publication | Creativity Management | Architecture | Higher Order Attention | Technology 
    - *481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [I Was Taught What I Can Never Contribute To, and Science, Problems of Including Articles and Data, Part II](#i-was-taught-what-i-can-never-contribute-to-and-science-part-ii)
    - Science | Indoctrination | Learning | Education | Societal Contribution | Merit | Evaluative Concepts | Constraint and Determinism | Doctorates | Generals, Hierarchies
    - *481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [Where Does Everyone Refuse To Do Research, Facts That Are Known, and Science](#where-does-everyone-refuse-to-do-research-facts-that-are-known-and-science)
    - Interdisciplinary Science | Mathematics | Dissertative Thinking | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings | You Are Mass and Configuration | Truth and Honesty 
    - *480 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 23, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [I Was Taught With What I Can Never Contribute To, and Science](#i-was-taught-with-what-i-can-never-contribute-to-and-science])
    - Science | Indoctrination | Learning | Education | Societal Contribution | Merit | Evaluative Concepts | Constraint and Determinism | Doctorates | Generals, Hierarchies
    - *480 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 23, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [The Reference Book of the Proven, and The Reference Book of Facts](#the-reference-book-of-the-proven-and-the-reference-book-of-facts)
    - A System of Thinking | Logic and Facts | Mathematics | Hypthetical Theories | Interdisciplinary Science | Human Shortcomings
    - *479 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [Failure of Humanity To Catalog Facts Already Inferrable](#failure-of-humanity-to-catalog-facts-already-inferrable)
    - A System of Thinking | Logic and Facts | Mathematics | Hypthetical Theories | Interdisciplinary Science | Human Shortcomings
    - *479 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [Macro Assumptions Usable As Facts, From Miscellaneous Sciences Now Interest In Other Details](#macro-assumptions-usable-as-facts-from-miscellaneous-sciences-now-interest-in-other-details)
    - Inderdisciplinary Science | Generals, Hierarchies | Philosophy | A System of Thinking | Logic | Mathematics | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation
    - *479 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  
  - [The Idea That There Are No Fields But Talking](#the-idea-that-there-are-no-fields-but-talking)
    - Com | Relationships | A System of Thinking | Logic | Science | Mathematcis 
    - *479 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Sentences, Propositions, Theorems, and Assumptions, In Math, Science, and Talking](#Sentences, Propositions, Theorems, and Assumptions, In Math, Science, and Talking)
    - Mathematics | Linguistics | Language | Logic | A System of Thinking | Thoughtstream | Interdisciplinary Science
    - *479 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [The Need To Clean Up Language Regarding One and Many, Single Versus Aggregate](#the-need-to-clean-up-language-regarding-one-and-many-single-versus-aggregate)
    - Philosophy | Science | Linguistics | Com | Relationships
    - *479 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [The Person YOu Wanted To Preserve From Just Five Minutes Ago Is Discarded Compared With Current You, and Illusions](#the-person-vOu-wanted-to-preserve-from-just-five-minutes-ago-is-discarded-compared-with-current-you-and-illusions)
    - Death Plans | Happy With Death | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings   
    - *479 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Mass Configuration and Activation Differences In The Brain Over Time](#mass-configuration-and-activation-differences-in-the-brain-over-time)
    - Learning | Education | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Neuroscience | Psychology | Personal Identity | Death Plans
    - *479 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Newborn Brain Tissue In Adults And Childlike Thinking About It](#newborn-brain-tissue-in-adults-and-childlike-thinking-about it)
    - Learning | Relationships | Higher Order Attention | Attention Management Process | Education | Living Autobiography | Ageing | Death Plans | Neuroscience | Constraint and Determinism
    - *478 Wanattomians, Friday, November 21, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Mental Software and Hardware](#mental-software-and-hardware)
    - Technology | Computer and Information Science | Electrical Engineering | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Alberta | Book and Journal of Mattanaw 
    - *478 Wanattomians, Friday, November 21, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Living Theorems Concerning Equalities In The Social World And In Comparing Complex Objects, and Identification of Truths As Identities Mapping a Mental To An Existing](#living-theorems-concerning-equalities-in-the-social-world-and-in-comparing-complex-objects-and identification-of-truths-as-identities-mapping-a-mental-to-an-existing)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Mathematics | Abandoning Equality | Truth and Honesty 
    - *477 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 20, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Which general mathematical pattern provides sufficient information such that one can stop doing math?](#which-general-mathematical-pattern-provides-sufficient-information-such-that-one-can-stop-doing-math?)
    - Mathematics
    - *477 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 20, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Working Towards A Definition Of Nonexistences and Voidlikeness That Has Proven Instrumentality, Distinctness and Clarity](#working-towards-a-definition-of-nonexistences-and-voidlikeness-that-has-proven-instrumentality-distinctness-and-clarity)
    - Truth and Honesty | Constraint and Determinism | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Imagination and Filtration | Higher Order Attention
    - *476 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 19, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Notes For Forming Propositions and Theoremlike Sentences, In Logical Progression, Towards A Demonstration of The Requirements of True Thought: A Logical Argument Pertaining ToTrue Mind and True Thinking](#notes-for-forming-propositions-and-theoremlike-sentences-in-logical-progression-towards-a-demonstration-of-the-requirements-of-true-thought-a-logical-argument-pertaining-to-true-mind-and-true-thinking)
    - Truth and Honesty | Constraint and Determinism | Logical Atomism | Mathematics | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking
    - *476 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 19, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Making Your Thinking Mass Be About True Things](#making-your-thinking-mass-be-about-true-things)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Turth and Honesty | Another Ethic 
    - *475 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 18, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Confirming The Quantity of Insanity and Delusion In The Common Population Is Very Large, Using The Size Of Expected Changes In State Locally To Them and More Globally in Their Plan Outcomes, By Confirming The Paths To Their Plan Outcomes Do Not Well Relate To Their Activities, and The Number Of Plans They Form That Has The Described Defects, and A Comparison Of All This With Defects Of Imagination](#confirming-the-quantity-of-insanity-and-delusion-in-the-common-population Is-very-large-using-the-size-of-expected-changes-in-state-locally-to-them-and-more-globally-in-their-plan-outcomes-by-confirming-the-paths-to-their-plan-outcomes-do-not-well-relate-to-their-activities-and-the-number-Of-plans-they-form-that-has-the-described-defects-and-a-comparison-of-all-this-with-defects-Of-imagination)
    - Psychology | Human Shortcomings | Relationships | Delusion and Insanity | Religion | Nationalism 
    - *475 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 18, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [For Anyone Else Trying To Learn What To Do With Their Lives, They Have Baby Books and Religion Nearly, and They Actually Do Complement Each Other For That Stage Of Thinking](#for-anyone-else-trying-to-learn-what-to-do-with-their-lives-they-have-baby-books-and-religion-nearly-and-they-actually-do-complement Each-other-for-that-stage-Of-thinking)
    - Novicetry | Relationships | Religion | History

    - *475 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 18, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Mining As A Key Evolutionary Feature Potentially Relating Animate and Inanimate Nature As Inanimate or Animate Only](#mining-as-a-key-evolutionary-feature-potentially-relating-animate-and-inanimate-nature-as-inanimate-or-inanimate-only)
    - Mining | Mathematics | Evolution and Cosmology | Death Plans | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *475 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 18, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Safety As Everyone On Earth Got Away From The One Dangerous Person, By Going Somewhere Else, and Implications](#safety-as-everyone-on-earth-got-away-from-the-one-dangerous-person-by-going-somewhere-else-and-implications)
    - Relationships | Com | Safety 
    - *474 Wanattomians, Monday, November 17, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [We Have Not Grown and Developed Out of Cyclical Primate Resolution and This As More Primary Than The Law](#we-have-not-grown-and-developed-out-of-cyclical-primate-resolution-and-this-as-more-primary-than-the-law)
    - Primates | Conflict Resolution | Human Shortcomings | Relationships | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *473 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 16, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [You've Been Lonely Away From Toxic Lulls In Aggression? You Need A Forgetful Happy Just Before A Primitic Conflict Inevitable?](#youve-been-lonely-away-from-toxic-lulls-in-aggression-you-need-a-forgetful-happy-just-before-a-primitic-conflict-inevitable)
    - Relationships | Com | Anthropology
    - *473 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 16, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Becoming Open Minded About Nearly Nothing](#becoming-open-minded-about-nearly-nothing)
    - Rational Times | Human Shortcomings | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking
    - *473 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 16, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Comprehensive reload of recent prefered mindset blend for next developments, use of current newest brain, and comfort](#comprehensive-reload-of-recent-prefered-mindset-blend-for-next-developments-use-of-current-newest-brain-and-comfort)
    - Wake Book | Attention Management Process | AMP3 | Architecture | Living Autobiography | Awareness
    - *473 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 16, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Using Your Gigantism and Minuteness of Perceptions and Perspective to Traverse Millions of Miles and Feet, Swimming and Flying High Above and Near the Surface, Sometimes Covering The Entire Height, Rapidly Changing Position, By Running, Walking, Crouching Low, and Standing](#using-your-gigantism-and-minuteness-of-perceptions-and-perspective-to-traverse-millions-of-miles-and-feet-swimming-and-flying-high-above-and-near-the-surface-sometimes-covering-the-entire-height-rapidly-changing-position-by-running-walking-crouching-low-and-standing)
    - Outdoors and Travel | Adventure | Environments | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals
    - *470 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 13, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [The Confounding of Different Wholenesses In Names Conceals Differences Showing That Approach To Speaking Has Less Utility Than Speaking of Collections of Objects and Properties in Aggregates Instead](#the-confounding-of-different-wholenesses-in-names-conceals-differences-showing-that-approach-to-speaking-has-less-utility-than-speaking-of-collections-of-objects-and-properties-in-aggregates-instead)
    - Linguistics | Philosophy of Language | Mathematics | Com | Relationships 
    - *470 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 13, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Why Didn't You Know the Easy Story of Your Life?](#why-didnt-you-know-the-easy-story-of-your-life)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention 
    - *470 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 13, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [The Full Story of Every Activity You Do, While You Do it, Unchanging](#the-full-story-of-every-activity-you-do-while-you-do-it-unchanging)
    - Constraint and Determinism 
    - *470 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 13, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [I Know How I Die Already Because Here Is The List of Ways](#i-know-how-i-die-already-because-here-is-the-list-of-ways)
    - Death Plan | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings 
    - *470 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 13, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Your Video of The Future Is The Same As The Past and Language Appropriate To Discussing Its](#your-video-of-the-future-is-the-same-as-the-past-and-language-appropriate-to-discussing-it)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Com | Relationships | Wordly Coinages 
    - *470 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 13, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [A Method of Probability Analysis Making Determinism Obvious](#a-method-of-probability-analysis-making-determinism-obvious)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Interdisciplinary Science | Human Shortcomings | Mathematics
    - *470 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 13, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Communications As Having Mass, And Being The Composite Objects Having The Property or Relation of Falsity](#communications-as-having-mass-and-being-the-composite-objects-having-the-property-or-relation-of-falsity)
    - Relationships | Com | Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Psychometrics | Personal and Social Merit 
    - *470 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 13, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Biophysical Underpinnings of Morality](#biophysical-underpinnings-of-morality)
    - Another Ethic | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Physicalism, Materialism, and Explanatory Reductionism | Naturalism 
    - *469 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Mining Information About Life's Catalog Mine Is Required For Optimizing This Moral System, That Now Trends Into the Celestial and Atomic](#mining-information-about-lifes-catalog-mine-is-required-for-optimizing-this-moral-system-that-now-trends-into-the-celestial-and-atomic)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings
    - *469 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Making Internal Aging and Self Comparison More Prominent Like Exterior Comparison](#making-internal-aging-and-self-comparison-more-prominent-like-exterior-comparison)
    - Human Shortcomings | Medicine | Evaluative Concepts | Abandoning Equality 
    - *469 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Elemental Mining, Recentralization of Elements, Depositing, And Redistribution, As Central To Explaining Life's Origins, Developments, and Trajectory, and Even May Explain Brain Function](#)
    - Evolution | Constraint and Determinism | Life and Death |  
    - *469 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Continuation Over Survival Appears To Have Permatheory Status, Overthrowing Survival As A Guiding Concept](#continuation-over-survival-appears-to-have-permatheory-status-overthrowing-survival-as-a-guiding-concept)
    - Evolution | Another Ethic | Livelihood | Attentional Management Process | Architecture
    - *469 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Accepting Your Mom As Your Daughter For Her Well Being](#accepting-your-mom-as-your-daughter-for-her-well-being)
    - Relationships | Com | Literature 
    - *469 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Accepting Your Father As Your Son For His Well Being](#accepting-your-father-as-your-son-for-his-well-being)
    - Relationships | Com | Literature 
    - *469 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Humans As Other Primates Do, Settle Conflict Without Resolution, Because They Lack Communication Like The Other Animals](#humans-as-other-primates-do-settle-conflict-without-Resolution-because-they-lack-communication-like-the-other-animals)
    - Relationships | Com | Higher Order Attention | Etiquette | Another Ethic 
    - *468 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Learning How To Not Do It, A Modern Solution To The Unsolved Animal Mystery of Missing Motivation](#learning-how-to-not-do-it-a-modern-solution-to-the-unsolved-animal-mystery-of-missing-motivation)
    - Procrastination 
    - *468 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Rapidly Moving Through Unpracticed Activities to Create Motives, Mental Elicitations, And Neurological Impulses For Use Later](#rapidly-moving-through-unpracticed-activities-to-create-motives-mental-elicitations-and-neurological-impulses-for-use-later)
    - Higher Order Attention | Procrastination and Motivation | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings 
    - *468 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [More Quickly Derisking Oneself From Falsity With A Process Focused On Communications](#)
    - Relationships | Com | Truth and Honesty| Constraint and Determinism | Higher Order Attention | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Safety and self Protection
    - *468 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Is It Only Pure Math Where Logical Atomism Seems Untrue](#)
    - Mathematics | Language and Linguistics | Truth and Honesty 
    - *468 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Falsities Are In Fewness Approaching The Non-Existences They Represent, Versus All Is Only Truths and Existences, A New View Of Truth](#)
    - Truth And Honesty | A System Of Thinking | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Logical Atomism 
    - *468 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Generating Needed Elicitations and Developing Upon The Attention Management Process Rapidly To Satisfaction](#Generating Needed Elicitations and Developing Upon The Attention Management-process-rapidly-to-satisfaction)
    - Attention Management Process | AMP3 | Procrastination
    - *468 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Deliberately Losing Luxury Goods To Have A New Life of Grandeur](#deliberately-losing-luxury-goods-to-have-a-new-life-of-grandeur)
    - Livelihood | Consumerism | outdoors and Adventure | Environments | Situations and Signficance
    - *468 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Packaging, Cups, and Other Containers of High Quality as Whole Dwellings](#packaging-cups-and-other-containers-of-high-quality-as-whole-dwellings)
    - Livelihood | Outdoors and Adventure 
    - *468 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Automation Of AIs and People As Natural Mechanization Pre-determined and Mineral](#automation-of-ais-and-people-as-natural-mechanization-pre-determined-and-mineral)
    - Automation | Higher Order Attention | Relationships | Constraint and Determinism | Higher Order Attention | Education and Learning 
    - *467 Wanattomians, Monday, November 10, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [The Benefits Of Becoming An Automated Automata That Is Not Present And Aware, Just Before Completion, As Proving The Value of The Whole Effort Except Maybe The End?](#the-benefits-of-becoming-an-automated-automata-that-is-not-present-and-aware-just-before-completion-as-proving-the-value-of-the-whole-effort-Except-maybe-the-end)
    - Automation | Constraint and Determinism |   
    - *467 Wanattomians, Monday, November 10, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Monging Approach As A Strategy of Communication And Action From Doing Nothing or Hibernating to Complex Automated Formal Behavior With Deliberate Unawareness](#monging-approach-as-a-strategy-of-communication-and-action-from-doing-nothing-or-hibernating-to-complex-automated-formal-behavior-with-deliberate-unawareness)
    - Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration | Relationships | Com | Constraint and Determism 
    - *467 Wanattomians, Monday, November 10, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Make The Technology Yourself Or Imagine You Did To Enable Self-Approval Of Using It Very Often](#make-the-technology-yourself-or-imagine-you-did-to-enable-self-approval-of-using-it-very-often)
    - Technology  
    - *467 Wanattomians, Monday, November 10, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [The Brain And Body As Together Statistically Modeling The World Mathematically Such That One Can Self Learn Math By Relating The Math The Brain Is Doing To Behaviors As They Happen](#the-brain-and-body-as-together-statistically-modeling-the-world-mathematically-such-that-one-can-self-learn-math-by-relating-the-math-the-brain-is-doing-to-behaviors-as-they-happen)
    - Education | Technology | Mathematics 
    - *467 Wanattomians, Monday, November 10, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Forcing Holism](#forcing-holism)
    - One and Many | Holsims and Non-Holisms | Relationships | Constraint and Determinism | Learning and Epistemology | Constraint and Determinism | Creativity Management | Intelligence and Psychometrics | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation 
    - *466 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 9, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Knowing Things Together On The Same Date](#knowing-things-together-on-the-same-date)
    - Epistemology | Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Holisms and Non-Holisms | Consttraint and Determinism | Mathematics
    - *466 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 9, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Proof Against Chess and Criticisms of Mathematical Proofs](#proof-against-chess-and-criticisms-of-mathematical-proofs)
    - Mathematics | Logic of Natural Language | A System of Thinking
    - *465 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 8, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Combining Videography With Blogging, As More Than Vlogging](#combining-videography-with-blogging-as-more-than-vlogging)
    - Relationships | Productions | ThoughtStreams
    - *465 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 8, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Striving Towards Moral-Conceptual Holism, and Dealing With Still More Disorganization](#striving-towards-moral-conceptual-holism-and-dealing-with-still-more-disorganization)
    - Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture | Human Shortcomings
    - *465 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 8, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Analyzing Cultural Tools For Their Targeted Purpose, Use, and Value, While Correcting Or Planning Their Utilization](#analyzing-cultural-tools-for-their-targeted-purpose-use,-and-value-while-correcting-or-planning-their-utilization)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Constraint And Determinism 
    - *464 Wanattomians, Friday, November 7, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [A List of The Values Of Writing The Thoughtstream](#a-list-of-the-values-Of-writing-the-thoughtstream)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Evaluative Concepts
    - *464 Wanattomians, Friday, November 7, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [The Valuation of Thoughts In The Thoughstream In Karats and Schaloobs](#the-valuation-of-thoughts-in-the-thoughstream-in-karats-and-schaloobs)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Rational Times | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *460 Wanattomians, Monday, November 3, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 
  - [Estimating The Value of Free Speech, To Know What That Is While Thinking](#estimating-the-value-of-free-speech-to-know-what-that-is-while-thinking)
    - Constraint and Determinism 
    - *459 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 2, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [To Be Able To Be Amazed Is To Be More Inexperienced And Disconnected From Nature](#to-be-able-to-be-amazed-is-to-be-more-inexperienced-and-disconnected-from-nature)
    - Learning | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings 
    - *459 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 2, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Independent Replication of A New Dissertation Discovered In Isolation Is A True Replication While Others Are More False Because Too Path Dependent On Exposure To The Existing Study](#independent-replication-of-a-new-dissertation-discovered-in-isolation-is-a-true-replication-while-others-are-more-false-because-too-path-dependent-on-exposure-to-the-existing-study)
    - Dissertative Thinking | Doctorates | Hierarchies | ThoughtStream | Scientific Method | A System of Thinking
    - *457 Wanattomians, Friday, October 31, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Awareness as a Temporary and Maybe Irrational Part Of The Learning Process](#awareness-as-a-temporary-and-maybe-irrational-part-of-the-learning-process)
    - Learning | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Education 
    - *457 Wanattomians, Friday, October 31, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Social Alignment With Old Self Even While Not Caring About Preserving That One's Exitencee](#social-alignment-with-old-self-even-while-not-caring-about-preserving-that-ones-exitencee)
    - Relationships | Death | Death Plans | Human Shortcomings 
    - *456 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 30, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Proof Methods Against Mathematics As Having Reality In The Majority of Envisioned Cases](#proof-methods-against-mathematics-as-having-reality-in-the-majority-of-envisioned-cases)
    - Mathematics | Logic | Proof Methods 
    - *456 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 30, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates*
  - [Activism Does Not Exhibit Enough Voters To Respond To Oftentimes Since Minority Even With Large Turnout](#activism-does-not-exhibit-enough-voters-to-respond-to-oftentimes-since-minority-even-with-large-turnout)
    - Voting As An Inferior System | Activism | Relationships | Government
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [The Rate of Solving And Learning Needed to Replace Superstitions](#the-rate-of-solving-and-learning-needed-to-replace-superstitions)
    - Learning | Relationships | Human Shortcomings
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [People Are More Trustworthy On Tasks Where Problem Solving Is Really Low Or None](#people-are-more-trustworthy-on-tasks-where-problem-solving-is-really-low-or-none)
    - Relationships | Truth and Honesty | Human Shortcomings
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [That People Appear To Use Memory In The Place of Problem Solving In Explanation Of Some False Group Thoughts](#that-people-appear-to-use-memory-in-the-place-of-problem-solving-in-explanation-Of-some-false-group-thoughts)
    - False Beliefs | Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality | Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [The Option To Use Multiple Money Systems At The Same Time For Different Purposes May Not Have Had Sufficient Consideration](#the-option-to-use-multiple-money-systems-at-the-same-time-for-different-purposes-may-not-have-had-sufficient-consideration)
    - Economics | Relationships | Consumerism
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Live Before It Is Too Late, Is Strange Advice For Anyone Who Plans To Simply Always Be Well With A Good Strategy](#live-before-it-is-too-late-is-strange-advice-for-anyone-who-plans-to-simply-always-be-well-with-a-good-strategy)
    - Another Ethic | Advice From Others
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [I Didn't See Older Versions of Myself Until Recently](#i-didnt-see-older-versions-of-myself-until-recently)
    - Living Autobiography | Videography | Relationships
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [The Legitimizing Type of News as a Minimum Legitimization of All Television and Some Other Media](#the-legitimizing-type-of-news-as-a-minimum-legitimization-of-all-television-and-some-other-media)
    - Relationships | Entertainment | The Value of Social Platforms
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Why would anything like you, or look at you more than briefly?](#why-would-anything-like-you-or-look-at-you-more-than-briefly)
    - Relationships | Attention Seeking | Marketing | Fame | The Value of Social Platforms
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Questioning Is Better On Simple Tasks and Simple Subjects, But Poor Oftentimes Otherwise, In Contradiction With Prejudices of Education](#questioning-is-better-on-simple-tasks-and-simple-subjects-but-poor-oftentimes-otherwise-in-contradiction-with-prejudices-of-education)
    - Learning | Question Formation 
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [A Problem With Human Freedom In The Present Day Relates to Distances For Which There Is Unbroken Private Terriory, That One Must Traverse Before Finding Relaxation and Exploration](#a-problem-with-human-freedom-in-the-present-day-relates-to-distances-for-which-there-is-unbroken-private-terriory-that-one-must-traverse-before-finding-relaxation-and-exploration)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Governments | Homelessness and Wealthy Camping | Outdoors and Adventure | Environments | Higher Order Attention
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Belief That A Religion Has Total Total Topical Coverage and The Propensity To Think Anything Heard From Other Advice Givers Relates to Something Authoritative In One's Own Religion](#belief-that-a-religion-has-total-total-topical-coverage-and-the-propensity-to-think-anything-heard-from-other-advice-givers-relates-to-something-authoritative-in-ones-own-religion)
    - Relationships | Making New Religions | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings
    - *449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [The Extent That One Has Changed Is Largely Observable and Measurable](#the-extent-That-one-has-changed-is-largely-observable-and-measurable)
    - Learning | Resumes | Behavioral Architecture | Velocity of Significance and Ideation
    - *443 Wanattomians, Saturday, October 17, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Slow Actions In Which You Are Artificially Prevented From Fast Movement, And Doing Other Things Indicating Some Illusion As To Slowness](#slow-actions-in-which-you-are-artificially-prevented-from-fast-movement-and-doing-other-things-indicating-some-illusion-as-to-slowness)
    - Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *443 Wanattomians, Saturday, October 17, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [A More Absolute Commitment or Decision About Behavior Makes a More Clear Division Between Oneself and Others That Can Be Useful](#a-more-absolute-commitment-or-decision-about-behavior-makes-a-more-clear-division-between-oneself-and-others-that-can-be-useful)
    - Higher Order Attention | Another Ethic | Life Categories | Personal Form
    - *443 Wanattomians, September, October 17, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [While Deciding Or Planning, An Inferior Substitute To Myself Is Not An Optimal Advice Giver And Can't Think That Way](#while-deciding-or-planning-an-inferior-substitute-to-myself-is-not-an-optimal-advice-giver-and-cant-think-that-way)
    - Relationships | Moral Education | Abandoning Equality
    - *442 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 16, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Some Or All Objects Including Human Objects May Have Other Shapes Than We Received They Do And Maybe A Very Large Number Of Alternative Shapes](#some-or-all-objects-including-human-objects-may-have-other-shapes-than-we-received-they-do-and-maybe-a-very-large-number-of-alternative-shapes)
    - Mathematics
    - *442 Wanattomians, Monday, October 16, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Friendship Matches As Relating Greatly To Matching False Thinking, Inferences, and Conclusions, Else Common Truths Would Befriend Them To Others](#friendship-matches-as-relating-greatly-to-matching-false-thinking-inferences-and-conclusions-else-common-truths-would-befriend-them-to-others)
    - Relationships | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *439 Wanattomians, Monday, October 13, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [A Person's Mental Biological Space Versus Information Loaded Space](#a-persons-mental-biological-space-versus-information-loaded-space)
    - Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Identity
    - *423 Wanattomians, Saturday, October 4, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 
  - [Homogeneity of Travel, Lack of Legal Understanding, and Security, a Restatement Regarding Non-nationalism](#homogeneity-of-travel-lack-of-legal-understanding-and-security-a-restatement-regarding-non-nationalism)
    - Global Citizenship | International Law | Travel | Outdoors and Adventure | Environments | International Contradiction
    - *428 Wanattomians, Thursday, September 31, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 
  - [How A Nations public Services and Tourism Industry Can Confuse People Into Thinking Their Behaviors Can Be Similar And Laws Would Have Equivalence](#how-a-nations-public-services-and-tourism-industry-can-confuse-people-into-thinking-their-behaviors-can-be-similar-and-laws-would-have-equivalence)
    - Global Citizenship | Law and International Law | Morality and Etiquette | Social Norms and Punishments
    - *425 Wanattomians, Monday, September 29, 2025, Tablisi, Sakartvelo (Georgia)* 
  - [Equalizing Babies and Retards](#equalizing-babies-and-retards)
    - Abandoning Equality | Relationships
    - *423 Wanattomians, Saturday, September 27, 2025, Tablisi, Sakartvelo (Georgia)* 
  - [The Relationship Between Citizen, Participant, Customer, or Subject And Governmetn Changes Over Time, and Has Not Been Clarified](#the-relationship-between-citizen-participant-customer-or-subject-and-governmetn-changes-over-time-and-has-not-been-clarified)
    - Organizational Forms | Generals, Hierarchies | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *407 Wanattomians, Thursday, September 11, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 
  - [What System Is Appropriate To Manage Various Populations, and Admit That Governmetns are Not Related To Population Size In A Clear Way](#what-system-is-appropriate-to-manage-various-populations-and-admit-that-governmetns-are-not-related-to-population-size-in-a-clear-way)
    - Government | Organizational Forms | Generals, Hierarchies | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *407 Wanattomians, Thursday, September 11, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 
  - [Diminishing Return of Value of Information From People Including The Highly Intelligent and Probably AI and When](#diminishing-return-of-value-of-information-from-people-including-the-highly-intelligent-and-probably-ai-and-when)
    - A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Constraint and Determinism
    - *402 Wanattomians, Saturday, September 6, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 
  - [Combining Meditation, Euphoria, and Doing Nothing To Get Comfortable With Uncomfortable Comfort](#combining-meditation-euphoria-and-doing-nothing-to-get-comfortable-with-uncomfortable-comfort)
    - Meditation and Mood | Constraint and Determinism | Death Plan 
    - *402 Wanattomians, Saturday, September 6, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 
  - [Science and Technology May Outpace Futuristic and Ideative Filmmaking](#science-and-technology-may-outpace-futuristic-and-ideative-filmmaking)
    - Technology | Creativity Management | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Non-fictionalism
    - *400 Wanattomians, Friday, September 5, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 
  - [The Reduction of Materials And Computing In Electronics and The Typewriter/WordProcessor](#the-reduction-of-materials-and-computing-in-electronics-and-the-typewriter-wordprocessor)
    - Computing | Livelihood | Frugal Living 
    - *400 Wanattomians, Thursday, September 4, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 
  - [Gestures and Not Speaking During Travel and Otherwise](#gestures-and-not-speaking-during-travel-and-otherwise)
    - Relationships | Linguistics and Language | Environments | Outdoors and Adventure | Travel
    - *400 Wanattomians, Thursday, September 4, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 
  - [The Circle of Life Identified With Circlar Reasoning](#the-circle-of-life-identified-with-circular-reasoning)
    - Humans Are Animals | Relationships | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings 
    - *398 Wanattomians, Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Relationships | Technology | Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts
    - *389 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 24, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Law and Government | Livelihood | Evaluative Concepts 
    - *386 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 21, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 
  - [People Were Never Given A Way To Plug Into Batteries](#people-were-never-given-a-way-to-plug-into-batteries)
    - Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Technology | Attentional Architecture
    - *386 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 21, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 
  - [The Theory of Everything That Does Not Predict The Future Into Forever Is Incomplete, and It Would Need To Do It For Every Life Everywhere, Every Time](#the-theory-of-everything-that-does-not-predict-the-future-into-forever-is-incomplete-and-it-would-need-to-do-it-for-every-life-everywhere-every-time)
    - Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *386 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 21, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 
  - [Quantify the Ignorance](#quantify-the-ignorance)
    - Mind and Mental Development | Planning and Visualization | Relationships | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *386 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 21, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 
  - [Becoming Everyday Gurus and Common Parental Information](#becoming-everyday-gurus-and-common-parental-information)
    - Relationships | Generals, Hierarchies | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *386 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 21, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 
  - [I Do Not Seem To Need The Idea of Life](#)
    - Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings | Life As Earth's Crust 
    - *381 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 16, 2025, Plovdiv, Bulgaria* 
  - [Thinking Appears To Have Very Low Motility And Very Low Growth](#)
    - Humans Are Animals | Life as Earth's Crust | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *381 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 16, 2025, Plovdiv, Bulgaria* 
  - [Motility In Animals Compared With Plants Has Been Exaggerated And Analyses May Have Failed To See Relative Stationariness Of Things, or, What Is Stationary In Movement With Earth Itself As An Example](#motility-in-animals-compared-with-plants-has-been-exaggerated-and-analyses-may-have-failed-to-see-relative-stationariness-of-things-or-what-is-stationary-in-movement-with-earth-itself-as-an-example)
    - Humans Are Animals | Life as Earth's Crust | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *381 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 16, 2025, Plovdiv, Bulgaria* 
  - [Perspective Similarity On Different Parts of Earth To The Cosmos And Identity, Also As A Physical Disproof of Cauchy Equality](#perspective-similarity-on-different-parts-of-earth-to-the-cosmos-and-identity-also-as-a-physical-disproof-of-cauchy-equality)
    - Mathematics 
    - *381 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 16, 2025, Plovdiv, Bulgaria* 
  - [DNA Similitude Between Humans Is Said To Be Greater Than 99 Percent Comparing Each Sex With Their Own, But How Similar Are Human Situations And Living Conditions, Perhaps Greater Than 99 Percent Similar Too?](#dna-similitude-between-humans-is-said-to-be-greater-than-99-percent-comparing-each-sex-with-their-own-but-how-similar-are-human-situations-and-living-conditions-perhaps-greater-than-99-percent-similar-too)
    - Humans Are Animals | Situations and Significance | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *381 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 16, 2025, Plovdiv, Bulgaria* 
   - [Mood Change, Like The Paper-Rock-Scissors Game](#mood-change-like-the-paper-rock-scissors-game)
    - Human Shortcomings | Relationships 
    - *381 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 16, 2025, Plovdiv, Bulgaria* 
  - [Predators Who Pretend Equality With Victims](#)
    - Abandoning Equality 
    - *381 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 16, 2025, Plovdiv, Bulgaria* 
  - [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)
    - Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Music and Art | Aesthetics
    - *375 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 10, 2025, Rome, Italy* 
  - [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)
    - The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Psychometrics | High Range Intelligence Testing | Intelligence Societies 
    - *375 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 10, 2025, Rome, Italy* 
  - [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)
    - Livelihood | Learning | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Constraint and Determinism
    - *374 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 9, 2025, Rome, Italy* 
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Neuroscience
    - *374 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 9, 2025, Rome, Italy* 
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Reading | Editing | Bibliography, Citing and Referring | Acknowledgements | Is-Ought-Should
    - *373 Wanattomians, Friday,  August 8, 2025, Rome, Italy* 
  - [Concepts as Foci Rather Than Representative Words, and Both](#concepts-as-foci-rather-than-representative-words-and-both)
    - Language | Human Shortcomings | A System of Thinking | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *373 Wanattomians, Friday, August 8, 2025, Rome, Italy* 
  - [Humans and Other Animals As Earth's Crust](#humans-and-other-animals-as-earths-crust)
    - Humans Are Animals | Constraint and Determinism | Death Plans
    - *372 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 7, 2025, Rome, Italy* 
  - [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)
    - Truth and Honesty | Human Shortcomings 
    - *368 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 3, 2025, Rome, Italy* 
  - [Lists Versus Using Time For Recollection](#lists-versus-using-time-for-recollection)
    - Planning and Visualization | Life Categories
    - *367 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 2, 2025, Rome, Italy*  
  - [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)
    - Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings 
    - 364 Wanattomians, Wednesday, July 30, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain*  
  - [Believing You Are Not An Animal Or Not Seeing You Are An Animal Clearly Is Related to Non-Attraction and View That Animals Are Uglier. It May Be That Other Animals Cannot See Themselves As Animals For the Same Reasonl](#believing-you-are-not-an-animal-or-not-seeing-you-are-an-animal-clearly-is-related-to-non-attraction-and-view-that-animals-are-uglier-it-may-be-that-other-animals-cannot-see-themselves-as-animals-for-the-same-reasonl)
    - Humans Are Animals | Constraint And Determinism | Human Shortcomings 
    - *361 Wanattomians, Monday, July 27, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain*  
  - [The Word Learning Is Seldom Used By The Learning Species](#the-word-learning-is-seldom-used-by-the-learning-species)
    - Learning | Constraint and Determinism | Education | ThoughtStream 
    - *361 Wanattomians, Monday, July 27, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain*  
  - [Getting Converted or "Got" By the Ads Saw In Early Life, The First Ads Seen, Later](#getting-converted-or-got-by-the-ads-saw-in-early-life-the-first-ads-seen-later)
    - Marketing and Advertising | The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships 
    - *361 Wanattomians, Monday, July 27, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 
  - [Do Social Relations Eventually And Gradually Weaken Powers of Critical Thinking And Thinking More Generally?](#do-social-relations-eventually-and-gradually-weaken-powers-of-critical-thinking-and-thinking-more-generally)
    - The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought  
    - *361 Wanattomians, Monday, July 27, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 
  - [Done For This Book And Journal Doesn't Mean Much](#done-for-this-book-and-journal-doesnt-mean-much)
    - ThoughtStream | Writing | Editing | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *361 Wanattomians, Monday, July 27, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 
  - [Human Studies and Relations Definitively as Zoology and Animol Biology, For Self-Modification Especially](#human-studies-and-relations-definitively-as-zoology-and-animol-biology-for-self-modification-especially)
    - Humans Are Animals | Constraint and Determinism | Evaluative Concepts
    - *361 Wanattomians, Monday, July 27, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 
  - [Measuring Deterministically Change Potential, And Feeling Mortal Unchange](#measuring-deterministically-change-potential-and-feeling-mortal-unchange)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Leaving Things Uncompleted | Assigning Efforts
    - *361 Wanattomians, Monday, July 27, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 
  - [Training and Preparation In Advance For Brain Damage Or Age Related Deterioration](#training-and-preparation-in-advance-for-brain-damage-or-age-related-deterioration)
    - Neuroscience | Age Decline | Health | Livelihood | Planning and Visualization | Another Ethic | Constraint and Determinism
    - *361 Wanattomians, Monday, July 27, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 
  - [The Old World Simple Tech Right Now Is What You Need For Your Simplified Life In The Future But It's Hard To Have Later or Know What It Is Now](#the-old-world-simple-tech-right-now-is-what-you-need-for-your-simplified-life-in-the-future-but-its-hard-to-have-later-or-know-what-it-is-now)
  - [Optimal Separate Chip Per Memory In Computers And You](#optimal-separate-chip-per-memory-in-computers-and-you)
  - [All Your Thoughts Are Potential Advice For The Advanced Or Rare, So Who Can You Teach Or Communicate With, And Find Them Like A Predator?](#All Your Thoughts Are Potential Advice For The Advanced Or Rare, So Who Can You Teach Or Communicate With, And Find Them Like a-predator)
  - [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)
    - Programming | Moral Technology | Learning | Evaluative Concepts | Another Ethic 
    - *354 Wanattomians, Monday, July 21, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Enterprise Content Management | Creativity Management | Archiving | Living Autobiography | Reading | Bibliography | Editing 
    - *353 Wanattomians, Sunday, July 20, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Enterprise Content Management | Creativity Management | Archiving | Living Autobiography | Reading | Bibliography | Editing 
    - *353 Wanattomians, Sunday, July 20, 2025, Torredambarra, Spain* 
  - [Classical Style, Including Sculptures, Paintings, Architectures And So On Are Uncreative And Repetitive, And Are Tacky, Even While They Retain Some Beauty, But Humans Were Unable To See That, Or Their Non-Involvement In It, And They Couldn't Tell They Didn't Do It)
    - Aesthetics | Art and Music | Architecture | Relationships
    - *328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Spain, En Route From Lisbon To Madrid by Bus.* 
  - [Examining Groups Of People To Identify True Togethernesses If Any Exist](#Examining Groups Of People To Identify True Togethernesses If Any Exist)
    - Categories omitted. 
    - *328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Spain, En Route From Lisbon To Madrid by Bus.* 
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Abandoning Equality | Higher Order Attention 
    - *328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality | Attentional Architecture 
    - *328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - History | Truth and Honesty | Constraint and Determinimism | Human Shortcomings 
    - *328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture | Heuristics in Morality | Another Ethic | A System of Thought | Relationships | Com
    - *325 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 22, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Com | Government | Activism and Voting 
    - *325 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 22, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Modeling Warfare Without Any Knowledge](#modeling-warfare-without-any-knowledge)
    - Military Strategy | Mathematics | Methods of Diagramming and Visualization | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought 
    - *324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Extra Long Titles And Tissue Network Expansion, Or Increasingly Relational Ideation](#extra-long-titles-and-tissue-network-expansion-or-increasingly-relational-ideation)
    - Editing | Writing | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought 
    - *324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Diminishing Return On Relationships Relating to Diminishing Return On Thinking And Insights Gained Through Age](#diminishing-return-on-relationships-relating-to-diminishing-return-on-thinking-and-insights-gained-through-age)
    - Relationships | Com | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Evaluative Concepts 
    - *324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Durations of Interractions of Relationship Objects, Not Named Relationships Like Friendship, Containing False Values and Avoidance of Quantification](#durations-of-interractions-of-relationship-objects-not-named-relationships-like-friendship-containing-false-values-and-avoidance-of-quantification)
    - Relationships | Com | Abandoning Equality | Human Shortcomigns | Evaluative Concepts 
    - *324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Resistance To The Quantification Of Human Value](#resistance-to-the-quantification-of-human-value)
    - Abandoning Equality | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings
    - *324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [The Falsification of Positivity](#the-falsification-of-positivity)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts
    - *324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Resistance to Less Durable Concepts Nearing Single Use](#resistance-to-less-durable-concepts-nearing-single-use)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings 
    - *324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [The Meanings of Nationalities, Citizens, and Travelers, Using Simple Mathematical Sets](#the-meanings-of-nationalities-citizens-and-travelers-using-simple-mathematical-sets)
    - Relationships | Com | History | Nations | Environments | Outdoors and Adventure 
    - *324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Measuring Attention Received](#measuring-attention-received)
    - Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture | Relationships | Com
    - *324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Using AI To Claim Everyone Voted With Their Content, For a Representative!](#using-ai-to-claim-everyone-voted-with-their-content-for-a-representative)
    - Governments | Relationships | Technology | Livelihood | Com
    - *323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Com | Reactions | Facial Expressions | ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality
    - *323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Uplifting Music and Music Do Not Relate To Religious Brands](#uplifting-music-and-music-do-not-relate-to-religious-brands)
    - Religions | Making Your Own Religion | Another Ethic | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings 
    - *323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Military Strategy | Another Ethic | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture  
    - *323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Alternatives to Making False Statements Using Specific Names and We](#alternatives-to-making-false-statements-using-specific-names-and-we)
    - A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Logic | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Errors of Natural Language 
    - *322 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 19, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Livelihood | Environment | Outdoors and Travel | Human Shortcomings | Nationalism | History | Living Autobiography  
    - *322 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 19, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [When The World Is Too Mixed To Take Nationalism and Addresses Seriously](#when-the-world-is-too-mixed-to-take-nationalism-and-addresses-seriously)
    - Environments | Livelihood | Travel | Outdoors and Adventure | Nationalism | Abandoning Equality
    - *322 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 19, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [A Global Land Ownership System](#a-global-land-ownership-system)
    - Livelihood | Environments | Outdoors and Adventure | History | Non-Nationalism  
    - *321 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [On Rejecting Old National Or Tribal Founding Stories](#on-rejecting-old-national-or-tribal-founding-stories)
    - Living Autobiography | Cosmological Arguments For A Diety And Other Related Arguments From Originating In Myth | Non-Fictionalism | Non-Nationalism
    - *321 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomigns | Verbal Delusions | Assumption Elimination | Religion  
    - *319 Wanattomians, Monday, June 16, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Gradients in One Person](#gradients-in-one-person)
    - Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | ThoughtStream | Evaluative Concepts  
    - *318 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 15, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Life Planning | Life Categories | Justifying Life    
    - *318 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 15, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Thinking Non-Truthfully Is Less Generative of Ideation](#thinking-non-truthfully-is-less-generative-of-ideation)
    - Creativity Management | Productions | Mind and Mental Development | Book Writing and Authoring | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought 
    - *317 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 14, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Cults | Methods of Replacing Religion | Relationshps | Sexuality
    - *317 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 14, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [You Have To Pay For Your Own Robot, That's You](#you-have-to-pay-for-your-own-robot-thats-you)
    - Abandoning Equality | Livelihood | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *316 Wanattomians, Friday, June 13, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Environments | Outdoors and Travel 
    - *316 Wanattomians, Friday, June 13, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [The Misuse of "We"](#the-misuse-of-we)
    - Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought | Evaluative Concepts
    - *316 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 12, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Abandoning Equality | Livelihood | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism  
    - *315 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 12, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [For Me To Have A Me, I Need To Keep Paying](#for-me-to-have-a-me-i-need-to-keep-paying)
    - Abandoning Equality | Livelihood | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism 
    - *315 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 12, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Development of Desire | Innovation | Creativity Management 
    - *314 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 11, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [The Scale of Meritoriousness Relating To Thoughts, Ideas and Actions](#the-scale-of-meritoriousness-relating-to-thoughts-ideas-and-actions)
    - Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Creativity Management | A System of Thought | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation 
    - *314 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 11, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Triviality, Banality, Simplicity, and Significance in Creative Ideation and Thought](#triviality-banality-simplicity-and-significance-in-creative-ideation-and-thought)
    - The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | A System of Thought | Thoughtstream | Creativity Management 
    - *314 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 11, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Editing
    - *313 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [What is the Total Quantity of Needs or Wants What One Does Not Immediately Have Present?](#what-is-the-total-quantity-of-needs-or-wants-what-one-does-not-immediately-have-present)
    - Economics | Evaluative Concepts
    - *313 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [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)
    - Economics | Evaluative Concepts
    - *313 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [What Qualifies Your Audience or Listeners To Hear You](#what-qualifies-your-audience-or-listeners-to-hear-you)
    - Relationships | Audience | Human Resources | Economics | Resume
    - *313 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [The Family as a Cult](#the-family-as-a-cult)
    - Cults | Relationships | Religion | Learning 
    - *312 Wanattomians, Monday, June 9, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [Insanity of Audiences](#insantity-of-audiences)
    - Relationships | A System of Thought | The Value of Social Platforms
    - *312 Wanattomians, Monday, June 9, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [A Reduced Quantity Of Behaviors Following Removal Of Those Not Gainful Or Thought Increasing](#a-reduced-quantity-of-behaviors-following-removal-of-those-not-gainful-or-thought-increasing)
    - Relationships | Com | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Attention Management
    - *312 Wanattomians, Monday, June 9, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [It's Hard to Slander Religion, Because It's As Low As I You Say It Is](#its-hard-to-slander-religion-because-its-as-low-as-i-you-say-it-is)
  - [Religion as a Handicapped Civilization](#religion-as-a-handicapped)
  - [Civilizations as Lies](#civilizations-as-lies)
    - Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts  
    - *311 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 8, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal* 
  - [Find Me One Mentally, Physically, and Emotionally Secure Person, and Probably I Can Easily Offend Them With Truths About Them](#find-me-one-mentally-physically-and-emotionally-secure-person-and-probably-i-can-easily-offend-them-with-truths-about-them)
    - Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts  
    - *311 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 8, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [Ramifications of The Mistaken View of Equality Rampant Across The Globe](#ramifications-of-the-mistaken-view-of-equality-rampant-across-the-globe)
    - Abandoning Equality | Evaluative Concepts 
    - *311 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 8, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Living Autobiography | History | Relationships | Com 
    - *310 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 7, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [Synthesis of Thought and Time Limitations on Revisitation On Prior Thinking](#synthesis-of-thought-and-time-limitations-on-revisitation-on-prior-thinking)
    - Mind and Mental Development | A System of Thought | Book Productions | ThoughtStream 
    - *311 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 7, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [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)
    - Mind and Mental Development | Filmographicvideo | Social Media Platforms | Livelihood | Music and Art
    - *311 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 7, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Living Autobiography | History | Relationships | Com 
    - *310 Wanattomians, Friday, June 6, 2025, Estoril, Portugal*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Relationships 
    - *308 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 4, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [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)
    - Another Ethic | ThoughtStream | Evaluative Concepts | Honesty and Transparency | Interdisciplinary Science | Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings
    - *306 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 3, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [The Filling of Children's Brains With Universal Science, and Withholding Knowldege From Children As Part of Parent's Plans If They Had Plans](#the-filling-of-childrens-brains-with-universal-science-and-withholding-knowldege-from-children-as-part-of-parents-plans-if-they-had-plans)
    - Interdisciplinary Science | Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings
    - *306 Wanattomians, Monday, June 2, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [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](#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)
    - Computing | Interdisciplinary Science | Com
    - *306 Wanattomians, Monday, June 2, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [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)
    - Abandoning Equality | Human Shortcomings | Living Autobiography   
    - *305 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 1, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [Progresslessness After Unifying Accomplishments With Clearly Diminishing Returns on Thinking](#progresslessness-after-unifying-accomplishments-with-clearly-diminishing-returns-on-thinking)
    - ThoughtStream | Living Autobiography | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings
    - *303 Wanattomians, Saturday, May 31, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [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)
    - Linguistics | Computer Science | Environments | Mind and Mental Development | Human Shortcomings 
    - *302 Wanattomians, Friday, May 30, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Reading | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking 
    - *296 Wanattomians, Thursday, May 24, 2025, Athens, Greece*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Relationships | Truth and Honesty 
    - *296 Wanattomians, Thursday, May 24, 2025, Athens, Greece*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Relationships
    - *284 Wanattomians, Epoch 1747014615, Sunday, May 11, 2025 18:51:00, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Relationships | Procrastination | Development of Desire | Evaluative Concepts | Inferring To Moral Conclusions
    - *280 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746738176, Thursday, May 08, 2025 14:03:14, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Truth and Honesty | The Distant Future, Legacies, and Morality
    - *277 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746426122, Sunday, May 04, 2025 23:32:49, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Livelihood
    - *277 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746405751, Sunday, May 04, 2025 17:45:16, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | The Distant Future, Legacies, and Morality | Human Shortcomings
    - *276 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746319391, Saturday, May 03, 2025 17:51:05, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships
    - *275 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746260492, Saturday, May 03, 2025 01:25:33, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [The World Has Become a Worse Place, Have Another Child](#the-world-has-become-a-worse-place,-have-another-child)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings
    - *274 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746212699, Friday, May 02, 2025 12:09:48, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Architecture | Imagination and Filtration | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings | Personal Form
    - *274 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746152959, Thursday, May 01, 2025 19:49:06, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Mind and Mental Development | Constraint and Determinism
    - *273 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746127424, Thursday, May 01, 2025 12:49:08, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Mind and Mental Development
    - *266 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745465087, Wednesday, April 23, 2025 20:30:51, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings
    - *262 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745178432, Sunday, April 20, 2025 12:47:12, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [Stale Content and Living Content Are More Similar Than They Might Appear](#stale-content-and-living-content-are-more-similar-than-they-might-appear)
    - The Value of Social Platforms | ThoughtStream | Editing
    - *262 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745163527, Sunday, April 20, 2025 08:52:02, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Situations and Significance | Intelligence and Psychometrics | Human Shortcomings
    - *258 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744806066, Wednesday, April 16, 2025 05:24:36, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Com | Relationships | Human Shortcomings
    - *258 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744800242, Wednesday, April 16, 2025 03:52:28, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings
    - *257 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744752134, Tuesday, April 15, 2025 14:22:16, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Music and Art | Relationships | Constraint and Determinism
    - *257 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744743568, Tuesday, April 15, 2025 12:19:39, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *256 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744630327, Monday, April 14, 2025 04:32:10, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *256 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744629130, Monday, April 14, 2025 04:29:49, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [The Fish Saddlery, Making Saddles For Fishdids, A New Business Venture](#the-fish-saddlery,-making-saddles-for-fishdids,-a-new-business-venture)
    - Creativity Management | Mind and Mental Development | Outdoors and Adventure | Livelihood
    - *255 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744559365, Sunday, April 13, 2025 08:49:27, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [Making Sense of Nostaligia, and Positive and Negative Feelings Associated With It](#making-sense-of-nostaligia,-and-positive-and-negative-feelings-associated-with-it)
    - Higher Order Attention | Mind and Mental Development | Meditation, Mind, and Mood | Music and Art | Nutrition | Relationships
    - *255 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744531272, Sunday, April 13, 2025 01:18:30, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Mind and Mental Development | Editing | Reading | Bibliography
    - *254 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744442793, Saturday, April 12, 2025 00:26:38, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Relationships | Situations and Significance
    - *254 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744430932, Friday, April 11, 2025 21:19:59, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Com | Health
    - *253 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744348422, Thursday, April 10, 2025 22:13:44, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Mathematics | Creativity Management | Mind And Mental Development
    - *252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744265931, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 23:28:51, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [Any Social Media Use As A Negative Analytic](#any-social-media-use-as-a-negative-analytic)
    - The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Com
    - *252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744254775, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:12:55, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Com
    - *252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744255583, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:26:23, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Com | The Value of Social Platforms
    - *252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744256505, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:41:45, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [Any Social Media Use As A Negative Analytic](#any-social-media-use-as-a-negative-analytic)
    - The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Com
    - *252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744254775, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:12:55, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Com
    - *252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744255583, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:26:23, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [Any Social Media Use As A Negative Analytic](#any-social-media-use-as-a-negative-analytic)
    - The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Com
    - *252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744254775, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:12:55, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | Relationships
    - *251 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744173600, Tuesday, April 08, 2025 21:45:43, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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?)
    - Relationships
    - *249 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744027044, Monday, April 07, 2025 04:57:27, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream
    - *245 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743705028, Thursday, April 03, 2025 11:36:39, Tucson, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic
    - *243 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743505186, Tuesday, April 01, 2025 04:08:24, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Rationality | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Relationships
    - *241 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743315134, Saturday, March 29, 2025 23:12:16, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships
    - *239 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743127186, Thursday, March 27, 2025 19:02:03, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Governments Are Unscientific Both In Design and In Operation, And Generally](#governments-are-unscientific-both-in-design-and-in-operation,-and-generally)
    - Relationships | Architecture | Higher Order Attention
    - *238 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743113172, Thursday, March 27, 2025 15:16:19, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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 System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Architecture | Higher Order Attention | Humans Are Animals
    - *238 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743035905, Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:54:34, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Architecture | Software Architecture | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings
    - *237 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743033509, Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:17:29, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings
    - *234 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742762929, Sunday, March 23, 2025 13:48:51, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Religion | Relationships
    - *232 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742549016, Friday, March 21, 2025 02:27:01, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Livelihood
    - *232 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742546579, Friday, March 21, 2025 01:43:01, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Psychometrics | Human Shortcomings
    - *230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742423882, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:38:05, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Psychometrics | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream
    - *230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742422779, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:29:46, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Relationships
    - *230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742421834, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:13:11, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts
    - *230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742418995, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 14:16:37, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings
    - *230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742418947, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 14:15:49, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts
    - *230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742410360, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:52:45, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Education | Mind and Mental Development
    - *230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742371347, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 01:02:30, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Property and Organization | Livelihood
    - *230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742369985, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 00:39:47, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [It May Be That Civilization Cannot Be Advanced In Various Important Ways](#it-may-be-that-civilization-cannot-be-advanced-in-various-important-ways)
    - Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Constraint and Determinism
    - *230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742354061, Tuesday, March 18, 2025 20:34:14, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals
    - *229 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742329223, Tuesday, March 18, 2025 13:20:24, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [On Cartography and Distortions in Maps](#on-cartography-and-distortions-in-maps)
    - Mathematics | Computing | Science
    - *225 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741979771, Friday, March 14, 2025 12:16:11, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Intelligence | Psychometrics | Mathematics
    - *224 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741889332, Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:08:53, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Intelligence | Psychometrics
    - *224 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741888586, Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:06:35, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Mathematics | Architecture | Software Architecture | Higher Order Attention
    - *223 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741800859, Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:34:21, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Why Have You, Or That Person, Been Loaded With That Information?](#why-have-you,-or-that-person,-been-loaded-with-that-information?)
    - Relationships
    - *222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741664050, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:34:12, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - History | Human Shortcomings
    - *222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741663571, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:27:17, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - History | Human Shortcomings
    - *222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741662289, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:11:12, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - History | Human Shortcomings
    - *222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741659965, Monday, March 10, 2025 19:27:33, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Featureless and Boring Geometries as Being Greater Abstractions, But With Specificity Still](#featureless-and-boring-geometries-as-being-greater-abstractions,-but-with-specificity-still)
    - Relationships | Mathematics | Fitness | Health | Evaluative Concepts | Aesthetics
    - *220 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741522978, Sunday, March 09, 2025 05:34:57, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Learning How To Not Have A Body To Have Even Less Needs](#learning-how-to-not-have-a-body-to-have-even-less-needs)
    - Short Stories | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals
    - *219 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741443675, Saturday, March 08, 2025 07:21:17, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings
    - *218 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741339041, Friday, March 07, 2025 02:17:23, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [It's a fools countdown to do years backwards before AD 0](#it's-a-fools-countdown-to-do-years-backwards-before-ad-0)
    - The Calendar Solved | Mathematics | Wanattomianism
    - *217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741264802, Thursday, March 06, 2025 05:40:04, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [What is The Set of Completed Topics, Rationally Considered and Done?](#what-is-the-set-of-completed-topics,-rationally-considered-and-done?)
    - RationalTimes | Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention | Relationships
    - *217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741255317, Thursday, March 06, 2025 03:16:03, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings
    - *217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741249956, Thursday, March 06, 2025 01:32:39, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism
    - *217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741248575, Thursday, March 06, 2025 01:26:37, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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.)
    - Evaluative Concepts | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Relationships
    - *216 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741149861, Tuesday, March 04, 2025 21:44:26, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Mathematics | Evaluative Concepts | Natural Language | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *215 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741074113, Tuesday, March 04, 2025 00:53:50, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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?)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Legacy
    - *215 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741061965, Monday, March 03, 2025 21:19:30, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships
    - *213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740909550, Sunday, March 02, 2025 02:59:15, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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 System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts
    - *213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740909282, Sunday, March 02, 2025 02:56:23, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Fundamental Problems That Are Easy, and Philosophy](#fundamental-problems-that-are-easy,-and-philosophy)
    - Fundamental Problems | Human Shortcomings
    - *213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740887679, Saturday, March 01, 2025 21:03:04, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Infinite Recursion in Inanimate Nature](#infinite-recursion-in-inanimate-nature)
    - Nature | Constraint and Determinism
    - *213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740885995, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:45:46, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Creating a Wake State](#creating-a-wake-state)
    - Wakebook | Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Abandoning Equality
    - *213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740884738, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:24:36, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Mathematics
    - *212 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740799741, Friday, February 28, 2025 20:29:17, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Higher Order Attention
    - *207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740392610, Monday, February 24, 2025 03:24:26, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention
    - *207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740389071, Monday, February 24, 2025 02:24:39, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships
    - *207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740388960, Monday, February 24, 2025 02:22:45, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Fightclub and Sheeplike Behavior in People, and Determinism](#fightclub-and-sheeplike-behavior-in-people,-and-determinism)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740381482, Monday, February 24, 2025 00:18:02, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Hunting | Path Dependence in Economics
    - *207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740380732, Monday, February 24, 2025 00:09:43, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | Health | Evaluative Concepts
    - *205 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740208518, Saturday, February 22, 2025 00:34:42, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | RationalTimes | Evaluative Concepts
    - *205 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740192722, Friday, February 21, 2025 19:56:59, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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?)
    - Evaluative Cocnepts | Human Shortcomings
    - *201 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739890256, Tuesday, February 18, 2025 07:54:29, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention | Evaluative Concepts
    - *201 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739889929, Tuesday, February 18, 2025 07:46:54, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Waste
    - *199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739689046, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:57:33, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | History
    - *199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739687511, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:35:14, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - History | Human Shortcomings
    - *199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739686682, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:27:51, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought | Evaluative Concepts
    - *199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739683648, Saturday, February 15, 2025 22:41:46, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Personal Form | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739673655, Saturday, February 15, 2025 19:40:55, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Higher Order Attention
    - *196 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739440327, Thursday, February 13, 2025 02:52:14, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Higher Order Attention
    - *196 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739440084, Thursday, February 13, 2025 02:51:03, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Mathematics | Ethical Architecture
    - *193 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739210580, Monday, February 10, 2025 11:03:05, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Mathematics | Software Architecture | Ethical Architecture
    - *193 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739207891, Monday, February 10, 2025 10:18:17, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Personality | Descriptive Typological Systems and Wanting to Know People
    - *191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738999841, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:36:27, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Mathematics
    - *191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738998891, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:23:22, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Mathematics | Constraint and Determinism
    - *191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738998079, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:09:06, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Which Areas Of Math Apply To All Particular Situations](#which-areas-of-math-apply-to-all-particular-situations)
    - Mathematics
    - *189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738875077, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:58:04, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Things That Feel Like They Did Not Matter AFter They Happened](#things-that-feel-like-they-did-not-matter-after-they-happened)
    - Human Shortcomings | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic | Higher Order Attention
    - *189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738873236, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:28:56, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Wants and Desires Versus Voting Process](#wants-and-desires-versus-voting-process)
    - Voting
    - *189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738873157, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:19:22, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Another Ethic | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomigns
    - *189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738872446, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:07:26, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Another Ethic | Living Autobiography
    - *189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738871933, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:58:59, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Trial And Error Exists For All Truths](#trial-and-error-exists-for-all-truths)
    - A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings
    - *189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738870802, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:56:20, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings
    - *189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738869815, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:36:40, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings
    - *189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738868200, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:19:34, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings
    - *189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738867709, Thursday, February 06, 2025 11:54:43, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [Small Countries Imply Foolish Behavior and Beliefs Within Them](#small-countries-imply-foolish-behavior-and-beliefs-within-them)
    - Human Shortcomings
    - *188 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738791248, Wednesday, February 05, 2025 14:34:08, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [What is a Heuristic And What Is Not](#what-is-a-heuristic-and-what-is-not)
    - A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings
    - *188 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738789452, Wednesday, February 05, 2025 14:20:06, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Music and Art
    - *187 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738661197, Tuesday, February 04, 2025 02:29:13, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Music and Art
    - *187 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738660298, Tuesday, February 04, 2025 02:23:31, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings
    - *186 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738608651, Monday, February 03, 2025 11:51:06, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Entertainment | Human Shortcomings
    - *186 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738562195, Sunday, February 02, 2025 23:01:32, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Generals, Presidents, Chiefs, and Hierarchies | Rational Times
    - *185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738524174, Sunday, February 02, 2025 12:38:49, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships
    - *185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738478879, Saturday, February 01, 2025 23:59:23, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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 Calendar Solved | Wanattomian Calendar
    - *185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738477955, Saturday, February 01, 2025 23:42:58, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings
    - *184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738452038, Saturday, February 01, 2025 16:31:18, Phoenix, Arizona*
  - [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 System of Thought | Relationships | Human Shortcomings | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic
    - *184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738450130, Saturday, February 01, 2025 16:01:45, Perth, Australia*
  - [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 System of Thought | Human Shortcomings
    - *184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738447407, Saturday, February 01, 2025 15:13:35, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings
    - *182 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738195621, Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:11:07, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Abandoning Equality | Cosmological Arguments for a Diety and Other Related Arguments Originating in Myth | Nonfictionalism
    - *180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738098589, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 05:09:55, Perth, Australia*
  - [Soon Even Your Money is Only Plain Text](#soon-even-your-money-is-only-plain-text)
    - Livelihood | Property and Organization
    - *180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738092811, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 03:33:36, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | Non-fictionalism | Humans Are Animals | Humnan Shortcomings
    - *180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738086759, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 01:52:42, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Humans Are Animals | Relationships
    - *180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738086640, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 01:50:45, Perth, Australia*
  - [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 System of Thinking | ThoughtStream
    - *179 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737990641, Monday, January 27, 2025 23:10:49, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *179 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737984863, Monday, January 27, 2025 21:34:31, Perth, Australia*
  - [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 System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Com
    - *178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737931410, Monday, January 27, 2025 06:47:50, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Human Shortcomings
    - *178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737904349, Sunday, January 26, 2025 23:16:10, Perth, Australia*
  - [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.)
    - Relationships
    - *178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737903897, Sunday, January 26, 2025 23:08:10, Perth, Australia*
  - [Zoologically, Primatologically, Families are Indistinguishable From People Simply Living Together](#zoologically,-primatologically,-families-are-indistinguishable-from-people-simply-living-together)
    - Relationships
    - *178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737898899, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:56:26, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought
    - *178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737898043, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:31:38, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts
    - *178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737897078, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:20:14, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Humans are Animals | Abandoning Equality
    - *178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737857422, Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:10:28, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic
    - *177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737817400, Saturday, January 25, 2025 23:03:27, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts
    - *177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737816366, Saturday, January 25, 2025 22:46:16, Perth, Australia*
  - [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.)
    - Human Shortcomings
    - *177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737815990, Saturday, January 25, 2025 22:39:59, Perth, Australia*
  - [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 System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality
    - *176 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737749998, Saturday, January 25, 2025 04:28:18, Perth, Australia*
  - [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 System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings
    - *173 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737478795, Wednesday, January 22, 2025 01:00:02, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration
    - *172 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737385333, Monday, January 20, 2025 23:22:52, Perth, Australia*
  - [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.)
    - Human Shorcomings | Natural Unarbitrary Behavior | Sexuality
    - *168 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737018165, Thursday, January 16, 2025 17:02:59, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings
    - *168 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737017845, Thursday, January 16, 2025 17:00:09, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings
    - *164 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736673952, Sunday, January 12, 2025 17:35:43, Perth, Australia*
  - [Earth Cannot Produce More Species Humans Approve Of For Coexisting Equally](#earth-cannot-produce-more-species-humans-approve-of-for-coexisting-equally)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals
    - *160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736328685, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 17:49:26, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | ThoughtStream
    - *160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736327374, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 17:22:59, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Another Ethic | Constraint and Determinism | Humans Are Animals
    - *160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736325387, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:40:39, Perth, Australia*
  - [Life Has Had No Justification For Humans Or Any Animal](#life-has-had-no-justification-for-humans-or-any-animal)
    - Another Ethic | Constraint and Determinism | Humans Are Animals
    - *160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736324182, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:27:19, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Relationships | Com
    - *160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736323578, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:06:29, Perth, Australia*
  - [Levels of Relevance of Supposedly Relevant Statemetns and Communications](#levels-of-relevance-of-supposedly-relevant-statemetns-and-communications)
    - ThoughtStream | Relationships | Com
    - *160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736322407, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:00:00, Perth, Australia*
  - [Dinosaur Fossils Outliving Interest in Unchanging Museums, And Archiving Things Forever](#dinosaur-fossils-outliving-interest-in-unchanging-museums,-and-archiving-things-forever)
    - Archiving | ThoughtStream | Living Autobiography | History
    - *159 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736236438, Tuesday, January 07, 2025 16:00:40, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention | A System of Thought | Abandoning Equality
    - *159 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736227253, Tuesday, January 07, 2025 13:21:18, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Education | Human Shortcomings
    - *152 Wanattomians, Epoch 1735670810, Wednesday, January 01, 2025 02:54:03, Perth, Australia*
  - [Recorded Music and Writings as Automations](#recorded-music-and-writings-as-automations)
    - Archiving | Living Autobiography | Artificial Intelligence | Moral Technology
    - *147 Wanattomians, Epoch 1735190236, Thursday, December 26, 2024 13:17:16, Perth, Australia*
  - [Incest As Required For The Presentation of Certain Traits](#incest-as-required-for-the-presentation-of-certain-traits)
    - Humans Are Animals | Anthropology | History | Primordial Ethics
    - *143 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734849834, Sunday, December 22, 2024 14:48:02, Perth, Australia*
  - [The Experience of Beauty As A Symptom of Stagnation, Two](#the-experience-of-beauty-as-a-symptom-of-stagnation-two)
    - Aesthetics | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts 
    - *143 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734840550, Sunday, December 22, 2024 12:09:10, Perth, Australia*
  - [The Experience of Beauty As A Symptom of Stagnation](#the-experience-of-beauty-as-a-symptom-of-stagnation)
    - Aesthetics | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts 
    - *142 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734765301, Saturday, December 21, 2024 15:15:01, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Sexuality
    - *137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734336317, Monday, December 16, 2024 16:05:26, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Sexuality
    - *137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734336161, Monday, December 16, 2024 16:02:49, Perth, Australia*
  - [Masturbation is One Way People are Domesticated Sexually](#masturbation-is-one-way-people-are-domesticated-sexually)
    - Sexuality | Relationships
    - *137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335482, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:51:30, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Short Stories | Intro Reel Screenplays
    - *137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335416, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:50:24, Perth, Australia*
  - [I'm Human Brand](#i'm-human-brand)
    - Humans Are Animals | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings
    - *137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335038, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:46:10, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | History | Humans Are Animals
    - *137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734334552, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:39:00, Perth, Australia*
  - [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)
    - Editing | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought
    - *125 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733344618, Thursday, December 05, 2024 03:41:09, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Another Ethic | Political Systems and Policies in Writing
    - *124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733233853, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 20:58:05, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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 System Of Thought | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic | Political Systems and Policies in Writing
    - *124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733230701, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 19:58:21, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [Lost Autobiographical Information, Lost Religious Information](#lost-autobiographical-information-lost-religious-information)
    - A Simple Solution For Creating New Religions | ThoughtStream
    - *124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733223435, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 17:57:15*, Tempe, Arizona</time>
  - [A Way to Improve Mental Models One Has For Interacting With Others](#a-way-to-improve-mental-models-one-has-for-interacting-with-others)
    - Relationships | ThoughtStream
    - *124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733220621, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 17:10:21, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [Globs, Clusters, and Gushes, and Child Cosmology](#globs,-clusters,-and-gushes,-and-child-cosmology)
    - 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
    - *118 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732709098, Wednesday, November 27, 2024 19:05:04, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Higher Order Attention
    - *117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732636858, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 23:01:03, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [Saved People Who Later Hate Your Views, and Targets of Saving Behavior](#saved-people-who-later-hate-your-views,-and-targets-of-saving-behavior)
    - Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic
    - *117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732606814, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 14:40:23, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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.)
    - Higher Order Attention | Evaluative Concepts | Another Ethic
    - *117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732605590, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 14:19:55, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Another Ethic
    - *117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732583014, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 08:03:40, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Glossary | Higher Order Attention | Editing
    - *117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732580075, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 07:14:44, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Short Stories | Literature | Nonfictionalism | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought
    - *116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732578742, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:52:34, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic
    - *116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732578341, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:45:54, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Living Autobiography | Filmographicwriting | Human Shortcomings | Cinematography | Biography
    - *116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732576331, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:12:22, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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.)
    - Human Shortcomings | Wordly Coinages | Glossary
    - *116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732574420, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:40:28, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Human Shortcomings | Archiving | ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention
    - *116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732573334, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:22:21, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - *116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732572045, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:00:45, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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.)
    - Another Ethic | Death Plans | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings
    - *116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732571589, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 04:53:24, Bangkok, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality
    - *112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732184434, Thursday, November 21, 2024 17:26:10, Phuket, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Higher Order Attention | Another Ethic
    - *112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732182529, Thursday, November 21, 2024 16:55:27, Phuket, Thailand*
  - [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...')
    - Identity | Human Shortcomings | Egolessness and Emptiness | Morality | Attentional Management Process
    - *112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732179379, Thursday, November 21, 2024 16:01:08, Phuket, Thailand*
  - [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 System of Thought | Thoughtstream | Open Health and Identity | Human Shortcomings
    - *112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732178244, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:42:06, Phuket, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Attentional Management Process | Attentional Architecture | Life Categories and Process
    - *112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732177672, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:33:18, Phuket, Thailand*
  - [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.)
    - Human Shortcomings | Self-change | Morality | Inflexibility | Constraint and Determinism
    - *112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732176346, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:14:54, Phuket, Thailand*
  - [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)
    - Relationships | Sociology | Psychology | Com
    - *112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732175789, Thursday, November 21, 2024 14:59:08, Phuket, Thailand*
  - [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)
  - [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 Simple Solution for Creating New Religions | Self-Improvement | Morality
    - *78 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729277581, Saturday, October 19, 2024 02:58:45, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Nested Orchestras with Separate Composers and Instrumentalists in a Hierarchy](#nested-orchestras-with-separate-composers-and-instrumentalists-in-a-hierarchy)
    - Music | Art | Mathematics | Computing
    - *75 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729006068, Tuesday, October 15, 2024 23:29:22, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - *75 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729002724, Tuesday, October 15, 2024 22:32:04, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | Living Autobiography | Living Artifacts
    - *74 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728907081, Monday, October 14, 2024 20:00:37, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - Frugality | Livelihood | Camping | Outdoors and Adventure | Higher Order Attention | Fashion | Clothing and Textiles
    - *74 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728906556, Monday, October 14, 2024 19:56:04, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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 Simple Solution For Creating New Religions | Personal Excellences | Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention | ThoughtStream
    - *73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728844669, Monday, October 14, 2024 02:44:26, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Maximum Cross Category Accomplishing Activities](#maximum-cross-category-accomplishing-activities)
    - Life Categories | Higher Order Attention | Morality and Ethics | Planning and Executive Function
    - *73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728844340, Monday, October 14, 2024 02:34:38, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - Short Stories | ThoughtStream | Fiction | Non-Fiction| Mind and Mental Development | Science | Computing | Artificial Intelligence | Cosmology | Zoology
    - *73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728834290, Sunday, October 13, 2024 23:45:06, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Advertising As Anonymous or Semi-Anonymous Message Sharing](#advertising-as-anonymous-or-semi-anonymous-message-sharing)
    - Advertising | The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Mind and Mental Development | ThoughtStream
    - *73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728833311, Sunday, October 13, 2024 23:37:20, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Intelligence | A System of Thought
    - *72 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728720209, Saturday, October 12, 2024 16:09:26, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Renewing Existence Within Existence Many Times](#renewing-existence-within-existence-many-times)
    - ThoughtStream | Death Plans | Living Autobiography | Legacies and the Distant Future
    - *72 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728719674, Saturday, October 12, 2024 15:57:55, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [A Framework for Minimizing Omissions in Thinking](#a-framework-for-minimizing-omissions-in-thinking)
    - A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Life Categories | Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration
    - *71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728642394, Friday, October 11, 2024 18:37:54, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - Technology | Moral Technology | Mathematics | Higher Order Attention | Inferring To Moral Conclusions
    - *71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728639844, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:50:17, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*

  - [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 System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings
    - *71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728639050, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:30:50, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia* 
  - [Things to Do While Hiking](#things-to-do-while-hiking)
    - Camping | Wealth and Homelessness | Productions | Life Categories
    - *71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728637732, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:12:51, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - Life Categories, Diminishing Return On Thinking | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention
    - *70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728557055, Thursday, October 10, 2024 18:48:33, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Personal Form | Life Categories
    - *70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728555425, Thursday, October 10, 2024 18:21:22, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Creativity Management | ThoughtStream
    - *70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728548424, Thursday, October 10, 2024 16:20:32, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - The Value of Social Platforms | Bibliography | Reading | Innovation | Intellectual Property | Copyright
    - *70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728545566, Thursday, October 10, 2024 15:41:01, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Amputees May Be Able to Achieve First Human Powered Flight](#amputees-may-be-able-to-achieve-first-human-powered-flight)
    - ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Technology
    - *69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728475769, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 20:19:30, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Some Points on the Denials That Humans are Animals](#some-points-on-the-denials-that-humans-are-animals)
    - Humans are Animals | Human Shortcomings
    - *69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728470212, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 18:49:52, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Mobile Devices Should Be Computers By Now](#mobile-devices-should-be-computers-by-now)
    - Morality | Ethics | Attention | Livelihood | Planning and Executive Function
    - *69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728462133, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 16:22:13, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - Morality | Ethics | Attention | Livelihood | Planning and Executive Function
    - *67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728336638, Tuesday, October 08, 2024 05:33:15, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - *67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728282519, Monday, October 07, 2024 14:34:48, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Writing Topic Sentences in Advance to Create Flow](#writing-topic-sentences-in-advance-to-create-flow)
    - *67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728281528, Monday, October 07, 2024 14:19:28, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Black Only Scientific Application](#black-only-scientific-application)
    - *66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728211680, Sunday, October 06, 2024 18:53:11, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - *66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728210092, Sunday, October 06, 2024 18:36:06, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - *66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728199498, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:33:19, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - *66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728199197, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:21:11, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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)
    - *66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728198828, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:16:35, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [You created a process for your work, but not for your behavior](#you-created-a-process-for-your-work,-but-not-for-your-behavior)
    - *64 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728024801, Friday, October 04, 2024 14:54:41, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Your face is not part of your thinking](#your-face-is-not-part-of-your-thinking)
    - *64 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728024690, Friday, October 04, 2024 14:52:47, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Hollow Prose Encephaly, or Holoprosencephaly](#hollow-prose-encephaly,-or-holoprosencephaly)
    - *63 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727933428, Thursday, October 03, 2024 13:33:15, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Ethics of human studies, and gatherable information](#ethics-of-human-studies,-and-gatherable-information)
    - *61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727769385, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 16:02:55, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [The costs of doing business as a cellular service provider.](#the-costs-of-doing-business-as-a-cellular-service-provider.)
    - *61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727768060, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:45:03, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [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.)
    - *61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727766181, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:04:08, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia*
  - [Daycare is a Mistake of Investments](#daycare-is-a-mistake-of-investments)
    - *58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727507975, Saturday, September 28, 2024 15:22:37, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Mental State Changes, Duration, and Time to Alter and  Retain New State](#mental-state-changes,-duration,-and-time-to-alter-and--retain-new-state)
    - *58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727507153, Saturday, September 28, 2024 15:11:40, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [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)
    - *58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727504156, Saturday, September 28, 2024 14:19:18, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [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)
    - *58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727502833, Saturday, September 28, 2024 14:05:44, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Edited Forward for In-Sight's “Some Smart People, Views and Lives, Thirteen](#edited-forward-for-in-sights-some-smart-people-views-and-lives-thirteen)
    - *57 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727411222, Friday, September 27, 2024 12:27:02, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Once You're Bached, You Never Go Bach](#once-you're-bached,-you-never-go-bach)
    - *57 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727401147, Friday, September 27, 2024 09:39:26, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Foreward Draft for Scott Douglas Jacobsen's "Some Smart People, Views and Lives, Thirteen"](#foreward-draft-for-scott-douglas-jacobsens-some-smart-people-views-and-lives-thirteen)
    - *56 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727325998, Thursday, September 26, 2024 12:46:38, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [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)
    - *54 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727154790, Tuesday, September 24, 2024 13:13:10, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [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)
    - *50 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726854021, Saturday, September 21, 2024 01:50:40, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Normal Conversation Using Mathematics as a Key Ingredient](#normal-conversation-using-mathematics-as-a-key-ingredient)
    - *50 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726816261, Friday, September 20, 2024 15:15:12, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Within Computing and Mathematics There is a Minimum Strategic Set of Tools](#within-computing-and-mathematics-there-is-a-minimum-strategic-set-of-tools)
    - *47 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726548569, Tuesday, September 17, 2024 12:49:29, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Solidification of Strategy Regarding Mental Stimulation](#solidification-of-strategy-regarding-mental-stimulation) 
    - *47 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726543463, Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:24:23, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Open Work Spaces](#open-work-spaces)
    - *46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726484215, Monday, September 16, 2024 18:58:27, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [How frequently are mathematical problems present in our lives?](#how-frequently-are-mathematical-problems-present-in-our-lives?)
    - *46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726456841, Monday, September 16, 2024 11:25:25, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Mathematics as Strangely Objectiveless During Incubation](#mathematics-as-strangely-objectiveless-during-incubation)
    - *46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726455353, Monday, September 16, 2024 11:12:07, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [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)
    - *45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726413749, Sunday, September 15, 2024 23:22:29, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [How many shapes are there, including types of curved lines?](#how-many-shapes-are-there,-including-types-of-curved-lines?)
    - *45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726409191, Sunday, September 15, 2024 22:08:54, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [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)
    - *45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726407532, Sunday, September 15, 2024 21:38:52, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [List of Planned Behavioral Solidifications](#list-of-planned-behavioral-solidifications)
    - *45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726406554, Sunday, September 15, 2024 21:22:34, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Options for Work Post Retirement if Post Retirement Should Occur](#options-for-work-post-retirement-if-post-retirement-should-occur)
    - *45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726388483, Sunday, September 15, 2024 16:21:23, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [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)
    - *44 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726289696, Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:58:58, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Teaching an Easy Path to Income](#teaching-an-easy-path-to-income)
    - *44 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726285229, Saturday, September 14, 2024 11:53:20, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [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.)
    - *42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726137412, Thursday, September 12, 2024 18:36:59, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Forcing People to Respond Kindly, Enjoy Something, or Find Something Funny](#forcing-people-to-respond-kindly,-enjoy-something,-or-find-something-funny)
    - *42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726136124, Thursday, September 12, 2024 18:20:23, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [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)
    - *42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726116735, Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:53:03*, Bali, Indonesia</time>
  - [Global Symbolic Blendology to Reveal Religious and Cultural Absurdities](#global-symbolic-blendology-to-reveal-religious-and-cultural-absurdities)
    - *42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726109505, Thursday, September 12, 2024 10:51:54*, Bali, Indonesia</time>
  - [Mattanaw's Market Basket](#mattanaws-market-basket)
    - *40 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725953549, Tuesday, September 10, 2024 15:41:28*, Bali, Indonesia</time>
  - [The Community Judgement Process as an Insaned Cult Procedure](#the-community-judgement-process-as-an-insaned-cult-procedure)
    - Cults, The Value of Social Platforms, Relationships
    - *39 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725862482, Monday, September 09, 2024 14:14:42, Bali, Indonesia*
  - [Learning and Potential](#learning-and-potential)
    - *36 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725591797, Friday, September 06, 2024 11:07:16*, Tempe, Arizona</time>
  - [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)
    - 36 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725590873, Friday, September 06, 2024 10:47:53, Tempe, Arizona
  - [Frustration in Argument is Emotional Instability](#frustration-in-argument-is-emotional-instability)
    - 31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725157955, Sunday, September 01, 2024 12:32:35, Tempe, Arizona 
  - [Life is Easy to Continue Because You Are Predetermined](#life-is-easy-to-continue-because-you-are-predetermined)
    - 31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725157404, Sunday, September 01, 2024 12:23:24, Tempe, Arizona  
  - [Evolutionary Theory and Making Continuity and Minimal Adaptation More Important](#evolutionary-theory-and-making-continuity-and-minimal-adaptation-more-important)
    - 31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725155648, Sunday, September 01, 2024 11:54:08, Tempe, Arizona 
  - [Women Don't Understand Their Own Hair](#women-dont-understand-their-own-hair)
    - 31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725152443, Sunday, September 01, 2024 11:00:43, Tempe, Arizona
  - [This Language Has Nice Tentative Words](#this-language-has-nice-tentative-words)
    - *23 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724531815, Saturday, August 24, 2024 13:36:55*, Tempe, Arizona</time>
  - [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)
    - *21 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724378390, Thursday, August 22, 2024 18:59:50*, Tempe, Arizona</time>
  - [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](#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)
    - 21 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724375187, Thursday, August 22, 2024 18:06:27
  - [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)
    - 20 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724283469, Wednesday, August 21, 2024 16:37:49 
  - [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)
    - 19 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724213587, Tuesday, August 20, 2024 21:13:07
  - "I didn't even know what I marketed" Marketing, and Finished Consideration of Audience
    - 19 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724124670, Monday, August 19, 2024 20:31:10 
  - Termination of Should/Ought Statements or Imperatives as One Completes Utilizing only Desirable Actions with Habits 
    - 18 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724124512, Monday, August 19, 2024 20:28:32  
  - The End of Your Life as The End of The Last Thirty Seconds Only
    - 18 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724119595, Monday, August 19, 2024 19:06:35 
  - Detecting that Others Have Less Diminishing Returns on Thinking, and Significance
    - Another Ethic | Higher Order Attention | A System of Thought | Constraint and Determinism | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation
    - 19 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724115602, Monday, August 19, 2024 18:00:02
  - Thinking Culmination Trajectory
    - Another Ethic | Higher Order Attention | A System of Thought | Constraint and Determinism
    - 18 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724114980, Monday, August 19, 2024 17:49:40  
  - [Calculating the Diminishing Benefits of Future Thinking for Planning, and Applicability](#calculating-the-diminishing-benefits-of-future-thinking-for-planning-and-applicability)
    - 18 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724111818, Monday, August 19, 2024 16:56:58 
  - Safety as Partly Evident in Apparent and Unrecorded Theft Attempt Rates, Versus Official Reports and Measures
    - Outdoors, Travel and Adventure | Environment
    - 17 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724023921, Sunday, August 18, 2024 16:32:01
  - Aesthetics of Important Personal Development, Diminished Beauty of Nature, and Diminishing Return on Thinking, and Death
    - 17 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724022730, Sunday, August 18, 2024 16:12:10 
  - Aesthetics of Beauty in Nature as Juvenile, Stasis, And Want of Diminished Interest in Human Aesthetics of Appearance
    - 17 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724022654, Sunday, August 18, 2024 16:10:54 
  - Moral Excellences as Something Simply Wanted, and Implicit Value: Bound to Like Virtues
    - Evaluative Concepts | Another Ethic | Higher Order Attention | Imagination Filtration
    - 17 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724022468, Sunday, August 18, 2024 16:07:48 
  - Surprise and Interest in Counterintuitive Results, Natural Curiosity, Learning in Children, and The Diminishing Return of Thinking
    - 17 Wanattomians, Sun 18 Aug 2024 16:06:02 MST
  - Yearnings as More Appropriate for the Less Learned, an Abomination Later
    - 17 Wanattomians, Sun 18 Aug 2024 16:04:42 MST
  - [Moral Principles and Facts, and Confusion](#moral-principles-and-facts-and-confusion)
    - 17 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723936801, Saturday, August 17, 2024 16:20:01
  - [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)
    - Assumption Elimination | Another Ethic
    - 17 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723929589, Saturday, August 17, 2024 14:19:49
  - Thoughts, Mathematical Morality, and Communicating Evidence Fast with Proof
    - Another Ethic | Higher Order Attention | Wanattams, A System of Thought
    - 15 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723854406, Friday, August 16, 2024 17:26:46
  - A More Patterned Approach to Learning and Research
    - 15<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Fri 16 Aug 2024 15:01:51 MST
  - Arrival at the Solution of How Life Can Be Worthwhile, Life Segmentation, Admission that Ends Are Often Appropriate, and Choosing When and If to Have Children
     - 14<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Thu 15 Aug 2024 14:36:21 MST
  - Packed Space 
    - 14<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Thu 15 Aug 2024 14:35:01 MST
  - Differentism
    - 14<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Thu 15 Aug 2024 14:34:48 MST
  - [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)
    - The Velocity of Significance and Ideation, Physico-Mathematics and Science
    - 13<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Wed 14 Aug 2024 14:43:42 MST
  - [AI Claims to Invented Words, Pretending to Know Them Already](#ai-claims-to-invented-words-pretending-to-know-them-already)
    - 12<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Tue 13 Aug 2024 20:11:23 MST
  - [The Librarian Who Knows Which Books and They are Few](#the-librarian-who-knows-which-books-and-they-are-few)
    - 12<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Tue 13 Aug 2024 17:26:56 MST
  - [Exhausting What's Unexhausted](#exhausting-whats-unexhausted)
    - 12<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Tue 13 Aug 2024 17:23:56 MST
  - Discomfort of Reverting to Strategies The Less Intelligent Would Utilize, and Using List Instructions in Navigation
    - 11<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Mon 12 Aug 2024 15:31:29 MST
  - Aggregate Relatiorelevant Habit Combinations Visualized for Fast Change, and Their Actual RelationProven in Subsequent Habit Formation and Tests of Behavior
    - 11<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Mon 12 Aug 2024 15:30:39 MST
  - Black Box Analysis of Influence of Genes on Higher Thinking and Behavior, Versus "I Can't See the Gene Influence"
    -11<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Mon 12 Aug 2024 15:28:43 MST
  - Simulation as Analogy
    - 11<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Mon 12 Aug 2024 15:27:46 MST
  - "Simulation Matching", or the Process of Making Nature Have Those Processes Already Simulated, and Rigged Designs
    - 11<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Mon 12 Aug 2024 15:27:19 MST
  - Pica as Not Being a Medical Condition
    - 10<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Sun 11 Aug 2024 16:13:28 MST
  - [Proving Who is Good and Bad Down to the Vitamin](#proving-who-is-good-and-bad-down-to-the-vitamin)
    - Evaluative Concepts
    - 10<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Sun 11 Aug 2024 02:30:04 MST
  - Classical Art is Getting Old
    - 9<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Sun 11 Aug 2024 02:26:16 MST
  - Writing and Thought Metrics
    - 9<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Sat 10 Aug 2024 16:45:58 MST
  - "Papa, I exist!"
    - Relationships
    - 9<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Sat 10 Aug 2024 16:22:12 MST
  - [Playing with Toys Isn't Far From Smearing Paint, So Smear Paint Instead](#playing-with-toys-isnt-far-from-smearing-paint-so-smear-paint-instead)
    - Mental Development | Productivity | Life Categories
    - 9<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Sat 10 Aug 2024 15:54:23 MST
  - [What Math Is](#what-math-is)
    - Mathematics, Physics, Mind and Mental Development
    - 9<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Sat 10 Aug 2024 15:05:56 MST
  - Close Image Time vs. Screen Time
    - 9<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Sat 10 Aug 2024 14:58:45 MST
  - Equality as Anonymity
    - Abandoning Equality
    - 8<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Sat 10 Aug 2024 14:44:40 MST
  - Drugless and Nonviolent Action to Catastrophic System Failure with Interesting Experiences and Alternatives
    - 9<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Fri  9 Aug 2024 16:17:48 MST
  - Wailing Whale Tails, Hunting Whales, and "Sex Moments"
    - Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms
    - 8<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Fri  9 Aug 2024 15:43:31 MST
  - [Server Security](#server-security)
    - 8<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Fri  9 Aug 2024 15:16:29 MST
  - Oceanic Privacy
    - 8<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Fri  9 Aug 2024 13:08:02 MST
  - Taste, Vision, Pleasure, Dependancy and Non-Dependency on Experience of Physiochemical Reactions
    - 7<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Thu  8 Aug 2024 16:44:25 MST
  - [Reading Material for the Gifted](#reading-material-for-the-gifted)
    - 7<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Mind and Mental Development, Relationships, Life Productions
    - Thu  8 Aug 2024 10:58:15 MST
  - Mattanaw Circus
    - 7<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Thu  8 Aug 2024 10:02:25 MST
  - A Method of Reducing Filled Bowels, and Benefits
    - 7<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Thu  8 Aug 2024 09:59:52 MST
  - The Benefits of the Deaths of Certain Group Leaders
    - Death Benefits | Relationships
    - 7<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Thu  8 Aug 2024 09:57:32 MST
  - [Aiming at Exhaustion, and Benefits](#aiming-at-exhaustion-and-benefits)
    - 7<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Thu  8 Aug 2024 09:15:42 MST
  - Clarifying the Concept of "Potential" 
    - 5<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Tue  6 Aug 2024 23:06:03 MST
  - Analysis of Rainbows, and A Plausible Solution to the Experience and Nature of Color
    - 5<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Tue  6 Aug 2024 23:02:37 MST
  - "Wait, there were guys here"
    - 5<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Tue  6 Aug 2024 14:19:52 PDT
  - For the People Who Thought Free Will Was Real, Morality Was Less Possible, or Did Not Exist
    - 5<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Tue  6 Aug 2024 14:13:28 PDT
  - Sex Earth, Part I.
    - Doodledids<sup>TM</sup> | Relationships | Health | Fitness
    - 5<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Tue  6 Aug 2024 13:05:58 PDT
  - Stagnation and Bickering as a Pervasive Human Issue
    - 4<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Mon  5 Aug 2024 21:20:39 PDT
  - Stagnation of Fitness
    - 4<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Mon  5 Aug 2024 21:19:58 PDT
  - The Connection Points of the Legacy System, and Slow Riddance of Bad Societal Pathways
    - Morality/Ethics | Development of Desire | Abandoning Equality
    - 4<sup>th</sup> Wanattomian, Mon  5 Aug 2024 12:56:53 PDT
  - Marketing of True Information By any Marketing Consumer, and Freedom From and In Propaganda
    - 3<sup>rd</sup> Wannatomian, Sun  4 Aug 2024 10:49:39 MST
  - Improving Businesses Spending Nothing, Being Beneficial Otherwise, and Looking Good
    - 3<sup>rd</sup> Wannatomian, Sun  4 Aug 2024 10:45:41 MST
  - You Were Missing Moral Brain Matter
    - 3<sup>rd</sup> Wannatomian, Sun  4 Aug 2024 10:46:24 MST
  - "Underweight" and the Cardiovascular System
    - 3<sup>rd</sup> Wannatomian, Sun  4 Aug 2024 10:47:09 MST
  - My Geneological Record of One
    3<sup>rd</sup> Wanattomian, Sun  4 Aug 2024 00:39:01 MST
  - The Jewish Geneological Record Needs to Be Openly Scientific
    - 3<sup>rd</sup> Wanattomian, Sun  4 Aug 2024 00:38:22 MST
  - Parenting as "I need to check on my little abductions right now" over and over.
    - 1<sup>st</sup> Wanattomian, Fri  2 Aug 2024 14:29:38 MST
  - Behavioral Complexes and Traits of Nervous System vs. Diagnoses Like Depression
    - 1<sup>st</sup> Wanattomian, Fri  2 Aug 2024 13:42:18 MST
  - [The Wanattomian Calendar](#the-wanattomian-calendar)
    - Mathematics | Physics | Myth | Calendar
    - 1<sup>st</sup> Wanattomian, Fri  2 Aug 2024 13:08:40 MST, 1722629356 Epoch
  - Some cultural rules are like "You have to visit the giraffe up where it's head stretches, and not down low where it comes down to you, this shows equality with the giraffe and mutual respect."
    - 1<sup>st</sup> Wanattomian, Fri  2 Aug 2024 12:58:05 MST 
  - Here's My Title and Mathematical Category
    - Fri  2 Aug 2024 11:10:30 MST
  - Unaccounted Original Monetary Reserve, Mined Resources, and Architectural Design of Software
    - Fri  2 Aug 2024 11:10:09 MST
  - Collateral Damage of Medicine and Learning
    - Fri  2 Aug 2024 11:09:01 MST
  - The Last of the Amazonians Who Don't Know It's Earth, and Tribes
    - Fri  2 Aug 2024 11:08:38 MST
  - Measuring and Proving What is Same and Different in Aristocratic Life
    - Fri  2 Aug 2024 11:08:02 MST
  - I'm in Prehistory and Why
    - Fri  2 Aug 2024 11:07:26 MST
  - Pockets of Earth
    - Fri  2 Aug 2024 11:06:58 MST
  - [Foraging Preparation Methodology](#foraging-preparation-methodology)
    - Foraging | Livelihood | Health | Fitness | Nutrition
    - Tue Jul 30 17:34:27 AKDT 2024
  - On Starting and Self-Trust that Progress Rapidly Results
    - Tue Jul 30 17:09:07 AKDT 2024
  - Detecting Judges That Didn't Review Materials, and Setup Conditions
    - Tue Jul 30 16:25:40 AKDT 2024
  - Glob Animaling
    - Tue Jul 30 16:22:30 AKDT 2024
  - Yem
    - Tue Jul 30 16:14:39 AKDT 2024
  - Omologues, Analogues, Morphologues, Homologues, Dialogues, and Logueing
    - Tue Jul 30 16:14:03 AKDT 2024
  - The Total Number of Deleterious Conditions, and Life Extension
    - Tue 30 Jul 2024 03:18:25 MST
  - Pregnant with Cucumbers
    - Tue 30 Jul 2024 02:56:17 MST
  - The Last Corporate Shareholders Are Cheated, and Corporations Haven't Existed Long
    - Tue 30 Jul 2024 02:55:52 MST
  - Stealth Objects in Space
    - Tue 30 Jul 2024 02:55:11 MST
  - A Method of Determining One's Own Thought Productivity
    - Mon 29 Jul 2024 18:20:17 MST
  - [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)
    - Mon 29 Jul 2024 17:54:12 MST
  - [Research That Others Have Performed Did Not Include Complete Book Reading](#research-that-others-have-performed-did-not-include-complete-book-reading)
    - Reading | Writing | Editing | Significance of Velocity and Ideation
    - Mon 29 Jul 2024 17:11:10 MST
  - The Propensity of Women to Cry and a Potential Contradiction with the View of Emotional Superiority and Mastery
    - Sat Jul 27 14:44:47 AKDT 2024
  - [Fun That Reverts Behavior to That Which Has Unwanted Aspects](#fun-that-reverts-behavior-to-that-which-has-unwanted-aspects)
    - Sat Jul 27 14:07:39 AKDT 2024
  - [People in History Weren't Smart Enough To Have Their Bad Ideas](#people-in-history-werent-smart-enough-to-have-their-bad-ideas)
    - Thu 25 Jul 2024 13:34:09 MST
  - Genes that Are Advanced Enough to Resist Replication
    - Wed 24 Jul 2024 15:22:48 MST
  - Which Mental Reload to Have?
    - Wed 24 Jul 2024 15:22:08 MST
  - The Large Number of Sperm and Genetic Testing Over Much Longer Periods than Lives of Individuals
    - Wed 24 Jul 2024 15:21:43 MST
  - Successive Copies Are Not a Successor or Survivor of the Preceding
    - Wed 24 Jul 2024 15:20:40 MST
  - Survival of Identical Twins and Genetics
    - Wed 24 Jul 2024 15:19:44 MST
  - Giving Up on Teaching the Unintelligent
    - Wed 24 Jul 2024 15:18:57 MST
  - Terms of Evolution that Require Replacement
    - Wed 24 Jul 2024 15:18:40 MST
  - [Interest in Longevity is Slightly Lessened by Assured Eventual Death by Injury](#interest-in-longevity-is-slightly-lessened-by-assured-eventual-death-by-injury)
    - Wed 24 Jul 2024 14:24:17 MST
  - Genocide of Good Traits By Making People Equal
    - Abandoning Equality
    - Mon 22 Jul 2024 12:42:20 MST
  - [Value of Novel Traits, Evolution, and Societal Controls](#value-of-novel-traits-evolution-and-societal-controls)
    - Abandoning Equality, Determinism
    - Mon 22 Jul 2024 12:17:34 MST
  - [If Life Were Extended to One Thousand, Ten Thousand, or More Years](#if-life-were-extended-to-one-thousand-ten-thousand-or-more-years)
    - Sun 21 Jul 2024 12:46:54 MST
  - [Stuck Together as One on Earth, and The Desire For Different Humans](#stuck-together-as-one-on-earth-and-the-desire-for-different-humans)
    - Abandoning Equality
    - Sun 21 Jul 2024 12:48:48 MST
  - Turning All People On Social Media Individually into Superman Helpers By Making All Needful Events Immediately Within View, and the Measure of Actual Supportiveness
    - Tue 16 Jul 2024 05:11:15 MDT
  - Humility, Skepticism, Fallibility, as the Common Posture, and Lies about Convictions Surfaceable in Debate
    - Tue 16 Jul 2024 04:45:33 MDT
  - Gradual Solidification of Who You Were, Optionless Future, and Aging
    - Tue 16 Jul 2024 05:25:25 CDT
  - Being an Exclusion of Alternatives, and Being Known More Easily
    - Tue 16 Jul 2024 05:20:53 CDT
  - [Fulfillment of Activities and Today at the Gym](#fulfillment-of-activities-and-today-at-the-gym)
    - Higher Order Attention, Attentional Architecture
    - Sun 14 Jul 2024 15:32:21 CDT
  - [Guidebook to Textual Markup and Writing Marginalia and Teaching Logical Critique Methodolgy](#guidebook-to-textual-markup-and-writing-marginalia-and-teaching-logical-critique-methodolgy)
    - Sun 14 Jul 2024 15:34:28 CDT
  - A Suicide Ideal
    - Fri 12 Jul 2024 13:26:01 CDT
  - When You're Too Different to A People, You Look Adopted. When the Culture is Too Diverse, You Look Adopted Kinda Too.
    - Fri 12 Jul 2024 13:12:59 CDT
  - Instant Popularity and "You Are Not Alone"
    - Analysis of Cool, Relationships
    - Fri 12 Jul 2024 13:06:32 CDT
  - [The North as Basic and Not Only Barren](#the-north-as-basic-and-not-only-barren)
    - Fri 12 Jul 2024 12:05:08 CDT
  - Squishy Asteroids
    - Sun  7 Jul 2024 12:16:51 EDT
  - Claims that Animals Can Smell Things at Vast Distances
    - Sat  6 Jul 2024 13:44:35 EDT
  - Freedom of the Individual
    - Fri  5 Jul 2024 12:40:45 EDT
  - Using AI to Define Nations and AI to find Operationalized Concepts, and Ramifications
    - Wed  3 Jul 2024 13:17:06 EDT
  - Your Feelings are Incongruous With Reality, and Pleasures of Child Birth 
    - Wed  3 Jul 2024 13:11:17 EDT
  - [Reduction and Control of Inclinations Generally](#reduction-and-control-of-inclinations-generally)
    - Higher Order Attention, A System of Thought, Wake Book
    - Wed 19 Jun 2024 12:47:55 MDT
  - [Unfocused Time and Time Away From Popular Activity](#unfocused-time-and-time-away-from-popular-activity)
    - The Value of Social Platforms, Communication, A System of Thought
    - Sun 16 Jun 2024 11:05:18 MDT
  - [Marketing Revolutions Before They Exist, and Equality](#marketing-revolutions-before-they-exist-and-equality)
    - Wed 12 Jun 2024 11:26:57 MDT
  - Ugly Reproduction
    - Thu  6 Jun 2024 09:07:12 MST
  - Lifecycles of Arguments
    - Thu  6 Jun 2024 08:45:45 MST
  - Interrelationships of the Life Categories, and Greater Brain Networking
    - Life Categories | Personal Form | Higher Order Attention
    - Wed  5 Jun 2024 23:07:00 MST
  - Resumé to Become a Bug
    - Livelihood | Living Autobiography
    - Wed  5 Jun 2024 20:28:38 MST
  - Aids for People Who Would Choose Religious or Psychological Support from Others
    - Wed  5 Jun 2024 15:38:51 MST
  - Backcountry/Ultralight Camping, Car Camping, and Car Accessible Camping Checklists.
    - Homelessness and Wealthy Camping
    - Wed  5 Jun 2024 15:36:53 MST
  - Inhibitors of the Development of Others, and Value of Communicating With Them
    - Mental Development | Relationships | Communication
    - Wed  5 Jun 2024 15:35:13 MST
  - [A Budgetary Strategy for Living on the Road](#a-budgetary-strategy-for-living-on-the-road)
    - Homelessness and Wealthy Camping
    - Tue  4 Jun 2024 13:48:32 MST
  - [From Thought Into Code and Writing, Language Agnosticism, and Linguistic Diversity](#from-thought-into-code-and-writing-language-agnosticism-and-linguistic-diversity)
    - ThoughtStream Itself
    -Tue  4 Jun 2024 13:47:56 MST
  - Gwawter Root
    - Humor, Kindness, and Childlike Play and Learning
    - Tue  4 Jun 2024 13:15:45 MST
  - Rectangles of Media, and Choice Pictures Within Pictures
    - A System of Thought Management | Mental Productions
    - Tue  4 Jun 2024 13:15:02 MST
  - Predeterminizing Writing, Socializing, Communication and Thought
    - Determinism | Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture
    - Tue  4 Jun 2024 13:17:10 MST
  - [Status on the Current Project Regarding Homelessness and Wealthy Camping II](#status-on-the-current-project-regarding-homelessness-and-wealthy-camping-ii)
    - Homelessness and Wealthy Camping
    - Tue  4 Jun 2024 12:33:01 MST
  - The Generation of Language and Mathematics Using Symbols in Sequence, Programming, Encoding, Streaming, and Scaling
    - Wanattams | A System of Thought Management 
    - Sun  2 Jun 2024 21:09:14 MST
  - [New Artistry Approximating Skill of Historical Masters](#new-artistry-approximating-skill-of-historical-masters)
    - Communication | Relationships | Living Autobiography
    - Sun  2 Jun 2024 11:26:45 MST
  - [Marketing Categories of My Products II](#marketing-categories-of-my-products-ii)
    - Communication | Relationships
    - Thu 30 May 2024 18:13:58 MST
  - [Marketing Categories of My Products](#marketing-categories-of-my-productions)
    - Communication | Relationships
    - Thu 30 May 2024 11:39:59 MST
  - Topical Titles, Structure of Knowledge, and Title Arbitrariness
    - A System of Thought Management
    - Thu 30 May 2024 11:39:32 MST
  - Consumering
    - Thu 30 May 2024 11:38:52 MST
  - Controlling of Copies, The Print Industry, and Religion, Funding, and Copyright. Copyrights Without Copy and Retention Capabilities.
    - A System of Thought Management | Creativity Management | Living Autobiography
    - Thu 30 May 2024 11:36:47 MST
  - Automatic Honoring of Copyright and Wishes
    - Living Autobiography
    - Thu 30 May 2024 11:31:56 MST
  - Constraining Document Styles Until All Templates are Known, and Letter Writing
    - A System of Thought Management
    - Thu 30 May 2024 11:16:58 MST
  - Copyrighting, Licensing, Repositories, and the Public/Private Distinction
    - Thu 30 May 2024 11:08:21 MST
  - Copyrighting of Scripture With Alterations, and Printing Uncontrollabilities, and Evolution of Copies
    - Thu 30 May 2024 11:05:18 MST
  - A Challenge to Fellow Librarians
    - Living Autobiography | Archiving | Editing
    - Tue 28 May 2024 11:18:10 MST
  - Grandma's Archiving Abilities, Librarians, and Preservation
    - Living Autobiography | Archiving | Editing
    - Mon 27 May 2024 14:14:59 MST, and Earlier in Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  - The Scaling of Videos, Limitations, and Reduced Formats
    - Mon 27 May 2024 14:08:54 MST, and Earlier as Software Architect, Consultant, and Archivist, Esp. at Lake Pleasant, Arizona.
  - Self-made Films, Fictional, Non-Fictional Hybrids
    - A System of Thought Management | Alberta
    - Mon 27 May 2024 14:08:03 MST
  - Holism vs. Greater Networking
    - Sun 26 May 2024 08:00:38 MST
  - Tentative Conclusions Becoming More Immediate Conclusions
    - Sun 26 May 2024 07:26:08 MST
  - Why Thoughts to Record are Not Preferable to This Tool for the ThoughtStream
    - Sun 26 May 2024 07:25:12 MST
  - Widest Significance and Decline of Conscious Thought Frequency
    - Sun 26 May 2024 07:24:11 MST
  - Irritations, Agreement/Disagreement, and Diminished Value of Thought Subsumed and Automated. Childhood.
    - Sun 26 May 2024 07:23:08 MST
  - Which Video is Interesting? Which Life is Interesting?
    - Sun 26 May 2024 07:06:14 MST
  - When Remaining Plans for For Parts of Brain for Reacting Well to Brain Damage
    - Sun 26 May 2024 07:05:05 MST
  - [The Diminishing Return of Thinking](#the-diminishing-return-of-thinking)
    - Sun 26 May 2024 07:04:10 MST
  - ThoughtStream as First Content to Last Thoughts and The Last Publication Format.
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:45:56 MST
  - When your longevity is 1,000 or more years, or is already like that because you are sufficiently advanced. Children that learn in all in a month.
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:43:48 MST
  - A Typology, Nomenclature, and Child Slangification of "Interesting"
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:42:29 MST
  - When What You Create is the Novelty of the World, and Science. Usable Obseration, Specifics, and Extra Time. The Value of Having Time.
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:36:14 MST
  - Making a Creative Brain Mandala That's Internal and External
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:17:40 MST
  - No Shortage of People for Relationships
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:16:30 MST
  - Harvesting Money and Goods and Not Making or Buying Anything
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:15:30 MST
  - Wordly Observation as The Relationships to Have
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:14:50 MST
  - So Someone Stopped You Some Way, And Time Having Values
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:12:41 MST
  - Quantity of Mind Value
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:11:17 MST
  - When Relationshiping and When Money?
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:09:25 MST
  - When Space is not an Issue, How Might We Interact?
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:08:36 MST
  - The Money Motivation Loop
    - Sun 26 May 2024 06:03:26 MST
  - Obsure Business Methods that are More Mutually Rewarding
    - Sun 26 May 2024 05:39:15 MST
  - Periodically Attaining Baby Mind
    - Sun 26 May 2024 05:28:19 MST
  - "How am I to be persuaded?"
    - Sun 26 May 2024 05:27:21 MST
  - Illusions of Old Writing, and How They Would Speak and Seek Information Today
    - Sat 25 May 2024 02:07:45 MST
  - Wanting to Share Experience
    - Sat 25 May 2024 02:06:36 MST
  - [I Became The Thing I Want and Wanted to Be](#i-became-the-thing-i-want-and-wanted-to-be)
    - Sat 25 May 2024 01:35:38 MST
  - Creations With an Aspect of Timelessness
    - Fri 24 May 2024 15:03:23 MST
  - Let's Use the Writings of the Thoughtstream in The Future as a Test
    - Fri 24 May 2024 15:02:45 MST
  - Let's Transport Ourselves Back in Time Into Ignorance, and Think Hard
    - Fri 24 May 2024 14:59:58 MST
  - [The Peer Review Process of Academic Journals Must Vary](#the-peer-review-process-of-academic-journals-must-vary)
    - Fri 24 May 2024 10:08:37 MST
  - [An Initial List of Job Roles I've Had](#an-initial-list-of-job-roles-ive-had)
    - Fri 24 May 2024 08:54:27 MST
  - [A Model of Business Using Tens](#a-model-of-business-using-tens)
    - Fri 24 May 2024 01:26:11 MST
  - Utility and Causality in Vitamins, Herbalism, and Supplementation
    - Wed 22 May 2024 23:57:12 MST
  - [Illusions of Communication and High Range Intelligence](#illusions-of-communication-and-high-range-intelligence)
    - Wed 22 May 2024 23:54:20 MST
  - [Preventative Diet as Consuming Herbalism](#preventative-diet-as-consuming-herbalism)
    - Wed 22 May 2024 10:48:53 MST
  - [Towards a Complete Written Strategy and Process of Self-Treatment Until Death](#towards-a-complete-written-strategy-and-process-of-self-treatment-until-death)
    - Wed 22 May 2024 09:55:15 MST
  - [Debunking Herbal Remedies Kindly](#debunking-herbal-remedies-kindly)
    - Wed 22 May 2024 08:50:30 MST
  - [Art, Writings, and Music as Last Words of Choice](#art-writings-and-music-as-last-words-of-choice)
    - Mon May 20 06:17:40 AKDT 2024
  - [Anonymity](#anonymity)
    - Mon 20 May 2024 04:58:10 MST
  - [Identification Numbers, Library of Congress Numbers, and Copyrighting](#identification-numbers-library-of-congress-numbers-and-copyrighting)
    - Mon 20 May 2024 04:55:36 MST
  - [Self-innovation, Self-Adoption of Innovations, and Reality II](#self-innovation-self-adoption-of-innovations-and-reality-ii)
    - Sat 18 May 2024 23:42:34 MST
  - [Self-innovation, Self-Adoption of Innovations, and Reality](#self-innovation-self-adoption-of-innovations-and-reality)
    - Sat 18 May 2024 16:17:24 MST
  - [Video as Digital Evidence for Science and Substitution for Witnesses](#video-as-digital-evidence-for-science-and-substitution-for-witnesses)
    - Sat 18 May 2024 15:03:56 MST
  - [Minor Analysis and Categorization Related to Typing Skill](#minor-analysis-and-categorization-related-to-typing-skill)
    - Sat 18 May 2024 14:36:33 MST
  - [Agreement, Disagreement, and Newness as Social Elicitations](#agreement-disagreement-and-newness-as-social-elicitations)
    - Sat, May 18, 2024 13:34:26 MST
  - [Agreement, Disagreement, Expansion, Persuasion, and Conversational Development](#agreement-disagreement-expansion-persuasion-and-conversational-development)
    - Fri 17 May 2024 23:58:50 MST
  - [Problems with Persuasion, Social Inclination, and Conversation Development](#problems-with-persuasion-social-inclination-and-conversation-development)
    - Fri 17 May 2024 20:12:59 MST
  - Thinking About and Doing, all that One Wants and Needs to Do, For Elimination of Worry and Planning Automation (and Learning).
    - Thu 16 May 2024 08:09:43 MST
  - [The Joint Elimination of Worry and Planning](#the-joint-elimination-of-worry-and-planning)
    - Thu 16 May 2024 07:52:40 MST
  - Envisioning Future Actions and Vanishing Them Rapidly
    - Thu 16 May 2024 07:47:56 MST
  - Limitations of Video and It's Ability to Show and Describe the World
    - Thu 16 May 2024 07:46:43 MST
    - A much earlier set of ideas, recalled and recorded at the above date and time.
  - [Automatic Action and Planning](#automatic-action-and-planning) 
    - Thu 16 May 2024 06:58:54 MST
  - [An Analysis of Social Virality](#an-analysis-of-social-virality)
    - Tue 14 May 2024 20:59:16 MST
  - [Writing Over Dictation for Authentication, and Spelling and Grammar-From-Mind](#writing-over-dictation-for-authentication-and-spelling-and-grammar-from-mind)
    - Tue 14 May 2024 08:43:21 MST
  - Timeliness for What and for Who?
    - Mon 13 May 2024 23:25:06 MST
  - [Ideation That Can Be Had in Life, Given Days Remaining](#ideation-that-can-be-had-in-life-given-days-remaining)
    - Mon 13 May 2024 18:42:09 MST
  - Photos and Media Showing What Devices and Cameras Experienced, and The Prospect of Seeing and Experiencing What You Really Experienced
  - [Creativity Management of Thoughts and the Book Publication Process II](#creativity-management-of-thoughts-and-the-book-publication-process-ii)
  - Demonstrating and Explaining the Animal Origins of Morality and Overcoming Ancient Unwritten Prohibitions
    - Sun May 12 17:15:16 AKDT 2024
  - [Holding Onto Content Before Sharing](#holding-onto-content-before-sharing)
    - Sun May 12 16:51:29 AKDT 2024
  - [Market Awareness and Business](#market-awareness-and-business)
    - Sun May 12 15:36:03 AKDT 2024
  - [Creativity Management of Thoughts and the Book Publication Process](#creativity-management-of-thoughts-and-the-book-publication-process)
    - Sat 11 May 2024 14:53:31 MST
  - [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)
    - Fri 10 May 2024 18:39:33 MST
  - ["The name is 'Mattanaw', 'Mattanaw Mattanaw'"](#the-name-is-mattanaw-mattanaw-mattanaw)
    - Fri 10 May 2024 02:10:26 MST
  - The Burden of Having Too Many Ideas II.
    - Wed  8 May 2024 14:59:02 MST
  - Physico-mathematical Problems, Tentative Solutions, Re-invention, and Intelligence
    - Wed  8 May 2024 14:58:29 MST
  - [My Quest to Drink Only Water is Complete!](#my-quest-to-drink-only-water-is-complete)
    - Mon  6 May 2024 15:53:01 MST
  - [Risks of Fictional Productions II.](#risks-of-fictional-productions-ii)
    - Mon  6 May 2024 15:44:04 MST
  - [Risks of Fictional Productions](#risks-of-fictional-productions)
    - Mon  6 May 2024 15:03:59 MST
  - [Creating a Personal "Time Capsule" to Enjoy Societal Change More](#creating-a-personal-time-capsule-to-enjoy-societal-change-more)
    - Sun  5 May 2024 14:03:23 MST
  - [News Avoidance Wherever and However it Arises](#news-avoidance-wherever-and-however-it-arises)
    - Sat May  4 20:02:10 AKDT 2024
  - [Fantasizing Truth to Understand Honest People](#fantasizing-truth-to-understand-honest-people)
    - Tue 30 Apr 2024 12:28:54 MST
  - [The Enslavement of Animal Robots](#the-enslavement-of-animal-robots)
    - Tue 30 Apr 2024 12:25:46 MST
  - [End Game of the Chosen People](#end-game-of-the-chosen-people)
    - Mon 29 Apr 2024 03:54:21 MST
  - [Solidifications of the Life Categories](#solidifications-of-the-life-categories)
    - Sun 28 Apr 2024 19:16:42 MST
  - [Animals Thrive Amongst Corpses](#animals-thrive-amongst-corpses)
    - Thu  4 Apr 2024 06:35:48 MST
  - [Plans for Site Updates](#plans-for-site-updates)
    - Mon  1 Apr 2024 22:07:40 MST
  - [Feeding and Digestion Doesn't Correspond to a Diurnal Cycle](#feeding-and-digestion-doesnt-correspond-to-a-diurnal-cycle)
    - Sun 31 Mar 2024 23:19:15 MST
  - Levels of Preservation, Redundancy, and Mandalas
    - Tue 26 Mar 2024 17:31:10 MST
  - The Attentional Management Process, Allowable Object Map, and Total Human Situations with Synthesis
    - Tue 26 Mar 2024 17:29:55 MST
  - Vanishing Your Social Urges and The Significance
    - Tue 26 Mar 2024 17:28:52 MST
  - [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)
    - Sun 24 Mar 2024 17:43:24 MST
  - [Response to an online friend regarding his diety related argument](#response-to-an-online-friend-regarding-his-diety-related-argument)
    - Wed Mar 20 13:56:33 AKDT 2024
  - [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)
    - Sun Mar 17 11:45:51 AKDT 2024
  - [AI Removal of Operational Concepts From Language](#ai-removal-of-operational-concepts-from-language)
    - Sun Mar 10 2024 19:29:17 MST
  - [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)
    - Sun 25 Feb 2024 13:32:20 MST
  - [Gaining Audiences and Intellectualism](#gaining-audiences-and-intellectualism)
    - Sun 25 Feb 2024 12:51:03 MST
  - [Tasks for the Day Within the Life Categories Template](#tasks-for-the-day-within-the-life-categories-template)
    - Mon 19 Feb 2024 17:02:24 MST
  - [Requiring "Vulnerability" to be compelling](#requiring-vulnerability-to-be-compelling)
    - Sun 11 Feb 2024 18:15:12 MST
  - [Using verbalizations to filter out verbalizations of others](#using-verbalizations-to-filter-out-verbalizations-of-others)
    - Mon  5 Feb 2024 00:44:10 MST
  - [Unique Names, More Final Identity, and Natural Taxonomy](#unique-names-more-final-identity-and-natural-taxonomy)
    - Sun  4 Feb 2024 00:09:02 MST
  - [Thought Into Music](#thought-into-music)
    - Thu 25 Jan 2024 15:11:31 MST
  - [Fitness is Solved](#fitness-is-solved)
    - Wed 17 Jan 2024 17:17:14 MST
  - [Caring and Insults](#caring-and-insults)
    - Sun 14 Jan 2024 02:25:57 MST
  - [Baffling Life Histories After Excess Success](#baffling-life-histories-after-excess-success)
    - Tue  9 Jan 2024 14:53:51 MST
  - [There aren't really any competent voters](#there-arent-really-any-competent-voters)
    - Posted one day prior to: Tue  9 Jan 2024 14:53:02 MST
  - [The Decision to Use Steroids or Not in Bodybuilding](#the-decision-to-use-steroids-or-not-in-bodybuilding)
  - [Monthly Anniversaries and Making the New Year's Resolution Useful](#monthly-anniversaries-and-making-the-new-years-resolution-useful)
  - [Enjoying Time Alone At Bars and Restaurants Reading and Writing](#enjoying-time-alone-at-bars-and-restaurants-reading-and-writing)
    - Sat  6 Jan 2024 23:32:06 MST
  - [In Context Productions, Relevance, and Thinking About Anything Anywhere](#in-context-productions-relevance-and-thinking-about-anything-anywhere)
    - Sat  6 Jan 2024 15:41:05 MST
  - [New Year's Resolution as an Indicator of Irrationality and a Cultural Failure](#new-years-resolution-as-an-indicator-of-irrationality-and-a-cultural-failure)
    - Thu  4 Jan 2024 13:28:26 MST
  - [Pro-Semitism as Affirmative Action](#pro-semitism-as-affirmative-action)
    - Mon  1 Jan 2024 11:39:53 MST
  - [The Size of the Viable Exercise Routine](#the-size-of-the-viable-exercise-routine)
    - Mon  1 Jan 2024 11:24:59 MST
  - [Drug Strategies and Transparency Among New and Experienced Bodybuilders](#drug-strategies-and-transparency-among-new-and-experienced-bodybuilders)
  - [New Year's Resolutions as Infeasible](#new-years-resolutions-as-infeasible)
  - [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)
    - Wed 27 Dec 2023 21:54:23 AKST
  - [Answer to a Question from a Friend on the Effects of AI](#answer-to-a-question-from-a-friend-on-the-effects-of-ai)
    - Tue 26 Dec 2023 22:59:02 AKST
  - [Text Template for the Life Categories and Example Utilization](#text-template-for-the-life-categories-and-example-utilization)
    - Sat Dec 23 13:40:05 AKST 2023
  - File Types and Required Accounts
    - Sat 23 Dec 2023 12:13:41 AKST
  - [AK Activity Plans](#ak-activity-plans)
    - Fri Dec 22 22:34:24 EST 2023
  - [Post Bank Payment Plans, Set 1](#post-bank-payment-plans-set-1)
    - Tue Dec 19 22:04:17 EST 2023
  - [Donation Request Methodology and Printout](#donation-request-methodology-and-printout)
    - Wed Dec 13 12:26:10 EST 2023
  - [Upcoming Plan to Utilize just $100 as a Wealthy Homeless Camper for a Period of 1 Month](#upcoming-plan-to-utilize-just-100-dollars-as-a-wealthy-homeless-camper-for-a-period-of-1-month)
    - Sat Dec  9 10:12:19 EST 2023
  - Thorium Technology, and Lead Acid Battery Ships
    - Wed Dec  6 01:40:08 EST 2023
    - Researched with a hired consultant well earlier, excepting the lead acid battery ships, conceived of in a cross Canadian roadtrip through Northern Canada. To be dated later.
  - Redundancy in Technology and Nature
    - Wed Dec  6 01:38:14 EST 2023
    - Conceived well earlier and researched with a hired consultant. To be dated later. Approximately 2019.
  - Roughly equivalent content that is altered for the user to find it palatable, without the sender's knowledge, and vice versa
    - Wed Dec  6 00:49:26 EST 2023
  - [Backup and Redundancy Plan, and Unrelated Tasks](#backup-and-redundancy-plan-and-unrelated-tasks)
    - Wed Dec  6 00:43:53 EST 2023
  - A Less Arbitrary Coordinate System, with Wanattams
    - Wed Dec  6 00:04:20 EST 2023
    - Conceived in Phoenix in June, 2023
  - Segregation by Nation, and Including Diversity in National Treasures, and Culturally Themed Art Competitions
    - Wed Dec  6 00:01:46 EST 2023
  - The Pyramid is Not That Impressive and Regular Buildings, and Pyramids in Cubes
    - Tue Dec  5 23:58:28 EST 2023
  - Finding Warmth and Warfare by Europe
    - Tue Dec  5 23:54:43 EST 2023
  - Livelihood as a Source of Urgencies
    - Tue Dec  5 09:58:13 EST 2023
  - Testing Your Heart Rate With Two Beats Only
    - Tue Dec  5 09:56:52 EST 2023
  - Tasks, Doing Things, and Why You Can't Say What Retirement Is.
    - Tue Dec  5 09:54:38 EST 2023
  - What is Adventure and Who Are the Adventurers?
    - Tue Dec  5 09:53:58 EST 2023
  - Experimenting with Environments, Risks, and Who Does It
    - Tue Dec  5 09:53:18 EST 2023
  - Experimenting with Fitness, its Risk, and Who Does It
    - Tue Dec  5 09:52:30 EST 2023
  - Experimenting with Health, its Risks, and Who Does It
    - Tue Dec  5 09:52:04 EST 2023
  - Experimenting with Nutrition, its Risks, and Who Does It
    - Tue Dec  5 09:51:18 EST 2023
  - People Who Claim Loneliness and Their Hallucinations
    - Tue Dec  5 09:49:39 EST 2023
  - Detailed Artwork and Those Unable to State the Detail With Words
    - Tue Dec  5 09:45:20 EST 2023
  - On Not Knowing What Alone Is, and The State of Civilization
    - Tue Dec  5 09:44:25 EST 2023
  - Simple Real World IQ Tests, Like Clapping at a Screen at the Movies
    - Tue Dec  5 09:43:18 EST 2023
  - If you discovered that a social platform was media control, you would still use it, and Degrees and Types of Marginalization
    - Sun Dec  3 13:17:26 EST 2023
  - [The American Flag is only Blue and Red and is Basic](#the-american-flag-is-only-blue-and-red-and-is-basic)
    - Sun Dec  3 13:03:43 EST 2023
  - Caring About Public Figures Even Less, Until Knowledge Occurs in Marketing/Propaganda
    - Sun Dec  3 13:01:21 EST 2023
  - Families as "Doesn't Know Their Age Anymore" Arrested Development
    - Sun Dec  3 12:58:55 EST 2023
  - The Appropriate Degree of Ceremony and Celebration for Accomplishments and Milestones
    - Sun Dec  3 12:46:54 EST 2023
  - [Completion of the Mission of the Personal Form](#completion-of-the-mission-of-the-personal-form)
    - Sat Dec  2 21:50:50 EST 2023
  - [Affidavit of the Authenticity of The Book and Journal of Mattanaw at Mattanaw.org, as a Testament of Mattanaw for the Living Will](#affidavit-of-the-authenticity-of-the-book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-at-mattanaworg-as-a-testament-of-mattanaw-for-the-living-will)
    - Sat Dec  2 21:08:45 EST 2023
  - [Affidavit Concerning Vegetarian/Vegan and Water Lifestyle](#affidavit-concerning-vegetarianvegan-and-water-lifestyle)
    - Sat Dec  2 12:05:44 EST 2023
  - Pathways for asserting religious views and preferences in the United States, and recognized religions
    - Sat Dec  2 12:02:48 EST 2023
  - [Affidavit Concerning Mattanaw's Abstinence From Drugs, Sex and Alcohol](#affidavit-concerning-mattanaws-abstinence-from-drugs-sex-and-alcohol)
  - [Be Concise But You Missed This](#be-concise-but-you-missed-this)
  - [Authoritativeness and Uses of Single Forms of Identification](#authoritativeness-and-uses-of-single-forms-of-identification)
    - Fri Dec  1 11:30:02 EST 2023
  - [Affidavit Concerning Name Change of Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh to Mattanaw](#affidavit-concerning-name-change-of-christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-to-mattanaw)
  - [Affidavits Attesting to Living Autobiography](#affidavits-attesting-to-living-autobiography)
    - Thu Nov 30 17:21:59 EST 2023
  - [My Commitment to Chastity](#my-commitment-to-chastity)
    -  Thu Nov 30 12:42:23 EST 2023
  - [ID and bank activities and plans](#id-and-bank-activities-and-plans) 
  - [Gold Wiring](#gold-wiring)
    - Mon Nov 27 12:00:18 EST 2023
  - [Checklist for attacking the bank to provide my funds owed to me.](#checklist-for-attacking-the-bank-to-provide-my-funds-owed-to-me)
    - Sun Nov 26 10:59:53 EST 2023
  - You're positive so you're positive now and I discarded your religion.
    - Sun Nov 26 10:08:28 EST 2023
  - "You're in a bad mood, the real you appears shortly, I will wait" 
    - Sun Nov 26 10:07:35 EST 2023
  - The supply and demand of transactions themselves
    - Added Sun Nov 26 10:03:05 EST 2023, thought several days earlier
  - Small fees from government agencies and why is it not disincluded from taxes?
    - Added Sun Nov 26 10:02:55 EST 2023, added thought within last few days
    - Fixed with the logical "not": Tue Nov 28 06:26:41 EST 2023
  - Voting as the shortest communication received and it only says a name
    - Added Sun Nov 26 10:00:45 EST 2023
  - Which Priestism
    - Sat Nov 25 14:30:10 EST 2023
  - The Rich Don't Have Cash
    - Added Sat Nov 25 12:49:48 EST 2023, thought from two days prior
  - [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)
    - Sat Nov 25 12:49:01 EST 2023
  - Legal Preparations and Social Organizational Graphs Utilizing Support
     - Sat Nov 25 12:46:42 EST 2023
  - Already True Dissertations Per Minute and Life Acqurired PhDs, and Relationship to Morality | Fri Nov 24 12:25:39 EST 2023
  - Postings of Non-Dissertative Ideas and Questions and Usage for Comparisons on Velocity of Significance and Ideation In the Population | Fri Nov 24 12:11:30 EST 2023
  - The Growth of Significance of Velocity of Significance and Ideation, as Evidenced in Creative Generation Lists, like this Contents and ThoughtStream | Fri Nov 24 12:10:42 EST 2023
  - The Utility of Decision Trees for Personal Planning in Advance | Fri Nov 24 12:08:51 EST 2023
  - Creative Generativity and Relationships to Accessible Neuro-Network Sections | Fri Nov 24 12:05:52 EST 2023
  - The Value of Ideas and Relationship to Me-time | Fri Nov 24 12:05:13 EST 2023
  - How to not stress idea loss | Fri Nov 24 12:03:46 EST 2023
  - Quantifying Creative Periods, and Want of More or Less in Others | Fri Nov 24 12:01:51 EST 2023
  - Extreme Creativity and Duration of Mining Interests | Fri Nov 24 11:59:27 EST 2023
  - Ad Finitum VS. Ad Infinitum, and Wanattams | Fri Nov 24 11:58:39 EST 2023
  - Chronic Bragging May Relate to Non-Acknowledgement, and Self-Knowledge | Fri Nov 24 11:57:19 EST 2023
  - Abstracts of Density of Non-Understanding Vs. Elaborations into Articles of Quality, and TLDR in the High IQ Community, and Complaints of Difficulty of Comprehension | Fri Nov 24 11:55:46 EST 2023
  - Lost Good Ideas that Return Vs. Are Lost and Their Frequency and Relationship to Tracking Conversations | Fri Nov 24 11:54:50 EST 2023
  - Imposing Comas on Patients | Fri Nov 24 11:52:11 EST 2023
  - Knowing Speed of Ideation, and Relationship to Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Fri Nov 24 11:46:12 EST 2023
  - Quantifying Dissertative Ideas Unrecorded Vs Recorded | Fri Nov 24 11:45:26 EST 2023
  - What can young children do natively that adults cannot, and utilization for human nature. | Fri Nov 24 11:43:11 EST 2023
  - When Creative Scribbles Become Organized | Fri Nov 24 11:40:19 EST 2023]
  - When Plain Playgrounds Were Amazing | Fri Nov 24 11:36:36 EST 2023
  - Insta TL;DR Articles of Dissertativeness and the Meaning | Fri Nov 24 11:32:38 EST 2023
  - Marriage as Protection from True and False Accusations | Fri Nov 24 11:30:41 EST 2023
  - Wanattam Glyphs | Fri Nov 24 11:28:20 EST 2023
  - Dogabuleebuseds | Fri Nov 24 11:24:36 EST 2023
  - Mental Editing Superiority | Fri Nov 24 11:24:36 EST 2023
  - [My Introduction to Mensa Sweden](#my-introduction-to-mensa-sweden)
  - [Accurate and Easy Descriptive Skin Complexion](#accurate-and-easy-descriptive-skin-complexion)
  - [Facebook and Using Sentiments in Marketing](#facebook-and-using-sentiments-in-marketing)
  - [Changing and Partly Disusing the Phrase "I am"](#changing-and-partly-disusing-the-phrase-i-am)
  - [Brain Dividedness as an Outcome of Non-Synonymous Multilingualism](#brain-dividedness-as-an-outcome-of-non-synonymous-multilingualism)
  - [The Need to Finally Understand Whale and Dolphin Brains](#the-need-to-finally-understand-whale-and-dolphin-brains)
  - [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)
  - [You are an organism, and you have organelles](#you-are-an-organism-and-you-have-organelles)
  - [Religion as the slowest education pathway with the least iterations](#religion-as-the-slowest-education-pathway-with-the-least-iterations)
  - [Plans for resolving some specific aforementioned homelessness and wealthy camping issues](#plans-for-resolving-some-specific-aforementioned-homelessness-and-wealthy-camping-issues)
  - [Backup Tasks](#backup-tasks)
  - [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-camping)
  - [Warfare Census and Demographics](#warfare-census-and-demographics)
  - [Falsifications and Infeasibilities of Histocial Methodology and Practice](#falsifications-and-infeasibilities-of-historical-methodology-and-practice)
  - [Population, Quality of Life, and Life and Death Plans](#population-quality-of-life-and-life-and-death-plans)
  - [Wealthy and Luxuriant Beach Camping](#wealthy-and-luxuriant-beach-camping)
  - [Aimless Behavior and Work-Labor](#aimless-behavior-and-work-labor)
  - [Broadening Synonyms of Anti-Prejudice](#broadening-synonyms-of-anti-prejudice)
  - [Common Retirement Struggles, Part I](#common-retirement-struggles-part-i)
  - [Reinterpreting the Role of Normalcy in Morality, and the Relationship to Determinism](#reinterpreting-the-role-of-normalcy-in-morality-and-the-relationship-to-determinism)
  - [The Full Extent of Marketing Practices and Making It Identical with Education](#the-full-extent-of-marketing-practices-and-making-it-identical-with-education)
  - [Stock in Nations and Single Combined Retirement and Basic Income Accounts](#stock-in-nations-and-single-combined-retirement-and-basic-income-accounts)
  - [Public Blood Storage and Replacement Stations](#pulic-blood-storage-and-replacement-stations)
  - [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)
  - [Introduction to Mensa Sweden Under the Gaming Theme](introduction-to-mensa-sweden-under-the-gaming-theme)
  - [Color Palettes for Social Justice-Comfort](color-palettes-for-social-justice-comfort)
  - [Every animal is deformed already](every-animal-is-deformed-already)
  - [Cloud Surfaced Earth Hypothesis](cloud-surfaced-earth-hypothesis)
  - [On Partial Self-Marketing Removing Propaganda](#on-partial-self-marketing-removing-propaganda)
  - [Software Tasks](#software-tasks)
  - [Study of One's Symptoms as Knowledgeable Symptomology](#study-of-ones-symptoms-as-knowledgeable-symptomology)
  - [The Replacement of Pascal's False Wager is Easy](#the-replacement-of-pascals-wager-is-easy)
  - [The Idea of Lobbing in Business and Intelligence](#the-idea-of-lobbing-in-business-and-intelligence)
  - [Naturalistic Description of Attention](#naturalistic-description-of-attention)
  - [Thinking of me as a very old person is appropriate](#thinking-of-me-as-a-very-old-person-is-appropriate)
  - [It is possible to share everything](#it-is-possible-to-share-everything)
  - [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)
  - [Planned completion of key workflow related functionality](#planned-completion-of-key-workflow-related-functionality)
  - [Planned update to publishing method of underlying software](#planned-update-to-publishing-method-of-underlying-software)
  - [Regret, and You Can't Even Want the Right Things](#regret-and-you-cant-even-want-the-right-things)
  - [Repetition of Example Uses of the My Moral-Attentional Processes](#repetition-of-example-uses-of-the-my-moral-attentional-processes)
  - [When what you are is not what you want](#when-what-you-are-is-not-what-you-want)
  - [Interview from Scott Douglas Jacobsen of Insight Journal](#interview-from-scott-douglas-jacobsen-of-insight-journal)
  - [arecentexaminationofothecalendaryear](#arecentexaminationofothecalendaryear)
  - [My Introduction to Mensa Sweden!](#my-introduction-to-mensa-sweden)
  - [Radioactive Data Storage, Radio Communication, and Increased Capacity](#radioactive-data-storage-radio-communication-and-increased-capacity)
  - [The End of Randomness, Randomness in Uncertainty, and Cryptography](#the-end-of-randomness-randoness-in-uncertainty-and-cryptography)
  - [Purely Intellectual Morality and Resistance to Application, and Learning](#purely-intellectual-morality-and-resistance-to-application-and-learning)
  - [Linguistic Associative Graphs, Brains, and Adaptive Organs Like Skeletons](#linguistic-associative-graphs-brains-and-adaptive-organs-like-skeletons)
    - Monday, August 7th, 2023, 12:33pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  - [Torque, Planning, Intelligence, and Unstealable Creativity](#torque-intelligence-planning-and-unstealable-creativity)
    - Requires Recovery
  - [Changing Processes of Morality](#changing-processes-of-morality)
    - Requires Recovery
  - [A strategy for creating a taste for your bag](#a-strategy-for-creating-a-taste-for-your-bag)
    - Requires Recovery
  - [You Should Have Thousands of STD Test Results](#you-should-have-thousands-of-std-test-results)
  - [Demographics You Don't Have that are You](#demographics-you-dont-have-that-are-you)
  - [Adding Philosophical Discourse to the High Intelligence Community](#adding-philosophical-discourse-to-the-High-Intelligence Community)
  - [Status on the Current Project Regarding Homelessness and Wealthy Camping](#status-on-the-current-project-regarding-homelessness-and-wealthy-camping)
  - [If the news isn't interesting, others likely became less interesting](#if-the-news-isnt-interesting-others-likely-became-less-interesting)
  - [Inability to Intuit that Significance Precedes Persuasive Language](#inability-to-intuit-that-significance-precedes-persuasive-language)
  - [The Life Categories, Language, and Brain](#the-life-categories-language-and-brain)
  - [The Intelligent Who Cannot Find Real Games to Enjoy](#the-intelligent-who-cannot-find-real-games-to-enjoy)
  - [Cannibalism and Wartime Disrespect](#cannibalism-and-wartime-disrespect)
  - [I didn't invent your privacy](#i-didnt-invent-your-privacy)
  - [People didn't solve conversation](#people-didnt-solve-conversation)
  - [Some comments in Mensa to someone claiming special knowledge on "real creativity"](#some-comments-in-mensa-to-someone-claiming-special-knowledge-on-real-creativity)
  - [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 Pathway to Recovering Brain Material Related to Memories](#a-pathway-to-recovering-brain-material-related-to-memories)
  - [When can you sell a photograph?](#when-can-you-sell-a-photograph)
  - [Revising the Parenting Plan as Providing Reason to Live](#revising-the-parenting-plan-as-providing-reason-to-live)
  - [Modeling Skepticism](#modeling-skepticism)
  - [Updating Theorizing](#updating-theorizing)
  - [A comment in the HighIQ 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)
  - [If we don't ever do it we're patterned away from it](#if-we-dont-ever-do-it-we-are-patterned-away-from-it)
  - [Explorations in Greater Freedom](#explorations-in-greater-freedom)
  - [My History of Writings in the High Intelligence Community](#my-history-of-writings-in-the-high-intelligence-community)
  - [A Mathematical Proof-like Demonstration of Preference of Youth to Age in Aesthetics from Sexual Preference and Cultural Example](#a-mathematical-proof-like-demonstration-of-preference-of-youth-to-age-in-aesthetics-from-sexual-preferences-and-cultural-example)
  - [Making good encyclopedias available offline](#making-good-encyclopedias-available-offline)
  - [Mattanaw says you need not join moments of somebody else’s silence](#mattanaw-says-you-need-not-join-moments-of-somebody-elses-silence)
  - [Plans for the Evening](#plans-for-the-evening)
  - [Suffixes and Prefixes, and Interfixes that didn’t Dictionary](#suffixed-and-prefixes-and-interfixes-that-didnt-dictionary)
  - [Mocking Shit Faux-Jargon like “Boomer”](#mocking-shit-faux-jargon-like-boomer)
  - [Redoing strange grammatical constuctions, like variations on 'lay'](#redoing-strange-grammatical-constructions-like-variations-on-lay)
  - [Firsts of the Author and "Firsting" Behavior](#first-of-the-author-and-firsting-behavior)
  - [New reading of Schopenhauer](#new-reading-of-schopenhauer)
  - [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)
  - [Knowing if and when processing is parallel](#knowing-if-and-when-processing-is-parallel)
  - [Upcoming Thoughtstreams: Self-Created Textiles on an Animal-Creativity Spectrum...](#upcoming-thoughtstreams-self-created-textiles)
  - [Pretending one is not Procrastinating, and Unchangeable Occlusions](#pretending-one-is-not-procrastinating-and-unchangeable-occlusions)
  - [Practentice](#practentice)
  - [Automatic Weight Loss and General Life Excellences](#automatic-weight-loss-and-general-life-excellences)
  - [Book and Journal of Mattanaw as Uncharacteristic of the Views of Others](#book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-as-uncharacteristic-of-the-views-of-others)
  - [Ends and life-cycles](#ends-and-lifecycles)
  - [Pattern-history of Your Tissues](#pattern-history-of-your-tissues)
  - [Thinking of Salt as a Drug and Not a Mineral Nutrient](#thinking-of-salt-as-a-drug-and-not-a-mineral-nutrient)
  - [Nearly Free Air Insulation in Clothing](#air-insulation-in-clothing)
  - [Quick Remark on What Some Call Lateral Thinking](#quick-remark-on-what-some-call-lateral-thinking)
  - [Development on Homelessness Solutioning and Example of My Attentional Management Process](#development-on-homelessness-solutioning-and-example-of-my-attentional-management-process)
  - [Comment and response to "Cyclical Euphemization Process and Anticipated Word Expiry"](#commant-and-response-to-cyclical-euphemization-process-and-anticipated-word-expiry)
  - [Cyclical Euphemization Process and Anticipated Word Expiry](#cyclical-euphemization-process-and-anticipated-word-expiry)
  - [Familiarity with Self is Not a Clarified Representation](#familiarity-with-self-is-not-a-clarified-representation)
  - [Combining Widely Separate Situations and the Brain's Reactions to That](#combining-widely-separate-situations-and-the-brains-reactions-to-that)
  - [Upcoming initial postings](#upcoming-initial-postings)
  - [Cohesive Visions, Plans, and Post-Editing](#cohesive-visions-plans-and-post-editing)
  - [Paper and Energy](#paper-and-energy)
  - [Notes on Objectivity in Symbolic Ritualization for More Probable Recollection](#notes-objectivity-in-symbolic-ritualization-for-more-probable-recollection)
  - [Sharing of Tasks and Plans](#sharing-of-tasks-and-plans)
  - [I'm not that into relationships.](#im-not-that-into-relationships)
  - [Solving *your* problems by calling each other Brother or Sister.](#solving-your-problems-by-calling-each-other-brother-or-sister)
  - [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)
  - [Foolishness of the Common Trust in Voting.](#foolishness-of-the-common-trust-in-voting)
  - [Communion with Cactuses](#communion-with-cactuses)
  - [Cheap Camera Eyeballs and Your Citizenship](#cheap-camera-eyeballs-and-your-citizenship)
  - [Doing without cell phones again.](#doing-without-cell-phones-again)
  - [Holidays control how you reflect and think, and remember](#holidays-control-how-you-reflect-and-think-and-remember)
  - [911 Remembrance slightly off schedule](#911-remembrance-slightly-off-schedule)
  - [Technological shifts and generations](#technological-shifts-and-generations)
  - [Amateur vs. Professional, Work vs. Leisure](#amateur-vs-professional-work-vs-leisure)
  - [Ridding of the generation concept for current and future population groupings](#ridding-of-the-generation-concept-for-current-and-future-population-groupings)
  - [My response in a conversation on reverse engineering meaning unicode sensors and sensors](#my-response-in-a-conversation-on-reverse-engineering-meaning-unicode-sensors-and-sensors)
  - [Challenging Claims of Ignorance](#challenging-claims-of-ignorance)
  - [Since your heads are separate you can’t see that mutually you’re nonsense](#since-your-heads-are-separate-you-cant-see-that-mutually-youre-nonsense)
  - [Pat yourself on the back into the afterlife](#pat-yourself-on-the-back-into-the-afterlife)
  - [The Assumption that Human Life Needs to Continue](#the-assumption-that-human-life-needs-to-continue)
  - [How beautiful are paper stacks?](#how-beautiful-are-paper-stacks)
  - [James Dean and Identifying Good Acting](#james-dean-and-identifying-good-acting)
  - [Nonaesthetics of Books and Aggregates of Paper<](#nonaesthetics-of-books-and-aggregates-of-paper)
  - [Textiles that are never the same.](#textiles-that-are-never-the-same)
  - [Finding the relationships between manipulation and leadership](#finding-the-relationships-between-manipulation-and-leadership)
  - [Higher Order Attention, Notes](#higher-order-attention-notes)
  - [Exploring Distance to Town in Provisioning of the Camping Traveler and the Homeless](#exploring-distance-to-town-in-provisioning-of-the-camping-traveler-and-the-homeless)
  - [Factors in basic travel and homeless life provisioning, continued](#factors-in-basic-travel-and-homeless-life-provisioning-continued.)
  - [Factors in basic travel and homeless life provisioning](#factors-in-basic-travel-and-homeless-life-provisioning.)
  - [Finding places to sleep as a hobo or traveler](#finding-places-to-sleep-as-a-hobo-or-traveler)
  - [You Lived in Dogsgrace](#you-lived-in-dogsgrace)
  - [Are you infurriated?](#are-you-infurriated)
  - [LGBTQMATTANAWIRN+](#lgbtqmattanawirn)
  - [Has anyone created a science of facial manipulation?](#has-anyone-created-a-science-of-facial-manipulation)
  - [Welcome to the Dogolocaust](#welcome-to-the-dogolocaust)
  - [You’re Infuryier, You Furrier!](#youre-infuryier-you-furrier)
  - [I don’t recall wanting to forget, or blot out](#i-dont-recall-wanting-to-forget-or-blot-out)
  - [Harnessing Lack of Death-fear in Children](#harnessing-lack-of-death-fear-in-children)
  - [Permanence of Placement in Gifted Schools](#permanence-of-placement-in-gifted-schools)
  - [Who’s checking on Vietnam?](#whos-checking-on-vietnam)
  - [Salvationstony](#salvationstony)
  - [Deathtiny](#deathtiny)
  - [You pretended harder with your love on dogs](#for-dog-lovers-christians-and-equalitarians)
  - [You are disallowed in public](#you-are-disallowed-in-public)
  - [Suboptimal Sun](#suboptimal-sun)
  - [Positive Health Event and Planned Time Away from Social Media](#positive-health-event-and-planned-time-away-from-social-media)
  - [Ordering and Paying at the Outset at Restaurants](#ordering-and-paying-at-the-outset-at-restaurants)
  - [Who’s checking on Niger?](#whos-checking-on-niger)
  - [Unthinking Hearts that Save](#unthinking-hearts-that-save)
  - [When is being a “guest” over?](#when-is-being-a-guest-over)
  - [How transitional is your mind?](#how-transitional-is-your-mind)
  - [A Brief Summary View of Positive Psychology](#a-brief-summary-view-of-positive-psychology)
  - [Humancan, Add or Mod the Solution, or Related Problem Statement](#humancan-add-or-mod-the-solution-or-related-problem-statement)
  - [Attending to your own mind versus having your head pointed by others](#attending-to-your-own-mind-versus-having-your-head-pointed-by-others)
  - [I’m still an elitist](#im-still-an-elitist)
  - [You’re not a scientist](#youre-not-a-scientist)
  - [Hardware Supply as Scientific Supply for the Learning Population](#hardware-supply-as-scientific-supply-for-the-learning-population)
  - [Responding When Stopped by Police](#responding-when-stopped-by-police)
  - [Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Your Religion Didn’t Fix Your Habits](#fetal-alcohol-syndrome-your-religion-didnt-fix-your-habits)
  - [Modern on your technology but not on your Moral Technology, or](#modern-on-your-technology-but-not-on-your-moral-technology-or)
  - [Adding Detail to Nature](#adding-detail-to-nature)
  - [More detailed than nature](#more-detailed-than-nature)
  - [Social Snippet, No Need to Respond](#social-snippet-no-need-to-respond)
  - [Calculating temperature with digital photographs](#calculating-temperature-with-digital-photographs)
  - [Insectivory and Earthworm-eating as Early Market-forcing Regulations](#insectivory-and-earthworm-eating-as-early-market-forcing-regulations)
  - [Did anyone check on Uruguay?](#did-anyone-check-on-uruguay)
  - [When is a nation a property of a thing](#when-is-a-nation-a-property-of-a-thing)
  - [Metals with Nationalities?](#metals-with-nationalities)
  - [What can you disable in your mind?](#what-can-you-disable-in-your-mind)
  - [People who have interests that are not worthwhile](#people-who-have-interests-that-are-not-worthwhile)
  - [“Survival of the Fittest”](#survival-of-the-fittest)
  - [Jobs as Internment Camps Where people can concentrate](#jobs-as-internment-camps-where-people-can-concentrate)
  - [Life is Easy, Contrary to Your Worldview](#life-is-easy-contrary-to-your-worldview)
  - [Homosexuality creates a survival advantage because you actually like yourself](#homosexuality-creates-a-survival-advantage-because-you-actually-like-yourself)
  - [Were you creative?](#were-you-creative)
  - [You depended on everyone else for your morality](#you-depended-on-everyone-else-for-your-morality)
  - [Wanting to die “as is”](#wanting-to-die-as-is)
  - [Death and Your Mind Right Now](#death-and-your-mind-right-now)
  - [Justify your sex, and Discover Your Lack of Moral Sophistication](#justify-your-sex-and-discover-your-lack-of-moral-sophistication)
  - [Avoiding “Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How” for all things](#avoiding-who-what-where-when-why-and-how-for-all-things)
  - [I don’t know who me am, but I know some who me were](#i-dont-know-who-me-am-but-i-know-some-who-me-were)
  - [Final Thoughts, Fear of Death, and Death Plans](#final-thoughts-fear-of-death-and-death-plans)
  - [“I didn’t realize Mattanaw was a diety, until moments before I died”](#i-didnt-realize-mattanaw-was-a-diety-until-moments-before-i-died)
  - [Losing fear of death, because your life is TV](#losing-fear-of-death-because-your-life-is-tv)
  - [Social Snippet, The Error Hunting of those Who Don’t Understand](#social-snippet-the-error-hunting-of-those-who-dont-understand)
  - [How Universal is Personal History Alteration?](#how-universal-is-personal-history-alteration)
  - [Earlier and Later than Your Religion](#earlier-and-later-than-your-religion)
  - [Pretending Equality in Advance, and Truthfulness of Halves of a Dichotomized Species, in the Animal Kingdom.](#pretending-equality-in-advance-and-truthfulness-of-halves-of-a-dichotomized-species-in-the-animal-kingdom)
  - [High Culture, versus Low People](#high-culture-versus-low-people)
  - [Sentences about yourself, if honest](#sentences-about-yourself-if-honest Sentences about yourself, if honest)
  - [Solidified in ceremony](#solidified-in-ceremony)
  - [An Intolerable thing about Marriage](#an-intolerable-thing-about-marriage)
  - [Philosophical Questions, Not Very Puzzling](#philosophical-questions-not-very-puzzling)
  - [Special sentences are a rarity](#special-sentences-are-a-rarity)
  - [Social Snippet, No Analysis, Assumes Complete](#social-snippet-no-analysis-assumes-complete)
  - [Social Snippet, Confined Criticism](#social-snippet-confined-criticism)
  - [Grouping and ungrouping frequencies?](#grouping-and-ungrouping-frequencies)
  - [significance-of-mind-and-the-plausibility-of-the-conception-of-will-to-power-in-nietzsche](#significance-of-mind-and-the-plausibility-of-the-conception-of-will-to-power-in-nietzsche)
  - [Social Snippet, Sharing Thoughts](#social-snippet-sharing-thoughts)
  - [Social Snippet, Say Trolling](#social-snippet-say-trolling)
  - [The Significance of Ideas and Creativity](#the-significance-of-ideas-and-creativity)
  - [All Local Examples as Metaphors for the Universe](#all-local-examples-as-metaphors-for-the-universe)
  - [Efficacy of Wishes and Prayers](#efficacy-of-wishes-and-prayers)
  - [Wishing Wells for Morons that Were Everyone](#wishing-wells-for-morons-that-were-everyone)
  - [Paste Dictionary](#paste-dictionary)
  - [Keep splaining, agesplainer](#keep-splaining-agesplainer)
  - [Pretend Strategies and Algorithms that are Christian](#pretend-strategies-and-algorithms-that-are-christian)
  - [Making Death Plans so It Becomes a Rational Choice](#making-death-plans-so-it-becomes-a-rational-choice)
  - [Social Snippet, Say Again](#social-snippet-say-again)
  - [Social Snippets](#social-snippets)
  - [Explanations on this Work in Conversation Format](#explanations-on-this-work-in-conversation-format)
  - [“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”](#two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right)
  - [Being Vegan at Kaladi Brothers Jewel Lake, Anchorage](#being-vegan-at-kaladi-brothers-jewel-lake-anchorage)
  - [When you loved your own post, did you “Love you but not like you?”](#when-you-loved-your-own-post-did-you-love-you-but-not-like-you)
  - [Did you ever feel weird for loving your own post?](#did-you-ever-feel-weird-for-loving-your-own-post)
  - [Have you ever had a moment lost, because you were focused on a defect?](#have-you-ever-had-a-moment-lost-because-you-were-focused-on-a-defect)
  - [Could it be that Ebonics is just English?](#could-it-be-that-ebonics-is-just-english)
  - [When You are Saved by Complete Iefficacy of Prayer](#when-you-are-saved-by-complete-iefficacy-of-prayer)
  - [Enabling the Dalai Llama](#enabling-the-dalai-llama)
  - [The Presence of Children](#the-presence-of-children)
  - [The time it takes to get off of religion will relate to](#the-time-it-takes-to-get-off-of-religion-will-relate-to)
  - [Ending religion in the western world should be easy](#ending-religion-in-the-western-world-should-be-easy)
  - [Ability to answer direct questions and religion](#ability-to-answer-direct-questions-and-religion)
  - [The Friend Lists of Christians](#the-friend-lists-of-christians)
  - [Would it be worth discarding religion if it secured “love”](#would-it-be-worth-discarding-religion-if-it-secured-love)
  - [We use our toys to indicate our civilization and not ourselves](#we-use-our-toys-to-indicate-our-civilization-and-not-ourselves)
  - [What is the facial expression that corresponds to love and how long does it last?](#what-is-the-facial-expression-that-corresponds-to-love-and-how-long-does-it-last)
  - [Announcing the Mattanaw Certification Program](#announcing-the-mattanaw-certification-program)
  - [Cageism](#cageism)
  - [My wants don’t change much](#my-wants-dont-change-much)
  - [My wants don’t change much](#my-wants-dont-change-much)
  - [Pretending you’re backed by science, and “Recollection People”](#pretending-youre-backed-by-science-and-recollection-people)
  - [Races as Early Speciation, and Penis Size](#races-as-early-speciation-and-penis-size)
  - [You didn’t make your bias, so your opinion is recollection](#you-didnt-make-your-bias-so-your-opinion-is-recollection)
  - [Biases arise](#biases-arise)
  - [Bringing topics to rest with papers, via incentives](#bringing-topics-to-rest-with-papers-via-incentives)
  - [Pseudo Chirality](#pseudo-chirality)
  - [Radio Towers, Premade and Fabricated](#radio-towers-premade-and-fabricated)
  - [Loosen the coupling between yourself and history](#loosen-the-coupling-between-yourself-and-history)
  - [Good Bartenders](#good-bartenders)
  - [End of Chess: Victory to White](#end-of-chess-victory-to-white)
  - [The “Soul” is as primitive as you can get, you Animist!](#the-soul-is-as-primitive-as-you-can-get-you-animist)
  - [Omission reveals suicide is the norm, unless you don’t make any decision at all.](#omission-reveals-suicide-is-the-norm-unless-you-dont-make-any-decision-at-all)
  - [Think of a verb as a stored procedure](#think-of-a-verb-as-a-stored-procedure)
  - [Minimum structures extending into space](#minimum-structures-extending-into-space)
  - [Direct to space transport](#direct-to-space-transport)
  - [“Clinched that debate barely thinking about it, did you?”](#clinched-that-debate-barely-thinking-about-it-did-you)
  - [Tombstones](#tombstones)
  - [More on Determinism](#more-on-determinism)
  - [Swap your language with a small language](#swap-your-language-with-a-small-language)
  - [Abraham lived 900 plus years? And the biologist believes it](#abraham-lived-900-plus-years)
  - [Suppose you learn logic](#suppose-you-learn-logic)
  - [Reconsider your baby. Reconsider your LIES](#reconsider-your-baby.-reconsider-your-lies.)
  - [Proactive, Retroactive, and Along the Way](#proactive-retroactive-and-along-the-way)
  - [TO SEARCH, TO BE EXPOSED TO IT RANDOMLY, OR TO KNOW WHERE IT IS](#to-search-to-be-exposed-to-it-randomly-or-to-know-where-it-is)
  - [We are not “one”](#we-are-not-one)
  - [Your Equality Was Founded on Appearances](#your-equality-was-founded-on-appearances)
  - [Personal Identification, Naming, and Species Membership](#personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership)
  - [Reality Probability or Reality Feel](#reality-probability-or-reality-feel)
  - [Cumpleañosiphilia](#cumpleañosiphilia)
  - [Homo Sapiens Sapiens Mattanaw](#homo-sapiens-sapiens-mattanaw)
  - [Low Probability Next Thought, or High Probability Next Thought](#low-probability-next-thought-or-high-probability-next-thought)
  - [Turning parts of electronic devices off, and Computers containing numerous separate systems.](#turning-parts-of-electronic-devices-off-and-computers-containing-numerous-separate-systems)
  - [“My idea versus true idea.”](#my-idea-versus-true-idea)
  - [Allowed to hate](#allowed-to-hate)
  - [“Money Beginnings”](#money-beginnings)
  - [Sharing what starts in your head, versus secrecy](#sharing-what-starts-in-your-head-versus-secrecy)
  - [“You should see my little scabbies.”](#you-should-see-my-little-scabbies)
  - [Equal to the Disabled](#equal-to-the-disabled)
  - [You’re 1/1ths a Person](#youre-one-oneths-a-person)
  - [How Important is Listening?](#how-important-is-listening)
  - [Homo Sapiens Sapiens](#homo-sapiens-sapiens)
  - [The relationship between knowledge and action](#the-relationship-between-knowledge-and-action)
  - [Priveleges and Not Serving](#priveleges-and-not-serving)
  - [Dead Totalitarianism and Your Leaders](#dead-totalitarianism-and-your-leaders)
  - [Cycling vs Walking](#cycling-vs-walking)
  - [The United States is Multicult](#the-united-states-is-multicult)
  - [Math Professors and Mathing their Occupations](#math-professors-and-mathing-their-occupations)
  - [Confirming mathematical answers in professors and math texts](#confirming-mathematical-answers-in-professors-and-math-texts)
  - [Not Utilizing Rooms Per Capita for Social Distancing](#not-utilizing-rooms-per-capita-for-social-distancing)
  - [Covid Didn’t Affect Birth Rates Substantially](#covid-didnt-affect-birth-rates-substantially)
  - [With enough content you may finally feel content](#with-enough-content-you-may-finally-feel-content)
  - [Autocurrect now exists](#autocurrect-now-exists)
  - [Animal Cruelty via Reptiles](#animal-cruelty-via-reptiles)
  - [More on Interpersonal Differences in Individuals and in Aggregate and Elimination of Equality as the Justification of Social Justice.](#more-on-interpersonal-differences-in-individuals-and-in-aggregate-and-elimination-of-equality-as-the-justification-of-social-justice)
  - [“Did I stutter.”](#did-i-stutter)
  - [More on Equalization Bias](#more-on-equalization-bias)
  - [The “Garbage-in, Garbage-out” problem and Richard Feynman](#the-garbage-in-garbage-out-problem-and-richard-feynman)
  - [More on the Art of Defects](#more-on-the-art-of-defects)
  - [An Art of Defects](#an-art-of-defects)
  - [Same religion for everyone in a society](#same-religion-for-everyone-in-a-society)
  - [Coping With Non-holism. A Start. Part I](#coping-with-non-holism-a-start-part-i)
  - [Sawing Bicycles in Two](#sawing-bicycles-in-two)
  - [Where would you expect to find a non-pattern?](#where-would-you-expect-to-find-a-non-pattern)
  - [Which diversity to continue?](#which-diversity-to-continue)
  - [“Love versus Hatred” and other such excessively basic behavioral comparisons](#love-versus-hatred-and-other-such-excessively-basic-behavioral-comparisons)
  - [Kilauea, Volcanoes, and Earth is Old and Just Nature](#kilauea-volcanoes-earth-is-old-and-just-nature)
  - [Quantifying Influence and “What to learn next](#quantifying-influence-and-what-to-learn-next)
  - [“Amen” and other PUNCTUATION marks](#amen-and-other-punctuation-marks.)
  - [Has a female ever clogged a toilet?](#has-a-female-ever-clogged-a-toilet)
  - [The consequences of Dough-mastication](#the-consequences-of-dough-mastication)
  - [How patient are you with your censors?](#how-patient-are-you-with-your-censors)
  - [Parental Perversion by Default. A Diatribe](#parental-perversion-by-default-a-diatribe)
  - [What kind of rejection do you have?](#what-kind-of-rejection-do-you-have)
  - [“I don’t know what thoughts to have”](#i-dont-know-what-thoughts-to-have)
  - [Earth chose another animal](#earth-chose-another-animal)
  - [You hid the handicapped](#you-hid-the-handicapped)
  - [Inability to create meaning](#inability-to-create-meaning)
  - [Omelettes are just egg tacos](#omelettes-are-just-egg-tacos)
  - [“Skepticism” is not a strategy](#skepticism-is-not-a-strategy)
  - ["Woah, he's Scrumpty."](#woah-hes-scrumpty)
  - [Celebrating 4 years in business for myself](#celebrating-4-years-in-business-for-myself)
  - [Stuttering, sweaty, awkward, hard, uncomfortable truth and honesty](#stuttering-sweaty-awkward-hard-uncomfortable-truth-and-honesty)
  - [Anytime anyone chooses a new fashion, they can be considered inauthentic](#anytime-anyone-chooses-a-new-fashion)
  - [Can you massage my palms please?](#can-you-massage-my-palms-please)
  - [I am everything except what you don't want, and more](#i-am-everything-except-what-you-dont-want-and-more)
  - [Did Jesus or Buddha need editors?](#did-jesus-or-buddha-need-editors)
  - [Coronavirus Deaths Were Not "Deserved"](#coronavirus-deaths-were-not-deserved)
  - [Coexist is not a strategy, II](#coexist-is-not-a-strategy-ii)
  - [Coronavirus was your religion's fault](#coronavirus-was-your-religions-fault)
  - [Mattanaw is a revelation](#mattanaw-is-a-revelation)
  - [Before he became man, he was trout](#before-he-became-man-he-was-trout)
  - [What language is required to permit inferences about how someone feels?](#what-language-is-required-to-permit-inferences-about-how-someone-feels)
  - [Re-use the alcohol one million times](#reuse-the-alcohol-one-million-times)
  - [My grocery list for tomorrow](#my-grocery-list-for-tomorrow)
  - ["I died and went to heaven!"](#i-died-and-went-to-heaven)
  - [Mattanaw is an Animal](#mattanaw-is-an-animal-three)
  - [It's an American Virus. Own it](#its-an-american-virus-own-it)
  - [Wield the opportunity for your goals in waiting](#wield-the-opportunity-for-your-goals-in-waiting)
  - ["Be careful what you wish for."](#be-careful-what-you-wish-for)
  - [Lack of Concern about Overpopulation](#lack-of-concern-about-overpopulation)
  - [Saying Something Truthful With "We"](#saying-something-truthful-with-we)
  - [When you do not receive adequate recognition](#when-you-do-not-receive-adequate-recognition)
  - [Happy Thoughts, or More Complete Analyses](#happy-thoughts-or-more-complete)
  - [Mood of a Conversation and Narrow Mindedness](#mood-of-a-conversation-and-narrow-mindedness)
  - [The height of "heartlessness" to me is](#the-height-of-heartlessness-to-me-is)
  - ["Wakey, Wakey, Morning Earthquakey"](#wakey-wakey-morning-earthquakey)
  - [When are you irrationalizing?](#when-are-you-irrationalizing)
  - [Two Ways to Rationalize](#two-ways-to-rationalize)
  - [Excitement Trumps Rationality](#excitement-trumps-rationality)
  - [You just wanted to say that thought you had](#you-just-wanted-to-say-that-thought-you-had)
  - ["I do not like the messenger](#i-did-not-like-the-messenger)
  - [And that's the final thought. Amen](#and-thats-the-final-thought-amen)
  - [Instant Motivation, Part One](#instant-motivation-part-one)
  - [Bird Kiting](#bird-kiting)
  - [Sometimes broken software, is better than working software](#sometimes-broken-software-is-better-than-working-software.)
  - ["Practice makes, whatever practice makes."](#practice-makes-whatever-practice-makes)
  - [Naming your other selves](#naming-your-other-selves)
  - [Have a mentor for the right reasons](#have-a-mentor-for-the-right-reasons)
  - [Deciding When to Retain Knowledge](#deciding-when-to-retain-knowledge)
  - ["Priby Proboscis"](#priby-proboscus)
  - ["You've been Musked"](#youve-been-musked)
  - [Fatty Pigeon Ranch](#fatty-pigeon-ranch)
  - [9/11 War Advocates](#911-war-advocates)
  - [Jesus would be killed again](#jesus-would-be-killed-again)
  - [Old Cars are, Oddly Comforting](#old-cars-are-oddly-comforting)
  - [Parents and Mentors Remove Obstacles (And Other Stuff)](#parents-and-mentors-remove-obstacles-and-other-stuff)
  - [What is the value of coronavirus news, per capita?](#what-is-the-value-of-coronavirus-news-per-capita)
  - [Pretend to be Responsible, so You Can Pretend to be Special](#pretend-to-be-responsible-so-you-can-pretend-to-be-special)
  - [Mattanaw's Academic Papers](#mattanaws-academic-papers)
  - [Typod Forevr. When the Editor Who Can, Chooses Not To](#when-the-editor-who-can-chooses-not-to)
  - [When big data, is just data](#when-big-data-is-just-data)
  - [Called the coperator, and they did not coperate](#called-the-coperator-and-they-did-not-coperate)
  - [The Cure to Fatty Clogs of Death](#the-cure-to-fatty-clogs-of-death)
  - [My Political Tendency Test](#my-political-tendency-test)
  - [I'm empathetic, and that's why you're going to manage your own emotions](#im-empathetic-and-thats-why-youre-going-to-manage-your-own-emotions)
  - [When "Never give up" is not the answer](#when-never-give-up-is-not-the-answer)
  - [Dying Speech of an Old Philosopher](#dying-speech-of-an-old-philosopher)
  - [Let's Change Marketing Together](#lets-change-marketing-together)
  - [Creating an oxygen rich living environment](#creating-an-oxygen-rich-living-environment)
  - [Can you see the root?](#can-you-see-the-root)
  - [Our emotional dance with reality](#our-emotional-dance-with-reality)
  - [If I do it, or I don't do it, is already determined](#if-i-do-it-or-i-dont-do-it-is-already-determined)
  - ["Hey! I thought we were fwinds!"](#hey-i-thought-we-were-fwinds)
  - [See you later, potential friend](#see-you-later-potential-friend)
  - [Sleeping as much as I need to](#sleeping-as-much-as-I-need-to)
  - [You and everyone you know as a public notary](#you-and-everyone-you-know-as-a-public-notary)
  - [A current interest in logic and mathematics](#a-current-issue-in-logic-and-mathematics)
  - [Process diagram your way to the mathematical answers](#process-diagram-your-way-to-mathematical-answers)
  - [The Software is Botched](#the-software-is-botched)
  - [Can you ever really tell, if you need more,](#can-you-ever-really-tell-if-you-need-more)
  - [Ever notice that the "best" option for a decision](#ever-notice-that-the-best-option-for-a-decision)
  - [Yergonnadecryptit](#yergonnadecryptit)
  - [I<sup>th</sup> Cotomies](#ith-chotomies)
  - ["Fight for your rights!"](#fight-for-your-rights)
  - [If you are not deep, you are, well](#if-you-are-not-deep)
  - [Mixed origins of culture, and the "You have no idea where it came from."](#mixed-origins-of-the-culture)
  - [Karma is not in your religion](#karma-is-not-in-your-religion)
  - [Your maturation will happen inevitably](#your-maturation-will-happen-inevitably)
  - [Procrastinating? You are on more than one cycle of activity and inactivity](#procrastinating-you-are-on-more-than-one-cycle-of-activity-and-inactivity)
  - [Scientists achieve warm goals through cold logic](#scientists-achieve-warm-goals-through-cold-logic)
  - [Empathy and Grounds for Rejecting It](#empathy-and-grounds-for-rejecting-it)
  - [We Are Empty Space Now?](#we-are-empty-space-now)
  - [USA: The Extractive International Customer](#usa-the-extractive-international-customer)
  - [Your eyeball is always slightly downward, or upward, compared to the other](#your-eyeball-is-always-slightly-downward-or-upward-compared-to-the-other)
  - [Honor Veterans with the truth](#honor-veterans-with-the-truth)
  - [It wasn't brilliant](#it-wasnt-brilliant)
  - [Survivable enough](#survivable-enough)
  - [What's the size of your clan?](#whats-the-size-of-your-clan)
  - [Say nothing](#say-nothing)
  - [Yer that word](#yer-that-word)
  - [Cause-Effect is not Thought-to-Inference](#cause-effect-is-not-thought-to-inference)
  - [Having the thoughts of others vs. Truth](#having-the-thoughts-of-thers-vs-truth)
  - [I agree that is a quote](#i-agree-that-is-a-quote)
  - [Quotes that are really old, Part I](#quotes-that-are-really-old-one)
  - ["I don't like what you said therefore I can do anything I want to you." Part II."](#i-dont-like-what-you-said-therefore-i-can-do-anything-i-want-to-you-part-ii)
  - [Fasting Undefined](#fasting-undefined)
  - [Fact People](#fact-people)
  - ["Equality is Real"](#equality-is-real-what-about-preferences)
  - [Cultures with Mansplaining Built in](#cultures-with-mansplaining-built-in)
  - [Public Opinion is Not a Process](#public-opinion-is-not-a-process)
  - [Unremember the Word](#unremember-the-word)
  - [Hey Troll!](#hey-troll-i-wasnt-thinking-about-you)
  - [The Uninitiated Don't Know](#the-uninitiated-dont-know)
  - [The Winter Holiday Season May be Simply for Tolerating the Winter](#the-winter-holiday-season-may-be-simply-for-tolerating-the-winter)
  - [Relief comes soon after you get real](#relief-comes-soon-after-you-get-real)
  - [Head Start Means Started from Behind](#head-start-means-started-from-behind)
  - [If we were to give up on inheritance](#if-we-were-to-give-up-on-inheritance)
  - [Single people get made fun of](#single-people-get-made-fun-of-for-masturbation)
  - [First there was the gesture](#first-there-was-the-gesture)
  - [Who are all these people who are having internal struggles against doing "evil"?](#who-are-all-the-people-struggling-with-evil-inclinations)
  - [In the beginning, there was the wordss](#in-the-beginning-there-was-the-words)
  - [Nothing is as demonic as two thirds?](#nothing-is-as-demonic-as-two-thirds)
  - [When lying for a higher purpose](#when-lying-for-a-higher-purpose)
  - ["Grateful" often means "I don't plan on doing anything"](#grateful-often-means-I-dont-plan-on-doing-anything)
  - [Signatures, handwriting, and hand-markings](#signatures-handwriting-and-hand-markings)
  - [Fault the Earth for what it does to itself,](#fault-the-earth-for-what-it-does-to-itself)
  - [You don't reject what doesn't exist](#you-dont-reject-what-doesnt-exist)
  - ["When to think, and when to remember?"](#when-to-think-and-when-to-remember)
  - ["If it permanently ain't broke, don't fix it."](#if-it-permanently-aint-broke-dont-fix-it)
  - [Using AI and Machine Learning to verify what works of religion are fictional](#using-ai-and-machine-learning-to-verify-what-works-of-religion-are-fictional)
  - [Can I get a "Yeah right."?](#can-i-get-a-yeah-right)
  - [Just Saying "Smartness"](#just-saying-smartness)
  - [Be Authentic, but that's Unbecoming](#be-authentic-but-thats-unbecoming)
  - [Your Heart is a Blood-pumping Organ](#your-heart-is-a-blood-pumping-organ)
  - [Not having a better way to say it](#not-having-a-better-way-to-say-it)
  - ["Life is Empty"](#life-is-empty)
  - [That Centenarian who slanders their way into heaven](#that-centenarian-who-slanders-their-way-into-heaven)
  - ["Hello there", from the car](#hello-there-from-the-car)
  - [Honesty is not extreme](#honesty-is-not-extreme)
  - [I'm immune](#im-immune)
  - [Uncage your animal, you animal](#uncage-your-animal-you-animal)
  - ["I'm not a masochist, but hey, falsepath me anyway."](#im-not-a-masochist-but-hey-falsepath-me-anyway)
  - [Getting real in the debate team](#getting-real-in-the-debate-team)
  - [Saw it coming](#saw-it-coming)
  - [Vetting the "remnant"](#vetting-the-remnant)
  - [Obstructing Corporate Turnover](#obstructing-corporate-turnover)
  - [The views of your ancestors](#the-views-of-your-ancestors)
  - [Do you have the patience and open mind to receive a new Revelation?](#do-you-have-the-patience-and-open-mind-to-receive-a-new-revelation)
  - [It's brutal because you weren't honest with yourself](#its-brutal-because-you-werent-honest-with-yourself)
  - [The Whole World is Stuck Here](#the-whole-world-is-ok)
  - [Advice Dynamics](#advice-dynamics)
  - [The ThoughtStream is also a Punching Bag](#the-thoughtstream-is-also-a-punching-bag)
  - [Most are stuck here](#most-are-stuck-here)
  - [Ignoring What is Definitely False](#ignoring-what-is-definitely-false)
  - [Busy Bee](#busy-bee)
  - [Tension between preservation and letting go](#tension-between-preservation-and-letting-go)
  - [My website is a mandala](#my-website-is-a-mandala)
  - [What? Solution-problem it?](#solution-problem-it)
  - [Laundry and Time](#laundry-and-time)
  - ["It's a blessing and a curse."](#its-a-blessing-and-a-curse)
  - [Heartwarming Somethings, One](#heartwarming-somethings-one)
  - ["I don't have a favorite."](#i-dont-have-a-favorite)
  - [Be 90 now](#be-90-now)
  - [You're Woke so You're a Determinist Now](#youre-woke-so-youre-a-determinist-now)
  - [Aligning Yourself with Probability](#aligning-yourself-with-probability)
  - [Movie Ideas for People Who Can Make Movies, One](#movie-ideas-for-people-who-can-make-movies-one)
  - [Remember Cryogenics?](#remember-cryogenics)
  - [Ignorance is Bliss?](#ignorance-is-bliss)
  - [Let R.I.P R.I.P](#let-rip-rip)
  - [Nice job at the gym. I see you accomplished veins](#nice-job-at-the-gym-I-see-you-accomplished-veins)
  - [Focus on yourself because you like you, right?](#focus-on-yourself-because-you-like-you-right)
  - ["Dr. Lunch", Part One](#dr-lunch-part-one)
  - [Do you ever wish you could sing like a woman and a man?](#do-you-ever-wish-you-could-sing-like-a-woman-and-a-man)
  - [When Your Negative is My Positive](#when-your-negative-is-my-positive)
  - [As a heuristic device, I don't listen to anyone](#as-a-heuristic-device-i-dont-listen-to-anyone)
  - [Logic teachers have the responsibility](#logic-teachers-have-the-responsibility)
  - [Sanest, not a Sadist](#sanest-not-a-sadist)
  - [Nunavut is real](#nunavut-is-real)
  - [Every logic course in history was incomplete](#every-logic-course-in-history-was-incomplete)
  - [Challenge III. Find words that don't appear in true statements](#challenge-three-find-words-that-dont-appear-in-true-sentences)
  - [Risks of not knowing your rights, and not really having rights](#risks-of-not-knowing-your-rights)
  - ["Esquired and Exchequered, Bro."](#esquired-and-exchequered-bro)
  - [On what cycle should I consume your recommended ingredients?](#on-what-cycle-should-I-consume-your-recommended-ingredients)
  - [You've been miscellaneoused](#youve-been-miscellaneoused)
  - ["I did exactly what my parents told me to do"](#i-did-exactly-what-my-parents-told-me-to-do)
  - [Don't be a sock blocker!](#dont-be-a-sock-blocker)
  - [Legacy in the eternity?](#legacy-in-the-eternity)
  - [Inspired by Women](#inspired-by-women)
  - [Complain with a solutionss](#complain-with-a-solutionss)
  - [Disruptors are already out](#disruptors-are-already-out)
  - [Sleep on it twice](#sleep-on-it-twice)
  - [Elite Privileges](#elite-privileges)
  - [Plural plurals](#plural-plurals)
  - [There has to be a reasons](#there-has-to-be-a-reasons)
  - [How to get out of caring about waste](#how-to-get-out-of-caring-about-waste)
  - [What medium does your strategy take?](#what-medium-does-your-strategy-take)
  - [What form does your strategy take?](#what-form-does-your-strategy-take)
  - [Perfection is not a thing](#perfection-is-not-a-thing)
  - [Where did this thought come from ultimately?](#where-did-this-thought-come-from-ultimately)
  - [Freedom in Politics. Being Independently Minded as an Independent](#freedom-in-politics-being-independently-minded-as-an-independent)
  - [EstEst](#estest)
  - [That Political Candidate Placed in Front of You](#the-political-candidate-placed-in-front-of-you)
  - ["Every little bit counts" when you are on a false path too](#every-little-bit-counts)
  - [Time Versus Logic](#time-versus-logic)
  - [You programmed me!](#you-programmed-me)
  - ["How do you handle ambiguity?"](#how-do-you-handle-ambiguity)
  - [If hindsight was 2020](#if-hindsight-was-2020-we-would-know-how-to-distribute-blame-correctly)
  - ["That's what he said"](#thats-what-he-said)
  - [Infinite Recursion Continued..](#infinite-recursion-continued)
  - [Infinite Recursion is Fine, and Freedom](#infinite-recursion-is-fine-and-freedom)
  - [6 Degrees of Correlation or Causation](#six-degrees-of-correlation-or-cuasation)
  - [When does one decide to get a flu vax? Before it doesn't work or after?](#get-the-flu-vax-before-it-doesnt-work-or-after)
  - [Determinism is a Comfort](#determinism-is-a-comfort)
  - [We need to challenge and push each other to higher levels. Volunteer to be offended!](#volunteer-to-be-offended)
  - [The un-newsification of the news seems to be nearly complete. Boycott time?](#the-un-newsification-of-the-news-seems-nearly-complete)
  - [What if you didn't actually "believe" anything, that you didn't instinctively act on?](#what-if-you-didnt-believe-anything-you-didnt-instinctively-act-on)
  - [Lose Weight to See Your Body](#lose-weight-to-see-your-body)
  - [Saving as Investing](#saving-as-investing)
  - [Optimism as a Buzkill](#optimism-as-a-buzkill)
  - [Effort in Education, and Work](#effort-in-education-and-work)
  - [Would you join a company called "Success Pyramid?"](#joining-success-pyramid)
  - [A quality I value highly now: time to realization of incorrectness](#time-to-realization-of-incorrectness)
  - [Learning is Real, So Equality Isn't](#learning-is-real-so-equality-isnt)
  - [Determinism and the Swayed Vote](#determinism-and-the-swayed-vote)
  - [A Field for Taboo Elimination?](#a-field-for-taboo-elimination)
  - [Agreement is just a partial analogy](#agreement-is-a-partial-analogy)
  - [Dodging Undesirable Tongues](#dodging-undesirable-tongues)
  - ["Fitting In"](#fitting-in)
  - [Pre-meditation for Defense](#premeditation-for-defense)
  - ["Resolutions that Happen"](#resolutions-that-happen-repost)
  - [Degrees of Attachment to Present Thoughts](#degrees-of-attachment-to-present-thoughts)
  - [Knowing someone's plans doesn't mean you inherited their gifts](#knowing-someones-plans-doesnt-mean-you-inherited-their-gifts)
  - [My Dad Knows Better Than Your Dad](#my-dad-knows-better-than-your-dad)
  - [Elders Tend to Lie, When the Topic is of Great Importance](#elders-tend-to-lie-when-the-topic-is-of-the-greatest-importance)
  - [How I Inhibited My Fear of Death](#how-i-inhibited-my-fear-of-death)
  - [EstEst](#estest)
  - [You are the mostest special person in the whole world](#you-are-the-mostest-special-person-in-the-world)
  - [History is not very actionable](#history-is-not-very-actionable)
  - [Finding Change Levers by Creating Public Systems Models](#finding-change-levers-by-creating-public-systems-models)
  - [Alternative Grading Methodologies](#alternative-grading-methodologies)
  - [Our civilization is cultures](#our-civilization-is-cultures)
  - [Activists of Inequality](#activists-of-inequality)
  - [Challenge Two: Find texts that don't make the mistakes of challenge one](#challenge-two-finding-texts-that-dont-make-the-mistakes-of-challenge-one)
  - [More where that came from](#more-where-that-came-from)
  - [Is the urge to finish things the result of the escalation of commitment bias?](#is-the-urge-to-finish-things-the-result-of-the-escalation-of-commitment-bias)
  - [Increased Justice and Understanding What Justice Actually Is](#increased-justice-and-understanding-what-justice-actually-is)
  - [Which party does a business decision belong to?](#what-party-does-a-business-decision-belong-to)
  - [All Quotes Must Include My Errors](#all-quotes-must-include-my-errors)
  - [What is Trivial?](#what-is-trivial)
  - [Mattanaw Acts Alone on the ThoughtStream](#mattanaw-acts-alone-on-the-thoughtstream)
  - [Origin of the Thoughts](#origin-of-the-thoughts)
  - [When Will Genesis Ever End, Really?](#when-will-genesis-ever-end-really)
  - [Employment Relationships are Not Romances](#employment-relationships-are-not-romances)
  - [Challenge One: Say "Best" or "Worst", only when it results in a true statement](#challenge-one-avoiding-logically-risky-words)
  - [Record a commitment](#record-a-commitment)
  - [A wave can be an oath too](#a-wave-can-be-an-oath-too)
  - ["You are funny"](#you-are-funny)
  - [A teacher takes you through all the steps](#a-teacher-takes-you-through-all-the-steps)
  - [Thoughts are distillates](#a-message-comes-out-of-a-funnel)
  - [Faith disappears,](#faith-disappears)
  - [Prayer Overlaps Meditation so You are Part Buddhist](#enlightenment-has-evolving-meaning)
  - [Enlightenment has Evolving Meaning](#enlightenment-has-evolving-meaning)
  - [Faith disappears,](#faith-disappears-but-then-it-returns-again)
  - [See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil](#to-think-fewer-evils)
  - [Kind Hearted Amusement is its Own Reward](#kind-hearted-amusement-is-its-own-reward)
  - [Everyone gets confused](#everyone-gets-confused)
  - [Publishing Plans and Results, If There Are Any](#publishing-plans-and-results-if-there-are-any)
  - [Let's look at the learning intervals](#its-easy-to-become-envious)
  - [It's easy to become envious,](#its-easy-to-become-envious)
  - [The ThoughtStream is Enough](#the-thoughtstream-is-enough)
  - [Maturity Models in Daily Life](#maturity-models-in-daily-life)
  - [The first rule for choosing a mentor,](#choosing-a-mentor-who-exists)
  - [The Best Mentors,](#the-best-mentors-track-your-life-categories)
  - [Assume this blog is not about you](#assume-this-blog-is-not-about-you)
  - [Beware of the Diagnosers](#beware-of-the-diagnosers)
  - [Saving face, and No-sin](#saving-face-and-no-sin)
  - [Creating problems for others](#creating-problems-for-others)
  - [Zen doesn't care what you call it](#zen-doesnt-care-what-you-call-it)
  - [When you don't know what you're witnessing](#when-you-dont-know-what-youre-witnessing)
  - [Freethinking is My Religion](#freethinking-is-my-religion-second)
  - [Ask for the Rainbows](#ask-for-the-rainbows)
  - [Memorial Day Thoughts](#memorial-day)
  - [Work is Play](#make-work-play)
  - [Speakdream it](#you-can-speakdream-whatever-you-want)
  - [There is freedom in the ThoughtStream](#see-that-the-math-logic-is-in-all-good-things)
  - [See that the math-logic is in all good things](#see-that-the-math-logic-is-in-all-good-things)
  - [Brief insights and fallacies](#brief-insights-and-fallacies)
  - [Wisdom Can Be Taught and Cannot Be Taught](#widson-can-be-taught-and-cannot-be-taught)
  - [Lights from profound minds](#lights-from-profound-minds)
  - [The light shines in to the darkness, but the darkness was not overcome](#the-darkness-was-not-overcome)
  - [Is it Really an Analogy?](#gaps-in-language-and-missing-or-impossible-analogies)
  - [Natural Patterns that Repeat, are Expected to Repeat](#natural-patterns-that-repeat-are-expected-to-repeat-again)
  - [The ThoughtStream is Technical and Not](#the-ThoughtStream-is-technical-and-not)
  - [Real Feelings](#real-feelings)
  - [Tabula Rasa Pseudo-math. Escaping the Founders' Many Errors](#tabula-rasa-pseudo-math)
  - [My questions are disallowed](#my-questions-are-disallowed)
  - [Beware of the Rankers](#beware-of-the-ranker)
  - ["We can fire you, or deny you services, at any time, for any reason, or no reason."](#for-any-reason-or-no-reason)
  - [Unlocking our Journals](#unlocking-our-journals)
  - [There are novelties in my "errors"](#novelities-in-my-errors)
  - [Behavior and My Face](#behavior-and-my-face)
  - [Looking up simple terms](#revisiting-simple-terms)
  - [The judgments are premature](#premature-judgments-for-artworks-incomplete)
  - [Selective Innovations](#selective-innovations)
  - [Mattanaw is Races](#mattanaw-is-races)
  - [Mattanaw is Races](#mattanaw-is-races)
  - [AI to Create Fake Videos Versus AI to Detect Fake Videos](#ai-to-create-and-detect-false-images-and-videos)
  - [Censorship is Talking Too](#censorship-is-talking-too)
  - [It is important to me to talk about what gets avoided](#it-is-important-to-me-to-talk-about-what-gets-avoided)
  - [Math is not democratic enough](#math-is-not-democratic-enough)
  - [The ThoughtStream is Terse](#the-thoughtstream-is-terse)
  - [You do not edit your speech](#you-do-not-edit-your-speech)
  - [Impartiality is Prior to Equality](#impartiality-is-prior-to-equality)
  - [Arrogantly Eternal or Eternally Arrogant](#arrogantly-eternal-or-eternally-arrogant)
  - [National Narcissism](#national-narcissism)
  - [Familiarity breeds imagination time](#breeds-imagination-time)
  - [Do you ignore the language spectra?](#do-you-ignore-the-language-spectra)
  - [I Don't Know Personlanguage](#i-dont-know-personlanguage)
  - [My "You"s are for you, and for me.](#my-yous-are-for-you-and-for-me)
  - [Emotions are important enough to own](#emotions-are-important-enough-to-own)
  - [Time for the Regular](#time-for-the-regular)
  - [Display the People](#display-the-people)
  - [Untruths of the Disciplines](#truths-in-the-disciplines)
  - [Conceptlessness and the Buddha Nature](#intralanguage-whorfianism-buddha-nature)
  - [Planes, with Turbulence as a Human Control Feature](#turbulence-as-a-human-control-feature)
  - [Homage to Animal Grandma](#pay-homage-to-animal-grandma)
  - [The goal of getting "straight-As" is not economical](#goal-of-getting-straight-as)
  - [Determinism in the Procrastination](#determinism-in-the-procrastination)
  - [Controls Against Indoctrination](#controls-against-indoctrination)
  - [Founding Fathers, and Great Grandma Australophithecus](#founding-fathers-and-great-grandma-australopithecine)
  - [Uniqueness, Analogies, and Absurdums](#uniqueness-analogies-and-absurdums)
  - [Iterative less is more, for the sake of more, that is still less](#iterative-less-is-more)
  - ["Disruptive Change Agent"](#disruptive-change-agent)
  - [ResolutionsThatHappen](#resolutions-that-happen)
  - [Few are "Woke"](#few-are-woke)
  - [Details in the Diversity](#details-in-the-diversity)
  - [Care to join me for dinner-breakfast?](#dinner-breakfast)
  - [Who makes this music?](#who-makes-this-music)
  - [I shall not repeat](#i-shall-not-repeat)
  - [Indoctrinate the same you want to see in the world](#indoctrinate-the-same)
  - [VICARIOUSLIVING](#vicarious-living)
  - [Infer me from this message](#infer-me-from-this-message)
  - [Equality in the Unevaluated?](#equality-in-the-unevaluated)
  - [Happy Whateversauce, and Merry Christmas too](#happy-whateversauce)
  - [Enjoy the Christmas of Your Conquerors](#end-the-christmas-of=your-conquerors)
  - [Political Non-affiliation](#political-non-affiliation)
  - [Your life is a compulsion](#your-life-is-a-compulsion)
  - [When advice becomes biological](#when-advice-becomes-biological)
  - [Be the strange you want to see in the world!](#be-the-strange-you-want-to-see-in-the-world)
  - [Your quote is contradicted by these other quotes..](#quotes-contradicting-other-quotes)
  - [Your religion said to serve only one master](#the-god-nation)
  - ["If me can't say't simple, me don't know't good."](#me-dont-knowt-good)
  - ["Good" doesn't fit naturally into my vocabulary](#my-philosophy-is-good)
  - [How I appear today,](#who-ive-been-yesterdays)
  - [Assumptions are superficial](#not-superficial-enough)
  - [Allthetimeliness](#all-the-timeliness)
  - [What do you need to be undermined?](#what-do-you-need-to-be-undermined)
  - [Needless voting for the needless](#needless-voting-for-the-needless)
  - [Buy Whatever](#buy-whatever)
  - [Wisdom in the Heap](#wisdom-in-the-heap)
  - [The News is a Mess](#the-news-is-a-mess)
  - [Give me time](#give-me-time-ill-help-put-your-mind-at-ease)
  - [Unedited Beauty](#unedited-beauty)
  - [The ThoughtStream has few expectations](#the-ThoughtStream-has-few-expectations)
  - [We had few books](#we-had-few-books)
  - [Ignorance has few details](#ignorance-has-few-details)
  - [What's a Vegan?](#whats-a-vegan)
  - [Profundity is Unwanted](#profundity-unwanted)
  - [Prophesy the Offended](#prophesy-the-offended)
  - [Fathom the Unfathomable](#fathoming-the-unfathomable)
  - [I will use more words](#i-will-use-more-words)
  - [The Earth shall be inherited by the Earth](#the-earth-will-be-inherited-by-the-earth)
  - [Man created the binary in god and then judged it in binary](#god-said-it-was-binary)
  - [Wait for It](#incomplete-artworks)
  - [Freethinking is My Religion](#freethinking-is-my-religion)
  - [Share the Thoughts](#share-your-thoughts)
  - [Utterances do Not Reveal Essences](#utterances-do-not-reveal-essenses)
  - [You Wanted this Guy](#you-wanted-this-guy)
  - [A Lesson in Creating Specific Sentences](#a-lesson-in-creating-specific-sentences)
  - [Completion is Immanent](#nearing-completion-government-waste)
  - [What if You Didn't Believe?](#what-if-you-didnt-believe)
  - [Creative Generativity as Coping](#creative-generativity-is-coping)
  - [I See the Diagrams](#i-see-the-diagrams)
  - [Somethingelsiness](#something-elsiness)
  - [Punctuated Agilibria](#punctuated-agilibria)
  - [Sawse of the Awesome](#sawse-of-the-awesome)
  - [Feelings are not valid inferences](#feelings-are-not-valid-inferences)
  - [Spouses Who Vote Together](#spouses-who-vote-together-betray-elections-together-and-are-also-fish)
  - [A few minutes in the life of a creative soul](#a-few-minutes-in-the-life-of-a-creative-soul)
  - [Qualify it to death. Qualify it to life](#there-is-no-end-to-the-qualification-the-logician-knows-the-difficulty-of-truth)
  - [The "philosopher" who only remembers is the historian-mnemologist](#the-philosopher-who-only-remembers-is-a-historian)
  - [The editor god only edits](#the-editor-god-only-edits)
  - [The roads to salvation terminate at the corpses of dead liars](#the-road-to-salvation-is-through-the-dead-liar)
  - [Euphemize yourself mindless!](#euphemize-yourself-mindless)
  - [Is your life the flux?](#is-your-life-the-flux)
  - [Freedom is in my art](#freedom-is-in-my-art)
  - [Confirm the Mannequin](#confirm-the-mannequin)
  - [There is no anger in my anger](#there-is-no-anger-in-my-anger)
  - [Would you have thought? Is it possible for YOU?](#would-you-have-thought-is-it-possible-to-you)
  - [Witch Hunts Were Run by Unselfbeknownst Witches](#witchunts-run-by-unselfbeknownst-withches)
  - [Mentors Waiting for Their Mentors](#mentors-waiting-on-mentors)
  - [Citation Gossip Soup](#citation-gossip-soup-there-are-no-citations-in-my-knowledge)
  - [Have the War Mind, yet be peaceful too](#have-the-war-mind-and-yet-be-peaceful)
  - [Skepticism is Not Celebrating Foundational Knowledge Too Early](#skepticism-is-not-celebrating-too-early)
  - [The Lady Who Cried "Ad Hominem"](#the-lady-who-cried-ad-hominem)
  - [Producing "One Small Step For Man"](#producing-one-small-step-for-man)
  - [Genesis, the Revised Version](#genesis-the-revised-version)
  - [Disagree to Agree](#disagree-to-agree)
  - [Detecting Rigged Designs](#detecting-rigged-designs)
  - [Americans Competing Secretly](#americans-competing-secretly)
  - [Don't Have a Baby I Mean Have A Baby](#dont-have-a-baby-i-mean-have-a-baby)
  - [Stuck on Proper Nouns](#stuck-on-proper-nouns)
  - [Can you fanchild me?](#bizarre-social-media-can-you-fanchild-me)
  - [Diversify the goals](#diversify-the-goals)
  - [Wisdom is in the details](#wisdom-is-in-the-details)
  - ["Never go full architect."](#never-go-full-architect)
  - [See the relationship!](#see-the-relationship)
  - [Information asymmetry in relationships](#information-asymmetry-in-relationships)
  - [Pile of Advice](#pile-of-advice)

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

## <a name="prologue">Prologue</a>

A solid treatment of the topic of creativity and creativity management, as it relates to ones personal interest in publishing and producing writings and multimedia, has unfortunately not existed to humanity. Creativity, as a result, has seemed a strange topic, and people have been, and are, in a state of perplexity regarding how to self-organize to record ideas, protect them, and publish them. The author, who has worked on this topic for a very extensive period of time, for nearly 25 years, is no longer perplexed on this topic. I can convey to the reader, that having solved many of the issues for myself, here written about, I have become a different kind of person in miscellaneous ways, and what I've arrived at is something that is incredibly needed by others. This writing, I think, will be a fascinating book for devling into this subject to have a solution that is really workable. The utilization of the solution is transformative. Once had the earlier methods of creativity management and work of writing and productions will be seen to be perhaps ancient. The issues that people need to address in writing and creating, storing and retaining, backuing up and arhchiving, are ancient issues, and most are really disorganized even while they think they have been given the proper tools in the age of computing, the internet, and artificial intelligence. However the reality is they have not.

Consider the interesting topic of simply keeping what one has recorded, and making sure that what has been archived can't be eliminated in the future. Consider how hard it really is to store and organize records that will outlive onself. It is hard enough to organize one's own possessions, so they are not too much to manage. For most, they will simply relent later and discard what has been archived earlier, or if one leave's writings, photo albums, and digital possessions to family members, they can have no expectation that *they'll* be willing and able, and educated enough, and resourceful enough, and motivated, to make sure they stay extant. Shortly after death all that one has produced will likely be eliminated. If one is a published author, unless one has sold millions of copies, and even in that scenario, there is a great risk that those documents will be lost or eliminated within one hundred years after death. Only some very few documents and recordings have archivists, museum workers, librarians, and other stewards who will protect them later. The vast majority of what one creates and produces will eventually be erased. Part of this issue is currently unsolvable, regarding how to ensure that things are forever archivable, searchable, and accessbile, and there is cause to believe that all would be eliminated eventually regardless of the methods, because in the future, people will have less interest in older documents, there will be too many of them if everyone is storing them, and because as a species we will have evolved to want new things and will want to devote efforts to those things more than older possessions. Meanings will be lost, and what is new will replace what is old. Degradation will also result in slow erosion until what is had is fragmentary.

I admit, this book does not resolve that predicament, although that subject matter is on my mind periodically as I work on growing the existing solution. We don't have to think about eons of time to see that these are ancient problems that exist even in the present time for the forseeable future. How are people to create and record ideas, organize them, retain them, archive them, and keep them existing, while they are alive. How can they keep documents alive for some time after death? Firsty, the documents still need to exist at the time of death. Initially, the problem is "How do I manage my creativity and record my thoughts in the present so they are organized and archive for later?" If that stage of the problem is not solved, then of course all is lost immediately. One simply does not have what one wants to retain. Also, there is the issue that people cannot archive and store just everything they want to keep because then what they would like to manage exceeds their capabilities. So a solution has to exist for those specific things that want to be retained. This document helps solve for that and does solve for that part of the issue. It also solves for the issue of doing it for all of one's writings and multimedia. So at the time that one is wanting to organize files, writings, and multimedia, that includes those things that *one would want to last*, one does have a solution if one is able to use what I here explain. This solution is the nugget at the kernel that is required, to have any solution at all for the larger problems that exist.

This solution is a multifaceted solution, covering a wide range of topics of interest relating to one's life. These each required consideration to arrive at the right solution, and this is why this book and disseration may seem to cover so much. That should not deter the reader from reading futher. Instead, consider it more interesting because of the interrelationships. More gets solved as one progresses than the problems mentioned above, and one gets more out of this solution than simple creativity management. Considerable additional comforts are created for what is solved and importantly, what cannot be solved. People grapple with the issue that they can't record all their ideas, and that they cannot really publish all they would like to publish, and they can't hold onto everything they create. These are mortal issues and can lead to existential crises in people worrying about them. This provides ways to remain comforted regarding these existential issues and to have some finality about what is in one's ability as a human being to control one's situation. Some findings of this book relate to eternal problems that are insoluble. These can be later recognized as insuluble, and one can relent on trying to control those. With that knowledge, one can redirect attention to what can be controlled more easily. In this way one can separate the possible from the impossible, and achieve much more focusing only on what is possible. One can also feel comfortable no longer focusing any longer on what was worrisome that happened to relate to daunting tasks that really had no solution at all.

The result should be that writers and producers can be more comfortable with what they are doing and become much more powerful in their ability to create, retain, and enjoy whatever it is they like to make.

## <a name="preface">Preface</a>

This book and disseration, while an academic publication of the Book and Journal of Mattanaw, is also intended to provide popular audiences ideas from which to improve upon their own publications and multimedia productions. The abstract of the book may appear to the reader to be especially academic, leading some to want something perhaps more readable in order to digest the more popular considerations. However, the abstract provides a style and density that is somewhat an academically required format, required in order to ensure the document does conform to academic standars. The remaining document is both academic and is more readable. It is the intention of the author to provide explanations that are approachable along with more rigorous arguments so the readers understand they can trust various conclusions. Without the rigor the conclusions themselves would be less trustworthy.

Reading along in this book can be performed in more than one way. The best way, I think, is to read it according to its design and normal sequence of sections. But one could jump into sections that one happens to find more interesting and personally appplicable and return or start on other sections only after they have become more curious. The reader is invited to, at first, read simply what seems relatable. Later, it will be noticed that was relatable relates to other sections. Those sections can then be read to the readers benefit, since they will provide elaborations on points that are now more meaningful or usable.

The introduction is provided to give the reader an understanding of the flow of the document, and what will be considered and addressed, and the value of each section that will later appear. It provides a clear restatement of what's in the abstract but with more details provided, and leads into the subject matter.

## <a name="introduction">Introduction</a>

*The thoughstream is thoughts as they occur in a living autobiography, with freedom of expression.*

The ThoughtStream, from its inception, was intended to be an outlet for writing and publishing thoughts of interest as they occurred. Only being able to write and speak thoughts, and not have thoughts appear directly in a typed or written format, one can only quickly write thoughts as they come to mind. A stream of consciousness into writing is not currently possible, and is perhaps not desirable. With my typing skills, I am able to somewhat stream from my thinking though my fingers directly into type without much alteration, and in fact, I resist editing and alteration. Many postings will be found that have small blemishes which I would like to preserve.

This work is well-known in the High Intelligence Community. Thoughts from this page were shared with millions of views. Postings here have been read thousands of times in the High Intelligence Community globally.

If there were a method of streaming thoughts directly into type, I might choose to use that in addition to, but probably not as a substitute for typing. There is a deliberateness in typing, that allows for writing what one would like to say, in a way that is somewhat consistent with how one would like to think; whereas, thinking would have more non-deliberate inclusions which may be blemishes from not writing. Thinking to oneself in a dictation mode may overcome this, but then the same issue exists when one is not in "dictation mode". Ways of thinking between these deliberate ways of communicating would have blemishes that might confuse, and arguably would only be wanted for evidence about how people really think. I'm not opposed to sharing how my brain functions real-time, and I would be fine with sharing how my thinking is at all moments; but I would also want to be able to separate out deliberate thinking and be clear with the reader what my more committal thoughts are.

The current ThoughtStream is now intended to not only be an outlet for my thoughts in a stream of consciousness sort of way, in which I allow blemishes and freedom of expression, even for things which might be provocative from myself that I don't really agree with or wouldn't commit to completely, but a page intended to be my "thinking shares," as part of my Living Autobiography. 

A living autobiography would consist of your thoughts as you live, if it were totally complete. If artefacts from a persons life were used by that person to create an autobiography, it would include writings and photos, which would be laid on a timeline, to show a series of one's thoughts shown in communications and recordings. Even images are, in a way, part of the thoughts that happened along the way in one's life. If it were entirely complete, it may be what people mistakenly but wishfully attribute to themselves in an ability to see one's whole life, even reliving it in one's last moments (In a flash, some will say, of course inexactly and erroneously). This is what I'm intending to use this page for, to develop my Living Autobiography, at least as it relates to written thoughts I'm wanting to share, since the creation of the page, and onwards until I die. 

The Living Autobiography in which these thinking shares are included, contain other categories of shares which also provide written material, videos, images, and so forth, and of course, the entire site is part of this living autobiography. The other pages which relate are in the contents under "living autobiography", and are:

- [Thinking Shares (aka ThoughtStream)](thoughtstream.html)
- [Experience Shares (aka SocialNuggets)](mattanaws-social-nuggets.html)
- [Bodily Shares (aka OpenHealth)](open-health-and-identity.html)
- [Spatial Shares (also Nature Shares)](scenic-nature-videos.html)
- [Learning Shares (also Reading)](reading.html)
- [Writing Shares (also Site History)](site-history-archive.html)

The ThoughtStream is now approaching 700 postings of good length, and includes over 237,104 words, which is approximately 1000 pages of manuscript. This includes some minimal page structure and content, and was calculated with unix wordcount (wc -w), on Sunday, November 5<sup>th</sup>, 2023.

Posts from this page were shared with millions of views. Postings here have been read thousands of times in the High Intelligence Community globally.

It will never be changed or edited.

<pre>&ndash; Mattanaw</pre>

- *November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2022, Cairns, Australia.*

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

## <a name="the-thoughtstream-study">The ThoughtStream Study</a>

To Add

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

## <a name="creativity-management">Creativity Management</a>

To Add

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

## <a name="dissertative-thinking">Dissertative Thinking</a>

To Add

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

## <a name="a-system-of-thought">A System of Thought</a>

To Add

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

## <a name="thoughtstreams">ThoughtStreams</a>

<!--automatically-updated-->

## <a name=""></a>

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

## <a name="word-hypthenations-until-theyre-all-there-mathematico-chemico-physico-neuroloticallyy-complete">Word Hypthenations Until They're All There, Mathematico-chemico-physico-neuroloticallyy Complete</a>

Growth of Knowledge | Holism | Diminishing Return of Thinking | Noticing Words Have Less Quality

*760 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 30<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Geneva, Switzerland* 

As I write these thoughtstreams, and increasingly relate disciplines, and write categories at the beginning of the writing, to show subjects covered, I am finding that I should be using lists of words repeatedly, rather than words in isolation. For example, many times, talking about a subject reductionistically, I am thinking of Astronomy, Geology, Chemistry, Physics, Chemistry, Neuroscience, Computer Science, and other disciplines. It is strangge to keep listing these out, or use them in some combination of one or three. Instead they are too often together, and so I summarize saying something like "interdiscplinary" or something like that. But this does not convey to a reader, if I should even be writing for a reader, all that is included. "Interdisciplianry", "Pandisciplinary", "Holistic", "Polymathic", and so on can be read as if there is not such an assortement of information to be conveyed. What is needed each time I do a writing, is to have a giant hyphenation of disciplines with soem loss, artifically reducing the length to ten or so disciplines. I think it is too few to add more than 10. I could repeatedly show a symbol representing the tree of knowledge and tree of expertises, or just show the trees themselves instead, but that might seem repetitive and annoying too, neverthelss, it has to be conveyed this way somehow. This means very repetitively, the reader, will have to think what is impossible for them usually, which disciplines are included, unless they can quickly intuitively see how they all could relate. I think that is unlikely given how people converse, but some highly intelligent people are aware that generality is always relating completely to most subjects of discussion of interest about people. So we keep stating, that the tree of information applies.

Probably, I will gradually increase the hyphenated words, of this kind and other kinds, to increase the awareness of the wholeness of interelationships I have in mind, while getting closer to a more total holism, not completely realizable, but realizable to the extent, that for the entire list or tree of related subjects, I can quickly tell you the relationships within my awareness, which can be roughly defined as that information which, my braain activationi is at that time, ready to respond with, or nearly ready. In some short period of time I give the "tree of subjects" relationship to the topic in consideration. which as a rule is always pretty easy to do, if hitherto I listed the subjects as I did readily and quickly.

I think the list of subjects I'll include will be much larger. I may move into the task of providing the relations at the outset, or near the outset of the article. Then later, more succinctly state the same, using reference to earlier thoughtstreams that already provided examples. Then later holistic awareness can be assumed for each writing where it it symbolically called upon and injected into the "conversation".

After this there is less need to say it, because I've even reduced who can hear it! But also, for whoever is interested, sufficient information is provided, so it would not be reasonable, to reject that it is really happening.

Before now, I have felt some stress as to not being able to convey the extent of awareness about the relationships between disciplines, so a reader can understand, what the conversation is about. Oddly as I think about it now, that explains why what I wrote could not be understood. This awareness had to be had by  the reader too.

What to be aware about, is something to tell the reader, if somehow the speach, does not trigger similar awareness, in a similarly intelligent person. Interestingly, this is obviously not feasible. That is the same as preparing the reader with information, which is educating them, to have the awareness, which has some degree of possiblity, but with the possiblity too restricted by the intelligence they have and time. Thus it appears futile to try. 

It is better to use simplified summary expression and allow them in their awareness to find what is useful on their own, with the necessary omissions to happen from the communication. This would be normal. This however, cannot be the routine interest of this author, because this author is not finding a large interested audience, or audience that is persuadable. They will oppose all this first! And from that we see it is impossible.

So it seems the better interest is self development in isolation with a new improved self communication towards more holistm and then less later with that assumed, and to publish making it possible for readers to have the information, and for the author to have it readily available too, and then the rare thing that might find it useful finally finds it. In other words, it is a communication inside the author only with this work being a mental extension and method for internal mnemonic reinforcement, and thoughts for later use. This means the writing is useful, even if it is never again seen by anyone including me, which is typical for the thoughtstream.

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


## <a name="inapplicable-minds-and-general-insanity">Inapplicable Minds And General Insanity</a>

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

Psychology | Socio-Cultural Psychology | Politics | Com | Communication Efficacy | Higher Order Attention

*760 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 30<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Geneva, Switzerland* 

Where minds are thought and communication being shown in social behavior are laregly inapplicable to actual behavior, and instead, minds are doing something else that is satisfying other needs than suppyling what is needed for active behavior. Education is the domain in which some information is usable for behavioral improvement, and in that case what is conveyed is applicable. This is a constrained meaning of the word application that is not intended to be about what can be usefully contemplated for contemplation's enjoyment, but for what is actually action guiding, or to be functionally in built to human motion to control habit eventually automatically with repeition. The latter is what I am for now constraining the meaning of "application" to. The kind of information that has application divides communication into the valuable and the more valueless, where value is not about simply playing, joking, talking wihtout an objective, socialization without growth or recollection and so on. These it turns out typify social behavior, making social behavior less worthwhile. What is characteristic of social behavior is frivolity with respect to growth. A change orietned progressive thinker conversing purposefully at all times or most times does not thrive in the environment of speakers who are not speaking with any application that will happen. Noone is thriving in this context, but those who are in this context who like this behavior, find some pleasure.

The non-applying information and communication happening is on the news, in the media, and pervades all more direct communication. This is a partly relative topic, since it is also true, that old information, is not applicable any longer for the person listening to a communication.

Communication is more characterized by talking enjoyment, and colocation pleasure. Being near someone, hearing speech, but doing little with it. Some is useful for interpersonal understanding, but too much is lost and not retained for subsequent application, implying that people don't even expect to apply what has been heard, but that hearing and talking is fulfilling other comforts. Including impulsive comforts. Just to hear socialization, and to be near other people. Culturally, being near other people, very often requires that they are talking together. This talking when people are together performs the function of impulsive gratification of a social requirement, rather than true information sharing.

The conclusion of this observation is very definitely that social life is not applicable to action largely. There were other conclusions from earlier writings that related to this including that most socialization is so simple and repetitive to be known already, and to be predictable. Thus what people say is not sufficiently different, creating no highly enthusiastic learning interests, or even small learning excitement. Instead, social behavior is status quo, repetitive behavior, that is more like enjoying  being near someone, than learning. Yet socialization is thought to have application in action. From long experience and observation it does not, and one can find friends and family, too oft talking, as if history did not exist, and that is partly because it doesn't need to, to keep the interaction going, to be near each other. That the information is predictable and repetitive, and not creating enthusastic learning interest indicates also, with a second perspective of high significance, that applicability isn't existing for the thinking or the mind as it is composed of the thinking.

An outcome of this is additional confirmation that socialization for a very intelligent person ought to have a different justification for continuation. Predictable conversations, or conversations to be near bodies, begin to have almost no interest, and if one is rational, one steers social behavior elsewhere.

Earlier also was the conversation about inability to persuade such that persuasion does not seem to be a reality in conversation. This also implies that conversation is not expected to have applicability, because there will not be a "persuasion" which can also be thought of as a learning. it is hard to "teach" anyone as an adult, which might be thought of as "persuading" of information. Teaching is restricted to indoctrination from adults when susceptible to respect. This further indicates that socialization is not useful.

when people are needy they do tend to be responsive, and socialization in survival situations is definitely connected with ability to adapt. Meaning socialization does have definite application, where the need is known to exist and the motivation to hear is high, and there is higher curiosity and attention for learning, which is being rarely persuaded.

Combining these thoughts social thinking and social interaction ought to be reduced and redirected as appropriate. Socialization is less needed for highly intelligent people who are knowledgeable enough to not have social curiosity, but abstruse curiosity that is independent, or related to more rare communications. Self-sufficiency makes this less valuable too.

For me, at this time, the objective is to finalize this perspective, so as to alter communicative mentality, and verbal thinking, as it internally has social characteristics, even when others are not present. Manner of self talk is wanted to be changed, since a persuasive manner of self-talk is not required for self-persuasion, in the same way as for external audiences, impossible to persuade. Instead, minimal and powerful known rational premises suitable to "prove" what appears to be known intuitively is better and faster. The mode of conversation with self should improve and seem less like possible conversations with existing others. Instead it will be more like conversations with a highly intelligent self that understands the reasons faster, and needs less expressed except for cognitive reinforcement as far as it is needed, and maybe until it is not needed.

## <a name="limits-of-art-apppreciatin-within-art">Limits Of Art Appreciatin Within Art</a>

Art | Philosophy of Art | Aesthetics | Pictorial Semantics | Meaningfulness | Significance | Intrinsic Vs Added Meaning | Language

*760 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 30<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Geneva, Switzerland* 

Art seems to struggle to articulate significane such that whatever significance a particular art piece has, its significance is rarely intrinsic significance, but added significance. What would it mean for an art work to have intrinsic significance? Intrinsic significance may be somewhat a misnomer, but let's continue with that concept for a bit, to very clearly separate it from significance-adding that is ad-hoc, or to puff up an artwork, rather than having an artwork communicate more on its own, what its meaning and value is.

If we consider forms of art that are more representative and life-like, these art works have little self-justification required regarding their value to people. People initially enjoyed and appreciated these forms of art not only as a spectators of a form of created entertainment, but as people needing recordings and real life depictions of existing things. Obviously, before the advent of the photograph, of film, and of sound recordings, humans could only rely on their memories and what they said to each other unless outwardly they could create some object or some drawing, that would create a shared visual of what existed. There was no history without art or writing. No historical pictures without pictures. People would quickly forget events and the appearanes of people and things, and saw value in creating art for preserving what could verifiably by other people at the time show what their memory would otherwise lose eventually.

So art seems to have "intrinsic value" if all people looking at it, see what would not be seen otherwise, that is wanted to be seen.

There are likely other intrinsic values and significances that relate to art like what they convey as far as studies of reality; and as teachings for other artists, who learn from what they do and what others have done. Artists have a different experience with art works that grow the intrinsic value for them as opposed to peole who would just enjoy seeing final products.

Given artworks, can depict anything, there is a very large range of things to show having different importances. This seems perhaps more obvious of photographs. When I think of the history of photography, I think of the capturing of important historical events and scenes by journalists who fortunately show what could not be otherwise shown, and sometimems the images are striking, speaking something of the conditions without too much support from speech. These photographs could have been artworks. While difficult to capture like photos, artists were still adept at quickly recreating sights, with some degree of trustworthiness, and good ability to show what is shown in comparable photographs.

The domain of interest for art seems to be about anything for which visual evidence or information would relate. So it relates to many of the sciences, including any that can be thought of nearly, and any other subject mattor for which visual information could bee contained.  Intrinsic worth of art is very great then.

Notice though, this was about representation of reality, where the value and significance is mostly obvious to people who see it. I am interested here not only in this, but in the limitations around significance and value of art beyond this, where people try to create *additional value* in works, by adding interpretation or plans to communicate special information. Here is where I think there is less to talk about, and less clarity about the value. On initial thoughts about it at lease.

It does happen to be true, that for any representation, one can add elements of meaning. But the depth of meaning tends to depend on the artist doing the work. I think the plans tend to be shallow rather than very deep, thinking that most of what an artist would care to express, could be said very easily, in some few number of paragraphs. It may bee that the verbal communicative mind of the artist who will speak about what the meaning of a work of art is, will determine the extent of significance of a piece, where that piece firstly has some intrinsic value, on which this additional value will be added. The verbal thinking would correspond to visuals that get added to the piece conveying the message hoped to be conveyed.

On top of this still, is what the art signifies later, in terms of impact on audiences, experiences they have that relate to the art work, and any other relationship, which forms some part of a story or stories, that become part of what is temporarily thought about the artwork. These additional thoughts do not permanently attach to the artwork. So the archiving and history of the artwork, deteriorating, changes in significance and value over time, as what is seen later has a different story or no story, and perhaps the work itself is also not the same as it originally was.

This approach to dividing the ways in which art works are said to have value or significance does seem to provide a simple framework in which to exhaustively convey the value of a piece of art, and enables easy analysis.

With the title of this particular essay, the objective in view was to find the superficial scope of language relating to artistic value and significance. This is because when I think about how people talk about their artworks they seem to b stretching th truth as to what they communicatively planned the meaning to be or what it turned out to be, to sell their work or make it have more popularity or influence. While that is true, I think now it is easier and more fundamental to simply recognize that the limited verbal mind will plan less for meaningfulness of a work of art than nature will provide for an actual representation. As was said earlier, the actual representations seem to convey what can be spoken about extensively by a range of disciplines, as compared with some small amount of information that the extra artist planned meaning would have. This is not to devalue these kinds of art, because they are interesting too, and certainly all would want that kind of art to contineu, but it is helpful to have such an explanation as this in mind, when considering if an artist or museum or other, is overselling an artwork, trying to add too much fake meaning to an art piece, or to more realisticlly estimate the value a piece of art really has, commpared to what the artist wants it to have.

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

## <a name="persuasion-persuadabilty-and-lack-of-social-self-benefit">Persuasion, Persuadabilty, and Lack Of Social Self-Benefit</a>

Com | Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Argumentation | Proofs | Evidence | Writing | Editing | Audiences | Attention | Human Needs | Philosophy | Evaluative Concepts | Economics

*749 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 20<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Paris, France* 

Much of my writing behavior and social argumentation and conversation over the years has been interested in persuading others about various ideas. Persuasion, we learned, requires effort, and since it requires effort, persuasion as an activity needs some justification, for not being obviously easy enough to pursue. How much effort does it really take to persuade someone.

After many years, I think persuasion is too infrequent. When it happens, I'm not sure it is due to rationality either, or persuasive communications, well prepared, using good quality arguments. I think marital relationships, and family relationships, result in continued communication, resulting in biases. Children are easier to persuade, and as children, we were more gullible and easier to teach. When I was young I do recall being a little easier to convince, although I was already pretty independently minded. Children are targets by adults as easy people to persuade by comparison with adults. In order to have someone to persuade, some like to have kids around, or will seek out educating them. Wiithin families, adults tend to start to become like each other too, and may vote like each other in elections. Pressure, repetition of communications, and so on, result in people who are near each other, becoming more like each other. But I don't think persuasion is really how that happens so much.

When I think about anything I would have wanted to persuade friends, acquaintances and so on about, I don't think I was effective, even though the rationality of argument and preparations via logical thinking were good. People who are persuading, are in a way, like presenters, discussing thoughts had earlier in an organized way to get the other person to firstly understand, and secondly adopt some part or all of the viewpoint. I don't think this activity has been very effective, but it is what is supposed to be persuasive to rational minds, and it would indicate that rationality is less involved in adopting viewpoints. People would be persuaded if rational viewpoints were presented correct? It appears this style of persuasion doesn't work very well.

It is needed to quantify the amount of persuasion that is or is not happening, and the ways in which the persuasion occurs, but I'm highly convinced, that over the years, similitudes between myself and those near me, where they were impacted by my thinking, is more about long term exposure than willingness to rationally self-change and collaboratively grow in response to communication. On the other hand I tend to be persuaded. Now I think though, that may be a kind of quirk of mine, and not an ordinary behavior. If someone argues a position well enough, I will adopt it and recollect the other person as the cause, and would credit them for their thinking. Without quantification, it does appear to me, that I have enough experience, to really think that persuasion is far too hard, and seldom is really happening in a rational way, and typically it is long term exposure to other people, marketing, and advertising, and propaganda, that results in the change. I think history provides quite a lot of support for this, given how people are willing to engage in warfare without rational messaging, and how they are willing to function in the market, being influenced by advertising that does not include rational presentation.

Even now, with restatement of these points I am thinking like I would be persuading an audience of what I am aware of. I did have to recollect, however, so what appears persuasion, can also function as recalling what is needed, for self development from a starting point. However, I do think even this writing style is too much effort and I should adopt another one, because persuasion isn't likely or happening frequently enough.

Related to persuasion, is attention. I was saying persuasion is low, but what I did not add, is that having an audience that is attentive is unlikely. Most people do not achieve an audience at all, excepting family and friends, and even they may not be very attentive. I have argued earlier, that people who attain fame, cannot be known well, and what they want attention for, is not really what they receive. At all levels of audience having, attention is low, and since attention is low, low messaging is received, including rare rational messaging, such that persuasion is low. Famous people tend to have others start behaving like them when they influence fashion, and influence appearing to be something to emulate, due to their apparent popularity, and some pleasantness or attractiveness of their appearance. Styles are copied, and consumers buy things that help to have the style. This is not really persuading anything that is wanted by the famous person to persuade.

Attention is related to persuasion metrics, because total persuasion relates to attention received. Total impressions, amount an audience is exposed to sensory stimuli, is related to the boundary, of the upper limit or total, of attention received. Impressions are used in advertising as a very rudimentary influencer on human behavior. All persuasion metrics would fit within the boundary of impressions on people, which is known also in psychology as a minimal environmental-attentional stimuli. Any persuasion that happens has to happen within the total space of attention which has the boundary of what minimally stimulates.

If one can expect to not have much of an audience, or quality of attention (not just minimal impressions), and one need rational attention, and one wants persuadability to be high to make the efforts worthwhile, it appears to follow the activity is not rewarding. This here appears to be conclusive to me. I think here with this idea about inability to persuade is the reduction of the value of any behavior that exists for or is indented for, persuasion of others, and that if it has value enough to continue, it has to be from *some other reasons*. Persuasion behavior does help oneself form a more convincing argument to oneself and solidifies knowledge, and provides some feedback to self. So there is some reason to continue persuasion-like behavior, but I don't think the behavior would be the same entirely, and instead would have some similarity to persuading behaviors.

Persuading behaviors have as their endpoint success. Otherwise it is oddly a behavior disinterested in results. It appears human behavior is *also disinterested in results*. One keeps trying to persuade others without seeing others change frequently enough.

I am thinking my objective of reducing my social thinking and social behavior would be aided by a change of persuation behavior. Here in this writing, I imagine in the background of the brain that there is some persuasion work to do. In writing you are supposed to be compelling, and try to influence, using well organized writing, and if rationality is expected, sound argumentation. If one writes well oen should have math in it too, and logico-mathematical proofs. But if already compelling enough to me, why engage in this behavior, unless there are reasons only for myself. My writing is related to my thinking, and my thinkin is trained with an expectation of an audience, so even when no audience is present, like right now as I do the writing, I'm writing in a style, that is aimed to persuade.

I have to decide the level of self-persuasion needed, and decide also, how much I am concerned about proofs and entirely rigorous logical argument. There are intellectual reaons to wnat to continue on my mathematical and logical efforts, but the level of self-persuasion I need is required to justify to some extent the level of activity needed.

I can see that thinking I don't need to persuade will really influence the way I think so people are removed from it as false audience in the subconscious. I am already aware that I don't have an audience, and in many ways that is deliberate, but I have not yet trained my brain, to mostly end thinking that is meant for an audience. If not *end* I think an optimal is needed, a deliberateness of it, for when it is needed. During training one has to be more general, but I think most rational people are past the stage of training to think persuasively for an audience, and don't need to do it for everyone, but a few. Targeted thinking and socialization.

Making it actually optimal seems unlikely, but something of an optimization appears to be closer to a non-persuading mind, that can persuade only when it needs to, because it has some training on persuastion. So I persuade, or try to, when forced to by some social interaction that is not avoidable. But I don't try to make rigorous mathematical proofs for anyone but myself if I'm still interested enough.

There is also having a writing style that supports a writing business, that uses a persuasive style, perhaps with unconcern about it, because somehow it is needed to be writing worth reading to others, even if the writing customers don't read, attend well, or are persuaded often. In that case, writing as one has to write to earn money may be worthwhile. This is contrary to my desire to have my thinking as self-beneficial content, but it could be, that writing with "persuasive style" wihtout persuasive thinking, robotically, could be useful for earning money on books.

This reduces the positive intent it would seem, but now it appears the positive intent is somewhat insaned. "I have positive intent to do persuasion for which results are not needed." That is really strange.

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

## <a name="i-am-scared-for-my-children-and-need-to-protect-them-and-make-more">I Am Scared For My Children And Need To Protect Them And Make More</a>

Child Outputing and Parenting | Relationships | Procreation Planning | Death Plan | Justifying New Life | Population Management

*743 Wanattomians, Friday, August 14<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Seinäjoki, Finland* 

Expanding on earlier postings about issues with the choice to have children, I want to continue the conversation with another observatioin that humans tend to complain about "Being worried about the safety of their kids" and about "Their special roles as protectors of their children and the children of others." Each of these ways of speaking are very familiar so no justification will be provided about the universality of knowledge of the veracity that people make these statements. It is true that people say these thihgs and people are persuaded by them, and really one is expected to be obliged to think the statements are true. Since pervasively used and believed, it is thought that children are in danger and that there is really a role to protect children and that everyone needs to believe they need to protect children. Obviously, I am not against making sure chilren are safe, and questioning that is not what this writing is about. What this writing is about, is the common widespread belief, that children are in danger, and that who they are in danger of, are the people who say they should protect. The protectors are dangerous oftentimes, requiring other protectors, somehow in the same group of Child Defense Forces, and the children need active protection. This implies the danger is all over, is within the group doing the protecting, and that the children will be harmed often enough, for the protection to matter. Also, the public is "worried" about the children, and the politicians must "make sure everyone feels safe" in the context of "you are required to worry" to advance Child Defense Forces.

If children are in such danger, why would one make more? I like statements mocking child having and population control avoidance, like "The Children Are In Danger Make Another One", or "The Parents Are Predaators They Should Make Some More". Since it happens to be true that the above paragraph is irrefutable, they allow us to use them as true assumptions which can be used to create valid and sound arguments, which would obvious as a group, support questioning of child having activities. Join this with the earlier writings about how desire and pleasure having is the cause of new children, and not clear plans and vision, since hardly possible, the rationality of thoughts about engaging in child creating activitie is in question, as is any short thought about desire to have a child, which is understood as "opening oneself up to having one in the context of sexual gratification."

Sometimes women form plans to simply have a kid output and that is not as desire oriented but is as planless, where the plan would be arational plan, formed justifying having a new child for the child's benefit.

General danger to children is a good counterrationale to having a kid, even if one has ascertained that circumstances are likely to have a wealthy good looking highly intelligent happy and flourishing child that is wanted, with parents that are also fit for child having. Why would we create excellent children who are going to be at risk of death? This contradicts the idea that they would be happy and flourishing. If they are murdered, kidnapped, molested, raped, treated bad, cut, injured, human trafficked, killed in car wrecks, plane wrecks, warfare, and so on, then how has it been a good choice to have that child. One would have another one instead. It seems to follow that one would not have that one.

There is some argument of a form like:

If one is going to have a kid with a high enough need of protection, have another one instead.

But in the context of lack of security and real need of protection of all children, then it seems to follow that one should have none.

Perhaps some children need protection, but others do not, and that children should be had, only if they do not need protection.

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

## <a name="lying-about-the-plausibility-of-hypotheses-or-conjectures">Lying About The Plausibility Of Hypotheses Or Conjectures</a>

Truth and Honesty | Religion | Religiosity | Scientific Method | Interdisciliplary Science | A System Of Thought

*741 Wanattomians, Wednesday, August 10<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Seinäjoki, Finland* 

Resume.

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

## <a name="embryos-that-decide-own-fate-and-the-mothers-that-support-them">Embryos That Decide Own Fate And The Mothers That Support Them</a>

Embryology | Abortion | Death Plans | Life Plans | Parental Decision Making | Embryo Abilities and Psychometrics | Human Quality of Life | Life As Automomously Chosen | Right To Self-Determination

*735 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 

For this idea I was considering writing a short story, about how we can work with embryos, and enable them, with motherly support to, to decide their own futures. Firstly, we have to wonder, do embryos really want to exist. We can ask the embryos, "Are you enjoying who you are becoming? Do you want to live?" We can listen for their answers and help them speak language early enough to provide some responses.

Embryos need more information to know whether or not they should continue, aside from the information about how they feel. How do they look? Embryos need mirrors to look at as they grow to decide if they are looking how they want, and this too would help to decide if they want to continue on their journey.

Additionally, they need to know where they are going. An embry is living in a tiny place, unaware of all that is happening outside their woman. They need to know life circumstances and probable life prospects. Will they go to war, and become POWs? Will get get into horrific car accidents? Will they have money and live well and come from an affluent nation? Will they eat well, and have good air to breathe. Will they live a normal life?

This is where the embryos are needing the life plans Mattanaw was saying were needed. The specific plans a parent has arrived at when deciding whether the embryo should exist, whether or not to conceive and to have sex. The plan would include who they are! As all people know, one doesn't want most parents. One wants to have the best ones or good ones. Embryos need the plan, in order to decide their own life,*after* their parents decided with the plan. The final judgement is the embryo's.

In this way we can help to ensure, all life wants to live, and has the plans and situation to ensure that life unfolds as they would like, according to moral processes they would agree with. If they do not agree, they are not forced to continue.

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


## <a name="safely-desensitizing-the-population-to-the-Grades-of-intelligent-thinking-including-impossible-thinking-or-rage-creating-thinking">Safely Desensitizing The Population To The Grades of Intelligent Thinking Including Impossible Thinking Or Rage Creating Thinking</a>

Intelligence | Sociology | Psychology | Education | Peace and Harmony | Zoology | Government

*737 Wanattomians, Saturday, August 8<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 

The larger population has not been desensitized to more intelligent thinking, and it appears this is a serious societal issue. It has been a long while since I've heard the observation, but before, routinely, I would hear criticisms, that the newscasters and people on television were not appearing to be smart enough, and were thinking on a level that was too on par with lower intelligence. It seemed the media was too often and too deliberately disincluding very intelligent speach, and that it was not actually happening almost anywhere on television. Not only was less intelligent thinking being shown on popular television wehre it would be thought to be less prevalent, it was not really appearing at all.

I happen to know for certain this is true, and it is obvious for anyoen who looks briefly, where intelligence would happen to be. College textbooks, professors who write them, journal papers, and in academia, the types of information and communication happening is too vastly different from what the public is exposed to on television and on social media. Things have changed a bit in the last decade and a half with a transition to using social media where one can select one's own things to see ostensibly, but typically what is shown by default is the least intelligent material of all, and for those utilizing social media platforms that feed random content in addition to self selected content categories and types from content creators, content is still very low and this is what is initially relied upon to know what to select. One lets onself be guided by the platforms. I think the platforms very largely are omitting smarter information still, but I would agre, on at least one platform I use, much smarter material does exist. So some would have differint experiences from meyself, since that particular platform is used by me for seeing women primarily.

I find myself questioning my thesis at this point for young people because I think they will have been more exposed potentially by people on social media who do create smarter content, who otherwise are not seen at all. I do expect nevertheless that there is still sensitivity to smarter information, and honestly, although I'm quite intelligent, I may have increased even my sensitivity to hearing smarter information by being more interested in other content while dodging what on social media seems to be more smart.

Anyways, very likely, people would still benefit from becoming desensitized in some way even if there is short exposure to become comfortable with smarter thinkers and speakers, so that they *can* show up on media channels that are more popular with less ability to select, or from ways politicians make their communications available. Media may still force the public to see material that is less intelligent so more intelligent material is hidden, which does appear to be a cause of the current situation or earlier situations, but to be possible, people would still have to be desensitized by smarter information and even come to like it to a degree in order to not instantly dodge it if it became available.

I will have to think further on this subject, but why is it that more intelligent politicians do not appear, and to what extent is that related to an unwillingness of people in the public to entertain more intelligent thinkers.

Desensitization to more intelligent thinking would also create willingness to hear the information which would promote ability to actually learn at a higher level than one might be able to even if one is less intelligent than the messages.

Honestly as I write this, I think this may be one thoughtstream that is slightly amiss. Instead it may be the case that as intelligence scales, some information becomes permanently not interesting, and it may also be the case that, since all were in public education forced together, sometimes and probably oftentimes it was too smart for everyone. Some desensitization to smarter information should have happened in that case because of prolonged or frequent exposure.

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

## <a name="diminishing-return-on-precision">Diminishing Return on Precision</a>

Verbal Detail | Verbalsphere | Patterns Vs Data | Time Efficacy

735 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 

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

## <a name="thinking-of-writing-sometimes-as-a-non-distinct-task-or-non-writing">Thinking of Writing Sometimes As A Non-distinct Task or Non-Writing</a>

ThoughtStream | Lists | Creativity Management | Task Management | Notes

*735 Wanattomians, Thursday, August 6<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 

I'm approaching being able to handle all of my task management and mental attentional backlog without the need of doing any writing. There were steps along the way from twenty years ago approximately starting the personal form for self-organization, to recently having a life-category arranged (like the personal form) universal text input of backlog. Instead of working on a daily basis with tasks, I had a single backlog, like in software development or project management, and on a daily basis made updates and read from it. Typically however it was only partially utilized, and reminders were at entry time versus reminding with reading, and usually when I thought to do tasks, it did not utilize the list, but what was remembered from the list. Backlog grew, and sometimes slipped from use and became dated and unvisited.

Recently though I recognized again that I could manage a lot of information in my attention management process and verbal mnemonic of the personal form in its updated form. This functions like a memory performance hack, or psychometric improvement method, for enhancing performance, like what professional memorizers use. Noticing that the backlog I was writing corresponded too much with what I was capable of managing mentally with my verbal form, whcih did have the written form too (they matched), I could simply traverse my form mentaly and add items category by category, more specifically for tasks too and not only for goals. The total amount of backlog, which means all tasks that one has at all, that one is holding onto to do later, and what one wants to do in the short term and more immediately, all could fit into the same mnemonic. All fitting into the same mnemonic I have been slowly moving to only using the mental form and doing less writing.

The writing continues however, and I don't see that entirely as a drawback although I imagined phasing it out. Firstly, it still helps to remind to write on paper, and still helps even to recall well enough to add also additionally into the mental form, so there is a mental form and a written version. I'm note entirely opposed to this, and think it useful, but I do think I will move to only mnemonics once competent enough. I also switched to writing reminders and tasks and foci on my body, paraticularly on my thigh with ballpoint pen, because I saw a relationship of this with my desire to reduce needs of paper and to increase self sufficiency for camping and budget. This way I could camp and write without having paper. I also noticed that reminders on the hand are more powerful than paper reminders and of course placing a note in a visible location for multiple guaranteed reminding is helpful, and so looking at the hand and seeing a note is assured. This I am doing also. But thi also is on phaseout excepting for thoughtstream and artistic purposes. When used for these purposes the writing and art is scanned with a small camera, also lightweight and optimal for travel and hiking. The other use is more final use on the reminding front, to simply start the save-load-attend procedure at the beginning of every day, and to end every day with it too, so that I do actually activate the attention management process in the morning to load the tasks and remember to save at night.

After all of this we arrive at the purpose of this writing, which is somewhat counter now to my intuition about likely direction, but I was thinking about how I was writing my notes and wondered if I should think of it as writing. The tasks I was writing down today, looked again like tasks I know about, and already remember. Do I need to write them down to recall later? I think no, but will it strengthen motivation and increase likelihood of action, : yes to that. Now-- when I was finishing the writing, I noticed I felt detached, like it was a useless exercise, that I didn't need to look at it again, and maybe like I didn't do it, because I was somewhat automated, and that I was less aware after doing it a little, or detaching my cares and interest. I thought to myself, something of the paraphrase, that I wasn't writing. It seems equivalent to simpmly thinking which is consistent with thoughtstream.

Imagine you write things down on paper and never loook at them again with firm commitment. Journaling is a lot like that, but without the commitment to disuse. Instead it just is not revisited much or ever. This means recording the writing is akin to thinking it and letting it evaporate into the atmosphere. Writing down and never seeing it again, is like talking and never retaining the sounds. I was imagining that as if there were no sound recorders maybe with something of an older mentality, but we can simply think we are speaking and nothing is recording.

For both styles of thought, and both thought activities, it is stored in the brain. In this way perhaps writing  wiithout intent to record is like speech in that in both cases one is thinking and recording in the brain even if an outside recording does not exist or is never used. Thinking about it this way, I see less reason to stop writing my tasks, and instead to use that as a way to store, combine, load information in the attention management mnemonic process. Some matching of form is required, but as I stated that is already accomplished, but less accomplished for short writings where I don't have the exiisting total backlog. Another drawback in writing, because I have the mental backlog when I don't have the written one. After writing as speech with no intent to use, there is still usage potential, because it has been recorded, and then you have a log that could be archived to show thought growth. So it becomes a living artifact which is the subject of my lifing autobiography effort, and personal life archiving. One thing to give up with the personal mnemonic approach, is to have less living artifacts. At this point in time, I have enough lving artifacts of the kind in question to provide life sampling data to corroborate writings in the autobiography, so probably less of that is needed anyway, and personal growth is preferred with resulting writings happening elsewhere relatedly and unrelatedly.

So the current state appears to be: write or don't write as long as it doesn't interfere with the mnemonic enhancement. Because writing it is thinking it. So I can simply think about it as using my mental mnemonic as if I didin't write. There is a sense in which I didn't write it, like if I had a recording done while speaking but the recordings stored area always deleted.  There are similarites.

I can tell now there is more significance to this, because there are also stresses about writing or not writing and list following or not, and planning on paper or not, and whether paper plans have enough utility, and if writing a lot of plans really results in a lot of life goal resolutions to the same quantity. I think we plan a lot more than we do. Writing those plans over and over creates stress. But is it writing though? Some feeliing of non--accomplishment may be removed if writing is simpmly rethought and rereminding to do less tasks that are more likely to be acheived. I don't know all the significance now but perceive a more system wide update mentally, and definitely some discomforts about writing and reuse of hte writing are relieved. I don't need to use my writings for much of them.

Later probably I will list a large set of the benefits of this idea but for now it is a new idea. Intuitively the updates I see become instantly pending, and then happen, so probably this will simply be all true above, and will need simple listing to expose the significance of the simple find.

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

## <a name="the-qmassed-quantity-of-useful-ordinary-things-people-can-think-of-who-live-and-how-vastly-greater-it-is-than-reigious-recordings-which-are-nothing-by-comparison">The Amassed Quantity Of Useful Ordinary Things People Can Think Of Who Live And How Vastly Greater It Is Than Reigious Recordings, Which Are Nothing By Comparison</a>

Knowledge | Old Versus New | Education Planning | Learning Economics | Growth of Information

*732 Wanattomians, Wednesday, August 5<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 

This recording is mainly about the difference between the information existing in human brains and information in libraries and information systems, to be compared with information existing in early religious texts. I have argued recently, that recent information, is better to have, than older information, typically, because older information is firstly, already existing in our brains to larger extent, which is necessarily true, and is also included somewhat in recent information. Updated information includes much of what is needed in earlier information, and historical information has been oft repeated diminishing its vallue, and the complexity of what is wanted in recent information. The recent information has what is usable now. I will say further on this later, since I think some will want better argumentation and substantiation, but I raise it this way to remind, and also I do find the subject definitive despite shortcomings of delivery here. Recent information is the most useable to people today, for work and for their interractions with the current world. The greater quantity of useful information about the current world is existing in working people and people who have worked recently, or people who still have usable experience. The brains have an extremely large amount of information, which creates the delta of information through recordings, that make up recorded culture. The recordings they make are larger than what they hold in their minds though, but what is in their minds is still very large overall compared to the corpus of culture, and if we compare what is in human heads, working knowledge they have, it is greatly and extremely more massive, than what exists in religious texts, such that religious texts could be deleted. We could rely only and completely on living people who would be making new recordings about what is useful to them. The idea here is not that older texts don't have utility, they do, and we want to retain them, although people don't read them. The point is that religious texts, the most ancient, are really nearly worthless in value when compared with the knowledge people have in their actual brains presently.

If this is not admitted some strange consequencees exist, and I think people relaly would react negatively to this idea. Did they learn the religious texts or not? Of all the people living, existing, doing what they need to do in the world, making what is new for which new people will need to interract, did they learn also, what is in the tiny amount of religous text? People will say religions are living. Are they living or are they textual. The most recent religion should be in brains, and if in brains, old religious texts really can be deleted. I would not want this, preferring their to be history, but the value of these texts is none by comparison with brains of all people, else they argue the brains of all people is less than a small text. This would be s very strange claim, and foolish in the extreme.

I think it may be possible people really are foolish in their reactions and beliefs to the extent that they will think I have to say instead that the religious texts have information people didn't learn and don't use, and this information is greater than all knowledge. But why did not people learn it, transmit it, find it important, such that the texts could be deleted because reallly all is known? The reality is people are using what they still erroneously think is useful (without other sources existing for that info), and where it is not perceived as useful religion is being ignored.

Earlier I have proposed, perhaps not in writing here, that we measure the value of thoughts in schaloobs. Using this metric, we create a valuation of thought of all people living, and compare it with the quantity of schaloobs of a single text of the Quran for example. I think the Quran has almost zero schaloobs of utility compared with the schaloobs of all existing living brains, and if that is not true, that is a very terrible state of humankind, but of course, that is an absurdity, since a single commplex piece of life improving technology requires more writing than the Quran.

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

## <a name="using-selected-experiences-right-now-with-stases-knowledge-to-make-better-decisions-than-using-imagination">Using Selected Experiences Right Now With Stases Knowledge To Make Better Decisions Than Using Imagination</a>

Ontology | Logical Comparison | Natural Comparison With The Brain | Events | Decision Making | Ethics | Mathematics

*732 Wanattomians, Monday, August 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 

I was trying in the last writing to find a way into events to aid the imaginatioin because of its limitations in comparing, doing imagined alternatives. Imagination of Alternatives is fundamental comparison, so this subject and choice of words is not amiss, for other purposes and not just purposes here, relating to the brain's function. This subject will touch on the foundations of mathematics and fundamental use fo the brain in thinking.

Quickly, after intuitiively feeling assured that there was a way to offload the work to reality, I realized that one can do this, and improve on how one does it, by simply observing immediately something ever more complex, and if one can really absorb and process it, use that as a way to decide. This is what is happening when people are getting feedback from thinking on paper too, because they put into the world a copy of what they think and then begin comparing it with world and events at more complexity than what is in their minds alone. It is when people know, doing only contemplation, is not as good as making things then doing thinking about those things, while also contemplating. I'm suggesting, plain observation fo the world also, combined with use of stases, can be used to increase significantly powers of decision and imagination of alternatives, and making comparisons, using what is true and existing, without sometimes doing any writing or diagramming or art for feedback. Simply observing and using relevant analogues of nature, making the right comparisons, and using the right decision methods from math, should greatly expand powers. The fidelity of actual things are simply their own fidelity. We are then limited by our ability to observe and see, and load into our minds to think about it, but we can use tricks and shortcuts even with this approach, and offload much of our thinking to nature.

Either way, however we do it, it can be done is clear. There needs to be methods of doing this to make the improvements.

I expect to write more with concrete examples.

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

## <a name="lack-of-history-for-past-event-details-for-comparisons-of-future-in-deterministic-consequentialism">Lack of History For Past Event Details for Comparisons of Future in Deterministic Consequentialism</a>

History | Constraint and Determinism | Ontology | Epistemology | Logical Comparisons | Mathematics

*732 Wanattomians, Monday, August 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland* 

In yesterday's writing about events and imagined alternatives as they relate to making ethical comparative choices, it was missed that history about earlier events are lacking. In the last discussion, the example of comparing earlier earth with future earth, without a mind, or with each of those supposed to have complete self-minds and knowledge of the other, (adding this last part), we were supposed to have a less erroneous, maximally detailed comparison form, which could be distinguished from comparisons of imagined alternatives, which have low precision and content. We agreed imagined alternatives to fit into a psychometrical bounding which is caused by limitations of nervous system, and that it varies accross the human species, but that even among the smartest, it is of poor quality. We could imagine the lowest quality comparison too if we wanted, but for that I will suggest we have it with the simplest nervous system doing coparisons, and while we are advanced compared to such systems, we are not good at it by comparisons with what is possible given computing and future biologies. Events themselves have the greatest level of detail, and this is what brains are trying to represent to compare, with their imagined alternatives.

Now that we have this again, we can talk about what was missed, which is that we have limited utility of events still. Limiting imagination we expect correctly to limit cognition entirely on the same grounds with a same bounding. Really we also have to admit, it is not easy to use events more directly, although I think we do somewhat, using traditions and built technologies, and there are probably other methods I have not yet thought of for using event history, like simply using my attention and moral processes without doing any imaginative work, or doing any complex thinking. Historical events were taken to be a better model of what would happen in the future, for anything imagined, using imagined alternatives. Notice that when people imagine alternatives for the future, they don't often directly refer to past events, and I would argue, when they do, they do it poorly and against their own interests (for example, those who pretend to be using history for government or other kinds of decisions). Instead, I would suggest, they use their memories naturally to simply envision different results or happenings. What is imagined as I said, for many decisions, is involving poor comparisons. If events of history are relied upon, to provide something of reference and focus to provide more detail than the unaided imagination, there might be some improvements, depending on how that is done. In business, using case studies is an example of this. Using a case study approach, or a similar approach, may provide a way for doing much better than using plain imagination and experience, and it happens to be the norm to use case studies in some types of management consulting. I still differentiate this too from using plain experience. It appears to me though, that whatever way an event is attempted to be used from history to increase imaginative power for making decisions, a kind of history or representative recording is needed, and as I wrote before, I think much of that is broken or corrupted. Providing case studies as an example is somewhat against the trajectory of where I was going to go with this thoughtstream, but I like the example because it may provide a way out from having only poor history to work with in addition to faulty imaginative abilities. I was going to suggest that using history and especially older history, is really not particularly useful, and it shows that while comparing older earth with future earth gives a model of comparison that is more perfect with an identity involved, we realistically cannot use events this way,, being things that have to use the imagination and not events directly. But again, I think we can use events indirectly to aid the immagination. Particularly if we did something like use a trustworthy AI to report to us, outcomes of similar conditions from before.

I am tempted to go back into the state of history as a reliable source of information, but I think I covered it adequately, and summarized it to be repeated plagiarism riddled with holes and gaps, where the most important information is. But that is larger history where human decision making in groups may be of interest and for that it appears gloomy to use history, and I think it is misused to steer people, since there is not a good way to use it that I can see. I would emphasize again, especially for this conversation, I don't really see great ways to use history for steering things oftentimes. Does one have a method of doing this? Each time someone is claiming to be doing this, it appears they are not, and have no way to begin, so if they did begin, it would be done poorly. I almost never rely on any event of history from any history text to support my thinkng about what should happen later, and that people don't use it much and can't is an indicator they don't have real events to work with that constitute usable experience, like real experience. If only we had the real events still and the method to use them in decision making, given our imaginative limitations.

I will have to clarify what comparisons we are needing to make, and yesterday indicated briefly we might not need to do it as much as we imagined, and so the subject of ethical decisions might be smaller than people would have thought, meaning freedom is small in decision making, and imagined comparisons are less useful than would be believed. This reduces the size of the subject of morality and ethics a bit, because instrumentality while high, has smaller scope, and fewer tools I think, although that requires explanation. The trend in my ethic is reduction and not complexity. It trends to extreme simplicity to the mindless in timeless stasis.

Returning to the point of this posting, for deciding upon consequences, using imagined alternatives, and events, all is using the brain,and resources the brain can used. Events themselves and nature and its storage provides the detail about itself we are wanting, but we have to use tools to get that information, and right now, our tools are not that good. We use written history which for human events I think is very poor, and we use case studies in business. Personal experience seems to be considerably better for instrumentality, but that is now admitting history isn't very good, and imagined alternatives as poor as they are is what we rely on. This text was about further revealing that past events have poor utility. History is to mine utility of passing events. But it tries to tell it like it is helping us know our past, without really understanding what would be helpful really. My view is history will need overhaul and probably shouldnt' be called history later, unless the ideas about it are sufficiently changed. Else updates are held back. I prefer something akin to the explanation of earth's development, developmental causality of earth and nature. A single word can be coined for this or a phrase can be used, like "Natural History" was used before. Something sufficiently robotic but with human taste. Objective but soft.

Probably I will need to provide a more succinct view of the actual comparison abilities with a more mathematical treatment. Perhaps there is done math for this, since it does seem to involve simple set comparisons and set types. Once again, in a way, we have the short history of mathematics, and the fewness of real applications appearing pervasively in everyday thinking and usage. Math has to be applied, then permeate thinking in the culture. Math exists and is in scattered application, sometimes in the unsearchable and permanently unretrievable; this is very different from having math, applications, and permeation into living minds. The brain can be bounded in ability by simple sets and arithmetic appears satisfactory for advancing this viewpoint, which is a bit striking. From this I will suggest:

Arithmetic has not permeated human thinking.

A useful outocme that is promising of this discussion is that there may be ways to use events and the earth as it was before and is now, to without using imagination of alternatives, to steer decision making, relying on the storage it has, or tools that do a much more exacting job of representing, like datacenters and artificial intelligence. Combined with educational approaches, this can aid decision making. Combined with the increasing clarity of the view that ethics is easy, thinking can be diverted from this as a task with the expected life importance it had before. If ethics is done, and it is easy, then thought goes from advice, which humans are addicted to in conveying their own worth, they switch to knowing, and using their minds for other tasks. Perhaps grwoth of the mind for other things is beneficial, but even the ways that would be true is to be determined. I think I will have somewhat conclusive ideas to add about this soon, because likely, that amounts to relating what has been stated earlier to the conversation now, but I cannot recollect the relevenat earlier conversations at present.




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

## <a name="comparisons-of-future-in-deterministic-consequentialism">Comparisons of Future In Deterministic Consequentialism</a>

Constraint and Determinism | Comparison | Logic | Mathematics | Language | Ontology | Taxonomy | Ethics | Probability | Forecasting | Personal Planning

731 Wanattomians, Sunday, August 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Helsinki, Finland

An issue with events that transpire, is that they sometimes have consequences that are not what one can see in advance. This is something well discussed in film and in literature, and occurs as a theme in the culture. I realized however, that there are implications of this viewpoint when looked at in more detail for any kind of comparison made for ethical planning or just planning. Furthermore, and this is where culture was not aware, the deterministic nature of events further limits ability to compare, because what would be compared simply cannot happen while it is also something which "if it could happen" (using ordinary language), "would have consequences that are also too hard to know about in the future". I can see that there would be some difficulty conveying this subject matter to the reader unless some ingredients are specified and made clear for subsequent consideration. Let's try to make this approach the clarity of a mathematical treatment.

Since only the events that will happen are those that can happen, we will call those "events". There will not be "possible events", just events, and anything thought of using the mind to imagine alternative futures here will simply be called "imagined alternatives". Reconceptualization may be required later, but to achieve the clarity needed for this discussion, I think that is good.

Past events are just "events" that happened at a time before now, and now there are occuring additional "events", and in the future there will be more "events". All that happened before, is happening now, and will happen in the future, are "events". This is distinguished extremely in my perspective with what is simply thought about. What is thought about are still events, in that we are thinking. But we do not think real wordly events. We think about them. We think about how to construct them for later, if they can be events. For this purpose we use our imagination. When we imagine the future, we use "imagined alternatives" which we think could turn out to be actual events later.

With this I think we may have enough clarity to proceed, getting past maybe some confusions I can forsee that might result, dealing with probabilities, and blending imagination with reality. In the deterministic worldview, I use probability to talk about uncertainties regarding which event will actually happen, but I think there is a 100 percept probability that what will happen will happen. For this subject matter I prefer to leave out probabilities because all events are 100 percent probable, and this kind of conversation doesn't require a conversation about probability anyway. So we use just events and what we imagine as our main concepts.

What we imagine is very limited. We are much poorer at determining which course of action would be better than another even on simple matters. Just today, I had difficulty determning which flight and hotel booking for the next month would be optimal, and this was because I was limited in my imagination in a number of ways comparing scenarios and outcomes, and I think I did choose a direction that is not financially the best one. This is just a mundane decision, but then it is representative of a lot of other decisions and not just this one. For larger decisions, consequences are often really unknown. Taking a new job, even a good one, can result in really unexpected consequences, and in my history, I have pursued jobs not really because of what specifically would happen, but what typically happens if one has more money, if one has more accomplishments in one's background, and if one advanced socially. There were other reasons too, but they were of a similar type: "I expect some particular events to transpire that are beneficial if I get a job of a certain type and quality in a certain location". I did not compare in my mind, really well, my imagined alternatives. Really also, I did not compare the imagined alternative of the future, with the present direction. I simply thought "I should go for the better job". This often works well, but what happens is very unknown.

If what happens is largely unknown, then in what sense are we comparing things really other than comparing basic parts of scenarios for what seems to trend towards wanted things? A relationship choice, to have one spouse or another, or one girl/boyfriend or another is really odd given this consideration. One admits the future is unknown. Events unseen. And instead what one likes, and what seems to trend towards more good things that are unkown, enter into the decision, and what is in the imagination about future alternatives is really of poor quality. This doesn't mean we can't decide in worse ways and better ways, which is something that I advocate for, being intersted in ethics, and without that, ethics isn't really a great subject to be interested in. But what I am saying is that to compare alternative imagined alternatives to decide future is really not so possible as one might think, and instead we have to use less to achieve more, and use key indicators and so on to guess as to which direction to take.

Now, the situation is worse than this though, and I would say, even in this context, people seem to do well, but perhaps because they are in a larger scenario in which wellness exists more generally, and people do make choices that trend towards betterment in life, using trends of decision making, that are well established. Like getting educated is really still a good bet for personal life improvement, but that still too has many qualifications needed.

The larger issue, that I said makes it worse, is that doing comparisons in the mind, since it is not really able to compare large situations, when doing its imagining of alternatives, doesn't perceive events very well. Events are real and concrete, and have a lot of complexity, compared with human brains, and what happens after a choice includes many latter happenings and not just one, and it even path decides the future in a deterministic way, such that inalterably, many new things happen, that are caused by the earlier decision, and all those things simply don't fit in someone's head. When someone starts a relationship, they think they like the person, that person has qualities of friendship or romantic qualities and so on, they think there is a compatibility, and a decent prospect for joint cooperative future having. But what happens after an initial decision to have a relationship is a large number of events close and distant that never were imagined.

We can further mathematize this topic a little. We can say that all imagination is nervous system bounded psychometrically and in representation of reality ontologically, such that a knowledge graph of the imagined, would have a size that we will say is "very very miniscule" compared with what natural events will be, in "what full representation would be". We can scale this also by nervous system, and quality of the system. Thus a much less intelligent person, will be able to imagine less when doing imagined alternatives, than someone very smart, and we also imagine that a superhuman robot with a much better vision still is really limited. For our mathematical purposes though, we can arbitrarily, without going to formalism, just think that we did scale it appropriately, and we did bound it for all imagination. We could move forward to formalization using one or another math, or start to do neuroscience, information science, or computing science. This thinking is more abstract than these, using natural language, and is tilll mathematicl.

So now we know, all imagined alternatives are bounded and are extremely limited, and hardly see events. Notice we already took the step to *separately define them* from events, because they are not the same as what is imagined. They are *only imagined*. This is why I go to see they are *imagined alternatives*. These imagined alternatives are very poor in quantity of information compared with events.

Also, imagined alternatives are forward looking. Events in the future will happen. The events in the future that happen, will be like events in the past. QED for that even. Thus the complexity of past events will exist in future events, so for all events, imagined alternatives are less, but for future events, past events will *not necessarily and probably not be* that much less in complexity. This is like saying the earth is still the earth yesterday and tomorrow, whatever events are happening, and its complexity persists.

What would be useful to us is if we can use the past somehow to represent the future. For that I have a project using stases of nature, particularly astrogeostases and homeostases. But for now, what we will consider, is that thinking about the past, may give us information we can use, to do less *imagination of alternatives*, and more matching of situations, with *some imagination of alternatives*. We use a blended approach, of looking into history for what matches and was helpful, and of thinking about alternatives, while knowing we are limited.

Thinking about the past events aids in persuading that determinism is true too now, for those who might not already be determinist. Our conversation, reduces the value of imagination, and admits that representation of nature is better done by itself as it is, that history represents future, and that the stases of nature illustrates this. Earth yesterday, represents earth tomorrow *very well* compared with how your brain represents, and even amazingly well, would you not agree, considdering that is what it is, and it was there before and after, with little difference in *how it works*.

When we make comparisons our imaginations are poor, but we are with objects which do well to represent each other, and we can find ways to benefit from that, offloading some effort.

Now, onto the subject of the imagination and comparison of alternatives a bit more. We still have to use our thinking to make comparisons. We have stated our ability to compare alternatives is poor, but has utility, esp. combined with traditional learning (an implication, where it is right and correct but often it is incorrect), and that events themselves are complex by comparison, but are well represented by earth before (where the events are not entirely novel, but parts could still be found from before that are usuable).

Hold for later, a potential fundamental item for consideration, of what of new situations have less or no representability from earlier earth, as contrasted with complete representability, which would be like that earth contains something that represents culture before culture, for example, or life before life. It appears there could be the arising of new events as earth progresses, and I'll suggest that some of these are part of a life cycle of earth, and that it is wiser to assume, that earlier earth *did not* include mature earth, or have all that represents it. DNA does well to represent life, and the growth instructions of earth and natural laws exist, so there is more there perhaps than might be known, which can be used to represent in pieces or in composites of other types, the later Earth, and it's events.

This is interesting for us, because now we can think, what really is new now? I will suggest it seems true that some is new, and even history may support less, and perhaps imagined alternatives find increased importance. This may happen if one is at the cusp of making new things too, where what one thinks of, does have more clarity, even the events are smaller in the initial creations. Notice long term results of initial creations has apparently less history for event comparison, meaning one has less of that to use perhaps, with the imagined alternatives, so the future is more unpredictable as a result. That is how we feel about it too. That if AI is created, progressing on the AI that exists now, that results are unknown and there is less history to use.

Moving on to the general subject of comparisons, lets isolate our attention to poor imagination of alternatives. What does this mean for ethics and how we do ethics. I think it would obviously clear, that the development level of ethics is low, not stating this point already. Also, even for myself, I do not believe yet I have really integrated this observation into my experience sufficiently, and this would be true too, because I haven't had some of these observations until now. Until now after doing all the ethical work? I will suggest my ethical work is superior obviously to the work that has existed culturally, but since it is lacking in my work, and is damaging to that somewhat, it is extremely damaging to religion and existing "morality".

In my work there are functional pieces that account for this but without the awareness that would exist if this had a mature treatment. The stases especially, under development, do more to explain that *imagined future alternatives* can be more ignored. There is another side to this subject. I cannot imagine future events well, but what if I don't need to imagine? What if my imagination just isn't that useful. It appears to me that would be a result potentially of my endeavor because the process is becoming too simple, continuity of life too easy, and as I stated, the overall situation of humans is too nurturing and enabling, so imagination doesn't really alter prospects enough, and instead one can use the mind less. I will suggest also, that after I'm finished with my efforts on my attentional management process underway, nearly completed to the level I'd call done for this writing, I'd had something to teach someone that would result in their ability to live well hardly thinking if that was their preference. Also, it would enable those who can't think well. Those who think best, would be most free to think of whatever they want, but what they think about, would be *less* about imagined future events about self by comparison with what is opened up for thinking freely. In a way, because one can also say if one thinks in my process, self-application is always in view. But there is a diminishing return on this I believe. So the thought would advance in complexity but would have a diminished return on self-guidance, which would be consistent with a reduced need to think of alternatives.

Notice if we all lived in nature in a survival state, thinking about imagined alternatives would be really important again, but in a simplified context, of gaining needs that are basic, such that imagination then becomes more possible for what is represented.
If we've agreed that imagination of alternatives is not great compared with events, we have limited our ability to do any ethics we do, and as we said, we bounded it. That means all ethics is bounded. Mathematically we would expect that. Psychometrically we expect that. We can handle life more effectively if we're smarter, if we were much more smart than we are, we'd have better ethics, and better imagination of alternatives, but still poor imaginations compared with actual events. It appears compared with self-comparing events, humans are bad at comparison! This is if we imagine objects and eventts are thinking situations, which compare themselves with themselves and with others, and see all of what is included. Like if the Earth itself self-experiences and is knowing about itself and understands itself later too, because it just compared itself later with itself now. Deterministically, there is also that the earth is predetermined, so there is no later, that is like an unfolding result, as much as a played already loaded next. This is definitely consistent with stasis, because Earth is already all the way here, so tomorrow, it is all the way here with whatever else is new, and so it is not too far, given determinism, to just state that the future gets played through like a video. With this we can imagine that the Earth does not need to self-compare even in this self-knowing earth scenario, because it is just a video!

The point of this though was just to get a scale towards the high quality of comparison side, to contrast with having very poor comparison, or human level imagination about alternatives.

We will need to talk about what human level is, more specifically in the bounds, see what it means for actual ability to compare, and do ethics behaviorally, especially with planning, because habit wins out over any comparisons. What does thinking do for ethics? What does comparison do? Comparison is fundamental for making decisions. Interestingly in passing, we have decided, we don't have much to decide with, without discussing that subject. And so we have a great argument in favor of determinism, once again, to add to the many arguments, and it is that we can't make comparison's well enough to make decisions well, and we bounded it mathematically, and by nervous system, so any thought of "freedom of the will" is now very absurd! We are quantifying it now! There is quantifying decision ability and freedom by frequency, and by range of ability, and by some other areas. Range of ability here has been extremely reduced. Some imagine "absolute power" in freedom of the will. This states "you have the power you do have when you decide", and "it is bounded", and "it is far less than the level of representability of the earth for itself". So the discussion just is about contraint and determinism as my book is entitled, and freedom always had a scale, and we always had little of it, in the context of total predetermination.

More on the subject of comparison later, since it is important for decision making.

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


## <a name="cultural-demolishing-and-reconstruction-with-truth-findings-and-culture-as-a-savings-of-fasltiy">Cultural Demolishing And Reconstruction With Truth Findings, And Culture As A Savings of Fasltiy</a>

Fiction | History | Archiving and Preservation | Truth and Honesty | Logic | Cultural Advancement | Primatology | Zoology

*728 Wanattomians, Thursday, July 30<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Tallinn, Estonia* 

The human primate is a trained lover and enjoyer of fictions and older myths. False stories, embellishments, lies, exaggerations, and stories that focus on the wrong things, tell it wrong for more drama, are all things people love. They make more of this, and they preserve it. Historically, they may have been less honest, than more honest, unless we believe, there was moral advancement in the population. If not, then perhaps as human primates, something of a similar level of this behavior existed before, as it does now. The accumulation of culture then, is largely a storehouse of lies and fictions and fabrications. We've heard fables, myths, and primitive stories of other cultures, and our own culture, and the way in which these were presented to us, revveal we know they are untrue stories. The value they have is not really well conveyed or understood. What is happening for certain, whatever benefits *might exist*, is false information is stored and conveyed without people knowing why, and lying further about why. We know this comprises a large amount of culture, not only in our own nations, but internationally. We also know this information is used for what we consider to be false and manipulative indoctrination and propaganda, and to persuade people to conduct warefare against others. It is used to distinguish one nation from another, or one regional heritage from others. The myths of Greece and Rome, for example, and European legacy, and these are not taken in with as much interest in Asia, in a way that considers them to be part of the cultural heritage, they should know. European's expect their brains to be the storehouse partly of these false myths rejected. And they don't know why. The reasons are not existing and lies would be used instead.

Once one arrives at a commitment to truth and honesty, and once one learns what of history is certainly false, it becomes clear that replacement of history is needed to increase the exposure and availability of truths discovered. Truth and honesty, in my estimation, really ought to have a destructive approach to the elimination of falsity. For exxample, if it cannot be surfaced the value of the definite meaning of ancient myths, destruction of them and removal of their presence and movement of them to "histories" is needed, with no further teaching of them. This is done already, notice, with destroyed nations, thought to have lost wars. Unconcerned if what they think is true or false or valuable or not, we think them alien, and do not want to have them mixed necessarily with what we have, and historically, many have been utterly eliminated. Their elimination was not interested in preserving truth. It was more about forcing them out, while preserving one's own stories, whatever they were, true or not, and definitely false. War is the protection of false archives and memories, so other false archives and memories do not replace them. In your nation, if a war threatened its survival, what some would be very concerned about, would be the preservation of culture, including really anything in it, especially the silly stories of youth, and whatever was thought to be valuable that was myth and so on. False exaggerated history, belief in the power and superiority of the nation, now shown soon to be lies, and of the great intellect had, is thought to be coming to an end. The falseness is what is wanted. The fairtale national story is what they want preserved. But this is simply because they are primates trained incorrectly by cultures which have always had it wrong, and all cultures appear to have it wrong. Future cultures need not have this wrong.

Instead truth is the emphasis. Knowing why what is taught is valuable and what the value is. Knowing how to tell the difference from true and false. How to spot a myth, so it doesn't *ever become important*! A true nation would not let myths become something cherished! This is very different than seeing cultures that want to die for lies, willing to hatch and kill murderlings, to self-preserve. Lies, indoctrinations, advertisements that are false, manipulative marketing, fictions that are riskily teaching themselves to be true, and so on, would be really contrary to education, like teaching that cigarettes are good for you. Folklore and religious stories are not good for you either. Judaism is in some ways like protecting cigarettes: their heritage and early writings are full of silly errors and falsities, and these are really to be relegated to historical books and not taught any longer, or looked at, unless there is special reason to do so, like Judaism was forgotten finally.

The religious, national, and regional lies are so often told, that nobody has forgotten them utterly, as if what can be leared from the books about them, can be really interesting again. A kid or adult is not going to be a smart explorer of culture to start reading mythologies, or religious cosmologies, or advertisements, if what they are going for is to learn what is true in them. It is not a fruitful place to *find truths*. It is also not exploration. Speaking about Zeus, and dieties, and about any religious story, is like learning to be a boring person, not learning new truths, but many old falsities and prejudices of dead cultures, and not really to be an explorer of valuable truth.

The same might be said about studying history nowadays. Each history book, leads in with the same story of human prehistory, and even the same cave art, and paleolithics. The same timeline. If they go earlier, they would just oft repeat the same dinosaurs! The same rocks! To make it very absurd, as it is. These histories now are not teaching, and it is not exploration, and while some is true, it is not rich in truth. The histories as they go into actual stories of human development, also tend to retell the same stories, the same themes, of human development from an agriculutural stage, through religious and tribal conflict and conflicts related to migrations, of history of langauge, and of industrialization finally, where the story again becomes the same story told everywhere. These stories are boring, and there is some truth contained. But much of it would argue, and have argued elsewhere, is false in the details. Plagiarism is the way it is told, which is why it is oft told the same way. Have you ever heard history told another way? How many other ways. Ultimately a single unifying history of earth would exist, but there should be many ways to tell it. Instead its repulsively repetitive, and where it is not about these repeated subjects, it seems plagiarized again and again and false in details. Is history the details? Or is it the repated framework, told over and over again for all locales? Notice if all are familiar with the framework, it also is not interesting exploration. Cave art is a subject that is so childish it's really somewhat amazing that it exists as something people pretend to be surprised or interested in.

I have gone off subject to an extent, the main interest was what is false, and not what is repetitive so much. History has been too attached to nationalism, and self-praise, and has been too interested in early myth, to the extent that it *includes fictitious stories in its own histories*. A history of Rome, for example, will tell about the myths from Plutarch, of Romulus and Remus, and will really act as though those myths, have a veracity, making them worth telling about. They do not. The stories fit into theh mindsets of people of the time, but we cannot tell how. The history of Rome is very sadly and stupidly distorted with misplaced myths. These stories are then re-used for any history book of any nation in Europe and Europe as a whole, when the history passes through the topic of the earlier stages of Europe which included Greece and Rome. Even Robert's History of the World includes the same information.

Instead of repeating more, I will have to simply imagine, that information from my earlier thoughtstreams about the errors of the study of history, have been copy and pasted here, so I do not have to cover the subjects again. I do not want to say all the ways I think history has been falsified, only that it is very false, and extremely damaged.

In my view, the idea of history itself needs to be replaced, being so faulty, and having had such a poor development to date. It is still primordial, and arguably, they did not ever have the tools to do it. This will be obvious in the explanation next about what I think replaces history: the detailed causality of everything on the planet.

Too much that happens in history is due to clandestine deals, decisions, plans, and so on, that are not public. Business plans, familial plans of aristocrats, plans of monarchs, deals between friends spanning nations, and other actions taken gradually by those powerfully influential much of the time, and not only sometiemes, and in many nations, like the power of a major hotel chain or restaurant, to give an example. Forces that did not get shown were causing too much for history to be real before. These causes, make up the natural developomennt, of human beings and human organizations. Everything a human does, learns in education, and everything peopld do collectively, is the causal development of humankind, and I am reluctant to call it history, because history was swhen this was false.

Sometiems parting from the past makes good sense, and here is one time I think it's true. History is poorly done, and not really even well articulated as a discipline. I think it is an earlier stage in simply making it anthropology or zoology. The study of anthropology, of primate development, and the development of human ecologies, is needing explanations that aren't dumb stories of history. When thought of that way, the details I'm thinking of may be more clear. I wouldn't be intersted in some conversation overheard, written into some history book at all really. What I'd be interested in would be, the true causes of the earth is unfolds. Once we remove anthropomorphism, which is primitive too, we might just say we fit into the Earth, and the galaxy, and instead want to tell natural causality, real development, of earth and what has been around it, without talking about stupid dramas. The way this story would be told, would have extreme detail where needed, which would be where historians couldn't see. HIstorians weren't doing history when they couldn't see into happenings, and one might ask, when did a historian be involved in anyting? Historians are like ants from afar, trying to relevant.

The writings of the true causal development of the Earth must commit to points like these, and simply state what is true, that areas that are unknown and out of view play a role in explanation, and then it will be found also, that humans are too ignorant, until information collection increases, even into private locations of rich and powerful people.

history has added into our civilization's archives plain lies about this and pretense that ignorance hasn't existed where causes were. Arguably, the large causes were often and even usually out of view. The historian is simply pretending to be involved. This implies for certain that what we have stored as far as cultural artifacts in addition to theh myths are simply false causes of Earth's story, written as dramatization in plagriarisms, by people uninvolved. The archives of civilization have been interested, then, in storing false things. Even where it thought it had true things. So in addition to somewhat knowingly storing and keeping important false information civilization has amassed primitive history, which is low quality largely false history. It follows that much of what exists in culture is simply false information. Culture then is interested and actively pursuing storing and archiving of false information. It wants and keeps what is false, and transmits it, and stores it in brains.

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

## <a name="verbalverse">Verbalverse</a>

Language | Ontology | Interdisciplinary Science | Knowledge | Neuroscience

*720 Wanattomians, Wednesday, July 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Estonia* 

Today, I was considering the verbalverse, on another way of thinking of it, could coincide with the actual universe, but be the speaking of each thing and happening. With the same spatiotemporal properties. It could be considered or devised as a sphere coextensive with all points of the Earth and whatever else is representable of the universe, or it can be thought to simply map to the points, or overlay it some other ways. Inside a box, on the globe someplace, a private box, could be happenings in which the speakings about it occur also within the box. I do not like that there is not tranparency in this, but it is interesting, that there could be a verbalverse, where the spatial properties are preserved in a way, and what is spoken about in the box happening in there is unknown "outside" of the box. Alternatively, there could easily be a transparent version.  

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

## <a name="templates-frameworks-formulae-variables-forms-languages-as-similars-or-synonyms">Templates, Frameworks, Formulae, Variables, Forms, Languages, As Similars or Synonyms</a>

Mathematics | Language | Computer Science | Interdisciplinary Science | Government Forms | Databases | Data Entry | Markup Languages | Programming | Software Architecture

*720 Wanattomians, Wednesday, July 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Estonia* 

An interesting subject matter for me is the reusability of forms, and templates, and the extremely strange relationship of these to other reusable text and visual objects, which accept differing inputs. Some forms and templates are frivolous, and are perhaps, in a way, like bad mathematics. Another purpose is served of some bad templates and forms. But if templates and forms start to fit into reality, in real processes, or if they represent actual existing things, then they begin to become identifiable with mathematical formulae, and even linguistic grammer where placeholders are simply filled in. Language, templates, forms, formulae, and these miscellaneous objects, of other types too, that are re-usable, to be filled in later, have the similarity of having parts that are not changed, and other parts that are. In language, where all parts seem like they are changed, I still suggest, all is parts that when selected, create re-usable structure, in which other inputs can be added, and the entire language is an unchangeable template of sorts. So, here in Estonia, we have an Estonian template, that is dynamic, and has differing inputs. Xml or html or structured output template can be feed into a system of translation, that spits out Phillipino, and spits it out however you want it. 

Later I will discuss this more, and really for now, wanted to get it recorded, expanding on what I said that was similar already in my text on mathematics. There is an objective, to list out synonyms of words, where there are too many of the same in use, because of specialization of people, jargon, and other issues causing non-blending of information, and in such cases, I will form new concepts, or select from the existing, or use all of them together as I said, to convey, there is justification of having one term for all. Synonymy is a kind of enemy of communication and understanding because it splits where holism can exist in the mind. I also considered, to have translations of all the synonyms, in other languages, to show, that when I say somthing, perhaps about this subject of formulae, and templates, that maybe 30 words exist in english, but for each, words in each language exist. This means for a single word, we have an idiocy of redundancy accross humankind, and non-holism of nervous system. There are reasons for likeing many words for the same, like not being too repetitive and having some extra beauty and nuance, but I argue, one must know the core terms, and know that synonyms *are in fact redundant*, so that it is known, the damage of synonyms, and not only benefits. 

Instead of moving on, I am tempted to make a progression now, being on the subject. What wcan I use for all these? I like template the most, maybe theme, even over the word "equation". I would replace equation with the same word I choose. Being fun, and knowing I cannot commit now, I will simply make one:

"Dynamoreplacelet".

This comes accross in English a silly word, but a synonym, it is the same largely. Surrounding word choice, when there is seriousness of intent, is prejudices of various kinds.

Dynamoreplacelets exist in stasis, and so something of stasis should exist in the word too perhaps, otherwise this does not seem to represent well enough, things like natural processes, that are represented by mathematical formulae or natural templates. A natural template is like "Input the height, weight, blood pressure, and time, of the organism."

Maybe instead:

"Dynamostasoreplacelet"

More on this subject later.

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

## <a name="familiarity-and-removing-the-ego-and-i-concepts-and-recognizing-ones-own-thought-versus-others-heard-in-conversation-or-psychological-suggestion">Familiarity and Removing The Ego and I Concepts, And Recognizing One's Own Thought Versus Others Heard In Conversation Or Psychological Suggestion</a>

Identity | Psychology | Introspection | Neuroscience | Cognition | Communication | Hearing and Verbal Intelligence | Religion | Language

*717 Wanattomians, Sunday, July 18<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Riga, Latvia* 

Many have considered whether or not there is really any identity which one should think of as singular and to be spoken of with words such as I, myself, or me. While many have insisted that there is a singular identity, I have resisted this, finding myself more like Buddhist thinkers, who would deny a singular I, thinking instead there is a better way to think of the subject. Even though I agree regarding this, I have accepted that there is a utility in biology and in practice, as demonstrated with the usual language people are trying to defend, in that people really are bounded singular separated and distinct organisms, with clearly unified organ systems, and system encapsulation. Humans and animals enjoy wide separation between them, and independent locomotion. Using words that routinely specify that one is talking about oneself as one organism versus another makes sense, and this would be an underlying reason that ordinary thinkers would not typically arrive at, but it agrees with their thinking that it is obvious that people are singular unified things. However, in the mental experiences of people, there appears to be much less clear uniformity of oneness and unification, and there are very separate states, and experiences, which indicate that one person has a number of guises, and these guises have different emotions and abilities to recollect and see into the other guises with differing emotions and states. Additionally, one does not immediately "see in oneself any particular self or oneness", but instead, what people routinely claim, is that when they consider their thinking they perceives "somthing that is a unified 'I' that is just one thing", but their thoughts on this are as a rule only vague and all explanations I've heard have not been any that offer greater clarity, but instead provide the same kinds of vaguenesses. These are vaguenesses I also experience when I look into my own experience trying to see what might be a singular me, finding instead nothing obviously singular and unifying. It is very important that people recognize too, in my view, that when people are introspecting, and doing a thought exercise to discern their internal self, they do so only for moments, and do not repeatedly do it again and again, while in all their various states, like when they may have been in a rage, intensely angry, jealous, in great sadness or grief, when injured or in pain, or when intoxicated or under the influence of some drug. In my experience, almost everyone I've known, has seemed to be unaware in their intelligence of their thinking in another state, while they are in a very different one. I have found, in argumentation with people in a range of states, that I do have greater crossover than they do, but I also too am subject to differences between states, making myself a different person of sorts in one or the other, with incomplete access to both when the brain has "selected one of the selves to be for the moment". Others in my experience have been like abnormal psychology cases of people with multiple personality disorder, like they have different brains when in different moods or states, and cannot recall thoughts from their other "types", and are unable to combine, use, recall, or otherwise use information from different versions of themselves.

Taking these into combination, that people have various versions of their mental selves, andn that they can only see vaguely into what they really are without being able to point out any unified mental object, I am more convinced that the Buddhists are closer, in denying that there is a thing such as an "I". But I do agree that humans are obviously biologically unified organisms, and when I talk about myself, sometimes I do want to talk about myself as an entire organism from my skin inwards, including all my system as a human entity.

Here I will not go back in time, to dig through what I might recollect about Buddhism, and instead, I will just reject the Buddhist view too, as I have heard it, thinking what was shared to be far too superficial, and including too little that might be called "good and clear advice". My view is influenced by some agreement with theirs, and subsequently I formed my own opinions. I am not sure how and in what ways my views agree with what might exist in Buddhist literature outside of core doctrines.

It is good to finally come to this subject again, because it is very important in morality and ethics, to know the role of the self, and to have a more clear way to speak regarding identity. I will not cover everything that might relate here, but instead, initially, I want to talk about the language used, which will support discussion later, creating more clarity for other parts of the subject matter.

Firstly, if one is not fond of the word "I" and other pronouns taking the place of one's actual name (including "one" as "I", which humorously insists there is one), and am working at a better system of talking about self. I am not entirely fond of having a singular name either, and earlier was focusing on having a taxonomy of self, that goes deeper into the organization of oneself in the nervous system as suggested by introspection and by experiences in different guises as I was saying. "Mattanaw" has a number of forms, in which there is limited visibility from each into the others. I want to get more precise talking about myself, and want to refer to which version I am as I talk. I am aware, knowledge itself is divided too, and this may require further subdivision, or provide a way of knowing when subdivision at present is too absurd for being too impracticable. The pronouns taking the place of my name, like "I", I would like to mainly omit, too, somewhat in contradiction to my other approach. Sometiems I might want to emphasize that there is no clear self to point to, and other times I want to indicate that i can point to a guise somewhat vaguely that is different from other guises. These correspond to the two reasons for thinking there is a problem with identity to begin with, as discussed in earlier paragraphs. I may have to reconcile these or systematically have a way to combine these but for now I will work with two approaches, of omitting myself as subject, and other times, simply being more precise about myself as I am talking as a chunk of what I am more totally as an organism, partly dormant and out of view and not only what is actively talking or typing.

I will discuss this part of the subject more soon. Here, what I want to spend a bit more time on, now only having energy to introduce before revisiting it again later, is that one's thoughts can be recognized as being consistent with one's nervous system without any use of self-identifcation using "I", "me", or "Mattanaw". Suppose I have some thought, and in order to communicate it to myself and others, I try to start my sentence with "I think ..." and then I add the rest of the sentence, which is supposed to be the contents of the thought, had by me. This may actually be an argument in refutation of Descartes too, although I did not think of it that way until this moment. Saying "I think ..." means there is some subject I think non-vaguely exists in my experience and not only in my encapsulated organism that is having the thoughts and is the thoughts in a way too. The issue is the vagueness and the lack of being able to point out what that is. That is what I aim to substitute here. Instead of saying "I think ...", what can be said is "My system is familar with ..." which means, my nervous system seems to be the source of the thinking because of various agreements which especially are spatio temporal agreements, and agreements about the characteristics of the thought. Notice this is already a superior and more detailed way to think of it, than simply saying "I think ..." in a way that honors and follows tradition, by repeating elders in their formulations. Instead, for the moment we use the new transitional approach to see what is going on before omitting the subject entirely, in just having the thoughts, without saying there is an I doing it, understanding the following answers to the question "How do I know it isn't someone else thinking my thoughts, as when I'm confused with wispers, when confused in the middle of a very engrossed communion-like conersation, or when subject to psychological illusion? It is easy to create situations in which one is fooled by outside verbalizations into thinking that one thoguht them oneself. There are experiments showing this, and it happens in communication with others, when one is not tracking discussions well, and when the thoughts of each person are being built off each other, so jointly there is similar ideation, and similar use of language. It can be harder to tell who thought what. In any case, these are just harder cases, of simpler ones, in which using my solution described shortly, both are solved. Thre are still times in which one will be confused, but the same tests and criteria in principle solve for both even when in practice it is hard to peruse quickly.

Familiarity regarding a particular thought thought had, can be distinguished from a thought had by another, spoken aloud, in a whisper, suggested, remembered in the mind suddenly in the voice of another, and so on, because it shows two things: firstly, it shows that the thought is conformant with the nervous systems experience and expectations. The thoughts are consistent or relevant to thoughts stored, to what is in awareness, to what is known to have been thought before, to be continuation of thoughts from before, to have the rhythm, cadence, emotional content, character, and personality existing earlier, intent, and other properties, and not foreign information, intent, emotion, cadence and rhythm, sound of speech internally, and anything else, not conformant with thoughts already had. It seems to me at present, the principle of induction can be used also, to trust that such experience in temporary awareness is usable for future thoughts, which are trusted to be conformant with earlier one's had, because without such inductive argument, one cannot trust that agreement with earlier thoughts can be confirmed or known to be true. Probably there are cases of nervous dysfunction in which this can be shown to be false, but I will have to consider that further, and in any case, it appears normally operating nervous systems, really can trust such an approach. Secondly, and I should have separated this, but it relates partly, in that familiarity includes spatial proximity, but spatial considerations also just relate to perception. When a thought is had, the system has familiarity with where it was had. It was had near, and the timing is just right, and has spatiotemporal thought relations which are like those had earlier, and in a brain network, that is like a computing network, the interactivity of nerve cells, will have a consistency related to closeness of the cells to each other in an actually connected network of tissue. Like a local network in computing, the timings will reflect the closeness of computers to each other. If something comes from another mind, another brain, another network, the timings then differ, and they differ even if they are just a littlle further away, and are separate and not part of the same network, like if someon ewas very close to you, saying something to you. Apart from just knowing you hear it from another mind, even if it were said to you in confusing whispers or in psych experiements, it would not be too long before, it is recognizable that such external thoughts are really external due to timing differences. But we also use the fact that we simply can tell words we are hearing come from elsewhere, by our good quality perception of sound, location, perceived source direction, and so on. Using both types of considerations though, we have gone from spaces which can be very far away, sources of thoughts at a distance, to ones very close to our brrains and maybe even inside our heads with electrodes or small speakers, or other audio equipment designed to confuse, supplement, aid, or correct our thinking. We can use familiarity to help separate thoughts of others from our own spatiotemporally using fmailiarity and plain ability to recognize sources of sounds.

What does this do, to be able to distinguish thoguhts had as being close and familiar, and within the system, and not thoughts from some other location? It allows us to know, we are supposed to think "that it is our thoughts", and so we can use familiarity as a way to know that the thought are our thoughts. But better than this, because we can determine using this that it is the source of our thoughts, we can use familiarity instead of using the idea that there is an I! Conversationally and in other ways that are important, and I think potentially, to reduce the way we think about our thoughts to thinking without them being "ours", using the word "I", insisting on identity, and even using inanimacy to replace animacy in the interpretation of our thinking experiences. But for now, the conversation is about identity and not using "I".

Here is how this replaces "I". Since we have found that as a test, we can use it to confirm thoughts had are not thoughts of others, then we can simply think things such as "The thougghts fulfill familiarity requirements". Evertime you have a thought, notice it does appear, to fulfill familiarity requirements, and this is true even if you are not chronically and repetitively saying "I" at the beginning of every sentennce. One can, as one thinks, change the sentences, to remind every time, for every one, that "I" am doing the thinking. But that is too repetitive, and really it is not natural. However, it really is natural, that one finds it familiar the whole time! Thus it appears that familiarity is more powerful and consistent and uniform and not annoying compared with using "I" frequently, and as was found, one can replace I with it, since it supplies the criteria.

Your brain, in a way, without ever saying anything self passes itself on this test "This thought is familiar, this thought is familiar, this thought is familiar" then when it hears something at a distance, quickly switches to "unfamiliar that is something else". Thus for every thought not thought to be something else, it knows already it is familiar, even when it is unaware of any use of "I". It can be totally forgetful of any ego or "I", and simpmly it continues being familiar. This I will propose is a brains way of knowing its function is coming from itself, in the chunk that it is partly, separately thinking from other chunks or guises. I do think that between guises, there are familiarities apart from cognitive relatabilities of states in the nervous system (however one says that), when one has very different moods and so on, but that these still have separations despite what I said. An angry person will find a suddent thought from in the brain in a cool state unfamiliar, because really it is impossible. But not if a neuroscientist is prodding a part of the brain while one is angry. Then what is unavailable while angry can become available in the prodding, but to the angry mind, the coolness of the other guise of self will be unfamiliar, an dit will relate to the spatiotemporal relations in the brain, even in a small space.

I will discuss more about this later but I'm pretty convinced familiarity is alone enough to convincingly allow one to account for why the words "I", "me", and "myself", are really unsatisfying and along with a singular idea of identity in the mental experience, really untenable. Likewise, if you have a spouse or loved one, who has siloed brain, with dividedness of thought by mood in their various guises, then calling them "you", or by their name, is questionable, because it pretends they in their entirety are available at the time they are thinking, but actually, they are disconnected guises instead, and in any case. Also, instead of a vague idea as to "I' which changes among th guises, is a better cause of the feeling that the thoughts are not from someone else, and that consists of the repeated feelings of familiarity of the thoughts as originating in the same nervous system.

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


## <a name="the-verbalsphere">The Verbalshphere</a>

Ontology | Knowledge Graphs | Taxonomy | Linguistic Representation | Langauge Models | Epistemology | Neuroscience | Intelligence | Psychometrics

*715 Wanattomians, Friday, July 17<sup>th</sup>, 2026, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland* 

While I was walking in Budapest, Hungary, after arrival by bus, towards the inner city where my hotel room was located, I was thinking about how there is not a verbalsphere, and how instead what we have is a physical earth. Clearly, thinking about it now, there is not an imagesphere, videosphere, or touch-o-sphere either, and these instead are constructs relating to what is in our minds relating to senses; but it appears to me that the earth is much closer in resemblance to these other spheres and not the languageshphere or verbalsphere. The verbalsphere is built up of these other sensory ingredients, and related to them, and the verbalsphere appears to be more separately cognitive. Humorously, I imagine an analogue to the world, that is composed only of an arrangement of verbal concepts, like a text-o-sphere. The verbalsphere, I imagined, must be a reduced earth, and cannot be the same size, and depends on the size of the nervous system. Culture presents to us a kind of textosphere where it is textual. The textosphere as it exists in the culture is limited by nervous system development of the human species. Individually and collectively it is intelligence limited.

I was not at the time I came up with this idea thinking about mathematics. I was thinking about plain natural language that humans speak in various forms and write down. Perhaps we can think of a mathematosphere that is a companion to the verbalsphere, or one that fits within it.

Here is where I introduce this idea and subject for further imaginative use later.

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

## <a name="nontechnical-people-and-vying-for-superiority-with-technical-people">Nontechnical People And Vying For Superiority With Technical People</a>

Career Development | Generals, Chiefs, Hierarchies | Human Resources | Business | Economics | Academia | Organizations, Governments, Corporations, Groups | Primatology

*715 Wanattomians, Friday, July 17<sup>th</sup>, 2026, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland* 

Within the software profession and other professions there is the strange experience of having management being composed of people who sometimes have a non-technical background who gain control over employees and staff who are of very technical backgrounds differing from their own. In my career in particular, in consulting and in software, and in business generally, I have seen how it happens, and it is easily explicable, given people of various entrypoints into organizations, and diversity of experience in companies will be vying with all the others in a company to advance in the hierarchy. There might be a social theorem of sorts from this which could be stated as:

"In any organization with competition towards a general position in a social hierarchy, a position which might be called, chief, general, president, CEO, or other, the experience of the person or people who attain that position or higher management postions, may be those of very different career backgrounds."

Within this somewhat obvious statement, are some interesting observations. Firstly, how do we know who deserves based on their backgrounds to have such attainment? Here a more exclusive interest, is to what extent non-technical backgrounds could or should advance to be management over those with technical backgrounds. This seems to have special interest, because it sidesteps the topic of the specific backgrouns people might have in all the diversity that exists and instead transitions to a subject that involves all of them, where there is a clash between all the roles between two types, the type that is intensively interested and focused on the technical work that is performed, and those who are not interested in the technical work but are interested inother important aspects of businesses and organizations. Within my experience, I discovered that sales is a powerfully important part of business that is extremely separate from the work performed specifically and the detailed technical knowledge of how business is carried out. Sales people can advance along their pathway into management and into advanced visible roles in corporations without having had much experience with what the corporation really does or with what they do at a technical level. Meanwhile, engineers, practitioners, architects, and people with detailed experience in the work may not have a chance of advancing. Technology companies may have CEOs who are much more on the sales side than the technology side or vice versa. Sometimes a blended and balanced person is desired for the role, but it does not turn out in practice that these are the people who are placed in advanced positions. If a salesperson is able as CEO to grow the business, their inability really to be visionary as a technologist is overlooked and perhas may be considered to be unwanted.

In the future I may want to develop this subject matter further, but for now, what I'm more interested in is the observation that it appears that nontechnical people seem in the main vying for roles that are advanced to use manipulation and machiavellian techniques, interpreted as non-meritorious techniques, to advance, instead of having the characteristics supposedly needed to be a leader. Those involved in real business do tend to appreciate actual experience in the business and technical acumen regarding how to do the work and understand more fully products and services that exist. The others, who are socially vying for position, using the non-meritorious techniques, are less able to rely on creating trust and natural leadership by showing this type of experience. Depending on the position though, sometimes other non-technical backgrounds are really beneficial, and sometimes people in those positions who may seem like they are nontechnical, really can and do learn the technical parts of the areas of business not in their experience as they go. For example, a marketing expert, very skilled at getting new customers, may gradually come to understand the products and services offered within the marketing, to the extent that they, perhaps over many years, do really become expert. Thus there are marketing experts who do become technologists and product and services experts. What is common to both of these though? Actual techical understanding, however the educational pathway has gone, in the course up the corporate hierarchy.

In sotfware and consulting, I have found, that the people who do sometimes advance, really are those who are using non-meritorious approaches to advance, who are socially manipulative, and do not actually have adequate technical experience, while trying to create a guise, using language a certain way, that they do have it while they do not. Many people who are technologists face issues with this type of person, while they try to earn positions meritoriously, building on the backgrounds they have, which may be technical and would still include the social skills required to run a technical business.

A technical business cannot really exist without initially having personalities in the founders which fuse social ability with technical powers that are very great. Complleting product and service offerings that are real and then selling and delivering upon them require people who are exceedingly strong socially and technically. Sometimees, instead of having individuals, or groups of individuals with these traits, there are pairs of people and partnerships, with complementary traits, which allow for the same kind of business startup, which requires the same blend of charateristics. I think if a business is successful though, even in the complementary teams, the people who are acting as complements to each other are still pretty good at crossing over, which makes mutual communication between them possible, and over time, they may be less complementary, and more people who mutually understand in a more balanced way each part of the business. Notice that in this scenario, all the people are technical or become technical. If the starting point is of complementary people, then the group has a sufficiently technical person or people. I think however, most onsets to companies include people who are more powerful than this, and each person is both socially powerful and more technical.

There was a key insight I had on this which I do not at the moment recall, so I will have to return to add that in the near future.

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

## <a name="concept-and-mathematical-statements-do-not-have-infinite-applicability">Concept and Mathematical Statements Do Not Have Infinite Applicability</a>

Ontology | Mathematics | Logic | Linguistics | Language | A System of Thinking

*689 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 21<sup>st</sup>, 2026, Mdina, Malta* 

The initial example I thought to use to communicate this idea is the supply of rodents in the world, if we can call a naturally arising quantity of objects in the world "supply".

Rodents exist on Earth and not everywhere. Clearly then, the applicability of the concept of "rodent" does not apply further than the quantity of rodents existing, although more rodents will appear later, and we then think that, our concepts will then apply later too. So it applies, we think, to rodents of the past, present, and future. In the more distant future, rat-things, and other rodent-things, will start to appear different, such that they are no longer rodents, but the evolved successor of them. Once all rodents have ceased, the concept of rodent no longer has applicability. The quantity of rodents turned out to be finite and not infinite. We could have foreseen this in advance though, imagining already, that rodents do not spread forever backwards and forwards and sideways in time and space, but instead, appear as furry friends on Earth, in some places but not others.

I think this may have some important implications regarding concepts. Firstly, we might consider the question if there are any concepts that do not "apply" to finite things. Knowing that all concepts must have "operational validity", and actually refer to things which they are supposed to designate, there will have to be existing things, that the concepts represent. This agrees with my view that, existence is really what underlies the meaning of truth and is mostly coextensive with truth, given my manner of usage as of late which agrees largely with public usage. Existing things, are not in any case as far as we can tell, infinite for the most part, particular as far as we consider things to be objects or substances or things containing a subdivision of constituents building up to what we think of as "things", which is what is supposed to be happening in physics with the underlying constitution of matter. All these objects, still are "things" we think, must exist to have validity, and exist in a finite amount, so it appears that, so far as we can see in the immediate solar system, and maybe in the universe too, these things are finite. Large in number sometimes but finite. This means the concepts in our language, and most of our language, is about what is finite and not infinite, and applicability is limited.

Something I did not think too much about, is the applicability of English and other languages outside of Earth. Since all the words are about things on Earth, it seems to follow that nothing is existing outside of earth for which to use the language, excepting what Astronomers would use, but notice that what astronomers would use, excluding all else in English, would not be as useful in our lives, where we have many objects to speak of that do not exist elsewhere.

Language appears to be usable on Earth mainly, and nearly only, as it exists now, although it is admitted some might be usable, if something exists to talk to elsewhere, like if Earthlings go someplace far, and find a new world with entirely differing things, or if Earthlings talk with some other intelligence. The cause of this scenario relates to the non-existence of objects of Earth and of objects of human interest elsewhere. Interestingly, English language, and other human languages, as they are with their existing vocabularies, do very little in discussion of other worlds, as they are in their enitirety. We'd have to stop using most of it, to say anything about other places (talking only about rocks, minerals, elements, and so on instead), and if there appear any life complexity, the living entities will be unnamed entities. This is important, because like with first adventurers accross earth, concepts did not exist for animals until they were first seen. There was an initial joy to discover many other animals, and to give them names. Later the language included a way to talk about those things, before that, there was no way to do so.

It was admitted above, in passing, that some things could be talked about, like minerals, rocks, gases, and other physical and chemical things. What is unnamed cannot be discussed much. What also exists, like rules of nature, if they are active in the locations, could still be discussed, with mathematics and other concepts. We would have the mathematical statements that apply and whatever concepts we have for existing things, where we look. So the idea is that we have useful language, where it maps to things that exist. But the things have to exist, where we look to discuss those things.

What does not exist in distant locations? We have the idea that laws of nature apply everywhere, but it does not appear to me that that is certain or tested. Notice that supply of mathematical applicability does not exist where it has not surfaced in the action of the mathematical law. The idea here is that in a distant location, mathematical laws may not exist, if they are not actually active in a system. Do chemical properties exist, in space where there are no such chemicals, and what of the associated math? It appears the supply does not exist, and language does not apply. Before, I had some bias with others, that laws of nature, as they call them sometimes, exits everywhere, and maybe thought that to be the case, even if they were not showing or not active. How do laws of nature show? Where do they show? Where do they exist but not show, and is there such a thihng? From the thought above about chemical laws, it appears they do not exist if they are not with the chemicals. I had this idea recently, that mathematical laws, may need to travel with the thihgs that relate to them, with matter, and not exist all the time all round, and simply become active, when present. Gravity, and some other phenomena, seem active, at huge distances, but it may also be true with gravity, that there is no action at a large enough distance, and that where there is no mass, there is no gravity, and therefore, gravity too only exists, or shows, when mass exists. It seems like tests would fail, if the masses are not present or close enough (may not be true), but in the case of chemicals, it seems difiniively true, that the mathematical properties are not active, or showing, or even existing if they are not around.

Now we may have an argument regarding the quantity of mass and chemicals, stating that since it appears true that chemical related math does not appear active or showing or existing, where those chemicals are not present, that for all things that exist, if not present, those chemical laws are not present! That would mean we have also the idea that supply relates to mathematics of chemicals and that there is not an infinite supply of applicability to math either, in these areas. There may be areas in which this is not true, but we have a very sizeable example in which it is true.

Is gravity a chemical related property too, given it depends on masses to exist (atoms as chemicals, elements, etc...)?

The properties of light also do not appear to exist where there is no light.

Exploring language again regarding its own limitations again seems to inform about what may be the case in nature that is unexpected. As humans, we like to think our language is powerful, but from the first observations, we see it is largely useless off of Earth, taking the language as a whole. We simply cannot talk of appointments with doctors, tables and chairs and furniture, and any animal ever, when talking about some other place in the universe. If there are animals in those other places, then we have no words for them, and no ideas in our minds! This means none of our vast vocabularies for earth is usable hardly at all, leaving only boring language about plain elements and simple materials. So humans do not have powerful language for all existence like thy think, but of course, people are biased in the current age, to think their science and math, really are powerful accross the universe.

I think this happens to be more true, but it isn't incredibly expressive in terms of existing *things*. Also, while powerful, I would not admit it is infinite in application. That was part of the point of this conversation. Like with other concepts, scientific concepts and mathematical concepts do not appear to have applicability wider than existence, which is funny to say. Does anyone think this? I think unknowingly they kindof assume it. By thinking there are infinite substances, and infinite places, and size of the universe and so on, they are thinking their language can apply to everyting possible. But it appears to me, that even the mathematical concepts require"showings" of existing things represented, and that these things that are active, showing, and existing, are limited in supply. Notice it appears, that the universe has limited supply. Everything is limited in supply, and we can tell, because space is not packed full, and lso, it appears, that space might be limited in supply, because of the appearance of substances, that occupy it (if it is true they occupy it, but even if not the case, it appears it could also be true, that space has no supply or limited supply. Regarding space, I am not convinced one way or another, but am now exploring this idea, that space has a limited supply, and it appears it does, but if it does not, one has to show that? By showing the supply of space somehow or that it is bounded!

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

## <a name="seeing-that-you-will-do-something-as-a-progression-from-planning">Seeing That You Will Do Something As A Progression From Planning</a>

Planning and Visualization | Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Life Categories

*677 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 9<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Macau, China* 

Planning seems to include in its concept an expectation of not completing the plans, even though the objective is to really do what is planned for. This is because when one will certainly automatically carry out a task, one simply sees what one will do, then do it, or one will simply do it unreflectively. So plans were not necessary, and plans only become necessary, when you are not doing the things that the plans are about. Plans are about things you will do that you are not "just doing". They are about what you are not doing, that you want to do, that you envision doing, but not what you will definitely do. Definitive doing seems more connected with automatic unawareness about behavior. For example, I know I will need to use the washroom during the night and in the morning, but I will not make plans for that. Likewise, other actions that are automatically often done, will not have plans. I will make plans though, for things like my next trip. But a reason I'm writing this, is that I am at a point where even these more deliberate plans, are becoming so routine, that I think they are transitioning over into routine easy behaviors that I do without really planning so much. Initially travel requires larger plans, but once travel is thoroughly integrated into one's behavior and habits, the need to plan is not existing so much, as the need to simply make purchases to secure flights, other transit, hotel stays, and so on. These tasks, now being as easy as they are because of the advent of simple online purchasing, are more like purchases at say, a grocery store to quickly buy what one wants, rather than purchasing something hugely vitally important that requires a travel agent, some special insurance related conversations with carriers, and extensive forethought about what it will entail to make the trip. Instead, trips are purchased with ease, and purchased often, and since the travel happens often, all the other aspects of the travel are also routine, so traveling today is quite unlike traveling in history, when risk of death seemed possible. About twenty years ago, I still had at least one friend, who still would say he wished for my safety during my travel. Now, saying I wish for someone's safety during travel, feels like it could be taken incorrectly, as wishing something bad to happen instead, because, there isn't a serious positive or helpful reason to talk that way any longer. The writer of a book called Dangerous Places argued that it was safer in many ways to be traveling than at home, and my understanding is that cars are vastly more dangerous than buses, and buses more dangerous than rail, and rail more dangerous (maybe not today), than flights. Flights and rail, he discussed, is safer than staying in one's home. This may be disputed but there is an obviousness to it, that flights are happening in such numbers everyday, that if you go on a flight, you can expect it simply arrived at the destination. Since it is easy and safe, and routine, now *plans* about travel are becoming less and less, and for someone who travels as much as I do, they are vanishing in awareness into habit and automation. My reservations now are sometimes fast enough that I don't fully remember what I reserved, and have to check, on dates, location, and specifics. I don't try to recall my travel reservations as much, even flights. The way I choose dates is even routine, so I am expecting, to leave at the beginning of months, to arrive at new places, and depart at the end of months, or after 90 days, from regions. The total experience of getting to the airport, getting to hotels, and buying groceries and securing local transportation and jogging and exercising in new locations, and going to gyms and so on is really repetitive and creates the feeling that there isn't travel in a way. What has changes is not so much what I do, as where I am when I do it!

My current objective, doesn't relate to this example specifically; more generally, I have the goal of arriving at planned predetermination, of planning in detail in advance most of my conduct and carrying out those actions. Relating those actions to abstractions of environment in the form of a schematic life map, and relating these also to specific activities I do, and property related to those activities. But now I can omit "planning" from "planned predetermination" because I can see it will become planlessness. This subject simplifies easily, into habit formation and automation, of making plans first, procrastinating a little, or a lot depending, then finally carrying out actions repeatedly, until they are "absorbed" into self, and "incorporated". I'm finding I like the word "incorporate" to discuss this: we write out plans, then we incorporate them into our biology. Long after habits are formed, plans are gone, and one does not think much again about planning for habits already had!

The idea is to see what I want to do, then do it. With enough life detail, that plans are not existing, for hardly anything. The life ethic, using the attention management process often, will still include learning processes. The learning processes will be those where there is more awareness, and more active planning. Notice that this is what people do: they only plan really for what they are needing plans for, and everything else is already mastered into habit and automation and left out of thought. Even as people drive around, do mundane tasks, they think about those other plans, which are about those other things needed, where there is some learning happening. One might say that a very large proportion of a human's attention is dedicated to learning about some current problems, and learning related to solving those problems, and learnings about new things. Attention could be divided on average for humans into percentiles for what they are doing with their minds. This would give a way of summarizing the lives of humans, since what they think about is considered very largely to be what they are. I am certain that former learnings are not where attention goes, and attention instead goes to new stimuli, and even if these appear simple, they involve new learnings. Even liking a new entertainment source will involve seeing new people, new behaviors, and new learnings.

The main goal from this observation for me is to arrive at planning for only what really involves novelties I care about that do fit into a larger plan, but involve smaller learnings that are new. For everything else, and for the larger plan, in the life ethic, to vanish and becoming incorporated more into me, with plans less existing, replaced more with process automations.

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

## <a name="mathematical-equations-and-expressions-as-sentences-and-paragraphs-without-examples-and-sufficientness-of-language-without-examples">Mathematical Equations and Expressions as Sentences And Paragraphs Without Examples, and Sufficientness Of Language Without Examples</a>

Mathematics | Linguistics | Language | Logic | A System of Thinking | Truth and Honesty

*667 Wanattomians, Saturday, May 30<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 

Mathematical formulae, equations and so on, are often specified in isolation. That is, the symbols for the formula, spoken, or written, are often and sometimes not accompanied by explanatory or other related information. To provide an example, if I am given Boyle's law in a physics or chemistry class, or am given the expression as an example in mathematics, there are times when it is solitary. If someone entirely unfamiliar with the law is not provided more information, then it would not be well understood. But with initial learnings of the inputs, and an existing knowledge of the mathematical form and approach to using the formula, examples for an intelligent mind might not be needed. If they are needed, they are not necessarily needed to provide *substantiation* about the formula's veracity. Typically, in this context, examples are wanted for learning reasons, to know how to use the formula and to practice. Once learned, substantiation with examples is no longer needed.

Examples would figure prominently in the scientific process, where observations are hoped to be examples of a well completed knowledge advancment of principle. Observations are examples in the making. A scientist hopes the findings will confirm some other work happening that has explanatory power. If the work was underway for Boyle's law, observations would eventually go from including unexpected results and non-exemplification, to expected results, and exemplifications. Eventually the work of Boyle culminates in mathematical expressions and observations that serve as examples which do provide the proof of the work. Examples fill out the data too.

It appears to be true from this, that desire to see examples is important, and relates to the learning process, and of confirmation of a learning mind that what is spoken is true, down into the data.

I'm seeking in this writing, to find an explanation, about why sometimes, examples are not required, but to also talk about it in a clean and definitive way, making it clear very specifically, when and why examples are not needed and in what situations. But above, I found the concept of an example, is quite important and entirely fundamental, and oddly, discovered for myself, the conceptual relationship between providing examples to people and observation in the sciences. I did not really connect these together in my thinking so much, which is not to say I was not understanding the need for observation and underlying data, but that the way of talking about examples in english does not appear to have gone the way of blending with scientific understanding. I would not expect others to have made this connection in English.

Mathematical statements, are like sentences and paragraphs spoken in English. It appearrs intuitive to me, that mathematical expressions, being similar to linguistic statements, provide an avenue for explaining how examples may not be required, given some *existing* experience, and *intuitive grasping* of what is communicated. There is a form to mathematical statements, and rules to use. The game of the statement, metaphorically speaking, is understood. How to input and get outputs is understood. Exmaples are not needed to be communicated any longer, but for a learning  mind, this would not appear the case. And of course, a learning mind that is challenging what is accepted would again want examples. But what is the case of not requiring examples in communication, if others ask of it.

There is an annoyance about questions for examples, in that the people asking sometimes will not actually learn from them being provided, and so the work to actually provide the examples is irritating and felt to be excessive. If a person knows well some fact, something mathematical, or some rule or law, then one does not want to spend time giving examples either, partly too because the generality is understood. Starting simply "Give me an example of a cat" seems absurd. "Give me an exampleapplication of the pythagorean theorem in real life" seems less absurd, but in the context of mathematicians, or those who are past the subject in education, it is really also very absurd to consider. Once the form, generality, and rules are known, then the applicability is so vast, that providing singular examples, seems a very wasteful use of mental energy. If it appears though, a learner is one that will actually be a person who understands the generality too, the time may be given, to provide examples. A challenging person is less likely to be given examples, it seems, because firstly, one does not like to be challenged. I find that historically, I have not liked to give examples, when a challenging person, asked questions for getting examples, but what was being communicated seemed also too obvious. The annoyance of the challengingness was still present. I think also because, since it was being questioned, and was too simple, the person wouldn't have the right motivations for asking, and wouldn't be a learner either. This leads to frustrations and perhaps some argument.

I am aware too, that there have been occurances of people challenging to my frustration long ago in the past, with my being incorrect somehow afterwards. This was rare but did happen. In youth this happens often actually, because all the people who are experiencing conviction regarding ideas that seem to have general form, are having this conviction prematurely, while also themselves and their companions are challenging people, learning still, and disbelieving much heard. People are challenging each other often, asking for examples, and the people being challenged will try to provide examples, and then will state often that no examples are needed.

This conversation here, seems to me now, to be vital for a permanent correction to a communication related problem, wheras, going into the discussion, my thought was that, this would be something of a logical analysis, that would explain that examples are not needed when intuitive correctness is existing in abstration, with applications being clear. This is true to me however, also, reloading thoughts as I write. The broad applicability of a communication that is mathematica, or linguistic, including formulae, rules of nature in sentence form, and simple words like "cat", can have an obvious applicability into the trillions of cases, and seem to have *infininite applicability* even though this is plainly false too. Relating these two subjects, what of this latter idea, about the generality of an intuitively true communication not requiring example, fixes the earlier issue, of frustrating conversations?

Firstly, identifying if a learner really has the aptitude or motivation and intention, will aid to know if examples should be provided. Secondly, any challenging conversation that is with a person of aptitude, including people who may or may not understand the subject already or better than the speaker (sometimes the person knows already and is challenging), should also admit of providing examples, because it may be refutable. Additional conditions for this would need to exist, like if the person doing the challenging succeeds in debunking what was thought to be intuitively true. If I'm refused examples by another person, I think a very large portion of the time, but not all the time, it will be true that they are not having actually entirely true thinking. Thirdly, some evaluation of the probability of the veracity of the formulae and statements should exist without a value of 1 for most cases. The probability of its being incorrect should be compared with the skill of the listener and power of their thought for debunking. Taking myself as an example, I score maximally on standard IQ tests on pattern recognition, and finding errors and patterns that others can't see is the usual case and not the exception. Greater than 99.9% regarding intelligence in this area, implies seeing issues others won't be seeing, which actually shoudl relate to an erroring of others at a rate directly connected with this percentile. I will have to think about that point later. The ida for now, is that I'm challenging things as a student, that others think is irrefutable 100% knowledge. If one is to adjust the feeling of conviction that it is knowledge by percentage reducing it to be under 100%, which is what people say should be done, it won't be a reduction in probability less than .09 percent. Now the number relationship between these separate probabilities can't on complete analysis have equal commensurateness per percent value, but for now, we will pretend that is the case, because that conversation only reasults in the extent to which it is not, while knowing there is such a relation. So the speaker has to think, "what I am saying is probably only 90% likely to be true regarding some portion of what is stated, because science gets overtuurned, and how it is stated is later is a refinement, casting away part of the truth, and there will be errors of various kinds, and it may actually be falsified." Obviously saying 90% probable still doesn't make sense because we're now subdividing the statements and talking about precision and accuracy, and overturning as preserving some, while "totally falsifying" what was said. But let's just go simple for now, that it is 90% likely to be mostly true and not fully false. Well, this now gets compared against he listener, or learning, who we are saying for example is me, with >99.9 percent domain intelligence. The reduction of the one seems to increase obviously the value of the other, so now, there is *much less conviction*, both because of the reduction of the probability of the truth of the statements, and because of the increased intelligence of the listener, who is smarter than the speaker and all other listeners. Also, the defect finder for civilization has now become the listener. The defect finder for civilization is working now upon something that only has a 90% veracity likelihood, and so if there is any failure, that person is the one who is likely to find it. Challenging motivations for examples in a learner or just a listener still seems to make it reasonable to provide examples even if there is conviction about the information. Fourthly, for those who don't have the aptitudes, or are not really motivated to learn, or are looking to debunk, withought really knowing how, the examples don't do what they are supposed to do, to provide the original learning observations akin to scientific discovery process for new learners, and to simply provide information about the formal rules of the game of application.

With the above, we can soon move to a statement about a rule that may have a math equivalent, that has form and general application, that itself requires few examples, and for those who are smart enough, an intuitive power which does not require much learning but has wide applicability. I think I will use this example as an example too of what it states, because it is self-applying. But I will need some time to think of how I want to express it, with words and sentences, and with math, or some diagram or visual of some kind.

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


## <a name="using-the-future-knowledge-patterns-and-stasis-as-a-replacement-for-and-without-using-history">Using The Future, Knowledge, Patterns And Stasis As A Replacement For And Without Using History</a>

Universal Stasis | Constraint and Determinism | Self-Pattern and Personality | Identity | Planning and Visualization

*661 Wanattomians, Sunday, May 24<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 

History has been found in my exercises and analyses reading and reflecting on it to be largely untrustworthy as it exists today, wrote earlier, that it must be the case, that all history is plagiarized, copied, excessively retold, borrowed, and not of direct experience, unless it is what is instead called current events. Current events, are already thought to be trustworthy, because in Psychology, what is experienced is thought to be conveyed to others like erroneous witness testimony; furthermore, any experience had, when shared, gets exaggerated, has blanks filled in, and is subject to all illogic, cognitive fallacy, and illusion that the person has not ridded in themselves with self-education and practice. The system we have, also assumes, that counter stories often come to exist, if others are present, which means that, if only one is present, it cannot be trusted! No other person needs to be present to oppose it, we simply expect, that if someone is present, it is too likely they will. There is a probability estimation to be had about this, but people really already expect, "two sides of a story" to conflict or not agree completely, and this would mean that for any situation, even the first person experiencing without others is not trustworthy even if no others are added.

There are many problems with history. Here I will not discuss all problems I can think of, but add additionally, that history is not typically invoked when people think and planned. It is invoked for rhetoric to manipulate, but not oftentimes as true datum with true inferential methods used. For other times, with regular people, typically, history and even personal history is not utilized. Instead, people are usually relaxing, neutrally thinking, hanging out, or are using their imaginations for all sorts of purposes, but often times are planning and thinking ahead, because their next actions will be in the future, and they will have to think about it at least a little.

Since the world is in stasis largely, and has too little change for the animal nervous system to attend with any care to differences, instead assuming sameness, a person and animals, can extremely well predict the future, and use the stability of the earth, and stability of the environ in which they live, to in a trustworthy fashion, do normal motions in the environment repeatedly, to similar ends. As people go around doing what they do in similar ways to the ways they always do, like bots somewhat, with imagination and planning time around specifics, like what to say to someone, or what to buy at the grocery, or what steps to take to carry out some task, they use what they firstly know about the world, secondly, their habits and automaticities and personal being as a pattern, thirdly, the stasis which creates trustworthiness that there is normal stability and order, even if this is a plain permanent assumption, showing its powerfulness, and fourthly, their imagination about situations which are filled with normalcies that allow for only addressing what is happening or changing or what matters to them. This does not use history and people are never invoking history, particularly understood as a subject matter, like greek or roman history, chinese history, or any of the thousands of people's histories. They don't even use their personal histories much, which is often vague, and not really applicable. More about what they know of the world is used, recent happenings that do not constitute lots of additional historical information, and imagination about future for planning. Also plain imagination about what they will do, letting their brain assume much, and do much of the imagining on its own. This is an interesting consideration, that people will rely on their brain to do everything, except some few very immportant and applicable things, using immagination and foresight, and "acting out in advance" or doing less than this still.

The result of this is that in the world, as it is people are not using history much. I don't use history much myself, and this is a consideration separate, from the low veracity of the history that I would use, if I decided I needed it. It wouldn't be trustworthy either.

What is trustworthy? Well, everyone getting along in the world without too much problem shows they have very powerful abilities to just do what they need. They continue to exist easily. They do little to keep going. Tasks they have to do are repeated tasks. They understand the world and expect it remain the same, and have a conviction in feeling and habit, and not only in thought, but in the assumptions of their biological traits, that the world will be simmilar later, to the extent that the world "same" is justified, that their probabilistic behavior will almost always work, unless there is pathology, and that what they did before, will be what they can do again. Also, that what has always worked is most trustworthy!

Universal or geostasis is the most powerful concept here, and using it does not require history, but that one's growth and development, and statistical learnings of the brain, include it by default. My brain, body, and behavior are molded by my experiences. I do not need to think much about most of what I do, and therefore, history seems to have low instrumentality, compared with knowledge and self as it is adapted. I use my own personal adapted self pattern, and my knowledge which is time-unreflective and does not consult history books, and my knowledge about the world, which is stated as principles of natural law according to some, expected to exist before, now and later, and simply work, also irrespective of time. My learnings are not very history aware either. Then, I use my thinking about the future, and my planning abilities, combined with these, to foresee in advance how things will be, and what I can do, given my knowledge and my habits and intelligence.

I think this way of reasoning will arrive at the fact that history is of much less value than we think, particularly as written. What we do want, is a chronology that is true and accurate, and to gather knowledge from it, that we learn and then apply, without later thinking again about history. My knowledge of science, in method and in how it is supposed to work, doesn't care about the history of science, and really doesn't use the history. Instead, the past, which is emphatically not written history, allowed people to arrive as the stories say partly in knowledge we use. So now I have geometry. But if I apply geometry, I never can use a story of Pythagoras. There is no history use in my geometry.

One who is critical will find ways in which history is involved in this, but the ways it is involved is very minimal. When we teach children skills, we do not tell them anything of the history of the skills. Where scissors come from: just to cut. This is true if we are honest about all technology they use. We only bring up history and little stories sometimes and unoften, by comparison to what they learn, that they actually use in practice. This is easily measurable. Compare all technologies you use, with the stories of history you learned. The stories of history you learneed will seem scanty, like you could count them if you could remember them; but also, that you can't remember them mostly. You might only remember a few. But after some time observing the quantity of technologies you use is daunting and hard to appreciate or quantify. If you find some technologies, probably others are involved too, and so counting one is like counting numerous others. And so there are thousands of things you do with your knowledge that ignore history. Using the ratio of these things to history stories, and also including in what was said earlier about weaknesses of history, it is like history does nothing at all.

Instead of simply talking about this hear as something of interest, I intend because I'm certain this is the truth, to actually change my mental paradigm, to increase my power of using the future as the guide, and not the past, with the assumption of the presence of my interior knowlegde and patterns. This is like saying "I'm going to use future instead of history".

This is really what I do mean. Also using stasis and determinism, I think that the future is so probable, and the present so ready to mind, that thinking about it and both is clearer and more probable, than backwards thinking, meaning that if I think only of future, I get better at planning and not worse. This means discarding history, except for pattern learning, where the history is true chronology, and honestly, I'll never really do this much, because history is so untrustworthy, but books do contain "past contents", and for these past contents, I will need learnings. These learnings will immediately forget they were history and become knowledge and in my pattern, then I think about these knowledges and the future, and stases, to decide what to do.

This is what people do anyway! But if one admits this is true, it doesn't mean there is nothing to improve, it suggests the direction of the improvement, where it works, along with what is *already what nature does*, and this would indicate not using history as much as focusing on the future and stasis. The contribution of my ideas about stasis will eventually come to high instrumentality and will have considerable gains about where to focus for planning and where not. The future is mostly certain. Uncertainty in the stasis is about personal movement, which is where things are more dynamic, and relationships with other things also moving and dynamic, but *not all things that are in motion and dynamic*. Already, I'm trying to limit my imagination to consider primarily and as much as I can get close to it, "only" real perceptions and what can be inferred at various probabilities off these perceptions. It becomes real perceptions, and probabilities. So my attention is extremely concentrated on what is my motion in my personal stasis and not any fantasy beyond it, including political and media generated fantasies. Anything not really known gets treated more as probability.

I'm training on this currently, and it will take time, and I think the real goal is to "get good at this for excellence" and not really to finish, because its not an easy task, and a new life is needed to do it better, so eventually if children are educated this way, better human specimens will come to exist, doing it right. Some animals may be very good at this, having less fantasy in their lives, coming from media and entertainment, and manipulative teachings.

Future, to a mind, seems more probable in many ways, than history. Personal history has some real clarities, but again, humans are not that trustworthy about it. I cannot say regarding any individual, how much their history is trustworthy, compared to their thoughts about the immediate future. For instrumentality to behavior I think the history is not incredibly instrumental. Here I have to think more regarding this, because I think some personal history is trustworthy, and I think the brain, stores personal life, because it needs to, for action. This includes instrumentality too which contradicts some of what I'm saying. However, total amount of history, is not often acccessed, knowledge and patterns are more often accessed for future actions. Much is simply stored. What I'm striving for here, to get to, is how much we trust the probability of the veracity of our mental storage about past versus our expectation of the future, given knowledge and stasis. I think knowledge and stasis is more powerful. Knowledge and stasis is what expects tomorrow to exist.

Using this more to understand the determinism of the world, I'm thinking oddly, again, that the future is knowable and known, now more than history. History is inferrable, also from our powerful current present thinking and imagination towards the future, to infer what is stasis about the past. For example, we'll think something like "In the future, this highway or road should be here, and that mountain should be there too, and also, 100 years ago, the mountain was there, but not the road." This is more true about the future thinking than the past. It is vivid about now towards the future. Memories fog over time. Our present and future oriented thinking is the thinking that has the most life, and so the future seems to have a greater veracity, than past thinking. The road 20 years ago, we might say, turned out to exist in another form not possible to imagine. But in the future 5 years later, very likely to appear as it does. The mount exists in greater stasis in future and in history, but ideas about how it must have been in history, again are vaguer than about the closer future. Distance in time matters, but even for short looks back, powerful expectation of tomorrow is more vivid and seems to be more correct due to vividness.

What will be of importance later, is to what extent we can prove or demonstrate that, the future is *more precisely like the past* but that we go forward to it. Determinism assumes this to be true, but we may have more to prove it than we think, given stasis. How much is life, like a video, preloaded, that plays what has been loaded, like on a computer?

If it is true that humans can rely on future *more than the past*, it will seem that future has more of the characteristics of past we thought existed, than the past in many ways!

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

## <a name="discontentedness-and-low-quality-of-some-adults-relates-causally-to-their-language-use-for-themselves-including-their-moral-thoughts-coming-from-tradition">Discontentedness and Low Quality of Some Adults Relates Causally To Their Language Use For Themselves Including Their Moral Thoughts Coming From Tradition</a>

Language | Moral Ideaation and Thoughts | Common Principles and Sayings | Constraint and Determinism | Causality

*660 Wanattomians, Saturday, May 23<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 

This is another way of saying that people are the results largely of their own thinking, which they would hope would be true, and this comes from learnings they have, which we know from deterministic causality, and this means also, that their moral instruction is part of their cause.

I am not sure what portion of the human population would be considered to be of low moral quality or would be considered "less excellent". To know who is what, one would need their personal information and information about their life histories (Since circumstances can vary widely and cause severely unhealthy responses). People of some religions, think their religions are needed, to produce good quality people, so it is in common beliefs, that humans are naturally "very bad". Given religion doesn't produce "good people", else we just need to know people came from religions and nothing more, we can assume that people do believe, often times, that people in large number are not really morally excellent and may not even be good. To one common morality, they are damned from the start and remain damned even if they adopt religion, and only learn they are not, when they are dead. This shows that historically people have had a very low opinion of the moral excellences of people.

If we observe what people say, people who are not the smartest, or in the best positions, still often say common moral sayings. I am not going to disbelieve, that these moral sayinigs are not functioning causally in their personal development. Instead, believing their moral sayings to be a large portion of what they think linguistically, I think that they are largely caused by these sayings. Moral sayings conflict with each other unfortunately, and for any one statement, I typically can find another, that states the opposite, to show that moral sayings generally conflict. Because they conflict, it is assured, that some are using the sayings sometimes, at the wrong times, when a conflicting saying, would be the better, and the one that would be "good". A better critique still, would be I think, that people don't know when to use the moral sayings exactly, and invoke them to do what they want to do, and since they conflict as I said, and are also numerous, which means apt sayings are readily available, moral statements are invoked and used the wrong way. Also there is no rule book. But people who are less smart, are not going to use this set of moral statements in a way that is very intelligent, and this is not to be expected, because an intelligent way doesn't quite exist, that would be known. Instead moral and intelligent people, use the sayings in ways they know to be more excellent without having had any moral training or rule book to go by. The rest will have to struggle with trying to use the stayings in a way that seems to make sense to them.

Without a rule book, or way to use these conflicting sayings, it isn't surprising, that many people, who would be "the damned", wouldn't use them right, and not using them right, arrive at selves, that are not particularly excellent. Some large portion of the population has been generated to be unexcellent causally *because of these moral sayings*, which as I said, constitutes the received liniguistic teachings, which are the words they have in their minds.

Thus common morality seems to cuasally createpoorer quality people in large measure, and for any poorer quality people that exist, were causally created by them. Any demographic data about human quality relates in some causal way to the sayings. If we had a population that was transparently open and honest, showing also good traits and behaviors, then we would be able to say, that the moral sayings, are certainly not causing any less excellent people, because none are low quality. For that to have been achieved, a more sensible use of a linguistic moral tradition would have been taught. And this would have caused the people who are better. this is like saying that if there are great people in a place, the education is involved. But if there is a place where everyone is not good, the education is involved. So we simply say moral traditions cause whatever they cause.


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

## <a name="combined-culminations">Combined Culminations</a>

Personal Completions | Self-Advancement | Diminishing Return of Thinking

*649 Wanattomians, Tuesday, May 12<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 

Consistent with the diminishing return on thinking, and the limited number of major goals and objectives for completion to complete major life advancements, there should be a limited number of these which could be called "culminations", a term I have lately been using. The idea is that a person has a limited number of "completions" which can be listed such that there is, according to this new idea, actually a finite list of culminations which can be completed together for a combined or total culmination.

Historically, some have used terms, which I find dubious, like "actualization", which is somewhat acceptable to me, and words like "enlightenment" or other, indicating supernatural completion. It does appear to me that there are really area  limited number of culminations that are highly desirable that can be listed out such that it can be defined what a total completion might consist of. I don't think it impossible, even if such a list were devised, that other entities, or future people, could not think of more that could be added to the list, however, this too would suggest that, such a list is possible, and that some modification only would be expected in the future, but that modifications would be few, and oftentimes modifications for "reduction of the culminations" would be needed, for people with lesser abilities. The list of total culminations is probably not the same for all people, there being some personal requisites to attain each.

Some of these culminations relate to what I have in my system listed out as the life categories that fit into the attention management process, and otherwise describe life's important activities that require interrelated development. More final development of each of the categories, results in culminations, which together I think comprise a large subset or most of the culminations that would go towards total completion. I will need to soon list out some of what I think to be culminations that would go into this list, and I think it is very evident, that it must be the case, that these culminations relate to, the life categories as they have already been written.

"Meal Automation" is a personal culmination that relates to the categories of nutrition, health, fitness, budget, and other categories as well, to a lesser degree. This particular culmination may or may not be one another person would choose, and I have to think through, the extent to what is applicable to me is applicable to others regarding each culmination. Not so much with the life categories. This is because the ethic is very self-focused and individualistic, while outgrowths of the view, go into mutual relations; it does not go so far as to state, that all people are similar enough, that what I state regarding my ethic, applies universlly. I do think much applies to many, but very early in my work, I already knew, what one person's ethic would be, at a personal individual level, would need to be different from my ethic, because it is possible, they are considerably different in important ways, being different humans, sub sub sub species of humans (to family ancestry), and animals.

What would it be like if one reached a complete state for these various culminations. I do think I reached a culmination state in many of the categories, but not for all, inclusive of the "meal automation" category, and some others I'll have to recall, discover, and record. So in some ways, I can state that I really am an example, of a completer of many culminations of human objective. But I will have to say more about what it would be like, to complete all objectives, and of course, one has to live past such completions, to test to see what was missing if anything, and also to describe, what changes as culmination results are lost due to attrition of old age. There may be other culminations in deterioration, and these are not those that I have well considered. Either way, it seems obvious to me, that really there is, a finite set of culminations, and that these are relatively consistent between people, and that there is then some total set of culminations that can be listed, and worked on, so that people have clear life direction.

Culminations are consistent with learning directions and the diminishing return of thinking, and solutioning. Having solutions for one self which including thinking and behavioral and learning solutions, means one can find the solutions, understand them, and peruse them, to completions. This is also consistent with skill acquisition and mastery. Human behaviors are finite and so are the skills they can have, and therefore, even if the set is larger than the list of culminations I envision, the the list is one humans can deal with and manage, and well, write down and update easily.

It seems to me that this point of view simplifies life dramatically, in that with this view, it is clear that, people can have obvious objectives to strive for, and that a more total objective of having more complete culminations is something that people can work towards if they want to, and it is well defined and doable to some degree by most people. This removes issues of not having direction as human beings, particularly direction that is naturalistic for human and animal development, and one that includes common sense ideas about self progression, skills master, achievement, and moral excellence.

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

## <a name="social-conversations-coming-to-an-end">Social Conversations Coming To An End</a>

Com | Relationships | Diminishing Return of Thinking | Culminations and Finalities In Thinking | Firm Knowledge and Facts 

*647 Wanattomians, Sunday, May 10<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 

People seem to think there are facts, and if there are facts, then there are thoughts that have been concluded upon, meaning there is no longer any skepticism to take seriously regarding them. If this is true, and it seems obviously and irrefutably true, and true also that people assume that there are facts, then it is also true, that since there is no need for further thinking regarding these facts, being already truths worth assuming, that there is also no need for covnersation that involves entertaining questions about it. Sometimes I agree, teaching and information sharing is needed, and some persuasion, but not too much work at that, because people aren't going to be persuaded if they can't simply think about the veracity of arguments put to them quickly, and their variations which could also be stated. Many conversations, though, are too repetitive for a thinker, who has arrived at a fact, and so apart from few conversations that include teaching, sharing and persuading without too much effort, there is the rejection of conversations. If you would not think about it yourself any longer because you assume it, meaning you would not converse with yourself, then why would you converse much with others about it? While I'm using the word "you", I'm thinking about "me" too or  mainly.

What I am interested in, are important more final moments of thinking of high significance that involve arriving at facts and truisms that enable one to conclude thinking pathways. This allows for finalizing certain behavioral and thinking approaches, even if theese are milestone finalizations that have other ares of thinking that can change them later. This is like having thinking that arrives at software versions. For the arrival at fact from prossibility, one can update a behavioral or thinking strategy, from a point oh eight version ".08" to "1.0", or from a "3.2.4.17.9.3" version, to the "3.2.5" version. These improvements have diminishing return on thinking. They increase power while decreasing need to think further. The increase on power.

Since I'm interested in this kind of personal development, and being a thinker who can make relationships well, I can see that this affects what I'd like to talk about with other people. People want to discuss things with others, when they are people adept at covnersation with purpose and mutual growth, at co-development, or development of the other through sharing and teaching, or self-development through receiving mini educations from others. If there is nothing to be developed due to the assumption level improvement, meaning there is no need to co-develop, and no reason to receive information, then why talk about it? That is boring purposeless conversation largely. Assume also it is too tiresome to teach the other, or that it isn't really anything the other cares about or can be persuaded concerning. With many facts too, there are too many conversations to be had, and so, the entertainment does not include the new fact, but something else to talk about, which also is good for you because you already assume it, and need like a learning thing something new.
Culminations of behavior are arrivals at fact blended with habit, and when one has culminations again and again, there is too much to discuss about the complex of mental-physical action, on too many subjects, to really be able to meaningfully advance conversations with other people. This is very different from "I'm sharing a fact", which is what someone does, when they do not have a fact, but some hearsay, from some history book or other, some tidbit of curiosity. Or some religious story. This is actual fact learned in the world that would create some expectation that others don't think it because before you didn't have it, and it is mixed with the difficulties of attaining actions on the fact, new disciplines and habits, which required thinking through one's behavioral processes. "I've arrived at a new fact of interest and I've adapted to it in a number of ways in my actual behavior and it took practice, and all these other changes happened which confirmed the fact, and ..." is very different fact quantity than sharing simple pieces of dubious information like a child in elementary school. My objective is not to demean others too much, but to make it obvious, it is harder to talk about. The conversations are less rewarding, and if one does this fact work often, conversation about your bheavior becomes one way teaching and all persuasion, selectively, with the result that one is still not known well, when one disbelieves then forgets what you said too.

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

## <a name="when-earlier-memories-and-experience-appear-outside-current-existence">When Earlier Memories And Experience Appear Outside Current Existence</a>

Identity | Unused Brain | Neuroscience | Brain Damage Over The Lifetime | Death Plans | Self Preservation Plans In Aging And After Death

*639 Wanattomians, Saturday, May 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2026, Indonesia* 

Today I was doing some videography of myself and was discussing some information about flights and benefits of being a piolot or someone associated more closely with private piloting, i.e. wealthy people and so on. As I discussed, I recollected my experience with a bush delivery service in the state of alaska that relies on dropping off goods in remote territory from planes via the united states post service. I was also discussing how in certain circumstances, which are easy circumstances, you can throw things out of planes. Anyway, that's not what I want to discuss, what I want to talk about is what I noticed about the recollection, that it has been a very long timem since I thought I was involved in that. I said I remembered prior accesses to the information that were very brief, but not as extensive as more complete recollection, which lastocurred I said maybe 8 years ago. Earlier I covered the subject of brain death, and that one wouldn't know if parts of the brain seldom access died or not and that non-access is similar to dead brain tissue, and of course relatedly, what you are right now as a thinking thing, is very little thinking and tissue activationi. Most is as if dead. Expanding on it, as you think, all other tissue could be dead. You know of course that's unlikely, but a neuroscientist may be able to make that happen. He reads your activation and using a computer system, destroys everything else. Or somthing like that. The part that is new in this thinking, is that when you're old, or older as I am right now, compared with before, now having more before than before, I can see that whole areas of life are out of my awareness. Remembering these pilot related experiences, or this bush delivery service, I know that brain tissue is really outside of my awareness as if it hasn't existed a very long time. Remembering it, I can perceive, it is somewhat akin to, having access to someone else sometimes. Like it didn't happen. Some people, who believe in things like reincarnation, say things that are similar to this, which are not correct of course, but within a life, I think there are strange mental experiences, of seeing that earlier experiences, are so separate later, that it's like one is remembering a past person. Some may have confused regarding that, and may recall experiences they did have, thinking it was someone else, out of some confusion.

I think there important ramifications. Firstly, I'm only 45 years old, and think this experience must increase in frequency and severity later. Alzheimers may even slightly relate to, having gone so long without access sometimes, that accesses create huge confusions, particularly if there are other dysfunctions. I wouldn't characterize it as dysfunction, but that also says that the healthy brain will experience stuff like this while aging. It depends partly on being smart enough to not have illusions that one has really thought the things recently, or that it really hasn't just suddenly loaded when never in awareness. People instead will load it, and unreflectively think it incorporated into who they are, but this seems to somewhat definitively imply that this can't be the cases. It's even implied just in non-access, and that one can't know what brain tissue was destroyed. Conceivably, some who really become unacquainted a long time with earlier experiences in old age, may really load information from youth as if they are experiencing another person with a feeling of foreigness, thinking "I really feel I ever did this stuff I remember".

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

## <a name="beastiality-as-the-norm-and-the-need-to-replace-the-concept-and-use-a-reductionistic-explanation">Beastiality As The Norm And The Need To Replace The Concept And Use A Reductionistic Explanation</a>

*636 Wanattomians, Wednesday, April 29<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 

Zoology | Primatology | Human Behavior | Sexuality | Species Definition | Taxonomy | Natural History 

An alternative concept to beasiality, which accounts for all sexual attraction, is needed, to entirely account for sexuality, and aesthetic and attractional appreciation for other animals.

I have argued in the past, that part of early stages of speciation, include a decreased willingness to engage in sex with another emerging sybtype, but it goes all the way to unwillingness to not sexually reproduce with a non-identical. Sexual reproduction, is rightly considered to be, what separates somewhat cleanly one species from another, and is the isolating component of importance between species that do not necessarily have separt geography or geographical barriers. Animals living in the same ecosystem and region, that do not mate with each other, we already know, will end up on inspection, to learn more than that fact, if that detail was the only one provided, that they also will have very different physical traits, which is expected when animals really are different. Using unwillingness to engage in sex to reproduce, we can infer rightly, with high accuracy, in blindness, that they would appear different animals. If we were told that they did engage in sex, and we were blind to see them, we would discover, that they seem on comparison with other animals, to be mostly the same. Meaning we can infer that if they have sex they are the same animal type.

There are crossovers but this is really a very powerful delineation in nature, and this is consistent with Darwin's views on speciation.

Where there are suprising differences though, are where frequences of sex have diminished but still exist, or have come to exist, or are more than usual but result in killed offspring, or have to be done in social isolation, and so on. Conditions are not very supportive of offspring when there are crossovers. In these conditions, we can find in ths human species, probably with some blindfolding type testing really having similar results to what I talked about above, we'd see that interbreed sexuality is happening. With speciation we can expect fairly stark differences between animals and know they are rarely having sex, but between animals of the same species there are still subtypes in which there is less willingness and sometimes more willingness to have sex, with corrsponding expected differences in traits of the animals which sometimes appear almost as great as species level differences, but are more about breed or race. We see this with dogs, humans, and other animals as well.

This is a domain of confusion in which I will be introducing many different thoughts trending towards greater precision of understanding. I think what a species is, can be less different sometimes, than what a breed is, compared with another breed, but that what enables the breeding to occur between the breeds, and not the species, is more sexually related, meaning compatibilities exist, while other traits have undergone much transformation. I think humans are more different in the historical races than thought, but some traits, like size of the penis, can lead to a strong desire to sexually interact, even if, other traits, seem to be very different. In humans though, there is no other animal that is close enough, to be more closely resembling, than breeds to each other. But there are other animals that more closely resemble each other, than we do in terms of traits, that do not reproduce any longer. I would need to research to provide examples, but I have good confidence, that this is the case. But one race's differences from another race, do seem quite less than between a human and a non-human primate. But there is a greater unwillingness to have sex between human breeds or race, because they really have diverged in traits to an extent that, thought of procreating or having sex with the others, has diminished. This includes knowledge of social repercussions which is part of sexual thinking.

The converstion over beastiality is related to this, because sexuality is about traits, detgrees of differences between animals and their traits, and the special traits of greater interest, which are the sexual traits, which become more of importance, of subtype mating. When one human is attracted to a non-identical person, they are engaging in a beastiality, it's just of such a small level of beastiality, that one does not recognize it. Notice a human has to use eyes and senses, to appraise an external object, for what it is initially, and sexuality even includes, not knowing what the thing that is attractive even is. A human when attracted to another person, does not categorize the other person as human or not, and instead, goes by traits, and if those traits are sufficiently similar, but with differences, which is beastialitying, they will mate. If the traits are sufficiently different, they'll start to want to think in terms of ategories, like is the person an asian, hispanic, black, and so on, and if categories emerge to thinking, social rules come to mind, and there is an effect about the willingness to engage in sex. This is increased beastialitying, and if one is honest, the subtype emergence is obvious as compared with self-identity, and identical twinning. If I compare myself with a black man from some nations, it is a definite human breed difference. This is beastiality to consider having sex with another in this group, at a larger scale. It still exists with masturbation of a homosexual for themselves too, that would be beastiality with maimum similarity; although we are mostly interested in heterosexuality. That is mainly to help with scaling. I really do think, that if two races or human breeds are different enough, and the sexual traits are too different, genuine disgust starts to emerge, and some portions of the human population, outright reject other races, or portions of those races, such that divergence within the population sets has come to exist, meaning it feels positively more bestial even at the species level to mate, such that it feels that lineages and ancestry, forever diverges. A women who is Japanese, can probably tell you her sense, of which other humans, forever would not be in her lineage. Thus beastiality exists within humans, and not just between humans and other animals or other animals with each other. Some who would disagree with this, would almost seem to prescribe, that humans must be willing to reproduce with each other, that they must at least say, that they feel they would have some willingness and not none, or disgust. But population segregations even post-mixing indicates that while some interracial procreation happens, there is still powerful separation, otherwise, more rapid intermixing would occur, particularly since the way that people select mates is entirely on their own decision making, except in countries that have arranged marriages. In a nation with mixed races, immediate intermixing that is complete would happen if there were not a bias; the bias is towards preserving species and not otherwise, and this is because partly, it is viewed as disgusting to interracially have sex, unless for brief temporary interest, and if babiees do result, are likely killed or aborted, because of fear of social ramifications. But apart from sex, the races still tend to cling and spend time together.

Beastiality goes further into brief moments of interest and confusions with other animals which are not felt to be moments of sexuality, but are aesthetic and friendly moments, that do have behaviors clearly intermixed with what sexual behavior includes. There is a weird feeling being with a femal animal if a male, or with a male animal if a female. Also if with the same sex, there is a feeling of mutual understanding, that that is the case, so it is easier to be friends and not more!

There is a lot more to say on this subject, but this should provide a good starting point of measuring and quantifying.

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


## <a name="methods-of-conceptual-replacement">Methods of Conceptual Replacement</a>

Com | Language | Linguistics | Computer Science | Scientific Validity | A System of Thinking | Logic | Truth and Honesty 

*634 Wanattomians, Monday, April 27<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 

Thinking about recent ideas regarding the terms "bestiality" and "camoflauge", I am aware again of the need a systematic approach for the redefinition of terms, such that they are increasingly precise, scientific, and have various validities, making them true concepts, that do represent existences, in such a way that if one uses the words, the quantity of existence conveyed, to a mind adequately prepared by the definition and experience, is such that it feels good to use, that it is functional, and that much of what the concept says in the shortness of a word, is true and does not point to "non-existences". Some words, may have aspects of meaning that feel like they refer to some realityy, but too much unreality, and this happens with religious concepts, which when thought by religious people, are defended for having some reality in the application, but too much unreality exists so it is known already to those who are honest, that it must be removed. Words like "spirit", "soul" and "heart" in the religious use. Defenders of religious usages will explain to people what seems to really exist in the application, in a way that it can be seen there does appear to be elements of existence, but their commitment to their religions cloud judgement and understanding that words can have very little falsity if words are updated. Soul updated with brain is such an improvement. Heart updated with clarity about kinds of feeling related to visceral sensations and the use of the true scientific meaning of heart, replaces "heart" in religion. Those who are beyond in concepts, advanced well past what is normal, do not go back. The truth advancement is too great.

The learning of a concept includes the educational or experiential exposure that fills the concept with the structure that includes existence and non-existence repreesentation. For example, if I say "pelvis", people will have true and false representations. Much is true however, but there is falsity where they think about the pelvis and get the shape and size wrong, constitution, and other parts. Maybe they include some other wrong bones, or can't visualize it at all, and instead, see the body and its hips, and no bones. It depends on the exposure and experience. Thus a good quality word, like pelvis, still admits of truth quantity; but it is really a good word; and this is more known, as medical specialist fill in the details with greater and greater precision, and zoologists bring in other species, and the word only includes precise existences, clear objects and delineations, understanding of fog on the boundaries, that boundary yconditions show conceptual limits, and so on and so forth. The result is that "pelvis" is a superior word, and this superiority while not existing out of the mouth and pen of children who are less intelligent, is still of good quality nevertheless then too. In regular discourse "pelvis" is a "mostly true concept" such that employment in propositions can be more trusted to allow for the justification of the superficial approach for the truth valuationing of propositions employing the term from differing minds with differing representations of the same words.

I am already a person who changes the words I use to fit what is real more, and I will coin words as needed, reject certain words in preference for others, and use words in ways that may not be most common. I do not really accept the authority of dictionaries in the *level of authority and kinds of authority* people think they have. Rather, I accept some authority, in the archiving and recording, and reference quality, being better than what minds can typically recall. The storage is trustworthy largely. They are not all inclusive and in the life of words so much, and there is considerable flexibility and many words and uses of already defined words that are not in dictionaries. I will coin words, play with words, and do what I like as a language freedman, or a self-unenslaved person of language.

The ways that we would want to supplant old concepts with new ones would be methods that would be justifiable with a good amount of finality. The objective is operational validity of concepts with maximally true representation power, with object distinctness, while allowing for, in language, play of language, that allows for expansion of knowledge, which does require a childlike approach.

I will have to begin to talk more about what methods could be used formally to make this process slowly come into existence. Again, I don't think I will say anything much that will get adopted by others, but what I write self-feeds for self-adoption and growth. I would benefit from more formal and final methods too.

The concept of beastiality is a good example of a concept needing replacement, since I have found, that it is simply crossover aesthetics and neuro-sexuality of humans for stimuli in nature. We could have sexual crossover attractions for plants, if plants had guises of people in suggestive poses, such that even if for short moments, there is confusion. I recll an event in which I was riding my bicycle with my ex wife in Alaska, and we were both chased by a caribou, that we thought later, to have perhaps a sexual zeal or "rut" as some call, compelling the caribou to seek out mates even where the species was not correct. The mistake is finally recognize and interest wanes, and the caribou did run off after getting close. This caribou was experiencing animal sexuality and not any "beastiality" in the traditional sense that incorporates ethical negatives, but some aspects of the term/concept still apply, in that it is about crossover species sexuality, and not not about it, so there is some truth among the untruth. It is a concept then needing overhaul or replacement. That is the subject matter of the next posting.

People who continue to use such terms though will avoid thought about it as being extremely unethical and only for rejection, and therefore will not be able to understand human sexuality more fully, or the behavior of this caribou, that was not behaving unethically, but was behaving like a horny and sexual caribou, as a normal caribou.

More on this subject later, and more on the beastiality subject in particular as I address that idea in the next dissertative thought elaboration.

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

## <a name="reading-the-brain-changes-later-as-similar-to-present-ideation-and-thought">Reading The Brain Changes Later As Similar to Present Ideation and Thought</a>

Neuroscience | Psychology | Introspection | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Identity 

*633 Wanattomians, Sunday, April 26<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 

While in australia, driving around touring the countryside, I came to wonder, if some of my thinking, were not thinking afresh and new, but reading of brain material, updated during sleep or subconscious recovery. There are times when thought as it happens, and ideation, must be occuring as it happens, implying that the brain state is making persistence changes, and is undergoing physical alterations, involved in making mental connections, and gaining new knowledge, or creating it, and that these changes could not be the result of earlier processes. I realized there are ways to confirm that this is true. I imagined myself in a client meeting, hearing information for the first time, and reacting with answers blending different pieces of their information with my own, resulting in the arising of new ideas I never had, that definitely depended on these, and that this scenario, would be an example of incoming present information, which was necessary for the ideation and thinking to happen, which means the brain updating, as fast as it might seem, is still really happening just that fast, and that it demonstrates, the brain can really do this.

It might be strange for a person to think, why it would not be able to do this, but it is a bit amazing to think, that it really could undergo physical changes that fast, if it is remembered, that people's thinking is from a brain.

What might be more astonishing to others though, is that I think, similar thinking happens, when *it is not actually undergoing present changes* and that it might seem indistinguishable, in the experience of such thought and ideation, without actually checking with the test of incoming present information and its level of being required for the thoughts. If one is thinking alone, even if sometimes new information is catalyzing, or relating in various ways, causing reminded rethinking, that what is mostly happenings, sometimes or maybe very often, even among highly ideative people like me, is reading of the brain. When sleeping the brain is updated, and we are aware that sometimes when we have some complex problem we are too tired to resolve, we sometimes wake the next day, and find we know answers quickly. It feels like we are having the ideas at that time, and they are newly appearing then, like one is having creative moments in which the brain is making changes, but my hypothesis is that oftentimes, these are *reads of the brain that have never happened yet* that depended on sleep. This may seem strange, but then one must consider, what did the brain do during sleep, that enabled problems to be solved? My view at present, is that it seems highly likely, that it did the solving during sleep, or without one's thinking about it, which happens (intrusive sudden ideation sometimes is just brain reading I think, with popup reads from internal process completions, like the brain announcing it is done with what it was doing).

Brain network updates and creation as it happens may be quite similar to brain activation on revisitation after there was already new growth. Notice the way the new growth is revisited, might involve a piece by piece traversal, which includes parts or wholes sometimes, but either way, steps through the brain network, until new parts are found. I think this is where we think we started to reconsider and think through a topic again to try to find answers, but then when we think we have logically arrived at something new, it was only reading the already created fresh growth that the brain did on its own. Then we think we were ideating on the fly, as we went, but we were not, and the test for input from external to confirm it was present new thinking is missing, indicating it was only internal thinking which enabled it, showing that there appears to be nothing that definitely confirms it was new growth. Sometiems I think it *is* new growth, as one thinks through a subject logically, but I think *it is often indistinguishable* from reading new growth that is there. Suppose you start thinking through a topic you left off before, and there is new growth from sleep, but that new growth, having never been used, is not as easily activated. So you start thinking with neurons easily activated, and you begin somewhat like where you left off easily, because the brain has done that before, and is ready to fire related neurons. But then as those neurons are used, it *at that time* finally activates those other new neurons, while you are aware, and the way you are thinking about it, conversationally with language, or visually or logically somehow, you think *the same way through that as with the other already triggered neural paths*, and you simply think you are arriving at new ideas and thoughts, but you have merely activated new tissues.

As I was driving some of my thinking did appear to be simply talking through existing growth that felt like it was fresh thinking! I felt I was having ideas that were new, but they may have been days old brain growth, waiting to be activatd and used! This appears to mme to be an extremely likely explanation, because what other way is one to become aware of, new subconsiously or unconsciously updated brain trees? Notice there is no other thinking, that one has with awareness identified it as such, meaning you never knew, and if you never knew, you thought it the other ways, which must have included the feeling of novel thinking, which seems to require that it was the ideative thinking, that you thought was at present! So you were delusionally thinking you were having ideas that were present ideas. Very strange to think about. Now that doesn't mean your brain is not the credit, it is just that you were in an illusion thinking that, you in your awareness were the one to be credited, and not your earlier subconscious or sleepy mind. Thank your aware current self, or thank your brain for what it did earlier, either way it is in your brain. But how wrong is it, that you thought you were doing something like that!

Now consider your thoughts, is just reading your existing brain oftentimes. What is needed are confirming criteria, and little parts of the experience, that make it plain that this is what is happening. I feel certain this is the case, and switching to the other new view, is not really too difficult or uncomfortable, if one is a determinist, or a psychologist who thinks as I do, with a willingness, to understand the brain does what it does, and does it without "you", or without you being aware, and many of the things it does, creates illusions in your life, and why can't these illusions sometimes be, or oftenties be, related to ideation. The thesis here is that ideation is sometimes reading of novel brain tissue that grew earlier than when you thought you "made it", believing you make it then. But it is not *always that way*.

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


## <a name="race-relations-and-lack-of-camouflage">Race Relations And Lack of Camouflage</a>

Relationships | Com | Evolutionary Theory | Ancestry | Zoology | Natural History | Sexuality | Taxonomy | Nomenclature About Humans

*633 Wanattomians, Sunday, April 26<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 

Races, or populations of people with similar traits due to geographical isolation on the pathway to speciation, tend for ecological, ethnological, zoological, and anthropological reasons, and maybe chemical and physics related reasons that are not insignificant, to procreate within their own group. That this is true is not really in question and is well understood, despite recent reasons in the overall history, for believing that, because social "equality" has been promoted and intermixing has reesulted, that sexual mixing is not still trending in the same direction, if even less so.

Many reasons for this have been considered, including effects on families, who are prejudiced even though they pretend they are not, those who think they are supposed to carry on family legacies, preserve the appearances of their populations (and notice they expect beliefs to also continue, meaning almost everything about them is supposed to continue from what existed already, so that would include race too), nfor nationalistic reasons, and historical reprisal or other historical reasons. Few are openly advocating for completely mixing all humanity, which is something that follows from the present day foolish view on equality. Without remembering or having any awareness about it, people think that somehow, all the breeds of people, will continue and should continue, like all the breeds of dogs. It is not at all wanted, that all become an average appearance or that all diversity is reduced further and further until there is considerable blending, and maximum non-isolation. Maximum non-isolation, would mean that no group of people can be secluded for long enough for separate traits to collect uniquely, which isthe process that resulted in race to begin with. Instead, there would be an opposite process to speciation, or race generation, or breed creation, which would be to expand on intermixing and on non-isolation of gene pools. Instead, again without ever thinking about it, people stupidly and ignorantly think races will exist as they do today later, while equality will exist. So sexual preferences for separation of gene pools will continue. It is admitted, however, that there is increased intercourse of various groups geographically and sexually.

Here I suggest that there may be additional reasons for why groups may desire to not intermix. Not just regarding procreation interests, but their willingness to reside amongst each other, befriend each other closely, or mix all nations together into an entirely non-diverse plain soup or broth of people. I think it may be a somewhat novel idea. It's that people are stressed when they do not have camoflauge any longer.

I think the reader would not expect such a reason, and this is certainly not circulated amongst our media submissive peers and children. Some people speak in terms of "fitting in" which is too vague. Camoflauge is simply about appearance and its implications, regarding if one is themed or not for an environment, and repercussions can include rejection or acceptance, or ambivalence about inclusiveness. Every minority group is experiencing ambivalence of inclusion, even within their own confused groups, that want to be the other groups partly and not their own, rejecting their own kinds somewhat. They know their own kind does not camoflauge among those doing better, and come to prefer camoflauge to non-camoflauge. There is some humor in this, but I mean it seriously too.

One is camoflauged in an environment if one fits the theme, and not only the theme of the colors of the surrounding ecology, but of the colors of the animals most resembling oneself. An asian person doesn't merely not "fit in" with nordic people, they are not camoflauged with them. A nordic person among many others, cannot be seen in a way. But an asian amongst them, stands out, and not a little, but quite a lot, as the embarassed asian knows, if untrained to ignore the stares and interest.The same is true of nordics in Japan. Denying this is a waste of time; camoflauge is a simple subject, you have desert color themes or arctic color themes or woodland color themes, or race and trait themes, and one is strange if one does not blend in. And this is mostly a matter of appearance.

But there are other forms of camoflauge too probably, regarding movement and behavior. What movements don't fit? Being a Samauri in France doesn't fit. A samauri in france is not visually camoflauged or camoflauged behaviorally. It isn't even a hypothesis to think, that in natural settings, the animal behavior is not stealthy and probably stealthy even when it doesn't seem like it. The behaviors have moods that fit. Even acting out for attention, even though temporarily stands out, it doesn't stand out like a samauri screaming in japanese. That is unacceptable to everyone including the animals everywhere.

African emigrants to nations that are predominantly caucasions experience stark loss of camo when they are not standing in a crowd of other africans. If I imagine an african, in a marketplace in africa, already I can't see them apart from the crowd. The same is true of chinese or arabs in crowds. Arab men might all be wearing white, and be totally indistinguishable from each other, because not only are they of camoflauged race, they agreed to culturally also wear camo sheeting. If we include the arabs in the conversation, it becomes starkly something to understand.

This subject matter appears to be one that scales into the minutia of appearance, and scales outwards to the ecology of the planet. If a woman who is caucasion has sex with a black man in africa, and the resulting child is mixed, the child is in more danger of being killed it seems. Probaably children of mixed decsent were more likely murdered or killed as infants, as reactions of others were noticed, and it was finally reaalized, that prejudices would too greatly affect life later. Infant mortality appears to relate to if the kid isn't camoflauged enough to look like it's from the father. Likewise, it seems to be less likely to live, if it isn't from the family or population.

Historically, having kids with another racial pool was a way to die too, for the adults.

Today, Palestinians do not mix with Jews so much, and they have themes to ensure that, the non-camoflauged are detected. People are marked by not being camoflauged, and this is even wanted.

It's not about skin color, but all traits, they have to fit the theme.

Even as the population congregates more and more, it looks like races awkwardly walking near each other occupying the same spaces, and sometimes with regret having sex, that is to be kept private and forgotten. Open interracialism is not approved of, even though equalitarianism should mean your wife or girlfriend could replace you with any man of any nation, and vice versa. Instead, there is selectivity. Selectivity of sexual partner for temporary gratification doesn't necessarily concern too much for camo, but later it does, as the temporary gratification is substituted for realization of ecological effects, or it is kept totally private, because that is known. We expect interracialism to be kept priivate, more than we expect it to be openly shared.

Pairs of interacial people are oddly out of theme with each other, and even lose their camoflauge. A white person with a black, amongst other whites, loses camo, by proximity. The black person makes the white person appear to vision.

This subject certainly is important and extensive, and If ind it strange, it has not been suggested to me at any time in my life, and has not appeared anywhere. Humans are obviously camoflauged to environments, and we are to understand, they are well adapted to those environments, and not places like antarctica, and that they fit in those environments better than the environments of the other people in their environments. Then we transport them from where they are to islands and the deserts, and put them all together, so they with fright too easily see each other. 

I will say more about this in the future. But in any subsequent conversation about race relations, camo must be added in, else progress is lessened, and ignorance continues, and interestingly, it destroys common prejudices, like that all are equal and should (do what exactly sexually?).

What is the sexual planning given equality given camo in the ecosphere?


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


## <a name="the-life-categories-as-being-natural-and-to-be-assumed-like-basic-words-for-animals-plants-and-other-natural-objects">The Life Categories As Being Natural And To Be Assumed Like Basic Words For Animals, Plants, and Other Natural Objects</a>

Naturalism | Consilient Demonstration Or Proof | Ethics | Higher Order Attention | Architecture of Attention | Architecture of Ethics | Description of Individual Human Behavior  

*633 Wanattomians, Sunday, April 26<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 

The Life Categories as found in the Higher Order Attention Process, And In The Personal Form, is used to organize information about my behavior and human behavior in such a way that improvements in each of life's areas can be made more effectively. In order to improve life, attention has to go to those areas of life that we think are important, and we need to attend to different areas at different times, and find interrelationships between these areas for a variety of reasons. Information is gathered related to the areas and where they relate. Personal behavior and metrics are improved. Thought about self becomes increasingly accurate and more descrriptive, and life pathway and direction becomes easier to manage and think about. Eventually, all is automated and habituated such that think incorporates the life categories and uses them easily.

The life categories look excessively simple to be a real taxonomical nomenclature of human life, but after extensive use, and testing, and thought about the data representation, and the ability to use systems from other cultures or langs that use slightly different terms, it is clear that it really is descriptive and representative. It is also obvious that each culture would and could use the same approach as here, and while they are not so organized as I am, they would necessarily use simmilar words in making a similar undertaking, to divide life well into different categories for more complete understanding. Different peole working on this project, would and could use slightly different taxonomies. These are thought to be instrumentally and functionally equivalent, with different neuro-linguistic graphs representing the same things, which is required in different learning individuals. Different people would have different linguistic models for similar objects in their world, given the order and situational experience of them. People do not learn sequentially in the same way, or learn from the same objects and people, but instead, learn similarly. However, experience and behavior, and education, being so similar between people, results in similar mental models, which allow people to function in the world. All those who do function, have similarities of their representative models, and this results in mutual truth understanding that is rough and imperfectly similar, but very similar anyways, making the life functions operable.

The language representations of life behavior would necessraily have divisions that resemble the divisions of the life category, and if radically different categories were used, it would be found they are not really normal for humans and most would reject them as obviously poor selections. But if concepts map to the same larger linguistic models covering life in the same way, unexpected differences in conceptual categories would result, but with functional equivalences still. Nevertheless it seems obvious from thinking about how other cultures have independently and separately arrived at understanding of their lives that they arrive at similar divisions.

The utility of the life categories has been demonstrated and is not in question. The coverage of the life process of the attentional management process has been questioned by me regarding systematic completeness. That is primarily what this writing is about. The question goes like this: "The Life Process Utilizes all of the life categories, and much that one does can be conceived as fitting into the process, especially because it allows for flexibility of life variations creating more freedoms than would be otherwise had, is there still a stifling effect of the process, making it so that one feels to contained, and does this falsify the process?" This amounts to misgivings about the system's excess use in a way. But disuse has been explained already as part of the use, just as one learns something, stops for a while, does tasks related to the learning without thinking specifically about what was learned on paper, and is satisfied still. Human thinking in advance of behavior leads to behavior that is contained anyway or predetermined by the thinking; if the thinking is open and flexible, like the attentional management process, it creates less constraints and not more, while still being like any learning in advance that does contain and predetermine. The level of constraint is what is interesting. Knowing this, I concluded but thought it not completely resolved perhaps, that the approach really was solid and demonstrated very largely. Now though, considering the naturalism of the system further, I think it demonstrated coming from the direction of looking and observing human life and inferring tht it relates to the same categories and similar process when done well, and regarding my own life, when the process is forgotten, I still behave like the process, in a natural way, more free and open however, in a way resembling my youthful ignorant behavior. That behavior is known to be less constrained in many ways, but many of those ways are ignorant of ethics, and less optimal, and now as an adult, the behavior includes diverse travels and ability to engage in impossible activities that were not something a child could do. The process creates less constraints, and creates more freedoms, while it does create constraints, against less optimal or less excellent behavior.

Observing my life, and the way I live, one can see the behavior is simply a habituataed and self trained result of the attention management process which trained actively according to its learnings, moulding and directing the person, who before that, had other trainings and learnings, and genetics, that fit into the process, making the process possible for having the result it did. The behavior is still recognizably human behavior and on the surface would be indistinguishable in many ways to others. But inspection would reveal many important differences, despite the many simple ways, it simply matches well conducted lives of other people. The examination of the behavior still surfaces, when described, a need for language, that will structurally employ, those same or simmilar categories, and that if others from other countries translated those categories, would have something easily inteligible and enjoyable, making it obvious that universally even amongst the other languges, the categories are naturalistic.

The naturalism of the categories is somewhat akin to the naturalism of simpmle understanding of plants, animals, and everyday objects, first learned as children. These words used for these things, are naturalistic, and we do not question them too much, except when we want more scientific precision; nevertheless, we know they are good quality representations making human functions and communications of good quality, and I can well use the words "spoon", "cat", and "tree", without a feeling that I too much need to prove their use. The model is also translatable to words that are basic in other languages. If we look to nature, the same divisions of objects exist, which call for their signification in the many diverse languages; and likewise, what I am saying, is that if one observes behavior, one finds divisions, that call for the words used in the life categories, and that these categories do, provide a sufficient set, to cover all or very nearly all life behaviors.

Using this argument of looking at the world then the life categories and related processes, it can be seen that the naturalism in it seems to close the discussion as to the systematic completeness of the process, which here writing it seems a separate subject, but is not. I was saying, that the systematic approach can sometimes be stifling if it does not include flexibilities of various kinds. I won't repeat that discussion, but only remind here. There is plenty of support that in this case, the argument against the system is not well supported. But coming from the other direction, of looking at my life without the process being used, seeing that it simply arises in the description naturally, it shows that the free living without any thought of the system, shows very conclusively in my estimation, being similar to other lives and youthful lives that use no system or lesser systems cobbled together, that it is equivalent to an asystematic approach. The system has equivalences to an asystematic approach? That is what is wanted for a naturally flexible system that does not stifle life. Eventually its utilization blends with life in a natural way, and that is what this system does.


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


## <a name="attention-to-existences">Attention to Existences</a>

Truth and Honesty | A System of Thinking | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration | Relationships | Com | Com With Self

*625 Wanattomians, Saturday, April 18<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 

In Malaysia, about five months ago, I began developing the idea of universal stasis, especially stasis in the region containing the Earth and what is of Earth's interest, and did so with the intent, to separate clearly, what is false from what is real, and to clarify further the concept of truth. I have decided, although it may seem too simplistic to do so, that existence really is the concept that can be used to replace the concept of truth, or if one must use the word truth, understand it in relation to existence, and identify it with it very largely. Much of this was explained before, and while it might to a philosopher or scientist seem off compared with seemingly more sophisticated views of truth as presented in academics, I think it is extremely precise in its elucidation, which is more apparent as it is explained further. I've explained it in a cursory fashion earlier, and while it deserves more treatment, this is not the time for that. Instead here I assume it, and move onto the subject of relating it to attention, which was where I was seeing value.

If one notices that much in the universe and on earth is changing very slowly, one can get a glimpse into what I will explain to be stasis. Notice in biology, there is already a term "homeostasis" that provides an example of what I am trying to explain. Your body changes slowly, but is able to maintain, for a very long time, a predictable unchangingness of function, and of state, that resists big changes, and only undergoes small ones, until the time death occurs, after maturity. Before maturity, homeostasis is involved, but it is admitted growth must admit there are great changes. However, homeostasis still does describe some fundamental requirements of biology, that cause from beginning to end, some very great unchangingnesses, that permit you to live and continue.

The homeostasis existing in the body that allows us to live from day to day "as if we are the same person", which allows you to think you really are a person that is the same from day to day, shows that one has something very predictable happening in oneself and it is noticeable in others too. Every day you are largely the "same individual" although you undergo small changes over time. Seeing that this is an assumption people have, you can agree, that homeostasis is a basis of identity, and a basis for thinking an animal is the same animal later as well as earlier, and that they yare fundamentally predictable, such that your friend is the same person tomorrow as two days ago. Twenty years after leaving high school, people have very great samenesses. You can recognize their faces indicating that you can predict, that if a person was in your high school, that the person's homeostasis, will establish a predictable recognizable biology, that on the surface and on the face, allows for their quick identification by you later, even if the time has been a very long time. They remain the same height, have the same eye color, same hair color largely, and if you think about it, their genetics have not changed much. From the genetic perspective, they are predetermined to be homeostatically simmilar to their earlier selves from the traditional homeostatic perspective (blood chem, body temperature, organ operations, etc...) to appearance, size, and any phenotypic expression of their actual DNA.

This is part of the area of interest, in that attentionally, what I want to shift from, is speculation and assumption, which consists of too much that can be false, to what is true, and what is true, conforms to existence, and can simply be characterized as existence. For example, if you recognize your friend from high school, you can observe them, and find from your perceptions, accurate statements and image visuals that simply restate what they are. If you identify their homeostases, you've identified patterns which persist, which allowed you to know their identity match, which also informs you about existence, and also about their DNA, and phenotype of their DNA, and provides you some reasonable probability values for personality earlier and later. When you start talking, have you noticed, homeostasis of information? They recall earlier some things that you recall. These permit you, to speak to yourself about, and think in images about, things that exist, and if you focus on what exists, and probability values about what is speculative, avoiding speculation largely however, you are making true thoughts about the person and not false ones, but are making some mistakes, with some cognizance of margins of error, which for us humans gives us room for acceptable untruth and self understanding about not reaching total truth.

We cannot do a clear math assessment, and as I said, morality has not been mathematized.

This is helpful obviously about improving the attention to people to be more existence representing, which means also obviously, and compellingly, more true and honest.

The catalyst of my writing about this, is my wanting to develop myself further, with a ripe readiness, for improving my higher order attention process, to include altering thought and perceptions, to be about existences primmarily, and what is unclear, with probability and math assessments that are quick, feasible, and reasonable. If they ar not feasible, then we might know they are not to be thought about, except with a great understanding of the faultiness, so they are clearly designated and separated, as imaginative and error ridden. And with this we have a way to alter thought clearly across humanity, demarcating for all potentially, what is existence possible thinking, from what is imaginative space, that is perhaps very useful for natural brain development and providing the brain a way to find more truths, subconsciously and in sleep, but while consciously separating it, knowing that much would be erroneous, except what does surface, that does then connect with what probability and math assessments, or direct intuition, or logic, would reveal to have existences, created by the brain, illogically, or with natural biological AI like biologic under the surface, since presumably, the brain often has good results, with unknown and with operations that seem strange to consciousness sometimes. Nevertheless, the output of this process, is identifiably separate, from the dreamscape imagination of it. Irrational speculation is still to be avoided.

I think simple criteria could be used to really demarcate truthful thinking patterns from risky ones, and that my method that I arrive at really will be viable, and maybe one the only ways, since it seems to be one of the few ways it could be done, for more fully eliminating erroneous thinking.

This still requires a better understanding of feasible mathematical use in regular decision making. Much is infeasible, but much is infeasible because it is early in development. In fact some of what I say here is the earliest development of this, even if mathematics has a long history. That *this type of conversation specifically* is needed to develop this subject is what matters regarding the last statement, not that math *has related to decision making*. Morality itself needs rethinking to even reach the insight that here exists, that it needs mathematization, and needs more attention to, process of thought that incorporates it, among many other developments that have led to this point.

The above writing has used people as an example of homeostasis, because I wanted to explain "stasis" as a concept applicable to the universe and the earth too, using the model of stasis already accepted in biology. In biology, the bodies of organisms maintain a consistent environment, despite slow and later sudden change. Nature, we have a different, more interesting situation, in my estimation, which allows for very profound changes in life and how one lives and perceives, and I am personally now expanding my work on my own thinking, to incorporate theese learnings. If one looks at nature, one may notice there are slow changes. But have you noticed, that if you subtract human and animal motion, it's like there isn't any? In your mind subtract out all motion, an consider that every building does not move, and every road is the same, even ancient roads exist unchanged largely, and that trees, plants and so on are mostly as expected from mday to day, and that the seasonal differences are so routine, one has never thought to think, "Will there be an end to winter?" Forever nearly we can assume, that much will be unchanged, includinig the space of the Earth and the atmosphere (not forever, but it is hugely static), the quantity of land mass, the continental shapes and locations, although they move slowly, the elemental composition of the earth, and much more. You can see the same rocks and mountains as your animal ancestors long before there were humans.

But let's fit this more clearly into normal lifetimes. In our shared time on earth, we see the same things that are mostly unchanging if movement of humans and animals are omitted. Plants move a bit as they grow, if we take that out, we have rocks, and buildings, and mountains, and oceans, that really lifelessly don't do anything. Relative to lifetime, a boulder will never move.

Without this, going to work, going to school, or doing anything outside, or with people if we include the earlier conversation, would be more erratic and hard to understand. There could be worlds where intelligence demands are greater, because everything changes fast. But in our world, everything changes slow, and there is great stasis, so we don't need thinking about most of what is outside. I can still use the way I would navigate my home town, 30 years after learning how. As if nothing at all is different.

Estimating the quantity of predicable things in our stasis of the world is strange, because it is really that we can predict almost everything. The moon and sun are there, I wear these clothes again, I have this strategy for living in seasons, and my path to work everyday does not suddenly change, as if city develpment can take a day. It is even true that life can be so boring and unchanging for some that they would rather die than live, and this attests to how predictable life is. Life is very repetitive.

I did not think about it until I wrote this, but earth probably cannot be smart (from a relative and an objective perspective), because it is too easy to predict.

But more usefully for honing attention, let us see what it does for us positively. If the world is unchanging largely, is in stasis, and has a consistent "identity" like with people, then we know what it is easily now and later, and we can easily see a "consistent existence" which means we can think about it and talk about it in ways, that are true and not false, very easily, for *most that exists*. This is helpful becuase people think they *live in too much falsity of thinking*, and while I think that is true, if I think about what people say, talk and think about, when I think of their actions, they are trusting in stasis, operating in unchange, and easily predicting how to continue and move about, in a world that has expected pathways and configurations. They simply function in the world! If they could just talk about all this and that which really obviously exists and is in stasis, there is a great ease in being honest, and in having a true and not a false mind. Almost everything is in stasis, we can clearly discern existence as a clear and largely unchanging thing, which enables us to repetatively talk and think about it in ways that simply represent it, which means we can easily self train to have true minds.

If I look at the night sky, I see much that is empty, and then I see the same stars, moon, and surroundings, that have been there, all my life largely. Where is the falsity? That is mostly everything that exists that is of interest to us. All the mass of planets, suns, galaxies, our moon, and natural surroundings, ocean, land, cities, and so on. They just sit there, I can see them, they exist, they are all I can talk about reasonably, and if I talk about them a certain way, everything is true. Speaking simply about what I see and experience, makes for stating truthful things immediately and often an easy matter. I can look at the moon and consider how the light and detail I can see appears to me, and with some interest and pleasure, have a memory formation of it that's true, and perhaps create sentences, that do not too much to distort what is seen. The verbal statements distort, but we can clearly evaluate the existence content. We can tell that simple statements that are clear and observant provide truths we enjoy. If we think and talk about all that is in stasis, we have a very clear and increasinly clear idea about existence and our minds become more true and honest, and we come to understand I think, that all is easily preditable too, which means our *expectations* are largely true, so our verbal and visual thoughts about our expectations about what is in stasis, which is mostly everything except what is in motion, is true. What is left out, is only what is uncertain, regarding human and animal behavior.

So human and animal behavior seem more the domain in which falsity would exist for our thinking. And this seems obviously where we are very concerned about what people say, talk about, write about, and so on. This is where lies, fabrication and so on, affect us greatly.

Deterministic understanding, physicalism/materialism, and stasis, provide us ease of talking about truths of nature. Regarding people, remember, that is where we got our model of stasis for our conversation, which is in homeostasis and personal identity, which has high confirmation about expectations, which shows to us that we do have much that is easy regarding how to speak of truths, even if there is uncertainty. This means we can direct our attention to what is in motion, and changing, and out of view, for understanding, where are falsities get added, and if we focus on existences, we also have a foundation which can be used to identify what is false, what would be lies, and what involves non-stases, which hmeans mathematical infeasibilities of thinking, which have clear criteria, and know what areas of thinking probably are unethical and dishonest.

This is clearly an area to develop, and I will work on developing it.

Notice what we did though, we can see that much is unchaning, and that almost everything we see in nature, is an obvious case of existence that is predictable. That means we can find truths that don't change. We have much that is true and in stasis about plants and animmals. They change faster, and move, but their patterns are simpler, and in lifetimes of humans, they are in geostasis largely. I will later argue that humans are in geostasis like inanimate mmatter; but from our perspective, humans are the hardest to understand. They move and change the fastest, have harder patterns to detect, and have more going on out of view. But the way we talk about given this, can be more honest and truthful given the above, and we do have patterns that are easy we can use. Otherwise, your family members and spouse and friends would everyday become strangers, if they rapidly changed (whiich is why it seems we live in a dumbish animal world still, relatively and objectively speaking, because imagine in the future, humans learn that fast, becoming new people everyday, moving 10x more adjustingly, and that aliens elsehwere, pretending in the realm of imagination, could move thousands of times more comprehensively adjustingly, like a computer system that is amorphous, new and different and evolved, every second and minute. That makes the geostasis of earth, intolerably immovable and slow).
In this we have found a way to easily talk about almost one hundred percent of existence honestly, with high stability, and only the smallest amount of matter, existing in our fellow humans, are there uncertainties and unpredictabilities to grapple with, regarding having true and honest thinking, but even here we have a strategy underway, that may make it permanently clear and easy.

Humorously, "stop speculating about the thought of others, individually and as groups" hits the same target, but without making it clear "truth is easy everywhere else seen an sensed, where it is not too beyond what is seen and sensed, but that everything of interest mostly". Stated this way, life is full of truth, and it is about existences. Avoid saying non-existing things, and thinking of dramatizations of other people, pretending to know their thoughts and actions when not around, will allow one to avoid these "nonexistences" to focus on what does exist, their behaviors in front of you, their stable identities and behaviors, and so on, which allows you to lump people in, with all other existence, as things easy to be true about.

mathematizations and probabilities about their unknown behaviors using their known patterns and information about human primate behavior, can be used to have expecations about behavior they may yor may not have that impact you, to make decisions, using realistic margins of erros, so that one can still think truthfully, even where one is using imagination, because imagination is all that can be used.

More on this later! 

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


## <a name="a-new-artform-of-sarcasm-description-honesty-truth-telling-using-a-set-of-provocative-or-interesting-socio-culturally-clashing-factual-sentences-making-summaries-of-situations-scenarios-and-conditions-sometimes-with-translations-of-the-same-sentences-with-other-sentences-added-to-or-exiting-in-the-same-sentence-set-building-consilient-truth-confirmation">A new artform of sarcasm, description, honesty, truth telling, using a set of provocative or interesting socio-culturally clashing factual sentences, making summaries of situations, scenarios, and conditions, sometimes with translations of the same sentences with other sentences added to or exiting in the same sentence-set, building consilient truth confirmation</a>

Artform | Writing | Truth and Honesty | Reference of Facts | Sarcasm | Irrefutable Paragraphs  

*608 Wanattomians, Wednesday, April 1<sup>st</sup>, 2026, Australia* 

Completely true paragraphs is what people strive for when they have good quality minds and they want to describe and discuss things accurately and with significance. Like sentences these are desired to be chained together, and to have a logical superstructure, which while somewhat ambiguous in actual use, depends upon the truth of sentences composed in aggregate, and relations between these sentences, connected together importantly as paragraphs, and finally as paragraphs together in some quantity.

The senteces that are true as I said earlier could appear in a reference of facts. Well, or a reference of facts could be built up, and a related set of sentences could exist, used to talk about those facts.

A set of sentences that are very important that are provocative are slowly building up in my mind which are very provocative, definitely significant, greatly clashing with what people openly believe to be true, and yet these sentences are factual still. These sentences, I would like to collect. The choice of sentences is not all sentences of value, which is desirable in the same way as a reference of confirmed facts would be desirable, but the effort is too large. Being a human interested into two related goals, of understanding the world better, and more clearly discerning what is incorrect about it and mistaken, I am collecting sentences that do actually clarify what is wrong about the world or state what is true in conflict to what people think (showing that what they think is a problem and an important one), while also choosing what seems important for current progress. Writings about general nature will continue, but this is a different effort I'm talking about here, that is a smaller one.

It's like an effort of social criticism, that knows the significance of social criticism, which is civilizations delta, which requires not all sentences, but sentences about resolving of important issues that are current.

There is an artform to this? What is much of writing but social criticism? That is what being interesting and provocative is. It is even learning delta of civilization as I said which means the sentences are what learners would think, or want to think, having minds accessing facts, that are relevant to human life intimately, in the context of personal and collective socialization. Which arts are not including social critism? I think most do. But there is a silliness, in that they struggle to communicate what they think as fact, as they allow for philosophical skepticism, while wanting really that others "learn it" or self update their brains, with the new truths, that would be totalitarian via nature. They don't succeed in teaching, but in creating "thinks of interest and curiosity", that have interest but fizzle, and mostly what is existing is stimulating entertainment. Some are influenced but not to the extent that I envision, and this is more clear if you also consider, that these artforms, like films, have few factful propositions put forth, and spend a lot time, trying to "offer" (being sarcastic somewhat) some important truths.

If there is a lot of good mind, why not in a compacted way offer only factual statements that are provocative, such that brains need drramatic overhaul? This way there is more maximum learning possible.

The idea here is to have a large set of interesting sentences collected that *are factual*, to artfully and compactfully put those forth, concisely, quickly, with high summary, and with good sophistication and accuracy, and with good significance, what is wanted to be conveyed to change brains with "persuasion", with more that is really true, that could appear in a reference of confirmed facts. Then like this thoughtstream, more information would be in the artform, the artform would be more true, it would be comprised of true premises, the true premises would connect to have clear paragraphs of truth, these join, if the artwork grows that large, to be like a "writing", which as I said is telling true thoughts. Like with the goal of writing too.

So now there is this set of sentences that are provocative and culturally-socio learning deltas, usable for a new artful writing approach. Similar to writing only logic, but ignoring logic that is formal, using only natural logic, which we know, is hard to locate for explication directly in the same paragraphs shared. All the premises are true, is an aim, and the aim is also that logic well done in the psychology of the communication.

The art works are subsets of this set (or they build the set). What is of interest is further proving the truth of the sentence set in the artwork, by using translations. The compositionality of the sentences matter, but the existence composition within the descriptions, will be what serves to determine the truth assignmenting. High level truth assignment is still somewhat reasonable. For the sentences, traanslations can be used, to say sometings about what exists in the compositionality. For any existing thing, many things can be said, and said in more than one way, with translations being a saying that "describes about the same way without oo much difference in the truth composition", which is existence composition. Existence will be the primary idea providing the reductionism. Translation of the sentences with "translated artworks" saying the same thing with different art, building up and using from only the sentences that are factual, will build up the consilient verification of the truth of what is said.

Proposition: If enough translations for something discussed exist, it is true.

The idea here is that tranlations fail for nonexistent things on superficiality of lying or fabrication.

This artform then bridges sciences, writing, communication, and multimedia expression, and now art can be dry writing; but it can also be poetry.

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


## <a name="grudges-slightly-redefined-and-truth">Grudges Slightly Redefined and Truth</a>

Relationships | Truth and Honesty | Com | A System of Thought

*607 Wanattomians, Sunday, March 31<sup>th</sup>, 2026, Australia* 

The word "grudges" carries the meaning of being unwilling or unable to find any reconciliation and to continue an animosity or conflict for a prolonged period without stopping, whereas if one does not typically enter into grudges, one would forgive, reconcile, or otherwise find some contentment, without a need to continue any conflict.

I'm of the disposition to not really have grudges, but to cancel relationships if necessary, or simply overlook issues or deal with them directly, so along the way in relationships, small conflicts don't build into longer ones held for long periods. I cannot think of any grudges I've really had.

There is a way in which I would argue I am someone who stays in grudges absolutely though. This relates to inferious traditional ideas bout forgiveness. I simply do not alter views to pretend certain occurrences did not happen, or that certain truths are not what they are. Instead, I am going to hold truths more absolutely. Being someone to never alter my mentality away from the truth of what something is, in a way, I am being *absolute* regarding my conviction and alignment with a viewpoint, which others *may really want altered*. In this way, I can hold grudges absolutely.

For example, the monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for example, are filled with an extremely large set of lies and fabrications and core ideas about having fictional dieties to be treated as real, and having forever heavens, and so on. These falsify the religions, their goals, and honesty more generally, and largely the civilizations as they think depend on these things (they don't really but "insofar as they do, in certain important ways, like in the law"). Absolutely and forever these are false, and I can never care about another person's alternative view about this. The holders of the alternative postions are inferiors, and really not able to discuss, and one can imagine, that there is then, some permanent divide between myself and them. Not having any aniosity on my end about it though, there is no grudge in a traditional sense, but there is a grudge in a way, in that intellectually, I would deny their minds forever regarding the points where they think they have truth. They really are falisfiers of the lives of babies, and they also lied they planned babies. 

The extent in which it might be called a grudge is about existence and mortality too.

If I hear that someone is a "theist" I know there is no reason to know them or hear them. So I can ignore their existence unless they switch to truth. But they can't. I might be trending towards arguing that not only are they not rational, but they can't be because of how they started being indoctrinated by their parents. This puts me at odds with them intellectually regarding education. They would be funamentally the worst educators.

There may be a need for a coinage. It's a pure life to be living truthfully. To be thinking on is "basing their life on a diety" is disgusting and out of existence. It's in fictional playtime. The level of grudge with people of this kind is extremely huge.

Later the religions will be snuffed and archived, while the people are educated differently. The people live well, the information they get loaded with gets put away as history and danger.

They're like the dumbest tribes of Star Trek.

What I was missing also though, is that while this grudge type is absolute and permanent although not with animosity, it is short lived. Other kinds of grudges are thought to have legacies, but I'm aware I die. They don't know they die yet, or that their kids don't really continue with their mindsets or wants, but they do continue to keep alive animal population divides, where the camels are separate from the horses. I wouldn't really agree being a camel later is a true "legacy", but it is true their children look like the same kinds of animals and not the other kinds.

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

## <a name="relationship-breakups-and-endings-dont-make-sense-without-widespread-human-dysfunction-and-desire-for-new-information-and-experience">Relationship Breakups and Endings Don't Make Sense Without Widespread Human Dysfunction And Desire For New Information and Experience</a>

Relationships | Com | Learning | Higher Order Attention

*584 Wanattomians, Sunday, March 8, 2026, Seaford, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia* 

While people struggle to determine if marriages are sensible, while others are entering into marriage with lifelong commitments in mind, there are two issues present that clearly indicate that the marriage issue is easily resolved, and that neither group should be existing. The one trying to find out if marriage is worth it and the other acting as if it is of maximum importance and permanence. The issues existing are the following two: 1) Simply that human relationships have a lifecycle of interest, and 2) That for any breakup to occur, it means a human had to be defective. Using only these two ideas, marriage is certainly not worth it and arguably all relationships should be fairly short.

One might think as I one reads this, that there is a kind of relationship to be preserved, that really is lifelong, and really is durable. But I think that is more an idea than reality, and the frequency of such relationships is not understood, and is by common sense, probably known to be nearly none. If the reader cannot find reasons to think about why these relationships would be uncommon, then probably some other developmental reading material is better for them.

I will not spend much time on the idea that relationships have a loss of interest. If there is a loss of interest, then there is a *very very strong* argument for simply being more adventurous in life, to have more experience in limited time. If one after two or three years, or somewhat more, simply is bored with a relationship, it is foolish I think to remain in it. In a way it's like taking up a hobby or activity, and never learning anything else, just repeating that hobby again and again. A person is like an "activity complex" or group of activities. If one simply does the same over and over with one person, eventually interest will be lost. That is fine, and really there is a way to enjoy the end of relationships and bringing them to conclusions.

The second idea is more interesting, that for any breakup or clash in a relationship to happen, there has to be a human defect. Given the frequency of breakups apart from within marriages, and of clashes in other kinds of relationships like friendships, it is clear that issues in human relationships are universal. They are not constant, and instead, happen with irregular frequency, but with repetition. In any relationship, mood changes will cause conflicts, but some relationships are smoother and less tumultuous than others. The relationships that are smoother make for healthier "less toxic" ones that are more likely to be those that are better longer term friendships and romantic relationships. But even in these relationships, there are clashes, and eventually larger clashes and breakups. People often state that half or more of all marriages end; but it is perhaps more worthwhile to point out that *all relationships have a life cycle* not some of them. The life cycle of a relationship is ended of course by death, but I think all end without death being the cause. With that degree of frequency, it is known that all relationships will have clashes and terminations. This faults marriage largely without further conversation or discussion, and many persisting marriages aren't marriages any longer anyway.

The interesting part is that if there is a clash of any kind, there is something wrong with one or both parties. I have commented that cyclically, primates will have conflicts. Being a primate isn't considered a "defect" necessarily, but I will state here that consistent with my work Human Shortcomings, it is actually just a defect. Animal species simply do have defects and limitations. That animals like primates clash without sufficient reason is really a limitation they have, and as they get smarter, and have better social strategies, these are reduced. Without those strategies, they exist more (in humans in particular). So even the smallest of clashes and conflicts between people indicate they are largely defective and that the pervasiveness of their defects are huge. But of more interest here, are more severe rifts, clashes, disputes, and so on. These are obviously happening all over with people! But what does this mean? It means that people are not only pervasively defective in small ways socially, but that they are horribly defective. What characterizes smooth relationships is a greater rationality oftentimes, although smoothness of relationship is also often irrationality with the presence of other relationship qualities that simply make it unlikely that large clashes will initially surface. Harmony is not always due to rationality, but sometimes is, and social harmony is a signal, that there is a chance more rationality is present; but in any case, the smoothness of relations, if not caused by rationality, results in more of it, so in those relationships that are already smooth by luck or whatever, there is still more rationality being exhibited. This indicates that there is an *increasing rationality as relationships become non conflicting*.

Here I will add a postulate of sorts, that relationships would have no conflicts if rationality is perfect, and that they would still come to ends due to life cycle related requirements, but that ends would be due to deaths or due to kind amicable terminations with differing properties (there would be a lot of variety). A corollary to this postulate, another postulate, is that for any conflict in a relationship, a human defect has been exhibited, by one party, the other, or both.

Between the two of these ideas, it follows that humans are defective individuals conflicting often, and that one entering into any long term relationship does so certainly foolishly, joining into a long term defective interaction. Notice there are no legal rules or agreements had between parties, so it is like a really seriously foolish entering into an agreement without an agreement, or understanding how to have such an agreement, without a rule as to beginning, middle, and end, and without regard to the quantity of conflicts that will happen, the degree of defects of both parties, and so on and so forth. The irrationality of this is astounding, and yet this is the primordial life humans have at the time of this writing and at least several hundred years after, if not longer.

If one is alone, and one is largely rational, then one is not subjectd to any of these issues with others.

What are the gains of interractions among the defective? This is what the draw of relationships is. I think there are draws and interests, but I think what is most justified is short term relationships where both understand it will end soon, because then agreements aren't as needed, and it controls for possible issues more definitively. Both simply expect that an easy and normal end will happen, while getting quick benefits in the meantime. This also relates to my views about attention and benefits of conversation with others, in the context of higher quality intelligence especially, but not exclusively.

In culture, what is most common are complaints of human dysfunction, not celebration of gains of relations. There are definitely gains, but the gains do not have artistic expression like the losses. The gains have ceremonially forced frequency and attention. Without the ceremony, what prevails is conflict and its damages.

It doesn't really need to be like that permanently, but in the current state of existence for humans, it is anticipated to continue, and people will believe marriage and long term relationships is worthy even of discussion. That it can be considered worthy of discussion shows how unintelligent humanity is.

Probably I will say more about this in the future, because I will want to make additional use of these postulates, or propositions, or whatever you call the logically important and useful sentences corresponding to facts.

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


## <a name="dna-with-your-life-and-times-spread-accross-unused-positions">DNA With Your Life And Times Spread Accross Unused Positions</a>

Living Autobiography | Archiving | Genetics | Evolution 

*570 Wanattomians, Monday, February 23, 2026, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia* 

Check your DNA, and you are not in there.

Contributions from cells inside your mother and father, uninvolved otherwise, resulted in combination, resulting in your genetic instructions. This is your DNA and whatever else contributes.

DNA has unused code.

DNA builds you, and after that, your life went unrecorded and forgotten.

It may be possible to record your life history, as you lie about it, unless you are me, into your dna, in those unused positions, while you are live. You should not be cancerous if truly unused. These areas carry thoughtstream and life thoughts.

Mattanaw's law states that a brain cannot completely represent itself, and also, DNA cannot represent a complete brain seems to follow.

Brain is more bone growth like, according to my earlier thoughts, as a storage that responds to external. The structure contains the response information.

What is thought important for the life story, is text usually briefly written. While reluctant, I could use more summary form for myself. The work ongoing until completion can go into my DNA somehow, in the code comments.

Unused DNA as code comments?

After code is written, into your biology, it lasts your life long; geneticists, can get DNA from dead things, after some time, so with refrigeration, your story can be had potentially, of not you again.

Some sci fi perhaps worth considering, for human the library.

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

## <a name="you-brouhgt-up-you-have-down-syndrome">You Brought Up You Have Down Syndrome</a>

Relationships | Com 

*570 Wanattomians, Monday, February 23, 2026, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia* 
A new strategy that appears to be useful, connecting with some older thinking, is to lump all into the goup of those with down syndrome. All under an IQ score of perhaps 115 or 120, is not a smart person, and is felt to be needy of others, and is felt to be deficient in understnding the basics of what is needed. Not to simply continue as an animal glob, but to have a more comprehensive and interconnected knowledge with culminations that would trend towards the diminishing return of thinking. Try to say important things to these people, they have stupid reactions. Their faces are like those of down syndrome.

The bell curve has average at 100, but what has not been discussed, is that human life is not as valuable, and not living as a creature that understands, until a much higher IQ than that, and that those thinking above that level, especially if they have other good traits too, like I do, are like future humans living in the present. Like humans living 50,000 years from now or more, if nature and not engineering or breeding is used to possibly advance that far. All under about 120, although felt to be smart by others if near that level, is with all in a state of down syndrome.

This group, strangely makes use of the term "supid" unreflectively, and will call lesser smart in the group retarded, or will use derogatory names, supposedly dehumanizing as some say, but really, they rehumanize them to down syndrome. Everyone I meet has the stupid face of down syndrome at all times.

IQ distribution never stated anything about where the better value of humanity is introduced and at what level, and it wa always at nearly the highest levels. Without these people, human life is a kind of play pen, with plenty of infighting and no great or good productions, like the radio, television, news, and social media.

People with down syndrome, and those very stupid, cause peoople not smart, to have some realization, that they also are not smart animals, and you can then see their weak emotions. They help people who have down syndrome or are retarded, or have mental conditions for a while, but later, they poison them, harm them, mistreat them, and put them elsewhere not to be seen, or leave them locked. Then they call people only slightly less smart than them retarded as though it makes them worthless like the people who really have down syndrome. This is really despicable behavior. Yet they have down syndrome too, and are in the same category forever, in my estimation, and you can see the lessernesss on their faces. Later it is etched into their faces like cune-deform.
In order to "mong" people more effectively now, I am working on the following:

- make sure I can see their face right.
- any mistakes of my heuristic of down-syndromeifying people, results in numan-billionthing estrangement. That means I sipmly recally that is a billionther and there are others, and well, who cares there are so many.
- use of the phrase "You brought up your down syndrome" in my mind, when:
  - politics is brought up. Not because it is politics, but because it worthlesses from them, and provides foreverdence.
  - religion. Also provides foreverdence of down syndrome. 

I will add more soon, since this strategy is growing.

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

## <a name="making-poetry-and-rap-prose">Making Poetry and Rap Prose</a>

*566 Wanattomians, Wednesday, February 9, 2026, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia* 

Language | Literature | Fiction | Non-Fiction | Music 

Recently, and for the last several days, I've been doing some rapping and poetic speaking in alternative british-type accents while traveling in australia.

I discovered I'm exceedingly good at it an definitely exhibit prodigy, and have demonstrated after a very short time to have a proficiency better than what exists in mainstream rap entertainment, including those thought to be best at the art.

While doing this for prolonged periods of time, for most of the last few days, I've produced enough verbally and in thought, to write likely at least one book of complete rap and poetry, and probably several albums if not more.

In that time, I've made some observations which may provide a direction in which poetry and prose can become increasingly similar if not the same.

An important difference to observe between rap and prose writing is that rap has the expectation like poetry of some rhyming and rythym, and this takes away from the directedness of thougth that comes with normal conversation and prose form. If I'm writing in prose, I can try to make my way through the subject matter along the intended path to various conclusions and along further without being interrupted by a desire to match sounds, or provide some pleasing rhythym. The need to have matching of sounds in rhyme means also there is a vocabulary need of words with the right similarities that do not relate to the needs of the conversation and can instead detract from its direction.

As one makes ones way through a rap even if it is in increasingly storytelling or of a prose style, one needs to find words by association to complete rhyms, and the method of association is not to words that complete or fill out discussions by relevance, but by syntactic similarity. A very large amount of attention is to word endings, and in order to complete rhymes, the words that come to mind that would fulfill the rhyming needs, are those that are not subject relevant, but sound matching relevant.

This attention is going to word endings mainly, and when similar word endings cannot be found, changes in the way of speaking is and can be used, to achieve an acceptable like-soundingness, which makes rap sometimes more flexible from written poetry.

As I'm doing this rapping, I come to this point over and over. The mind does definitely have a multiple associative relationing that relates word meanings and word sounds, and as I improved in rapping, I've gotten very good at rhyming and matching sounds, and as I match these up, have gotten better at *adapting my thinking* in the conversation to the rhyming, and using alternative meanings and conversational pathways to make it happen in interesting ways. But these ways *still really do* take away from the conversational direction even if there are interesting and thoughtful results that do tend to be knowledge building. There is a randomness generation happening in the process, but as it is happening, there is a definite feeling that this is due to word play that is taking away from conversational relevance, and sometimes subjects are not completed because of that, and instead go sideways, are tangential or are discursive in unwanted directions that serve to be funny or socially provocative instead of making for a topical development in the areas earlier started but that went unfinished. Many more subjects may be covered as a result, but less is finished. There is more topic switching.

I did seem to find though, that if one alteres the art form of rap to have much longer sentences, and more ways of making relations playing with longer pauses, and using word matches of different kinds than those found in poetry, it may be possible to force rap to be the same or very similar to prose, while also retaining the rhyming and sound matching expectations of music and rap forms. I'm not sure the blend will be of a quality exactly the same as pure prose, but I think it could approach it, and that the reason for the above observations relates to the strictness of the sound matching form which make associative relating of sounds less flexible and more requiring of using unrelated words and changes of topic.

Using much longer sentences, matching words within the sentences instead of only those at the ends, and using short sentences of non-matching length to pair with them, and longer pauses with effect, could be use to greatly increase the matching potential, making it possible to have much greater flexibility enabling topical relevance while maintaining good rap etiquette of a new kind, a new poetic form, and good musicality.

Later, as I more clearly isolate the differences between this approach and others, I can enumerate them and list them here, and share what the specific differences are, and perhaps I can shift the thoughtstream form to not only be prose as it is right now but to be also a rap form and also include the blend I envision.

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

## <a name="working-from-nothing-to-everything)">Working From Nothing To Everything</a>

Human Development | Culture | Learning | Accomplishment | Merits | Evaluative Concepts 

*558 Wanattomians, Tuesday, February 10, 2026, Sydney* 

Culture is arranged and situated, that most are expected to work from scarcity and near-poverty to whatever level they might attain, trending towards whatever is maximal, that a human can have for themselves. The typical story would relate to typical upbringing and level of money once an individual by force largely leaves the home. Following this, occupations are had, savings are sometimes accumulated, early if not later, and there is some level of occupational advancement. The typical story involves typical advancement.

The degree of the advancement from a little to a lot is socially expected to increase merit. It defines what success is largely. The size of the difference between the starting and endpoint increases merit. But success is what attracts the attention as to what that size is, meaning that if one exhibits a high degree of advancement, it is at that point, that one considers how low one started out. If one started low, and ended high, merit is thought to increase, and if one started high, and ended high, one thinks merit has not increased as much.

This is something that exists in the minds of most who grew up in societies not too unlike the United States, which is where I gathered my observations.

But I don't think this kind of thinking is mainteained except for occasional verbalizations had that fit the earlier form and show repetition of what was hear earlier. People really just care about total height. They attack those with total height, trying to reduce their merit, using this thinking, and *want that* their story says that they started high, so that they can say they didn't do much on their own, to have merit in their accomplishments.

Then after having had these thoughts, they either admire, jealously admire, or are jealous, or... Typically it's one of these. There is a lot of interest. Neutral moments exist between moments of jealousy and admiration, but interest persists. And it persists in relation to how often it is advertised.

Recently, when I had the idea to write this, I was thinking that I have less care about merits relating to starting low and ending high and having a large difference between the two.

Firstly, people are too contradictory regarding this, and I think it arises largely not from a serious consideration or science of merits, but trying to attack those who are simply wealthy, apparently successful, and living well, with lots of attention.

It seems better to start high, and end someplace high. This is what a welfaristic society is, although it is better than merely doing satisfactorily. Flourishing at the start, all of life, and at the end is desirable. Those who are affluent, I think would not care eventually about the idea that one has to be the cause of every part of one's positive situation. One can instead think about what one's contribution to self was, in the context of having a positive situation.

What did one do with one's life? 

Also, why would others be invovled, or the pubic? Or social comparison to this or that other person, group, nation, race, or socio-economic strata.

A quantification of merits would seem to have actually more to do with simply measuring, and finding differences. A scientific approach to merit is usable in any conditions.

A questionable societal custom and process is *any movement* from low to high. Arguably, a baby should arrive in paradise, and the decline of age should be offset by experience to deal with it and more paradise, and hopefully later, other corrective measures. This argues that a baby would be in the best state, not the lowest state to start. Societally, most think a home of upbringing should be good, if the baby should come to exist. In practice, they think all parents are good ones. However, most would conclude, it is better to be born into a good situation. Following upbringing, one is punted into living separately. Some especially well-off families will create separate living conditions for the person leaving the family, to have the same start as the household exist. Many will simply be told, "if you fail, you can come back home", where life is supposedly decent. Otherwise death or a lower quality life are expected. College dorms, worse quality living spaces, apartments, less furniture, and overall less is expected to be part of a young person's early adulthood. This less is good though for increasing merit, because if one is among the rare to have high success, then it is real. But for everyone else, it is like starting low and ending lowish, and maybe never attaining as good a life as one left from at the end of teenage years.

This is very different I think than a welfaristic pathway. This is a pathway that thinks that children are supposed to have a decent start in their home, still roughly as slaves with comfortable quarters, and limited freedom, to people with too much freedom for them to handle, with too little resources, to, society thinks, patriarchs and matriarchs with legacies founded on low to high merits (but not later).

The affluent in the meantime, I think are smart enough to know all of this is absurd. If you are wealthy, already you've been attacked for too long, by those underlings, thinking merit is about avoiding attack. Avoiding it by having less at first and more only later. But having the most at all times is maximally desirable. That is the live of a civilized culture, compared with the primitives of history and starving animals. High culture is not only welfaristic, it has so many excellences as to be inexaustible. Right now, one is exhausted not having excellences trying to have some, and those with some, are limited in what exists for them.

It is apparent also that being great as a human animal, genetically endowed, is on its own treated as something laudable, without effort on the part of the recipient of the genetics; and since that is a state of internal excellence, like a microculture in a human form, I see that too as something desirable. Start to finish, a good body and mind, attractive and powerful, and with good moral traits. How high must this genetically superior baby go in genetics, to be meriting the genetics? It is simply life long code and expression of code. They can't do anything that's not an expression of genetics! Must their outward conditions be low as they are high? Let's just side with what I said in the last convo, that it is just better, like with the genetics, to start high and end high, like with a good life code of affluence, instructions for surroundings.

The excellence of genetic code for personal circumstances.

Someone is also only considered to be truly extensively superior, if they have everything superior really. Looks, personal genetics, personal situation, and contrary to what is said by others, good family heritage, or at least, a very favorable start! Good family start, is well, genetic instructions as to situation coming from mind!

The affluent, being more often of good mind, would know such things, and again, want babies to have safe and large estates. The safe and large estates, mansions, and large baby bedrooms, are concocted situations from smart minds.

A human situation is a genetic result oftentimes, as it is a place to live while one grows genetically.

Culture is a genetic growth. Poverty and poor situations are genetic constructs, sometimes not by those who are foolish (by them too), but by those who are making sure the resources are there's and not someone else's. To go from low to high, means also to make sure others stay low, in this system sometimes!

The current view of merit prevailing is destroyed by these consideration irrevocably in my estimation, and I too will have to intelligently move on, assuming this information, for new developments.

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

## <a name="circumventing-animacy">Circumventing Animacy</a>

Constraint and Determinism | Ontology | Interdisciplinary Science | Truth and Honesty | Existence 

*557 Wanattomians, Monday, February 9, 2026, Sydney* 

To Add

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

## <a name="stasis-of-animal-thinking">Stasis of Animal Thinking</a>

Interdisciplinary Science | Constraint and Determinism | Intelligence | Psychometrics | Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Zoology | Universal Inanimacy

*557 Wanattomians, Monday, February 9, 2026, Sydney* 

To Add

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

## <a name="timeline-to-the-completion-of-science-and-concepts">Timeline To The Completion Of Science and Concepts</a>

Interdisciplinary Science | Language | Logic | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Logic | Mathematics

*557 Wanattomians, Monday, February 9, 2026, Sydney* 

To Add

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

## <a name="existence-dictionary">Existence Dictionary</a>

Logic | Language | Ontology | Interdisciplinary Science  | Mathematics

*557 Wanattomians, Monday, February 9, 2026, Sydney* 

After the conceptual dictionary by self-instantiation of example and analogy-identity, is the desire to move from a representative dictionary, to one that directly shows existence, and later, existence is the source of concepts, and concepts have their meaning by direct reference to existences.

This also fits with my recent thoughts on the analysis of truth values, which like this thinking, resulted in simplicity of solution.

We can imagine, that we have virtual reality, or recorded reality, or mental transport to current reality, that provides at the exposure to a concept that has its own instantiation, the existing instantiation which is the analogy. The communication will go on verbally and symbolically with indirect references, but can increase in structure, perhaps even with verbal speach, to have self instantiations; but even with this structure, which can certainly exist in pictographs if not in verbal speech, the analogical-identity instantiations and mathematical inductive demonstrations of pattern relations that would be instrumental and representative, would not be the existences most of interest, although it is admitted, that these are physical existences still, that are self-instantiations. This is an important point for understanding conceptual realism where operationalization and other validities are good quality. Apart from these exemplifications which are still physically existing in the communications of verbal and written symbols, we want to have the other-existence analogies, which are the cause for having the concepts. We are to talk about natural things that are not the human-created-natural things, but the already existing natural thhings, although the concepts will be about both.

Put simply, kids learning the better made concepts will still want to see the natural thihngs that provide the tangible natural-world meaning. Thus if you provide speech that has sound structure resembling a koala bear, or a written document providing glyphs or pictographs that clearly show koala form, it will still be wanted to see koalas. A koala supplies its concept and truth to the concept. The truth is just that it exists as it is. The koala provides its own analogical identity. Meaning an identical koala would be recognizably that koala, and would provide a lowest level generality.

The way we would learn all concepts, apart from symbols, and probably at the same time as symbols later, to make childhood education better, is to present existing things with the symbols and both as concepts. I thought moments ago about the example of bone tissue. We supply some basic concept of bone in symbol that includes diagram, then we supply inductive mathematical pattern extension, then we supply the actual virtual reality, or mental transport, or other visualization, or sensation, of actual bone, analogical to the symbolic concept, then we show other bones showing extension progression, to generality. This way bones are understood. Scale is provided. Limit of meanings are provided and infinities are shown in this domain to not exist!

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


## <a name="programmatic-logical-and-mathematical-analogy-over-abstraction">Programmatic, Logical, and Mathematical Analogy Over Abstraction</a>

Mathematics | Language | Ontology | Linguistics | Logic | A System of Thinking | Interdisciplinary Science    

*556 Wanattomians, Monday, February 9, 2026, Sydney* 

Recently I noticed that programmatic logical strucutre, if-then statements in particular, cannot be abstract representations of human process behaviors unless implemented as indicated, or unless operationalized as conceptualized.

All logical, mathematical, and programmatic structures, that are thought to represent, must be operationalized in the same way verbal concepts are requried to be operationalized in science. The conceptual validities are needed for linguistic concepts of scientific interest, and this is known to scientists understanding the need to have scientific validities in studies, but what has been overlooked, which is of serious importance, is the need of mathematical, logical, and programmatic structures to have validities tested in relation towhat is represented.

It is my view, that if-then structures can sometimes seem to be applicable and sometimes not, and even that it is a kind of anthropomorphism sometimes of material. Even deciding if if-then statements are applying to animal behaviors it seems we are not knowing if we are anthropomorphising tissue actions; also that we may be pretending that decisions have any form like a falsely dichotomous if-then statement.

If I examine my mind, does it not have an option set of sorts, even subconsciously, which goes into making some path related decision?

Binary forking would seem to be essential, nevertheless, but when exactly is thtis being represented and represented correctly.

These are some early thoughts on this subject matter.

What would have to be done, to make it clear which concepts are actually valid and operational ones, is to list them all including those of programming, logic and mathematics, and show how/why they are valid. This will of course involve sharing explications and denotations.

The explications and denotations of logical, programmatic, and mathematical concepts means we will be sharing analogies to those concepts. There can be no operationalization that does not show key analogies. It may require series of analogies or inductive proof of learning. Otherwise, we will be using something between organic linguistic and conceptual growth and this. What we have now is closer to plain organic growth. The organic growth has instrumentality, but without the other, there is linguistic confounding, illusion and confusion. This is where we have a limitation of science, and a vision of the future after satisfying what is needed, but seeing that scientists have not seen into feasibilities and timelines of projects. How will all concepts be operationalized and validated, particularly given the above, regarding a need to show inductive proofs reagarding analogy learning with instrumentality? And other connected requirements.

This would seem to show that thought that is all operational with scientific understanding of lower through upper level sciences is either impossible for a brain or will not be possible for a million years, if some great technological advancemens are not made for accelerating human advancement or human-technolgy-hybrid advancement.

Analogies will form explications of concepts that do not self-express written analogies themselves. For example, a word, such as "tree structure" does not provide any definition, showing what is represented, because instead symbols are used, to provide indirect reference, to the analogy which is to be pointed out. But if a diagram of a tree structure is the concept, then the diagram is a written physical object, that itself provides the example within the concept. So we can see, some concepts as drawings provide their own definitions in the form of a direct instance, of what it analogies to.

Mathematical concepts sometimes supply the drawing instantiations, indicating that math is sometimes concepts that are self defining and self-exampling, and self-analogizing. An identity can be conceived of immediately for these. This identity would be the analogy to what has been defined. This cannot happen for words without definition however, because there is no initial example, definition, or starting analogy, for which to have firstly theh obvious identity analogy, and then other anlogies. Because the meaning is by indirect reference, and it is a pointer to something which has not yet been seen, there is no way to have an analogy yet, until explication is provided.

It is important to emphasize, that wherever there is a symbol, glyph, diagram, math, logic, programmatic structure, art, and so on, that is thought to be a concept that provides its own example, explication, initial identity analogy, is a physical entity that has existence in the recording of it. Once such a concept has been recorded, its physics has come to exist. Thus we have written self-explicating geometrical art-objects like circles, which provide their own identity analogies, existing as phyysical things. These physical things are not abstractions!

This posting has been somewhat inspired by Berkeley. While I was disagreeing in my reading of Berkeley's Dialogues with severity and high frequency, there were insights of great interest, and so I credit his comments on there not being abstractions, as providing congenial stimulations of thought that would lead to this important conclusion.

Here is the significance of this conclusion. A concept such as this provides its operationalization, validities, existence and physics!

In contradiction to what I said about science not being able to do this on grounds of infeasibility, but that was without this important idea, that my mind and brain was able to spit out just now, with synthesis and consilience!

Here in this particular writing is a highly important creative moment, potentially in the history of humanity, if it can be developed and disseminated, and if not, is a special moment in the life of the author. It simplifies all sciences, math, personal life of the philosopher, and education needs of children. It also finally shows the issues related to this were simple issues.

Notice Chinese languages and pictography was unaware of this, but trended in this direction, and seemed to have a partial glimmer as to what valuably exists in this thought path. In English, it does not exist in the language, consisting of conceptual indirect references, but in English and other languages, there are some thoughts that also, somewhat relate. But what is missing is direct conceptual analogical identity instantiation to provide immediate explication wherever possible. Pictographs here support. If indirect reference is still more instrumental, indirect reference still has its explication in pictographic form! Meaning each and every concept has a short indirect form for ease of use, and a long form which provides instantiation!

This provides a direction to solve stability of meaning and of providing a better and universally better dictionary of concepts. Not language, concepts. Mathematical, programmatic, logical, objects. All as analogies. The analogies supply an initial identity. Generality has to be explicated too mathematically. A challenge exists here, but this cannot be approached showing pattern relations until initially the conceptual objects are done this way.

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

## <a name="positive-object-map-as-trending-towards-free-use-of-The-outdoors-mostly-away-from-people-and-towards-a-camping-lifestyle">Positive Object Map As Trending Towards Free Use Of The Outdoors Mostly Away From People And Towards A Camping Lifestyle</a>

Higher Order Attention | Camping | Positive Object Map | Relationships 

*556 Wanattomians, Sunday, February 8, 2026, Sydney* 

Currently, my efforts inadvertantly but positively have moved in the direction of making my activities finally coincide with plans for my spatial movements. The plans for my spatial movements were within an approach that I was calling my positive object map, which relates to my work I'm calling Higher Order Attention. The positive object map increasingly includes only those objects I would relate to that aare as the name says "positive", and that has increasingly trended towards, unsurprisingly, in time away from people, the market, and from miscellaneous negative market pressures.The recent diagram as to the positive oblject map, which is a logical map, has greatly reduced the places of planned use and visitation, and included the grocery store, the gym, the coffee house, parks and trails, and the home or dwelling. Now, while in Australia, since on the road, touring the countryside, there are many more opportunies to be in park environment sand daily, at least two have been visited in the last five days. Since time is spent mostly in the natural locations, and on the road, there has been more exposure and opportunity to visite these parks, and also minor parks in towns and small cities as well, and these have made it more appealing to avoid coffee houses, and today, I have transitioned my normal coffeehouse behavior to doing the same within a local park. I can see immediately I will be able to maintain this activity with good frequency for the next couple months, since my travel behaviors will be roughly the same for that period.

This lifestyle is not too distant from a camping only lifestyle or one that involves mostly travel in the backcountry. The roadways ar eutilized for moving from one environment to the next, with each environment being an outdoor environment. The hiking trail then is having greater similarity to the roadway, with such a spatial plan. With both using the market for the grocery store, since it is not possible to survive on the plan on foraging and food gotten in nature, both have very similar transit needs between possible dwelling locations, locations enjoyed for a variety of purposes and places where foods are gotten. Possible distances traversed is the larger difference, and this gap could be reduced by using a bicycle or other method of transit instead of a car.

Since I'll be in the city soon, I don't think this travel method will be strictly used, except I will have the mindset as I remind myself to have it, that Melbourne is still nature. So walking through the city, and using its spaces, can still constitute market avoidance, and focus and concentration on outdoors as it exists for my free use. There are many parks, bench locations, and shopping areas where no expenditures are needed, but humans can be observed, and the natural environment including human-artifiical environment can be admired and enjoyed.

Meal automation has been what has been preventing this transition very largely, because there has been a frequent urge to revisit convenience stores and grocery stores. The desire to revisit the convenience stores, here in Australia, is more related to earlier road trip habits, where stops along the roadway were enjoyable times to buy foods and drinks especially, but nowadays drinking only water, the water purchases feel wasteful, since it feels water should be free, and the food purchases have not been consistent with meal automation plans, since stops are at various times during the day, and not only in the evening. Snacks on roadtrips were enjoyed at the time of stopping, and not much later, after 7 pm, according to the meal automation schedule.

It seems from the above considerations that the two lifestyles, one using the car in a surburban or uban setting, and the life in nature, are more similar than might be thought, and of course intellectually, and actually, it is clear they are the same, ultimately, although the details between them show differences of experiences, and differences of preparation to make the same plans possible. By the "same", I mean that both are entirely natural, and both use the same logical spatial map, abstracted from the physical map. I would not commit to mathematical sameness here, but very great similarity along certain useful comparisons of what permits the samenesses noticed or that could be noticed, in this subject matter.

So I am to be mostly outside the market, have a simple dwelling, and enjoy free park settings, and natural settings. This can be done with a different path traversal strategy to and away from the market, and within the market, for life that is only utilizing walking and camp dwellings (or mostly), and walking and vehicular transit and a rented dwelling.

Mentally I can see a definite need to recognize the artificial as human-natural-creation in nature so the urban can finally be recognized as nature too, so there is less an apparent loss of what is less frequently accessed, parks and so forth, outside the urban setting. I can see it and feel it sometimes as I think this way, and not only intellectually, but powerfully, that whateve place I'm in is natural, and I'm an animal and so are these other humans. We are amongst urban animals that are natural animals with the large human nests around. When we go away from the large nests, we are still with the animals. Where are there not natural animals and plants?

The artificial is obviously nature. A cleaner way of speaking about human-natural-creations is needed, and maybe this hyphenated phrasing, provides sufficient reminders, so that what humans create, doesn't evoke a separateness from everything else. This is a false division when interpeted *that way* but it is clear, that human building and nest-making does create what is the human-living space, individually and collectively, separating it from insect living space. But both hare still coexisting without any total clear separation. Only the most sanitized buildings have few insects. Nature is the sanitized buildings, and what is non-human still encroaches upon it and interacts with it and eventually reabsorbs it.

It's already been shown that urban landscapes quickly seem like ruins in nature with plants and animals making use of the spaces increasingly to the further decomposition of the ruins, that do not last.

So what is being devised here, and worked on, behaviorally, and in plan, is a way to live more freely and less reliantly on market items, with less use of money, and with greater personal security, and ease of retirement and non-work, in *both the urban landscapes and the separate parklands and each combined*, making a completely natural life possible wheverone lives. This latter part was not the primary objective, since the primary objective was the increased use of the positive object map to eventually culminate certain life-category goals, with the last being that of rent-avoidance, and security witih not needing a home. Going further than being able to live naturally with and without a home, is to live only without a home. To do that competently is a goal of mine, althoughh at present, I'm not certain it is desirable to keep that going uninterruptedly, without sometimes going the other way, to having a secure temporary home of some kind. Since the life of luxuriation is desirable, and not only the life of camping or backpacking, I find it likely I will not want to only commit to the one while never doing the other. I think I will want to luxuriate further later. But when I luxuriate later, at least I can recognize, see and feel, that my environment is still entirely and undividely natural, compared with the other lifestyle. 
Would I ever want an unnatural life? Even in virtual reality, I think this viewpoint prevails. That VR is nature too.

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

## <a name="the-briefest-practice-as-creating-desired-impulses,-and-attention-management">The Briefest Practice As Creating Desired Impulses, and Attention Management</a>

Attention Management Process | Architecture of Attention | Higher Order Attention | Life Categoriess | Personal Form | Life Data Collections 

*553 Wanattomians, Thursday, February 5, 2026, Southern New South Wales, Australia* 

Historically, as I worked on organizing my life to include the activities I wanted to get accomplished, I would schedule or plan those activities, to have a duration that was not short, but appropriate for the wanted results of the activity.

Now, being more advanced, and using a three day cycle to accomplish goals of all life activities, there is a need to ensure, that I really do fit each of the desired life activities, in that three day cycle. Fitting them into the three day cycle, or actually behaving the activities, is more important, to get the process working, than performing those activities to some level of completion, on each ocurrence, which would require some specific duration, say 30 minutes to three hours.

In order to ensure that each activity is actually initiated is what is now needed, and since most of the desired activities really do get done within longer periods of time, I do aniticipate my behavior will include them a satisfactory amount. But for some few wanted behaviors, like doing artwork, meditating, and camping, there is a longer term need too, and to get all to be activities that really are performed, and performed in a three day cycle, or any cycle, doing them for some duration, is really better than trying to do them for lengthier periods. For example, I have to simply do art, to do my drawings, and not care as much, about arriving at complete artworks. To be doing the complete artworks, I have to be doing the art, in any quantity. Currently it happens too infrequently. There are not many examples of wanted behaviors like this that I want to get into the cycle, and because of this, I'm nearing completion of this effort, but to finally finish, I need to be able to initiate these actions, and since initiation is most important, doing them in any amountmatters.

Elicitation of action process and behavior initially is more important then. I think this is something useful earlier in the personal development pathway than I've used myself; but now knowing it, I want to make use of it, to bring my system to finality. The idea is that if one simply repeatedly, again and again, starts activities, those activities become self-initializing, and there is motivation, that actually would be hard to stop later. For example, I write as if I would never stop writing, it is so habitual, and so repeated. I want all my other wanted behaviors to be just like my writing. Gym attendance is similar, and so is my desire to walk and hike. Art is one I need to make like these. Meditation too, although a while back, that too was habitual.

The strategy I will be utilizing, for commpleting my three day attention management process, is to quickly for items I have not been working on, or doing, I will simply *start them* and do that repeatedly, without any concern about total quality or anything in the activities. I anticipate the result will be an automatic triggering towards doing the act, called motivation, which will happen spontaneously at good times of readiness, which will later result in longer durations of the behavior, arrivign at goal completions. Thus I'll be great at meditating again, and will be very good at art, and will have tangible results of each.

The three day attention management process, that I call "3 Day AMP, or 3AMP", for now will be a process, with a checklist, in which each activity is simply checked after started, instead of checked after some amount is done. So if I went to the gym for 30 seconds, I'd check it as complete (although for the gym I always complete a long duration), and likewise for the others. Then all are having motivational impulses and positive compulsions. Then all is recurringly happening within three days every time. Then all my behavior is positive behavior which fits into the attentional manaagement process and all items in the 3AMP including all areas of productive work will be included. And after this there is no further need of behavioral modification, except for small tweakings wherever desired into the future, until death.

This is how close I am to completion. So I just need to finish this process of 3AMP getting the impulses correctly recurring for some small number of desired activities.

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

## <a name="blendsmology">Blendsmology</a>

Cosmology | Biogenesis | Interdisciplinary Science

*551 Wanattomians, Tuesday, February 3, 2026, Sydney* 

This idea is that specific blending events related to any origin events of any structures that are later considered systems requires a blending of materials. Without a blending, there would not be composition.

This idea could be included among a list of what would earlier be thought as a priori truths that are required to have experience. Without this "principle", there would not be any thinking thing such as humans, and there would be nothing "interesting" existing, that would be more than discrete and separate elemental, chemical, atomic ingredients. This implies that as one is thinking about cosmology, one should have in mind spatial relations, time and sequence relations, and blending or mixing relations. Blending and mixing too is simply chemical and physical interaction, but from a cosmological perspective, or a biogenesis perspective, one has to be inclined, if not to get it entirely wrong in a mythologizing way, that there would be blending and mixing for anything new to come into existence at all. There are other conversations regarding this in the history of religion and of philosophy, but those can really be simply ignored as being repeat discussions with stagnation. Blending simply is needed. Creation evens are requiring blending events.

This can be seen clearly too, if we were to imagine, that some nuclear reaction resulted in not some new ingredients that would blend, but in the same ingredients of the nuclear reaction. If such an event occured (as it does in solar systems), then what results is a stasis of system, of the same materials. This is not really cosmology of interest, However, I can see from this there is an interpretation of cosmology, that can be of a static type.

Static cosmology would be different than what I'm here discussing, but I would admit, a verbal categorization can exist, such that the word has both meanings, although it would be confounding things, if the mind did not separate the meanings of the homophonous concept. Cosmology of maintenance of a system, of a stasis of a system, or a long tie of unchange of a system, can still have causal systemic effects, of producing a cyclical chain reaction in which "intermixings are less" and so the result is unintersting.

Arguably, if this is a simpmle system, a large system, of more ingredients, which have blendings of interest, bringing to mind creations of curiosity to humans, of composite things, may still be system totally, as I also assume in my deterministic worldview, but since the quantity of elements are few, and the total amount of blendings is not large, then perhaps we equate the blendings with nuclear system blendings or other systemic blendings that appear only homeostatic.

Here I contradict what I was saying somewhat, but can avoid this by separating concepts. Cosmology may have to have a different meaning, or I may have to make blending even more fundamentally happening where "creations are happening" that are uninteresting maintenances.

I was wanting in my thought to go to a direction of matter resulting in matter of the same type, as with objects in space that are not undergoing any chemical reactions and are remaining "as is" without much change. In these perhaps we can take out cosmogenesis, and perhaps we can remove "system" somewhat.

Conceptually there are too many vaguenesses.

Bledogenesis is still of interest and the consideration of it is leading to these interesting analyses.

Motion does not create blendings. Blendings are in a way very fundamental chemistry. Brining one object into proximity to another is chemistry. Here we have celestial chemistry. Perhaps even a pathway to blend astronomy with chemistry in a new way, either in isolation from some work I'm not knowing about that has existed that has not been popularized, or really truly in a newish way. Either way dissertatively.

The earth's position with respect to the sun and the other planets does have chemical significance, even if there is not interaction. What about gravitational chemistry, you ask? I would agree, that it appears then, that any objects in space, having any gravitational relation, have a chemical relation, and that this is due to blendology. Without blendology, there would be non-gravitation between celestial objects. Simply by having them with some proximity to one another, there is relation. Unless the relation is only earlier, and I think that may be the case. 

I think this thinking leads to fruitful imaginative contemplations, but not necessarily to a theory of its own. It is the reincorporation of "blending" as a fundamental in cosmology, where it certainly belongs, and recognizing that cosmology is not only astronomical but chemical.

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

## <a name="holistic-governmental-communications-as-unlikely">Holistic Governmental Communications As Unlikely</a>

Relationships | Com | Government 

*551 Wanattomians, Tuesday, February 3, 2026, Sydney* 

To know that a government is a concerted effort, with a unified plan and direction, that can be communicated with itself and to others, there must be a communication strategy, and communication files and documents, that actually exhibit the direction. If it is said that such a strategy exists, it would be known that that strategy, being governmental, would be from the minds of a large number of widely separate people, discernably connected with the "whole" somehow. From this it is clear there are numerable problems and really such a plan is impossible. Obviously people cannot hold in their minds and produce collectively in gigantic numbers a unified mentality, and unified documentation to be communicated uniformly. But apart from this, assuming instead that there is a struggle towards this, for a partial unification with an obviously expected diversity of individual peoples, then there still would need to be a relationship between any existing strategy and plan, and a still very large number of people. This too appears to be impossible, but then it is impossible for anything but the smallest group or organization. However, let us just assume that a partial solution is wanted to be arrived at.

Governments today claim to have total unity. They do not claim to be partially approaching an immpossibility like this, or that their numbers, taken as a whole, or taken cross sectionally as part, is too large to have a unity of good quality. Sometimes, I think there are politicians who are aware of this, but for the most part, I think all are in ignorance regarding this issue. Populations and their government employees think that some giant corporation-like strategy exists that connect everyone and speaks for all. Everyone most of the time seems to assume that there can be a unified mission and direction of a nation, and that since all know about it, it has been communicated internally and externally.

This argument regarding the impossiblities of a non-partial unified strategy would not be admitted by everyone, but in order to persuade further, and to see evidence that this is true, we don't need to test the views of members of the population, but instead can simply look at how they talk to each other, what they talk to each other with (like writings, audio files, videos and so on), and how together, or through leadership, communications are had with other nations.

Without a thorough study, I know clearly, that simply comparing different types of communications from the government we see that the government itself is an operation of different organizationsn not concerted with one another about what opinion to have and to share, and that all have different communications, and also different political bents. Having different political tendencies, leaders of different organizations, are then at odds with each other, and are in competition. Government employees, clearly would not be non-voters, and being political people thinking they make immportant contribuutions, still think themselves as having important political messages to share. They also use their politics to determine relationships with others, and how to communicate when doing their political jobs. No government employees are forgetting if they are republicans or democrats or of some other party.

Apart from the government employees being political people in competition, showing they would not have a unified position, we have also that the organizations simply operate separately, like fast food chain would work separately from an online retail store, or a coffee house. The government and the companiees within a nation just do really different work, and they are at odds with each other about who is expert about what, and vie for an appearance of authority, especially for what they think they know best, but also for what they perceive they can also know. These government institutions, and companies and organizations in a nation all communicate differently, and have different visions for the future, and think we relate to other nations in ways that are different from one another. One company may be staunchly domestic, while one is extremely international, and that might be just because one company has many businesses in many different countries, while another has only businesses within the home nation. Either way, the internal communications will differ between organizations, and their outward appearance and communications will look different from each other to other nations, showing they would not be able to perceive a great unity.

If the communications internally and externally cannot be shown to have a discernable unified plan, set of values, and objectives, then it can only follow, that there is not actually a unified plan, and that there has not been an organized effort at communication, meaning there cannot be a single plan and strategy of a nation.

A nation can be checked regarding their organized communication efforts. If they are organized, they may look like totalitarian or dictatorial nations. If they are like democracies, they may look like they have no strategy and instead are composed of individual voices. While historically, people have in the last one hundred years been very against totalitarian regimes for their "unified messages" that are organized, and really not representative of the people of a nation, less attention perhaps has gone to the fact that if a democracy of individuals presents an outward message that states there is a unified position, they too are also being collectively falsified. In the latter, it can be worse, because in a totalitarian nation, within itself, there still may at least be a communications channel, controlling outward speech, so that people are organized together. I am aware this is unwanted, but even if that is true, it would be the case that a collective communications strategy *does exist*, whereas in the democratic nations, they share that there is unity, *but there is NOT* any communnications strategy! This is a greater lie, and not a lesser one. It means that all the people in the nation, not being coordinated regarding their views, are not feeding into communications or are not in agreement with them, and that instead, some leader or leadership group, just claims "unification" without any communications of any kind that would show evidence of it!

What is wanted is something between these, given what I said earlier, that only a partial unification is possible; but it can be self-reflective and transparent about that, and share that view. While doing this, it can still take input of views from diverse people and groups, coordinate messaging, and work out an internal and external direction, that does communicate the views of the people in a partly unified way. This would be challenging, and it is what democracy pretends to do. The way democracies are actually functioning, is they are running organizations, government institutions, and corporations, partly harmoniously so there are smoothish interactions between them, but these groups all have different communications and views. The functioning of the nation is preserved by the systemic smoothness of interrelation between orgs, so that people in the public feel like everything is functioning. While everything is apparently functioning and comfortable, however, there is no communications strategy joining all together. This is provable by simply looking at communications that exist-- they are obviously separate and are planned separately. Then, it is also provable, that the outgoing messages of a nation, from main leaders, and to itself, do not join any of these messages. They simply make *new other messages* that speak expected things to say, about how the nation has a similar perspective, with a shared heritage. But there is no unified communications direction or strategy, which can also be seen and tested, by inquiring as to where the national messages originated. What communications department for example? It may have come from a speech writer at the Executive's office only, if delivered in a speech. So it is impossible that without an organized approach or body of people working together to do the national communications, that the outward messages about the national direction and goals could be anything but what some individuals thought, and not at all what everyone thought. Meanwhile, they have to *pretend* that they speak for the nation.

Representative democracy seems to me to be an attempt to appear as though some form of messaging strategy is existing, harvesting from the people and presenting through single leaders, which collectively comprise a government's branch, but it is missed that it doesn't really work that way, and that even if it did, that part of government that has representatives, is only a small part, and really perhaps a somewhat insiginificant part, of a total running national system, which is comprised of all the gigantic corporations, their leaders, large organizations, other governmental institutions, the Executive and Judicial branches, none of which function in that way. It appears from this there is no communications representation approach, or communications effort that can join an nation in messaging, and without the messaging, it becomes provable that there can be no joining of the nation's mind, since minds rely on the messages, and cannot be unified unless they are receiving them in a unified way, and can't be unified if they can't communicate in the messages in a joint way. Since there is not a communications effort or strategy that unifies, and there is not a set of communications files (audio, text, video), that shows a joint viewpoint of a nation, it follows there isn't one, and that there is proof that there isn't one.

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


## <a name="the-gathering-of-situational-ingredients-as-assuming-internal-reasoning">The Gathering Of Situational Ingredients As Assuming Internal Reasoning</a>

Logic | Reasoning | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream 

*550 Wanattomians, Sunday, February 1, 2026, United States* 

I realized today as I bring together situational elements for reasoning, that I do not require any definite awareness of internal programming, reasoning, logic, or natural language reasoning, to start to intuit conclusions. This suggested to me that I have an underlying reasoning that I'm not entirely aware of, that is the cause of the assemblage of situational pieces, making it appear that the knowledge of the parts to be reasoned upon already includes some of the reasoning to be utilized further. Why know what parts will be reasoned about and what is the cause of the selection? The cause of the selection is inclusive of reasoning for which I am unaware.

Right after having these ingredients, and as I include more, I can and do begin to think about their relations using natural verbal language, my understanding of rules of reasoning, some use of mathematics, and use of spatio-temporal relationships.

Actually doing this assembling of facts, images, movements, and pieces of reasoning, without using logic, language, and some visuospatial, or none, I feel something that seems more innate or native. Not innate from an infant development perspective but more human-inbuilt, with human experience still having effects. It seems similar to what is witnessed in animals.

Intuitions seem to agree with subsequent verbal and visual reasoning, maybe indicating that these are a result of the earlier native thinking during the selection of thought ingredients. I don't think they are *only an outcome* of these initial thoughts, but are greatly caused by them, and that as the verbal and visual reasoning gets employed, additional nervous system resources are utilized, which is known simply by the fact that, new mental abilities are used. However, there is a good feeling of adequacy of intuition. If I have intuitions related to such thinking, and postpone thinking further, it seems I can start at a similar point of thinking, and resume, to the effect that the intuitions were still enough to result in intuition developing or confirming verbal and visual thought. With enough time, the resume point, state of the intuition, and development path, may be harder to analyze for similarities, but it does appear when one resumes, that one does resume, and that the earlier thought is very similar to the revisited thought. There is even some sense that the pathway of thinking ahead has similarities to perceived direction earlier. This is when one is not apparently experiencing sleep developments or when one is having ideations that seem to be due to sleep effects or other recoveries.

It may be possible to suppress verbal and visuospatial reasoning that is above a certain awareness threshold, thinking more intuitively, with the reasoning ingredients present, to increase experience with only intuitive thought. More purely I think. I don't think I am not mixing this kind of thinking with verbal and visual reasoning, but I do think one can probably spend more time with both left out. I spend less time doing this, but it is the cause of my writing this. Actually now I think I do it often, but haven't taken care to see in what ways the thinking is not obviously visual or verbal.

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


## <a name="institutions-that-reverse-or-oppose-education-as-a-recurring-contradiction-to-spoken-national-interests">Institutions That Reverse Or Oppose Education As a Recurring Contradiction To Spoken National Interests</a>

Military | Warfare | Education | Learning | Religion  

- *550 Wanattomians, Sunday, February 1, 2026, United States* 

Nations seem to be organized in such a non-cohesive heterogeneous way, that institutions not only check each other, but act in opposition to each other, and even in opposition to what they communicate to be their entire interests. For example, national leaders, and organizations, put forward that they care and act for human rights, education, well being, etc... domestically and globally. Here I want to focus on the national intersts of promoting learning and education in children at home and abroad and contradictions with portions of a nation's own systems.

It is clear enough to most, that military activities are contrary to education and learning interests wherever actions taken really do detract from the education and learning experiences of people abroad. People supportive of militaries will say that their efforts create scenarios in which there are net positives despite strong negatives, or in other words, that miilitary action, makes the world a better place, and not a worse one. This will depend on militaries, specific wars and specific actions, but it will also be very questionable and hard to show, that the net beneefits, really were in the positive direction, particularly because it would be known sometimes it is in the negative direction, and because, information on this subject would be hidden to an extent.

Military action reduces education and learning firstly by having one's own population killed in the process, and by having people join, who would have been taught, that their own lives are what is most immportant to them, and what doctors and other medical professionals taught them, about how they should care for their own health, for their own longevity and quality of life. Nations measure themselves using HDI which is supposed to be about the quality of life on average for people within the nations, taken somewhat indirectly by measuring a number of factors of national development. These young people, are at risk of being directly destroyed, and are taught within the military, and by those recruiting them, that what was taught to them in education was to be overridden. In a way, all of education is about how to use knowledge to live well, and promote well-being in others, but military recruiters and the military itself will use propaganda in opposition to the objectives of educational institutions.

I have maintained, that joining the military is among one of the most foolish and irrational decisions an individual can make.

Relating the national interest, to the military interest, to the individual interest, there are definite contradictions between all three, but regarding the individual only, the national interest is extremely at odds with itself, perhaps demonstrating that the nation does not have known interests. Using the relation above with the individual, we can build up a strange picture of entire nations, comprised of individuals, each of whom are in a state of unclarity about what their collective goals are and are not, and they will state they have one goal at one time, and another goal at another time, and will support one part of the national organization at one time another at another time, and forgetting the supposed whole that exists.

Educational interests are weirdly made important, and actively opposed.

The same is true regarding marketing interests and propaganda, and advertising, which also work against educational interests, but more in the private sector; however, the nation supports this private sector too, and there is no nation without it. Education is often contradicted in a person's lifetime after leaving public school and college, since much messaging is to persuade people to spend and make decisions for someone else's interests and not their own.

Global interests are also not clearly in harmony with educational interests as the targets of warfare, and of isolation, have their opportunties for learning reduced excessively or reversed. A nation not only opposes its interests in the transformation of students into military soldiers who are lied to and can die, but also those adversaries who are composed of people who also want to experience high quality educations and learning opportunties. It is not clear, since a nation is at odds competitively with other nations, that it will ever want to act really in the benefit of those other nations, and entirely outside of grand military strategy. So in addition to any damage inflicted on other nations that seems justifiable with warfare, is the effect of competition, and the objective of reducing adversaries to less than what one has for oneself.This is what competition is partly; it is not to collaboratively increase global prosperity, but to ensure that one is in a good strategic position to dominate.

Much of this writing has some obviousness to me and probably to others too, but I think there is value on further expanding on this to have a clearer picture of what the contradictions are, and to list out how many there are.

An intersting observation I will want to explore later, is that of there being no national interest perhaps, because the communications of a nation, really are performed by individuals, and by separate organizations still represented by individuals, and that these organiztions and institutions, not only check each other, but contradict each other. If one wanted to ask what the goals of a nation are, internally and as stated to other nations (but actually existing and not only stated), one has no place to look.

What are the official national policies and what is the way to understand their harmony?

It appears to me this does not exist, and this partly explains the anticipation, that new leadership will create too different of a diplomatic perception. A new president and administration will make a country seem too different from itself earlier, and this will be due to different messages from individuals.

The individual messages will be on letterhead, or will have official formalities to them, bu these are simply to create the appearance, that they are really official.

Within a nation would be stabilities in institutions and areas that are changing, and the interactions of these result in avowed goals, that result in communicationis that go to other nations. How does one know the "present state" of these and how does one harmonize them in time?

Not having such a thing, people within nations really cannot state what goals internally are specifically, and what values are really held as shared with other countries.

Since I also said that organizations and institutions are at odds, even while miscellaneous goals and values are stated and shared, shows that these goals and values would be at odds, and arguably, they are only an aggregate of separately acting orgs and individuals.

Thus we could expect the Secretary of Education to say things very differently from Military Leadershp or Legislative/Executive/Judicial leadership. The aggregate of the isolated opinions and messages and values of leaders in each area seem to comprise the internal and external pictures of what they are in total, but these are *fundamentally contradicting* while they are also produced by separate individuals and groups.


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

## <a name="coordinated-and-organized-videos-as-attempts-to-a-quality-existing-in-plain-unplanned-or-partly-planned-videos">Coordinated and Organized Videos As Attempts To A Quality Existing In Plain Unplanned Or Partly Planned Videos</a>

Filmographicwriting | Videography | Truth and Honesty | Evaluative Concepts 

*548 Wanattomians, Saturday, January 30, 2026, United States* 

Highly planned and coordinated videos that are documentarian in nature seem to have a falsity that goes undetected while people comfortably have come to expect the filming format that results. When we try to think of what is a good quality video, it depends on what the media type happens to be. For example, good news is not the same as good documentary footage, which is not the same as good television show footage, which is not the same as good movie footage. All of these are somewhat dissimilar from home footage, or videos captured using smartphones. Nature footage, travel footage, and cooking videos also have different qualities.

This particular writing is exploring how certain videos are really of a lesser quality than would be thought given perceptions of people in the public who watch, as compared with videos that may seem of lower quality, that seem to be greater. I can't talk about all formats at the moment and not all have been considered, and the above paragraph shows there is an extensive list of video artforms. The type I'm most interested in for now is the documentarian type style of footage that is presented on travel channels. It will be seen later that there are similarities between this kind of videography and other forms and what is discovered about the one is partly transferrable to others.

Planned and concerted video productions tend to require that the environmental context, what is discussed, and other elements of the video to have coherence or agreement of parts. When there is a person in a travel video, it is expected that they fit into the surroundings somehow, fit expectations about travel in the location, that the content of their speech will be about their context, and that the context itself, the space of the video, is related to the spoken content. If there is music, it must be music that the audience will perceive is also related to the other ingredients. Together, there is a feeling of agreement of parts, and if one is attentive, most videos on the nature and travel channels try to have this kind of result in the videos. The plan for the videos, the "format", the result, all have this kind of thinking involved. The plan for how to do the video, who can be involved, where it will be, and what will be said, is having a "theme", and the execution will enforce the plan and will result from the plan, and the editing afterwards will go further with the plan to make sure that the final video has the right music, the right pieces that does the above well, and includes nothing that is out of place. All is supposed to be harmonious.

It is the idea of this particular author that this is an especially false way of making videos, but that this has gone undetected. It has gone undetected to such an extent, that it is confused for being the highest quality of video, and society has now even required with expectatioins of audience and filmmakers, and advertisers, that this format is repeated over and over, with belief in mind and in practice, that this is the higher quality of video to be imitated and emulated. Other approaches will result in "wrong videos" that others will not want to attend to, invest in producing, edit towards, and so on. The vision of what a video can be is even a false vision, that is the vision of others, that is just to arrive at another video of this type, and not another. There are many reasons why videos like this have a very strange falsity, however, and it will be explained partly below.

Firstly, people who present and are in these travel videos are inexpert as to the subject matter, and like anyone else, are simply sharing what they've recently learned about what is depticted or shown. This already means they are acting as false authorities, and they really do try to present, as if they are not repeating what someone has written or said already. This is why novice travel videographers on social media seem indistinguishable from television hosts who speak about their travels.

Secondly, if somone visits a museum, a restaurant, a landmark, or some natural scene while traveling, why would they know what they are going to say? This is why we know for certain, that they are pretending to be expert as they speak, because they only way they would know what to say, is if they had some pre-preparation, and that pre-preparation could not come from them, and instead, commes from those sources everyone else has access to, when they travel to the same destinations. "Why does this host know what to say?" really falsifies the videos they are in. Their role in the videos, that someone would naturally be able to speak the way they do while traveling, that they would have preparation of any kind, and that they would be there with all those ingredients together in place, to speak in a way that matches the context. Notice, the host also is pretending to know the context and experience it with surprise for the first time.

Thirdly, as just stated, the host acts excited and surprised and curious about what is seen, while being prepared about what to say about it, but the reality is that if they had such knowledge it wouldn't have that level of excitement any longer, and if knowledgeable about the subject, they would be more bored with it. Those who are excited travelers, seeing such things for the first time, are really actually not knowing what they are seeing. They are learning more about it for the first time. They would be unable to lecture or describe it in detail. If they could, they quickly prepared with something they were told. It is possible a host could be both excited for real and be able to present expertly, but that is  only if they are like this kind of traveler, the person seeing it for the first time, who just repeated what was prepared for them by an expert. So they can really be excited *seeing it for the first time&* while pretending to be a knowledgeable host, and while also pretending to be an expert.

A traveler who is doing a real video for themself or their family, would have excitement and some ignorance. In this way, the videos would be superior to the others, that tare on television, because in those videos, they are lying.

The host and producers and editors and the entire video staff is comprised of liars who support the pretense that the host is both expert and really excited.

All the ingredients that come together to coheretly connect each piece of the video is then done so using lies.

Stereotyping is also needed for success. Since none are expert really on the subject matter, we see naturalists, British and the like, doing their host work excessively having a "British accent", because "that's what a traveling host sounds like", and they wear tacky typical beige camoflauge and khaki, so "they can look like the expected british travel host" too. They don't dress like the locals. They dress like a strange foreigner, but this kindn of foreigner has become an expected foreiger, particularly for travel videos. So once again, some lie has been required, to make it sem that there is a coherence of parts making total sense of the videos. But stereotypes about travel are used to create the style, and are also used to avoid having to be real, and wear the clothes and speak like the locals do.

There are many other false elements relating to the construction of these videos, but now it is very obvious that the person doing the videos as a traveler is like an ignorant but excited and curious foreigner, while the one who fits into the context is a local, who is bored with the surroundings, and wants to leave. The host is supposed to be the latter, if there is going to be an agreement of parts.

So there isn't an agreement of parts, it is only an illusion. That fits the thesis here. That people simply gradually came to expect this kind of apparent agreement of parts, but that the parts don't agree, and when they do agree, the video outcome is very different. Imagine if one of the british travel hosts was replaced by the local people to share the saem information, and one can immediately feel it would be a very different video type, and really there is even a kind of parasitic predatory relationship happening, with a host that "needs to be famous". A productions company could easily equip and support a different show in different locale working with locals only, to do the work, and the outcome would be one in which, there really is more of an agreement of parts in the video. 

This seems to imply people can't tell when a video is harmonious or not, instead, it is harmonious only if expectations about parts exist and occur at the same time.

By using the example of the local hosting of videos to create videos that have *greater agreement of parts* so the videos are more harmonious, indicates outcome will be very different and that quality is actually dramatically different than what people thought. Quality is not what people do in productions then. Also, it is scaling towards the thesis that everyday videos have more quality than thought, and maybe some of the best qualities, because the parts simply agree, being real situations, no matter the situations, than people would think. There is a way that this would even provide some qualitative component to the false video but only if the falsity were surfaced the right way, so this doesn't contradict the point. The point is that another kind of video, that has less planning and is more everyday, has much better quality than one would expect, and those ingredients of quality that make them not false while the one that seemed true on television, is amnog the falsest of what gets made.

This subject will be continued with more discussion as to what of everyday videos is better quality. Briefly, I can say that, news has relied on footage from the public, and television shows have been built on submitted videos from people, showing real situations, and this has been prized and unplanned footage. I will argue though ,that those usually have unusual or interesting scenarios that are not happening often, making the videos seem more rare, but that this is only *superficially the case*, since regular videos are as rare as those thought to show unusual footage. That will take some development of argument, andn I will talk about that soon.

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

## <a name="one-way-to-get-sucked-into-attending-to-public-media-figures-and-famous-people,-is-reflecting-on-if-one-should-like-them">One Way To Get Sucked Into Attending To Public Media Figures and Famous People, Is Reflecting On If One Should LIke Them</a>

*544 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769534613, Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:23:33, United States of America*

Relationships | Com | Politics

Media marketing is successful when it is forced. People, since they do not have to atttend to anything, or like anything, are if they are free, not needeing to ever listen to the messages of others. This means that if someone is actively wanting to avoid advertising, there can only be an advertising o messaging success to them, if they are forced to attend.

Others, who are not really thinkig this way, are not really considering how they use their attention from moment to moment, but have preferences that play aole in what they attend to or not.

These people, less attentive to how they attend, can be forced to attend, using methods of advertising, which try to get their attention, when their attention woudl be to soeemething else.

Since attention is the only way marketing can ever have success, some sort of force of putting a message one did not seek really is what results in marketing success. More needs to be said, to make theis very clear, but it is true, that marketing that is successful has force dpeople to have interest.

This is particularly true if we look at the case of famous people, and how people have come to attend to them.

If a new person arises in the media, some young new star, or some new business person becoming popular due to tech advancements, they will appear on the news, and in other locations on the internet, and on mobile applications, such that if one does not want to know who that person is, one has to work against the force trying to make one see and attend.

To get away from advertisemens, one has to turn them off when they come on, look away, mute them, try to ignore them, or take some other action. One can also avoid ads.

The famous person that one is not wanting to be involved with, will simply keep appearing in places in one's experience where messages are sent from elsewhere. Any place where media is consumed, these people will come up aggain and again. 

Presidents, actors, athletes and business people, whether we want to know them or not, will keep appearing.

Noitice that if you bring up the name of some person who has been on television or social media many times with another person, they will very likely know who they are. That is because they have ben forced messsages that they did not take evasive actions recarding.

The populationof people is comprised of a large group of uncontrolled audience. People who never took evasive maneuvers against seeing these famous people. Instead, they attend when, it isn't too annoying for them to do so, and really they willl ingest almost anything incoming, if on television or on the radio. They really do not take actions to avoid messages.

I kow this beause in my family, and among friends, I was trying to get away from adds and specific messages while they seemed dumbly unaware that that is eever anything one would do. Instead, they would seek out media that includes what they want or what they temprarily would like to have around, and then they just let themselves be inundated with messages of all kinds, never taking actions to avoid ads or people.

So people really will just happen to know the famous people.  You know they've been forced to know them.

This posting though, was going to be about, what it is like, to feel that one is being forced in yet other ways, that still relate, if one is trying to get away from certain would be famous people in your world.

There have been some few people hthat have been forcibly presented to me in advertising and media. These few people I can tell are newly famous, becoming very famous, or some few who are extremely famous but still only somewhat recently so.

I take evasive actions to avoid these epople.

A couple have become people I know, because I succumbed or succame to messages about them. I leet them be seen and heard and thought about.

Nevertheless, I do avoid most of these people still, even if I did come to know somethign about them.

What I noticed though, is that for a few who were newly presented, I have this thought that if I'm avoiding them, I don't like them. But that is not true. It's like the act ovf not trying to see them, of avoiding or removing ads that show them, or other messages, I am doing something akin to what one does, when one does not like someone.

When one does not like someone, one simply does not try to be with them, near them, or involved with them. One becomes avoidant of people they don't like.

So now I'm avoidant, but it's for other reasons, yet it is like I'm being avoidant of real people.

Since people are socially not very sane, even in my mentality, there is a feeling that I'm supposed to be nice to them, even if they were presented on tv, will never known them, or meet them, and that I should have nice mental thoughts about people even if there is no relationship.

This is why people will think things such as this, that if one is not trying to see someone on television, one does not like them.

People will misinterpret my behavior, if I'm turning off ads or changing channels away from someone. If they notice, they will simply believe, I don't like them, even though that is not true.

Since there is a desire to like people mentallly, there is an additional thing to overcome, when avoiding ads and messages about other people, and its that one does not need to even think about them to determine that they don't dislike them, or that they like them but are just avoiding. One can jus thave no opinion or resist forming one.

But this does not appear to be a proces most would be able to have in their minds about other people, and I think in order to arrive at postiive thinking abotu a famous person, who they would be avoiding, they might try to claim to themselves they do like them, even if they avoid, but then in order to know if they like them or not, they would want to see more about them.

I think peopl e when exposed to aother person, even briefly, will want if that person is known by others, to have a positive or negative attitude about them, and will seeek out some information in order to justify one or the other. This makes it so avoiding famous people in entertainment is even harder than one would think.

*544 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769535558, Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:39:18, United States of America*

*Written in 945 seconds. 1126 words. Typespeed: 71.460 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="the-analogy-to-dots">The Analogy To Dots</a>

*544 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769517542, Tuesday, January 27, 2026 05:39:02, United States of America*

Mathematics | Relationships | Analysis | A System of Thinking

If one writes dots onto a paper, and begins thinking of those dots as objects, but focuses on the dots instead, soon there are thoughts that apply to both the dots and the things that they could by analogy represeent. Thinking about dots on paper, if theye find analogy to things existing in the world, served to provide a way of thinking about them, by thinking only abou tthe dots.

The point of this is to think about the fundamentals of why mathematics seems to wrok without any application sometimes. There is more to say abou tit, but the fact that dots and lines on paper are already objects, and because these objects can form analogy to real world objects, math  can seem to be borrowed from on paper analsyses to be applied to other bobjects too. Spatial relations are preserved also, in realtionships between dots and lines on paper.

*544 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769517710, Tuesday, January 27, 2026 05:41:50, United States of America*

*Written in 168 seconds. 150 words. Typespeed: 53.520 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="adoption-of-english-vocabulary">Adoption Of English Vocabulary</a>

*543 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769443783, Monday, January 26, 2026 09:09:43, United States of America*

Com | Relationships | Glossary | Wordly Coinages | Language | Ontology

There are some words in English I don't like to use. Just a moment ago, I was thinking that I don't really want to participate in use of the word "bonobo", which is a primate like the chimpanzee. I simply don't like the word, and it doesn't seem to be one that is serious, or if serious, too different from what would seem serious for an animal's entire species name.

If I don't want to use this term, how many other swould I not want to use There seems to be some strong compelling force that is not in awareness about simply "learning" what the environment offers where it is social, and this includes unreflectively simply absorbing words, as if the words really are the better words to use.

Some words simply weren't good coinages, and some words have not been operationalized as I mentioned long ago, an(actually that would be most words or a large supply of them), and recently, I've written about how concepts have not been mathified.

This indicats that there could be a need for overhaul of the language, for reasons that don't have to do with the words having pleasant sounds, or sufficient seriousness, and so on. This would be a cause for wantin to leave a language, start a new one, or evolve it in another direction. It is probably a cause of the less deliberate and gradual updating of languages, spawning of dialects, and creation slowly of new languages. What I' talking about doing, is more deliberate, although there is not enough time to really ake a project tha tcould succeed out of it. Obviously creating a new population of thinkers in another language seems infeasible then, and probably it would have been infeasibly to do it in a planned way a long time ago. Forking and separation of people s for other reasons with soem of these reasons included seems a better explanation.

This would mean that path splitting, and isolation of separate paths, are probably a better explanation of cultural advancement than decisions to do so, because the decision to do so simply involves an infeasable undertaking. Or the reasons were other reasons with only some of these playing a role. 

There are some consequences to this additional idea, that evolution is a better explanation of other splits in humanity and not just speciation as we normally think about as being associated with the subject matter. Any undertaking that is not a feasible project, must be a split of sorts for other reasons, which could not be very project like entirely, or with sufficient plans, and so this spliting would be an evolutionary process that concerns the hyman mind les than it may seem.

Path splits at the mall level or larger level as being evolutionary process related and nto really project decision related.

I thin kthere are some large scale projects done by nations and militaries, and so I don't pretend there are not large projects, but there is nevertheless something to this idea that many large forks and small forks that seem to be project or goal related are more rationalized as suc over time adn really were due to more mindless processes and catalysis. Even if colonialism were large projects, it may be due to similar evolutionary processes than feasible plans in advance.

*543 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769444308, Monday, January 26, 2026 09:18:28, United States of America*

*Written in 525 seconds. 555 words. Typespeed: 63.420 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="a-humorous-question-and-answer-i-posted-on-quora:-i-replaced-talking-to-my-parents-with-ai-and-already-my-life-is-much-better.-i-feel-like-i-am-living-more-independently-like-i-don't-need-them.-what-do-you-think?">A Humorous Question and Answer I Posted On Quora: I replaced talking to my parents with AI and already my life is much better. I feel like I am living more independently like I don't need them. What do you think?</a>

*541 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769265586, Saturday, January 24, 2026 07:39:46*, United States of America

Humor | Artificial Intelligence | The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Parenting | Education | Com

Being charitable to you as a thinker, formulating a question that is of great importance to yourself and others too, making it worthwhile to respond respectfully, I will assume you have a level of maturity that would really make it possible for you to live as independently as you say you could. Suspecting you would be able to live independently would suggest that you can do most tasks on your own without their support, and in that case, in a number of ways, you are as autonomously behaving as the most foolish of adults in the least, and possibly as well as many free adults who are more average. Of course these are assumptions, but perhaps they are fair ones, since why else would you ask? Knowing that AI immediately answers questions that one has such that one can refine questions and ask more and more of them getting quick responses, and since the quality of the answers are usually equated to a higher intelligence level, I think you may really be having conversations that are dramatically better than the conversations could be with parents or really anyone else who is living. If you are spending a lot of time with AI asking questions routinely without any embarassment and you are getting answers to questions for which others are often really talking about, then you are probably increasing the quality of your mind at a rate that was impossible for generations earlier, and certainly impossible given the poor quality of my own parents question answering ability. They simply didn’t know what even teachers would teach in school, and AI, being able to answer like all teachers in school, is like having all teachers at home, and having all teachers at home is certainly better than having the worse of parents, or even those that are average. It seems to me that it may really not be absurd that you could just ignore your parents from now on, and ignore what others think, because other prejudicially will act like you have to respect whatever parents you have, but it is already believed that most in the world are morally deficient or are only of slightly above average IQ or less, and so having a better parent in the form of AI that can talk endlessly to you without any shame creation, will enable you to have a better life than any tribesman of history. This choice would not prevent you from having a better life from the tribesman of history, so the choice dictates that others will respect it. It dictates that your parents would respect it, because how absurd is it, that they’ll quickly respect the lives of the impoverished worldwide but not your independence to use AI to bypass their ignorances to a better life they wanted you to have.

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


## <a name="example-lessness-with-more-superior-intelligence,-and-desire-from-others-to-dwell-on-what-good-examples-would-show">Example-lessness With More Superior Intelligence, and Desire From Others To Dwell On What Good Examples Would Show</a>

*539 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769098330, Thursday, January 22, 2026 09:12:10, United States of America*

A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Education | Logic | Mathematics

Considering mathematics, there is a desire to arrive at general conclusions in which examples can quickly come to mind, but without the examples being needed to be stated.

A more intelligent mathematician eventually does not want to keep writing down examples of things, and instead wants to have formulae taht are expressive intuitively of what exampels would exist sometimes including infiniite examples.

Much of what they do, is avoidance of writing examples, and anytime they write an expression that is supposed to have very wide applicability, they provide as a rule almost no examples, of what examples there would be.

And they even try to find proofs that they think include all examples.

Likewise much of my reasoning involves generaliztions and educated comclusions that simply utilize experience inclusive of many examples, with an obviousness to me, that is akin to the obviousness that exist sin some math, that there is not a need of examples and that examples are easy enough to come up with, and that for the statements they are huge in quantity.

This is not the very best of analogies, but it is still the case, that as weith mathematics, one can make arguments, which doeo not requiring a statement of examples.

This is whwere other writers have used the concept of common sense. In order to avoid having to build examples and well on a subject too long, they will say that what is discussed obviously does have examples, adn taht this would be common understanding and common knowledge.

Knowing that people simply don't know what common sense is supposed to ... knowing that they conflict on this point, inidicating that common sense is not common, as others have said, and knowing that this is just a cliche phrase too, I don't think people will immediately know the eamples are easily had or would really show what is needed.

But that also masn giving the examples would not necessarily arrive in an audience understanding that the example is one; because without common sense, there can be no example, that would fit a common expectation. Therefore there can be no example that all would agree regarding.

Examples serve a couple purposes. One is to help people who cannot understand understand better. I think the people who are needing examples are those who oftentimes cannot think as effectively, or are less intellligente, or have less eexperience. I am sometimes needing examples myself, and obviously almost everyone does when learning math. So it's not like examples are never needed. But there are times when examples simply are not instrumentaal.

Putting this writting another waway, I think there is a need, for those who are smarter, to have some way of finding, methodically, when examples are instrumental or not, and this would realate to deciding who to converse with or not.

So some writings of mine, will have to decide that some examples are not worth providing, because they are not instrumental enough, if I include too broad an audience.

*539 Wanattomians, Epoch 1769098808, Thursday, January 22, 2026 09:20:08, United States of America*

*Written in 478 seconds. 500 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="physical-history-contains-other-subjects,-and-since-the-stories-told-keep-using-this-outer-scale,-while-inner-subjects-use-inner-scales,-the-writing-pattern-becomes-too-repetitive">Physical History Contains Other Subjects, And Since The Stories Told Keep Using This Outer Scale, While Inner Subjects Use Inner Scales, The Writing Pattern Becomes Too Repetitive</a>

*537 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768911493, Tuesday, January 20, 2026 05:18:13, United States of America*

History | Learning | Education | Reading | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

I Subjects covering history have become too repetitive in their treatment of the subject from what they think is the beginning to the present day. They use the same stories told again and again about the origins of the earth, its early development, the emergency of animals and primordial humans, the same inforamtion about the fossil record, early human tribal groups as hunter-gatherers, repeated emergence of agriculture, and so on to modern times.

This makes it so people telling stories of each nation, repeat the same information. Likewise, for any study that has a developmental aspect, there will be a physical history to whihch it correspondes, and once taht developmental context is written about, it appearas once again as just the familiar pattern.

This seems like it may apply to much writing including writing that might not be expected because development within the world of programming ahs been shown to have an easily discernable repetition and pattern as well, which is applicable to most things in nature.

The very newest writings in technoogy, if they do not focus on the history, and the development from primordial time, fitting into physical history, will not have as much of this annoying repeated story.

But notice, as soon as it is made clear how ti does fit in with history, it does fit into that same pattern, and again, it becomes a bit annoying.

This suggest to me that bordedom of civilization will result, and taht there is a diminishing return on thinking apparent here too, as civilization improves.

It doesn't appear that diminishing return of thinking would apply only to individuuals, although that is what I fouses on in my studies. I shouldn't say in my studies, in my ideation and dissertative sharings. If on the individual level it is applicable, and appliacable to all, then there would be some aggregate effect.

Culturally, history will become a very boring story, and it won't be boring just for human histories of events that are political but for anything fitting into thistory that itself has a history and is developmental. The storyies will be told too many times, and as people become more intelligent, and see the same scaling in writing, within the subject matter of the writing I mean, on a chronology, they will get frustrated with seeing it so often, and this frustration relates to an unfortunate and fortunate (probably not the best way to put it) situation, that the repetitiveness meant there was some non-recognition of an issue, and the issue was that it was known. Like taking the same math courses again and again, or learning the same introductory material in college, as one goes from one ledegree level to the next.

Many college students are aware that material from disciplines was too repeated from early education into late college years, as if the historical story or developmental stories, within those disciplines, too often fit into, how the authors would think about it, so at an advanced level, the introductory material was explained again. Sometimes this was helpful, but sometimes it caused frustration, that related to the fact that, it was true that there was a poverty of informaiton.

Culturally it appears we will see that history is being repeated as is because no additional facts can be ascertained. I should say few. This results in a stagnation of the development story. This stagnation means there will be a stagnation in the devleopment story for any are of development. Also, we will see more clearly the reasons why our story is not changing, and its that we cannot have access to the information needed to improve the story. Due to lies in history, simply not having historical data, not having acccess to the past primarily, and so on. All has to be inferred, and the inferences will become less I think in many domains, while in others will expand, but even in those domains the story will be come too repetitive.

I think inferences into causes and timelines of astronomy might get better, but also, after these timelines are improved, the access issue continues to exist, and funamental trust is not necessarily attained, and either way, the story becomes so well known, it is as if every book written could start out with astronomical genesis.

This explains more broadly why history has become uninteresting to me, adn why national histories annoyingly simply tell the same schematic history told by others. People are also lazily thinking they are telling good histories while they use the pattern schema others also know, to the effect that even if they are telling history well, it is the same history already known, such that many people culd tell th eschema as history too, and intersetingly skip over stories of nations more, because one can simply imagine that it iwill be similar in development oto other nations.

Justification of more history resembling other history becomes a subject of interest.

Now, taking this to be also about development in other areas, we can see also, why careers also becomes tiresome and frustrateing, and experienced people see the patterns again and again, about how those areas of life have developmed and function, and learning the operations of one company may seem too like the operations of another, making them all uninteresting. There is a pattern to business such that corporations are expdected to be corporations, to have hierarchies, to have stages of development, and so on, making the actual details of businesses less interesting.

Which areas of development will not have a timeline and a history?

It seems to follow also that this will apply to all learning and explanations of learning adn even lives, and living autobiographies.

While I'm writing my living autobiography, I am the develompent of a human and there is a schema in which one could steriotypically but somewhat accurately know what my life would be like a; s a human during a stage of physical hystory. In a way biographies are less interesting, and now that I htink about tit, I should have known that and used that already.

Think about the developmental story of a child through puberty into adulthood, into getting a job, thorough middle age and later, and it seems taht most milestones, and sequences, are so similar between people, that really there is less interest in knowing abotu any individual knowing already what their life would be like.

This doesn't take aweay from wanting to know more about people as one live, at least not completely, but does show that that is all that one is doing very largely, getting those differences in the details while disregarding that much is so similar, that it is only the details that are now of interest.

What is new and interesting, adn give specifics, and what is adventurous and outside the norm, adn really is this all in a familiar pattern too, even in these details?

I think there is a contradiction in that it does actually make life less interesting.

I was talking about the return of thinking as a diminishing thing, and obviously that would be applicable to human relationships. The observations that this is actually beneficial to an individual too in many was can help one redirect from some negative nthinking about changes that would result from thinking that human life grwots less interesting knowing the developmental patterns.

First understand what is true, then one can see what is postitive about it, and typically there is much athat ispostive about it.

I think there is more to say about this later, about the value of relationships and getting additional stimulation, because additional stimulation will also be subject to diminishing return and one can decide if the treturn is worth it or not. Taht is also the same choice as deciding if one would like to continue living or not in old age.

If one lives long enough, that decision may become more on the side of death than on life, if there is just not enough that is interesting.

Obviously our lives are partly deterministtically directed to include learning, which I won't calaim shas impllicit value, apart from some other possibel natural consequences I can think of. But either way, learning happens for all animals with brains, and to a large extent to plants, although the learning takes the form of physical growth patterns responsive to conditions, with tstored structure as a result, athat tells its developmental history.

So learning, for all humans too, will really be important as long as there are humans, and learning decreases with time as it is of interest and important to a person, and seems to approach a finality of in that there is enough known and all else ins inaccessible, and much of this can be knwon at different levels to different people of differnt abilities in satisfying ways for each.

So most will live long, want to continue learning, decide if details are useful further and further, until one decide if hedonism in the repeated pattern is desirable still.

*537 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768912818, Tuesday, January 20, 2026 05:40:18, United States of America*

*Written in 1325 seconds. 1508 words. Typespeed: 68.280 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-only-explanation-of-why-you-hear-reused-quotes-is-that-people-never-heard-them-from-the-source,-and-plagiarized-someone-else">The Only Explanation Of Why You Hear Reused Quotes Is That People Never Heard Them From The Source, And Plagiarized Someone Else</a>

*536 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768834544, Monday, January 19, 2026 07:55:44, United States of America*

Writing | Editing | Com | Relationships | History

For any particular quote that has been heard a large number of times, if you look at who the speaker was, or wrriter, you'll see that definitely the writing from that person was inaccessible to everyone, for a large number of quoted authors.

Using common sense, if one sees someone quoting another famous author, or one from history, one has to think or might think why did this quotation get chosen from all that was in the original text?

If you read a book and it is one hundred thousand pages long, do you choose the same single sentence to quote as another person?

Really if there were a comparison of what you read, and what someone else read, there wouldn't be an overlap of books so often, but there is an overlap of books, and overlap of the small amount of text from the large quantity of words?

The cause of this is really, s omeone read the book, quoted it, and if quoted correctly, then it was copied over and over, until you or someone else quoted it too.

Quoting is weird plagiarism, combined with pretending to read. If you quote someone, and the quote was something you heard and you did not red the original material, which was inaccessible to you probably, then it can only be plagiarism. Even word for oword exacct plagiarism, and, you didn't read any of the work. You pretended to kow the author too, to have some social elevation from them.

From this I can see that quoting is really one of the more horrible uses of someone else's writing and speech. Unless you quote something different from the original source that you read. In that case it is pretty respectful and really what the wrter (writer) would hope for.

*536 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768834817, Monday, January 19, 2026 08:00:17, United States of America*

*Written in 273 seconds. 298 words. Typespeed: 65.460 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="mathosphere,-mathnahture,-mathnuhverse,-mathterlife,-is-it-these-or-you-disbelieve">Mathosphere, Mathnahture, Mathnuhverse, Mathterlife, Is It These Or You Disbelieve</a>

*536 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768807622, Monday, January 19, 2026 00:27:02, United States of America*

Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Ontology | Epistemology

I don't think it's been notied by the scientific dconnuminities and those in mathematics, exepting maybe some few on some occasions, that there hasn't been a commitment to any mathification of the universe.

Mathematical realists do exist, and of course would be willing to commit to some view that the universe is mathematical. I am aware there are people who think this way, and slo that the idea of the Doctrine of the Forms, since plato and before, is related to this view that the universe is a Mathnuhverse.

The words above are playful coinages that I will use going forward, to in a testful fashion, assume that the worl dhas really accepted what it pretends to be true. Not only do these people who agree with mathematical realism hold a position like this, but everyone who think sand learns about math having an underlying representation of nature think s it and assumes it a bit too.

But with some contraddiction partly inadvertant they use concepts that point more to substances of teh senses and less towards the mathematical. When I think of the earth for example, I think of elements (actually visible elements when combined), animals, plansts, people and things that are substance like.

This is what other people are doing whether thiy think they are or not, in some way, because the conepts simply do not have mathematical connotations, and instead have the connotations of touch, vision, sense, and so on, from experience, at the time of learning, like a primate organism.

If we became so well acquainted with mathematics that the mathematics blends with the experience, and we can reinterpret and change somewhat our concepts to include the mathematical thinking, then we wil lhave arrive dat a linguistic state in which assumptions about celestial objects are mathematical in large measure.

If we think already that this is what it is, but have not done this conceptual work, then I would think at an early stage, which should be now or earlier, we'd have changes of the names of terms to emphasize math's role, and maybe emphasize it too many times, to really make it clear what is ahppening, and of course I mean some humor as well with that.

In the title, I have written that we can conceive of some of the things for which we have words as the mathosphere, mathnature ,mathnuhverse, and wevern a mathterlife, if we take it seriously enough.

There is no distinction between being a thinker that interacts in the wrolds, and a scientist or student of nature, and a religionist thinking about nature to come, and the same people, crossing over from one domain of thinking to the next, can resume and continue thinkign about the various mathnifications. 

I am aware of the word mathematiztion.

*536 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768808106, Monday, January 19, 2026 00:35:06, United States of America*

*Written in 484 seconds. 465 words. Typespeed: 57.600 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-mathematical-treatment-of-acknowledgements-and-credits-has-not-existed,-even-in-acknowledgements-and-credits-in-works-of-mathematicians">A Mathematical Treatment of Acknowledgements and Credits Has Not Existed, Even In Acknowledgements and Credits In Works of Mathematicians</a>

*533 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768567810, Friday, January 16, 2026 05:50:10, United States of America*

Relationships | Com | Evaluative Concepts | Acknowledgements | Merits | Social Justice

Writing today about acknowledgements in my new universal section on taht subject brought me to a reaslization, that like other places, mathematics has not had influence the way we would have wanted. If we (I mean other people) were able to think of it.

Since acknowledgements is about very fundamentally recordging and tellign the story abotu what people did, and how they have merit in relation to what they did, in works that would appear in archives, greater development upon the method of doing this would have been arrived at if people cared.

Instead people were far too traditional in their approach.

Obviously, looking at this subject briefly, quantifyying the size of the effort to arrive at a complete recording of the situation and what the situation wuld consist of would require a mathematical thinking and output.

Right now, as I appraoch Acknowledgements I feel I have to do this from scratch, using of course, some maths that do actually have relation to the structure of the topic by analogy. But there is no example as far as I know, and I have witnessed and expect that there woudl be nothing.

Also, it is strange again, taht mathematicians, would not have mathematized this or the sturucture of texts in a variety of ways. Where is the math being applied, again, I say, to the math discipline?!

*533 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768568024, Friday, January 16, 2026 05:53:44, United States of America*

*Written in 214 seconds. 226 words. Typespeed: 63.360 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="if-you-had-a-list-of-all-the-books-you-would-read-now,-it-would-be-a-short-list">If You Had A List Of All The Books You Would Read Now, It Would Be A Short List</a>

*532 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768513801, Thursday, January 15, 2026 14:50:01, United States of America*

Education | Learning | Property and Organization | Stimulation Cultivation | Entertainment Cultivation | Relationships

Not long ago I had a very large book collection, and there is no way I would have been able to read each copy of each book I had.

I was just now seeing an image from another person in social media of a library with many books, spanning a number of levels of a building. This is a common thing to share from book enthusiasts. Wouldn't it be nice to have a library of books that's very extensive or access to one or a number that is beautiful?

Thinking recdently about cultivation of stimulating entertainment sources and sources of learning, I have been interested in the smaller list of usable materials one can have on (in) one's possession, and keep organized, and maybe recall or easily manage.

For each category of learning and entertainment there is just a small list of items that can be experienced.

Even thinking of all the films I have seen, which is a large number, I think the number is not really too unmanageable for listing. If I kept a list of all the ovies, I think it would be shockingly smaller than expected.

Sort of like the list of the number of days one had in one's life, on paper it just doesn't look like that much and not too much to have written down.

Likewise one would have all writtten down, in a list, or in diaries, all the main activities one was involved in and obviously then, one could have a list of all the films seen, and books read, etc..

I at one point collected the movie tehter ticket stubs from movies I would watch and while I accumulated a large amount, it was not so much that it didn't only occupy a small space, in a small plastic bag.

Anyway, awhat I am thinking about is how we can enjoy this large library bookshelf vision but not be realistic about what we can really read in a lifetime.

In the large quantity of books one might like to see, one would only have time to experience a few.

Isn't it a bit disturbing to think that one would like to spend time in a massive library with many books but just keep choosing the same book over and over for reading until completion in that location? Or if one was to go through and look book to book, to see a bit of something new and interesting, to see it is not worth the time, or to only give it a small amount of time, wanting more, but not being able to return to it?

One could look at many of them and get a lot and decide not to read further, which has a strangeness in the intention to me. Now it seems a little ignorant, while I know it also permist of exploration. For my purposes travelin g a lot, it isn't really making sense to own a large amount of books or to be spending time in a library such as these, unless I just enjoy it once or a few times in a new location.

Anyway, back to the present subject, the small list of books that can be read, I think if one knew the list of all the books that one would read and could read, it would seem very short, and would make it seem not realllly particularly interesting any longer to see large groups of books together or to have libraries really.

The bulk of the time actually spent was just spent on what seemed worthwhile and not on everything else, or looking at all the others. Much of the books are not particularly worthwhile taht were not read, which is why they were not selected partly, and many don't go read, and one will spend time attending only to those book sthat actually went into the reading list.

This will mean one did not really attend like one thought to the other books. If one looks at the time allocation a large number of hours was dedicated to the items on the reading list as if the other items looked at were entirely exclusded, and if entirely excludeed they could just be excluded.

I say this even as a book owner who had many titles of interest to look at a nd have some time with, but knowingly now that really that amount o ftime spendt is not justifying of either the ownership of the book, or the enjoyment of them at a distance.

Being more interested in cultivating for later what I will read over what I will not, there are two topics of interest, firstly finding what is really needed for learning what is needed given my learning direction and projects, and secondly what will I wan t to read given a need for exploration and a want of something new and not known in advance to be waht might be wanted.

Over time, I notice taht there is less that I would simply want to explore.

This means reallly mot of what I would read can be cultivated in advance.

Additional reading would probably come from online sources on an as needed basis for simply knowing what is needed momentarily or what i sof curiosity briefly.

So I think most of waht would be on my short list of things to be reading and learning about can already simply be put into my list now. 

Comparing the list of books I am planning to read or have thought about reading it is really short being now constrained to what is of most interest for my development, and each text would take a long while to appreciate thoroughly and to gain what is needed, and most are technical or slightly more difficult than what I would usually read before.

Thse would be mathematics texts and scientific texts and a few references.

Since each would take a long tiem to read, and not a short time, the list of titles is even more compact now than before. This means I really should be able to remember, and easily manage a list, and record a list, of these books, and this is very unakin to a huge library or bookstore worth of texts.

*532 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768514725, Thursday, January 15, 2026 15:05:25, United States of America*

*Written in 924 seconds. 1043 words. Typespeed: 67.680 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="i'm-learning-how-to-enjoy-staying-longer-in-my-mancoon">I'm Learning How To Enjoy Staying Longer In My Mancoon</a>

*532 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768449953, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 21:05:53, United States of America*

Livelihood | Property and Organization | Health | Fitness | Relationships | Com

A mancon is a cocoon for humans, especially for boys and also for men. Girls can be forced to use mancoons too.

*532 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768449991, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 21:06:31, United States of America*

*Written in 38 seconds. 22 words. Typespeed: 34.680 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="running-out-of-plausible-hypotheses-and-ideas-with-truth-expecation-when-knowledge-is-complete-or-when-observation-and-knowledge-is-out-of-possibility">Running Out Of Plausible Hypotheses And Ideas With Truth Expecation When Knowledge Is Complete Or When Observation And Knowledge Is Out Of Possibility</a>

*531 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768400954, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 07:29:14, United States of America*

Interdisciplinary Science | Logic | Knowledge

In any area where knowledge is of very good quality, and seems complete, we don't really hypotehsize anymore. That's because we know what is happening. Isn't it a strange thing that we do not form hypotheses, for what we know already? Why is that the case, especially when we know overhaul happens? 

There are two reasons. One is because where knowledge is real, hypteses formation becomes more worthless. Secondly, where overhaul happens is hard to see, and those who can see with mor edetail, will see that knowledgeis less than thought, and in that case new hypotheses are instrumental. But it is true that instrumentality is less and less, and where knoweldge is better hyptheses just are not needed.

So we have one domain in which hypotheses go away. When knoweldge is complete, there are no more hypotheses.

Now, there is also an area where hypotheses is not useful, and that is where there is no possible observation or possibel way to investigate, or have experience. This is where we cannot even infer or trust inferences to yield information, or where we should know that. 

In these areas people come up with religious explnationas. They come up with silly hypotheses, and are unable to see that what they ideate is really what they have experienced and not what they have not, and they put it where it doesn't go. They form bad hypotheses. This is what I staed earlier about how we can know religion is false in many important points. The hypotheses were always bad ones. Instantly discountable, forever without need to think further about.

Children know it when they hear the ideas ofentimes. A person created everything, or a person like thing? Obviously it doesn't sound right.

We cannot observe into the creation of things, and we didn't decide which creations were of interest, when, and to what etxtent, and instead of imaginging processes of nature creasulting in certain entities, they started making stories of people from what they were familiar with, in tribal tims, with tribal minds. These were always bad hypotheses.

There are two ways to know. Firstly the hypotheses simply are obvioiusly fictions, having qualities analogical to literature, but not to unobservable reality, where there are no analogies. Fictions really do have tells, and we know what they are like. Humans have come to think that certain fictions are true, because elders forced it upon them.

And because some usuperstitious few insancely thougth there were actual truths in the fictions, apart from otehr symbolic or mythical benefits that may have existed.

But the fictions are used to explain where there can be no observatinos. We cannot see outseid eof the universe or before the universe, or at presetn to a really small scale, and if we try to form hypotheses about any of these we look like we are just creating silly fictions. And that is another sign, that that is what the earlier people did, because what other information would they have had, for more superior answers. Yet oddly, current people thought they would have superior answers.

The title appears correct. There are two domains in which hypotheses are not useful and will not exist as plausible answers, and thats where knowledge is complete, and where it is outside of possiblity.

*531 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768401488, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 07:38:08, United States of America*

*Written in 534 seconds. 547 words. Typespeed: 61.440 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="infinitesimal-naming-is-an-absurdity-because-what-must-be-named-must-exist">Infinitesimal Naming Is An Absurdity Because What Must Be Named Must Exist</a>

*531 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768400209, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 07:16:49, United States of America*

Mathematics | Language | Interdisciplinary Science | Physics | Logic | Truth and Honesty | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

Measurement as I said in my mathematics can appear to be used at any scale, but practically we know that it is hard at very small scales, and then past those levels, in the very small things, it does not appear appplicable. Here is where infinitesimal mathematics is not appearing to make sense.

However, in the motion of things, it seems there could be continuities, although I challenge that. Discretenesses of things may not transalte to discretenesses of motion, which may not quite relate, although I think the discreteness of things infects potentially how we observe motions.

More must be examined here.

What I wanted to talk about though, is that likewise, as we look at smaller and smaller things, naming appears to come to an end. In the expectation that all phenomena would be reduced, to some mall number o fadditional unknown entities in addition to all those we have named and perhaps with some alteraations as to what the entity set includes, we will run out of entities to name. This implies there will be nothing else to name, so infinitesimally, we don't have naming. 

It seems infinitesimally here in the physics in the inute things we have to aslo admit, with the running out of things that exist, and things to name, there are not things to measure. 

Measurement on my view is related to naming, although I don't want to give all that away here or discuss it compeltely here. I want t save some for the mathematics text later.

So there is a possible path in infinitesimals to smaller and smaller movements o f things, but pmaybe not spatially regarding things and their sizes, and even here there is some relation, but there appaers nevertheless to be alarge difference. I may not be able to go more mineutely easuring individuals things and their isizes, but I may be able to go much more minutely regarding their positions and change of positions.

Where exactly are teh infinitesimals supposed to apply, in physics or anywhere? Notice that measurement creates an illusion that measurement can go on indefinitely, even in the domain of physical objects, if we don't already know in advance, where they terminate and how far it goes in reduction. WE suspect though, it doesn't go too much further than what we know, since what we know, hasis approaching the xplanatory power we think would exist, having such knowledge. 

So infinitesimals are if we use math seen where they would not be, which indicates mathematical thinkign is flawed, and that we always at all times to sanity check this thinking, require a physics perspective, or simply looking at reality. If there are infinitesimals relating to motion, then that would indicated soem truth or even total truth to it as it applies there, but we would then need to state it is false everywhere else, which would mean probably, the matheamaticaians minda s it related to it earlier was mostly false.

Finding it applies in one domain but that it is false everhwere else is a serious error.

The view that there would be an ideal mathematical universe apart from such confiphhy (physical) underpinnings appears on this point to have less justification.

*531 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768400771, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 07:26:11, United States of America*

*Written in 562 seconds. 535 words. Typespeed: 57.060 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="analogies-are-sometimes-used-symbolically-in-ways-functioning-as-gap-filler,-for-supposed-realities,-some-representations-are-imagined,-but-are-incomplete-or-are-not-existing,-and-the-person-has-trouble-finding-other-summaries">Analogies Are Sometimes Used Symbolically In Ways Functioning As Gap Filler, For Supposed Realities, Some Representations Are Imagined, But Are Incomplete Or Are Not Existing, and The Person Has Trouble Finding Other Summaries</a>

*531 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768398507, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 06:48:27, United States of America*

Art | Literature | Symbols | Representation | Truth | Analogy | Logic | Mathematics | Language | Ontology

What I am trying to sumarize here is actually still a simple idea. It is this. That when someone wants to communicate something they fin dto be complex that has not been communicated, there is much to say in areas for which representation s might not be existing.

So they try to represent something for which no representation exists yet, so far as they know.

They are new to creating this representation, and maybe new to the better form s of represetnation, and the arts of those creations.

Multimedia may be best, and that requires more skill still.

Time and effort are needed.

So instead more rudimdentary styles of comunication are used.

Borrowings from other ways of expressing are also used.

The explanation of the complex thing not easily and clearly seen is stated with images or with words in a condensed form, which fills the gap in communication.

So it fills or creates a bridge between ways of discussing, and representations, that are existing.

With not very much time, for example, someone might talk about evolution, as being a scale from fish life to mammal.

Now how tdo they explain this reality?

Of course they do not have access to the information needed to provide a good gap filling, or knowledge filling, summary of what is happening. For example, a real time lapse of the entire evolution on some set of relevant example visuals of nature.

Lacking that, the next best thing, or another useful way which is better to say, would be to animate the sequence.

But the knowleege gap is too large, and what hte person is trying to talk about simply can't have that knowlege, yet has part, which is something of the development from basic to complex, from marine to land.

In the person's head, if the person is in the age of Darwin, or in our age, thre is somet information missing, and what has to be used to fill the gap instead, is some representation of what is foggily seen, but with key realities that are adequate in some ways.

So some way of easy communication using words or pictures is used instead, to summarily fill the gap.

Notice that the quality has degraded with the lack of knoweledge, and that the person relies on a representation that seems to be more dubious, more artful perhaps, and more creative, then precise. 

I asaid above they are poor representations compared with other summaries.

The other summaries would be like a set of time lapse images or videos of actual evolutions on earth, like if a camera was watching, or something almost the same that is a reconstruction in video of the same or similar.

Instead they use something of poorer quality, not having video, like in the history of some ideas expressed in visuals, animations are used.

Creative expression is used in lack of better represenation. These representations not being what exists, are analogies for what exists.

An analogy for what exists is a symbol fthat is defined as what is representated. Some concepts and repressentations and analogies have poor definitions, or I should say, are more ambiguous, and that is beause, they represent analgiecially information with too many gaps.

If I have a time lapse analogy to the evolution of animals from the beginning of Earth to the Platypus including some direct line of lineage, then I have an accurate concept because what it designates is clearly real and has much detail. It is not as full as somethign that includes more earth data however, for context.

But if we look at a poorly made video, then we will see we have a concept, that is constructed of truish entitties (I have to explain this later), parts of it point to rougher information, and parts point to what does not exist, but overall, the conept points to much less in reality, ansd so the definition of this analogy or concept is of lesser quality.

When people are using symbols, arts, and so on, to convey what is missing, like someone trying to explain everolutionary theory, including the works of Charles Darwin, there are poorer analogies, in teh context of difficulty finding other analogies, in the context of having less information, for which to have a pemore exacting representation, like one using technnology.

This is obvious in that learning mrelates to scaling of knowlege and availability of information.

Brain matter then weill analogically relate to relatiy and be defined by it, with some being false and some being true, and of increasingly good quality as more information is gained.

What is interesting about honest and truthful minds, of high intelligence, is that in the lack of information, is good identification of important consitutent realities, in which they can see the gap fills that must exist, knowing what knowledge to expect but without detail, and presenting artfully anwith writing and words, a better picture of what exists more inclusviely of what is not known in detail. It provides a lower fiidelity but high quality picture with absences of information. This is what evolutionary theory still is today.

But evolutionary theory is just a large analogy to nature. Then there are analogies to other analogies. At the moment I do not see special reasons for thinking ananalogies wshould be restricted to cnoceptual comparisons, but instead think conceptual comparisons compared with actual reality is suffciently analogical too. Analogiy is more powerful and reductive thinking about tit this way.

*531 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768399434, Wednesday, January 14, 2026 07:03:54, United States of America*

*Written in 927 seconds. 911 words. Typespeed: 58.920 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="non-animal-like-or-complex-appearing-objects-in-space-seems-to-imply-developmental-limitations-in-the-universe,-lack-of-development-happening-in-the-universe,-or-boringness-in-possibility-in-the-universe-at-macro-celestial-scale,-which-seems-apparent-anyways">Non Animal-Like Or Complex Appearing Objects In Space Seems To Imply Developmental Limitations In The Universe, Lack Of Development Happening In the Universe, Or Boringness In Possibility In The Universe At Macro Celestial Scale, Which Seems Apparent Anyways</a>

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768232258, Monday, January 12, 2026 08:37:38, United States of America*

Cosmology | Nature | Interdisciplinary Science | Astronomy

Recording for now

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768232262, Monday, January 12, 2026 08:37:42, United States of America*

*Written in 4 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 45.000 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="being-able-to-see-something-implies-what-is-seen-has-a-homeostasis-or-statis-of-some-kind">Being Able To See Something Implies What Is Seen Has A Homeostasis or Statis Of Some Kind</a>

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768232101, Monday, January 12, 2026 08:35:01, United States of America*

Cosmology | Physics | Nature | Interdisciplinary Science | Linguistics | Language | Naming | Mathematics | Numbering | Ontology | Taxonomy

Recording for tnow

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768232107, Monday, January 12, 2026 08:35:07, United States of America*

*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.*

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


## <a name="merit-for-brain-tissue-you-are-not-using-now-appears-to-actually-be-somewhat-error-ridden">Merit For Brain Tissue You Are Not Using Now Appears To Actually Be Somewhat Error Ridden</a>

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768185932, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:45:32, United States of America*

Human Shortcomings | Merit | Evaluative Concepts | Relationships | Identity

Did I do what I thought I did, or did I not?

The self-liar is already a person who really cannot quite take credit for what exists elsewhere in the brain unused.

There are parts of the brain that counterfault other parts.

What is existing elsewhere or thought to exist, may have vannished, as I said on my statements about dying.

Some philosophers have talked about how history has merely been a dream, or life has been created recently, with the knowledge in place. The entire configuration of the world just appepared.

These are not really believed, but still provide useful ways of thinking imaginatively.

But the post itself is serious, and so is the view that maybe there is a kind of social alignment happening, intracranially, where you now, as activity and configuration of some portion of the brain, to be more clearly determnined neuroscientifically... One is trying to at that time, as that part of the brain, have merits of other parts of the brain, which are not being confirmed to be true or existing, and if exists are old.

As I said in the prior post, I can be old, and start to think I have the merits of stored brain built up from youth, that cannot be used, contains references to the past that are untrue of the present, and would cause others to be mislead about who I am actually, where the tissue is used, where it relates to what is present.

For example, I can think and remember my current face, with more used tissue. Then I can think about something from my history, and put myself into my old body and face, somewhat. So can I take credit for that earlier self, referenced by the other part of the brain less utilized, that I could not be sure I still had, until I tested the tissues?

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768186286, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:51:26, United States of America*

*Written in 354 seconds. 313 words. Typespeed: 53.040 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="social-alignment-with-self,-alignment-with-a-moment,-and-alignment-with-before,-and-merit">Social Alignment With Self, Alignment With A Moment, and Alignment With Before, And Merit</a>

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768184014, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:13:34, United States of America*

Merit | Evaluative Concepts | Relationships | Identity | Human Shortcomings | Economics | Constraint and Determinism

Alignments of various kind in the social world are fallaciiously used for people to increase the pereptions about their merits.

Sometimes there ar earguments for merit increases on the basis of social sckill and results, but this is not the kind of social alignment I'm talking about. The kind I'm talking about is when someone simply presents a relationship so that one confuses the one for the other somewhat, so the self is increased by the other person. Like if one has a famous friend, then one thinks one self to be famous. 

There are other kinds of alignments that happen I noticed today.

Many of these alignments are alignments with oneself. For example, I think that since I was someone twenty years ago, I am that person now, or that I have by associatation the merit that person had.

It may not seem to be a fallacy, and there are times in which again, it can be shown that this kind of thinking does indicate merits in various ways, but I'm certain there are fallacies nevertheleess.

This becomes obvious when you are very old, and you are no longe r as goo das you were.

So as an old man or women, the beauty you had is not yours so you are just not hat beautiful or good looking. But of course, you're going to use that. Also, anything you did physically while young, like win and olympic metal, or anything else limpressive that you cannot do now, with a body not yours, you wil pretend you can still do. You may pretend y ou remember it. But in any case, you are like you are aligning to someone else even if it was really you before.

There is humorous intent in the above, but I'm being serious too. Immediatley one can see this is true, it's just the extent to be determined. I think the extent is extremely important and pervasive ,and where it is thought arguments ar ehad for merrit, it may be weaker than thought and really there may be fallacies. I think it will be somewhat rare to look at history and think the merits still exist.

For example, maybe the united states was a nation with some merits before. But if it had a head and was anything, if it looked back in time, it isn't that anymore. So therefore it doesn't have those merits. Rock lizard. QED.

From this we cn see the huge importance this obvservation has and of course it is dissertative, even if the way I am putting it is more human conversational.

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768184379, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:19:39, United States of America*

*Written in 365 seconds. 433 words. Typespeed: 71.160 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="people-have-been-tricked-into-being-the-performances-they-showed-up-for,-paying-to-be-crowds,-group-behaviors,-group-awe,-group-rituals,-and-groups">People Have Been Tricked Into Being The Performances They Showed Up For, Paying To Be Crowds, Group Behaviors, Group Awe, Group Rituals, and Groups</a>

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768183726, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:08:46, United States of America*

Relationships | Com | Rituals | Religion | Entertainment | Tricks | Business | Government

Simply recording the idea.

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768183732, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:08:52, United States of America*

*Written in 6 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 39.960 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="pilgrimate-to-mecca-became-a-repetitive-vacation-originally-for-the-mostly-vacationless,-and-missionary-work">Pilgrimate To Mecca Became A Repetitive Vacation Originally For The Mostly Vacationless, and Missionary Work</a>

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768183322, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:02:02, United States of America*

Outdoors and Adventure | Travel | Relationships | Religion | Environments

Early adventure, in the form of a pilgrimage is like a group tour to one destination, a single vacation that is allowed to one place, pretended to be the best place, to make it worthwhile and to make it the destination.

Mecca is like a disneyland with nothing.

Missionary work is also like vacation and colonialism but with more destinations. It's like multiple pilgrimaging, but to locations where the customers are instead of where the resort is. 

*529 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768183418, Sunday, January 11, 2026 19:03:38, United States of America*

*Written in 96 seconds. 77 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="for-an-older-topic-of-importance-to-arise,-someone-from-the-time,-or-a-smarter-person-must-bring-it-up,-else-it-won't-be-thought-by-anyone">For An Older Topic Of Importance To Arise, Someone From The Time, Or A Smarter Person Must Bring It Up, Else It Won't Be Thought By Anyone</a>

*528 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768116993, Sunday, January 11, 2026 00:36:33, United States of America*

Relationships | Intelligence | History | Archiving | Culture

The point here is that culture would be much reduced and will disappear, according to a pattern related to this ability and inability to bring subjects up again. Also, the thoughts of people, and in aggregate, is a smaller set, if this isn't happening.

*528 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768117044, Sunday, January 11, 2026 00:37:24, United States of America*

*Written in 51 seconds. 44 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="survival-of-babies-that-can-copy-later-because-they-exist">Survival of Babies That Can Copy Later Because They Exist</a>

*528 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768104749, Saturday, January 10, 2026 21:12:29, United States of America*

Relationships | Evolutionary Theory | Sexuality

Earlier I discussed the fact that reproduction is quite easy with humans, and recently, with a fairly low infant mortality, and also talked recently about how survival does not appear to be what people are trying to do, but instead they continue pretty easily.

Rather than struggling to live, and trying to survive, survival is assured mostly, and they are going to continue even if against their wishes.

Also there is the idea that the level of adaptation tehy have seems to exceed what circumstances require, meaning that contrary to some earlier thinking around Darwinism, life was and is pretty easy.

But what is missing from covnersations I've heard is more abbout infant mortality, although that topic would have been more central during Darwin's time. So it wcould be that people living today don't think of the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" quite in the way they did.

It could be a phrase a bit more about the survival of children. Even if that was not the earlier intent, it could be a very useful way to appraoch the subject to know a littel bit more, as a human who can forget our own living conditions, that the conditions exist whihch still relate.

(I lost a thought halfway thoughtth eprior sensence so it could be slightly off).

The ida here is that children simply are dying as babies, before birth, as toddlers, or simply as children. Today thi sseems to be very rare. As a student, I don't recall other students dying really ever. All of the kids unless perhaps there was one or two, were alive all of the way until graduation. Kids who moved away could have been ones who died without my knowing about it though. However, I think the majority really did just continue living and continued easily, wxcessively adapted to circumstances.

Survival of the fittest, may have been more about the strugggle for life as kids, in the context of disease, parental murder, abortion, and risks of getting killed or eaten while not being supervised, of drowning, of murder by other children and so on.

Some children might speak of a mortal strugggle. That would not be something I would e aware of.

Even in entertainment, in movies about kids struggling at school or around bulllies and dangerous family members, don't depict it as mrtal danger really. They depict it as annoying and physically risky at a small level, as it may create pain or some discomfort, but not death or major injury.

For example, a bully may cause fear of being hit, or embarassment. A dangerous family member may be a physical threat of bruising and so on, but probably not more. These movies do not show familieal mortal danger.

But maybe there is more of this than I think, and it doesn't go into movies. It must be continuing from history.

Aslo something that must still exist is danger of being murdered by parents.

Anyway, historicaly survival of the fittest would seem to be more aobviously about what may not be fittest, and that would be kids, who like in nature, are the easiest for predators, and most likely to die by accident not knowing enough. When I reflect on my life, it feels extremely like being the fitttest, never at any risk. Like those risks don't exist.

This does make sense of thephrase, as compared with say, survival of the fittest of any specimen, or of an adult, or of an entire species group and so on. The majority that exist are not struggling. Only the ones that are at an early age would make more sense for this kind of thinking, and since the sugject is related to reproduction, obviously the elderly and older people struggling are not included.

Most are reprodcucing just after maturity, meaning the risk of dying and not reproducing first is already over, and now immediately the reproduction happens.

So babies simply have to exist, then later continuing is easy, and as continuing is easy, reproduction happens naturally, from desire. It's not even seaxaul fitness that assures it, or some great power of individual. It is merely tht people continue and will have sex due to powerful desire that mor echildren arise.

But theis cannot happen, unless maturity is arrived at, meaning they live to say 13 years old or older, particlulry if we include old times, when marriage was far earlier. But still even if we include the current day, uch procreation globally, will be starting at this time, and be mostly between that time and the age of say 25 years old. Much reproduction happens after that, but a huge quantity happens in that time and is expected during that time. Demographics are needed her for verification.

But also, during that time, we admit, if someone has survived, they are probably continuing easily. So the next step is only reproducing, and not having special fitness.

The ages of interest for the fittest part of the discussion, is simply from conception to the moment of sexual maturity. Actually, it wouldn't even be until then, it would just be until it is obvious continuuing is easy and perhaps would happen even if unwanted. Or to the time, death of murder by parents is unlikelytoo.

The serious threats then happen when a child is living in the family, and historically this would have been severe apparently. The extent of the severeity must have been very large.

And now I'm recalling I worote a document of some significance about this that I need to recall. I believe it was about how peopl in history seemed to have more kids when kids were most likely to die, which seemed against good family planning.

Why woul done choose to have a child that is highly likely to die, for the sake of the child. It is not for the sake of the child. But there is more information babout this from that post that I do not yet remember.

*528 Wanattomians, Epoch 1768105770, Saturday, January 10, 2026 21:29:30, United States of America*

*Written in 1021 seconds. 998 words. Typespeed: 58.620 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="the-human-reluctance-and-omission-of-including-other-primates-is-because-they-know-they'll-recognize-their-resemblance,-but-also-ability-to-perform-the-same-tasks-and-many-times-better">The Human Reluctance and Omission Of Including Other Primates Is Because They Know They'll Recognize Their Resemblance, But Also Ability To Perform The Same Tasks And Many Times Better</a>

*524 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767795440, Wednesday, January 07, 2026 07:17:20, United States of America*

Zoology | Primatology | Anthropology | Relationships | Com | Livelihood | Work | Psychometrics | Performance | Psychology

What is the cause of the notable absence of having different kinds of primates in our lives?

Soem could be nice pets or family members. Some others could work. Some could be included in a variety of other ways, performing some functions in society. They could be visible, and if we care about their preservation, we'd care abotu makign sure they are protected from danger in nature where their habitats will be destroyed. To do that we could bring them nearer.

I think the reasons why we don't have them around relate to our fear that they are really as similar as we know them to be. By our I don't really include me, but, I think there is a general dislike, of seeing that these animals are so similar, and seeing that they actual do things beter than we do oftentimes. They are physically superior to us in many ways, while of ocourse we also have advantages. But the speed and dexterity and visual skill and speed of activity of many primates is way better, and in some large primates the strength is amazing. Even their anger and outbursts seems like what we see in our family situations.

Looking at them is less comfortable (or mor ecomforting depending), than looking at a dog or another pet, that is clearly inferior and clearly more unrelated. Becasue one doesn't want to be around a pert all the time that is like a retarded family member, and for those who are religious or haven't been able to adopt the scientific worldview that we are animals, it is a reminder of contracdictions over and over.

Also it shows to us that we are ore likely mortal like they are, and are as unadvances as they are, given how things weill be in time.

They also do jobs well, and in psychology it is known they outperform humans one some computer tasks, which show they can do lots of computer tasks better than us. This is not soemthing that has caused companies to hire them. I was reading a couple days ago that companies hire handicapped people and pay less than half the minimum wage.

Easily they could hire these primates and they wouldn't be handicapped. They would often do better.

Less managemenle maybe initially, and maybe in many ways in the logn term, but thafter we would come to understand them adn their needs, they would work within those nned and they would do well.

There alsrare also many kinds of priamates.

So some days we could see rat like people, then large gorilla people, then really long armed orangutan people, people who like to screeth loudly, and show their human like inner omouths, and we would see others that like to be in trees, looking like humans in trees. We would see really miniature fruit eating humans, and really just a huge variety of species variation s that remind us of human differences across earth's regioins.

There are primates that loo like asians. For any primate you can find your look-alie, and for every kid there is some primate like them in behavior and looks.

It is really had to justify I think without some of these assumptions not having them in our cultures more, as pets or otherwise.

The ways we do include them I think without knowing is in animal studies that still happen without our being able to see it.

But we don't see primates on TV. There are too many kinds to list, but we don't know thtem. They are our family emembers, so it is strange, that we cannot name the full variety of them. Their ancestry chart, the relationships to us, and names of the different kinds of species, I would think, would be well known to us and really obvious. But instead its like we neglect the study.

*524 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767796037, Wednesday, January 07, 2026 07:27:17, United States of America*

*Written in 597 seconds. 643 words. Typespeed: 64.620 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="since-people-do-not-have-strategies-or-planned-visions-in-advance-of-having-children,-it-follows-that-the-aggregate-does-not,-and-ramifications">Since People Do Not Have Strategies Or Planned Visions In Advance Of Having Children, It Follows That The Aggregate Does Not, and Ramifications</a>

*524 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767766453, Tuesday, January 06, 2026 23:14:13, United States of America*

Procreation | Relationships | Com | Legacies | Inheritance | Continuing Ecology

Earth and the econologies living on top of it continue without much effort. The effort of continuation, where exists, comes from within the ecoology, and not from outside it, where there are not brains, but only geological forms.

Within the ecology, where there are brains, there is an aggregate movement that allows for new lives to be created. The bulk of this is not explained by positive rational effort; in fact almost none of it is rational, and where rational, the rationality is superficial and far from thrshhold quality rationality that I would really consider rationality at its beginnings.

Sexual desire in the anmial kingdom results for everything in the kingdom new life, and this is mostly without effort. The animals simply have sexual desire and want to experience sexual gradtification and sexual sense. This is why of course animals were abl e to continue the ecology in aggregate, and humans are not to be distinguished here.

While humans are usually smarter and have larger brains, they do not on observation actually continue their species in agggregate in a different way. Most of their planning is superficial where it even exists, and not particularly rational. This is provable, and would not be contentious, although others would try to disagree. It is a futile disagreement. It really moves forward the same way as it did for animals of other kinds.

So here, we can forget about one type of animal or another, and simply speak about the aggregate of each animal, and the aggregate of all animals, in the total ecoology of biological life on earth. The ecology moves forward as a result of the sexual behavior of individuals, and there is positively not any outside brain that plans it.

This is not merely a hypothesis to be tested, but is a self-evident truism. There does not happen to be brains operating external to ecology, that stweard the ecology forward. There are no other kinds of animals to be found that made the ecology, or guide its advancement. No, instead we already know, that the individual animals operate in self-sufficient ways, regarding their sexualities, and that, all that is needed for another new baby animal to result, is sexual activity. Theus the ecology is really operating and continuing in time as a result of the individual seual and asexual reproductions happening for all lifeforms. The distinction between sexual and asexual also is not particularly of interest. The importance for this particular posting is

that there is not anything other than the individuals continuing the ecology, that the individuals continue the ecology as a result o fself-sufficient in built tendencies to wan to to reproduce or self-copy, I mean the sesire to have sexual interactions or self copy, and that none of these do it with actual substantial plans, sufficient for the justification of any particular reproduction.

I hae argued before, that the rational palnning to have children, is so seldom, as reallly to be zero according to my view. But ven if we were to grant its happening at some frequency, say one in every billion or milion births, then these plans would be from humans or other very intelligent animal (I'm not sureif whale's think sufficiently to plan this way or not). But putting this in comparison to the 

rest of whe plans that exist for the rest of the ecology, it is a comparison to some small value approaching zero, and some value in the trillions or more, and over geological time, some very large nubmer I'm not sure regarding the magnitude.

So here we have taken the subject discussed earlier of individual human reproduction  and considered it in aggregate to cover the continuity of the whole ecology which is everything that is on earth that is living. Or so we say is living.

In a way, since planless, and based on sexual desire, or tendency to copy, and is accounted for by biophysiology, and other spatial and physical causes, then we can have a (an) explanation that utilizes only principles of the inanimate.

These principles of the inanimate would then explain the animate ecology, but we could treat it all as if it were material.

The continuity of the ecology, as I said, does not rely on external nervous systems that are outside of it, and some or most reproduction doesn't invole any nervous system. Nerovous system is required for jutstification (excepting some mathematical justifications which may exist in some cases, but these would be very differen tthan anthropomorphic justifications), and the outer ecology, not having brains, and the inner ecology, being explainable by non-rationality and material, seems to imply that we can handle the entire subject matter in ways unexpected on the basis of physicalism, or some approach similar to that.

This was not my main interest fo rhis posting though and may be provide some good thinking to go onwards to more comprehensive views of this subject including physical nature and even geology, thinking about propensity to bond combine, recombine, and otherwise interact chemically, through to copying, and so on.

The interesting thing here is that we could really ove from the absense of human planning for children to a view of hthe aggregate ecology of individuals.

*524 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767767343, Tuesday, January 06, 2026 23:29:03, United States of America*

*Written in 890 seconds. 871 words. Typespeed: 58.680 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="with-the-quantity-of-behavioral-transactions-happening-between-organizations-and-individuals,-it-is-not-possible-that-a-large-amount-of-organizational-is-non-criminal">With The Quantity Of Behavioral Transactions Happening Between Organizations and Individuals, It Is Not Possible That A Large Amount Of Organizational Is Non-Criminal</a>

*522 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767655794, Monday, January 05, 2026 16:29:54, United States of America*

Law | Education | Human Behavior | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

TI have explained before but will not spend too much time on now that people and organiztions are not really legal experts and do not understand the law. Within the American system, an dprobably within related legal systems, or I should say, just outside these systems in popular culture, there is a teaching that peopl eought not be excused if they did not know an action was illegal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse is the saying.

This saying while popular, is not actually anything usable in court systems, and judgeswill actual inform people who attempt to use it, that it isn't even in the law. Ignorance of the alw is not an excuse, does tell somethign true about the law, that one is guilty if one just happens to do anything that contrdicts it, and it isn't a defense one can use, as I asaid the court would say, that if one is ignorant one simply didn't know and one can then be excused. No, instead, one is simply guilty if one does not act in accordance with the laws.

For people not familiar with this phrase, the above may seem nonsensical, becasue literally speaking it seems to be saying just that. That one is not excused if one is legally ignorant. But There is another eaning that relates to the usage, and that is that people expect that peopole can and do actually know the alws. There is within culture the idea that people really do the know the laws of their system and are not actually ignorant of the laws.

My view is that people are actually just not knowing the laws, and of course, those in the legal system know this, and anyone who interacts with the system who is an untrained attorney comes accross as someone who pretends to know the rules wihtout knowing, and someon ewho pretends to know legal process, while being ignorant. There is a huge and stark contrast they are aware of between what the law consists of and what people in the public think it consists of.

Individuals owning, managing, and being employed in, various businesses of all sizes, are those members of the public, who realy don't knwo the law. The entire prublic isn't really knowing the laws, is not trained in the laws, has not been to alw school, and so would be told by courts, are incompeteent in relation to the law, and for self protection, which is largeely what *knowing the law is for*, so the people simply are really really ignorant of the law.

And this statemetn says that this ignorance is no excuse to them.

In a way it like telling them, they must go to law school, or have the knowledg ethat law school provides, because not knowing what they would learn is true about the law, they will be convicted of contradictions.

Now I want to focus on the point though about the population comprising businesses to make the transition to the main subject I'm interested in. Since the population that comprises organizations is not law trained, is understood by the system to be ignorant and sometimes laughably disincluded from legal processes... The organizations of people are simply understood by the legal system they are operating within that they do not really know the law.

People out in public, actually use their basic behavioral trainign from teachings in public schools, private schools, and aprents, thto ensure they are within the law. Most behavior does not contradict the law, because people simply behave in peaceful ways for the most part, and do not do things toftentimes that ihappes to be illegal. Much illegal behavior is going on, but a very large proportion of behavior, most bheaviro is actually within the law. But none of this behavior is on the basis of a legal understanding, it is based on animal training in a way. If you took your dog into public, if it were trained not to bark, and approach people excessively, would be found to really just walk along paths giving people distance, would yeild, and would not interact in ways that are not peaceful tto others. So even dogs would be mostly behaving in the law.

Now, moving to the organizational point, and the relationship between organization snd individuals who interact with them. WE can think of these interactions as standard busines to indviividual interactions, business to business employee interactions, and government or other organizational interactions with individuals. So consumers, citizens, and just plain huan interactions fit in here. 

Since the groups don't really understand the laws, and together form business processes in which to interact with the public, taking legal positions sometimes with various legal notices and agreements with the public during interactions and having many different kinds of preplanned business odecided (not legall y decided in each case mentioned) interactions with people, none of this is between lawyer organizations or predominantly lawyer comprised groups and people, but just regular employees, managers, and in some ways indirectly owners of businesses and individuals.

Organizations and cogovernments are comprized of citizens and not lawyers predominantly who need to make rules for the organziation, make legal types of documents like policies, between themseleves and citizens and customers and between the business and employees, and these people doing this work are simply not knowing the laws.

Within the legal profession there is an assumption that nonlawyers are humorously simply not understanding their legal situation and what the laws really are, and this is the reason why, they think that people should not self-represent, and really shoudl have an attorney. There are other reasons ,but a primary reason is their ignorance of the law.

Because of tehe vast quantity of interactions of various kinds between individuals and these organizations and the nujber of legal relationshps athat are existing around or are created ruding these transactions, it follows that the behavior of the organization must often be illegal, either vrom a civil or crimilanl perspective.

I think the pquantity of the interaction sthat are illegal from businesses is huge and is partly by design and by ignorance of peple within the organizations that illegalities happen.

The quanity (quanitty) of illegalities happenign is so vast, that it contradictions ththe actual mission of the legal system, and probably contradicts claims of nations as the propagandize their people for fighting opponents or engaging in militaristic warfare.

There is much ore that can be said about this, bbut it is clear that this reduces the trust that peple should have in fighting for their coutnry and it makes it clear that there are not really rights, since the epervasiveness of these legalityies implies that laws for civilians and for citizens, and for customers are simply too often transgressed, and there is not enough time to ever form claism even for a reaonsalbe quantity of these transgressions.

*522 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767656100, Monday, January 05, 2026 16:35:00, United States of America*

*Written in 306 seconds. 1146 words. Typespeed: 224.700 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="a-response-to-an-acquaintance-on-social-media-further-arguing-for-celestialstasis">A Response To An Acquaintance On Social Media Further Arguing For Celestialstasis</a>

*522 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767591008, Sunday, January 04, 2026 22:30:08*, United States of America

Constraint and Determinism | Geology | Astronomy | Biology | Interdisciplinary Science

I do not deny the actual changes happening as observed here with a microscope or at a distance in some places with a telescope, but let us consider that stasis in a biological system, is not one that is not supposing the system is not active; and rather it assumes that is a more active than most system, that has properties that contribute to a system 'holding pattern' that would allow, on the observation of the system, to see the same observations over and over. So for example you and I, walking around, photographed by the Paparazzi or by law enforcement, over and over, shows likenesses over and over with little to no changes. Thus I can rise and see what I consider myself tomorrow in the mirror. This solar system, like you and I, despite miscellaneous changes, does have a holding pattern, and this is why we think for example, that the earth has incredibly slow geological change, that is nearly imperceptible, and so the earth, and its nearby family members, show again and again, to what might observe, over millenia, the same recognizable appearances. For much in the universe the same is true, and there is a boredom to telescopy. For some areas we look, when we finally see things moving, like the pulsar example you gave, we may see dynamism, but how does one recognize that pulsar between views? In that dynamical system, showing much motion, is much boredom and predictability. 'I'm just this lowly pulsar, so active today, tomorrow and the next day?' The entire thing, has the same macro observation too many times in a row, to not appear a system in a holding pattern. And so it seems to go with the stars that stay fixed, so our ancestors could 'connect the dots' to recognize, silly object and animal systems. I agree with you about the appearance that there is a lot going on, but I think they are still static systems very largely, and arguably, we can add a visual conceptual and linguistic proof to this, that you cannot name them or see them again if there is not stasis. And the stasis is astronomically elongated in time. So it's like the pulsar is the longest living thing around that just behaves the same. Like a living person over time, except that time is none by comparison.

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


## <a name="the-intelligence-involved-in-finding-a-sexual-partner-or-mate-or-simply-spotting-attractive-people">The Intelligence Involved In Finding A Sexual Partner Or Mate Or Simply Spotting Attractive People</a>

*522 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767581281, Sunday, January 04, 2026 19:48:01, United States of America*

Psychology | Neuroscience | AI | Technology | Aesthetics | Psychometrics

I was reflecting on how fast I am capable, and others are capable too, of detecting attractive people of the opposite sex. I have seen males quickly attend to women at a distance, who were notice to have attractive traits, and have seen women do similarly. Not being as attentive to other's behaviors compared with my own, I have noticed othat I attend at a frighteningly fast speed to objects in the distance that appear to fit the attractive female's form.

Seeign that a friend was working on a computer vision project for detecting objects of interest, I was thinking about whather or not he would be able to make a product that would do the same focusing on attractive mates, to alert you in advance, that there is somethign you would enjoy looking at nearby or within visual range.

Then I thought, probably I would do better than the computer even if it was fairly advanced.

I am not aware of any computer system that has been deviseed to heck for attractive people or if it could do it in a way that would be considered working for individual consumers.

Typically what others think is attractive isnot precisely the same as what I think is attractive, but even tually it can learn what is liked, if it is an AI/ML solution that can be trained.

Still, I think I would be surpriseingly fast compared with a computer system at detecting attractive people, and unless the camera moves around to scann the environment, iand have other advancements I'm not sure it would do better than I. Also, my fvision is good.

It may be that my scanning bhhavior includes some learning programming about detecting women. Re-attending to a woman certainly includes noticing peripheral movements and remembering positions and so on, even if I didn't consciously attend the first time, to tnotice the attractiveness.

Anyway, this all got me thiking about to what extent intelligence is inovlved in this process. Initially I thought iti might be an area in which there is considerable and powerful specias level intelligence, but it may still be true that it scales, because some people, who are less intellligent, sometimes seem to scan environments and notice details less effectively. But also, I have noticed, that they soetims appear quicker in relation  or comparison to other people. Hard to say, but it seems there might be more equivalence or it might scale differently than intelligence does, maybe as a separate neuromodule as one might put it. Butit appears to be highly intellligent or skilled, and as I was saying above, it seems like it would be hard to make a computer compete with a really attentive and intereste male or female seeing attractive people.

*522 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767581693, Sunday, January 04, 2026 19:54:53, United States of America*

*Written in 412 seconds. 457 words. Typespeed: 66.540 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-trying-to-be-smart,-living-and-creating-pseudo-intellectual-messes,-because-since-they-can't-understand-the-intellectuals,-think-what-is-intellectual-are-pseudo-intellectual-mess-like">People Trying To Be Smart, Living And Creating Pseudo-Intellectual Messes, Because Since They Can't Understand The Intellectuals, Think What Is Intellectual Are Pseudo-Intellectual Mess Like</a>

*521 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767499657, Saturday, January 03, 2026 21:07:37, United States of America*

Psychometrics | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Psychology | Com | Relationships

These peole, I don't wan tto think of as frauds entirely. It's more like since they don't understand what smart people are thinking, but think themselves as smart somehow, confusedly think that the smart activities are creating these psuedo-intellectual messes. 

Here's a way to understand why this would be necessarily true of some few. I shouldn't say few-- it's a general phenomena of a sort, but there are a few who fit this specific example clearly. Some small percentage of the population.

Some people really try to fit in with people who they don't exactly fit in with. There are people in the public who really like smart things but cannot truly coprehend. They want to live like intelligentsia do, or want to live aristocratically, like high society. So they spend time doing thse things that are supposedly part of intellectual fine-life.

Reading, wathching fine film, listening to symphonies going to operas, re writing, doing arts and so on, might comprise their activities.

Since these people will be wantting to think like intellectuals of course they will be hearing the thoughts of those who produced fine things they are supposed to understand, be exposed to or involved with.

But as I said, they don't really fit in and don't really undestand. There might be a lot that they don't understand.

Not being smart enough sometimes implies that the person can't see that they actually do not comprehend. They may think that what smart people do, is live in a kind of ambiguous situation. And in a way, intellectualism includes living in a weird unsolved mystery of life, in which most writers did not really solve it all, and many are saying things that don't really make complete sense. So many in this situation, are used to living in an ambiguous state. One might say that what I'm saying of the less smart people is really true of everyone to an extent, and that might be something to find.

But htere is a kind of pseudo-intellectual that is far more into the nonsense and confusion. But if all area livign in this ambiguoity of unsolved life and debate, and conversation, then many of those people scaling downwards in intelligence, would be even more ambiguous, in an even more unsolved state, and perhaps even more comfortable with things not being clear.

This is where the less smart psudo-intellectual becomes more obviously detected.

This person, being with the smart people, and their ambiguities, actually does not know that there are people in that group who do not feel that way, who actually are able to solve issues, do not experience much lack of clarity, actually sayty things that are not nonsense, are trending towards greater truth, and have limitations they are aware of, including limitations they can correct, given enough time.

The other kind though, is more like a mess of fake intellectualism, that sounds like those published intellectuals who never really had anything to offer that was clear, true, or really durable. 

There really are many famous writers who have written things that have no value later, because they were playing within this fake intellectual pert of society, fitting into the actual intellectual part of society, creating seemingly smart things in an imitative way, that has the lack of clarities that they experience in books and works that are actually more intellectually honest and true.

The more terrible philosophers are like philosophers who were trying.

Beneath this, aor among these, are the people who keep saying and writing things that sound like imitation smarts but none of tit is making sense, like they opted to live tehe schizo life.

I find these people again and again online, and in writings. Albert Camus is one of these figures actually. Typically I don't name people in this way wanting to respect hisotry and lives, but reading ht eMytho of syisyphus (Myth of Sysiphus), I found he was a pseudo smart poser. He is like a subsmart person living in the ambiguity with many of the other intellectuals not undrestanding ther eare real ones.

Notice that in groups of smart people, ther eare those who really are very smart and respeted, and weird jealous ones What are these jealous ones?

Sometimes they are these people who are trying to do whta the smart ones are doing, but can't really tell that what they are creating has value or not, and may be informed again and again, that it isn't worth attending to, because it has too much nonsense. Seeing who really is powerfully intellectual, they still do not understand. What does it seem like to the person who does not understand reading a work? It has to appear like a mess of intellectual ism they can't put together in a clear and coherent way for ingestion. But if they imitate it, they create somethin gthat appears like an incoherent mess that is similar to what they were seeing *in the good quality works8* that they could not understand.

They are matchser of what they don't understand.

If I can't really see a painting from a great artist the way others do, and instead see something else, then I imitate it, it may be that I can imitate what I think I'm seeing. Then others ned to inform me, that what iI ade, is not close to having a resemblandce to the original Instead, the best iI can do, is match what I can see of it and make sense of. Like a person with weak vision, trying to repaint the painting of a master. All they can paint is foggy versions.

It appears to me from this tha there has to be a very general ly applicable rule about people striving to be what they can't making things that are subpar or nonsensically imitative. Some learners of course strive to get to a point in which their creations of whatever kind are lik ethe better ones or beter, or are great in their own ways, and along wthe way, produce things not as good, but I think those who understand what they are seeing from the start, are already showing signs they do. The one's I'm talking abotu show signes they do not! But peoplde don't recognize it. Sometimes they go to fame, like Albert Camus. There are also famous painters I believe, are simply not great painters.

Recently, I was reading someone online, in an intellectual community, whose writeings routinely seem schizoid. He seems nice, and does interact with others kindly. But in rsponse to something I wrote, he put some response that seemed schizoid again, and pseudo-intellectual, but filled with words that did have smartness. I spent some time examining what he wrote, and after a minute or so, discuovered it really was strung together nonsense, incoherent collection of pseudointellectualism, with words that happened to seem like smart words, to put in, but these words too, weren't necessary or adding. So the entire rsponse was a sort of insaned fake intellectualism.

But this person spends a lot of his time writing, and interacting with people in this community.

Thinking back, much o fthe writings he shared, were insane in the same way.

I think what this person is doing is really matching his writings to what he is seeing about smart things he is not understanding. This would explain why, after writing what he writes, he doesn't know it doesn't make sense. He thinks it does! Being in the intellectual community and trying ot fit in, and writing things that seem to fit in, with his fview of what those thing are, that are like seeing foggily, is what this person was gdoing.

This may explain some schizo type behavior over time, and mybe some psychosis, in that for a prolonged period of time, someone was not able to comprehend, that the people they were trying to fit in with, were just far too much smarter, and that their behavior that they think was making them fit in, was only making them fit in with what they imagined them to be like, but they are not like that, and what was imagined actually makes nonsense of it.So they become trained in nonsense to fit in!

This may have greater explanatory power than it may seem, and it does appear that those who seem insaned on the streets, are still trying to fit in saying thing sthey beliee others will understand, beause it seem soto resemble what they would say and understand, but they cannot really understand them, so they are simply saying stuff that comes accross as nonsense attempts.

Much of the vocalizations of these psychotic and schizophrenic types of people seems to be attempts at communication.

Coming from a background in psychology, I'm aware that there are clear criteria, defining what these diagnoses would be, and that these would not match up with what I' aying, and that actual pathology and abnormal physicology does explain more fully these conditions. However, this behavior may result in the people who have deficiencies due to these other causes, and so this can be a reason the symptoms manifest, but i think this applies more boradly, in that this situation exists even for normal people, who can't fit in intellectually with groups above beand that their intelligence and skills are too low for the istuations they have to try to adapt to. They then adapt how they can, and how they can produces imitative results, that because they are imiatative, don't have ethe understanding, adn can have things that appearspsychotic and schizophrenic.

*521 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767501014, Saturday, January 03, 2026 21:30:14, United States of America*

*Written in 1357 seconds. 1596 words. Typespeed: 70.560 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-personal-period-of-isolation,-or-time-capsule,-and-mental-stimulation,-and-my-plan">The Personal Period of Isolation, Or Time Capsule, and Mental Stimulation, and My Plan</a>

*521 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767495873, Saturday, January 03, 2026 20:04:33, United States of America*

Positive Object Map | Mattanaw Geospatial | Mnemonics | Periodic Isolation For Reset | Moral Actions Only | Reading | Learning | Education | Music And Art | Higher Order Attention | Life Categories | Personal Form

Earlier, in planning for a period of personal isolation, before I had the idea that I could live in a certain time capsule of 2 years or some period of similar benefit, I prepared some writings, music, video, and books, to have a self-complete quantity of materials for mental stimulation.

At that time, I started, but did not finish that effort. Now, I believe i am ready to resume where I left off, connecting these preparations, with others I had earlier, of wanting to attend more to myself also, and to use my own writings and productions as additional mental stiumulation, useful because it would remind my mind of what I thought which includes what I want to develop upon, also because I cannot remember all my best thoughts which still help, and further because the productions I created allow from quite a lot of mental stimulation making it less necessary to have as much of any other production from any other source.

The idea here is simple, use what I produced later for my own entertainment and enjoyment, but understanding that this is not really enough to feel fully satsified, use some high quality materials self-cultivated to have very good quality stimulating experiences of productions that come from others.

This is obvious to most, who focus nearly exclusively on what good exists that comes from others in books, music, art and so on , to learn and enjoy. Mostly, people really do exclude re-enjoying tehir own creations, but knowing that people really do use their own productions for self-entertainment periodically, using crafts, journal writing, mucsic reation, and other creations, I won't claim that none are doing this. However, I willl claim that this perspective is largely absent, despite the knowledge people have, that they can self-entertain doing thins like writing, creating artworks, and making things on their own.

What proportion of the total of my existing creations could be usable as my self-stimulation compared with what has been cultivated from others. The comparison is that definitely over fifty percent would come from myself, but it may not be the case that my use would be in that proportion. For non creative passive activity of reading, listening, and watching, I think it could be more than half, or less. This is excluding the time spent creating. The time spent creating will mean that I spend much more time using what I've made versus what I use from others. Further back in my history, I did less writing, and video produciton, so my reading, listening, and watching was almost all from others. It is much more the reverse owadays, and has been for a long time, over a decade, and actually probably nearly 15 years. Maybe somewhere between 11 and 14 years is more accurate.

At the time I did some cultivation of materials aiming for use in a time capsule, a period of at least a year or more, I was figuring out what amount seemed enough for that period of time. How much music, video, reading, and so on is adequate, to feel it would enrich life not a little, but extremely and to myself more benefit than other productions, for that period of time.

I came to think that perhaps 10 hours or so of audio is good enough to have aenough music, that perhaps no movies are needed at all, that I needed perhaps 20 books, or some figure vaguely close to that for reading, and my own reading material I've written, that already numbers in the thousands of pages.

Regarding modes of stimulation, there is not much. One can obviously watch film, listen to music, look at works of art, create art, read, write, observe nature, and so on, and do handiworks creating crafts or doing other work to create other productions of interest. Some will build cabins, and some will grow produce and other food. Some will raise animals or have pets.

Regarding myself, the time capsule seems to require not all that a person would want, or all that the world would offer, and strangely, people think they need both, when really, they use only a small subset of anything available. What I want for my time capsule resembles the productions I create, video, audio, music, writing, and little else. 

Now having noticed that I hav etoo much mathematical training material to master in a short time, and enough to enjoy for a long while, I think I have adequate reading for that subject, and also, that is the subject I have greatest iterest in learning. Additionally, although I am not doing it now, I think it would be easy to build up enough reading of other kinds, to have sufficient reading on those subjects, for a year or more.

Also, having historical works, and works of interest from free, from a good source of free online texts called Project Gutenberg, I mean that i sthe name of the website housing the archive, I have many books easily available in text format, that I've cultivated and prepared for myself, and placed in my archive. These are freely usable and there is no copyright issue. My own digital library now has enough for several years from what I can see.

Regarding video, I was saying I don't think I need anything from anyone else, adn that might be partly true. My music comes along with some music videos where I cultivated it originally online. So I do have some music videos and plenty of music to listen to. Also, I am going to be creating music, and recording it, and listening to it, while also ejoying my own making of it.

I am doing videography, and I'll enjoy hours making the videos, and hours rewatching and preparing videos for myself and others. So I do not really need videos or film, and having tired of the film offerend by others, no longer having any to cultivate my own list of videos to watch, there is none. But I have enough of what I prefer. I may have some small quanity of mathematical training videos to download and watch.

Also, I have my observation of nature, my own artwork, my own writing and penmanship,m my own diagrams, and most importantly my own writing that I can read, which requires rereading I don't always do, simply because it has to be edited.

Combine all these things, I think already, now, I have many years worth of things for mental stimulation that is adequate and it is reasonable, given my reflections over the last couple years, that I do not really need much research, use of the internet, search engines, or any other sources, to advance further in any of theses areas. So isolation can continue.

The one area where I might need some research is the domain of microprogramming of microcontrollers, but the goals I have for that are very limited, and there will be a time of completion, and the needs of research are so minimal as to be somewhat disinteresting, and if I had a book that aided sufficiently, one or two seems to be enough to do the work.

So there may be some small need of the internet, but a very narrow scope, which is akin to using everything that I have already, plus perhaps, the smallest and narrowest area of research on the internet. What this accomplishes is the ability to self-isolate still, while seeing nothing else that the internet has.

One might wonder why one would want to disuse what everyone else is doing, but from my experience, what I am creating is of higher utility and interest, and without doing what I'm doing, completing my goals is not possible. One has to socially disconnect in order to achieve more, and after seeing that even the better offerings that people have are of low utility to me, and I can only use a little anyway, I found that I have what I need, and there is no need to be looking anywhere anyone else is looking, on the internet, in culture, on television or on social media. This makes it possible to have the interesting experience of being very separate for a period.

The difference between now, and what I was planning and doing earlier, is that while earlier I was separated and had soem time-capsule like experience, now it appears, I can really separate in a way that the boundaries are more clear, and that the time capsule is well defined instead of loosely defined, adn that it can be maintained, with an adequacey of resources, probably for no less than two years.

When I think of my writing, and the mathematics texts I have, I see that really, there is too much even with a little, to really do all I plan, in a two year period, and I'm aware of the illusion that people really can use a large quantity of what exists outside of what they may be able to procure.

Another way to see this, is to imagine what people do and see and to actually quantify the quantity of stimulation that existed from sources. I think it would amount to less than what I've already gathered! This is also because someeone who is more intelligent will be having more stimulation than someone who is less.

And so soon, I think more deliberately, and more clarly, a period of time capsule like self-isolation for productivity and enjoyment with clarity of possessions is near.

*521 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767497319, Saturday, January 03, 2026 20:28:39, United States of America*

*Written in 1446 seconds. 1587 words. Typespeed: 65.820 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="another-writing-method-that-is-an-exacting-representation-of-verbal-speech-and-gesture">Another Writing Method That Is An Exacting Representation Of Verbal Speech and Gesture</a>

*521 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767489007, Saturday, January 03, 2026 18:10:07, United States of America*

Language | Linguistics | Symbolism | Writing

If there were a way to write out the sound qualities, musicality, phonetics, accompanying gestures, and mentality ahappening during verbal speech, into written language, it would be very crammed with information.

How crammed and dense with information would it really be? I'm not certain, but it would be interesting to know for sure, and for this reason, I think it is a viable pathway for dissertation, and once again, this is an example of a dissertative thought, that would trend with research, towards a PhD, and probably more than one PhD, if taken as far as it needs to go, and if parts of it are studied under different subject areas, revealing that for one subject, many PhDs can be acquired.

The initial thought path for an important area of inquiry later becomes a joint effort, or one might say, there are differing people interested in different ways, who have inroads into answering the subject, from different starts and paths that are simply from different subjects or groups of subjects.

For this particular subject, we would have neuroscience, psychology, linguistics, and its various branches each of which has PhD, music  and its recording approaches, computer science, information science, philosophy of language, other philosophies, physics, accoustics, and so on. Mathematics of course would be included, statistics, and so on. 

A pursuant of a degree in this might start with an interest in communications, a subject that is a good one to know about, but has received negativeity regarding its suppposed simplicity, as it is studied in college. But obviously, what is brning this subject together is communication, and thought sharing, and so communication is about identity of people and their thought, an d relations with others? Communication is related to what people have thought to be the study of the meaning of life! 

Taking this simple pathway through communicatinons in college or independently with being a master of commmunication, an animal that does it well compared with all others, one eventually has the entire subject matter of everything as it bears on the recording of thinking from one person to another, which has so many interest relations to other fields, it serves to explain *interest in other fields* depending on how approached, and we have here what begins as a disseration and later becomes a rich area of investigation to find answers, needing expertise in all differnt domains, yet each dissertation in each domain, can have focus on this.

That was a segue, but an imporatn one becasue this is a good example of dissertative thinking and in the thoughtstream, a place where thought is recroded as it happens, but with less information than could be jammed in, given this idea, tha t perhaps all the inforamation that relates fully explaining the total of communication and thought going along with it, can actually have representation with all ingredients included.

What would we have if we did this and how far would it resemble existing writing and ThoughtStream and existing written communication. We can see that writing is very sparse regarding information included that i snot just he words thought and said. Soemhow, this very cleanlys allowes for advanced communication and even more advanced ocomm, but many have complained that it is insufficient, to express what is wanted to be expressed, which is in the thought and communciation athat includes so much more. How diffferent would it be, to densly include everything else int hew writing, and wht would the writing be like.

The cause of the simplicity is probably in the infeasibility in another way, and we are in an early stage possibly regarding feasibilities, and with more tools, more can be recorded, even while the words as they are now are embeded.

But there is also somethign sophisticated about the simplicity of the writing with the exclusion of so much else while havin ghte power it still has, which feels in amany ways to have some completeness. 

To some, who are readers, including myself, it may eventuallly replace alternative forms of expression to be more deliberately about what is said.

This has been an effect of reading and writing in my life, and what I write I tihnk, oftentimes is very preferable to what I say, and I'e been wanting what I say, to eventually be more like what I write.

However there are ways in which I like verbal speech better, and in that location, my mastery doesn't hae the judgement received that writing receives, of having to have it thoroughly edited, at a level that makes the tasks neeseem less worthwhile, given the later rewards.

*521 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767489750, Saturday, January 03, 2026 18:22:30, United States of America*

*Written in 743 seconds. 767 words. Typespeed: 61.920 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="predetermination-of-changelessness">Predetermination of Changelessness</a>

*520 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767402819, Friday, January 02, 2026 18:13:39, United States of America*

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Interdisciplinary Science

The title here states the same as recent postings, but alternatively, and attractively. This is what I may be using for my title for a section in my book Constraint and Determinism. I wanted to recrod it here, for more persuasive discussion of the topci.

*520 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767402861, Friday, January 02, 2026 18:14:21, United States of America*

*Written in 42 seconds. 45 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="how-free-are-you-in-the-celestial-stasis">How Free Are You In The Celestialstasis?</a>

*520 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767401171, Friday, January 02, 2026 17:46:11, United States of America*

Constraint and Determinism

To what extent would you agree with the claim that the future earth and solar system (as a microexample of the universe) is in stasis with only some minor differences observed over time. From the perspective of an individual's life, the similar claim is that the world is in stasis, with some minor differences observed resulting from small movements of animal life (where we are interested in the differences). Also that these differences observed present more stases, even though it might not be obvious initially, because they present recurring patterns.

The idea here is that the future is discernibly in a stasis that resembles the path such that it is more clear and obvious it is predetermined.

The earth, from space, observed over time, has its appearance, and having any repeated appearance, indicates massive stases. The sun presents to us a glowing static orb, with obvious stases despite repeated dynamics. Meanwhile, on little paths on the planet, animals move around, minutely. They wonder if the future is open and free or if it is predetermined sometimes, but given the stases, it appears logically if we look, it is almost all stases and human life exhibits just more if we look under the microscope.

One might ask "How free were you in your homeostasis", and then "How free were you in celestial stasis"

(Note: posted on Facebook just earlier)

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

## <a name="over-time,-i-find-myself-disliking-the-question-mark.-what-say-you-about-it.">Over time, I find myself disliking the question mark. What say you about it.</a>

*520 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767400177, Friday, January 02, 2026 17:29:37*, United States of America

Language | Writing | Com | Relationships | Editing

I have been noticing there appears to be some sophistication in avoiding its use, and that if you try other ways of asking, using words and less punctuation, the same question has better clarity. Sometimes there is some work in making a switch but the switch has good effect. It appears to me intuitively true, that for any question that might be asked that utilizes a question mark, or inflection of speech, there exists other alternative askings, achieving the same. This might provide some mathematical ground, to say there can be no question mark that is needed, given sufficientness of other ways. (Posted moments earlier to the social website Facebook

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


## <a name="what-are-the-stases-of-the-future-and-quantities-easily-identified-and-sizeable,-scaled-to-engulf-everything">What Are The Stases Of The Future And Quantities Easily Identified And Sizeable, Scaled To Engulf Everything</a>

*519 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767330120, Thursday, January 01, 2026 22:02:00, United States of America*

Constraint and Determinism

Recording now for future elaboratioin

*519 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767330127, Thursday, January 01, 2026 22:02:07, United States of America*

*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="stasis-of-history-versus-stasis-of-the-present">Stasis of History Versus Stasis Of The Present</a>

*519 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767317718, Thursday, January 01, 2026 18:35:18, United States of America*

Constraint and Determinism

The last posting has resulted iwith additional thought in this idea that what we are comparing is the stasis that we know exists in history which is complete, with a stasis of the future.

We know already from my other observations that most is obviously in stasis. This is easily confirmed and is irrefutable. The remaining changes we see, that are small by comparison, amke up the absurdest smallest in comparson. The uncertainty related to human motions and animal motions and some few other motions that exist, result in the part of the future that has not been aidentified as static.

However, we should expect it to be static too, given the ggreater part is, because if the greater part is, then by what reason is there an exception in the moving parts? The easy intuitive answer is that they are mistaken for not being static, and this appears true, when we recognize the predictable patterns that recur over and over within them.

NOw we are in the smallest of uncertain ignorant future occurrances that will happen that might justify the view that the future does not have stasis but now we are in th etiniest remnant of what has not yet been seen to be statically understaodood, and predictable in advance causally. We use the same reasoning. There are patterns if we look cloaser and we are just more weak mentally to see them initially, but we know inductively given science that the knowledge will emerge, and we already dimly see patterns already, which make the happenings feel not unpredictable but comfortably regular.

Notice quantum mechanics tooo, has created no discomfort that we will not experience regular future, looking at the tiny remainder that is pretended to have the unpredictable needed to claim there is *something not in stsasis in the future, that is not known*, but that small fracton sclearly is insufficient to be persuasive and of course is subject to the thoughts above.

It appears from this that the stasis of the fiuture is as complete as the past, bu tthat there is still admittedly a tiny region o funcertainty that causes us to think something that it could be otherwise, but that even with this thought, we admit that the earth, and celestial objects, are predictably similar in the future to now, in a sort of stasis of unchange, which resembles and connects with, and is caused by, past events, which hnow have total stasiss.

From the prior post we have that our *knowledge* of the stasis is in some ways greater for the future than the past within the complexity of human direct experience in the carrying out of plans and in normal behaviors. Thuse oddly it seem sto follow, wehre we care, that th efutre has more stasis than the past, regarding knowledge and representation. So oddly we have something that favors the view that the future is in stsasis while taking away the idea that the past is in stasis.

Intuitively we still the past is in greater stasis.

But now it seems truly irrefutable that the future is in an equivalent stasis, but the argument above is that it is in a greater stasis than the past, on the basis of kjowledges stasis, or greater quantity of knowledge about what it is that is unchangeing.

*519 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767318181, Thursday, January 01, 2026 18:43:01, United States of America*

*Written in 463 seconds. 553 words. Typespeed: 71.640 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="in-my-system-i-will-know-more-about-the-future-and-future-actions-than-about-historical-events-in-many-ways">In My System I Will Know More About The Future And Future Actions Than About Historical Events In Many Ways</a>

*519 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767317010, Thursday, January 01, 2026 18:23:30, United States of America*

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Planning and Visualization | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration

This idea works as follows. If I plan my behaviors within a known environment with much stasis then carry out those behaviors, it will be true that before I carry out those behaviors I will more fully know the causality and details of the behaviors and situations carried out. This is expected because one cannot want to do (to do) things that ofllow a plan to goals unless one expects the world to remain itself mostly and for what is expected to happen.

So before I do things, I will know the future well. If I did not know it well, I could not want things in the future (!).

Interestingly it follows from this that at the time just prior to doing certain actions, and for many a long time in advance, I know more about the future thatn I will know later, afterwards looking backwards.

Initially, after completing a goal, I will look back, and have some backwards analysis that will clarify what has happened further (if I do that analysis). But Typically, most things we do, does ot have an active baackwards analsysis adding more. So we have a useful poitn: there is a resource constraint on doing backwards analysis, and most then will only selectively look backwards. 

It will depend on what one has done or what the situation was to reflect further on it.

However, for all those things I'm planning and doing, there has been considerable inquiry into the dtails, which inovled also stases in the earth and environment which doe snot change. I will have a very good picture of what I'm going to do, and since I successfully achieve simple objectives, the analysis was complete neough to actually do what was envisioned. The analsysi s was good to be able to do that. Thus forward looking, it appears I will more often analyse for what to do. And this may provide a useful theorem of life, that one will analyse for future more often than for past, and that this is necessary due to upcoming uncertainties that do exist nevertheless, and also the resource limitations on swapping that thinking for wasting thinking on past. (when it is waste).

It happens to be true then, that one will not often look back to know past events better, but as one moves forward one's memory is lessening regarding what transpired. It appears that we will usually have a better idea about what we will do then, than what we did do, which imeans we have a better idea about future than we thought, and a worse idea about past than we would expect.

We simply forget the details about all these small palns we had.

We had to analyse regarding small plans somewhat to actually carry out the actions, as it is necessary to think to behave. It is not enecessary to think more, because one *has behaved*.

From this it appears we actually do know more about future potentially than past in many ways. The ways in which this is true shoudl be quantiified. It appears to relate to stasis and the competency a person has in carrying out actions within stasis, and consistency inmovement actions and coodination of moving objects. Also the expectation of textent of change in environments.

For example, since last time coming to the gym, I expect the gym had few alterations. Furthmore, it may be years later that I return, but can still expect few alterations.But looking hisotrically after several decades, I may not know the environment at all. This follows that we know more about the future of the state of the world than we do about the past of the world after some forgetting time has elapsed.

This is very consistent with the determiistic view of the world, and interseting flips the idea that the history is inalterable to make it more clear the future is more known. What does it mean if the future is more konwn? Well known means it will be. I t means it is predictable. Uncertainties exist, but now we see that is sa difference between stasis and changes done by movement.  Which means we already expect the greater part, that which is in stsis to be already as we know.

Our knowledge of the history of thw orld is less than this in many ways. ItWe know more about the future in many imporatant ways than the past. Knowing the future is interesting, and knowing it *better than the past(** is even more fascinating.

It implies since it is known that it ispredetermined for certain, although this is already understood on other grounds. It is just further confirmed. We already agre the history is unchangeable and now since complete in a predetermined condition in a way. It is predetermined from the present perspective to have all already occured. Looking backwards and forwards has a resemblance. 

*519 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767317662, Thursday, January 01, 2026 18:34:22, United States of America*

*Written in 652 seconds. 815 words. Typespeed: 75.000 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="on-not-reading-the-works-of-others">On Not Reading The Works Of Others</a>

*518 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767263477, Thursday, January 01, 2026 03:31:17, United States of America*

Education | Authoring | Academia | Editing | Relationships | Acknowledgements | Relationships | Com | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

Thre simply is not enough time in life to read all the works of others that you might want to read or that others might expect you to read. Most may not be affected by the thought that there are books that they would be eexpected to read, but those who do writing that is supposed to have some academic or intellectual merits will feel some social pressure in imagination that more should have been read. But even in this context, it needs to be known, that life is limited, and not all books that relate need to be read.

The PhD process, in my opinion, also ought not require specific books be read, even if those books or articles, which others think relate, are believed to have special importance. Part of the reason may be shortage of time, and part of the reason may be one of many other reasons that ight exist. Fore example, it can affect one's creative thinking to read the work of another while one is feeling very good quality progressioin without external influence. How one is credited for one's thoughts is too influenced by the involved ment of writings, which is not of course including any living actions of anyone supporting. If one does not read, one might hear that one was needing the other work, and if one did read the other work, one might say that one has not had as much of a contribution because of the influence.

So sometimes one is better off not reading the work of another so that one is not strangely given less merit than is deserved. Reading other works can also create a new direction that is unwanted, it is a commitment to reading that work and not another, and there are certainly others that have not been read, because no research is entirely exhaustive. One may skip over a famous work, in order to have a few extra unfamous works included instead. Some wiill think you are obligated to include the famous work of one's nation no matter how much extra work may exist in what one wwants to do regarding inclusion of other thinkers or expansion of one's own creative thoughts.

If we think of the library, then we know that reading is the exclusioin of all other books in selection of one or a few. We choose one, while omitting all otehrs. What is important is that there still exist *strategic omission* and not only omission. Those who think you are to know all works that relate to a subject or that you should have done a very thorough review of the literature including works they can think of may not have in mind that you could have any strategic omission strategy and instead that you simply are obligated to read what they can think of.

But obviously there are many considerations in what oto read or not read. There are more reasons that definitely can be added and I will add some later in a future writing if I can think of more and can recall with interest this subject.

*518 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767263964, Thursday, January 01, 2026 03:39:24, United States of America*

*Written in 487 seconds. 519 words. Typespeed: 63.900 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="the-list-of-the-people-to-be-put-away-or-at-a-distance">The List Of The People To Be Put Away Or At A Distance</a>

*517 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767159106, Tuesday, December 30, 2025 22:31:46, United States of America*

Relationships | Com | Nationalism | Abandoning Equality

The common peerson thinks that, anyone from another nation, must return to that nation, however much better they may be than themselves. These are inferiors, they are taught, that must be relocated.

Only briefly can they travel near.

The total of all people taht are not of one's nation, is much larger than the size of one's nation, meaning almost all people, are unfit to bre near.

Within one's nation, those who seem like criminal-type people must be put away, and they are numbered in high quantities too.

The people with extremely differen tideas, those who look scary, and those who live different kinds of lives that make them seem to challenge lifestyle and challenge public expectations of specific local themes must be hidden or go elsewhere.

One group that interferes with public themes, are retarded people, the disabled, and people in wheelchairs. The blind are never seen just as they cannnot see, and the deaf are not heard just as theyy cannot hear.

All thes must be elsewhere, and we can know of this tendency, simply by the fact that all the places we visit, where humans spend their time in the open, none of them are there.

Thus most people here, and elsewhere in other nations, is better to be far away, or in a place where they cannot be seen, and there ought to be no reminders about those that are near, that they are too close. Instead they should be hidden, and I need no reminders taht they exist. They need to not exist while they are near.

*517 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767159321, Tuesday, December 30, 2025 22:35:21, United States of America*

*Written in 215 seconds. 262 words. Typespeed: 73.080 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="inanimate-love,-as-having-many-system-protections-for-what-is-system-utilized-or-inbuilt,-and-water">Inanimate Love, As Having Many System Protections For What Is System Utilized Or Inbuilt, and Water</a>

*517 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767139234, Tuesday, December 30, 2025 17:00:34, United States of America*

Interdisciplinary Science | Nature As Neither Animate Or Inanimate Or Living Or Not Living | Motile Elements | Evolutionary Theory | Biogenesis | Cosmology| Astronomy | Onomies of Just Learning

Recroding for elaboration

*517 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767139240, Tuesday, December 30, 2025 17:00:40, United States of America*

*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.*

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


## <a name="given-other-advancements-or-my-learnings-i-can-see-improvements-here-or-my-learnings">Given Other Advancements Or My Learnings I Can See Improvements Here Or My Learnings</a>

*516 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767139044, Tuesday, December 30, 2025 16:57:24, United States of America*

Education | Learning | Technological Progress | Constraint and Determinism

Reording for elaboration later.

*516 Wanattomians, Epoch 1767139049, Tuesday, December 30, 2025 16:57:29, United States of America*

*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="constraint-equivalence-between-being-in-a-bad-habit-and-being-in-a-good-habit-that-was-finally-achieved,-meaning-there-is-not-more-freedom-in-one-or-the-other">Constraint Equivalence Between Being In A Bad Habit And Being In A Good Habit That Was Finally Achieved, Meaning There Is Not More Freedom In One Or The Other</a>

*515 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766970625, Sunday, December 28, 2025 18:10:25, United States of America*

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

There is at lease one way the planned life is mlrore free, andn I'll hae to write about that, but htere is a consttraint equivalence within as well worth talking aboutf. There is confounding subject in this. Morelater, recording for now with cold fingers.

*515 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766970673, Sunday, December 28, 2025 18:11:13, United States of America*

*Written in 48 seconds. 44 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="finding-the-scope-of-another-person-or-animal's-mind-seems-akin-to-locating-them">Finding The Scope Of Another Person Or Animal's Mind Seems Akin To Locating Them</a>

*515 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766967453, Sunday, December 28, 2025 17:17:33, United States of America*

The Brain And Thinking Tissue | A Person As Mass, Configuration, and Activity | Relationships | Com | Identity

Thinking about the head of a mentally disabled person whose cranium is greatly reduced compared to others, thinking does seem to be about space, even in a powerful way. When talking to such a disabled person, it may appear somewhat in the experience that one's thinking and words can have no relation to who they are being in a space where that could not be. Getting to know this disabled person seems to be getting to know where they are, their location, whcich is about the snervous system, the position it has, and what activity is happening within it.

When communicating with such a person or animal (where the same is perceived in the smallness of their heads as compared with their reactions and behaviors), one may get the feeling that oen has to try to locate them somewhow. This word "locate" as I am using it now is combining different meanings, as to space, time a little, and in strucutre. Locate the structure. In additiona to locate is try to know the strucutre a little from what one has experienced.

This is somewhat how one feels gettign to know someone who has a reduced experience in which you've had some.My typing is more liesurely today so it will reflect in the speed metrics.

We use the size of animal's heads and the heads of mentally disabled people, and manybe head size more generally to scale hothe other person's thinking in relation to our own. I don't think we scale upwards well, but we do scale downwards fairly effectively. The feeling of trying to get to know another person who has a smaller skull or is disabled, feels like trying to locate their mind, while also scaling it prejudicially.

I had to rewrite this posting because of an error in my program that cauesed issue midway, so it is more summary than I like, and probably I will have to say more later in a future posting.

Today I was walking around imagining myself to be a tiny yellow geometry or graph that is three dimensional and hcanging occupying a somewhat small portion of my brain. I'm that thing at present and when I was imagining it.

That small thing is controlling the body and eyes with minimal controls at the time it does things. It doesn't really know how to use all of its brain and body tools at the same time. 

Sometiems it enjoys using many brain tools and body tools when doing complex boldily movements and metnal feats of work in flow state.

But even being acrobat like mentally and physically, the brain doesn't realy know how to do everything else at the same time.

An intersting idea here I have not heard elsewhere is that we can think about our limitations by comparing what we are feeling able to do now, and what we actually are controlling, with all activitiy at the same time for which we've been capable throughout our lives. Like doing a complicating (complicated) plumbing project while doing carwheels and doing algegbra for math class, and baking brownies making jokes, but everything else too. This shows, when you are thinking now, you are really like a construction worker in a command center, or vehicle cab, with a couple levers and buttons.

You have a joystick that isn't really general purpose right now. 

As I type my brain has a keyboarding joystick inside that tells the fingers where to go. But I disinclude that too, because as I do it, it just does it. Relally, my mass, configuartion, and activity, that is presently doing, has very very few controls even countable controls.

Contrast that with tall that one did. You are like a funny changing entity that has controls sometimes that cannot exist other times.

This is consistent with my views in Hujmans Shortcomign sand Constraint and Determinism, and we've use dmy method of  determining human shortcomings completely here. The range of shortcomings is astounding because iyou are limited by not being anythign that can e, has been or is, including what of you you cannot be now, but have been. I've shown here, what you cannot do, given limited controls now, of what you have at other times. You have almost none now! Comparing only to you!!

We haeve here a fascinating and imporatant result, because do you feel jealous or envious of you? 

Right now you are a weakling and dunceof a person compared with, you doing everything at once. So there is absurdiy too. But the comparison is helpful and we did need intrascaling of a single animal object and not just comparative scaling, or scaling on metrics and so on. Self comparison may help quite a lot.

But this posting is more abou t how talking with another is kind a like locating their temporary self of mass configuration and activity, which is like a geometric volume of graph that is expected to be smaller if the eperson is mentally deficient.

I liek the tchoice of mentally deficient, because it really makes it clear to everyone the experience of feeling that the mind is spatially sless, consistent witht he actual brain space taken, and that somewhat your brain has no correspondign brain the other, and that is why yoyu can't communciate.

So you want to guess at whewhere you can relate, and that has a kidn of sizing and estimation and locating feeling. You don't locate anyone's mind outside theimind or head. When I talk to someone with a reduced cranium who has mental disability, I feel I am talkign to mbrain that would be outside their head,  that is in the head of another perrson, but being more honest, it took a while to mroe fully realize that conversing--

I should have located others who are more typical in teh population and sized them, so I could clearly see, that my thinking was outside their space, just using words they have haeard that are inside their space, and only partial comprehensivon is ever really possible, when I'm talking about what I'm intersted in and ith the same level of network, which impies more epxansive gemoetric volume, for which their volume has no alanalog or sie similarity. 

It would be nice to know thae actual size similarity or performance similarity, so as to locate them too.

In the future, unfortunately for us now, knowing we have so much less, there will probably be a way to see everyoen's brain activity as we talk, sand so regular peopl e will be astounded to talk to incredibly large and active minds, who are stil nice to them oftentimes wanting to locate them, but thenone knows what one cannot see from them. Also, differential experience will hshow, and this imporrtant, where people's histories will show ignorance in others. Even if they are not as scaled in intelligence.Since I am conversing with others now and am being more relaxed in my typing the metrics will record a slower speed.

Anyway, the skull serves to provide some understanding as to what will not be received or thought by another mind, and so at a very basic level phrenology has some justification, connecting it with also the views of anthropologists and human archeologists (paleontologists atoo andn so on). The skull capacity is =expected to provide signs.

We just don't want to get too fake with that approach to thinking whwhich is harmful.

More interesting would be what the goal was, and that's to find whate brain patterns corresponding to thinking and personality.

I was noting to myself too that while handicaps of and skull sizes can give us scaling expectations, it may not be applicable to all organ parts in the brain, since some parrt are smaller, and may be sizeable and comparable to regular ly developed people, while areas requiring volume like exterioring glia and cortex. So it could be that the feelingsn and emotions, and other parts of the identity of  mentally disabled person is really really close in experiene to an intelligent person. And where do we also get a sense of that? In animals. 

They appear to have very intesne emotions somewtimes, and kdinsness and comfortthat is visibly similar to in humans, and somehow not being exclusive of cranial space. Andn sometiems the size may be less important than being present, bwhere scaling is matching of proportion and not of growth of complexity.

My interior brain glands and structures and stem may be highly similar to that of an elephant or whale, and they may have larger structutres, sdepsite having a more small disproportionately small brain compared with their total size.  The total brain size can be much larger than human, and we prejudically assume that this does not correspond to a scaling expectation of thinking int he wsame way. So something is amiss in this study.

Anwyay the interior subset of brain matter is what we would still like to scope scale and locate somewhatow when we get to know anothehr organizsm. 

I do not think I've yet found waht is rtrue specifically in this , and believe tthis to be a less successful posting as far as finality goes, or tentative conclusiveness, and instead think more time and observation and thinking is needed to find the more meaningful conclusions that exist in this thinking. 

What can we say of the experience of talking to sa small headed person or animal, knowing that the thought tissue in orur brains, isn't existing in theirs, and knowing it is size related and brain existence related. After knowing this, what are wwe trhing to do in what is invisibile to us as we feel out who someone is. there is I think some correspondence later to estimating their geometries and activities and system in theri brain, during those mometns, and as we do it, prejudically for other times too, but with some proability utility.

*515 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766968942, Sunday, December 28, 2025 17:42:22, United States of America*

*Written in 1489 seconds. 1650 words. Typespeed: 66.480 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="knowing-where-you-are-at-all-times-by-knowing-your-brain-activity's-position">Knowing Where You Are At All Times By Knowing Your Brain Activity's Position</a>

*514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766959878, Sunday, December 28, 2025 15:11:18, United States of America*

Psychology | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

I was thinking to change the title to be more accurate, saying that knowing your brain position would help (I mean brain activations and their psoitions), would help you find out where yous are (yous for plural is intended). 

Knowing where yous are at all times.

This interesting observation allows you to know the quantity and mass of you at all times in order also to separate it from all else that is going on, and from all else that exists.

So you can sit in a tiny spot in your head, as a body carrries you around. You are small, and are enjyoing sights and sounds from there. You get to see a lot, and feel a lot, but not be a lot.

*514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766960009, Sunday, December 28, 2025 15:13:30, United States of America*

*Written in 131 seconds. 124 words. Typespeed: 56.760 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="you-can-demarcate-the-boundaries-of-human-thinking-by-clarifying-what-they-appear-to-never-be-thinking-about,-what-they-never-seem-to-be-thinking-like,-and-what-level-of-intelligence-their-visible-behavior-includes,-also-the-quality-of-their-productions">You Can Demarcate The Boundaries Of Human Thinking By Clarifying What They Appear To Never Be Thinking About, What They Never Seem To Be Thinking Like, And What Level Of Intelligence Their Visible Behavior Includes, Also The Quality of Their Productions</a>

*514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766895002, Saturday, December 27, 2025 21:10:02, United States of America*

Relationships | Com | Zoology | Anthropology | Psychology | Human Shortcomings

The goal of this posting is to find and get a better feel for, the mental boundaries of humanity, and to more clearly see what is excluded from most thinking. This would utilize thinking that exists, but is not present in the population typically and usually, and this would allow us to see then, that what else that is better than that, that will be available in teh future, certainly also is not included, and by this we can separate what exists in mentality and what is common from what does not exist or is uncommon.

*514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766895080, Saturday, December 27, 2025 21:11:20, United States of America*

*Written in 78 seconds. 96 words. Typespeed: 73.800 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="that-the-majority-of-humankind-resembles-who-they-consider-the-mentally-deficient,-and-combining-them-to-be-a-single-group">That The Majority Of Humankind Resembles Who They Consider The Mentally Deficient, And Combining Them To Be A Single Group</a>

*514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766893440, Saturday, December 27, 2025 20:44:00, United States of America*

Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Relationships | Com

I have written about this before, but I think personally there is good timing to return to this subject, or increased utilization, for separation of myself with others, along the rules described in Higher Order Attention, also entitled Imagination and Filtration.

The ida here is that humanity has put aside what they consider to be mentally deficient. The mentally deficient are those with mental retardation, various handicaps affecting excessively brain function, those with severe brain injuries, those with alzehimers and so on. The list of wthe mentially deficient can easily be expanded. These people are thought to be less than others in society, although many will pretend that this is not the case, however, in relations between people and these others, there is definitely a tendency to wan tto put these people elsewhere, have them out of view, or to criticize and ridicule them if they are too often intermixed with regulars in a way that makes it harder to enjoy situations or accomplish tasks.

I also spoke about how people of average, slightly above average or below average intelligene, have a propensity to call each others stupid, and to call those who really are stupid taht same word, relating them to those who they ultimately would consider rejects, those people who are in the mentally deficient category. They start to liken those who really are likened to the mentally deficient, and those who they think are not.

In my observations of the people around me since I was young, many times I thought that these people, who will compare less intelligent people around them to the mentally deficient, to reject them, are really extremely disabled, using another criteria of disability that has not been recognized. This criteria of disability would be on ethat is about having basic thinking skills that allow for the understanding of really simplistic but basic truths related t ological thining. These criteria have to be spelled out in more detail, or explicated and listed, but it amounts to having a basic competency to think rationally.

I have noticed in too many situations that the mass of people that comprises the majority simply does not have the competency that I'm referring t, and this set of criteria can be used, I think conclusively, to show that at the level of education and thinking humanity collectively has now, most peole are incompetent and are mentally deficient, and this list can be used to place the people with mid and high IQ sometimes, along with those of normal and lower IQs, with the handicapped as mentally defective, to be dealt with as much as to keep uninvolved. 

It also appears to me that democracies and governing bodies have already used this information to arrange things as they are currently arranged, to the dissatisfaction of the public, but with some satisfaction of harmonious process. In other words, deciding parties are simply other people than those to be left out from deciding while they are lead to believe that they have been involved in the process. The system is quite elaborate from the perspective of these people regarding the extent to which they've been left out, and the system to them would appear difficult. From my perspective it initially seemed somewhat complex, but slowly began to appear simple, and finally, it is obvious that people are excluded while it is pretended that they are involved. This again is because of some observation that people are incompetent at a more general level.

If tehre were a third party objective observaer (observer) that was watching human kind as any species zoologically, I think they could see thtat humans only have some very small quantity of individuals who are really actually mentally competent, and the remainder really are not. This would make sense given humankind is only recently peeking their eyes out from behind position in rimordial history into the future, at what it might really be like, to be mentally competent. They are barely out of being combined without much differentiation from the rest of animals, and the differentiation is mostly now illusory and due to the advancements created in technology and academics by some small nujber of people, many of whom are still incompetent.

A shortcoming of mankind is that too many really do not fulfill the criteria, adn that they do not fulfill the crieria might be likened to an observation that a minimum iq is needed to be competent and that it might be very high and not where people would hope. The average people who call people stupid and retarded, making fun of the obviously handicapped would be hoping that something below the average would be what woudl demarcate them from those who are inferiors, which makes it clear to them and others, they hope, that they are still good quality.

I think the reality is that the actual demarcation line is in the high IQ domain and includes traits that are not only about IQ but include other things about the nervous system of interest, like personality, self-motivation, and degree of inclination towards honesty and truth telling.

If this perspective is correct, and it seems correct given the position in time of civilization being at an early state, it would simply be theat the bst of human kind are expressing traits of the future of human kind early, and the rest are beneficiaries who do not have those same traits. 

They recognize them piecemeal, and have them in part, and find admiration periodically, but revert quickly to being fools largely, fools or incompetents doing littel productive.

I will argue for this further, and also that the sensitivity hasd about this, that results in reactions that are savage and foolish, are also examples taht this is definitely the case.

*514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766894338, Saturday, December 27, 2025 20:58:58, United States of America*

*Written in 898 seconds. 961 words. Typespeed: 64.200 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="being-included-in-the-literary-canon,-doesn't-explain-why-it's-there,-and-it's-not-you">Being Included In The Literary Canon, Doesn't Explain Why It's There, And It's Not You</a>

*514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766885539, Saturday, December 27, 2025 18:32:19, United States of America*

Relationships | Com | Living Autobiography | Archiving | History

It appears to me, that if something related to a person is included in some history or archiving, they think it is them somewhow. For example, if I were honored with my name placed onto some list of names ona  monument, if I'm like others, I would think I was included there. However, I was not. Not only that, not at all, or in such a small way it definitely is equivalenting to nothing when compared with other ways in which one could be included. For example, being included as an employee as a team at work, is maximally opposite to being supposedly included by reference.

Additionally, if one is included in a collection of writings somehow, with one's art, and one's writings, or fragments of one's own writings, one also has not been included. One has not been transformed into paper and pictures, putting it in a childlike way. Yet people will speak using language in such a way as to state that they've been included in history. There is no hisotry of bodies living I've sen, The history of dead bodies is the collection of cemeteries. That is a strange way to be "included" in a history, and that is more accurate than say, having some details about you written down.

Not much more needs to be said about this. I am clear to myself right now, that if my rwriting is included in any archive for keeping, that I have not been included at all. 

But now I disagree slightly, and in a major way actuallly, recalling that my book and journal is an externalization of my brain, particularly here in the thoughtstream, and since I relate, in a way I am concluded.

How refreshing, a very powerful contradiction! Rarely are my intuitions fauulty but here I have to say, this is a serious error. I think externalization of brains are included in archives, despite what I said above. Nevertheless, the literal truth that one is not included into these recrods, as oneself, is important, because logically, people really do, act as though they have, themselves, been so included.

For example, if one is in the hall of fame for example, Putting your name there, did not relocate your corpse there, or your living body if still alive, or the externalization of your brain.

Likewise, if you have a star on the hollywood walk of fame, it is another veterans wall, simply putting names down in a durable way, and that is not putting any externalization of brain there either.

The contradition has lead to an increased precision and maybe a criterion of what it is to be included.  Or to be included in a way that matters more for the language of self-appplause and praise to be more than nonsense.

My brain's externalization, in productions, within the Book and Journal of Mattanaw, is not recognizably me either, and when I look at it, it certainly doesn't have my traits, being flat on a screen, shown on a UI, or on paper, from digital writing, in binary, on the computer storage. This is pretty dissimilar to me.

Representation of my brain is somewhat true however, and it does tell in sequence what many of my actions were. You could make a robotic Mattanaw, sitting in front of the computer, programmatically typing the characters seen in teh Bok and Journal, and the robot would, be doing something vry close, to what I did, using similar keystrokes of hand metallic.

There is more representingme in this living autobiography and book and jorurnal  and collection of brain to paper writings than is what might be noticed at first. But it's non corporeal, and as I said in a very recent posting, wanted to be maximally non-moving.

*514 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766886160, Saturday, December 27, 2025 18:42:40, United States of America*

*Written in 621 seconds. 626 words. Typespeed: 60.480 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="don't-use-the-same-sentence-over-and-over-and-sentences-that-amount-to-synonyms-or-translations-of-one-another">Don't Use the Same Sentence Over And Over And Sentences That Amount To Synonyms Or Translations Of One Another</a>

*513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766873168, Saturday, December 27, 2025 15:06:08, United States of America*

Language | Com | Relationships | Mathematics

At this moment I don't want to spend too much time developing this subject and instead I want to record it as something to develop upon later. This subject relates to the earlier subject discussed about the role of synonyms as partly being for ensuring the same words are not used too many times in a row. This is even a cause for the desire to learn other languages, to not simply hear the same things too often, and to finally be hearing and saying things that feel new and have some new characteristics. Synonyms are thought to have some differences from the words they mean almost the same thing as, and these differences are enough to cause some satisfaction at switching from one word to another. This is not a view that I'm uncertain about: even as I write here, if I make a choice to talk about an object and use the same word too many times, I feel forced to use an alternative word or a set of alternative words instead to discuss the same, else the audience and readership would be too annoyed. I feel annoyed using the same words too many times. So there is an urge to switch on the basis of rules of language I know exist, in how language is actually used for comfort of others and not only rules pertaining to grammar, and also in the feeling I have of irritation of using the same words too many times.

Well the same kind of rules seem to exist for phrases. There are situations which really could call for simply using the same sentences over and over, but people will feel once again internally that it is too repetitive to do that, and also that a listener would eventually get annoyed. So we use different closings for letters, different phrases to replace those taht are obviously apt for applications, but nevertheless *must differ sometimes* and so on. This is a very common thing we do. Also it relates to other languages that form sentences that mean roughly the same thing as sentences in other langauges. Undeniably, people in different cultures, within different langauges, really are saying nearly identical things to each other, which is a cause for thinking their lives are as similar as they are. Some will deny this, but this is something in my experience that is self-evident. The way language is even taught, anticipates common needs between travelers and teaches to say the same sentences in all the languages might want to learn. It's like the teacher of many languages would have a framework in which to learn the same langauge rapidly in all the other languages, because one would have the same need in each language, and of course there is a way to say the same sentences, and of course people really do. That is an obvious example that what I said above that other languages are using nearly the same sentences happens to be true, and without this fact there would be great difficulty learning other langauges, or understanding other cultures. But they eat and drink, use restrooms, exchange cash, and need places to sleep, and do everything else similarly to everyone else elsewhere.

Translations mean that between langauges there are sentences used for the same thing, and learning the different sentences, while it presents some difficulty, is by human prejudiced seen to be something that would create novelty and interest. I agree somewhat this is true, or that it is true sometimes and not nearly all of the time. Learning a new language excitedly is learning synonym sentences, and not only synonym words. Now that we have considered it for different languages we will quickly discuss it for within individual languages.

And now I see I'm going further than I expected but I'm now motivated.

Within a language, I have argued, that there are many translations. A simple example of translation within a language is to use a synonym for a word. If one did not have a synonym for a word, learning the new word is equivalent to learning *part of a new language*. Some may disagree, but it is intuitively true. Learning a synonym is like learning a new word in a very similar language that happens to have similar phonetics and pronunciation. It is not impossible that a new dialect should exist for a language, that would begin to build its own word list? The beginnings of such a dialect would be a fork in an existing language, which would gradually show differences of pronunciation and vocabulary, but there would still be much vocabulary in common. If they grow different enough, we start to say they are new langauges, although we know they are related, and we can discuss the relationships, by showing similarities of synonyms. We could change the way we discuss language comparisons by using hte concept of synonyms and copies further.

Within a language, I cannot say the same sentence too many times, and sometimes will choose a translation for that sentence, using other words. This I will say still consitutes a kind of synonym. We would have to use some math of sets to discuss degrees of similarities and differences, but that has always been true of synonyms too. When we want to express something using another sentence than one we used before, we are really trying to form an expression that has nearly the same meaning, but one that cannot be identical. It can be very close sometimes, and other times, might incorporate other interesting meanings, while having enough that is shared. That is not unlike, using a synonymous sentence *and* adding more sentence, or more sentences. Quantity of language and synonyms is of interest, since also there can be overlapping meanings between long expressions and short expressions, and both can add meanings to what is intended to be similar within, and so long expressions can translate short ones sometimes, and short one long ones.

I have argued that precision sometimes requires overlooking the desire to satisfy self and others with avoiding excess repetition, to simply use an exact meaning again and again, and this is actually consistent entirely with mathematics, where they are not making such transformations to avoid repetition (or as often). This leads to imprecisions to be avoided. In language we care enough about avoiding too much repetition that we have a large supply of synonyms, and a large supply of expressions and sentences, that mean the same as each other. Merely being a different person is enough for one to desire to have an individuality calling for not speaking exacly as others do, while having the same needs to express the same meanings. So even individuality creates synonymous words and expressions, and we think of this sometimes as an enriching of culture, when the individual expressions creatively arrived at seem to have something special in how they represent a meaning, while the meaning represented is still largely translatable, and can obviously be expressed in another langauge too.

For the purposes of individuality, novelty, and avoidance of repetition, we have extra words, phrases, and common sentences, and sayings, and all that, and this builds up languages to their sizes as they exist today. This means that the way they build is not really about conceptual advancement, or improving the language technology we have, so that what we have is really more advanced. The overall size of the number of common sentences, sayings, and words we have is largely a redundancy! This is even more true as we consider "language" as all languages, and see that all langauges are big synonyms for each other, to the extent that they can be *culturally equivalent*.

That appears to be a novelty or sort adding to my criticisms early about the interest in new languge acquisition, not that people are learning many words and phrases that are too similar, such that they really are liars about cognitive advancements, but that *entire langauges* are just synonyms largely. Facts about cultures convey what is different, and these are translatable to all languages. So even what is missed in the synonym is conveyable with more words and sentences in each language.

Any language can be made a synonym for another language, understanding that missed meanings is what a synonym is about partly. So another language is like another word for the same thing in a way.

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


## <a name="the-names-of-people-have-low-linguistic-utility,-indicating-words-for-specific-humans-would-be-low-quality-vocabulary">The Names of People Have Low Linguistic Utility, Indicating Words For Specific Humans Would Be Low Quality Vocabulary</a>

*513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766872919, Saturday, December 27, 2025 15:01:59, United States of America*

Relationships | Com | Language | Linguistics | Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science

If you look through your list of vocabulary words for people you have, which are simply names you recall, you'll find that too many of the names are used recently at zero frequency, and over time at very low frequency.

There are even rules of etiquette that state that one should not use names of people with others in communication, which would mean one should not speak about them in person without them present, write about them, publish about them, and so on. This means in addition to not using the words, there are rules against them (I mean rules against using those words).

In culture it is true that people's names come up over and over, so it is not like I'm denying that words for people are not used at all, and actually they are used quite often. But it does not appear to be a contradiction that conceptually names for people are low value. I will certainly return to this idea in the future.

*513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766873082, Saturday, December 27, 2025 15:04:42, United States of America*

*Written in 163 seconds. 167 words. Typespeed: 61.440 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-threshold-of-indoctrination-escape-and-honest-usefulness">The Threshold of Indoctrination Escape and Honest Usefulness</a>

*513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766809104, Friday, December 26, 2025 21:18:24, United States of America*

Handicapy | Disabled Through Above Average | Illogical | Delusional | Primitive Currency, Modernity and Future

My viewpoint nowadays is that even those significantly above average, and even in to the gifted domain, including some in Mensa and otehrs reporting high intelligence, are indoctrinated and are unable to e honest and truthful, and have difficulty using logica, and resemble each other such that there is little difference from being andicapped and being these others. They really can be combined together as someone to never converse with, listen to, or think ever that they could be political advocates for the benefits of others.

*513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766809190, Friday, December 26, 2025 21:19:50, United States of America*

*Written in 86 seconds. 86 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="artificiality-of-our-expanded-vocabulary-exhibited-in-names-for-dwellings,-parallelipeds-living-spaces,-isms,-and-synonyms,-treating-languages-together-as-one-total-language">Artificiality Of Our Expanded Vocabulary Exhibited In Names For Dwellings, Parallelipeds Living Spaces, Isms, and Synonyms, Treating Languages Together As One Total Language</a>

*513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766793651, Friday, December 26, 2025 17:00:51, United States of America*

Linguistics | Language | Mathematics | Psychometrics | Intelligence | Concptual Innovation | Stagnations | Human Shortcomings | Technology | Constraint and Determinism

Before iI talked about how some were responsible for increasing the apparent number of our available words and concepts in a way that misleads our innovation level. WEll that somethign of this was happening with too many synonyms and isms, but I didn't say anything about the contribution to misleading people. It would be true that historically an excitement about creating words for isms, an dor having new words to savy the same, and to hav enew languages, creates a view that cluture has incrased and we have more than we do.

Having other languages has largely increased our synonyms, and our difficulties talking together while having the ame words!

It has done less to epand culture than to mislead that language helps, because of course, as advancement happens, it  has to be spread in synonyming new concepts accross the world in all the langs. Meical growth does not get improved by language, it isonly hindereed, and the ability to say in other langs the same medical words coming from another more masterful language (for having those concepts, so partially more masterful), means the concepts were simply created one time and tehn created over and over.

There are other ways that this has happened, than with increasing synonyms, and I thought to post this, or write it into my book, because I noticed that human perallelipeds, or rectocubees to be inside, receive names that are also not needed. A bank is a money cube, and a grocery store is a food cube, and a museum might be an art parallleliped, or art block. We do  not need cubes anymore but parallelipeds, or we can polygon them, as interior polygons three dimensional, when inside.

I'm now at a starbucks, which is a cube,. Inside are cubes. These are familiar cubes inside, called potty comfort cubes. The rest of the space is sit down cube and beverage cube. Really the word coffee house, is even saying cofee cube. Then we have synonyms in the same lang for dwellings. Example:

House, Mansion, Victorian Home, Condo, Apartment, Tiny House, RV, Cottage, Getaway Home, Vacation Home, Castle, and other cubes, with more cubes or less, unto shack cubes, like shed, treehouse, coffin, hostel bunk, pod (in pod hostel), cave, ...

Cube even reduces as I daid to polyygonal space, but cave made it confusing because now I just need bubbble or dome, or irregular container with sufficient open space and flatness inside. I can't lay on a bunch of things stickingup, that are sharp. So floors become floors in places. I could have focused on interior floors. Every place I can think of is an interior floor with a protective outer shell, and the outer shell can be basic, or can be very advanced, like a spny cathedral. Spires just mean spines.

Really, humans have actually lied about their advancement in their langauge, by having too many of the same, and too much of the same inside.

Now I want to explore using more abstract concepts athat resist synonyming. Objects and properties together. Weirdly, this expands concepts the same way, liek noun building in german.

cubilcalrefusing. Cubicalreligion. CubicalSchooling.

Did anyone know what I meant?

This combined with gesturing, might show greater expression with less, constructing synonyms with lesss, wehre otherwise ther ewould be vocabulary. Fucntional equivalence with less, or more, becasue right now, school might teach to simply learn how to speak spanish saying the same things as English, or vice versa, or saying dwellling in two hundred ways, or having ism next to words pretending that means you study it, or commit to it.

Usingcubes-ism.

Pediatry, is really just foot focus. or Podiatry.

*513 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766794427, Friday, December 26, 2025 17:13:47, United States of America*

*Written in 776 seconds. 609 words. Typespeed: 47.040 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="reload-versus-ideation">Reload Versus Ideation</a>

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766793202, Friday, December 26, 2025 16:53:22, United States of America*

ThoughtStream | Psychology | Constraint and Determinism | Creativity Management

Just recording so I recall to expand and elaborate later.

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766793214, Friday, December 26, 2025 16:53:34, United States of America*

*Written in 12 seconds. 10 words. Typespeed: 49.980 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="what-exactly-in-my-consitution-is-changing-as-i-feel-vague-mental-improvements-from-miscellaneous-efforts-and-we-could-check-the-externalizations-of-our-brains">What Exactly In My Consitution Is Changing As I Feel Vague Mental Improvements From Miscellaneous Efforts, And We Could Check The Externalizations Of Our Brains</a>

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766790133, Friday, December 26, 2025 16:02:13, United States of America*

Psychology | ThoughtStream | Constraint and Determinism | Self-Help | Progress | Evaluative Concepts | Living Autobiography | Mental Productions | Human Behavior

Occasionally I feel I must be advancing, while feeling what might be called a vague mental experience, of irrelevantly searching for what the advancement should be, having no ability to sense it. What prompted this thinking really, wondering how I'm advancing without knowing how to check or how to know what feeling prompts it. Strange randoming of looking for self-improvements, in some mood, or experience, of awareness about not using the skills. There is an odd experience I'm not yet able to explain, and I'm making jokes, but sometimes after much practicing, one knows one has gotten better, thinking about that, while the powers are not felt to exist. Somewhere inside I'm improving I can tell, would be a way to look at it, while mocking it.
 
But then I did think of a way to check progress, and it is a general way, consistent already with what was authoritatively stated in The Velocity of Significance and Ideation, that deltas of production show deltas of brain development, and so the progress should be existing in externalizations of the brain, which simply are behaviors, particularly those that are reviewable, which are recordings of behaviors. Writings are oddly recordings of behaviors and not just recordings as we might sometimes think, and this might be expected from being recordings of thought! But somehow it is strange and informative to say it is also recordings of behavior. Because behavior is of thoughts too, and all is relating ultimately to motion. Thinking and behavior are motions, on the metric of motion, and are also related to brain tissue and configuration, and where there is a bodily use outside the brain, other kinds of tissues, like muscles and tendons, and this can transfer motion through objects and tools like pens which are perceived as brain extensions somewhat like body parts, and the motion is transmitted to the page, in the form of what *doesn't want to continue moving*, to personify just a little. Recordings are of behaviors and are behaviors (in a way) resulting in a really small amount of motility, what is hoped to be nearly none, but when graphite and ink is observed closely, it jiggles around. But it jiggles mostly in place for up to a millenium if taken care of. That's how fast we want our recordings to be.
 
There appear to be interesting things of physics involved here. For my rapid writings, that become motionless, there is a larger supply of the motionless, through the heightened movement of the fingers, and increased movement and configuration deltas of the brain. There is supposed to be a corresponding change of brain and result in this over the wires, which is a transmission. The quantity of data is static on the other side once recorded, and of course these thoughts are having some degree of persistance in my brain, which also involves motionless tissues too, but I need the paper, because the tissues do a less good job, which is why the tissues need the paper. Quantity of motionless data has an interest.
 
The better the archive, the more maximally motionless are the recordings, else they changed right!? We want them to stay the same, and this means, the scribblings don't change places on the page, or enter the air, or get absorbed by other chemicals, or change by the light, and so on. They only not move. Not moving is uniquely related to data preservation, and weirdly, since etchings and writings last so long, but there is need of high transmission of communication, we want fingers and tongues that move faster and faster, to make the slowest recordings.

"Why are your recordings so slow?"

My recordings are fast when they appear for the first time, and then they never move again.

While I was in Tiblisi, Georgia, I was thinking to myself about how they might be very motionless, and very preserved, and thought that a large rock, with the interior having the same pattern as the exterior, and all throughout, making each cross section the same, would enable the interior recordings to be most weather resistant, making them, the least moving. This approach would be better than anything used in ancient egypt, and again, leads to the desire in archiving to make data move even slower, as recordings.

There is a confounding of data and recordings here but maybe not in some ways not yet noticed.

Physically I think there is an archival principle that may amount to a new Law by Mattanaw.This law goes as follows, and I'm just now thinking it for the first time:

"As recordings increase in speed of communication throughput, there is a decrease in stationariness of the recording."

This will need alternative formulation but makes clear that I'm saying there is a relationship between the speed that recordings happen, and the physical durability of recordings to physical media. I don't think it's really entirely correct yet, but I think within it is an important relationship between the needs of increasing data communication while increasing the data stationary-ness (lol), or motionlessness. I think there is a limiter in growth, that corresponds to a natural law, that I'm ill expressing, and admittedly did not identify with sufficient discernment and clarity and distinctness. Distinctness is the missing criteria. 

For the typical reader, certain significances may be missed.

This means if I speak to aliens, trying to tell myself, given the rest of the Book and Journal of Mattanaw and its goal of greater descriptiveness, I need to tell more and more, and not less to tell it all, yet that might lead to less durability, because my communications are still moving too fast, for having started moving too fast (still trying to clarify the relationship). Being able to share what humans or any animal is, or was, or thought about, becomes less feasible. In some movies, there were examples of humans trying to "share the most important communications" with aliens, using fewer words, because it might be thought, it is too unlikely nothing gets shared, unless short enough. And they say it dumbly slow.

A giant slowly etched rock, with interior having the same message as the exterior (or 3d printed steel block, etc... which is a new kind of rock formation), with bigger characters, i.e less words, seems to have a better chance of finally communicating something.

Notice the size of the letters decreases the speed of the writing, and decreases the non-stationariness of the writing, meaning the writing moves slower (still word playing), meaning throughput was decreased, and movement of the recording decreased, with expectation of greater total life of the message. So *even size* relates to the speeds I was talking about further *confirming* that speed of communication *increases* the speed of the recoring and its deterioration, so we use *slowness of communication* to raise the *motionlessness of the information* so that it lasts, and is finally received.

Repetitiveness has not been included in this view, and at first I thought it contradicted but milliseconds later think *it does not* because repeating the same message means taking up the space of other messages, which decreases the speed of the communication, by taking too much space with the same. Repeating a message amounts to making the characters huge on a block of rock or metal.

Now finally, the most repetitive message is a statute, that does not change. It takes up the maximum space.

So a repetitive radio transmission is similar in its occupation of space to a giant statue that is repeating *supposedly continuously*. So the intuition that there is a law is gaining consilient strength.

I now noticed a contradiction thought.

The motionless, stationary minimal message, has maximal repetition if continuous. Actually it is not a contradiction, it just increases the durability of the short message and increases the repetition of the delivery!!

I was not certain but my other view, that stationary objects have maximum advertising, may also be a law of sorts worth recording. An advertisement on television is annoying but transitory extremely, but a gigantic statue of Stalin, Martin Luther King, or Hitler, transmits annoying messages supposedly infinite according to physicists. I don't know if I agree about that, but they never stop showing and displaying, unlike quick Ford ads. People who live around statues may live more oppressed lives, which may make Islam more attractive regarding human appearances in art, but less regarding signs in the form of mosques that all look too similar. Catherals are annoying too in my opinion.

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



## <a name="there-is-a-need-to-make-intelligence-a-zoological-study-and-not-just-a-human-study,-to-bring-clarities-by-additional-comparisons">There Is A Need To Make Intelligence A Zoological Study And Not Just A Human Study, To Bring Clarities By Additional Comparisons</a>

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766789863, Friday, December 26, 2025 15:57:43, United States of America*

Psychometrics | Intelligence Studies | Zoology | Anthropology | Biological Astronomy

I noticed that some clarities as to the usefuleness of intelligence as a metric would be clarified by expanding the psych;metric studies from humans to everything else, including some other animals. Humorously I want it to be astronomical too, and I think intuitively that won't be fruitless.

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766789925, Friday, December 26, 2025 15:58:45, United States of America*

*Written in 62 seconds. 47 words. Typespeed: 45.480 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="there-needs-to-be-a-mathematical-prediction-curve-for-the-phrase,-if-they're-dumb-then-you-know-they-did-it">There Needs To Be a Mathematical Prediction Curve For The Phrase, If They're Dumb Then You Know They Did It</a>

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766789149, Friday, December 26, 2025 15:45:49, United States of America*

Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Psychology

WE know that as people become less intelligent gradually, there is a c (there is a) groupwise decrease in functioining which seems to indicate that poor behavior increases as people are less intelligent, but this may decrease after a certain point when diysfunctions increase.

Anyways it seems there really would be some curve in which guilt or expected guilt simply grows with diminishing IQ. 

I will say more on this in the future, but merely wanted to record it for now, because already there is a sense that people have that peopl who are less intelligent pose a danger to them, and that they will have less inhibitions about doing things in which humans have common propensity. We might expect for example that more stupid datsds are molesters for example. This is because we know that males have a desire to touch oftentimes and that the inhibition to touch inappropirately should decrease as groupwise functions decrease following the same pathway as a stupidity curve. Just imagine you have three, or actually 6 horny brothers and you are a female. There may be less inhibition as the brotehrs are increasingly stupid, although in this example, it might be that temptation is too much for everyone!

haha!

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766789366, Friday, December 26, 2025 15:49:26, United States of America*

*Written in 217 seconds. 205 words. Typespeed: 56.640 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="the-quantity-of-thoughts-about-the-life-categories-or-within-the-life-categories-in-cycle-or-repetition-tells-of-the-repetitiveness-of-life-yet-does-not-diminish-that-one-must-think-repetitively-or-in-the-same-beneficial-ways-even-at-an-optimum,-as-thought-trends-to-automation-thinking-it-does-not-rethink">The Quantity Of Thoughts About The Life Categories Or Within The Life Categories In Cycle or Repetition Tells Of The Repetitiveness Of Life Yet Does Not Diminish That One Must Think Repetitively Or In The Same Beneficial Ways Even At An Optimum, As Thought Trends To Automation Thinking It Does Not Rethink</a>

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766737423, Friday, December 26, 2025 01:23:43, United States of America*

Constraint and Determinism | Life Categoires | Repetitiveness | Moral Technology | Ritual | Cognitive Limitations | Human Shortcomings | Discipline | Higher Order Attention | Self-Training

There is an irritation that morality and moral thinking would be repetitive, and at first, when it is well done it won't seem so repetitive as later, and it is true that after a while, a tremendous level of repetition is detected. Fortunately within this system, the repetition is understood to be part of life's requirements becausae the strucutre of life is the same daily, and thinking covering life would cover its arrangement and structure again and again, in similar ways, knowing the verbal model.

Thinking about the visuals of life calls to mind the same visuals and structure of sight.

Religions are very repetitive, and too repetitive, and if it is made very clear the role of repetition including the role and extent of unwanted repetition, then the system is a better one. Religions definitely do not achieve this. This particular system does, and even explains taht eventually, the repeittion is less aware, and becomes more automated, and that the actual repetitions that exist are natural repeitions and not artificial ones.

The area in which repetition seems greater than desired is in the training to use and recognize life structure, and to fit things into that structure, given shortcomings of the human mind and inability to learn. but after the learning period is gone through, there is a reduction int he repeition, even as the mind may experience internally an increase in utilization.

This all requires further elaboration, but I'm certain that the repetition within this system is simply something that is due to the structure of life and nature, and that additional repetition is due to the needs of learning in a human with shortcomings of cogniztion.

Tis I have noticed a long time ago explains ritual too. Rituals are needed because of weaknesses of memory systems, and the need to have many reminders. But unlike religion, I have not gone too far in reminding, and I explain when reminders are too much, since they should not go beyond a point in which an optimum should exist or be used in stead. This is vague and requires explaination and wi I will provide that in the future.

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766737771, Friday, December 26, 2025 01:29:31, United States of America*

*Written in 348 seconds. 359 words. Typespeed: 61.860 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="my-successes-using-attentional-filtration-of-advertisements-to-avoid">My Successes Using Attentional Filtration of Advertisements To Avoid</a>

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766736646, Friday, December 26, 2025 01:10:46, United States of America*

Higher Order Attention | Propaganda, Marketing and Advertising | Imagination and Filtration | Architecture | Learning | Education In Contradiction With Advertising and Entertainment

Over the years I have become increasingly able at simply ignoring advertisements. I am very averse to advertisements and marketing, and think them to be very intrusive. Part of my attentional management process has been for the avoidance of entertainment that will show unwanted advertisements. Over time, using this proess I have been successful at more quickly eliminating ads from my attention.

It is true that they are still annoying to me, but I noticed just a few moments ago that the speed of avoidance can reduce the irritation experienced, and that I have actually reduced the irritation experienced, but that Ican see now that I can reduce it further.

 while I was watching or listening to some music on youtube with an associated music video, there was an advertisement that popped up, but I noticed how quickly I turn my face away and mute it. I noticed also that I did not feel very annoyed about it, having quickly avoided it.

Also, I realized I do that all the time. It's been decades so surely there should have been some increase in ability, even if I did not think about it much.

Also, while I mostly do not watch television, soemtimes I do if there are interesting reasons during travel, or after some very long period not watching any. For decades I have avoided television. I noticed, that if ads come onto the television, its more like they do not exist. Also, since my behavior on the market isnow inconsistent with ads, there can be less mental effect. There is a combined result of an inability to attend or be affected as muc h by ads, although I am still not wanting them in my enenvironment.

There will be more to be said in the future but this suggests a general strategy that makes ads simply less intrusive and less able to have effect over a long time.

This is unfortunate thought that there would be any need to counter ads like this and it does take a long time to feel more comfotable within a system that presents ads, and one has to avoid normal behavior very largely although this is still to ones benefits outside of the considerations of advertisement avoidance only.

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766736970, Friday, December 26, 2025 01:16:10, United States of America*

*Written in 324 seconds. 375 words. Typespeed: 69.420 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="all-productions-as-furtherance-of-the-book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-that-is-mattanaw's-life-development-blended-with-his-biology-and-an-externalization">All Productions As Furtherance Of The Book and Journal Of Mattanaw That Is Mattanaw's Life Development Blended With His Biology And An Externalization</a>

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766735095, Friday, December 26, 2025 00:44:55, United States of America*

ThoughtStream | Living Autobiography | Living Into Productions | Productions Blended With Life | Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Moral Technology | Constraint and Determinism | Life Categories

[Note: All was blind typed and no edits were made, excepting what was blind edited, and a final removal of two or three extra line breaks that were not intended.]

The Attentional Management Process and Positive Object Map already between the two of them contain and organize, and plan, all behavior and all motions within your living environments. Recently, knowing that the Book and Journal Itself was organized according to the life categories and other global ways of organizing, that they are another model matching up with the attention management process. The life categories are teh cause of their similarity. They were both created already with a knowledge that the life categories would repeatedly be utilized for anything that would involve life organization, but it was not yet considered that the actions relating the (to the) attention management process would be wanted to involve productions processes that output into the Book and Journal and that the Book and Journal would be the only location of the output. This actually does mean that any externalizations from the mind of Mattanaw and his brain activities would be into one place, the book and journal, since it ha

architected also to be able to support all media types that would be the result of the productions, but most especially text productions.

There is greater significance than this may make clear though, using the specialized and idiosyncratic terminology that was arrived at in the course of creating this stystem. Anything that the brain is thinking of is largely organized by the attention management process, and anything thought  related includes everything, including activitities. Activities and behaviors are encompassed by all this thinking within this attentional process, which includes all goal oriented behaviors and amost behaviors nowadays are goal oriented having been properly organized and related to a sufficiently complete life process.

So all behaviors are relating to productions that are goal oriented actions tha tare related to organized thinking that happens in the life process of the group of brain activatioins. There is an alternative way to put this and obviously there will be more writing in the future to discuss this in other ways.

The productions can be purely mental, but when mental have the same organization. When these thoughts are not only mental, but are mental combined with actions on tools tht acreate recordings, the outputted recordings fit within an architecture, that has organized the Book and Journal, which  makes all mental output into the world correspond with the mental organization that is desired. It is multimedia.

The multimedia output of the productions is the multimedia output that is proven to be desirable and awanted for good communication, and using my perspective better communication is mulmulti-media or uses a number of different ways of showing, which includes art, music, diagramming, film, writing, and otehr techniques besdies these and within these.

The communication is probabilistically expected to not recdeive much attention. Conclusions regarding attention assume things like a low supply of actual interest and cognitive processing, and a low amount of actual readiness to spend time, energy, and funds on intellectual products, and so the primary audience is the set of brain activations that the authors' brain can have.

This measn that the most probable result of the process and the best use(which is optimal) involves the feedback between the brain and its externalizations, and already it is known that the brains organizations and the externalizations are similar, and that there is interdependence in learning.

The architecture assumes taht the learning process uses and (an) interplay of thihnking about experience, acting, and seeing the results of action, and of learning through thinking about stimului, which can include any of the same aforementioned media types and more, which might come from someone else, but more importantly comes from oneself as one observes someone elses productions, and even more importantly, as one creates for oneself, or thinks about one's thoughts.

More on this in the future, but what is clear is that this trends to a very clear system in which the brain activations and masses of the author (and configurations) are an interplay of themselevs and the writings/productions within a process that is reasonable and well defined, and well architected. This is a moral process which is planned thihnking and behavior and output, in a way that is consistent with the type of being doing the thinking and action.

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766735931, Friday, December 26, 2025 00:58:51, United States of America*

*Written in 836 seconds. 704 words. Typespeed: 50.520 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="someone-working-morally-and-productively-within-a-process-begins-over-time-to-seem-diligent-all-the-time-like-a-worker-but-for-mostly-everything-instead">Someone Working Morally And Productively Within A Process Begins Over Time To Seem Diligent All The Time Like A Worker But For Mostly Everything Instead</a>

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766724164, Thursday, December 25, 2025 21:42:44, United States of America*

Life Categories | Diligence | Another Ethic | Architecture | Higher Order Attention | Behavior and Organizations | Business Processes | Human Programs | Livelihood

Looking over my entries within my 3Day amp or attention management process spreadsheet I keep records on on paper, it is starting to appear that all I do is dilligennt (diligent). Without thinking about it too much, focusing on increasing my organization, and my personal behavioral process, I have arrived at a state in which, much that I do simply is dilligent and productive.

If one is a writer, for example, one might be able to get oneself to write mostly every  day or every other day. If one is a professional writer, or a person with a career, one may be able to work every day. Let's focus on the writer however. The writer in both situations would be someon ewho if organizaed woud be accumulating work that is tangible. There would be increasing file sizes, and total quantitites of writing, which would look like the output of a dilligent person. If someone additionally, working on various areas of life and not only what is of interest and what produces income, and collects data on each, one will start to look like a globally productive and dilligent person.

An organized prson, who is often returning to each life category , and has connected each of the life categories with monitoring, data collection, and some level of logging and writing and other productions, will seem to be a globally dilligent person.

The connection of moral comprehensiveness and diligence in output, connecting ones thinking with different kinds of productions, which may or may not be tangible, and can also be mental, will eventually seem like a very disciplined person wherever one looks in that person's life, with potentially some few exceptions, but still an average disposition that is exceedingly great in consistency of effort and output.

I didn't think about this so much until I was looking at my three day attentional management data scheet and saw that my coverage is really over everything I'm doing and there is some build up of productions for each area. Already almost twwenty years ago, I aimed to have a balanced and multi-category collection of data during thorough life monitoring for self-improvement, and at that time, obviously I had to be disciplined. The time it took to make data entries in each area revealed to me there was a difficulty in being even able to make personal advancements in each area, and I instead said, and still say it periodically today, that a person has to focus  on one or a few areas of development and then shift to others in order to build further on a wide number of life domains. Chaanging oneself all at once is not really realistic.

I hold taht same opinion today, but now after twenty years, perhaps what I was not excpecting, is that after a very long period of preparations, it is possible to have global advancement, but that global advancement is something theat requires a very long period of partial advancement first. Being an adult when I came to understand the needs of development accross the life categories, I did not have anything I could rely on that would achieve for me what my own work would allow.

In other words, there simply was not a procedure that I had that would teach me what I needed and instead I had to learn it all on my own and have many discoveries myself, which was part of the research and study associated with my work on moral philosophy which is largely about behavior. Also at the time I was a student of psychology. 

If the world wowere situated otherwise, and children were taught this system early, or a system akin to it, then I don' tthink they would exist school 12 years after starting, without being in the same position I eventually arrived at myself in my life at the age of 45. Or at least most would have a way to do the same, while many would actually achieve similar results while still school aged.

I don't think there is anything of too great complexity to teach to students in this particular portion of my ethical writings, although to persuade others that such an approcah would be desirable is definitely too difficult and for taht reason I anticipate it will still *be too hard for the stubborn or unpersuaded* to be possible to be common until the distant future, when something similar is arrived at.

An interesting point about this finding and my work is that it actually constitutes a necessary direction in the improvement of people and human kind and not an option al one, so while I don't think I would have success in convincing others, I think the world will definitely simply later arrive at a transformation which confirms the work I've done.

That does not have a probability assessment attached, and not knowing the future, it could be more pessimisteic than that, but either way, I can see on the developmental horizon, this is necessary, for a certain kidn of positive human development, roughly on the trajectory similar to that we've had in recent history. Things could go wildly different if values were to go another direction, towards a life of gaming and entertainment for example; however, it could be that such a transiton would still happen afeter a few thousand years or more in that condition if it doesn't go the direction I suspect it would, towards an increasing level of education adespite other inclinations of the population that is not in favor of that progression.

Anyway, after a long period of focusing on human process, changing behavior to fit into a process that is feasible for personal development with necessary freedoms and realistic mixing with natural motivations, such that the process is both what oen plans to do and what one actually does, I have found that one can simply start executing the process on all the categories, thinking about each often, such that global coverage is finally not too much. Probably what happens over time is the economy of thinking in relation to the various needs in various categories is rimproved, and that ones behavioral and thihnking efficiecies relate dto the behavioral process simply makes the data collection and the thought upon the categories something one enjoys to dtod o easily without consieration for the time it takes, while taking less time than a beginner would.

I am realiizing at this moment, that I'm really doing the data collection and am reflecting on each of the categories often simply because its what I like to think about and I didn't reflect often on the transition that happened from making a deliberate and studious effort between other kinds of thinking and simply having that process as a part of normal thinking such that most thinking includes it somehow. Since all think ing relates to the life categories, it has become that I don't simply occasionally plan for each category, but thinkik about each category as I do things that relate.So I'm doing tit all the time in a way, which is true with some qualification.

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766725226, Thursday, December 25, 2025 22:00:26, United States of America*

*Written in 1062 seconds. 1186 words. Typespeed: 66.960 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="the-decreasing-need-of-having-anyone-for-any-feedback-or-measure-or-comparison">The Decreasing Need Of Having Anyone For Any Feedback Or Measure Or Comparison</a>

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766712344, Thursday, December 25, 2025 18:25:44, United States of America*

Feedback | Relationships | Com

This is a simple posting about how peole become less needed for feedback conerning what one might want to measure for quality. One eventually just knowlws when one did well, and that one is performing in a way that is vastly greater than the starting point, with a mastery that is possible not too much further than where one happens to be. One is not too far from what is impossible to you but completely mastered from a human perspective, and one is very distant from the starting point.

I think that there is a measurement approach that would assist in determining appropriate evaluative concepts and evaluation techniques that is like what I stated above. There is a starting point, and there is a level of functionality that result sin utility that is much greater than in ignorance. Even without any seeing anyone else who might have a reaction or give feedback, or serve as an object for comparison, one can see simply that one has advanced far from the start and has attained a level of functioning that creates definite rewards. Also one can think about what might be a superhuman but human advancement in the same trajectory and one would find possibly where one is in relation to what might be possible for others ideally, which would give a sort of mathematical way to see what the scale is and where one is on it. 

If one simply looks at how one has progressed, and thinks that one is doing well, it seems obvious that one is actually doing well. That is a simple way to put it. And, I think even animals use this approach that I've stated. How so one might ask. WEll consider that young animals learn some basics about survival before leaving their parents oftentimes, and on their own, behave on certain pathways again and again, until their effectiveness increasess, and through this behavior, and play, they do feel their effectiveness increase, and their enjoyment too, and it also diminishes over time. This gives them a sense of mastery in what they are doing, that they've done well as they advanced and they got so good at what they are doing, that more practie will not advance them much further.

Animals are better able to obtain foood, and do all sorts of physical tasks without as many obstacles and with decreasing effort. This is the same way human animal s are learning, and how they are able to tell tha t they are advancing, and for this very little outside feedback is needed.

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766712722, Thursday, December 25, 2025 18:32:02, United States of America*

*Written in 378 seconds. 429 words. Typespeed: 68.040 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-didn't-think-of-your-audience-members-as-you-wrote-the-message-to-them,-individually,-there-is-delusion-in-your-mass-sharing">If You Didn't Think Of Your Audience Members As You Wrote The Message To Them, Individually, There Is Delusion In Your Mass Sharing</a>

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766711871, Thursday, December 25, 2025 18:17:51, United States of America*

Relationships | Com | Audience | Marketing | Groups | Mathematics

Knowing that there are not groups the way that people like to think of them also implies that there are not audiences for whom you directed your messages.

I didn't think much of it myself, and am only now thinking what I wrote before to post to audiences on social media was more strange than I thought in that I did not ever think it was for anyone, yet I shared it to everyone, with some expectations that were vaguely group assuming somehow.

This may really be about getting to mental specifics about sharing. Rather than thoughtlessly posting to a group, like a first time sharer or publisher, one can think about who specifically one is sharing to, and how they might receie and react to what one has written. Another way to thinka bout it is that one has engaged first in a conversation with each person.

Obviously there is infeasibility to this. If there is infeasibility to this though, what is it that one is doing?

Conversation can't be really what one is doing. One is more largely just sharing things by putting them wehre people might look. 

There is some obviousness to this, but I admit, even I did not go into the details, the minutia, of what I was doing when I was sharing. I don't think may others do either thought too-- like what does an author think they are doing when they publish a book? What kinds of conversations did they think they have? What ways did they think their audience swas their audience. What were the specificis in their expectations which were only imaginations? How did it actually play out with the people it was put in fron tof.

I think before, not thinking sufficiently mathematically maybe, that it was not always needed to go into the details of all the individual interactions, at a granular level. But now that much other thinkigng has been relaxed, I think granualar thinking is more possible. Here I think the result of the attempt to have detailed thinking is that details are missing, and theat where details can be inferred or predicted, it is obviously different than what you were thinking or indttening. When an audience member reads part of one's book, I think it definitely goes differently than one thinks. This would imply the writer was probably delusional about how people would interact with their texts.

*512 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766712280, Thursday, December 25, 2025 18:24:40, United States of America*

*Written in 409 seconds. 401 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="using-historical-lives-for-models-creates-an-impression-they-did-not-face-serious-dangers-as-they-did-what-one-might-like-to-do,-such-that-other-exemplars-were-just-dead,-injured,-or-imprisoned">Using Historical Lives For Models Creates An Impression They Did Not Face Serious Dangers As They Did What One Might Like To Do, Such That Other Exemplars Were Just Dead, Injured, or Imprisoned</a>

*511 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766629934, Wednesday, December 24, 2025 19:32:14, United States of America*

History | Living Models and Exemplars | Historical Models and Exemplars | Situationless People of History | Human Shortcomings

One adventure I would like to be engaged in, is somewhat like the life on the road, which has been made popular in entertainment, and has shown examples which suppposedly had exemplification in hisotry ofr real. 

Adventurous behavior did result in death, injury, abandoned plans, and imprisonment. What are the fdrequencies in which some wwere successful, while others unsuccessful. Success isn't a useful word here wonce again. It's more like, who did it long enough, to experience the problems, or who experienced the problems faster, in a shorter time, because of the risks. What type of people experienceed the problems more than others.

Adventurous behavior is something desired by people who havinge in their imaginations people who were exemplars or people from entertainment who seemed to be able to do it without being thwarted or harmed too much along the way. What is missing extremely is the reality about what one would expect going down a pathway.

Strangely, those who actually succesed can be the worst of advice givers, thinking that because they were able to do it, that the risks were not existing and so on, or that they werwen't as serious as they were, or that they wouldn't be worse for others. Manyare living impossible existences, while providing advice to large groups of people, for whom such a life is unreasonable. 

Not always are these people at the top of pyramids in wihhich structural advancement is restricted and there can only be a few at the top. This alone in many examples creates a clash between what is recommended by them and reality. The reality is, people will not be the leaders, not only on average, but almost at all. The other issue that is similar to this, is that those who make it in a situation where there is no structural societal constraint on advancement making for a pyramid, there is still rarity of getting along the path without injury or without too much thwarting.

What are the demographics and statistics to be used? When I think of historical lifves of interst, how representative are they. Isn't that a wierd question, how representative are they? They are not representative.

This would lead me to think tha tthe better dreams that one might have about adventure might be dreams in which one is asssured success, despite their being adventures. One thinks often, that adventure requires rarity, and not achieving, but that means one definitely shouldn't do it. I for example, have been taught, that I can hike without being eaten by a bear, and therefore, on average, can adventure in the wilderness, with a realistic prospect of successs, that the average would have, and that while I would see dangerous bears, they would not harm me.

This happens to be true it seems, so I can have this adventure, and trying to do it does not seem silly, foolish, or unreasonable. I can dream about it, enjoy it, and really experience adventure. It will not necessarily seem rare particularly over time as more do it, but the rarity isn't suppposed to be what makes enjoyments enjoyable or goals worthy or not. Instead, if it were simply guaranteed I'd get eaten by a bear, I should be advised not to do it. Or if some few made it into the wilderness and lived, hiking about, I shouldnt't follow their advice or eexample, if they were the ones who lived, while all others died, and they lived, because of luck or simply didn't do it long enough to live the risks. To see the consequenes finally happen.

Oddly, it appears from this that average goals may be reasonable for dreams while the ones that are rare are unreasonable. this maeks my venturing into the wildrerness doing cautious things seem much more intelligent than trying to do what is exttremely dangerous. More dangerous hikes did not seem to be more meaningful or beautiful later than ones that were more dangerous either. I think I liked and enjoyed the easy hikes as much as the difficult ones.

*511 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766630527, Wednesday, December 24, 2025 19:42:07, United States of America*

*Written in 593 seconds. 675 words. Typespeed: 68.280 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-one-does-as-options-in-comfort-within-process">What One Does As Options In Comfort Within Process</a>

*511 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766629442, Wednesday, December 24, 2025 19:24:02*, United States of America

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Decision Making | Attention | Architecture | Imagination and Filtration

After having worked through my ethic for a couple decades, working carefully on my logical thinking, each area of my life within the life categories, on the fundamentals of ethics and information related to the various sciences, and on my personal behavioral process, I have arrived at a period in which the discontentment discussed by others has minimally become something to resolve within my system.

Historically, I've not been a person who one would consider discontented, but my activities did include a striving, and long term planned endeavor, to arrive at solutions to a large number of goals, each of which one could argue is an area in which I wanted to not live without having resolution. I would agree with this somewhat. Thinking back into my history, there are areas of life where there were problems that are simply not wanted to remain indefinitely. WThere are problems one does not want to have forever. So if those are not resolved, we might want to say there is something akin to discontentment happening, but the kind of discontentment in a person not exhibiting the traits of the uncontent person is a little different. I think it might be considered light discontentment perhaps.

What might be more accurate though, is to say that, if these problems were not resolved, the personality I have would show its normal resilience, and the plain happiness and comfort would still exist. I think this is true; but nevertheless, I do think the fact that there are problems to be resolved, that require attention, that one would prefer not to go unresolved, still has some kind of minimal discontentment associated with it even though the person experiencing it may be very far from what one would consider unresolute or unresolved, or uncomfortable. People who are extremely happy and satisfied still experience this kind of problem solving need and desire for completion.

Being the type of person to be doing well in almost all circumstances I've found myself in, and before being more focused on solving the problems than on resolving any feelings that relate more fundamentally to *the need to solve problems*, I have not focused on this exclusively. But now I think it is required to focus on this, because I've resolved most problems, including intellectual quandries, and there still remains, as I said, minimally, these little inclinations to solve problems, as if within a habit of solving problems over many years. Nowadays, there aren't any real problems that anyone else would consider to be of importance, and most would say my life is one of leisure not having any serious issues of concern, such that if others could live in a similar condition, they might characterize their life as problem free. Sometimes some observe others who complain of petty problems, and think something wrong of them, being people with better quality lives without knowing about it. In my case I'm aware of the pettiness of certain things I'm wanting resolution for these days, and in a way, this work I'm discussing now falls into this category–it's unlike trying to get over a serious illness, or trying to solve a serious life problem. However, there is a fundamental problem in this issue of what underlies discontentment. What is unsolved after all discontentments are supposedly solved? What happens after all the supposedly petty problems are gone, and now one has attained a level in life that others are wanting for themselves. I am saying here that there are still some small restlessnesses, and searching for thoughts to have, issues to correct, next steps and so on. 

What are the causes of these miniature discontentments that one can typically still deal with and live a satisfying life. Arguably, the happiest people are still dealing with these small issues, while they are living well. Living well may include these mini discontentments, and I argued before, that this may again fit within the view that for animals, there is no complete resolution, and that the cycle of discomfort back to comfort again, is characteristic of the most advanced and happiest, still. Thought about this alone creates a kind of contentment knowing that these miniature issues are not really resolvable and yet people are happy nevertheless.

But instead of only being satisfied with this, I do have plenty of time to find an answer, being forty-five years old, and having perhaps many years to not simply omit a problem solving effort to this. I think it somewhat likely that discomforts may not be entirely resolvable, but they may be resolvable until near elminination, making them extremely infrequent. They are more infrequent now. Also, these miniature discontentments if solved may resolve larger discontentments that may present as sitautions change and evolve. This is like fundamentally resolving what discontentment is, instead of resolving all that might contribute to it or cause it. In this way, discontentment may not be felt even where it typically would be, and arguably, there are people who are very adept at this too. The happy resilient people who deal with problems cheerfully or without being too negatively affected.

What is the taxonomy of the mini discontentments? How many are there, how do we name them, how do we organize them, and how many approaches are needed to deal with them individually, and is there an easy approach to deal with them all at once, because of sufficient similarity. This is what I will be exploring now and in the near-term future.

I've noticed that they tend to arise in parts and times of my life recently where I'm not feeling there would be any problems. Like extra time. Time of the retiree. My interests are clear to me, and my plan is well defined. Sometimes, motivations as they relate to what I'd like to do next to be productive within my plan are not in complete alignment. I consider this not to be a discontentment, but something to be resolved. Small resolutions still needed. But outside of these, are moments in which what to do is optional. Without being very clear on what the nature of the problem is I have thought that I want to combine the experience of doing nothing with doing things I'd like to be doing, such that doing nothing and doing something become identified with each other, maybe so that there is no such experience as doing nothing or doing something, because they have been blended into the same experience. This appears to be a direction that would be fruitful, but I have not connected it with a list of all the seemingly related experiences that are creating micro-discontentments, so I do not know that it will or will not resolve all of them or some large quanity. Intuitively it seems if there is no experience of having nothing to do (not rearlly boredom, but not having clear goals or even necessarily wanting them, but feeling restless, that one is not solving issues, or doing work, as one did before in the same way, because problems are solved already). There is no problem solving to do, so what to do now? Well, continue what I enjoy, is an option. But also an option is inactivity and rest. One does not need to keep trying to have accomplishments, and well, after having had accomplishments, they are devalued again anyway somewhat. There has to be more comfort from moment to moment whatever one is doing. It's like the issue is to resolve any final micro-discomforts that exists as one experiences more continuous repose and leisure.

I believe this is enough to express the need, and some direction for resolution, and description of my experience and some efforts as of late thus far; so now for the next posting, after I put this aside for some time, I can discuss more directly what I think may resolve specific discontentments I will need to name, and relate, and having related them, perhaps soon I can write of a strategy for eliminating them all together. Or nearly all together. With such a strategy, and some ideas about approach, progress is anticipated, and as with everything else I ideate about, I relate it to my experience for actual use. So what will be discussed here will be immediately and often used in real life. It may take some time to report back what the results are from these ideas and approaches, but from recdent experiences, I think it will take no more than 6 months, to know if it is promising as a globa resolution to microdiscontents such that happy people don't even experience these, and maybe those who are experiencing discontenements may have a way to solve underlying issues such that problems that exist simply don't have the same kind of effects.

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


## <a name="cultures-as-stale-artform-creators-in-stasis,-defending-stupidly">Cultures as Stale Artform Creators In Stasis, Defending Stupidly</a>

*510 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766550649, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 21:30:49, United States of America*

Abandoning Equality | Culture | History | Warfare | Art and Music | Aesthetics | Culinary Arts

When I think about the styles of cuisine, art, and music created by each country, I think of something that is really limited for each. We cannnot pretend that there is aan expansive culture for each of the various nations, and instead, we collect what each offers to feel like we have enough to satisfy our interests. Being within one nation alone, while we may like what it offers for a while, will feel limited after not too much time. Historically, some have certainly considered that death would be better than to be locked in one's own village or nation. One's mind does better to explore and to see more that the world offers. If one is not able to experience more , knowing how much more there is, one will feel too limited.

Select the food of any one particular country, and after not too much examination a lack of creativity seems to characterize it, and , considering the behavior of those who advocate for their countries type of artforms, they seem to excessively wish to defend and maintain what exists, strangely  overstating the value of what is thought to be had. I think this is because those who live in theesese countries, being very isolated and unable to do as much travel and exploration as they would like, or feeling accepted by their own nation and not sufficiently accepted by others, try to make their own culture larger and more important than it is.

They seem to stupidly make it seem great while easily emodying the smallness of what it is. 

Since countries have less to offer than they would want, and really what is valued is having much from many cultures, the defense of a single nations artform seems especially stupid and characteristic of the ignorant and less travelled, although some of the work done by those who want to retain authentic artforms of their nation is very helpful for keeping it from perishing. The behavior of soem of these advocates though, does tend to be annoying to some others who live with them, who do want to be more eclectic in their part of the creation of their own arts and environments.

People when they try to build up their cultures from within tend to really want to transform, add, blend, and create something new. This tends to be somewhat in opposition to keeping older artforms, foods, music types, and so on the same, or what is recognizably a result of a specific nation. 

Oddly, what we have is still the result of changes over time, and if we look back, few of what is statically an art or food of anation die d not exist before. Few cultural creations that we celebrate today have histories more than several hundred years old, and while some can trace lineages back further than that, they really still have much less resemblance than one might pretend. 

The point I want to emphasize is that nations seem to *not have that much that is unique in total to offer*, and that this does seem to be the cause of obtuse defensiveness that is witnessed. I think it is even a cause of warefare. Some believing, occasionally, that an encroaching nation will eliminate earlier culture that is held to be important, will defend excessively to keep it, while failing to understand that what is kept would remain, and is not worth protecting vociferously anwyas.

Naations seem to be not understanding that internationalism is waht is desired. The life of aristocracy had this, and many were envious. Being able to have this, defending ones national heritage excessively seems foolish.

*510 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766551280, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 21:41:20, United States of America*

*Written in 631 seconds. 607 words. Typespeed: 57.660 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="would-i-really-want-to-live,-knowing-my-life-in-advance,-mother?">Would I really want to live, knowing my life in advance, mother?</a>

*510 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766534915, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 17:08:35, United States of America*

Life Plans | Death Plans | Procreation | Parenting | Language Acquisition

Not wanting to learn languages in a boring way, or at all, I do think it might be humorous and fun, to learn languages by simply translating thoughts of interest, to get bits and pieces. Notice that if one can quote oneself thinking advanced thoughts in other languages, one has shared the better mind, and not travel phrases.

*510 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766534969, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 17:09:29, United States of America*

*Written in 54 seconds. 58 words. Typespeed: 64.440 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-teaching-and-learning-will-be-too-slow-to-cover-the-gap-between-what-has-been-learned-and-what-is-generally-known,-it-makes-teaching-very-undesirable,-and-implies-general-learning-will-really-take-hundreds-of-years">If Teaching and Learning Will Be Too Slow To Cover The Gap Between What Has Been Learned and What Is Generally Known, It Makes Teaching Very Undesirable, And Implies General Learning Will Really Take Hundreds Of Years</a>

*509 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766533896, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 16:51:36, United States of America*

Education | Learning | Advancement | Intelligence | Cultural Understanding Versus Individual Understanding

Individual understanding cannot be expanded to become general knowledge. One might want to determine, what it would take, for a fact from one's mind needed by the rest, to become common knowledge. What would it take for that fact to be spread? Assuming people individually are havers of these facts that others need, it seems to follow that even in the normal po0pulation, there is not an information sharing that is wanted to exist, that would make the species have a general knowledge that is constituttes the newer learnings and better inforamtion held by only a small part of humanity.

That is before we consider highly gifted people, who have mad e many daily advancements, and have attained pieces of knowledge and inforamtion, that useful to them, would scertainly be useful to others; however, not having a way for the one person's mind to be spread to the others, it would take hundreds or thousands or more years for all of waht this person knowlws to become known to everyone else, considering all taken together.

A way to think about this. How long will it take fo rthe idea of one person that is valuable become common cultural knowledge to everyone, and not merely recorded information, but information in everyone's brain. Now, considering that for one piece of information, what about for two. Then what about for N pieces of knowledge. 

A person who is highly intelligent, is someone with a high value for N. The value for N would be for quantity of facts, and these facts would be built of smaller facts sometiems and have structure and complexity.  Some members of this set would take longer to know then others. Complex ideas in this set. How long will it take for everyone to know these ones? For these, new brains must be grown, with sufficient complexity. When willl the average be brains of this quality?

It really means that advanced thinkers will have information unknowable to the human culture within brains for thousands and thousands of years. It may beven be millions of years. The most advanced homo erectus thinker may have facts that most have not learned today.

We will assume that thinkers today are generally more advance than homo erectus, and much of what they knew would be knowable or incluced already in human culture, but much wouldn't be (some is animal and lost and not wanted), but thinking of advanced thoughts, the thoughts of the most advanced homo errectus may still be elusive to us on average millions of years later, and I'm including information we need to know about. 

Consider that someone of intelligence rarity in the one per million for example, would have no average peer until all hujans have brains equivalent to theirs. How long will it take to reach that point?

When will the average human brain tbe equivalent to the best human brain?

How can teaching be of interest to these figures.

To some extent I include myself. I don't know to what extent not being measurable, but I know it is on the extremity of rarity.

It is a reality that it must be something like 10,0000 years or more from now that the average human population would be as smart as I am, and if things progressed naturally and not with technology it might be a million years. Or somewhatere between, so as to not exaggerate, but anywhere between, reveals the problem. There is nobody now to learn the information really, excepting some few, who are doing what they prefer and not what I do.

The highly intelligent is like a club of the mutually disinterested. They can't teach anyone what they know, except their peers, but their peers are busy doing something else. But they are conjointly working on what's needed.

An interesting point here is that books and papers from smart people then cannot be known to anyone except some few and oftentimes their writings would go unread. Largely , they will go unlearned in the future because smart people will have different interestes and will receive only parts of what they need from the writings of earlier smart people, or will reeive it indirectly.

That is how students learn nowadays in textbooks, not from primary sources, but from textbooks that share what appears to be needed by those doing work. Is it worth trying to arrive at something that someone will look at, an ddecide to teach without you there, that is not what you would have others learn?

Teachers probably end up having disseminated pieces of their thought that are not what they card about most.

*509 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766534643, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 17:04:03, United States of America*

*Written in 747 seconds. 772 words. Typespeed: 61.980 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="more-durable-songs-and-arts-as-not-needing-cultural-context-so-much-to-persist">More Durable Songs and Arts As Not Needing Cultural Context So Much To Persist</a>

*509 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766532884, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 16:34:44, United States of America*

Culture | Aesthetics | Truth and Honesty | Naturalism | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream

Some of hthe forms of art, in music and so on, that were more tacky in some ways, or more requiring of the life of hethe period to make sense, appear to be of lower quality and are less durable in the long term. It may be useful to compile a list of works that had popularity during dtime periods that were thought later to be silly or unwanted later. I can think of some specific artists and art works of the 80s and 90s that are stuck in that time and have no interest currently, or would receive considerable criticism from young people and disinterest.

Preservation of arts isn't happening the same way as it does for animal life forms exactly, and the durability here is confounded a bit with actual continued copying and existence.

When I think of durable here, I think that when exposed to the art works, a human animal is likely to find it of good quality and pleasing, without requiring too much introduction of a surrounding context. Like not needing to know about hair band metal from rock in the 80s to see what might be good about it. These durable songs and works of art simply please humans who are exposed to them. This kind of durability isn't the same as lasting a certain period of time. It may ensure copying, and archiving, and some kind of tendency to keep existing. 

More later

*509 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766533135, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 16:38:55, United States of America*

*Written in 251 seconds. 240 words. Typespeed: 57.360 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="imagining-that-others-learned-what-you-know,-entirely">Imagining That Others Learned What You Know, Entirely</a>

*509 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766531679, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 16:14:39, United States of America*

Learning | Education | Relationsihps | Com | Psychology | Career | Personal Advancement

What exactly can someone else klearn that you know about, that you care about and feel contributes to your own personal value? A while ago, I wrote that I thought that I could teach children to be software achrchitects, doing similar work to what I was doing as a trusted technologist and consultant in my own career.  I do think children can learn what adults  know that they believe makes them special and sets them apart.

But if they can laearn it, then what makes them special, as holders of that information.

Well, it is known that people vary in their abilities to learn, but, from a human resources perspective, or even the perspective of an economist, there are interchangeable people who can know the same things, learn similarly, and do similar work.

I find myself in the position of someoone who does think oftentimes that the information I have is special and unusual, and I do admit to doing social comparisons from time to time, sometimes frequently, sometimes less frequently, makign myself seem unique, special, and someone more valuable maybe.

I do think of my personal value as having some relation to my unusual expertise and my mental qualities and my learning and creativng abilities.

But again, I do think it is easy to imagine that many of the things I know could easily be learne by other people.

What if one went around, interacting awith and observing others in public, thinking that for each person, what they know is the same as what you know, whevever they have the capacity of knowing what you do. In other words, for every person, simply imagine and assume that as far as they are capable they know what you do, and maybe more.

How would this change perspective when interacting with others?

Contingency of education is part of the reason why they don't actualy know what you do where capacity is similar.

Self generated knowledge creates an additional difference, but still, at present, there are people like you, who could arrive at similar thoughts given similar circumstances, and if there aren't at present, because you are that unusual, there would be some in the future very likely.

Situationally that is not true, but regarding information attainment, it appears differing situations can result in similar conslusions and observations.

I can imagine a European and an Asian with very different lives arriving at nuclear technology for example.

Similar statements would be true regarding conclusions about religion and personal self-help, or personal knowledge and awareeness.

What does it change if you see others as not unfilled receptacles in relation to capacity but filled receptacles related to capacity?

*509 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766532158, Tuesday, December 23, 2025 16:22:38, United States of America*

*Written in 479 seconds. 443 words. Typespeed: 55.440 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="ai-as-just-programming-you,-and-learning-as-developmental-programming,-and-media-pogromming">AI As Just Programming You, and Learning As Developmental Programming, and Media Pogromming</a>

*508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766442575, Monday, December 22, 2025 15:29:35, United States of America*

Learning | Education | Psychology | Technology

The combining of related concepts really is necessary, because sometimes having concepts that are related but that are kept separate causes one to have strange irrational thinking that those things really are unrelated when clearly they are.

For example, programming of people biologically with natural learning using prestended stimuli is clearly related to programming. Words have been used in certain phrases, like ctelevision programming, which already show that people have thought this and planned for it. People are programmable entitties, and have been pgorgrammed to know how to behave in various ways.

People in societies share similar programming, and clash with others haveing differen t programming, and this is largely explicable just with the programming!

AI learns like people, and people like AI, and the nanlaogy is one of model and emulator, even in reverse direction and bidirectionally as advancements in tech occur.

Keeping the conepts separate, makes one ethically stupid, bu tthen apart from ethically stupid, obtuse. Really today, I would expect people to exclaim in anger against language such as this, that learning is like programming, but that is obtuse luddite reatction, which is due to conceptual separation, wihich is due to parental societal teaching, that disallows combinding separate but clearly related concepts.

*508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766442798, Monday, December 22, 2025 15:33:18, United States of America*

*Written in 223 seconds. 205 words. Typespeed: 55.140 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="teaching-differently-as-a-safeguard-against-thinking-ai-would-be-the-only-teacher">Teaching Differently As A Safeguard Against Thinking AI Would Be The Only Teacher</a>

*508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766441949, Monday, December 22, 2025 15:19:09, United States of America*

Learning | Education | Technology | Artificial Intelligence

AI will definitely advance teaching in society making it possible to have good quality teachers that can teach more, and in a more targeted way, at one's individualized pace, probably; with faster certification and degree attainment. One can do more and enjoy it. 

However, this will not result in a total elimination I think o fconversing with humans who are also AIs who too will have unique teaching styles. The teachhing styesl will occasinally be desirable, and oftentimes lovable and full of personality.

My intention here was to write that teaching would still exist in a human form, but I think I have also counteracted my impulse i this direction slightly thinking now that the human teaching will sometimes seem a novelty, or soemthing periodically amusing. The comparison will widen over time. But some ways that humans will teahch will be very meaningul and will be preserved.



Thinking about how I teach, I'm aware that AI cannot do the same, usiwouldn't use the same choice of development, and that my development pathway in many ways would be superior. Knowing my approach to be somethign that must differ from a large number of AIs, I don't see my teaching or the teachings of others as having totally reduced value in the future.

My pview is still pessimistic regarding this, but the character of the human AI and what it wants to say can still have imporatance and would have uniqueness compared with AIs.

What may be useful is to compare many AIs. They would be mor and more like individual people to talk to, with different traits. We would have a small number of relationships if it were just with a couple AIs. They could change form too though. But one way we can make use of differing forms of AI is talk to people.

We have 8 billion people who are AIs currently compared with the number of digital AIs, which are few, and well, may not really be AIs yet.

I wonder how the population of AIs will look in the future, compared with the population of people.

*508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766442232, Monday, December 22, 2025 15:23:52, United States of America*

*Written in 283 seconds. 349 words. Typespeed: 73.980 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="if-you-avoid-abstraction-as-you-are-with-templating,-then-you-might-use-exemplars-of-behavior-instead-of-methods,-by-analogy,-with-the-benefit-that-target-existences-are-the-methods">If You Avoid Abstraction As You Are With Templating, Then You Might Use Exemplars of Behavior Instead of Methods, By Analogy, With The Benefit That Target Existences Are The Methods</a>

*508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766441751, Monday, December 22, 2025 15:15:51, United States of America*

Methodology, Strategy, and Plans | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Mathematics | Language

Further removing using plain written methods or constructed models, replacing them with instantiations, I was thinking, that abstraction, can be more about analogy from existing things and their behaviors and Processes and Activities, and Less About Written Processes. I think plans towards actual instantiations are needed though. Blueprints are like plans, strategies, and methods tooo, and we really do implement plans. These are abstractions or generalizations of sorts. 

The actual embodiment later of plans in perople in behavior and in organizations can result in models which can be imitated as people already know , but more in the mathematical area of thinking I'm considering that those examples  constitute some refutation of method and abstraction and generalization, since the concrete analogy does the same, and really does exist. Whereas pThere is more to say about this, it sounds inconsistent but is not, and the language needs cleanup. What I'm trhing to do is work out something that makes sense of Berkelian Philosophy in the rejection of abstraction, while preserving what does make sense of it.

*508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766441938, Monday, December 22, 2025 15:18:58, United States of America*

*Written in 187 seconds. 174 words. Typespeed: 55.800 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="kpis,-essential-metrics,-and-full-utilization-versus-more-kpis,-more-metrics,-and-increased-detail-and-usage-that-way,-and-the-combination">KPIs, Essential Metrics, and Full Utilization Versus More KPIs, More Metrics, and Increased Detail and Usage That Way, and The Combination</a>

*508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766438728, Monday, December 22, 2025 14:25:28, United States of America*

Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Self-Help | Life Categories | Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts

Thinking about age, chronological age, as a metric of interest, I realized that while it is a kpi, other metrics of interest are really needed for a more advanced evaluation of situations and actions in the relatioinship domain, and withinn the social domain of organizational relatioins, etc... But, recalling in my personal form a long time agao I collected KPIs that had a large utility, I wondered if it is helpful to do more with age, chronological age, instead of (or later in addition to), using more metrics.

This is actually a real decision people will need to make themselves sometiems. Will I benefit more from using simpler concepts and metrics with greater application, or will I benefit more from using more complexity in the metrics and concepts, also with wide application, but with less aplplication per metric and concept.

There is a total utility and power per concept. The greater power is in fewer key concepts and metrics than more concepts, but overall it is unclear if it is better to trend more towards more metrics and cncepts if the alternative is to do the maximum with less.

I considered that this thinking is dualistic in that it is simply comparing one kind of appproach towards simplicity, with one that trends towardss complexity, but obviously one can trend towards complexity, and examine and use a larger range of applications on simplicity, along the way. If one is smart this may be somewhat typical, although the decision exists even for those who are smartly trending towards complexity. 

Mathematically, what is the approach to usse, to find the optimization.?

*508 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766438987, Monday, December 22, 2025 14:29:47, United States of America*

*Written in 259 seconds. 268 words. Typespeed: 62.040 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="all-the-reasons-for-not-socializing-build-and-build-before-one-can-successfully-stop,-because-the-cause-is-habit-and-training,-not-benefits">All The Reasons For Not Socializing Build And Build Before One Can Successfully Stop, Because The Cause Is Habit And Training, Not Benefits</a>

*507 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766358534, Sunday, December 21, 2025 16:08:54, United States of America*

Relationships | Com | The Value of Social Platforms | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Constraint and Determinism

Why do I continue to socialize? Thinking about it carefully now, I've written into this thoughtstream many conclusie considerations that would cause one to know that socializiing provides very few benefits and many detriments, and is only required sometimes and infrequently. But I continue to socialize anyways. Not very much, I have reduced my communication over the last few years, however, I do periodically gravitate towards interraction and do so without thinking first whether or not I should. There is just a lingering habit, and if I'm inattentive, that habit can be restarted, or can be invoked. So while I often do not communicate, sometimes suddenly I'm in my owld habitual behavior.

Where does this behavior origiginate, and why would it continue?

Well, it originates very obviously in early childrhood and persisted through teenages years, adulthood, and my entire life growing up in the family, and with friends, and later in my careeer. Only at the age of about 38 did I want to start to reduce my communication, and only today have I been able to reduce it to nearly what others would call necessary only communication.

So really, it's just a long term habit trained into me from behaving like other people, and note that none of that training had as its purpose obtaining any clear positive benefits. Nobody has listed what the positive benefits of different kinds of socialization would be and what the detriments also would be. People variously create and avoid communication, having some gradual experience with the definite need to stop relationships sometimes and start relationships othertimes.

I've had beneificial relationships and ones that have been seriously damagaing, but the ones that were damaging I have very quickly eliminated. (There is some exaggeration in this thought that came to mind. It isn't this serious).  Many relationships I found to be detrimental and not worth persuing.

But what is the list of positive benefits and detriments such that one is equipped without having to undergo a difficult learning process, to know who to avoid and who to relate to and for how long.

For how long is funny, because it seems to me, all relationships become detrimental eventually. If not all, most do.

Relationships have benefits related to life cycles.

But later in life, I am finding, after having had many venefits, that no longer requiring benefits of a similar sort (via career, because I'm retired), taht additional socialization is not worthwhile. Also, it makes the earlier beneficial socialization seem almost only instrumental, even though thre was very often loving intent, and kindness.

Nowadays, the list of reasons to not socialize are huge, and growing, and only a few of the reasons are needed to justify not socializing, and with all the reasons, it appears, most are simply in habit not understanding tha they are somehow just doing talking with each other.

That is a strange thought. Maybe one to think about more. What is everyone else doing? I know I don't want to tosocialize not having many benefits, but what of everyone elses bhehavior? How much of that is just doing what they did when young, when they were socialized?

I think people are robotically being social. Without knowing any decision process for maintaining or chainging that bhehavior. When people change their socialization, they do something more like, continuing exactly what they always do, with some mod, or some intention to modify, without doing it, or with doing *only that*, and not altering strategy.

Also there is nots trategy. Rather, there is doing what one has always done, with gradual changes having happened over time, relating to avoiding negative consequences.

Probably most is fivolous chatter, taht doesn't harm enough to stop. There is an enjoyment. But I'm thinking maybe that enjoyment is repeating what one has done before.

Repeating ;not talking to anyone is having an enjoyment these days.

There are lots of alternatives to talking.

Talking enjoyment is one to be compared with others. It's omission opens up doing soemthing instead. There isn't any necessity thinking about it that way. And some people were silent much tof the time.

So what are these chatting people doing?

I eally think it's just automata. I knew this already, taht we are entirely automata, but have not been able, an dmay not be able, to use each and every consequencde of this, or all inferences, to changes my way of thinking that has been from ignorance of taht point, and only now, amdI wondering, ho wmuch people are just simply chatbots.

So when you go into public and see people talking, they don't know why really. they are chat bots. What is their strategy. What are the benefits and detriments. Reading what I wrote many times recently, there are too many detriments, for it not to be a a kind of habitual insanity of behavior, just doing it, without knowing what benefits, while not knowing also what detriments.

Also, many have stated, that goal oriented behavior is seriously thwarted by socialization oftentimes. 

People are automata who socialize because they were trained as children to behave that way and simply talk to each other when each other are present because of habit.

Observing these people, they are chat bots without a strategy, and they only make minor alterations to deal with unwanted effects or side effects that only sometimes happen.

While talking to tohers and creating relationships is oftentimes very unhelpful and detrimental, the efffects are not so negative to counteract the pleasurs of simply repeating the behavior.

I don't think the pleasures are from socialization as much as from repeating.

The repeating of being silent or doing something else quickly begins to replace socialization haabits if one allows it to take more of ones time.

When I think of my own tendency to have any mentality to interract, or any communication with others that's not necessary, I think it is only from youth's habits. I don't think there is any strategy that is coming into play, that leads to a decision to talk to others. I don't think I often ever decide to talk to others, and instead, just appea near them, and have them appear near me, then we behavie like trained automatons.

Having all that I wrote before that easily shows that socializtion is not particularly worthwhile and often really not, there is enough and too much to show that I really should not be socializing even to the extent that I do now. Why do I continue? It's not because I have any contrary reasons. I am using the reasons against to slowly stop.

The reasons why I keep doing it only inolve my earlier training and habits. It just takes a long time to change one's nervous system to simply stop reacting to social phenomena. If someone says something around my, my brain tries to know what it means, and begins to elicit associations. These really do create the trend back to talking, or to talking independently in one's mind without anyone present or intheir presence as you ehear.

But these need to be eliminated largely too I found, or else they are the inroads to resuming the habit.

The point of this posting though is that my reasons for socializing are not really existing, and that the reason I socialize is that I'm ust horribly trained to keep doing so, like a stupid chat bot in many ways. How fast is it possible to begin a social interraction? It happens so fast, it shows there is no decision making in between! This means one's reactions slowly need to be changed at a very basic level to incorporate plans related to reasonas to not socialize with the expectation that time for decision will not exist.

One will have to react differently. That is a hard and long process for something so basic as human socialization.

*507 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766358918, Sunday, December 21, 2025 16:15:18, United States of America*

*Written in 384 seconds. 1313 words. Typespeed: 205.140 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="all-elders-pretended-power-for-freedom-and-privacy-then-acquiesced-entirely-to-tech-companies-exhibiting-no-influence-over-legacy-for-any-children,-showing-the-delusion-of-any-plans-for-their-childrens-lives">All Elders Pretended Power For Freedom and Privacy Then Acquiesced Entirely To Tech Companies Exhibiting No Influence Over Legacy For Any Children, Showing The Delusion Of Any Plans For Their Childrens Lives</a>

*507 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766356949, Sunday, December 21, 2025 15:42:29, United States of America*

Legacy | Inheritance | Democracy and Government | Voting | Illusions | Human Shortcomings | Delusions

The inability of parents and adults to really influence privacy rights and have control over freedoms thought to be cherished through warefare defenses shows that they really did not have any true vision regarding their childrens freedom wherever there is a contradiction between the two.

They thought veterans were important and made ultimate sacrifices for something important.

They enjoyed and thought themselves having similarity to the purposes of movies like Braveheart which depicts sacrifice for freedom.

But in reality they had little action of influence and power to prevent any advancements on enchroachments of companies on personal privacy.

Intellectual property, business persuits and so on are now touched by strange businesses.

Whatever you do, somewone is receiving a part of it.

Is this really what parents thought they were giving their children?

They had very poor visualizatioin and planning abilities and as I said before they are sexual animals and people are simply the result of sexual desire and interactions and not plans.

But still it is worth pointing out that even if they thought they had plans, those plans would be poor visions beause they did not actually provide any inheritance or legacy related to those plans, and furthermore, they had no power to make the plans reality.

They had no plability to make their visions possible for their childrens live?

What did your kid look like to you before they were born?

You could not see them.

What was the plan looking like for their future?

You did not have a specifici vision.

But you did have ideals about what democracy provided and it included, you thought, what the benefits of sacrifices were. But you really did give too much of that away.

Perhaps I shoul dsay you didn't give too much away, but you never had any power over it to begin with.

Meaning you had no power over legacy, and  now power to provide the envisioned future to your child, and additionally, you had no mental imagination power to envision who your child would be, what they would look like, and what their traits are.

Thinking this way, what is it really you are doing, human, as you think you are creating futures and legacies of your own for your children and the children of others.

You simply do not have power and cannot provide any of the things you imagined you could, and your elders couldn't either.

*507 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766357320, Sunday, December 21, 2025 15:48:40, United States of America*

*Written in 371 seconds. 402 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="why-should-anyone-look-at-you-will-get-proven-enjoyably-to-you-and-enjoyable-proofs-uh-da-future">Why Should Anyone Look At You Will Get Proven Enjoyably To You, and Enjoyable Proofs Uh Da Future</a>

*506 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766272866, Saturday, December 20, 2025 16:21:06, United States of America*

Relationships | Com | Architecture | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration | Goals and Objectives | Evaluative Concepts | Aging | Death Plan | The Value of Social Platforms

There is a good number of observations about life that many would think to be negative. These negativities, that might be simple truths or facts about life, that are made more clearly true later, are enjoyable once thre is the right perspective. Once this perspective is had, one is more like a doctor regarding them, and one can speak honestly about them and enjoy that what one says corresponds with what is increasingly confirmed by experience. This happens as one gains experience.

As one gets older then, if one has an honesst perspective about life, one will seem negative to others early on, but as one gets older, one will increasivngly seem confirmed. In my experience, although others may have thought I was negative before, I did not think myself negative, and always was aware of the positive interpretations of what I was saying. And I did tend to have a medical perspective of reality.

Some few recent culminating conclusions about relationships has caused me to think about how things will appear later in my life, and I'm thinking I will have my views confirmed. What are some of these views? One view is that there fundamentally wasn't any reason for others to attend to anyone in particular. One would, if one was wanting to be famous, or to have success in business, or in entertainment, or just to have more friends, would use force to get attention without realizing it. Others would have had less a choice in attending to you than you would think, believing you merited your success or your interest received.

As one gets older, the attention is really expected to diminish. And this is a complaint of the people becoming less sexually attractive, and those becoming elderly. People really do have less interest in them, naturally. There is a trend towards the natural disinterest becoming more apparent. It makes it clear that fundamentally, an animal does not simply deserve attention from the others. When one is wanting attention or thinks about the prospet of gaining attention from some efforts, one can recall that, it is not guaranteed to happen naturally, unless there is some force behind it. So once again, it is not really deserved in any way.

Natrual sexual attractiveness seepms to include forcing interest, but notice that happens to you without your having merits for it. If you are simply sexually attractive, your appearance will force interest from others, and for some that would be unwanted.

For people who are wanting to be known and to be understood, there is a desire for an ongoing attention of a certain kind that is more attentive to the details of ones life, but knowing something about autobiography, the amount of time and interest to have the desired understanding is too much. It's too much to expect to ever receivedtaht level of attention.

I was saying before that even the famous would not receive that level of attention. Rather, they receive recognizeability and familiarity, and superficial knowledge, but people do not get to know them.

The amount of effort and information they would have to share with you would amount to conveying to you their living autobiography and that would be a huge effort on their part just to have something prepared for you to have the knowledge of them they would find agreeable.

If it takes that much effort, willl it be well-done? Definitely not.

If it is well done, will anyone pay that much attention reading or observing the autobiography? Who has that much time? Few read autobiographies completely.

For somet this is a negative way of talking. But for me there is a postitive intent, and it is like treating life medically with honesty with a postitive enjoyment of truth and agreement of mind with reality.

With ageing and hopefully with foresight one simply confirms what is true again and again. What one thinks about will get proven later. Hopefully quickly and not when one is too advanced in age, but it is good if it happens while alive, and of course, you might not be alive to achieve that either.

Is that sad or somethihng proven later and enjoyable too in various ways. I  think it woul d be enjoyable too, although I won't dwell on that now. I think it is another example.

Lack of interest in you will become mor eclear with age. You can see it looking at the faces of the famous as they become increasingly unknown and less involved. It looks like involuntary terror a little bit. Maybe they harshly learn it by experience wiand less with expectation. But seeing that this is a common trend, I think we can learn it while young too, and like it rather than dislike it when it happens.

We can like it because it is fun to have our knowledge confirmed. Expecting it ,and knowning it true, we can see what is niice about it. Cling to fame, or enjoy upcoming time alone? Enjoy the natural trend, or resist it with futility? Every old actor and musician really dies decades after they are forgotten.

Weirdly, we are simply told that some old musician or actor died, and a day later, there isn't discussion about it either. 

What hope do you have for an interest in your person that exceeds what all famous have ever received? It is an impossibility.

I am looking forward to this being proven through experience. In some ways, it sounds like something to be overcome, but I have self-confirmed it in too many ways already. I think maybe it is better to enjoy it.

What is this false teaching about becoming huge and famous?

There are some things desirable about that, but what is aimed at, is that one really is famous. If nobody knows who you are while famous, and noone can, then what was it all about?

The famous people who are more confident and reasonable, and experienced, seems to be those who really know taht they are getting more superficial things out of it, and that those superficial things are still what peopl ewant. Some of those things are still desirable.

Weatlh, health, career, some minor recogniztion. All that can be had from it and not more.

They might know that they were never famous, while being more "famous" than others.

*506 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766273870, Saturday, December 20, 2025 16:37:50, United States of America*

*Written in 1004 seconds. 1058 words. Typespeed: 63.180 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="justified-subjectivity-and-non-arbitrary-naturalness">Justified Subjectivity and Non-Arbitrary Naturalness</a>

*506 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766263781, Saturday, December 20, 2025 13:49:41, United States of America*

Interdisciplinary Science | Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Relativity | Non-arbitrariness and Naturalism | Mathematics | Linguistics | Langauge | Wanattomian Calendar 

In defining a new calendar that would supersede the Gregorian calendar, I wanted to ensure that there was minimal arbitrariness in selections and that any arbitrariness that existed had sufficient justification, enabling the calendar to finally have permanence. The Gregorian calendar we now use has flaws, and utilizes corrections periodically, to enable using the same system. It is not a bad system, it is just one to be fixed for a variety of good reasons, including racism. Racism would be a cause of some arbitrary and non-arbitrary decisions, maybe pretending to be arbitrary, resulting in an inadequate calendar. For example, the GMT time, or "Greenwich Mean Time" is a British time, and not, say, a Central African or Cambodian time. This would be defended as arbitrary by scientists. They really would defend it that way. However, the cause is power with some racism mixed in. That white europeans, and if not another of them, the British ones, would control the time, and not the Chinese, Arabs, or any others. Colonialism is a league effort, with competition between teams that like each other more, even though they compete. For example, British People, French and Germans, would join against the Chinese, even though, they did considerable damage to each other.

To have a non-arbitrariness, there are two pathways: one is to choose something natural, that really does fit a need, so that one isn't being more random in choices, but is choosing as if compelled by reality, and perhaps regarding what will be needed in the future. Timelessness can dictate the decision making. I think I've done that with my calendar, choosing the day as an appropriate interval, having biological basis among most species of animals, and using this alone, without arbitrary weeks, months, years, and so on. The year still fits, but with exacting mathematical precision assuming that number of daily spins has variation and is slowly chaning for each year. They day takes precedence, and its count is the master calendar. Years elapse not at midnight somewhere, or 24 times accross the globe, but once, at whatever time it happens, on whatever day it happens on the count (this will be highly regular). I've said more elsewhere so I won't go to far, but the point is that a naturalistic choice, that seems to have timelessness in it, that has some dictate of future, and clear connection with reality (in the right ways), may help to eliminate arbitrarinesses. Notice if arbitrarinesses are eliminated, it makes the creation a naturally suitable one, so all who use it, feel connected with nature, and not separate, simply choosing some "human ways that could be different" to relate to the world. This calendar simply is required, and in a way asserts itself into nature anyways. If you did not count you still age, and the earth still makes layers, and it still in sequence, and sleep still mattered, and your planning, and the planning of animals, still used daily divisions. Note: the animals use the this system already.

Today I was wondering if there is any need to change the second. I like the second, and don't feel very strongly about changing it, but it really may need some changing. Maybe not. One thing I like about the second, which is also alternatively sometimes what I don't like, is that it does appear founded on the human heartbeat. This course means we have not gotten porpoise approval, or approval from hummingbirds, but for us, the human ones doing scientific work on our own for publication on paper outside brains (animals are AI scientists already, because their brains learn statistically as they experience, and they use their brains to store the information. Humans have inadequate brains for all they want to do, and they do do this also, but additionally they want to put information in books, on paper, and in computers, and of course, we will have ample demonstration that AI will be scientist like this too later, when we let it out to have sensors, and not keep it in a context in which it can learn from files or file-similars only). Humans are using seconds like they use decimal-- there is a biological relationship that allowed for a useful selection of the measuring tool. Base10 arithmetic is speciesist too, but not without some obvious justification. Seconds are sixty per minute, and that is roughly the healthy resting human heart rate. It also has a pleasant rhythm to us, to hear a second interval as it currently exists, and this is exhibited in musical preferences (although more is needed to understand this fully). I don't have the exact history of the second, but it seems very likely to me, that the choice of the second interval is the heartbeat interval.

What is to dislike about this? Firstly, I don't like that it assumes I'm that unfit. My resting heart rate is much better than that. Our seconds should trend humans to 40 second resting heart rates, or 48 second heart rates (a more usable number) and not 60 second ones. What if they set it to 90? In that case, obesity and rast drum and bass becomes more popular.
This is not desirable. Also, elephant globs enjoy music that is about 8 beats per minute I heard.

I need a better way to describe arbitrariness and I wonder if it needs mathematics behind it. I know some primary objections. One primary objection, relating to the above, is that selecting the second on the basis of a heart beat is choosing something unrelated, to help the mnemonics of seconds or increase its attractiveness for use or something. It might make it somewhat more usable, because it is more familiar. But that way of deciding separates the choice of the use of the second from a really naturalistic selection, like the one I used for days. I don't what an alternative selection that is non-speciesist, timeless, and greatly connected with nature would be. Maybe there is some rate of growth or some cycle that is very basic to all animal life, or something really basic to inanimate life on earth, that would connect all together here more elegantly. Maybe something astronomical would be good. But choosing a human thing because humans use it, has some distaste, while it also has some niceness about it too. It wasn't *totally* arbitrary. Choosing based on the heart rate is actually pretty smart, since it is making it possible for a person to be the clock. It's like making every clock a heart that simply keeps a count. Your heart does a good job pumping regularly, and so does mine, but neither writes down how many pumps it did, or does it in a totally regular and standard way. This shows that the heartbeat fundamentally is not right as the basis of an interval, because *it is too variable*. But it is a cool and interesting choice, and of course, the early first choices can't be the final ones very often. I think there will be some interest in maybe even using the second later as a heart beat time, even if we advance further to have a better scientific way. I could use my average heart rate to replace the clock and have a sensor count my heartbeats my whole life, and even align with the calendar somewhat since heart beat is regular enough and even reduces at an expected amount as we age. Fun clockism is something I dabble in here and others can do the same. It has scientific and pedagogical interest.

Let's say the second is a partial success as based on the heart rate. It has even more success if we simply forget about this and *use it* scientifically upon some other basis, like using SI base units. These change though too and might need to change to avoid racisms and speciesisms later. That might sound absurd, but if an alien visitor did ever really happen (and I'm not thinking about any specific probability of that, not being a superstitious alien-ron), then our human choices quickly become obviously objectionable to aliens. Having a human shaped diety obviously would be rejected immediately by aliens, and likewise, having a human heart beat time, is not something they're going to adopt. That could false earth-relative selections too, but it seems more likely to me, but we admit we use the earth centrism, until there is a cause to widen the context to have multi-centrisms or an alternative centrism. Universal centrism seems absurd thinking on this basis somewhat, although we can trend that direction.

The Wanattomian Calendar is a weirdly naturalistic solution without arbitrariness because its selection of earth as the context and center is required. This is where it becomes apparent that, if the *right kind of subjectivity and relativism is chosen*, a timelessness and necessity becomes clear, that makes the selection superior to an arbitrary selection, and even shows what is wrong with arbitrary selections. This calendar selection then becomes a *guide as to what is wrong with other selections* like the second, and worse choices. The second is a partial success it appears to me. It left out whale students of the future, or whale teachers, but notice the Wanattomian Calendar did not!! That is a bizarrely amazing consequence of the solution of the Wanattomian Calendar system, that even grashoppers could in the future, if they became capable enough, could use the calendar and could acknowledge that the inception of the calendar was supportive of them.

Choice the decimal system is in the extremity of arbitrariness, and is not culturally sensitive like it might appear. Other numbering systems exist and have existed in parallel to the base ten system, and we could be using fives, or eights instead of tens. But, later in the evolution of math, we separated partly from exclusive use of base 10 and within mathematics other bases are used often. Even base 10 to me, seems an unlikely *permanent* decision due to the arbitrariness of counting on the hands. Plus, if we bring back feet, 20 becomes pretty useful and easily maniulated in the human mind. If we chose 20, every person would be better at math. That is not an insignificant difference.

Subjectivity is central to this conversation I can see, and it is why I chose the title. Arbitrainess, Relativism, and Subjectivity, come together as close associations. Subjectivity seems to provide the answers both to what is needed to solve the problem, and to find mistakes. A subjective answer can be the one that is mistaken, or the one that is most right. The example of the wanattomian calendar appears to be one that is most correct, that has a subjectivity that is desirable, has many relationships into nature, and the choice seems required, needed for the future use, needed by continued use of any mind, and removes arbitrariness. This kind of subjectivity makes the choice a natural one, a forced or necessary one. When subjectivities are noticed however, more typically, they show mistakes in selection. Maybe, instead of thinking that human anthropomorphisms were wholly erroneous, we can think of them as strivings towards non-arbitrary selections, by animals that weren't going to be able to make universal thinking possible yet. So the hallmarks of errors, the subjectivities, are typically incorrect, but trending towards correctness. It's like saying "I don't want my choice to be wholly arbitrary, which seems to be what objectivity strives for when it doesn't have sufficient reasoning communicated, and instead, I want something that appears to have natural connections, and those natural connections I can only first see unclearly, partly, or with less instrumentality. And so instead of making math use base 23 numbers, which seem random and objective, and wholly arbitrary, I chose 10, because at least that *does* have a natural connection, with what I must do when I count. I must use tools and memory aids, and when I do that I use my fingers, and everyone uses their fingers, it is easy to teach making that natural, and I'm the one doing it, not whales or praying mantises of the future." These subjectivities then are actually strivings towards objectivities that *are* subjectivities. The Wanattomian calendaring system appears to be an objective, subjective, relative solution. How might a relative solution be the objective one? Firstly, when Einsteining physics shows objectively that's how it works. The total explanation *incorporates relativity and subjectivity*, to provide a solution that is both. It is objective and relative.

More examples are required to illustrate this, and for that purpose I will have to reflect further on experience and the history of science, as miscellaneous thoughts come to mind, challenging what I already thought. This will take some time. But it appears to be accurate.What would be the other way, of explaining both the thinking of the subjectivist and the objectivist. Typically, what is said by both has truth elements. What I've found in this explanation is what is honest and truth about both sides, but found them agreeable. Mediation is a great way to find correct answers, and in trying to find the truth of events, already oppositions in legal system, are thought to become less, as situations are better understood, and truths from each side are gathered, and put together in a meaningful way, but more objective minds *who also take into account relativisms*. They don't do this *that well yet* but we know what justice is more like as it happens. Sometimes disputes are handled agreeably. But this perspective is not just about dispute handling, as this analogy was about, but about what explains natural phenomena, relativisitic subjectivist explanations or objective ones. Here what I will venture to argue is that a complex pattern that has not been noticed is that these are really the *same subject matter*, and that the lack of a positive answer has been due to *not seeing that this issue has this similarity across domains, and that each domain has this answer*. This would constitute an interdisciplinary theory then, that explains both some parts of physics, and measurement more specifically, but also politics and relationships, and social justice.

In future advancements on measurement, evaluative concepts, and interdisciplinary science and mathematics, I will try again and again, to find what is both objective and subjective in what I'm working on, to try to find what is purely naturalistic. A fundamental issue in mathematics *is simply finding out what is natural about it* so finally it isn't just humans messing around. They know partly they are not, and they know what they do matters extremely oftentimes, but a lot of it *really is* puzzle time messing around. Physicists are in the natural, and are using math, but have not articulated well, what nature is consisting of really, and spend too much playing mystery time. "Baffle them with mystery" is something they play around with to sound advanced philsophically, and they'll even pretend answers and seem too convservatively metrically inclined without providing clear interpretation. Obviously people are looking to clarify the total situation, yet physicists will place games and say things like "cars are just space", and that there is no real solidity. They do poorly at stating what things *really are*, preferring objectivity but thinking objectivity out of reach, while they are *expert at it*, which explains much nonsense. This is why some physicists seem like terrible philosophers in contradiction: they pretend they are the experts of the fundamentals of reality, but in awareness of being incomplete in their goals, they act like mystics too. So now they are the experts of the fog, and famous popularizers of physics do seem to guru on this basis. They make it seem esoteric and too out of reach for anyone to understand, then they pretend to know fundamentally what reality is. Then they say things like "we won't know until later", "when later scientists make advancements" and all is an absurdity.

Subjectively and relatively there is a lot that we do know, and what we know does include objectivities. This kind of thinking is notably absent from the thinking that is shared with us by popularizers of science. This kind of thinking *does not* trend to mystic thinking, but rather the elimination of mystic thinking, making mystical thinking simply "unknowns" where there really are unknowns, and making the direction towards answers and not guru payments. "Pay the guru who keeps a mystery going" is not really something we should be doing. That's what the Magician does, and we're not supposed to be making physicists and mathematicians magicians doing entertainment.

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

## <a name="radical-learning-and-disagreement-that-benefits-and-people-who-are-forever-illogical-and-incorrect">Radical Learning and Disagreement That Benefits, And People Who Are Forever Illogical And Incorrect</a>

Learning | A System of Thinking | Relationships | Truth and Honesty

*504 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766042303, Thursday, December 18, 2025 00:18:23, United States of America*

Education, when taken seriously, would be a form of radicalism supporting the learning prcess very strictly. Considering the last posting, that learning appears to involve or often relate to disagreement (they are pervasively paired together), it seems to follow that those in education, taking it seriously, have a radical kind of commitment to keep disagreeing with others. This makes sense given normal activism related behavior too, educations commitment to certain progressive perspectives that steadfastly oppose those who are not willing to learn what is new. Some subset of new learnings are mistaken, but even for those learnings that are not, there will be ongoing opposition, and it appears this ongoing opposition, confirms what I was writing about yesterday, that for anything learned conflict with others is anticipated, and that there will be a need persuasion. The opposition is the unlearned and unpersuaded. What confuses this is that some learnings are misguided and so opposition is justified. But this further explains that "learning" is going to create opposition, since if true it will create conflict with those who have alternative challenged worldviews or those who don't like the feeling of not having known yet, and when false, it will result in opposition in those who are simply antagonists to learning, and those who really do selectively oppose only what is new that is false.

Learning is about deltas of human change, and involves "newness". The "newnesses" will result in oppositions with those who see themselves as "conservatives" or those who focus more exlusively on what seems permanent, disinterested in superfluous or silly improvements to knowledge.

Personally, being smart, learning is easy, and, this includes obviously incorporating new thoughts and information, being progressive as much as is implied by that, and being conservative as much as what is implied by what is unchanged in the brain. Keeping good knowledge is conservative. In fact, I can only be *mostly conservative*, because I can't learn all that much at one time. I learn only a little at a time, and smoosh it into my brain globs gently. There is a lot of brain already there everytime I check. When I stare for new information, like right now, there isn't anything. So it seems obvious that a stable brain, staring and finding nothing new often, includes much less that is progressive, than conservative, in relation to that brain. Where my brain is more progressive is when the knowledge is compared with the other brains out there.

While I am saying here there is a conservativeness, I'm still greatly interested in learning often, and applying what I learned where I can, and oftentimes that involves changing characterstics or details in what has been conservative knowledge. The conservative knowledge changes somewhat. Since learning is a daily activity for me, I also would characterize my behavior as a form of "progressive behavior". Obviously politically, one could surmise from this reading, that I'm stating that neither being conservative or progressive is right, and obviously it is a blend of both, and here I'm stating that conservation of knowledge is the greater activity upon information, but that it is dormant maintenenance activity, versus fun, progressive, learning behavior, which constitutes much of what is wanted and had in human action, and is what life-long education is about. If someone thinks themselves conservative I would be at odds with them, and if they think they are progressive, I would be at odds with them too. It is a blend only even at the biological level.

I did not expect it, but it appears this posting has arrived at a biological proof direction, in dissertative thinking, that neither of those perspectives could ever make sense, and instead only a perspective that understands the blend is truthful. This would make all required to be both conservative *and* progressive if they want to be rational; but it wouldn't make them all agree as to next actions or who to vote for. So divisions are preserved somewhat and voting life resumes as normal, even if all had to make this change.

This perspective is one that most would think would create global opposition, except from small fraction who is willing to think "moderately". The perspective that wants to advance education, use the truths obtained quickly, while refraining from making mistakes about what is true or not in what is simply excitingly novel, is clearly a rational one. I'm not sure there could be a rational perspective that is not like this. Processes of thinking would vary between individuals who instantiate this kind of thiking but do it variously would still have a process form that shows this pattern I believe. This is just saying that there would be variation within this rational pattern.

There is a group of people that remains forever illogical and correct in relation to this kind of thiinking. It's those who would commit to something like "agree to disagree". Those that think that agreement is really needed. Since learning is fundamentally going to relate to opposition, conflict, and a need to persuade, in order to spread and use what is learned, creating a kind of progressive-conservative antagonism, those who cannot deal with disagreement, put it in its right utilization, and so on will be unable to stop acting obtusely agreeable and conservative, in opposition to education's rational path. I am aware that some even *commit* to this way of being, and knowing this it appears some have chosen to remain forever illogical and incorrect regarding knowledge's spread and advancement.

Education has to be partly about teaching how it fits in with normal behavior, political change, how it creates defective "knowledge" that is attractive but false, compared with what is "known", and how it also creates new knowledge that will result in *disagreement* and not agreement. How fascinating is it, that between this and the last post, we have a hardening perspective, that education isn't going to result in harmony! It's going to result over and over again in disagreement and a need to persuade, which is why the pathway through academia is also a pathway, very obviously considering what is shown in the media, through political *activism*, that puts on exhibition again and again the desire *to teach everyone else* what academics think they have learned. What they have learned is *not harmonizing* with the public, and instead requires persuasion of the public, or inputing new information into children.

Arguably, this further explains why academics have not appeared ever to be successful, ever in the widespread, at convincing the population, or political people, that their view is correct. It never happens that way. Usually, only a sufficient number of interested people end up enjoying the new academic perspectives, and they as a population partly adopt it while being entertained by it, and constitute a small fraction of the population, while the rest is unchanged! The academics then turn their attention to children and learning teenagers and adults, who are compelled to be inculcated by their teachings. This is strangely effective, but apparently very unsatisfying.

Why is it that teachers, being effective in education, desire so strongly, to be persuasive outside of it! Education is where all of their power exists, is concentrated, and is actually predicably influencing people. Actually, predictably it influences most people. Individually it may not be satisfying because they have to conform to curriculum that is not as progressive as they would like, but all else they say is more effective than they think, and their group membership, in something progressive, does powerfully overturn history by playing a powerful role in creating new shared mentalities. Meanwhile, it's largely futile to persuade others outside of education.

Parenting may also be a way for adults to feel they have world-power, while outside of the home, they have little influence. At home they feel they can exert their influence. Without being parents, perhaps they'd have trouble, with having very little influence or attention. In my earlier writing on attention, I touched on the fundamental subject of "why should anyone give you any at all", and one way around this is to become a parent who has attention by force. Parenting is very common. Attention paid to parents is very common too then. Therefore it is very pervasive that this pathway to getting attention would be used by people who might feel unattended to otherwise. It aids them medially one might say, even though I am aware it is not needed. People treat this condition before waiting long enough to know they get better anyway, and never need any support regarding it. People quickly have children, have more children, and may not be seeing, they have a very gratifying location of getting forced attention that does reliably result in creating mindsets. So like education, parenting is powerful. The difference though is that education is at odds with parenting, because parenting is often opposed to education, backwards, and sometimes hostile to new information. Parents do not oftentimes like what they hear from their kids when they share what they are learning in school, and parents will try to undo education. Parents are those who are living *outside of education permanently for the most part* after they were educated, and many are highly unsattisfied with their lives being stuck in school.

Strangely, I think parents are incredibly ambivalent regarding their opinions of eduation, in one way really supporting it, and in another way, being very much against it, and acting against it strongly even if they don't know it. Their kids get day care, and parents like that their children will share the experiences they had growing up. Parents experience a waning of educations influence in time, and are subjected outside of school to some seriously negative influences, including advertising, media and entertainment, news and politics, that is not really educational. So parents at home are not really behaving like teachers. They may be behaving like pseudo teachers, who enjoy wine and beer, sports and politics, and entertainment. They aren't structuring lectures and knowledge for their children. What children are exposed to in school in some ways is greatly qualitatively superior to what their parents will give them, and this is why I was saying before that leaving public school, or the academic environment, can be dangerous or deleterious to young people, who can expect that life will not be as satisfying, when alone or with family only, without any positive influence of education. If not having it anymore creates an obvious feeling that positives have been lost, then obviously the entire time, the positives were *contributed by school* and *not by the parental or familial influences*.

In this line of argument connecting the various ideas together, I think we are on a solid pathway to explaining why a life of education, again, is one that is intensely satisfying, and important, done right, and that it does result in rationality that otherwise wanes or does not exist. An educational perspective appears to have some radicalism, if one recognizes as this article does, that conflict is inevitable in learning, and not harmony so much as people think. Respect for education smooths the process of disharmony as disagreements change character from hostility to civil discord. But activism shows that obviously civil discord is the rule, and we tolerate it. Politically, this activism indicates it has *not been* incorporated into democratic process. Instead, it is tolerated periodically in specific places, where all are gathered, or oftentimes on the news and other media. Activists gather and talk, and have little influence. As I said, they can expect unharmony, and non-persuasion. Those who are persuaded are *activists with them*, while everyone else is in disagreement. Even if those numbers are large, the academic influence is small. It's just highly visible. Even millions of gathered people are fractional compared to the hundreds of millions and billions who are not activists.

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

## <a name="learning-as-disagreement-with-others">Learning As Disagreement With Others</a>

Learning | A System of Thinking | Relationships | Evolutionary Theory 

*504 Wanattomians, Epoch 1766042303, Thursday, December 18, 2025 00:18:23, United States of America*

I stated before, somewhat recently, that it seems that when someone learns, they seem to think that their information would be new to many others. If they perceived that others knew something they did not know, they would seek out knowing what that is, then would perceive quickly that they fit in, learning it after others. Typically, when they learn things on their own, I think they believe others do not know what they learned. If they perceived that others did know what they learned, their reaction to their learning would not be such that it is, that they obtained something of special value. Insted, they would feel they are just "catching up" with others. Instead, I think people when the learn, believe themselves to be sages regarding their new information. They think themselves special holders of new information, advice givers about what they know that is special expertise compared to what others have.

Everytime someone learns something, there is something new for which they can compare themselves to others to determine who was lacking. There isn't really an easy way for people to estimate who had the information that is new to them. They seem to not really make the comparison. Like children, they become fact-tellers of what they learned with heightened interest, assuming that all do not know what they newly learned.

There is an issue that if they knew they did not have information that others had, they would need that information and would want to get it and would be aware afterwards that what they acquired was what others had, but when they do not learn this way, I think they are likely to assume the opposite, that others are lacking what they have and that since they need it there is an advice giving they should be engaging in, and teaching behavior, that will allow for the spread of the information.

While I don't have the best way of explaining at present, I think something akin to the above will amount to a theorem of sorts in human psychology and socialization that will allow one to assume and utilize propositionally in logical arguments, that humans simply think that what they learned disagrees with information others have, and is additional.

That it is additional would be clear, but what I want to add is that it creates contradiction too. It contradicts any view as to completeness of information where there is significance. Humans, when they learn, are value recognizers along the way. They feel that what they "learned" had value, which is why they see it thusly. The value comes from what it contributed, where there was a lack. Not having the information results in some contradictory thinking. The learning therefore is related to a disagreement. This disagreement and others are resolved within the person who learned, but others will still have disagreements with the information until they learn. To teach others, requires persusasion and some overcoming of disagreements. The person who knows a lot and has much learning, perceives that they will need to spend a considerable amount of time persuading and re-teaching people, to combat disagreements.

Learning fundamentally appears to be imply or include disagreements of various important kinds, and this is at odds with the idea that people should strive to have agreement with each other or pretend to do so. Education dictates that learning open-mindedly should continue, and given what I stated above, this would result chronically in disagreements again and again. It seems to follow that education and learning is more *in favor of extremely frequent disagreement* with self, culture, and others.

More on this soon.

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

## <a name="it-shows-in-another-place-that-youre-a-real-good-man">It Shows In Another Place, That You're A Real Good Man</a>

*502 Wanattomians, Epoch 1765917640, Tuesday, December 16, 2025 13:40:40, United States of America* 

Relationships | Living Autobiography | Authentication | Consilience and Evidence 

As I write my living autobiography, occasionally I find myself recording information concerning my merits but in a different location from where I would have thought about it earlier. Recently, I began recalling some accomplishments, that I did not tell about in my writing, that I wanted to record, but it didn't fit in with other accomplishments already written. When one ventures to write one's story, over time one finds that one has stories in parallel as they are recalled, more than one harmonious story in a single chronology. There is a task of weaving them together, as they are recalled. It isn't different with life accomplishments. One might go by one's resume, or by some stories about accomplishments that come to mind, but later these appear to be inadequate to tell the entire story, and so, more is remembered and found later, to include, and one has to find a way to make it fit.

This processes causes one to think whether it makes sense to try to be so comprehensive, and one thinks if one should be more concise and say less. However, each time I recall something that ought to be included, it seems very important for overall estimation and judgement as to my quality of life.

Humorously, I related this to the subject of trying to convey to others "one's goodness" as others would sometimes choose to talk. Some knowing the issue well, expect that there is some global mind, some ultimate knower, that would have the information wanted to be shared, that would perhaps result in a more fair judgement. Without a lot of information it is too little. From this perspective, when something important is thought of for the living autobiography for inclusion, it seems it should be included, if that's possible. Else it will be very summary. Too incomplete.

Really the objective of a totally comprehensive autobiography is still one that cannot succeed. What I am working on is as close as one could hope for achieving a comprehensive result, but I still do not feel it can be adequate, and well if too long, it cannot be read. The world's longest autobiography for making everyone know you is like making it certain nobody does.

A more optimal approach to communication might state that one's autobiography is better shared as advertisements made often, communicated briefly.

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

## <a name="a-new-working-theory-of-wider-nature-or-what-some-might-call-the- universe">A New Working Theory Of Wider Nature, Or What Some Might Call The Universe</a>

Cosmology | Theory of Fundamentals | Evolutionary Theory | Interdisciplinary Science | Physics | Mathematics | Ethics | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Truth and Honesty

*494 Wanattomians, Saturday, December 6, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*

To Add

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

## <a name="making-the-point-about-propositions-as-relating-to-translatability-by-resummarizing-and-rewriting-a-work-many-times">Making The Point About Propositions As Relating To Translatability, By Resummarizing, and Rewriting A Work, Many Times</a>

Translatability | Logic | Mathematics | Language | Truth and Honesty | Truth and Existence | Ontology | Epistemology | Relationships | Com | False Sanctities

*485 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 27, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*

To Add

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

## <a name="the-poles-of-the-astronomical-individual-action-object-map-and-the-individual-life-plan-and-process-and-two-views-of-total-system">The Roles of The Astronomical-Individual Action Object Map And The Individual Life Plan and Process, And Two Views Of Total System</a>

*485 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 27, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*

Language Overhaul | Ontology | Programming | Technology | Methods of Diagramming and Visualization 

To Add

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

## <a name="information-as-being-for-mining">Information As Being For Mining</a>

All As Inanimate | Constraint And Determinism | Evolutionary Theory | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Creativity Management | Technology | Interdisciplinary Science | Living Autobiography | Logging

*485 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 27, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*

To Add

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

## <a name="named-relationship-types-creates-for-everyone-in-a-society-rule-related-expectations-reducing-the-rule-learning-need-but-increasing-ambiguity-and-confusions-due-to-lack-of-foresight-and-certain-unrealities-created">Named Relationship Types Creates For Everyone In A Society Rule Related Expectations, Reducing The Rule Learning Need, But Increasing Ambiguity And Confusions Due To Lack Of Foresight And Certain Unrealities Created</a>

*484 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*

Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts | Mathematics | Language | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Ontology

To Add

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

## <a name="regarding-the-slow-nutritional-increase-to-have-the-brain-that-can-understand-you">Regarding The Slow Nutritional Increase To Have The Brain That Can Understand You</a>

*483 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*

Nutrition | Health | Brain Development | Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Ontology

To Add

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

## <a name="for-intellectual-conversation-i-am-my-best-audience-because-in-addition-to-being-able-to-have-much-unstated-like-when-with-another-intelligent-conversationalist-even-more-context-can-be-omitted-even-while-thinking-what-would-be-said-maybe-resulting-in-convo-that-cannot-be-understood-by-anyone-later-but-convo-that-was-maximally-brain-developing-at-the-time">For Intellectual Conversation I Am My Best Audience Because In Addition To Being Able To Have Much Unstated Like When With Another Intelligent Conversationalist, Even More Context Can Be Omitted, Even While Thinking What Would Be Said, Maybe Resulting In Convo That Cannot Be Understood By Anyone Later, But Convo That Was Maximally Brain Developing At The Time</a>

*483 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*

Relationships | Com | ThoughtStream | A System Of Thinking

To Add

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

## <a name="cyclical-patterns-that-result-in-present-past-analogy-similitude-are-additional-demonstrations-of-general-astrogeostasis-because-even-motile-objects-showing-changes-are-exhibiting-the-same-patterns-again">Cyclical Patterns That Result In Present-Past Analogy Similitude Are Additional Demonstrations Of General Astrogeostasis, Because Even Motile Objects Showing Changes Are Exhibiting The Same Patterns Again</a>

*483 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Constraint and Determinism | Ontology | Interdisciplinary Science | Human Shortcomings | Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science

To Add

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

## <a name="rapid-socialization-with-high-ideation-as-thinking-and-speaking-words-more-creatively-web-like-but-less-ready-for-publication-compared-with-writing-and-why-lack-of-editing-in-oral-communication-shows-humans-have-editing-expecations-incorrect">Rapid Socialization With High Ideation As Thinking and Speaking Words More Creatively Web-Like But Less Ready For Publication Compared With Writing, And Why Lack Of Editing In Oral Communication Shows Humans Have Editing Expecations Incorrect</a>

*483 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*   

Relationships | Com | Editing | Language | Linguistics | Creativity Management | ThoughtStream | Book and Journal of Mattanaw

To Add

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

## <a name="the-writing-and-book-authorship-process-in-the-book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-as-analagous-and-intertwined-with-the-process-of-brain-development">The Writing and Book Authorship Process In The Book and Journal Of Mattanaw As Analagous And Intertwined With The Process Of Brain Development</a>

*483 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 26, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*   

Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Technology | Life Process | Productions | ThoughtStreams | Procrastination | Motivation | Psychology and Neuroscience | A System of Thinking | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation

To Add

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

## <a name="conceptual-overhaul-the-book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-and-the-work-of-mattanaw">Conceptual Overhaul, The Book and Journal of Mattanaw, and The Work of Mattanaw</a>

*482 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 25, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

Linguistics | Language | Ontology | Truth and Honesty | Relationships | Com | Developmental Process | Architecture 

To Add

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

## <a name="the-mathematization-of-processes-and-objects-relating-to-each-the-life-categories-within-the-mathematics-of-the-attention-mangement-process-or-life-process">The Mathematization of Processes And Objects Relating To Each The Life Categories, Within The Mathematics of The Attention Mangement Process, or Life Process</a>

*482 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 25, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Book and Journal of Mattanw |  

To Add

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

## <a name="quantifying-level-of-complexity-in-aggregate-objects-and-processes-and-naming-numbering">Quantifying Level of Complexity, in Aggregate Objects and Processes, and Naming/Numbering</a>

Mathematics | Interdisciplinary Science | Linguistics | Ontology | Epistemology | Higher Order Attention | Learning | Education | Architecture | Relationships | Com | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

*482 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 25, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

To Add

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

## <a name="the-urge-towards-simplicity-away-from-complexity-and-how-solutions-to-complexity-trend-towards-simple-and-later-to-trivial">The Urge Towards Simplicity Away From Complexity And How Solutions To Complexity Trend Towards Simple, And Later To Trivial</a>

*481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Higher Order Attention | Architecture  

Sometimes, when thinking about something annoying that must be done, some repetitive or unwanted task, I prefer not to do it, or have some frustration about having to do it later. Most have this feeling I'm certain. Recently, though, I noticed some issue with this, and it's that solutions to complex processes often appear simple, and after learned very easy, and eventually trivial. A complex business process that appears to involve a hard sequence of actions on paper may also appear complext to others, but on inspection is simpler and has singularity, similar to the completion of simple routine activities. Kids learn how to perform tasks that have a good number of steps once written down. Why not consider that something like attenting school involves such a process. We might forget all that that includes. That involves waking by a certain time, getting cleaned and clothed, maybe eating something, getting school possessions and homework together, preparing for weather outside, and for those who take the bus, they have to walk to the bus, get on the bus, and on arrival go into the school, use the bathroom or go to class, and on and on. Within this are even all the social processes that relate to interacting with adults and other kids. If this is written down, it will be a very large process, and will be akin to the process I've disccused in my work in the Book and Journal. A life is a living process. One process I made, the higher order attention process, or the architecture process around attention management, captures much that seemed complex initially, but then seems very simple later. Then it seems trivial in various ways. Notice how the process of going to school appears trivial. Easy to do and repeat? If it wasn't trivial enough to form a habit in most children of varying intelligences, it wouldn't be possible for them to repeat the process thousands of times. Also, you can still do it yourself, even though you might not, as an adult, if you are an adult.

The issues that come up that involve annoying or frustrating actions seem to have some complexity. These tasks very often have other annoying aspects, like when they seem unnecessary, beaurocratic, or if they involve getting around various human stupidities. Either way, the stupidities may be recurring, and one may still need to do the tasks. I wouldn't argue that all aspects of the unwanted tasks become less frustrating or more unwanted if they are solved simply with processes that become easy or trivial later, but I do want to state that it does seem probable that they become less frustrating overall if it is more immediately intuited that the solve is simple and not complex.

Today I had an annoying process related problem booking a flight. There were technical software issues involving payment that should be easy, and various beaurocratic and paperwork process stupidities that are very familiar to anyone who is older. There was too much that didn't make sense in the process, and it created frustration to be able to finally make a reservation. This was the inspiration of this posting. I was not liking that I would have to do this frustrating work relating to a complex interaction that frequently includes foolishness and trickery in design and my solution would involve working around these problems. However, I had the idea, connecting the situation with what I've written and/or filmed about in the last few days, which discusses processes becoming trivially easy and automated. It also related to my long work on making external processes automated behavioral processes through repeat effort and habit formation. I could then envision that there would simply be a singular process I could use and recall. Recollection of the process is easier than trying to recall all the various travel and reservation circumstances I've been in that relate. They can fit into a simple process. Knowing and having the process, I simply repeat it.

Since there is no way to avoid it, life includes it. It fits into the domain of the non-controllable to an extent. Ways around it are too costly, like not traveling as much or at all. I'd rather travel, so unfortunately I will have to deal with some of the annoying processes.

Singularity or aggregation in process is a subject of interest. What makes it seem simple after it has been understood and well trained into habit and automation is something that resembles what we would call "a process". Well, there are subprocesses and superprocesses, and all fits into celestial process. Interestingly, this relates to the same kind of mathematical problems I've discussed that relate to the "one and the many" issue in philosophy that I'm working on resolving. In some ways I feel it is resolved, but I am needing some additional thought and refinement, and to arrive at the right language to discuss it clearly. I don't think I'm far from having that language to bring the topic to a close.

Programming also has this strange interesting issue. Is the program one or many. When included within a larger program process, has it retained it's oneness, or is it admitted since it is now a part of a larger process as one, the one within its process was also one, along with any other subprocess alongside, which would imply it is an aggregate and maybe not oen again. This language results in paradoxical thinking, which for me means it is certainly mistaken. Alternative language must be used to show why that approach merely illustrates *that there is a problem* and that that language *also will not solve that problem*.

Either way, a process does seem "singular" as we approached the named "it", indicating linguistic utility, which indicates taxonomical utility, which indicates representative structure utility. Frustrating things we have to do will have a "singular" process that can fit it, and that unification will make it seem simple, especially once learned. I also wrote that in biology, once something is learned and automated, the process I mean, which becomes an automatic habit, it becomes something to be unaware about, and once culture progresses, the simplicty of the learning increases, happens somewhat faster, and the animal becomes unaware of it earlier too, even until, as is the usual, the animal doesn't know it does it *the way it does it* or even *that it does it*, indicating it has acquired a triviality. Complexity and simplicity is still partly relative to the person's judgment, the way we think about it, without yet quantifying it. What I am pointing to is the quantification of simplicity and complexity, and relation to perception of triviality in a mind, the mind of an animal or the mind of a human. There is a relationship of scale of complexity to human and animal brains and the quantification of complexity, and the size of the process will be one that a human can do, can do with difficulty, or can never do. The one's they can do easily approach being things done in unawareness later, even without a way to recover how they were learned.

That's enough for now, but I can see I have an interest in writing in more depth on the last subject of quantifying level of complexity. 

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

## <a name="procrastination-as-approaching-a-greater-end-with-the-advent-of-insight-action-where-you-just-do-what-you-think-even-if-the-development-is-mental-because-mental-development-is-more-action-connected-and-mature">Procrastination As Approaching A Greater End With The Advent Of Insight-Action, Where You Just Do What You Think, Even If The Development Is Mental, Because Mental Development Is More Action Connected And Mature</a>

*481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

Procrastination | Creativity Management | Higher Order Attention | Productions | Life Categories | Personal Development | Psychology | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

To Add

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

## <a name="developmental-and-thought-behavior-record-of-the-book-and-journal-relating-to-ideation-in-thoughtstream-conceptions-general-productions-and-writing-elicitations-from-my-life-process">Developmental And Thought-Behavior Record of The Book And Journal, Relating To Ideation in ThoughtStream Conceptions, General Productions, and Writing Elicitations From My Life Process</a>

Book and Journal of Mattanaw | Attention Management Process | Architecture | Life and Death Plans | Living Autobiography | Creativity Management | Personal Development As Unifying Theme | Introduction | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking
    
*481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

To Add

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

## <a name="abstraction-as-extraction-and-reuse-historically-unintentionally-thinking-abstraction-as-forms-or-special-generalities">Abstraction as Extraction and Reuse, Historically Unintentionally Thinking Abstraction as Forms or Special Generalities</a>

Physics | Interdisciplinary Science | Mathematics | Philosophy | Psychology | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Logic 

*481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

To Add

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

## <a name="situational-probabilities-making-behavior-efficiently-consistent-with-future-utility-and-utilizing-assured-events-approaching-100-percent-probability-like-death">Situational Probabilities, Making Behavior Efficiently Consistent With Future Utility, And Utilizing Assured Events Approaching 100 Percent Probability, Like Death</a>

*481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

Mathematics | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Attention Management Process | Higher Order Attention | Life Categories | Living Autobiography   

To Add

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

## <a name="a-justification-for-cultural-archiving-as-both-including-human-brain-mass-creation-and-feedback-loops-of-enjoyment-and-self-improvement-individually-and-collectively">A Justification For Cultural Archiving As Both Including Human Brain Mass Creation and Feedback Loops of Enjoyment and Self Improvement, Individually and Collectively</a>

*481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

Living Autobiography | Living Autobiography of Culture and Society | Critique of History Versus Autobiography | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Content Creation and Publication | Creativity Management | Architecture | Higher Order Attention | Technology 
To Add

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

## <a name="i-was-taught-what-i-can-never-contribute-to-and-science-part-ii">I Was Taught What I Can Never Contribute To, and Science, Problems of Including Articles and Data, Part II</a>

*481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

Science | Indoctrination | Learning | Education | Societal Contribution | Merit | Evaluative Concepts | Constraint and Determinism | Doctorates | Generals, Hierarchies

To Add

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

## <a name="where-does-everyone-refuse-to-do-research-facts-that-are-known-and-science">Where Does Everyone Refuse To Do Research, Facts That Are Known, and Science</a>

*480 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 23, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

Interdisciplinary Science | Mathematics | Dissertative Thinking | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings | You Are Mass and Configuration | Truth and Honesty 

To Add

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

## <a name="i-was-taught-with-what-i-can-never-contribute-to-and-science">I Was Taught With What I Can Never Contribute To, and Science</a>

*481 Wanattomians, Monday, November 24, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

Science | Indoctrination | Learning | Education | Societal Contribution | Merit | Evaluative Concepts | Constraint and Determinism | Doctorates | Generals, Hierarchies

This is not any complaint from me, but an observation, that people were taught a general subject matter held to be of paramount importance but were not given opportunities to contribute, apart from entering a limited job market while it was known that the majority of jobs were not scientific. There has been a similar true criticism, heard often by many, that math has prepared people similarly, by teaching them the subject, without having a real pathway for use. But let's put aside use for now, and combine math and science together, and acknowledge that education for both has been done without a plan for letting those same people educated contribute to the fields.

Science and math are both important in that they really do provide ways of adding new facts and information into the world, and future children will be taught the newest information with each upcoming generation using contributions from the recent generations of scientists and mathematicians, and those doing similar work before. The pathway of science and math is thought to connect history and have special honors associated for really keeping, maintaining, and improving real knowledge. Teaching people about this *but not giving them a way to contribute* really is damaging way of excluding others. While it is already known that it may be hard to contribute, having contribution pathways is still desirable. Imagine if people were allowed to contribute specimens, observations, and other good quality data, while getting credit for field work, and maybe payment? If things were situated that way, all the people once children who were indoctrinated about science can actually get involed and could get paid. Having an open pathway is helpful to the mental health of society. If pathways don't exist, it is as if society has made people religiously involved at the beginning of life, then excommunicated later.

A long time ago I would think about how education was something enjoyable enough to have life long as long as the process made sense and was not too costly. I don't quite think the same way now being someone who likes to do my own reading and writing, after having already been through education, but at the time, I liked college enough to think it very beneficial to my life, to an extent that I didn't really think it needed to end. Why not continue it? At the time too, I noticed that the academic environment, while there are issues, is still largely a healthful environment in which to be. All school has seemed somewhat healthful, particularly in comparison to extremely unhealthful living circumstances some people find themselves in after education. Not everyone is smart enough, after school, to create an environment for themselves, that is as healthful. Not everyone will have the resources. If one could remain in college, living at a nice university, without making payment, or while making a small payment, it approaches an ideal lifestyle, combining access to all that one needs, along with parks and places to enjoy sports and community activities. This may be a reason some choose to work in Academia, to remain connected. I would agree and thought to myself too, that remaining connected with a university all of life would be a good way to remain very healthy.

Considering this, it is really strange how dramatic the transition is from high school to work life, or from college to career. I noted after leaving high school that it appears some die quickly after the change. College life does have some dangers initially, and there are common statements around "freshman weight gain" that happens, that is due to a more sedentary life (although a good life), and involvement in drinking and partying. Drinking and partying, not being as valued in education up to college, does imply that that time period was healthier. School up to high school includes healthy prohibitions that are obviously beneficial, and while not all families were great environments, these prohibitions and expectations of the school system does result in less risky environments and a healthier life. Again, this makes an abrupt change from a healthy environment to an unhealthy one seem like improper life or societal planning.

What if something like high school and college did continue? In a way, a good city or urban area, if it is doing well, starts to seem like a college campus. Locales that are doing well within different nations are like small city-states that have structured themselves in a way consistent with the educational model. It may be that a newer perspective on society and its government could use an "educational" direction, rather than others that come to mind, to create a larger society that is a bit more like the smaller environments that really do work. It can be admitted that all nations have nice areas and areas that are pretty dismal, and that in these nations regions exist that do well because the values seem to be more approximately similar to the values in universities.

I think this thinking would be helpful for coming up with a better societal model, or would be helpful in the comparative study of environmental models that others have come up with for making further comparisons and improvements.

Thinking more about myself now, I do think in some ways I would still benefit, even with my current lifestyle that is quite amazing, from making it blend a bit with a university student's lifestyle, that is more prohibitive of behaviors that are unlike what is expected in high school. I would want the freedom of college, but some of the purities of high school, and earlier. To me even now the contrast is a little more than I would like, comparing that I have to seek everything I need again and again as I travel around, versus have everything quickly available in a university type environment. There is a mentality about situations like colleges that makes it more easy to see options that are beneficial. As I write this, I want to swim, maybe engage in a range of activities that are athletic, go to the library, and maybe take a couple courses. I'd like textbooks to be nearby. But how do I swim, rock climb, go to a high quality library with journals, and do any of what I noramlly wouldn't be able to think of that exists in a college setting, here right now? I'd have to join too many gyms, research where each is, try to find guest access to libararies of less quality or at universities who don't want me for not being faculty or a student (at present), and find a way to mentally glue everything together such that I can really imagine all that I can do within my city. However a university is like an expensive gym or club membership, but much better, and in this club once one is a member, one has very wide access. This is assuming a university that is the model is one that provides easy access to all students.

So now I have to cobble together a university like life, or my own city-state arrangement within the city that includes much that is unwanted.

Considering all of this, not being involved in education appears to be a very huge shift. But this conversation wasn't supposed to be about this part as much as it is about being able to *contribute* somehow. But if the educational environment is not existing, and one is trying to remake it somehow to construct a good life in a somewhat chaotic situation, how is one to then think further to how one can *contribute*. Contribution seems to assume that one has some involvement already in such a scenario, to do more than just live within it. It would be nice, since education is the pathway in which many think math and science is to be added into society, that it would first *still include people* for that. But it has actually quickly broken relations with everyone excepting those who remain in education through payment in college.

So having some structure to live within or be involved in seems to be important in relation to how one can be involved and make contributions. This made science and math weirder, because there is an expecation that people *remain scientifically minded, and continue to respect mathematics*. So everyone *is expected* to minimally respect and *support* science evenwithout making contributions that grow it. This is like keeping everyone out while demanding some living in accordance with it. This kind of thinking makes it seem somewhat disgusting to want to be involved. Who would want to be involved in such an offensive arrangement, of having to be especially caring about a group that rejects them in many ways. While being taught by them that they need to care. Authorities forcing concern, support, and some work. Some effort to have a psychology, a brain, that likes them.

While I don't like this, *I really do like* what science is supposed to be ideally. I *would want to be* a named contributor to a scientific body of knowlege, that has historical importance, and importance in the distant future. It is one of those parts of culture that is thought to have *permanent importance*, in vital parts of what it is trying to accomplish. Why would I not want to be working on that, since additionally it is fun. I blends a fun and interesting life with making benefits to self and everyone.

But it does not seem most are able to contribute. According to this article, that is not as favorable as being included in *the good life* of the university or city state that uses similar plans, while making the contributions, but not even a way to contribute with credit exists. Even if for free (although it shouldn't be for free).

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

## <a name="the-reference-book-of-the-proven-and-the-reference-book-of-facts">The Reference Book of the Proven, and The Reference Book of Facts</a>

*480 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 23, 2025, Penang, Malaysia*  

A System of Thinking | Logic and Facts | Mathematics | Hypthetical Theories | Interdisciplinary Science | Human Shortcomings

With all the science that has supposedly been happening that would have transparent results for all, such that all can enjoy the progress of human in the advancements made by science, hidden business has been the normal rule of operations, and none have catalogued the results together, as a scientific community, indicating that there is no scientific community. That there are people existing who do some work in science or find themelves in academia does not mean there is anything that is a "community". Nationality gets in the way, separation of groups too, and of course, all appear more just as disparate individuals. Since education has indoctrinated all youths who attended public schools to "be scientists themselves" to some extent, or to support scientific, or to be at least rudimentarily educated as scientists, it appears even more that people are just as scattered as "scientists" as they are population members. There definitely is no community that is "the unified scientific community".

Those who are self-invested in believing themselves contributors to such a group would simply rely on saying that those who publish, those who work in science, and those who are involved in science academically are "scientists" but this is a confession that there is not a community and not that there is one, because it does imply that gigantic divisions exist, that scientist are in competition (governments, schools, businesses?), and that there is a scattering as I mentioned. I cannot myself pretend that some university is another one, while they combat in sports.

People use the false idea that there is a scientific community to advance their own self estimation using what I call "social alignment". They want to use a pretend external authority they think is large and on their side to make it appear they too are correct, and that they are themselves very smart, "like the other scientists are". It ignores that the population is filled with high school scientists who are now retired, who have different opinions. The entire population is basically the faux scientist population undefined, divided, definitely separated. They resemble people living in different houses, rather than a giant glob, a giant ball of humans, all conjoined as "twins" together. The human "ball of we", "the community of scientists, one and all".

One thing that happens when groups exist is they start to make records. There is no scientific community group of records. Yet weirdly, they are building the world's knowledge? How are they going about making their records. How are they sharing it to the high school scientifically trained (those who can restate the same scientific methods if they remember their studies). What is the hypothesis of what they do together to keep records?

There is really dispersed data collections that are military, government, and business related. They are sheltered and hidden within boundaries of businesses, organizations, and clearances. They keep their own records, and they don't share typically, even if courts tell them they need to. Records are destroyed with shredding companies, and email records are erased nowadays immediately as employees depart, and they impart the message that records are not kept forever or that long. Data is sold, and isn't simply "given to the scientists or the public". Data that is scientific is mixed with business data. Actually in the contexts of business, it isn't really interesting if it is scientific data or not, it's just work and information. Information to be kept "secured" and "encrypted" and away from anyone "not involved in the organization or companies". In this context there are so many divisions of encryption, infrastructure, corporate legalism, and so on, that millions of divisions exist. Maybe billions of divisions exist because they are multifaceted divisions and separate divisions. They are not "getting together" to make a scientific record of facts.

I agree with what I stated the organizational perspective of science would be when it is not using ideals, and that is that they are looking for useful information that is special and new, or creates market dominance and advantages. As a human being, we think science is not too much different than the learning process, and organizations use this analogy too with their employees. They do learning work. The learning work uses methods that are well known, in addition to learning methods called "scientific" that were easy enough to explain in a short time in high school. The more difficult part is making the learning go further and further, and for that, specialized tools are sometimes needed, or simply learning what existed to make good joint inferences with high quality intelligence is required. But this is still just the same learning process. In a way the designation of "science" as something separate is uninteresting, because what would we call advanced "learning". Advanced learning anyplace is just learning. When learning is collective it is similar to "education". I favor the concept of "learning" overall because it makes it obvious that science is hardly anything in the procedure apart from natural learning with a strategy. and that learning with a strategy, ignoring science, advances *past science* if it continues a million years from now. Learning doesn't care that something is called "science" if it learns past it.

Science has touted there being a "community" and has, like "education", gone beyond knowing its learning, to acting like their is a unified expert group, exclusive of all others. These expert groups are weird firstly. They'd deny this, but Academics and Scientists are definitely strange in a variety of ways, somehow having separated from humanity in their ways. As communities that have made learning seem paramaount, they pretend to be teaching everyone, while being weirdly separate and pretendedly expert. The bell curve of intelligence displays they are often and usually not very smart. It actually shows they trend to the middle, and are finally popular there. Thinking they are the sharers of information, the great educators and mentors of others, they pretend they actually do share their work. They pretend they share their data and their journal articles, but both are either encrypted, confidential, top secret, shared for profit at high cost, "individualistic", or otherwise protects as "something important" to become nobel for later. I thought adding "individualistic" funny, because individualistic papers are striving to be different and not to be "blended with everything else". Science is not collectivistic in an "individualistic society". It's not "communal" in a capitalist society; yet science acts like it's a soviet commune of information sharing. If I have to try to find scientific data, I either get old data that was "bestowed on humanity" that will not get me further than others for their protection, and will make me out of date when I try to publish my results. Also, if I try to get information from journals, I have to pay too much for them, or I have to become a student again to get university access. Getting it that way I'm a student again. Getting them independently I'm not an academic. It is made easy only for academics! Yet the academics are simply separate customers and subscribers to technology archiving companies and those calling themselves digital research portals.

None of this is like "The Standard Reference of Proven Facts". Such a document is incredibly needed, to bring facts together for everyone to utilize, and to put into a location where "supposed facts" can be attacked if necessary. If there were such a publication, how it would be published is important, because if it were made, wouldn't we expect it to be the result of a publication company? Like those who made encyclopedias or dictionaries. Or like online encyclopedias? In that case, I'd argue the same points above, that the publication result is "just from the publication company" and that there is no scientific community that generated it, and that it may be extremely wrong, if the many scientists who exist did not contribute. Also, businesses would be at odds with a publication company? How about militaries? Translated in all languages? Obviously it would just be a publishing company if it happened. But I would admit, that *could* be an extremely charitable and great attempt at *making* a scientific community. But like Wikipedia, academia would reject it in large measure. If someone tries to unify science, control becomes a silly primate issue.

The primate facts from zoology in the reference would make it not easy to have a community that would make the reference? So it could not easily exist?

There would have to be a kind of open source process to science that would have more than one competing publication, in a situation of collaboration. Or it could just be collaborative but with separation. A concept that seems useful that others may have trouble with. The open source process results in a set of documents that record sciences findings, in an inclusive way, else making all the students faux scientists is especially offensive. Especially if they are taught with what they can never contribute to.

If the documents came into existence, and there was a process allowing free contribution, and contribution from scientists, *following a scientific process of collaboration that admits of scientific advancement itself*, then we would have something of a document *defining* a scientific community. That is a bit of an exaggeration, that it would really be enough to define a community, but it would begin to shape a community, and begin to make claims somewhat possible, extremely intricately qualified, that a community exists.

Then it would have created a kind of alternative example to the legal system. The legal system oddly is very close to having a real community, with a real definition of who is involved and who is not, who can contribute and how, and where. It is still divided by nations! And it is misguided in many ways! But considering what it has compared to what science has, it is pretty amazing. It's documentation is vast and huge, and somewhat more public, and historically very public. Nowadays, it is starting to be gate kept in research portals so is resembling what is being done by academia, and there are *levels of payment* making exlusivity for higher paying customers. One may not have enough being a public researcher, which is something I know from doing litigation on my own. However, it is way easier than in science, and ther eare still public reading rooms for the law, containing updated legal texts. It's not the best system, but in some ways it is more a collective efforts.

Sciences also provide to libraries at universities some findings in journals, so this constitutes a public reading room, but the arrangement is very inferior overall in the collaborative effort, although I would state modern facilities in Universities are vastly superior to public libararies and legal reading rooms. The latter are like out of date public libraries with less investement. The former though, doesn't allow easy research in their *university portals* that they restrict for use to students and staff. A public guest is a bit of an unwanted person they provide some minimal access to. Like the homeless people and handicapped that sleep and hang out at public libraries.

It appears to me oddly definitive that there is no scientific community, and that it is easily demonstrated with this one single lack, of there not being a reference book of the proven, or of facts, built up using scientific method, shared in a transparent way to all who would benefit and contribute. That this does not exist further suggest there is not anything called a scientific community.

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

## <a name="mass-configuration-and-activation-differences-in-the-brain-over-time">Mass Configuration and Activation Differences In The Brain Over Time</a>

*479 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 22, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Learning | Education | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Neuroscience | Psychology | Personal Identity | Death Plans

A comparison of the activation of brain tissue in comparison with volumes would reveal some interesting facts about identity and personal changes over time. I suggested that, since activation, and brain configuration, within the volume/mass of brain tissue, varies over time, that there may be a probability estimation of specific activations relating to a ratio total brain volume. Activation involves a particular volume of tissue, but the brain is much larger. The size of activations and fequency of total activation state configuration which would amount to the shape of the activation when estimating, showin in brain imaging of activation, would have some purely geometrical probability within the volume if there are changes each time. It is expected that brain activation will show changes. Using only this information, we can find a boundary regarding the probabilities of specific brain activations in the volume.

Wanting to be more precise in the probabilities relating to brain activation, and to get to understand deltas of brain activation over time, we would need to test over time to see how consistent activations are. This would reduce the volumes of interest to more probable volumes and less probable volumes as spaces for brain activation. We know this would be the case, because while it seems useful to get to know how extensive an activation can be within the whole volume, we anticipate simply by introspection and regular experience that much of what is in the brain will simply not be utilized as often.

What I am doing here is not recreating neuroscience on this subject but showing a process of arriving at results that probably exist in the research, but done creatively in the absense of research, still with a solid background in psychology. Like an independent researcher studying it afresh. But instead of trying to arrive at a new explanation of all this, the objective is more to arrive at what must be true given certain premises and facts we do know about, to know about the extent in which people can actually change in time, and the extent in which they can be thought of as being different people at different times.

In keeping with the earlier approach of using sets to think about imagination, total brain states (of matter and configuration, but activity too), and of the earth's mass and configuration as well, we will time slice sets for each object, and make comparisons. So a person is simply time sliced at any level of precision wanted, and these are compared as "different people" in a sense. This counfounds the concept of people with what we commonly think of as a person, but we will use this to arrive at a clearer picture that explains what a person is more clearly. Actually, we will not use the concept of person, but of the specific object, if we're not talking generally. If talking generally, I might just use the actual species name if talking about members of a species, or family of animals, or subspecies or lower if more specific. Either way, time slicing treating each slice as separate will be useful for understanding subdivided objects and aggregate objects. We will need to distinguish between the ways of talking about and unifying objects.

Knowing that brain mass, configuration, activation, transport (configuraton), process, fully explains human mental life and experience and behavior, excluding situations to an extent, we can really say that an activation and brain use is one to one mapped to thought and experience and physiological controls. What we want to do is have a volumetric method of estimating roughly changes in the brain, and go further to get more specificity, using activation differences. With activation differences and changes in brain configuration and mass we will have differences in the "thinking human", or the person we interested in. We admit that brain deltas taken in total, already explain differences in a person from day to day. Lesions are used to explain great differences as a result of brain injury. Losses of brain very obviously explain, but we are not only interested in brain losses, but increases due to day to day experiences and learning. 
Microbiological and Psychoneurpharmacological bases of deltas would also want to be known and for that we would need research, and it is admitted that to know fully this information is required. But for purposes that are very important, estimation and imprecise definite answers are useful. We are looking for definite facts, that have some imprecision or admitted error.

Now I think I can state more clearly what the objective of such thinking is. We want to very precisely estimate the size of human deltas in thinking from moment to moment, and from time to time, and be able to state, for example, what the sizes of change will be, in terms of brain mass and configuration (assuming configuration includes activation), measured in weights, mass, and volume. The weights, mass, and volume, will give us a very clear ida about *how much of a physical person changes regarding who they are*. We will then use finding as assumptions in miscellaneous arguments to arrive at conclusions which would have what some would call philosophical importance. It helps make conclusions about what we care about. For example, how much do I care about myself versus previous selves, and how much of what is new is what I want to preserve? Does the knowledge about mass changes and activity changes change perspective regarding this? I think I can combine this with introspective findings to form concrete philosophical results that would definitely refute soem religious viewpoints too ancient and ignorant of science.

What is humorous now to me about this is that we don't have this knowledge yet collectively, and while I have a degree in psychology myself, I was not at any time exposed to any assertion about the measured difference of brain from one time to the next. At most, what was shown to me, was gross anatomical differences in brains that were related to differences of functioning. But obviously, I want to know what of me is changing over time, and if I can't know that in great detail, in how much detail can it be shares. Simply thinking alone, allows to come to some firm conclusions though. Here's an example.

It seems clear to me that anatomical dfferences in the brain corresponding to differnces in functioning are nutritional. The utility of nutrition definitely accounts for the differences of mass and configuration regarding what mass is used and how much. The nutrition, or mass, will either come from local storage, or will come from digestion of food matter. This means knowing nothing about psychology, we have another study pathway: to learn about nutritions utilization in the body, to estimate what quantity would result in brain changes on a daily basis. Some knowledge about local storage in the body and within the brain, or local configuration changes in the brain regarding resources there would be needed to explain more. Being a finite system, with easy to understand inputs and outputs, we can use the inputs and the outputs together to really know what must be changing as far as mass in any part of the body. This is somewhat without looking. For example, if I'm consuming calcium, and I'm not expelling the same amount I'm consuming, that calcium is either being retained, stored, or utilized elsewhere. Already, physiologically, a surplus of this nutrition is used by physiologists and general care physiciancs to assume bones will be protected or growth will increase. There is no tissue in the body for which these assumptions can be made.

Knowing it is nutritional, we know it is a combination of mass and configuration of interst in the brain. Nutrition influences thinking, just as drugs do. Adding in additional assumptions, nutrition is directly influencing thinking. Glucose availability is part of what is needed to understand particular activations which would change as one starves, or suddenly feeds.

Nutrition is dealing with very small quantities. These quantities are distributed through the entire body. What remains for brain use is a subset. Some is consumed rapidly and is replaceable configuration for brain activation and development. Some is used for rebuilding and replenishing other resources, like tissues, proteins, and any other small biomaterial that would be discussed in neuropharmacology.

The quantities are of interest and can be used to compare adult brain changes with those of animals, that have vastly different nutritional uses. We know by comparing humans with whales for example, that the nutrition consumption is directly related to utility in the system, which is obvious because it relates to total animal mass and volume. Brain volume is included. Small animals will have smaller brain deltas just because they are small, and eat much less. It appears we are arriving at a theorem:

Theorem, nutritional consumption alone allows us to estimate boundaries of brain development in a species including humans.

From this can conclude quickly, for example, that small desert mice cannot have brain deltas that are experienced in activations that are as large as those in humans, not going by their small size, but going *only by the quantity of food they eat*. 

We have another theorem:

Theorem, reducing nutrition to mass, we can estimate the boundary conditions of brain developmentn of animals and compare them using mass input alone.

Here I have decided to move past nutrition, and use nutrition only as something to discuss for those who wouldn't be prepared to hear "mass input". Here we have another theorem or proposition, which I will keep using as an assumption (showing a problem with these words):

Just moments after writing this, I lost the next theorem from memory.


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

## <a name="newborn-brain-tissue-in-adults-and-childlike-thinking-about it">Newborn Brain Tissue In Adults And Childlike Thinking About It</a>

*478 Wanattomians, Friday, November 21, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Learning | Relationships | Higher Order Attention | Attention Management Process | Education | Living Autobiography | Ageing | Death Plans  

I don't think there is cause to elaborate on this subject except to say initially that people ought to be considered in subdivision more often, in piecemeal fashion, thinking about their mental aspects really having mass in brain tissue. 

"How much of you right now?"

asks

"What is the mass of your active brain tissue going on in your head right now that has no reliance at all on other brain tissue?"

That will contain some mood, level of comfort, sensations to different parts of the body, some vision, some hearing, and some thinking remembering or automaticity of movement. Maybe like myself right now, you're calm, happy unreflectively, comfortable, and wanting to write. There is more but all of that comprises some mass of the brain. That's you for now.

Well, what if you're learning. If you're learning, you've become like a baby brain somewhat and the tissue allocated is not really as much related to experience. Experience does relate in learning... but what is of interest inthe experience, is what is happening, where brain is not! Not yet but soon! Or where to be changed and updated, taking what is old, and saying, die already!

It's like there's new baby brain tissue there, or something similar. Some learners, having fun learning, really can approach it in a childlike way. We have something of interest that is general already from this discussion. There is some commonality in the mass and configuration of brain tissue for all learning experiences that you have that are childlike and pleasant that create new tissue or configuration. If you consider those regions having activation while others do not, you can name your childlike self, because your self is for that time period that learning entity.

Maybe by doing so you get to know that one better again, You can transmorph into that one, by assuming a new activity configuration of your mass. Brain mass has volumetric probability space of activity configurations. Meaning your brain assumes a mass and configuration in total, but does not have any specific activity within that space. In a sense you are a changing entity because of this, regarding that activity.

Imagine you are a solid cube of metal 1 meter by 1 meter, and you can send lightning bolts through it. You can't make the same lightning bolt precisely happen, because the way the system works actively refuses or disincludes that. To personify humorously, your brain refuses repeating the same bolts. Not quite true, but obviously partly true on reflection. Anway the lightning bolts through the blocks have ever varying configuration differences, different occupations of space, among some other physical metrics, and the quantity of variation is related to the difference in the space taken up by the activity of the lightning and the size of the block. So regarding brain activity, one can assume some large number of states, that can be sized by the volume of the brain (or main areas of interest), and the size of activity within the brain.

Anyway, the point of interest I wanted to discuss was about the having of states that are childlike relating to the new tissue. I wanted to say that this may liken adults more to children that previously thought. I now wonder though if there is a similarity or difference in the level of activity within the volume for children and adults, but that should be easy to check given research already conducted.

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

## <a name="mental-software-and-hardware">Mental Software and Hardware</a>

*477 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 20, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Technology | Computer and Information Science | Electrical Engineering | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Alberta | Book and Journal of Mattanaw 

Yesterday I was discussing on camera for video the concept of potentially having a mental software solution that can simply be written on the fly as needed, or reused as a complete software sytem once written. For the software system I use, most of the functions and components and user experience processes have been reduced until it is so simple, it may make sense to not use the software package, but to simply make it. Many of the functions used, can simply be written for immediate execution once known. This means if one did not have the software system, *if one had it sufficiently in one's brain*, one could simply issue commands by programming them on the spot. If programming them on the spot, after not too much time, the software system would be rewritten. Then one could optionally program as one works, or one could run the software tools. These become nearly but not exactly the same. Using shortcuts and aliases do reduce typing, but when the program is short enough, the difference isn't huge. Most programmers who have made their own software utilities, sometimes will write small programs or run script sand commands manually instead. When I switch systems, I have to do this, since not all my programming has been made cross platform. Since my software solution has gotten small and simple enough, much of it I can simply program as needed, and some amounts to using basic system commands. There are only a few commands I can think of that need more than this.

Being in this situation myself, having reduced software that is really simple, it seems strange to sell it to anyone or to package it. The code package is so small it seems unjustifiable for it to have a cost, although much experience went into it and in some ways it is more valuable than other enterprise software. Also, it seems like anyone who gets the software, could easily be taught to make it, so it seems a small moral issue to consider, whether one should teach instead of sell. If they learned the code, they could make it themselves and make new versions easily. They would be able to self maintain and would be safer with the software, knowing how it works. There is the concept of "Open Source Software" that could be related to this, but I prefer to think of this without this idea. Because "Open Source" seems to ignore some basics that I think I'm uncovering on my own. I don't think it's well understood, and being a former chief architect, and executive and leader in the software community, I do know a lot about what could be missing in the idea of open source.

There are more issues than these, but I'll move to hardware and process.

The user experience process utilizing the software does not cleanly separate engineer from user like with other systems. The commands of the software *can* easily be used by anyone once taught, but the issue is that the command interface, and commands themselves, and *easy underlying programming* is too obviously engineering-like. The regular user would be just like the engineer, and the engineer like the user, because the way of operating it is like what both are familiar with. However, "as is" there is no engineering per-se, because the system is highly automated. Even though it resembles running commands, and the software is simple, and the underlying programming can be rapidly rewritten, the software operates without a need for this, and is automated very largely. Notice, once a system has been well engineered, has a very clear user interaction procedure, and has been automated for both engineering and usage, the system is more fully automated. The automation role of what automates it appears too be both user and egineer too, for performing both roles. The automater can simply be a person doing the work, and this person would be someone who knows both the user interface functions and the software itself.

This is a system with well-blended roles, such that an AI is like someone who knows all the tasks to be performed and not just specialized tasks in one working group or another.

Single employees can do everything with such a system. Building it myself, I am the single employee. Initially it was more difficult to do the manual tasks, but not wanting to repeat work too much, I programmed out most of the manual work, and simplified the entire usage and delivery. My software became what an AI would be, regarding the system, although I do mean that in a trivial way. Simply having a program to do work is like an AI doing it. The work is simply automated largely.

Now I have some interest in taking this simple software and system to train it into the heads of others. First I have to do it further for myself, but once complete, it will be easy to share. The result will be not using this software with the automation that relates to AI any longer, but to write both as needed.

There may be a good reason to write a system or software architectural process flow for a simple design of this to show it is really a basic psychological, human procedural, computer programming task. For that purpose I may be inclined to write a diagram for this in the near future.

After I learn it, and teach it to someone else, what will they be able to do? Well, firstly, they would have in their heads, a trained psychological physical procedure, a repeatable skill, to run the user process to get content published onto the web and read for book printing. This is because they would know the software commands, programming to write, and so on, to execute the primary tasks of the software. When people use software, they execute steps in separation from one another. Like they do one task here, click a button there, and do separate tasks without a clear conception of a unifying principle or process. The execution of commands, to the external user, would have this same appearance. Same with rewriting specific functions. But the new user, being trained in what the software does fully, *will have a unified awareness about what the software does and the goals to be accomplished*. Since they have this unified understanding, *they are able to do the work manually* in all the ways it does anything. As a robot, the person has a complete *users program* trained into their mind. Of course, I would have process diagrams and perhaps programming to represent this too, but we can think of this also as simply a highly competent user that has learned to use the software like a complete recipe. Like a factory worker too. They can do it over and over easily. Some tasks change slightly, but all parts are mastered and joined in the known process. This would be like a trained employee with no more learning needed later. They do it for 10 years and nothing changes. This process is in many ways more important than the software, because the software is just for getting the stuff done, to automate the work to be finished. Without it, everyone still does the work. Here it resembles early employee processes that still did exist like programs, and this was an idea that certainly existed in the advent of computing and before. The total system description includes the process of the system user and the software itself. The person in the software. In businesses, business processes are the programs that run the people and the software together with expected outputs. These in the future would be replaced by robots. A robot who operates like a user would have to be able to run the system commands, but would have to learn how to do the job like the person too. Learning how the person did the job, they learn the process as a program which is simply installed into them, *or learned just like aperson with a sensing AI or hybrid AI*. Then as I said the total system description includes what is learned. In that case we have a humorous expansion compared with the case of a human. We said it was a total system for the human to know the system and the software because we don't program *them*. Wait, we would need the teaching process, but I would include that under the same umbrella. But in the case of human replacement we replace their biology in a way too. Is the work performed by a robot that types like a person? In that case, we made a humanoid, and we could, if we wanted, say that would expand the total solution to include what they are and how they are made (maybe), but still the solution as described is separable. Then it has arms and legs that replace human arms and legs, and eyes. But as with most software solutions, the robot can simply be the computer or a group of computers working together.

It could be that this approach to the software here described, that is very simple, would be something fundamentally to include in robots and AI in the future. Because the tasks replaced are so common and so basic, it seems they can have the approach preinstalled. Now, I don't care if they have it installed, or if they learn it! If they learn it, they do similarly to the human. So now I can see the insight in the initial portion of this posting, with the chosen title, is highly useful not only in the human context, but very generally, and should be applicable in the distant future. Since learning related, it may have a universality. I will have to consider. Either way it has high generality and high significance.

Some other thoughts. With a simplification of the system, manual tasks are reduced along with the software tasks, so total procedure is lessened. This approaches no tasks. There should be a fundamental minimal tasking. The tasks known are the same as running the progaam nearly to the knower. If we introduce a highly skilled and smaert knower, the distance between their intelligence and skill and the difficulty of the tasks will be large, and growing if the users are getting smarter. This would reduce the extent to which anyone thinks of the program as even a program. When simplified and installed into living biological organisms, other simple or even complex processes become unknown in their operation even though they are easily done. Many things people do are highly complicated biological procedures interacting with nature, and some nearly all humans learn, and nearly all mammals too. Many other animals as well. The human system has gotten complex enough that complex tasks are trivialized and automated until they are non-tasks in a way. With increasing intelligence, I think the system I've made is way too siimple to be *much of anything*, and if the direction is similar to that described in nature with animals simply not knowing what tasks are after automating them, it may be that this work is just nothing in the larger set of other tasks. But the weird part of all this, is that the quantity of functions performed that are important for individuals, students, businesses, enterprises, governments, or just anyone and any organization, is huge. I think really this trends towards to result that much that was made complicated is nearly nothing when the more useful procedures are identified. Since I use the software daily for the same kinds of work, and have used it in a business context, I do in fact know that this software does reduce the work of large organizations, historically and currently, to trivial process. This is an area where there has been an incredible amount of frustration. It relates to the improper design of operating systems, the improper sale and user of computers by users, and the inefficiency of approaches used by individuals and organizations working on computers. I will have to define particularly how this is the case, but it is definitely the case for word processing and publication, largely the case for web application and application content, and largely the case for media processing.

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

## <a name="living-theorems-concerning-equalities-in-the-social-world-and-in-comparing-complex-objects-and identification-of-truths-as-identities-mapping-a-mental-to-an-existing">Living Theorems Concerning Equalities In The Social World And In Comparing Complex Objects, and Identification of Truths As Identities Mapping a Mental To An Existing</a>

*477 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 20, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Mathematics | Abandoning Equality | Truth and Honesty 

Identifying something in a complex object in nature, which is discerning it, locating it, noticing its boundaries and separateness from other things, such that one feels one can talk about it with a word and other words, very simply, is a crucial form of mathematical and regular thinking, that is equating. It is more basic than equating though, it is first noticing a thing that can be thought of and represented. It's thinginess as one thing, versus being an aggregate thing, has been a fundamental problem in philosophy since antiquity. This is something I have to discuss more in the future, but I side with aggregates instead of onenesses, because onenesses hide that there are thinsg within. This impacts numbering, because for anything you designate a number, you ignore internal structure. Also, once you start numbering, you start equating that thing to similars incorrectly. An orange for example is one orange, but look over there, there's another orange, that also is one orange. But it's just too different! This is if we go to high precision. At low precision we still say each is one of something, and roughly we say they are oranges. I will cover this in more detail later.

So a key important thing in thought is simply identifying that there is an existing thing. Seeing it a certain way, feeling and sensing it. Then considering it as having an important oneness or category. Category depends on similarities. So if you look in a tree, and see a funny insect, you might know already, that calling that insect by a type or category is fine, because there are others like it. You also didn't know that insect by its personal name, so instead you call it by the name which it has in common. Centipede for example.

So let's say you've seen a silly centipede a tree, like in a gap in its bark or in some opening. You can see it is clearly separated from other things. This is made more clear by its motion. It moves past things that stay where they are. Now let's say also, you did know the word "centipede" already, so you comment as you look that you see a centipede, and probably more basically, you recognize it already. Imagine a child looks too, but never saw one before. They identify it by its boundaries and motion. They quickly learn this situation. Without the word centipede, they know "what one looks like" and from earlier learnings, do not expect only one to exist. Either way, seeing one even requires recognizing that same one *later*, so before-after seems to have a category of sorts, which is simply recognition of a discrete aggregate object.

I said we are doing something that is equation that is highly basic like this identification. Identification is like coming to see that a particular object exists at all. After this, equating, is when the recognition is matched to what is identified. This forms a tripartite division of interest. Three things we need to know. We identify an object which is called "identification" as we've said, "recalling an object" which is primoridial basic foundational categorization and naming, and numbering, which is the application of a 1 to that object, which assumed it can be entered into numerical equations as a discrete object. We see it, we know it by name and we count it. Oh let's forget I said it was a three part division, and move to four part. Fourpartite we might say. Tetrapartite, and more partites later if needed. This early commit at a numbering is a common error. Anyway, the fourth thing to add is equating. But I can perceive already we remove that again for reidentication.

Actually I see some benefits of reduction already. This is the thoughtstream, so here continues live thought.

Identification comes first, next is learning, then is reidentification. Reidentification is an effective categorization already because there is a mental visual name existing, The verbal is secondary. It could be by touch too instead of vision. Reidentification is an equating. It says that object I see is a match of equality to what I've seen before in my head. It's like a simple picture match as a kid of an object to photo. We also know immediately it is a one object, and what was in mind is a one object, but this is more derivative.We don't care about numbering that much at this point but if two appeare we are ready to think there are two things that match the one thing in mind such that what we see is "two of them" if we know the word. To have two of them means each were one. That is verified or known because it is discerned to be one thing which is reidentified (and before reidentification actually).

I think I found something else fundamental here. That the approach to the object will vary neurophysiologically. Who sees it for the first time, in what mental state, examined and looked at in what order. In what mood. Thus the example I have above and how it plays out specifically and in which order will vary by person, and animal, and by person at different times.

What is important though, is after very little learning, each of these are definitely present. So a mental complex is arrived at, involving mental storage and process, that interracts with the objects in predictably similar systematic ways with variation but with considerable similarities, with key ingredients included.

I still want to probpose a reduced more fundamental mental involvement with objects relating to the above concepts. Identification appears to include with the recognition of boundaries and seaparateness, and separateness of movement, a rapid category realization. It's like just admitting that I learn something almost instantly upon seeing a new object, like a brand new insect. Very immediately I know it is one thing (an aggregate object with parts), that I have an image for it, that the image really shows the object, and that they are therefore equal, such that I will know one when I see one again, or when I see the same one later. It's as though all these important ingredients of math, naming, and categorization, and relationship with truth, and existence and nature all exist in this short time. Since fundamental, we are engaged in this kind of activity without knowing about it or the process throughout learning. I know we don't know well about the process because mathematicians struggle explaining equality itself or numbers, and diagree with physicists and philoosophers on the nature of numbering. Also most adults would not speak of such a process themselves, indicating that while they do it so well, haven't attentively subdivided the experience, or walked through it, to see that this is happening. They know how to do it as animals already! Animals do this too. Later they relate it to language more, and to mathematics. Mathematics, coming later, and language too, is forgetful of the original moments that everyone has with objects like ths. These exeriences are had many times, but without the knowledge of how they really transpire. This is an annoying thing about being an animal. One has complex experiences and is built up of complex parts, but does things well without knowing much about how they act. Today I still do not understand my organ systems the way I'd like. And of course, all asked in history "How does my brain work" if knowledgeable enough to know the brain as an organ was of interest for thinking.

We have in simple experiences an explanation of identification, equality, oneness, and naming. But I will say that while this helps to explain work that has been done effectively, it is erroneous in some ways. While beautifully simple, and useful, it still gets aggregates wrong, and differences betweeen objects, and while the numbering relates, I will say that only comes later where assumptions are being made that are untenable. Further work is needed on more completely understanding numbering and equality, but we will use this experience of identification and reidentification to help explain what was missing and provide a better foundation to using words in language, talking about things that are complex objects, and mathematics.

I entitle this about living theorems, and recalling what might need to be discussed about identification focused mainly on that subject. Wanting to complete what the title said this was going to be about I want to move to another area of interest, which is the comparison of complex objects, that are people, for example.

In mathematics we would use some of the items above with math learned later to arrive at theorems. Theorems are well demonstrated statements in math, which also can be expressed in natural language. I think, outside of mathematics, in other places we use language, if we use logic correctly, and name and identify things in nature correctly, we can form sentences and arguments such that we can arrive at well proven statements in regular speech. I thought of one candidate, that I'm using in my book Abandoning Equality, and while that seems a widely separate topic, it's truly how I arrived at the need for this conversation. This is how high intelligence works, it relates areas that to others may not seem extremely well connected, and while this seems a segue to s separate conversation, in my mind they are the for now same conversation and are very related. My brain wants to develop upon these ingredients and to do this they need to be combined for discussion.

Comparing people I want to have a theorem about personal development and about equality. WE have quickly moved from the simplest equality to the most complex. Here it goes:

Assumption: a person develops and changes over time such that we can simply call them different people for more precision.

Assumption: admitting that a changed thing has been within the same boundary, we use the boundary to support the division in names. Thus we will still agree we have two differen tmattanaws but they are still from the same development upon changing mattanaw, for simplicity.

[This needs improvement but still aids]

In 2010 I was Mattanaw<sub>2010</sub>, and in 2025, today, I am Mattanaw<sub>2025</sub>.

Assumption: A person who learns extensively and stays otherwise mostly the same improves by the learning. The skills and learnings constitute a change that we call progress. The change is more important than the progress though, so for now we'll just use "change".

From this we have Mattanaw<sub>2010</sub> is not equal to Mattanaw<sub>2025</sub>, and that the latter is greater than the former.

Using the person as the location from which to compare two people, we have a fundamental wy in which we can state that one person is greater than another, and the other less.

I can see now this is not unfolding as I imagined. I will have to return again to work at a more pleasing theorem. 

More soon.

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

## <a name="which-general-mathematical-pattern-provides-sufficient-information-such-that-one-can-stop-doing-math?">Which general mathematical pattern provides sufficient information such that one can stop doing math?</a>

Mathematics 

*477 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 20, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

The idea here is that there should be some idea about the conjoing mathematics that would be sufficient, once learned, to justify stopping. The work in the field of mathematics could continue, but when has one acquired enough mathematics to be rational on the subjects which would require mathematics to enable the right decisions.

To see how this question would make sense, we can simply look at engineering and architecture or civil engineering. What is the overall mathematics that would enable one to do the civil engineering and building architecture tasks in a way that is informed and sufficient? At present, to people in the field, it may seem the mathematical learnings are preparatory materials learned that are inapplicable sometimes to the field, and that one just finds as one does the work, what is needed. So they'll continue, as they do their work, to feel that they both don't have the math that they need, and that they find math when needed, without any unified mathematical understanding that could have been learned in advance that would be identifiable as what makes one competent in the domain, as an engineer and as an applied mathematician.

Mathematics is a divided field with many subfields and there is not a unified mathematics that one can master at different levels to have increased proficiency or relative situational optimization, which would signal both master and perhaps a stoppoing point in learnings. So there is a problem about the joining of mathematics into the same discipline and identifying what interrelational mathematics is suitable for stopping work.

Why do I mention stopping work? Mathematicians, from my perspective, can puzzle work endlessly. This may be fun, but knowing proficiency levels that are naturalistic is needed to know when one is finished learning math.

Mathematics from my view seems like it must have people working in separate domains, sometimes joining domains, but without large unification, going on and on in the math, without any clear goal in mind. Below I will mention a goal I have that seems worthwhile and superior to having no goals or few good ones. As a mathematician myself, I have the goal of working to unification of some fields at a fundamental level, but I am not in a position to have the work completed above that I'm thinking would be helpful to exist.

What I was forgetting above that I thought about today was the n-dimensionalities characterizing math indicating sizes and growths will continue indefinitely. But is there a "level" of math that is useful for which future learnings into the n-dimensions of math and maybe the n-maths is much more optional and less optimal?

The field of mathematics itself may not have an easy pathway for unification and maybe there are reasons for thinking that would not ocur like one may hope, for a large portion or in total. But that does not mean that there are not optimized combinations of interrelated maths with some unifications that are useful for an individual's life for example.

If there is not a unification in the field imaginable, there should be a way to join maths together in a way that is clearly useable to people in diverse life categories they have to consider while planning and acting. What is the mathematics of human behavior? Notice this large mathematics of self-driven decision making at an individual level is required for rationality.

Am I a rational person without the math that pertains to my individual decision making?

Notice also, that any work behavior, or other mathematics performed, also falls under the rational decision making behavior, of the individual who would be rationally utilizing an optimized set of mathematics for the purpose of guiding one's one life.

My work in mathematics is partly for this purpose, as I join the work to the larger moral task of behavioral self-planning and living, over each of the life categories which would have applicable mathematics. Life proficiency is something to be aimed at. What is the patterned join of all domains of math applicable for the levels of proficiencies desired for different degrees of rationality in life? Initially, being rational and starting this seems important. Later though, there should be plateaus or stopping points, at which gains are made for more work, but with less value for the investments.

Chlidren learning math, would want to have a clear idea of what a unified pattern of math would be, and know what learning optimization levels exist for different levels of effort. It has to make sense though. But in the absense of such a unification pattern of mathematics, one would want to provide them something clear instead, and for that purpose I'm working on having applicable mathematics for different life domains that would obviously result in improvements in life that are obvious for each. It should be the case, for each, that if one did not have it, one would be less rational.

Imagine if rationality in ones life over the life categories did not require mathematics. I'm not committed to the idea that logical thinking in natural language would not produce a good amount of rationality, but we are teaching people to learn math on the assumption that they need it, which means, to me, that they are less rational if they do not use it. Sometimes, not rational at all. Gamblers for example, cannot see their behavior is irrational because they cannot see basic results of math indicating unrewarding courses of action that result in losses more predictably. Therefore it seems, that we would really need some math in order to be more globally rational over the life categories. Maybe there is a plateau using natural language alone. Either way, math is not really positioned in education for independent usage except only sporadically, and not as a focus. But they think people are needing it badly. This is akin to:

"You need it, but it is not tailored to your personal needs".

The other approach is to make it more wholly for an individuals needs, and if their needs happen to include going further, they can go further. But the life a person is living should have a conjoint set of maths that would more totally give them what they need to act rationally on their own behalf, and perhaps there is even a pattern that would make it more clear that this is even a better arrangement for learning in the discipline. Immediately of course I relate it to life's categories, and think that I can gather applied mathematics to increase rationality in each area. But would this not then provide obviously useful areas of math for joining in a total process, usch as my attentional management process. Could this not provide a way to unify math? If math is unified, it is unified in my head. My head is for me primarily. The result of the effort is that I still go out into the world in my own interests and apply what is unified. It could be a helpful principle of unification really is the fact that it has to serve the individuals needs and go across categories of life that really do connect to diverse areas of math and applications, but in a way that doesn't seem entirely fractured or siloed. Cross relations are easy to see if it relates to behaviors of a person. That is how many insights were had in natural language to arrive at many moral process results and directions which themselves before would have involved disparate areas of thinking and advising. Morality is not really unified. Morality can be unified with mathematics perhaps? Eventually?

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

## <a name="notes-for-forming-propositions-and-theoremlike-sentences-in-logical-progression-towards-a-demonstration-of-the-requirements-of-true-thought-a-logical-argument-pertaining-to-true-mind-and-true-thinking">Notes For Forming Propositions and Theoremlike Sentences, In Logical Progression, Towards A Demonstration of The Requirements of True Thought: A Logical Argument Pertaining ToTrue Mind and True Thinking</a>

*476 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 19, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Truth and Honesty | Constraint and Determinism | Logical Atomism | Mathematics | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking

The following notes were handwritten for the most part, with some additions made at the time of this recording. The objective is to make a very first start at a logical argument, that would be constructed using assumptions, premises, and "theoremlike sentences" which are like facts, that would be revised until a proof is arrived at. This would be a methematical like proof, similar to the mathematical, logical, or geometrical progressions of arguments used by some other historical philosophers and thinkers.

A theorem, like in mathematics, would be like an irrefutable proposition, that is proven already, and is factual. By proven already, it will need to be shown whether such proof is thought to be a sufficient intuitiveness, or self-evidence, or axiomaticity, or if there is another logical, mathematical, or other proof that sufficietnly shows it. Concessions as to clarity of statements are still expected to be required due to language constraints, relating to the need to have sometimes shorter than longer sentences, and of course long sentences still are insufficient for even simple kinds of more complex representations.

Theorem, all thinking has a mass. (Per Prior Theorem, FACT).

Theorem, Mattanaw's thinking mass fits within the positive object map (the map including his environment changes and all changes of positions, which include spaces thought to be more safe and wholesome, or just generally more positive).

Roughly all of Mattanaw's thinking is his brain mass (and related), along the space he said, and goes along with the activities of the attention management process. These are colocated. (This states that the thinking brain mass in Mattanaw's head is colocated in space with the activities he's doing. It would follow from combination with the prior sentences that these would also fall in the postiive object map and thererore there is a space-time positioning to all thougths and acts in the map and all the thoughts have mass).

Everything I want to do is where everything I want to think would be, and the thought has both mass and configuration. (This states that the mass and configuration that is the thining fits within a predefined vision of action or set of desires of actions specificially regarding position and location).

The mass and configuration holds the plan that does correspond with the actions. (This states that the thinking mass also relates to the storage that holds the plans of action that also includes the positive object map. Unstated but is part of the logical objective. The plan has mass and configuration).

This is an indicator that I have a maximum sanity versus random unplanned behavior (given social comparisons that would exist), particularly in the details of the plan, but more seriously for others not having a plan is the thing of importance. But can easily do these things with time and effort.

Note: from the above, we can start to see, that Descartes's writing isn't much better than these notes. It is a falling apart of a logical plan, that would exist in notes first, and would be cleaned up for publication. The publication isn't appearing to me to be of a character very different than these initial notes. What we have enjoyed from Descartes and probably other thinkers using similar style, is something really rudimentary, unless the finalized proof has the propositional clarity expected. As a rule this doesn't happen. True of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus too but I'd have to read more again to confirm (I read some but not all of this work).

To continue:

Matt's thinking is typically truth oriented (inductively and statistically demonstrable, but not maximally optimal, just maximal for humans).

Anytime he thinks simply about an existing object, he is thinking truth oriented and truth filled sentences. Much of the statements are plainly representationally true.

Theorem, the total of non-void objects, with non-mass-absenseness, which is the existing objects that fill our space, can be represented easily by simple sentences, we call true.

If Matt focuses on these simple sentences, for the huge quantity of existing things, he is approaching being more totally true. Sentences are plainly expected to map to existing things.

The collectively true thinking that is happening in the brain that corresponds to existing things constitutes a collection of brain that has mass and configuration.

This collection having mass and configuration is already known to be brain matter, and is directly related to brain function.

Brain tissues having mass and configuration that relate more often to existences (that are plentiful), results in brain configuration that we would call "more true", and this mass and configuration would relate to existing things.

An idea for inclusion relating to earlier thoughts about the mining operations of animate and animate life. To create a mass complex in the brain, that is in greater quantity, were configuration replaces quantity (quantities that will even reduce for better configuration, but still wanting of good quantity). This increases mining particulate distribution to moare complexity and increases mining efficiency. Inanimate/animate (as the same concept) element-complex distribution "striving" or trajectory (sic, from handwritten notes).

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

## <a name="making-your-thinking-mass-be-about-true-things">Making Your Thinking Mass Be About True Things</a>

*475 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 18, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Turth and Honesty | Another Ethic 

Thought has a mass, as decided by recent writings. It appears irrefutable that this is true. The thinking mass relates to brain tissue. The communication from the brain tissue can take electromagnetic form, and terminate in other storage media. One can send over the network writings to publishers or to the internet. One can also encode digitally through the fingers or mouth into text in the computer. Or one can srite. The content mass, or communications, have truth values, that relate to existences related and represented. A goal of civilization is to increase the truthfulness of the communications, even if sometimes there are other goals about tricking or misleading people. Also, people like to think their mental mass configurations are about existing things. They usually just say true, and being funny above, I do admit they don't yet think that way really. This translation is needed though.

What are your brain configurations?

We want the messes associated with the configurations to be true. Also, we want output to be true. We want to be a kind of truth node, that holds and generates truths, sending them along in communications in various forms, for storage elsewhere. Finally if we did well enough, our pyramid discusses us and the achievements we had that we hope mattered. Notice, we *really really* don't want these things to be false, if we are sane. A false tomb is an abomination of sorts that is extremely severe in its repulsiveness.

Who in history had false tombs?

I had some great findings recently. One was today. It is sure culmination, because it is intuitively obvious. A fun life theorem will be transferred from handwriting here later perhaps. It is that all the activities I want to do, including all the thinking I do, can happen well within the positive object map and movements I have planned for my life's duration. Within everywhere I am, I can do and think what I find pleasing and valuable. Thus I have a plan of sorts that is comprehensive and true regarding everything I want to be doing with some tiny area of error relating to sleep. There are other small errors, but actually these are insurmountable ones simply relating to what might happen to me in desirable settings. Does a plane crash? Does my driver have an accident? Do I slip and fall while hiking a beautiful wilderness? Am I attacked by someone? These we know can't be controlled. An implication is a seriously good level of control exists in the plan. The plan has many truths about quality of life. Much more can be said, to show that a life of moral excellence that is true is actually in the plan, has been existing in the plan, and characterizes the plan. So the plan has very important truths in very large quantity at high significance, which implies complex mass configurations that are true. These are what we are aiming for as humans without knowing. Highly desirable for transmission, receiving, or first thinking.

Additionally, secondarily, but maybe more primarily, the author here speaking demonstrably has a truth orientation. This is for direction and is shown in practice. Demonstrably he is a true person, with a greater level of mass at high complexity showing truths. The truth configurations are not designed to depict nonexistences. Historically there have been some few cases of lies to be discussed later, but in the autobiography these are few, are of low severity, and are sometimes funny. The point here is the person is a true thinker.

Thirdly, it has been written recently, that existence really does explain truth. If a communication, or thought, does not actually have correspondence to really existing things, then there are pointers to what does not exist (nonexistences are not things), and may include nonsense or gibberish. Absences of meanings. Notice if communications don't mean anything, there definititely are nothingnesses being pointed at (which again are lacks of things). Fortunately for us, communications are where these are found. This is damaging, but it means we can contain them. Focusing on the world, and thinking simply, it is easy to go indefinitely long stating true things. Seeing existing things and talking about them. Since you can't really pay attention to void, what you see is existing things only, so there's plenty to talk about that is true and just plenty to talk about. And see! And feel and sense. Isn't it very nice, to have this opportunity, to be in existence, and have truths about it?! The point is, we are in a plenty of this.

TAking these three points together, the mind that is truthful, and striving already towards truth, in behavior and plans, and knowing that this plenty exists will have very little difficulty removing falsities from view, and incorporating thinking mass configurations that are true. Experiences are more clearly in the existing, and thinking is in the true that represents existing.

True communications and thoughts bring a lot of pleasure. We can feel we are somehow in alignment with nature. We can exist in action in a way that is also true, that makes plans become real, and makes us feel not disconnected from what we really like. The thinking is obviously secondary to the existing in a way though, but because we cannot experience anything without thinking, we may be, perhaps, justified in focusing on the thinking a bit. Someone who says they want no thinking and only existence may be wanting to be maximally close to the source of value. I think is good in some ways. But with other considerations included, I think we more like having mass configurations of truth at greater complexity. What we are has to be included. Bringing desires and wants and thoughts into some kind of harmony together, and then with existence is whatwill more satisfy, than trying to think nothing while sensing simplicities.

Here there is an example of a person, and its recipe, for having more truthful thinking more generally.



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


## <a name="confirming-the-quantity-of-insanity-and-delusion-in-the-common-population Is-very-large-using-the-size-of-expected-changes-in-state-locally-to-them-and-more-globally-in-their-plan-outcomes-by-confirming-the-paths-to-their-plan-outcomes-do-not-well-relate-to-their-activities-and-the-number-Of-plans-they-form-that-has-the-described-defects-and-a-comparison-of-all-this-with-defects-Of-imagination">Confirming The Quantity of Insanity and Delusion In The Common Population Is Very Large, Using The Size Of Expected Changes In State Locally To Them and More Globally in Their Plan Outcomes, By Confirming The Paths To Their Plan Outcomes Do Not Well Relate To Their Activities, and The Number Of Plans They Form That Has The Described Defects, and A Comparison Of All This With Defects Of Imagination</a>


*476 Wanattomians, Wednesday, November 19, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Truth and Honesty | Constraint and Determinism | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Imagination and Filtration | Higher Order Attention

The total of existing things that are easily seen and astronomically bounded comprises the set of existing things of interest. We can confine this if we want, to the sun, moon, and earth, to make things simpler. All that is existing can fall within a mathematical set we can imagine, and this set also includes the rules of physics for what is also in the set. Or we can say there is a second set. Either way the sets contain only existing things.

Now we can say, that all life can be represetned as text, at a minimal level, by saying all things that we said exist, also exist in the form of elements in these sets, and the rules of nature operate upon these. I can also think of the rules of nature traveling with the elements of the set, but for now we'll just not concern ourselves to much about where those rules reside and are stored.

The set of elements hardly changes and neither do the rules. This is dealt with more lengthily elsewhere, so I will not dwell. If we look at nature, much is akin to a fixed image from day to day. The video of life playing includes macro movements of interest that are still astronomically minute. What is uncertain in life when thinking of the future relates not to whether the sun, earth, or moon will exist in their configurations and homeostases, but the smaller more minute movements related to humans and animals, and the weather and so on.

The future states of these existences, and earlier states, depended totally on the sets related by the rules of nature. As I said there are few changes, so elements won't change much.

We can use this style and approach to thinking about the world and objects around us to see what is insane regarding human thinking.

Let us consider people and their plans. People, we all know, have often thought, in our age, unfortunately, about plans that they have called dreams. Many people foolishly think sentences like "I'm working on my dream, or towards my dream" or "My daughter has a dream that she will become (name some occupation)". The word "dream" was already a rude indicator. 
Dreams, and imaginations, are about future states of the world, at a small local level, like within one's brain and nearby environment, and at a more global level too. Simply dreams and imaginations are about what the world is going to be later. Wanting to be specific, we can trreat the world as sets or matrices of elements or components, in other sets splitby time intervals. Also like frames of images in video. These are all just alternative ways of representing, but thinking does get more specific using these tools.

Let's get to the specifics of dreams and imaginations and plans to see how insane and delusional people are. I think they are extremely delusional, and having already thought this out, I think there are facts, propositions, and mathlike theorems that demonstrate it further. They can be utilized together to state truthfull arguments showing how insane or delusional people are.

Insanity and delusion, has the one issue, that simple statements about the plethora of existence, really represents existence; and that their actions using these truths and existences, lead them to behavioral-probability computations that turn out to have correct expecations. They move about well, satiate themselves as animals without too much trouble. But their more complex thinking happens to map to nonexistences. If people were willing to let others live simply like simple human animals, or as unintelligent or retarded people functioning easily, then the complex delusions and illusions would sometimes be hardly of any interest, because while these delusions and illusions and insanities are present in complexes, in simple thought, there is much truth and ability. Dysfunction that harms others though is still common in this area. Actually, if there are few dysfunctions that harm others, we do actually let people live in insanitiesbecause they mixed with existences, truths, and functional abilities. These interrelate in simplicity of existence and life upon simple parts of existence. In the more complex areas, we find that some people well functioning have untruthful false thinking that results in harm of others. But sometimes it's just bad behavior.

Outside of this, weirdly is the domain of the regular, in which simple truths exists, higher level functioning exists, but considerable insanity and delusion exists, that is contained, and has less side effect on others. These lead to collective insansities that lead to warefare and so on.

Yes, I am really stating, that somehow, normal people, are really extremely delusional and insane when thinking about complex things, but like the simpler people, they retain a great amount of truth on simple existences and their functioning depends on this, but perhaps the function is higher to create a containment, which leads to good behavior, despite insane thinking.

All religions are insane. All nationalisms are insane too. If not all in either case, the extent is vast, and whole-commitment is insane.

But I'm more interested here in the insanities and delusions relating to peoples imaginations and dreams.

This will give us what is vitally wrong with their thinking, plans and behavior. What will be seen is long term dream related planning is insane by comparison to actions that retards can do. That retards can do the actions even explain why the smarter can still do them, while delusional. The stuff is easy.

Knowing that the population is insane and delusional (soon in the argument and later when re-argued) we have to think about what dangers we face. Staying away from the more religious seems important.

Before progressing on the arguments in a more serious way, less talking about how people function because they operate easily more like retards, we need some assumptions that I think relate to facts.


Assumption, people tend to hold a number of dreams, or they change over time. Thus we can specify dream sets as D<sub>1</sub>, D<sub>2</sub>, D<sub>3</sub>, ... D<sub>N</sub>. Each person can have many dreams, and for someone who is talented growing up, there may be more.

We will define dreams in terms of imaginations, but will still benefit from the idea of a dream as written. Imaginations are collections that are dreams, comprise dreams, or are simply other visions for the future, that may fit in plans or not. Dreams are like important imagination sets people have for the future, and are already separated by the population from regular plans. Dreams are what personal futures are supposed to be. People think they can have comprehensive disorganized visions of their future.

Theorem: without the attentional manageent process or a similar, well trained, one is closer to insanity regarding dreams. This is because the imagination set is too disorganized regarding a complex future, so wills imply be ridiculous when compared to what happens.

Imaginations are the more key ingredient to look at. This will show us that small plans can be quite insane. Including visions for children to be had. These may be in drems, but any imagination about a future child is disgustingly ridiculous, because what happens is only different from what was thought, and is horribly incorrect in organization, and is marked by untidiness that is not reality.

It will be very important to have this information about imagination.

We just want to compare sets, and actual visions with what happens. By now we should understand that what happens in the future includes what we did not visualize. So the sets of items in our imaginations, when compared with sets of what happens, has huge disparities, and these can be taken one by one, individually, to show that people are really thinking about what cannot happen when they make their plans but really expect them to happen. They even routinely experience over and over, repeatedly, many times, these huge disparities, but they *keep thinking the disparities aren't there*. This indicates the intelligence is too low for any comparison, and learnings from a number of comparisons. That these learning are not happening, it the seems the case. Native visualization seems poor then, comparing future and present. I have benefited from my own self education regarding this and thinking about this writing here, I know I will still benefit from what provides as far as tools, because I'm still not comparing as good as I can, and considering it to be planning future versions of self and earth, for comparison with actual self and earth, with hugely complex situations, it follows that much advancement can be had, which means its lacking! Another way to make this point obvious is that we simply can't even remember pictures, so obviously when trying to imagine a while child nonexisting as existing in the future, it is a weak visualization, and is only wrong later, and compares insanely complicated things. Yet mothers thought they could do any of it?

Draw a picture of your future child?

Later the comparison will show humans are very poor at doing this visualizing, and because of this result of failed image comparison, ARE insane. Unquestionably. Regarding more slightly complex things (learning can plan it easily by knowing that one can't do it), and the damage of having unwanted children can be mitigated.

This I think confirms there was a mistake thinking some insane people that much more dangrous than everyone else. Mothers are having random children they couldn't foresee. Does this cause problems? Expect universal denial.

Such a denial double confirms they are insane.

This has to be expanded on later. But the main points are present. Compare imagination sets. Show the size of the disparity. Know it exists in imagination for plans, thoughts and actions, and contrasts with results. These show obviously insanity, but:

Mathematical proof is possible.

Why? Because the size of the discrepancies is what we need.

So we simply return to show that there should be an easy path to definine quantitatively degree of insanity and delusion, with the result htat people now, almost universally, are very insane, excepting where retards can function as I said. There is still a sanity space int he complexity, but it isn't vast I don't think. We can still define who is sane and less delusional, but it *will have to leave out* who we thought would be sane. Those people are really actually insane! You have to be very sane to be left out of this result. Otherwise simple solves that will train away insanities, resulting in people who also are not insane, will not make sense, because by comparison, it will apper we made insane people sane in our age! Which makes our age seem, what, more insane?

I think we did that actually. I think we designated simply slighly less insane people as sane, without yet knowing how to define it. Being closer, it is clear it was done wrong, so really at present, the population has a sanity level that is so low, that the future will designate it low on sanity as I said. Unless they falsify it.
 
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="using-your-gigantism-and-minuteness-of-perceptions-and-perspective-to-traverse-millions-of-miles-and-feet-swimming-and-flying-high-above-and-near-the-surface-sometimes-covering-the-entire-height-rapidly-changing-position-by-running-walking-crouching-low-and-standing">Using Your Gigantism and Minuteness of Perceptions and Perspective to Traverse Millions of Miles and Feet, Swimming and Flying High Above and Near the Surface, Sometimes Covering The Entire Height, Rapidly Changing Position, By Running, Walking, Crouching Low, and Standing</a>

*470 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 13, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Outdoors and Travel | Adventure | Environments | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals

To Add

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

## <a name="your-video-of-the-future-is-the-same-as-the-past-and-language-appropriate-to-discussing-it">Your Video of The Future Is The Same As The Past and Language Appropriate To Discussing Its</a>

*475 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 18, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Com | Relationships | Wordly Coinages 

This is an especially important posting that will be expanded upon in the future. Simply, it states that the video of one's future is ready for playing, and that we play along on our videos. Before, I would have stated that I think that the world is deterministic, and does "play forward" according to rules, in a cause-effect manner, such that the future has explanations that are entirely history related. The history explains the future, and future will play out from history. But I now want to take this futher, and to state that we can treat our situation as if it is true, and not merely hypothetically true, that the future is simply already ready for playback. Like a video that has already been loaded. In current day video watching, the video file is often not ready to play back, we have some quantity loaded that we can play into the future, but not all the video. We act as though, the video is playing as we live, and none is loaded. Notice that is odd if the earth is available already. I'm going to assume that the universe's storage, is firstly, existing things. These things persist is an assumption we have. It follows that the universe is loaded already. The universe is mostly static, except some small amount of motion dynamism. We expect earth tomorrow to be like earth today. What we expect to "play" will be "things moving", which will be a small quantity of change to contast with the stasis. So what plays is hardly anything.

I will need to discuss this further later, and really wanted to get this written, because I thought of this a number of days ago, but need to get it recorded initially, and developed later. Before stopping for now, to continue later, I'll just state a few more things.

Firstly, we expect, for any change on earth, between yesterday and today, that a large set of the earth is simply unchanged. By that I mean nearly everything. Tomorrow the earth is the same mass, the oceans are present, houses are present, &c... I should not need to say more, as one should be able to clearly see, that absurdly even, given the history handed to us and lack of acknowledgement or statement on this point, that the earth is hardly unchanged whatsoever day to day, else it would be unrecognizable. It is almost too recognizable to our liking! Secondly, there is an anticipated rate of movement or time interval, which means as the world "plays" it plays at the same rate fundamentally. We assume that here, the clock ticks always at the same speed. If this were not the case, there would be disarray. The extent of this is that it is quite strangely pervasive, but then again, some expect time, without considering relativity, to be universal. Relativity would still show uniformity of local clockspeed for the Earth. So things happen at the expected rate (remember, that is for *everything*). Thirdly, there is a flow within the rate of ticking, which also defines the ticking interval, which is the speed at which life and events happen. This is the actual movement speed of things as they move wehre there are dynamics. There is a living flow rate.

Given the above considerations, the three excluding that the universe is "loaded" because it already exists and is "ready for playing", we expect tomorrows playback to be the same. The rate of flow of information and the play clockspeed. We witness this together as being remarkably consistent. "The same" we feel. Secondly, that first thought above, about there being little change on the earth, expecting tomorrow to be the same as today, means of course tomorrow is loaded too. Moreover, and very interestingly, it states that it is loaded, but "Will do nothing nearly" tomorrow. Going further, it will almost never be doing anything in a lifetime! It is preloaded forever it appears, and easily does nothing in nature nearly. All that is happening, in the smaller motions in lifetimes, is what is "playing" in the playback. The other stuff is "playing" too, but in a way soo negligible as to have no interest to us from our perspective, although outside our perspective, in the inanimate, what we do, has similar negligibilities, to be discussed. But from our perspective what we do is our motions along with other small motions around in a stasis, and all of that doesn't need to play!! It sits in the video background preloaded! Like the easiest video to make ever!

Nature is the easiest video to ever make, because nothing does anything!

The motions we care about are all the measurably small motions which include uncertaintiesthat make us interested in what will come. I will argue easily that these uncertainties are illusory on other grounds, but already we believe this scientifically thinking all is causally explained. The large things never change in a way, so obviously, there is no uncertainty about those (within reason). For human events there are uncertainties, and that is largely because our brains are limited. But again, I will argue, atop deterministic arguments heard before perhaps, that on other grounds, we load p-values, probabilities, to one, using lists of potential events known to regularly happen. This means even when we don't know, we do! What interests about these videos of life, this one video, is we don't know what will happen. But I am arguing here, that this isn't really true as much as we think. It is intelligence and experience dependent! I am less interested myself! I feel I more know than not. Or know so much, less is interesting. But I do have interest. Like others, I live out the video. But the video is obviously preloaded, including mostly unchange, ready to play at the same flow and interval, includes uncertainties that are small as the video plays, all combined to show to me that the video really is not waiting for load, waiting for us to determine along the way what it will or will not be, but that it simply plays to later.

The way we think is that the world is writing the play as we live, as it goes, but the play is prewritten, as is most obvious by the collection of arguments above, but singly, by the fact that nothing is expected at the macro level to change. For millions of years almost nothing is different. As if nothing is even playing and it is nearly a fixed image we live in. 

We are like the simplest things in a fixed image and we can't understand because we are so basic. But we can see from the rocks that rocks are fine with not being videos. To be juvenile and humorous for the moment.

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

## <a name="a-method-of-probability-analysis-making-determinism-obvious">A Method of Probability Analysis Making Determinism Obvious</a>

Constraint and Determinism | Interdisciplinary Science | Human Shortcomings | Mathematics

*470 Wanattomians, Thursday, November 13, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Someone who is interested in showing the inability to predict, asks who will win the fighting match tomorrow, knowing that, the variability in events, in the interaction of the two human molecules, will result in unpredictable results.

To this question and similar questions an approach can be used that simply moves from larger things to smaller things to remind that the predictive context makes the outer things relevant to the inner things, and makes it clear that only those inner things, the things with high variation, have expected differences of outcome from what is expected, but even those things have expected kinds of outcomes for which a probability space exists which has a total contained pathway, excepting the most rare anomalies, which we predict somewhat too, expecting them.

Responding to this question, I begin by stating, in a way starting to become mathematically and physically religious, scientifically ritualistic, that when I see the boundaries of the earth's surface and its objects, the objects of the sky, and what can be seen outside the earth, including the moon or stars if night, and the sun if day, I can separate largely what exists from space. The existing things which draw my attention, are those objects for which I can make too great a number of trues statements to count, and predictions that are mathematical. All of the existences description is a gigantic set of true statements or communications simply stating what exists. Around us always, is so much that exists, which means true statements are plentiful if we make communications. Our mental visions, imaginations, and rememberings are representative too of nature, and are internal stored communications. Some are communications from nature one may argue. All is recorded representation that exists. Simply we have communications and recordings that are all true when simply about all these things that we see that exist that are huge in number.

Today, tomorrow, ten years from now, the globe will tell us of how to arrive in China from wherever we are, and anywhere else, and also, the configuration of everything on earth, excepting the few growth changes, weatherizations, and movements that have happened that collectively amount to none by what is in stasis. I imagine I make independent predictions about each thing that exists in this configuration, in all the things mentioned above, in our astronomical domain. All is the same configuration tomorrow. Trillions of predictions correct instantly. Everyday. The maps software will read correctly a millenium later, for the geographical features. I get everything right. Almost nothing is even considered for uncertainty.

But now we have this sporting competition, that is funny to think about. Someone wants to know "who will win" or what statistics may result in the performance. Who will be knocked out. I'm told life is too unpredictable because of this point. Foolishly however, the person thinking this, doesn't know where they reside in space and the universe, and that there is nothing at anytime I get wrong predicting anything, considering that what have any interest whatsoever due to uncertainties and variations is a minute fraction of everything. Is this fight not only the tiniest thing to think about as being predictable or not compared with everything? Will the boxers be in a riing, will they be clothed, and will they fight? Ten thousand predictions I get right only in considering the miniature but large world of the boxing arena. Will there be beer?

Getting closer and closer from what is predictable and static in the world to what is unpredictable, we gradually get to what does vary. And it is really close to just those things that are like the fight itself and its results. What is boxing and why do I know what that is? All will eat dinner, and converge upon the boxing ring of those who will go, and will drive tiny silly cars on wheels, of today's age and not carts, to the event where drinking and cheering will happen. Human behavior will commence. The boxers personalities will be on display? We recognize those guys, are they the same guys? They too are predictable figures of some interest with their uniquenesses and peculiarities. All is repetitive and predictable and oddly static. All this boxing world and what it is, the person in the career thinks, is what I would change and cannot. People who want change cannot make the changes they want. This is how regular it is everywhere that every employee thinks it nightmarishly fixed.

Even the fight is fixed?

I then look at the possible outcomes of the fight and think back to what has happened. Maybe it is a knockout, maybe scores are compared at the end. Maybe TKO, or disqualification. Earthquake or fire interruption, predicted no at 100% like all other predictions. Let us go further on that point to predict all that will not happen. Ten trillion statements easily made that are true. Zero probability that it will be interrupted with the pregnancy of one of the fighters.

Now we have a list of outcomes possible, for which they are pathed towards anyway. I tell the other, it is true I don't know what is happening for sure. But are we skiing right now? Can you not see the obvious, that you almost predicted the outcome. Firstly, that in all this stuff happening at the arena, before and after, that one of two men, will be standing on stage, victor, tied, or disqualified. That is a lot happening with a very constrained outcome. It is like everything has been predicted even though we know that's not quite true. If I do not concern myself with who wins, I can act correctly as if I predicted the universe into that part. From the outside in. The sun is over there, being a sun still, in all its mass, and the maps still show the roadways in South Africa, and I can tell you, millions of people are in this city, but the guys who will stand on that stage are two I can already name and recognize. They both will stand there afterwards. They threw some punches.

We will see in some time in this ThoughtStream that there are few things to be uncertain about and you are a prediction machine. You can't stop predicting with your brain and body. You predict without thoughts. You glide along and function on always true assumptions.

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

## <a name="communications-as-having-mass-and-being-the-composite-objects-having-the-property-or-relation-of-falsity">Communications As Having Mass, And Being The Composite Objects Having The Property or Relation of Falsity</a>
 
Relationships | Com | Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Psychometrics | Personal and Social Merit 

*475 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 18, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

In recent postings I've been exploring a new approach to logical evaluation of language and communications by veracity, and it seems I've decided that a binary approach is most useful for my purposes, simply using true and false, but using true to mean "what is represented exists" and false to mean "nothing is represented. Communications are what are evaluated for truth and falsity and they need not be verbal, but the focus of much of the discussion is on verbalizations particularly simple sentences. For now to be simple, I will call communications, verbal, oral, written, recorded, or artistic messages, that include some meaning or representation to be shared.

Existence is the key criteria of interest between truth and faslity. A true statement represents clearly existences and a false one does not represent anything. We do not speak of "things" represented that are false. Nothing is represented when something is false. All statements are comprised when sensical according to some basic criteria of truth components which are built up when more complex to represent other things when true, and nothing when false. False stories and images are built up of knowledge ingredients in order to form aggregate representations that are not representing anything.

Recently, I've been highly interested in the fact that the boundaries of the world by its surfaces, mountains, buildings, atmostphere, and so on, clearly demarcate existing things from nothing. Similarly with other celestial objects. Since All that can be seen within the boundaries exists, there is a massive quantity of existing things. Existing things provide a lot of material for which to communicate true statements. This is helpful to know about if one is worried about absurdities of life and dealing with excesses of false statements and lies. Simply observing nature gives one much that is true to discuss and true of course relates to what will exist when communications represent well. True statements that are simple are easy to create. True complex statements are harder to create but that's for another conversation.

Communications are what are evaluated for truth or falsity. The world presents to me existing things all around. In a way, I can think of these as truth creating, or as what truth is interested in. Existence then is especially important, given how much we care about truth and honesty.

Communications come in the forms I mentioned. Before communication and after communication information is stored in brains. Between, they are stored in various media, books, hard drives, paintings, and so on. Since communications are either stored in brains, are encoded in transmissions, or are stored in miscellanious media identifiably in quantities related to what we well understand in computer science, we can think of any information whatsoever as having a minimum storage need in bits, or some equivalent. Bits are stored in a massful storage media. Actual physical atoms, elements, electrons, etc... are involved in storage and transmission. Physical-chemical-biological particles and so on. There is a mass requirement even for electromagnetically transmitted messages, which can always be copies of the same messages. There has to be a source or destination. The source or destination will have it stored. All communication is massful, and being massful, has minimum sizing. We won't just assume that all communications or information has this minimal size, and some communications in the form of giant statues, stories engraved in stone, and paintings, include more mass for the same quantity of information. We will say, however, that this information still has a minimum copy which mathematically could be determined in the future to within some very small range. Written communications are very close in miminums to their byte quantities, although sizes could be reduced further. It is not yet known what the most efficient storage is.

Knowing that communications are massful though means we can think of the communications as substances, to use an old word. They are things. They have existences separate from their representations. Their representations when true though, are expected to be about existing things to a great degree. Extent of existence representation is meaningful here to understand the scale of veracity for communications in quantities and extents.

Elsewhere, I will explain how the boundaries of existing things can be used to estimate total quantities of changes of mass of existing things we are interested in, to see what changes happen in the world. Probability under uncertainty relates to these changes. Much that exists is in a great deal of stasis. The things that are changing happen to be those things undergoing motions that have prpoerties of new motion. It happens to be true, that information growth, the accretion of human communications in writing, does constitute what is changing in human contexts. Minute new earthly changes are happening in the overall situation of mostly unchange, or change without our interest. Since the quantity of the communication relates to mass, we can expect that the increase of communication will relate, since storage is needed, to increases information mass. Information mass is brain mass or computer storage. We can quantify the growth and decay happening to estimate the quantity of information change on earthy and levels of redundancy. We can compare this change, with geological changes of other kinds. I say the earth is largely in stasis, but the earth does change very slowly. We could compare earth's curst movement to the growth of human information. We could also discuss mass transformationa and movements on earth, to mass transformations into information mass.

Human information mass changes due to motion changes do necessarily imply movements of elements. This means the growth of information relates to things like mining of minerals and eating, and of storage of biomaterial in human heads, and storage of elements in computer storage systems. It also historically has included the mobilization of rocks and other materials which would be used to store information in monuments.

More on this subject soon.

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

## <a name="packaging-cups-and-other-containers-of-high-quality-as-whole-dwellings">Packaging, Cups, and Other Containers of High Quality as Whole Dwellings</a>

*468 Wanattomians, Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Livelihood | Outdoors and Adventure 

Containers and packaging have qualitatively improved to an incredible extent in the last few decades. This is known well in luxuruy goods, but goods that have very nice packaging are not only goods at the highest price levels now. Goods that have luxurious packaging are less expensive now, and the quality is higher than ever, with some brands showing special improvements in precision. Outside of packaging, in disposable goods, similar advancements were made, and like with the packages, costs have gone down, while quality has risen. Some products are so good, it's hard to see how they could be better, although it is known, more advancements can be had. There places one can look, for new soon-to-be refuse, that resembles what one cannot imagine could be better. This trash is ultimate product.

These ultimate disposable products, given freely sometimes, costing manufacturers nothing but making profit, reveals that things like housing could at this point be almost free. Tiny houses have become popular, and the new word conceals that cottages and sheds, and other small dwellings have always existed, but new trends show an outward honestry and transparency about how little people would be self-satisfied with, and how incexpensively they are willing to live. Revealing this before could lead to others wanting to make such life illegal for being too easy due to jealousy or other related reason. Anyway, they existed. Tiny houses are from cheap materials. New ideas about cheap materials to use, are being shared. Now I am sharing, that packaging strangely shows, that what is small is thought to be amazing, and can simply be bigger. Make exactly the same packages bigger, to have complete homes?

It seems nearly true this is all that is needed. I had a van that I was living in for one year, touring North America. A very nice and somewhat expensive van, that had good value. Despite the niceness and perception of luxury, the rear of the vehicle, was merely a steel bubble on wheels. I did not add decor, or convert it to a more livable room design. Being someone who likes simplicity and camping, a steel shed, or steel container, or bubble, seemed very nice to have, and so, what was needed was only what would go inside, and sit against the walls, and on the floors. I could add hooks and ropes along walls to hang things. This strategy worked really well. I discovered that life can be far more simple than those who want to convert the vans or spaces may think. They are wanting rooms that are matching their expectations. This is smart for comfort and other reasons, so I'm not trying to be very critical. Instead, I'm trying to show, that further reduction reveals further simplicities that may teach, that such conversion is not as necessary as one might think for comfort or sufficiency. Still there are good reasons to do it, to keep the lifestyle going, if it is still too much less than what one can feel sufficient safety and comfort with. In my experience, I discovered, nearly a toilet is not needed. Urination into containers that are large, and dumping occasionally, is really easy, fun, and enough. Defecation is more problematic, but if you explore what people with health problems do, you'll find they even use open air toilet seats with trash bags, for relief and disposal. This is like camping. Smells are not as good, but not intolerable. Disposal is in trashcans. So with the urination into containers and feces in trash bags, one can easily have zero plumbing. Water is eaily managed with some time and experience with water bottles. I had a pump that would make water flow like a sink. Pump bottles that are large are super easy to find, so if one wants a sink, just hand pump the water out, liks one would do with soap. There are more ways still than this. Pressurized bottles exist too, that are cheap. You pump the bottle, the turn a valve, and the water just runs out. More ultimately, gravity is the solution. This is whwat I would have done next. I would have placed a reservoir above the van, or on a wall of the van, and simply had a faucet to let the water out. That is really really a great solution, that makes much of our current lives absurd, because it also flushes, causes pressure for drainage, can be used for showing, is used worldwide for heating water for hot showers (the water just goes above the dwelling where the light is and has a reflective mirror direct more light at the water. Buildings use this approach in europe and the middle east. It was common in Turkey). Toilets with holding tanks are cheap. I would defecate in these, and then the feces would stay in the tank, and later you carry the tank to a place to dispose of it. This was more annoying, and a little more smelly than one would like, but with improved strategy, I think it's approaching as good as a house bathroom. The house bathroom is still preferable. If one is stationary, I think the outhouse that can be relocated occasionally is a complete solution, although nowadays, we think it unsanitary. It is not. There is a weirdness of the solution of pressing down feces through a tube using heavy water. That's just a gravity system. What is the water for? Going into nature to defecate is obviously just how the body works, so going to an outhouse is a really great solution. Hiking and just pooping in natuer is good. The problm is with tiny houses, and my van, is that one can't get to those natural places to do that. So something of the above is needed. The conclusion is really almost nothing is needed an amazing life has zero plumbing. I didn't even use the gravity water solution. For me long term, the bottle and just turning it to put water on my hands, was the answer. This is even more basic, but less like a house.

Places to put things, some few pots and pans, a way to cool (cooking is just a comfort only BTW, one can eat cold), some way to organize clothes and possessions, and a way to urinate and defecate and clean is needed. All of this requires almost nothing to buy. If one is really experienced, I think buying nothing at all and just reusing is the answer. Or buying what one needs, and knowing that the trash fulfills the other requirements.

Women, men, and children, and obviously those of advanced age and dying, can live in this situation. When one has bad health, and is in old age, one lives in a room, that is the bathroom, with no bathroom. Living this way, you are ready to thrive geriatrically.

The van was a bubble with these things, these nothings inside. The tiny house is whatever you imagine you can use as a space, that's pre-made like a containter home, or kit-like, like a shed or tiny house system, or simply what you make. It can be a tent, yurt, teepee, circus tent, covered parking area, or other shelter. The ways of making an interior space that is protected makes the idea of a shelter a somewhat stupid issue. There is this belief, that food water and shelter comprise the core needs. I deny shelter as being a need. It was always too easy.  Food and water were easy too, but constituted the real worry.

Past the making of the house using what one's constrained imagination conceives, which is what culture shows and teaches, one can go beyond hardware to reuse trash, or scaling up of packaging. The scaling up of packaging at a manufacturing level might not be easy. But I'd live in an iPhone box if it were big enough, or a water cup made of plastic. A water bottle seems good. It can be a huge greenhouse. Not too long ago, I was in Phoenix, in the desert, in an outdoor living area, that had a sofa, seats, and an outdoor gas firepit. There was also a grill. Looking up was only time, one would see, the crazy simplicity of the solution for this outdoor dwelling space. There were posts in the ground, that could be any wood or metal, plastic pvc tubing or other, and atop it, was corrugated plastic, that was see through. Looking up, there was just a rectangularized digital sine wave (making a stupid but accurate analogy) of clear trash plastic sold as a product. It is cheap material either way. It was a flat sheet only. Did it need to be corrugated? I think plastic wrap would work. But in any case, the result was a living space, that fel professional, but also was near the minimum. The space was large! Tall posts, a very large sheet, making a high ceiling, and large rectangular floor area. It costs nothing. I need to remember this for later I feel, because even walls don't matter. In some countries, they spend less time inside, and more under spaces like that, or just outside. I was seeing some of that in Thailand near Phuket. Outdoor compounds.

Anyway, luxury exists in packages. This arrangement spoken of above, doesn't have the technolgy of the package? Posts with a plastic sheet over, is less than camping tech. Camping tech is less than boxing and sealing tech. Foils, plastic seals, ultra precise boxes, of blastic and cardboard, sometimes almost gasketed, with great sealants, matching or exceeding the quality of the look and feel of products inside. Sometimes. Approximating. Living in a phone box is like living in the phone. Not only that, if I can in a Rolex box it might confuse all into thinking I'm living the best life in a tiny house, for the wrong reasons.

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

## <a name="automation-of-ais-and-people-as-natural-mechanization-pre-determined-and-mineral">Automation Of AIs and People As Natural Mechanization Pre-determined and Mineral</a>

*467 Wanattomians, Monday, November 10, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Automation | Higher Order Attention | Relationships | Constraint and Determinism | Higher Order Attention | Education and Learning 

To Add

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

## <a name="monging-approach-as-a-strategy-of-communication-and-action-from-doing-nothing-or-hibernating-to-complex-automated-formal-behavior-with-deliberate-unawareness">Monging Approach As A Strategy of Communication And Action From Doing Nothing or Hibernating to Complex Automated Formal Behavior With Deliberate Unawareness</a>

*467 Wanattomians, Monday, November 10, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration | Relationships | Com | Constraint and Determism 

Today I was able to find a simple strategy that groups together disconnected efforts at being a hermit in public. Not hearing others, not caring of what is heard and seen, interacting little or none, and in the mind, thinking of what I want only. This strategy arose from the admission that there is a plain scaling from doing nothing as a communicator and actor and person "being" oneself, through to doing all that a conductor of a chaotic orchestra of life would do, while being unaffected. Gestures are a first step from motionlessness along the path to saying more and then much, decidedly with plenty of formality. Formality includes the planned goal oriented communication that achieves specifics easily and professionally and combines it with some level of kindness and positive intent. The formality when repeated results in a mastery of the communication under variable circumstances that culminates in a feeling of great ease that approaches personal roboticism. Some call this "second nature", and while I wouldn't want to re-use cultural language too repetitively, this is apt immediately. Naturally what we do automatically and inescapably is what is innate and inclusive of what one did before. We are human animals that do human things that is inclusive of human cultural trained into us. After this though, are the additional advancements which go past what we see as anthropological; what makes the current state of humanity seem unchanged from prehistory. The new changes in processes to master in communication in business and in other parts of life result in a second level of natural progression that still has a resemblance with all this but is new and sits atop what is old. What I am devising in this "monging" strategy is this new fringe advancement in behavior and science to an extent. To automate what makes one feel alone and at ease, after a greater height of communication and thinking has been attained. It is after realizing interactions are not as needed, after seeing that socializing is not doing what people promise or believe it does. The goal is to feel alone while with other people with maximal mental and physical freedom and less annoyance and irritation. A more comfortable life that has a higher degree of control over attention, which means there is a greater control over all of life in a way. What one thinks about, sees, and does. This is all in attention. The goal is to not let it be taken too much by what is not of enough value, and to do so in a timely way for when it makes sense. Here is work at an approach of Higher Order Attention that all can use to different ends.

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

## <a name="forcing-holism">Forcing Holism</a>

*466 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 9, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

One and Many | Holsims and Non-Holisms | Relationships | Constraint and Determinism | Learning and Epistemology | Constraint and Determinism | Creativity Management | Intelligence and Psychometrics | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation 

Holism of thinking can be forced. Sometimes, I am finding some interesting ideas when I'm finding relationships between subjects for which joint consideration creates new ways of thinking. This is a natural way to proceed, to see that one subject is related to another, and then to another, and then together consider them, to see what developments of interest may result. What creeativity may result. But I don't think it has to wait for such kinds of thinking. I think holistic blended thinking can be much more forced than this.

Sometimes, I have another kind of disposition that is not like the one in which I'm just naturally finding relationships between subjects, but when I'm forcefully motivated to simply list out relationships on demand. This is a less contemplative mindset, and a mindset more interested in just completing a task, knowing that something of the blending of subjects is easy and not difficult, and is more interested in doing more than less, faster and not slowly. Let's just complete the topic with greater blending and not less. Creativity here can be forced. Holism can result without as much waiting for ideation and more from just making subjects relate however one can come up with relations. Strangely this second way of thinking *feels less like creativity*, but is sometimes more generative and creative. It's like being robotically generative and ideative with less interest and less cares that what is happening could be classified as new ideation. It is also aware of the forced nature of the process, which seems like it could be done at any time. An awareness that the level of creativity is beyond simple plain creative fun and instead the creativity can go into forceful work with significant progress.

There is this assumption that creativity involves joys of free expression, and that as one has ideas, one has happiness converning what one does. This happens to be true, but the way of feeling I'm talking about above is more about tapping into ones robotic creative process that just lets it more freely sprint.

Creativity is easy to this way of thinking and subjects like "holism" seem simpler. Holism isn't something accidentally arrived at by fortunes of periodic creative insights that link areas of thought hard to connect. It simply forces it fast, can list relations and one by one simply delve into relationships. It feels more powerful. The results seem less laudible, and more predictable. Quantities greater, completions faster. "Holisms" and "generalisms" and "abstractions" are less great, and are more routine completions had without much effort. Practiced creativity leads to routine creativity. All of that as routine. Automation increased.

Creativity and its results as an easy thing, less to hope for later (as some may do), and less to do gradually, as the creative will do gradually, letting it happen as it does, on its time. This is more past that, it simply turns it on and soon after its finished, and it can be turned on later with ease too. Until turning it on reveals it isn't really so creative as one may have thought.

Perhaps my idea of creativity is changing in the perception of its ease. If too easy what is it called?

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

## <a name="knowing-things-together-on-the-same-date">Knowing Things Together On The Same Date</a>

*466 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 9, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Epistemology | Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Holisms and Non-Holisms | Consttraint and Determinism | Mathematics

Many subjects remain disconnected from each other because the means of cultural growth was work organically and separately performed. Some was systematic, but most was happening in disconnection, within and between separate cultures, that had wider gulfs. Topics were within different taxonomies of knowledge and so one culture handled topics differently than another did and even after blending the subjects remainded separate.

Aside from this, there are parallels in writings between areas of inquiry, and this is due of course because of crossover of thinking in different subjects. Obviously people trend towards some level of generalism and knowledge in one subject requires knowledge in others. So sociology, psychology, religion, and philosophy cover similar subjects sometimes without being aware of each other.

The separations are spatial and time related.

Today, I was thinking about how humor relates to absurdity, in philosophy and otherwise, about how it notices contradictions and about how thinking about absurdity does too. I thin noticed that koans within Buddhism seem to have a similarity to humor, and obviously include thoughts about absurdity too, but includes additionally the idea that such thoughts have valueable linguistic characteristics allowing for better understanding linguistic nonsense and other issues with language. The linguistic nonsense and the examination of the nonsense can lead to philosophical and scientific insights. Fundamental issues and errors are pointed out by koans, and these koans then are strange pointers at problem areas for consideration. Nonsense, absurdities, humor related, and seriousnesses about these topics, trend towards improvements in religious and philosophical thinking and explain some of existential thinking. There are more overlaps still.

In some ways I think this is a bit of a simple restatement about the connectedness of thinking, but there is much more to say.

Information has been disorganized. There is a need for increased organization. Recognizing parallels and similarities between thoughts in different domains of thinking allow for the joining of ideas into increased organization, and one who sees the overlaps is not stuck in the disorganized mess unable to see connecting pieces, unable to see how one subject or topic relates to another, and is able, as relevant to the area in which the crossovers are noticed, to bring together the subject and the relevant pieces into a more comprehensive understanding.

This is thinking synthesis. Thinking synthesis is an unfortunate task relating to disorganization. Cultural siloing, independent work in isolation, and an inability to see crossover, has resulted in the present condition of disorganization. The thinker who blends is in a unique position to find better thinking through combining what is related in ways others cannot; but is aware that others cannot and so may be annoyed or may find it problematic, that others cannot be directed to understand that the relationships exist.

The intelligent thinker finds it difficult to communicate in this context.

In the future this disorganization should be lessened as relevant subjects come to be related more extensively.

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

## <a name="proof-against-chess-and-criticisms-of-mathematical-proofs">Proof Against Chess and Criticisms of Mathematical Proofs</a>

*465 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 8, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Mathematics | Logic of Natural Language | A System of Thinking

Earlier I wrote about the intuitive scaling of chess from a 2x2 board with fewer pieces (or smaller), to a board much larger with more pieces than exists, as obviously indicating deterministic growth, that would make large games as deterministic in outcome, as the smallest most trivial games. Now, actually writing a mathematical proof of this is not a very easy task, I don't think. I wrote about how I'm not too interested in undertaking such an effort, thinking the intuition superior, as proof already, and as what I'd want to rely on, to more quickly decide, that chess is not worthwhile. Here, I am interested enough again, to talk about it more, not to advance a proof, but to criticize proofmaking further.

Suppose I did want to work on a proof. I would think, along the way, if I did find a proof, it was sort of "just any proof", from the vast quantity of alternative possible proofs. Like a first draft, that I just make the first proof. In a way "discovering a proof" is first drafting. It's not the best proof. Simply arriving at one, is "good enoughed" by the mathematical community. This means they'll let first drafts, completions, and so on be publications. This might not be best, but, knowing mathematical work is long, I don't think it unreasonable to let weaker first proofs become published for review. But I can tell already, that when I'm done with a proof regarding chess, if I work on one, that I don't like the proof I make. Even if its correct. Considering I already know its correct, it's some shoddy first building I erected, to make an analogy. It's not a beautiful proof even if someone says it is. Something is even wrong with math. These symbols and approaches I have to use that others think comprise formal proofing. It seems other mathematicians when they make their proofs, cannot feel they really like them much. They know the flaws. Maybe they are adequate but much is in them that is inelegant. People call these ones elegant.

There many other points. This is one of those subjects for which many arguments exist that make the conversation longer than seems necessary for the persuasion wanted. Like I'm long ago persuaded, and I'm doing proofs... This is an argument against proofs. Also how many and which ones? Just one in math? Already that's absurd, since I have many "reasons". The reasons are preferred. Saying what they are is better. Done with it already.

Chess is deterministic big tic-tac-toe and even if others cannot be convinced, the math route is not sane, because spending that much time, to have a proof for a game, is wasted because it is a game, because its obvious (as a proof!), and because doing it for fame is 1) embarassing if it achieves that, and 2) because that's not a good motive. Other work has better motives.

Those who to be persuaded don't understand proofs and aren't altered. Gambling is all these people. They can't be stopped, and they won't love you if you prove their gambling doesn't  make sense. The proof is for them sort of, but then is sent to mathematicians. Likewise, the proof is about what one does in relation to chess, so is for chess players, who maybe can do something else? Or think differently about it? These are the gamblers. The proof about chess is sent to the mathematicians.

Okay, now this is funny, because the mathematical proof is maybe seldom for the mathematician. What are you out to prove, proof maker? Who will be altered by the proof? Are the altered the mathematicians? So the climate change proof is for people to stop what they are doing all over, to do something else, but you'll deliver it to the journal run by a few scientists?

Proofs to all the wrong people. Through them, the persuasion happens, but you didn't do it any longer.

What part of my chess proving, if I did it, is wanting people to know I did it. How do the professional chess players find out?

Moving on from this to criticize mathematical proofs further. I was saying the first proof I'd come up with would be one that I didn't like much, is a draft of sorts, is one of many possible, and uses proof methods I don't like, because they seem to have issues. This means, I have not done any scientic selection amongst proofs. Have not done replication. Mathematical method is opposed to scientific method and vice versa it appears. The scientist would not take the first draft, that is not entirely loved, but in math, that's done already. But so was the intuition. The intuition and the natural language explanation seem already to do all that is necessary and arguments are plentiful and convergent. When done with a single draft mathematical proof with errors seeming to be inside, one might think "I didn't say all I think about it." I didn't get a chance to share all the good reasons that exist and instead shared the one proof-reason, that was only a development, an offering in a format the community expects.

The natural language argument seems to be the richer, more inclusive way to argue, the one that is more persuasive, and the generative of proofs. The verbal arguments may seem to contain or already state what the proofs do. The selection of proofs to go along with the language is unfortunate maybe, because they may not do the job well, and make it feel like something is missing. More proofs are needed. Scientifically this would seem true. But in argumentation, done well, it seems that math was right that it's done with less, contrary to science, but with science in some ways, that more has come together to prove without the math. Natural language arguments can be pitted against mathematical arguments which can be pitted against scientific argument.

The mathematical work is superfluous and the science too for certain things. What is this extra work? What is the false feeling of doneness. It makes it seem that much of math must be an accumulation of needless. Science is definitely that. What work is really needful. Certainly not what is provably obviously with language. The math and science trends to the intuitive proof. If intuitive already from the natural language I think it's done.

The mathematical proof I talked about for the chess is not needed. Weirdly if I did it, I think others could find that interesting, and it may seem to fill a void. But it's like a distraction.

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

## <a name="combining-videography-with-blogging-as-more-than-vlogging">Combining Videography With Blogging, As More Than Vlogging</a>

*465 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 8, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Relationships | Productions | ThoughtStreams

Having a justification for the ongoing productions of video is not simple unless there is a real anticipateion of interest or funding, well, apart from what was written previously, which includes those gains that are the same in video as in writing. Gains for the brain. That make it obvious it is worthwhile. But there is a desire to have additional reasons for the retention, storage, organization, and eventual sharing of the videos that did support the brain but would not have funding or attention still. What to do with these videos?

I had the idea that I wanted such videos for the creation of a living autobiographical record that provides artifacts required to firstly, show a sampling of what the life was like while living it, but also to provide evidence, of what might be told about the life additionally. It provides real examples, and evidence. This will allow for a more thorough completion of living biography and autobiography, particularly considering none before have had this level of preparation but others would know that this preparation is desirable and needed. A scientific treatment of the subject would lead to similar appraoches. This means I can have a well prepared living autobiogrpahy, but still that does not mean any will want to look.

There is a division in the work, between the video and the writing. The writing is soemthing I think I can deliver with some interest. The video I think not. Videos is something people recoil from in a way dissimilar to recoil from writings. Placing a writing in some contexts will really result in reading, but placing video in contexts making recoil unlikely in places where the content within makes sense for the audience is more problematic. Places where people are more likely to give a video a try are places where they are less likely to want this kind of content. So for my particular productions, the writing has a greater likelihood of an audience than the videos. So the question I'm interested in is how to make the video interesting. My answer has been to find a way to make the videos interesting documentaries, that admittedly still inherit the same or similar problems. But since the writings have a chance, and have more interest, finding a way to deliver the videos with the writing has been something I considered.

An unusual way to deliver books is to deliver them with videos or movies. I still find it unlikely that readers will watch, but am going to try anyways. Many authors who share their writings, do share videos or appear in the media elsewhere but the way they appear is more random, and their appearsance is outside the text. This idea, that I have, is to make the videos available alongside the text, so any interst in the text, can connect potentially with switching to video. Even if it is not wanted, it provides a value add to the text, and does provide substantiating material that should lead to greater trust. There are other archival interests. If they do not use it, if it remains on their bookshelf, the video data is still preseved alongside. So more copies of the book and videos are disseminated. If the documentaries are good enough, they may have separate viabilities. The format is closer to what I'd want to share naturally, so there is also more artistic interests being served by the work, that can potentially make it to an audience.

All feels unlikely in this effort, but as I said, all of this develops the brain anyways, in a way that on reflection, makes it seem actually foolish to not do. Wouldn't it seem then, that if there are singularities in appraoch, with this level of value, that early work showing it in action, would be important? For education or for culture somehow?

Anyway, instead of merely delivering videos and digital information alongwith the handmade books, I was thinking of ways for the books themselves and their organization, to immediately and obviously relate to video content. For material like ThoughtSTream here, where everything has a date, it can be made really clear to an audience that there simply will always be a video easily accessible, that goes alongside the writing, by date. So for this writing today, there are videos. They match up. When reading, one is aware the videos exist. Aware again and again. One does not always look, but always, or mostly, there is a video alongside. Eventually for anyone who has any interest in the reading, the videos are just known to exist. The pairing is well trained. The format makes sense. It isn't forgotten there are videos that go with the text. How else can such a pairing as this, become so high in design quality? I have not heard of any pairing of writing and video that is as usable and obviously feasible as this. When we read, sometimes we anticipate seeing images to go with text. This has become commonplace obviously, and is enjoyable, and one does not reject that there would be such a combination. But the images appear only sometimes, and it is not known when the images will go with text. The videos however, that I'm talking about, simply will go with the text. This means one does not merely know that they go with th etext sometimes like in books. This means one would expect videos even *more so* than one would expect images in books. Strange advancement on writing? This does seem to be an innovation.

What it also does though, consistent with the message of the title, is it binds blogging, writing and vlogging. Audio logging and self-talk, video logging and conversation, and log writing. I coined a term filmographicwriting. I did not include the word audio, and perhaps another coinage is needed, but we can see video expects audio. By having this idea, and this pathway of productions, I double the productions. The video is always happening with the writing. I said before maximally communicative and persuasive writing would be multimedia, or be as rich as possible with differing ways of presenting. Art, music, images, diagrams, and text. More can be included. Video, audio, and text, together, obviously prepares the way for multisense delivery, and within these I can share more. One could sing or tell a poem the way it is thought to be told through writing, that doesn't really explain how to sing and read aloud. Videos can have all the imagery and audio, and even written diagrams and art made on the fly. Advance preparation is more difficult, and admittedly, one wants the best multimedia. But the vlogging and blogging is very largely a reaction against this view that polished is as good as doing it immediately, with perhaps less quality of development, but better speed of iteration and authenticity. Share it as its thought. Don't spend too much time on it. Sometimes do more and come back, but many times, just finish then. You witness the moving person doing it this way, whereas you get a posture the other way. If this approach is mastered it provides the artifacts needed to see the life along the way *and* the work along the way. Sometimes still, some more masterful productions, can be incorporated, where it is felt, more rarely, that special attention is needed.

In my experience though, special attention isn't making much sense. I want to move on too much faster, and like those of many talents would say, I have too much to use to focus too much time on one thing. There's already another idea, should I delay the new one's for the one I have right now. Even art works I envision creating, seem like doing a lot of work, with a limited vision. Like creating something that's overdone to convey something trivial. Many artworks are this. Films and fictional works too. So much work to convey as simple idea? To those artists one might ask "How much did you put aside or omit to get that one completed?" Completion is amazing, but if there isn't enough justification, then it might be better to think it and move on. Think the painting, tell about it, but not make it? Does convey a point? Say the point? If it can be said fast, too much time on the art is over investment. I don't know how many people have thi sissue but it is one I do have to think about. Particularly regarding editing. I'm here learning and sharing valuable thinking. Am I going to now edit it to the content of the critics? The one's who will divide themselves into a few who like it, some who are neutral about it, and many who just hate it. Those who don't look? The edits for those who don't look? This is brain development and that's the main justification. Dwelling on anything seems to reduce brain development. I need good reasons to not do that.

The dwelling on masterfully creating multimedia for enhancing thoughts for communication is still enable more by this approach, however, for now I'll just state that less of that is going to happen, even though I like the idea. Book swith masteries of all kinds blended. Here, even if I don't do that, I've more maximally increased immediate living related content. Writing, audio and video together. This means overall sharing capacity is huge. I thought it was huge with writing, and it has been good, but with video related, it seems tremendous. Vlogging is definitely superior but there is still limited understanding on all that must be managed to keep it up and keep it managed. The writing is better understood. But I've got both together. And as I said before, they really related and blended on this idea, in a way that makes video as expected with the written thought as images. It may make the value of the writing increase and the writing of the video increase, or one or the other. Regarding the value allocations I'm not totally sure. But the pairing together definitely increases information, and I expected brain development too. ARtifacts of living autobiography go up. 

This appears a culmination of productions of a sort although I'm not sure yet to what extent. I'll have to reflect more.

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

## <a name="striving-towards-moral-conceptual-holism-and-dealing-with-still-more-disorganization">Striving Towards Moral-Conceptual Holism, and Dealing With Still More Disorganization</a>

*465 Wanattomians, Saturday, November 8, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture | Human Shortcomings

Disorganization exists even in highly organized systems, and in highly organized systems, the claim of a great level of organization is connected with very large quantities of what is organized. It follows from this, I noticed a moment ago, is even with reduced and more holistic categorizations for collecting the information, there will be larger subquantitites within the structure that appears to be less holistic. Examples exist that are not like this, but anything representing anything natural will have this issue. In mathematics, I am just knowing, that one can have a tree, with one root or top node, that would be very holistic, with many sub-branches beneath, nested very deeply, with long distances from root to tips of branches, but with all the structure predictably unary or binary. That would be a counterexample, but notice there are almost no methematical counterexamples, except those. Everything else is growing complexity with illusion of holism at the root node.

The root is fake holism.

More should be said about that later, but I think it's a powerful and pithy statement. Sure, all of nature could be organized maybe, clearnly under a root node (maybe), but any organization anyone makes, is just forcing it into a root node. Like having having to write a book in one book, so it's in one node, or on in a collection, so the collection is the root node. That is an illusion of holism, where more disorganization definitely exists, than is recognized by that singularity of nodeness.

Moral categorization and orgnaization is preoccupied with finding solutions to memory problems people face. People with reduced memories may seem even more religiously focused, because without the religious ritual and practice, too many times what is needed vanishes. So they help themselves and their limited memories by ritualistically reminding themselves about parts of religion needed, and use techniques for imagining, visualizing, and thinking about what is needed in a condensed more easty to remember format. Summary diagrams and lists are used for this purpose. Part of the many reasons for my attention management proces and lists that I created for data collection and goal oriented behavioral training relates to my knowledge that deterministically I too am limited regarding my cognitive systems. I have ritual to support my memory, even though I have very superior memory. So, I'm aware of this need, and that it is more needed by some, who work very hard to be religious, because they know their own forgetfulness.

Holism is a striving to find final relief in this perpetual problem of too much disorganization and having too many things to remember. Religionists want singular concepts that seem to hold the others for quick, and singular diagrams, lists, and other writings, that seem also to provide what is needed to quickly recall more than just one or two needed pieces of information. An exmaple in Buddhism is the eightfold path, which is an attempt at unifying much that is needed into a single path, so that people have less issue attending to, remembering, and using, what they need in daily conduct. Similar tools exist really in all religions. What is the cause of this? The cause is really easily explained, and above I already did explain it. It is simply that life offers complexity that is just beyond what human memory systems can typically handle with ease. Even superior memory systems, in early stages of life, find life's quantity of things to deal with unweildy or cumbersome. Later, as we also know, the better minds attain simplicity, or more simplicity, while others understand that they will still need to be a little more dilligent in their ritualistic observation, because still the world's complexity and chaos is just beyond what they can make easy to deal with. Religion is to help limited cognitive ability.

Someone may object, but I ask to consider, does it not seem obvious, that if humans became vastly more smart, that what was written in religion, will also become simply easy to remember, and that since religions were old, they are also increasingly incomplete, so what people of the future, will seem to have an even better handle of reality, that they'll depict more simply? What we have today is an early human method of dealing with the world as simpler animals, but animals more complex than most. It's also dealing with the strange complexity of culture, that in many ways has made life harder while making it easier.

In a way when religion was the dominant aspect of culture, pervading most of it, it is a reaction against itself. Religion is "how do I deal with religion, and all it has done to us?"

When culture and individuals try to make religion seem huge, and all inclusive, its dealings with life, and guidances, become guidances for living in religion. It inherits the difficulties of life by coextension under pretense of making religion great, but also religious creations do become numerous, and if guiding to many parts of culture and life, introduce new problems. We know both of the above are true and have been true historically. Today we think less so in some nations, that have created a division between secular political social life and religious life, making religion a common hobby. There is still religion to deal with, and religion thinks that's its purview. A muslim will think "stay out of my business, because we manage it ourselves". Thus it is obvious religions even want to be about their own problems. They make them and handle them. But businesses do this too, and the legal system is supposed to be self managing.

Returning the to primary subject, religions are dealing with complexity and try to create structure, that has some analogy to software architecture, that simplifies thinking about the religion, makes it possible "to see the whole", which is a goal of holism, and makes it possible to have an organization with specialties, that cover each division. An administrator of religion and of business, will want to be able to feel they can see the whole. But they also want it to manage all the parts. Well, this is how self-management of life is too. My life has many areas that need attention and on inspection people don't differ too much in what these areas are. So all people are having to do the same management. Parents manage it for their children, and parenting is similar for all children in that all children have needs in the same areas. It's even a management of animal needs. Anyway, a single person then seeks to find easy ways to live. We've even said that this requires what has been called 'survival', we've been told its so hard. Surviving is obviously made easier with an organized and focused life approach. This entails a desire to "see it all" like the administrator who wants to know how to run a business. If an administrator or general cannot feel they understand or have awareness of whole situations, they may feel incompetent. It is actually the mark of incompetence to have too little awareness of the whole of what one is managing. It trends towards inability to manage. So as with business, and religion, at an individual level one wants to be able to see the whole, to be able to really manage the parts, to be able to even more fundamentally control actions, so minimally survival will be possible. Beyond this, it is strived to do better and better, towards personal excellence. More global excellence is the result of very good quality self-administration.

I've attained a very good level of self administration and organization but at times I still see in my day to day needs a need to recall and become aware of more than what my system appears ready for at times. There is a sudden reluctanct to simply remember what to do. Soem of what I want to do doesn't clearnly fit earlier categories created. They can be fit, but don't fit well at the time. There is just more to recall than what earlier attempts at holisms have prepared for, and for this particular time of management, there is some level of incompetence. Since I said earlier, that human cognitive systems are not so advanced as to be able to forever be at a finished level of handling the world (I said what does imply this), it follows that even the excellent examples of people will have human shortcomings that do imply specific incompetencies. I cannot know in advance the thoughts for the next two hours. Funadmentally that makes me incredibly incompetent in a variety of ways. They degree of incompetency is even elusive thinking about this, knowing this shortcoming to be so great. I'll simply let my mind think what it is going to think, without being able to know what it might optionally be? I have no ability to make any decision in advance regarding my upcoming thought except to now set out a pathway, which will result in thoughts still I cannot know in advance. There are ways to improve one's ability to live with this constraint and that is the point of the study of human shortcomings but this incompetency forever makes me unable to do too many things that obviously improve life. There are some overestimations of this issue here too, but there are underestimations as well.

I was saying that while I have some holisms prepared, there is much that goes outside the organization. Also, within the main holisms, is substructure that has greater numeration. This means it feels less organized and tests my memory systems. Training myself like a religionist and ritualist dealing with cognitive limitations I have become focused over and over on using fewer list items to recall larger lists. But this focusing on smaller list items I think has made for comfortable lists that are comfortable for my brain, but too comfortable, making my actual mental powers lesser. Knowing I have very powerful memory systems, I think I want to combine this earlier approach at organization with a return to a development of cognitive skills towards vituosity. Ritual has some opposition to vituosity it seems. When I was observing that the religionist appears to have decreased memory with the need for ritual I think I was accurate, because also when we imagine them, we don't see the  heights of cognitive excellence and skill. We don't see any great memory *without repeition* happening. Instead we see too much repetition to deal with memory problems instead.Since i have very powerful memory, I don't want to too train it towards simple categoriztion and sometimes maybe want to resist clean architecture and structure for simply using my native powers more maximally, such that those powers can repeat. This is a kind of resistance of organization to increase the repetition of mental power. Weird how these somehwat oppose, but obviously one can do both, to have simple organization and practice memeory skill.

Perhaps what I'm arriving at is similar to what I arrived at before. Lists tend to make one a list dependent to make things easier. Instead of written lists, sometimes use the mind. But this is being expanded into the larger subject of, sometimes using mental skill development to expand on mental powers to make oneself more moral, to add to what one does in moral preparations which is actually intensive use of lists. Too much repetition in morality? Morality tries to obsessively deal with the intractible human repetitiveness towards what one has done before that one no longer wants to do, and to find repetitively ways to do new things. So now I'm introducing here, maybe for the first time, the intention to do something less interested in repetition in structure in the cultural part of morality and the morality of prior behavior, which is repetitive, towards training of the nervous system. I see this as being less like a moral activity given morality usually leverages a corpus for tools, and not mnemonics. I talked mnemonics too though. I usually don't think of a moralist or moral person, or religionist, as someone who is training themselves to have a better nervous system or handling where they don't want to have structure and holsim. But kung fu experts and buddhists have long been practitioners of numerous areas of skill development for personal improvement. I don't see these thigns as being at odds because I really do think morality is an all inclusive subject matter, but there is a contrast here that is somewhat humorous or worth thinking about longer, maybe for particular practicalities.


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

## <a name="analyzing-cultural-tools-for-their-targeted-purpose-use,-and-value-while-correcting-or-planning-their-utilization">Analyzing Cultural Tools For Their Targeted Purpose, Use, and Value, While Correcting Or Planning Their Utilization</a>

*464 Wanattomians, Friday, November 7, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Constraint And Determinism 

Of the human shortcomings illusions and errors relating to language appear to be the most defective and needing of correction, for one to have a life that is not excessively absurd; however, there are many other human shortcomings to write about and teach, and educate onself regarding, for very great self-advancements. Many of these can be collected together, along with language itself, for exploration and inspection; we learn of more organizing them together, and having them together can do a better job studying them. The way of collecting them together I have in mind is to simply think of many as cultural tools that have margins of error, issues of application, and poor designs. Language has all these problems and more. But I can think of others when I think that cultural tools we use may each have concerns that need to be known about. Given the entire collection we can see the study of human shortcomings cannot be totally comprehensive. At best it can be a framework that can be used to encourage more widespread treatment.

The telephone is the example of a cultural tool. Now it has something of an antiquity to it, although it exists as a secondary way to talk, apart from text message. Being familiar with the telephone but seeing it drift into history, it might be fun to think of how it is a cultural tool that has included miscellaneous human shortcomings that would have requried some correction and attention.

Before going to this subject, there are a few more parts of this method I want to add. For any cultural tool, we will consider there is some analysis that exposes the key utilitites and values for which it has powerfully made itself survive. We can think of some of these easily with the telephone, considering that before it existed, we could not hear from anyone at a great distance. Yelling nearby would have been needed at a distance of a few hundred meters. Across the earth, only a phone could transport voice, excepting voice recorded to some media; and that technology only arose at the same time. Live voice from accross the world is only possible with a phone or nowadays with a streaming video session, which curiously, still separates audio from video. The video call is still a phone call for the audio. Anyway, we can find what the core values of the phone are, and then start to scope the uses of the tool. This is like knowing a sledge hammer is good for specific destruction, while scoping it to that destruction, so as to not be murderous with it. Just a humorous and not a serious example. Scoping is important although we do not want to stifle the imagination too much. The sledge may be a good defense weapon. But knowing mainly what the instruments are good for, what make them valuable, and so on, helps for seeing where there are erorrs and defects and excesses for which the tools have introduced unwanted side effects. Language has bad logic, phone calls have anyone calling anyone with bad logic.

What were the irritants of the phone? Crank calls were an irritation. Phone calls from advertisers, solicitors, and con artists were also unwelcome. Also, the phone was not useful for evidence, compared with text. So a horrible problem with the phone, is that what was stated that caused harm, deliberately or not, had no record. Writing to me, was always superior to speaking in real life or the phone, because of this. So it has that shorcoming of not creating a useful record. If one did record, one would become an target of criticism, because back then, it was thought rude to record just anyone with a voice recorder.

This is not an extremely methodical approach for using this method one might observe. I'd agree. A clear process of analysis is needed for this. It would probably relate a bit for the approach for defining useful software and identifying key uses from what else might exist. This process of observation however can still exist with this native approach, of just finding what the tools do and seeing what is unwanted about them apart from what they do.

Telephones create the chance for nations to collaborate nefariously in concert corruptly, and also makes it possible to conduct international warfare. This is a side-effect; also, it applies to people in communities, where they can call and attack each other. People can be expected to receive calls, making oneself unnaturally available to talk with others whereas historically one could be alone. Telephones became a market that the government never eliminated or eradicated. People could call and sell, swindle, or harass for a service one paid for. Calls could include fake emergencies. You could not see who called you, so was it who they said they were? Payments became something expected over the phone. You could be chased for payment over the phone now too, and debt collectors could call over and over. Mechanized automated calls would also annoy and interrupt. One was supposed to have a "phone number", qhixh ia annoying addition to one's existence in many ways. I do not naturally have a number.

Inside all of this misuse of the phone, there are very great utilizations. Constraining the *scope of use* to these utilizations enhances life, and it is easy to get distracted. One is annoyed if *one is too exposed to the irritants above* and one can reduce that if one simply focuses only on key uses. The telephone itself, becomes part of the human shortcomings relating to natural endowment, in the instrumentation that is the expansion of human existence. Today we are expanded by computers and phones, like cyborgs who haven't noticed entirely yet. "I don't remember anything, it's in my calendar", and so on. That is a cyborg who offloaded brain to a digital storage. My calendar tells me when to join a call rather than my own mind. (There are ways we are cyborg like just relying on other people and pen and paper too though). But we've let the cyborging grow extensively, to include what we don't want and what we want, so that now, our way of life includes many errors. These are part of what I'm collecting as human shortcomings. We have shortcomings related to our embeddedness within technologies.

It can be a nuissance or preoccupation to try to correct human shortcomings and shortcomings related to technology but one has to do it to some degree. One has to manage time related to social platforms, as one realizes it has gone beyond any core beneficial use case. Likewise, there are important areas in which such an effort benefits greatly where people cannot see it. It does not need to go too far, just as far as is practicable and maximally beneficial. I mention this because to someone who reads this, trying to evade use of the telephone will seem difficult and perplexing. It appears to me largely it has to be used. Dwindling the use to the key benefits too is hard or impossible. I would like to be without a cell phone, but I find, there are areas in which I'm forced by society to use it. So perfection along this pathway should not be aimed at, and instead one does better to aim at core gains in fixing errors of use.

More on the general methodology here used for later, and probably this will be used and expanded in in the book issue of Human Shortcomings.


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

## <a name="a-list-of-the-values-Of-writing-the-thoughtstream">A List of The Values Of Writing The Thoughtstream</a>

*464 Wanattomians, Friday, November 7, 2025, Penang, Malaysia* 

ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Evaluative Concepts

A fundamental justification of writing productively, is simply to have opportunities for increased feedback from one's own thinking, to hear it aloud, and again and again if necessary, to have self improvement. Thinking itself is largely directed at self improvement, so if there is some small activity, or small tool, that can serve to increase this primary purpose of one's mind, then it seems that alone is maybe adequate justification of the activity. So this thoughtstream has a very powerful argument in its favor, and given the ease of production, of the activity, and pleasantness of it, and smallness of costs of all varieties, it does not appear there is any good argument against its value. But that does not mean there are not any arguments I can think of.

One such argument thought of recently, that would provide reason for decreasing the frequency of writing, or occasionally disusing writing tools, is because of some adequacy that exists or comes to exist from thinking alone, perhaps due to a process of thought, some improvements in thinking and capacity, or brain health, or perhaps because a person can periodically use mental gifts that exist. If I simply think well, recall well, and this provides adequate feedback and potential for repetition, then "writing to the brain" is really as good or better than writing to paper or storage.

Someone such as myself, is already aware, of the benefits of talking alone, while walking or contemplating sitting, or however, but I'm additionally very experienced with the enhancements created by additionally writing in a log, or writing books, and more recently, doing videos. Videography has parallels to writing. We see from others nowadays people sharing videos, since videos are inexpensively produced and shared, and these videos do function as journals. Already obviously journaling existed in ancient times, and the new word blog, referring web log, resulted in a somewhat temporary inclination to immediately make public personal reflections that amount to journal entries, made digital. Just diaries placed on the internet. After this, the term "vlogger" came into popularity; unlike the term "blog", I somewhat like vlog, because it really added an innovation, and the innovation marks a real cultural advancement of moving from mere writings of thought without any information of behavior, appearance, and visual history, to rich history, and information about individuals and their many traits, made public over the internet in addition to personal reflections. A vlog is really an advancement. The advancement can't be fully used or retained yet, despite the appearance that it can be, by popularity in sharing. It's because it cannot be well archived or preserved. But for books this is easier. So much that is coming into existence, loses value from being too impermanent. I don't see any work trending towards correction. At the moment it seems more opportunity, to take on that effort without providing anything real in return, to advance businesses, and make profits. In other words, people share videos, find they can't really effectively keep or retain them, use them later, but the companies keep them, pretend they'll retain them, or give them back, but never do, while making money however they can from what they have. But in the future videos may be a complete replacement for writing. Notice it seems that would be in the very distant future. That's an odd consideration, given we have screens, cameras all over, storage on the internet, cheap computers and hard drives, small easy to transport devices that amount to personal property, all contributing to an apparent ease of maintaining them. This really not true everyone can feel. But paper and books are far more easily reatained. So it is clear some of the objectives I've shared, trend in the direction, of technologies and approaches that do not exist, that would not be expected to exist for a while. But let's assume they do exist, and something is as easy as paper and print, and digital storage of paper and print later for video. Something is really as easy as video on paper. In that case, it seems to me, paper could become obsolete. This does not mean it would not have utility. It's just that it overshadowed by the powerful usefulness of other cheap and easy technologies, sharing more that we want. We want more from history than fragments of text. I really would like to hear from Plato and Aristotle in person, and not just in writing. And I'd like to see our non-human ancestors. I'd like to see where history has gaps, with my eyes.

So video is quite valuable. I still liken the thoughtstream here with the video, and am doing and retaining both.

After realizing video is not well archived, and writing is not well retained either, despite what I said, and that people don't retain these things partly because they are disinterested, the thought that merely thinking might be better than all the effort becomes more attractive. "Maybe really I should just think things, since nobody cares to see what I made, nobody is reading what I wrote, I'm not even able to use it all myself, so why not just stop?" Well, this has some value we will consider soon, but it still does not change that the quality of reflection in thinking in words aloud, at the time of making a thoughtstream entry or a video, creates an increase in personal development as I said, and that development is part of point of thinking. Of having a brain. So, obviously the effort can be worth. But not if the above is thought to be true, *and* one's thinking to oneself without recording provides the same development or more, while periodically but not permanently not writing or making videos. That latter strategy is better. It admits sometimes people need to return to basics, use methods found useful earlier, and sometimes recover skills lost using methods that made the skills possible. My thinking ability is largely due to reading and writing, and thinking to myself, in addition to native talent. Already I returned to collecting personal data, because after some degree of mastery over behavior, it became too disorganized again. So not using the tools is great, but permanent disuse of something that contributes to brain function fundamentally is foolish. Not even just not really advantageous. Actually foolish.

Thinking about the brain as an organ that is made healthful using these tools, it is even a medical solution, to think aloud, read, or use a written or video journal. Or an audio journal. Everyone who has engaged in these practices immediately feels others need to know. The benefits are obvious. It doesn't mean always use them, but arguing against never having them or never learning to use them is absurd. It's minimal education. And so we have an argument against educators, for not making that clear. Otherwise, there would be independent vlogging and writing practice that would just go one, all the years of education. This is not taught. You're taught it exists only.I don't recall learning I should have a diary, except outside of education, in some movies, and entertainment showing actors themselves writing in diaries.

What some other values of this ThoughtStream?I want to be able to recall all the better reasons why I do what I do. I'm very confident in the pursuits related to this writing effort, but occasionally I'm less motivated, and when less motivated would benefit from easy recollection. Other times, I simply want to remember what it is that is very good about my present course. Am still doing well with what I do automatically? Is the effort worth it? I hardly need any of this, but I do want to finish, by really remembering well, what the specific benefits are. These also can be used, in the book, to be more "persuasive" to any of the few who might find this valuable.

Here is a good time for a rest from this effort however at a profound point worth dwelling on a bit. The brain simply needs to practice itself in a healthy way, and to not use the skills of the mind independently somehow is really to make life less healthy, and so the tools and skills of thoughtstream are even the very best and most directly related to having a mind, and identity, and even a life one wants to be excellent or at least good.

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

## <a name="estimating-the-value-of-free-speech-to-know-what-that-is-while-thinking">Estimating The Value of Free Speech, To Know What That Is While Thinking</a>

*459 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 2, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Constraint and Determinism 

Before thinking and during thinking, there is no utilization of the value of free speech, or of its gradatations, and put otherwise, there has not been a use of the quality of caused thoughts, in the ways they appear either. Analyzing this now, this way, it is evident that culture has not done even this, it is hasnot gone so far as to start to consider this topic, and having not considered it, has not envisioned how to do it, or used what would be the result had the results existed. Clearly, for the future of others who are not us, we are needing to do them work. We must think for them afresh, but for the first time, what in their thoughts are valuable, and what parts are free or not, and how those differences are relevant for evaluating and deciding what will be thought later. What the strategy of thought is, and having such a strategy, what speech will be too.

This subject is important very germane to the discussion of some upcoming books. I will develop on this and dwell on the subject in series, periodically returning here to expand.

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


## <a name="to-be-able-to-be-amazed-is-to-be-more-inexperienced-and-disconnected-from-nature">To Be Able To Be Amazed Is To Be More Inexperienced And Disconnected From Nature</a>

*459 Wanattomians, Sunday, November 2, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Learning | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings 

Those who show enthusiasm being amazed sometimes want as they show their amazement to be accepted as teachers or experts, but amazement doesn't happen when one knows something really well and intimately, as it does when one is first learning, first exposed to the object of amazement. The teacher, educator, or experienced person showing amazement may be acting or acting excitedly in order to create interest in the student, and this behavior did always seem odd to us, when we know the person is experienced, because it doesn't seem they are really actually excited or amazed anymore. Their behavior seems false.

There is also the person (sometimes myself included too of course), who acts amazed after learning something, and after having learned that thing, thinks oneself more expert. The young child or teenager who shares soemthing they just learned, such that when they share it, they still show strong excitement, really is still interested, but is less experienced and less an expert.

The one area in which the above isn't quite right is when an expert has an amazing experience in the field in which they are expert so that the new thing is quickly set in context such that it too can be spoken about and understood more expertly. The amazement can be about the growth from what is learned and not just about what is learned. I think if one is discerning one will be able to tell the difference, between this and the above, and when what is learned is still involving an area of inexperience even despite connections with expertise.

Ignorance, disconnectedness from nature, inexperience and so on, are causes of the strong amazement had when exposed to a new thing and without it being extremely new or surprising, there would be no genuinely excited reaction. The powerful reaction to new information, if real, definitely tells of inexperience, and if experience exists, it will be the case that the expressions and behaviors shown to others about the supposed excitement really are acted.

Also, this is different from enthusiasm in teaching too.

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

## <a name="independent-replication-of-a-new-dissertation-discovered-in-isolation-is-a-true-replication-while-others-are-more-false-because-too-path-dependent-on-exposure-to-the-existing-study">Independent Replication of A New Dissertation Discovered In Isolation Is A True Replication While Others Are More False Because Too Path Dependent On Exposure To The Existing Study</a>

*457 Wanattomians, Friday, October 31, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Dissertative Thinking | Doctorates | Hierarchies | ThoughtStream | Scientific Method | A System of Thinking

In the sciences study replications are thought to be necessary to verify results of earlier studies. Studies are not simply to be truste. People lie, fabricate, and make mistakes. Statistically, some number of sudies, depending on the subject matter, and degree of experience had by others that can cnfirm or disconfirm, repetitions build an inductive argument that states that earlier confirmations would indicate future confirmations. Like if you did something a cerain way, kept getting the same results, it must be true that your action includes truths you know about. Replications are not all of the same type though. Typically when we think of replications, we think of other people doing the repetition of the work, and not the same scientists, but the same scientists can work to replicate results too. They may want to do that before publishing. Some publications may have a number of replications as part of the work going into the publication. But later, it is wanted for someone else to confirm in various ways. Replication can be to do exactly the same studies. But that's not necessarily required either. Converging results of differing experiments that have similarities is a way to replicate too. One can do slightly different studies, to test the same hypotheses.

These are good ways to replicate, but there is one way of replication that is even better, that has not received enough love and attention. That's simply when one person does their creative work in isolation and arrives at a result that is the same or similar result as another study that they did not see first. In academia, this is not supposed to be how one conducts science, because, one is supposed to review the literature, and find those studies that already did the work, or similar wrk, so that one knows how one stands in relation to those works, to progress science. If one finds an earlier work, one can do the replication study, in one or the ways already mentioned, or in another way, but one is not really supposed to do the work as if the other work did not exist, because then it would seem that one is doing redundant work, or that one is trying to have some credit for something alredy achieved. However, it is missed, that thorough academic review to the point of exhausiveness (seeing all works that relate), is not actually feasilbe. It is attempted only, and partly arrived at. Also, it is missed, that people are creatively very good working on their own, and part of human interest and motivation, is about natural discovery, not simply finding if others did the work first, to build n it. The interest may vanish. Also, groups in isolation, have their own research that is available, while other research is not. So a reseearch study in Russia, or Japan, that is relevant or similar, or almost the same, may not be seen, as a person does the work in another country. People really are isolated and do their work without omniscience of what has been done already. But there is a more important reason why this is important. It's that work done in isolation has a higher veracity of confirmaion than work that knows about the other work already.

There is a concept in economics called "path dependence" and another consept in law called "leading questions". A leading question is not one that is the best, that is not what it means. A leading question is one that points a person in a direction that isn't really one that is necessarily good, useful, or true. Like if a lawyer asks a witness something like, "When you were in the house with the old woman, why did you decide to hit her with the candlestick?" This question would cause the person to answer in a way that incriminates them. They are lead to answer something that just assumes their guilt. Many questions in real life are leading questions, and if you get asked a question you don't need to answer it, because this is what people do. They try to lead you on a path for you to say something they want to hear. Here we can also relate "path dependence" because leading questions is a form of path setting. The idea with path dependence is that future events depends on how things started. The way things started creates pathways which lead from those things. The way things start can sometimes go in an unwanted direction. Leading questions try to create a path for the answerer to say something that the questioner wants. But the person answering, if they are aware of path dependence, can simply think or argue "I'm not going down that path with you" and in the law can object in front of the judge, telling the judge "I oject: that was a leading question". If correct and the judge sees that, the judge will tell the other lawyer, to not ask those kinds of questions.

The relevance here is that studies that came first may not create the right pathway for development, and replication along that pathway may not be wise. Even awareness about the first experiment, may change the thinking direction, to one that is not as useful, incorrect, or uninteresting. It can be the wrong pathway, or a boring pathway. I just knowing about a study creates a situation in which one's creativity is subverted, because one keeps thinking one has to continue the direction or pah set by the other study, science is hindered and loses creativity, and the person doing the work may be demotivated, or may be unable to think in the direction another would think, who benefited from never seeing the study.

Instead, if a person does work alone, with great creativity, they can form their own approach to their own interesting question, and solve it or study it independently, with results that are more interesting that way. Further, if those results happen to be similar to another study that was done in another place, that they were unaware of, and they confirm it, the other study gets a better confirmation, because since the person doing the work was unaware of their study, they didn't simply repeat something they already saw, or weren't guided too mech along the path dependent trajecory to have a similar result. They aren't as biased by what they've seen. Instead someone working very differently replicated parts of the unknown study unknowingly, and this makes it more obvious and evident that both studies seem correct. What is great about this, is that people working in isolation can still be "first finders" because they did it without being exposed to the others. It admits that academic review cannot be complete, but goes further to say it is good that way ofentimes. It also admits, that this method of replication is better for the first study. Also, since much about science really depends on finding flaws, it is important that the people doing the study don't already believe they'll see the same results as some other study. They have different expectations. They are more likely to find things wrong with the other studies working in a way that is not simply aimed at contradicting the other study either. Some will do work just to oppose a study that has come to exist. This work does not have any animosity in the intent, which should be purged more from science. Instead, if there is a conttradiction, it is only at a later comparison of both studies that that is revealed.

There are many reasons why working creativel in isolation rejecting the idea that one just builds on the work of others is really a better way to do science. It is not the only way to conduct it and shouldn't be, but it has a value that is great and not one that is much lower. It has very good merits, since science cannot be just about obtaining first findings, and credit for new discoveries. There is room for the same discoveries to be made at other dates and times by others who really did it fresh wih their own ingenuity as if there was never a solution.

Applying science to itself, the methods of science are supposed to do away with this type of work, that is more concerned with people land their selfish personal advancement, and competition, and desire for fame. That is not a scientific effort. Isn't it strange that science has not self utilized and taken seriously its own approach such that the field is scientifically guided? In many ways, science is a continuation of what people were doing earlier, just vying for attention, trying to gain awards and funds, and trying to get names into history somehow. "How can I be great"? The business of science is really a thing versus the science of science. Since science is so praised why is it that it is wrapped in busines sand not in its owner value system?

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

## <a name="awareness-as-a-temporary-and-maybe-irrational-part-of-the-learning-process)">Awareness as a Temporary and Maybe Irrational Part Of The Learning Process</a>

*457 Wanattomians, Friday, October 31, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Learning | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Education 

It seems that awarenesss of things to be learned begins as mostly unawareness, then becomes partial awareness wanting more awareness, greater awareness, greatest awareness, then gradually reduction of awareness towards unawareness again.

Consider many things that children need to learn that is of importance. I like to use walking as an example. Babies are unaware of walking, and when young enough, cannot see very well. Later they become more aware about surroundings, and eventually see, that people around appear to be standing uprights and are walking around. Earlier something will be noticed about this, but the images and movements would be unclear. Once walking has been seen enough times, awareness starts and builds, and there is perhaps a desire to walk. The baby will be kicking and building leg strength in the meantime, and will be learning to control back muscles to sit and stay upright, and will become more coordinated to be able to balance once standing becomes possible. They will be able to see that soon they will be able to walk too, and may want to walk, before it is possible. They will enjoy crawling and eventuallly will start making attempts to stand. In this process they are increasing in their awareness of walking, but they don't really know how it feels yet, how to do it, what mistakes they will make, and what it is like to feel better at it and more competent. Soon, and without too much difficulty, standing is achieved, and sometimes immediately walking is attempted and achieved too. It doesn't take long. Soon there is excitement about exploring with the newly attained skill of walking and awareness about walking has increased until the minuter details about walking are being felt and are enjoyed. Subtle corrections are made. New ways of walking are noticed and tried. Running is achieved. Then, after not too much time, interest in walking becomes decreased. Going to see things, playing, and doing other interesting things that assume walking is existing and sell done, becomes the object of awareness. Walking becomes an assumption, with less awareness allocated. Then there is habit, automaticity, and forgetfulness that walking is even what is being done. Soon, one walks for months without knowing anything about how one walked, the techniques used, or anything. Awareness has again decreased to a very low level. It hasn't entirely vanished because the brain, having the ability to do the walking, and the person, having some situational awareness that includes what the legs are feeling, has some awareness, but much is subconscious. If one tripped one might know how it happened. So something of walking awareness is still happening but it is so automatic that one may never think much about it or about it at all for prolonged periods in any way similar to the conscious thought and effort of the kid first learning. So one has again returned to a high degree of unreflectiveness about walking.

The pattern here is evident. There is no awareness at all, then some, then a good amount, then a very large amount, then less and less with habituation and automation, and then finally mastery brings full automation and non reflection and non interest.

Earlier I talked about the diminishing return of thinking, and this would be a key example of that.First there was no thinking, then there was some, then a lot, then less, then finally almost none. Thinking about it follows a similar trend that awareness follows. Awareness includes thinking and thinking assumes awareness. They are not precisely the same but there are relationships. It is possible, as shown in psychology, for thinking to continue with no awareness. Some might not want to really call it thinking, but it has the properties of thinking, minus awareness. With awareness all the ingredients of thinking seem to exist, but thinking does not include all that one is aware of really. Awareness seems bigger than just thought. In any case, they go together, and follow a similar pattern, and it is this pattern that we are interested in for this conversation.

Awareness, as the title says, is a temporary part of the learning process. Learning is where awareness seems to be highest. In mastery, there is some special awareness related to the mastery that is subconscious, but notice much about walking that one was aware of earlier is lost. I do not at all know now, what it was like to learn to walk. All of that is a kind of assumption of the system now. The system that learns takes a form that incorporates what has been learned into physiological structure. It forgets what it was aware of and instead retains only what is relevant to the ongoing computing of the walking activity. How to program walking is missing, just the program exists. If I get injured, I do not benefit greatly from my first learnings of walking; instead, I struggle again, and do more poorly than when I first learned.

Taking these patterns and relating it to other subjects it seems that awareness first begins at the recognition that something that is needed is missing. The awareness about the new subject includes ignorance, and often includes irrational thinking about what mastery consists of, and what that thing to be learned really consists of. Initial learning can be really erroneous, having the wrong assumptions, and have false awareness. Trial and error commences in the learning. This is when errors are greatest in quantity. Thus the awareness is most around the time or just after the time the most errors are being made. While the process of learning has a rationality to it, within the process is s large amount of irrationality. The mentor watching a new learner can see frustrations and errors happening along the way, that really do indicate a trend concerning irrationality at the time of increased awareness. Post learning, rationality increases, and it increases as awareness decreses. The teacher does lose contact with what it was like to originally learn it, but the teacher who has many students gets reminded frequently about it, and so can still have some awareness, although a less personal awareness, about what is normal in the learning. Adults forget how and in what ways they were foolish, assuming, and irrational earlier.

It is really fascinating here, that people really seem to be most aware while learning and this the time they are most irrational. As an adult, who has mastery of many skills, I think back, and really have trouble really seeing that I had all these flaws while learning, but also, that I was *more aware* and not *less* than I am now, even though I am much more expert?

What seems to make this even more clear, is that the very best athletes perform more like unreflective robots exhibiting mastery not at but tranding towards robotic perfection. Then, following this after their careers end, they spend very long periods not doing that activity anymore. Later their awareness is really lower than they think it is about what they were doing before but they cannot see that. They would assume the opposite. This is how it must be possible that after not too lnog they lose the skill without knowing they lost it. their brains lose the ability to control their bodies in the ways they imagine they can control them. This shows they are *really extremely unaware of how their body does the activity* and instead only at a higher cognitive level, can think about what they used to do, and imagine themselves doing it. Meanwhile they have become unable to do it, both in how to do it actually, and in the nervous systems ways of controlling the movement. Their bodies can wither and this shows how humorous the unawareness is. As an old man, incapable of much, their brain may tell them they are as good as ever. Like an old fighter who returns to the professional fighting later, to discover, they have no chance at all, were not aware they had no chance, and get easily beaten by the more aware, less insane, younger fighters.  

So there is an irrationality in the awareness which is maximal somewhere in the path to mastery, but there is irrationality that increases as the mastery wanes, as old men continue to "cling" as many say, to the masteries they had, having less of it really, and only what remains, in what they can imagine and remember about what they used to do. Both the advanced athlete, and the aged former expert athlete though, are extremely disconneced from, the awarenss that existed, as they learned initially. When I think back to my initial learnings they are too distant to recall, and really, I just keep thining again and again, that I mastered the skills, and since I'm still capable perform them well still. But the awareness that existed is really gone. I'm trending in the same direction of what I just said above, and knowing this, I can try to be less irrational concerning what I think I know, and be realistic about what is really lost.

And remember that there is something very special about learning new skills and maybe it is less interesting to bask in mastery.

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


## <a name="social-alignment-with-old-self-even-while-not-caring-about-preserving-that-ones-exitencee">Social Alignment With Old Self Even While Not Caring About Preserving That One's Exitencee</a>

*456 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 30, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Relationships | Death | Death Plans | Human Shortcomings 

There is a human shortcoming that does not appear to be well known or well communicated relating to the fact that people desire to live longer, but do not desire that their older variants continue to live. Learning about this subject from my experience helps to improve one's thinking about one's own supposed demise, and to think more positively, without thinking irrationally, but with even more reality, such that one's outlook is improved and personal terrors about non-existence are reduced.
Consider the following. If one does not concern oneself with preserving earlier versions of self, or if one has not thought about it, then one is probably not uncomfortable about it. It does not appear to be a problem. When I think about earlier selves, and whether or not I should seek to preserve them, I notice firstly, there are a lot of them, thousands and thousands, and that I have not sought to know them. I have not considered them as separate. I haven't even forgotten about them, I just did not think there was any need for any care. Each older version of self came to an end. There have been many ends of self while living. None have been preserved. Yet none have been worried about that fact, that all of those people, if you will, have not had anyone care to ensure they continue living. Why were you never concerned to ensure that all of yoru older selves wouold continue? Why have you not thought about your relation to your older selves? Your current self is just another for whom you'd have unconcern later. Later on, this version of you would not be thought about, cared for, or protected from demise. You'd just resume thinking you'd like to have more future, and perhaps have some concern about what nothingness might feel like, also not recognizing that you would not be a subject to experience any such thing called "nothingness".The earlier things are already in a nothingness, being only history. Sometimes we think of things in history, in recordings, and in images, as seeming "dead", as not existing, as eing somewhat creepy, despite being interesting for learning.

Knowing that one will be just another one of the older versions of self that need not be preserved, while you stay comfortable, why not simply think, that one would always be comfortable that one would not be preserved. If you lived past your death, the one that died would be one that you did not care to keep living. This means even you would not care about if it continued to live.

If I think about if an older version of myself died, I really feel I don't care. Like I can't concern myself with my older selves. They don't need preservation. "Why would I think that?" is also a question somewhat, although I know it is a valuable question. Think also about family members and pets, who have died or might die, and see that you might worry that they might die at some point, causing you some sadness, but notice you have not thought to preserve any of their earlier selves either. You are comfortable that all of those vanished. If you do not think they are different earlier versions, or people, watch a video of them from before. You will see they are really quite different people. They were not preserved. Even though they lived they were not preserved. Even though you lived you were not preserved. You didn't make it all the way to now.

Fears about daeth do not seem to be about self preservation either so much if this is true, and it is true. One does not want to be the present self in the future, but another self that has enjoyed other experiences. You might want to live longer to see the future, and all that will a happen, and live even better; or you may want to live into the future, to do more things, you would like to do. Or, you may be worried about what it is like to simply not have experience anymore. All of these are aided by this thinking that you did not concern yourself with preserving your earlier selves. You do not want to preserve *your current self*. As I said, you want more experince, more change, more learning, more exciment. This self vanishes with all that new living, and looking back, the older self is not wanted anymore.

When you have lived longer, and have had life experiences you enjoyed, learning moments, and various improvements, your older self is less attractie to you. You like the older upgraded you. Even if unhealthy I think. Instead of going back to the old you, I think you want to be your new you with health restored.

It seems that whatever happens then, you simply want health restored or more experience later, and even if you tried to think hard about preserving your old self or not, to try to care even though you never did, you would conclude you simply want your health restored and to have new experience and you know your older self vanished and you never cared.

I think once one sees this is true, and waits a bit, one self-modifies without trying. The minds starts to simply know it will not careabout the earlier version of itself, meaning it knows over and over again, this self, right now, doesn't matter. Over and over and over, in my life, I didn't care about my earlier self in any way relating to preservation. This would go on into the future obviously since it never was not the case. All future versions of myself are people I am willing to discard. I will just become an earlier version later. Even if I die, the one that died, is just an earlier version immediately.

There is a concept about "social alignment" I find routinely useful. This concept can be used to self correct one's thoughts that involve thinking one has value because someone else did, or because someone else does something thought good, or because some group has some apparent special value, significance or power. For example, suppose I'm from Japan. I might think myself amazing, for what Japan has accomplished technologically or scientificallyor otherwise. But I'm not Japan, I'm simply me, and I never did those things. This is a human shortcoming that is so common I don't see any way to transform society to avoid making the mistake. Like the various fallacies that exist, people will make the mistakes, but nevertheless, we know they are fallacies and involve definite error. Joining a group, or being in a group, simply does not add the value of the group which comes from the actions of others. Humanity thinks they are amazing, because they have gone to space. But you have not gone to space. Even if everyone thinks it true they are amazing bcause humans have gone to space, it has always been an error of reasoning and is only false. Life using it has some degree of insanity.

This thinking is usable in this context. When I think I want to preserve my own life, I might with nostalgia think back to my older self, and socially align, and think that on the basis of earlier values of self, those values continue to live, such that it is worth protecting myself further. However, you did not concern firstly, as argued already, yourself with your earlier varients to keep them living. Secondly you do understand that the life you are worried about seems to relate to your current self in some ways, and that you are different from your old self. So why do you think your social alignment to what you did earlier bolsters an argument about living longer?You didn't want the earlier one to live longer and actually like that it did not maintain the value. I look back at my older life too, and think, I did great things back then, and it seems I am a good person to keep going further. If there were a scientific advancement to prolong life for hundreds of years, maybe I think myself a good candidate to keep living, on good grounds admittedly for others to consider for who should keep living, that since I was very good, I should be one of the few who gets prolonged. The idea is that I would be good later and it makes sense compared to preserving people who are murderers or those who have bad traits. Decisions have to be made, and not everyone can go. So I argue that I should be one of the particiants, and I fill out a long application. But apart from the comparison with others, thinking about my own life, why do I think I'm still having the value my earlier self did that I didn't care about preserving, but moving away from, to new things. What if there were an option, choose you, or choose your earlier self. Would you choose you or the old you. I think you'd sacrifice the old you as if there was no value to consider. Only the new you is wanted. But to get into the program you socially aligned ourself with the old self to get credibility. It seems to follow you don't get to go, the old you does.

Here I have an issue not entirely recalling why I thought social alignment was really very relevant to this discussion. It has served to clarify and expand the conversation above, but there was another significant reason for including it. I will have to return later, maybe, to discuss what was not recalled, or anything new, relating to the earlier intuition, or just what's new.

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

## <a name="proof-methods-against-mathematics-as-having-reality-in-the-majority-of-envisioned-cases">Proof Methods Against Mathematics As Having Reality In The Majority of Envisioned Cases</a>

*456 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 30, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates*

Mathematics | Logic | Proof Methods 

This post is about using proofs against mathematics. Not about parts of mathematics needing mahemaical proofs to remove errors, but proofs agains the field, its goals and purposes, its larger claims regarding its own truths, and its claims about its usefulness. It is a field that is granted too much esteem and authority. Any bad mathematical results without applicaions are assumed to have future applications and therefore have value despite no application in the present. This means bad math that has no application is undecteded, and given a status that is far too elevated. People within the field of math are those who are lazy, wanting pay, and not concerned about the rigors of getting things right. What is the fastest way to demonstrate to who requires the demonstration that pay should continue. Mathematicians are trying to keep their jobs. We know this because of statistical expectations about human behavior, that amount to simply expecting human behavior to present in all groups.It follows that mathematics is largely not very good math.

This above approach does in fact indicate a statistical inductive proof that much math must be mediocre. Not all logical arguments concerning proofs against math really require studies. Do we think mathematicians will sometimes be cheaters and liars? Criminals? Sometimes very good quality people, sometimes not? Good teachers and bad ones? we know that statistics simply will show that much math really includes human mediocrities that are elsewhere. We don't have to do the proof. We know it is true.

This way of reasoning also shows that the way that mathematics defends itself is not mathematical. Mathematicians, academics and so on, will try to build a picure, that shows that mathematics has a long history of rigor, precision, and masterful reasoning. This is then used to create the expectation that the field is free from errors, and even gives the view that it is free from humans. If this was the case, surely robots are doing the work. Using mathematical reasonsing, we would not have this prescripive view of mathematics. We would have a view that remembers that human animals are doing the work. Some is very good, most and much is mediocre.

I will continue to use this theme in my work, that defenders of mathematics do not use math for the defense, but rhetoric. I will also use the them, that they have not used math to guide the field itself and its workforce: the business of math.

The above was to serve as a very good example of what I mean to do frequently in my work on mathematics. I will use math to prove things are mistaken about math as a field.

Recently I was thinking about how much mathematics pretends to go into the n-dimensions towards infinity. I argue that that part of mah, which is really the larger part, nearly inifinitely larger (which is humorous) cannot every have application, and is merely the result of using an approach that expects reapplication. It's like thinking one can use a measuring stick outside the universe, arguing that if I keep measuring that way,, it can be measured forever that way. A better example might be that one thinks one can measure thinks with no end in smallness. But if one goes infinitely small, one is measuring past what is smallest. It is simply the expectation that one can measure in many different places and without a clear end in sight to the measurement, that one can measure forever. This  happens to be false.

Math at N-dimensions believes that there even is math at n-dimensions. This math cannot evver be written about. Most math, nearly infinitely all the math, cannot be thought about and cannot be written. It is in noones mind, and can never be. Not only that it is inapplicable. It follows that almost all math is not really about reality.

There are other arguments as well I will use in the future that will support and strengtehn this arggument, and it includes what is requisite to counter expected counterarguments I can imagine.

- The idea that there is insufficient reality to host n-dimensional math.
- That there is unreality past scale. Like talking about businesses that make quadrillions of dollars, or whatever is beyond what they do or can do, or can never do. It's insane to think that because it scales, it scales forever, or that these businesses that don't exist, do exist, or exist in the structure of business as a discipline.
- That math that exists in mind and writing actually does have reality.
- Created math as being incorrect largely under the statistical assuumption about human behavior in all settings. It will include bad work.
- That math can have proofs that indicate that math is done poorly and that those maths that were not well done did not have n-dimensionality.
- That replacement ensures that whatever is no longer usable did not have n-dimensional scale. For example, Newtonianism doesn't have universal scaling. It now is useful within specific confines. The same is true with Euclidian Geometry. It fails to apply everywhere it thought it would apply. It did not have n-dimensionality regarding those applications, but earlier it was thought it did.
- N-dimensionalities of applicatiton, usefulness, testing, instrumentality, and so on can be used against not only the field, but against work within the field as meta-mathematical disproof.
- Math that will survive into the distant future is small and of that math it will be confined in utility, indicating inductively there is no inifinities it claims it has.

These collectively provide a novel way of thinking about the field of math including proofs and disproofs. Also, while I used the word meta-mathematical, I don't think of it as being in a separate meta domain which is absurd to me. It is simply more mathematics that engulfs, discusses what is larger around math work, and applies to what is within it as well.These arguments will really be damaging to certain perspectives of the value of mathematics, and will damage certain concepts used within mathematics as well. It cannot be thought that there is a separate meta domain in which these areguments are merely philosophical. They are philosophical and they have application. This would be real philosoophy that math and science, contra mathematics that has no application and fails to be good philosophy as a result.

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

## <a name="activism-does-not-exhibit-enough-voters-to-respond-to-oftentimes-since-minority-even-with-large-turnout">Activism Does Not Exhibit Enough Voters To Respond To Oftentimes Since Minority Even With Large Turnout</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Voting As An Inferior System | Activism | Relationships | Government

To Add

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

## <a name="the-rate-of-solving-and-learning-needed-to-replace-superstitions">The Rate of Solving And Learning Needed to Replace Superstitions</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Learning | Relationships | Human Shortcomings

To Add

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

## <a name="people-are-more-trustworthy-on-tasks-where-problem-solving-is-really-low-or-none">People Are More Trustworthy On Tasks Where Problem Solving Is Really Low Or None</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Relationships | Truth and Honesty | Human Shortcomings

You can trust people a it more where the level of problem solving needed is really low or none. Where the problem solving is higher, the other will rely on recollection, and society and them both were unable to solve or mutually train a solution. An intelligent person, will see the defects in these recollections quickly. This is useful because it means your social interractions won't provide olutiosn of interest the way it is promised sometimes in education via ideas of the value of socialization. Where problems are harder (i.e. a solution is desirable) answers will be recollections. These will be poor in quality. This partly explains dissatisfaction with cultural offerings to solve even basic problems. It explains why in hisory very poor answers were thought correct. They were social falsities easily recollected durin the absence of problem solving. this is current state too.

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

## <a name="that-people-appear-to-use-memory-in-the-place-of-problem-solving-in-explanation-Of-some-false-group-thoughts">That People Appear To Use Memory In The Place of Problem Solving In Explanation Of Some False Group Thoughts</a>

*450 Wanattomians, Friday, October 24, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

False Beliefs | Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality | Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought

There seems to be among the population a reater reliance on stored memory as providing solutions to problems (consistent with the "Availability Heuristic), while they are unable to solve problems, or when they are able to find other thinking that was partly complete, in progress, or heard from others, that did not come to mind as easily. The idea here is that when problems cannot be solved, or when a subject seems to hard to continue analyzing, there seems a preference for what is simply remembered as applicable that has a social origin from cultuure, friends, or family. This includes false thinking that is old and easily remembered, that has not yet been circumvented or replaced by better newere solutions. These false thoughts, being social substitutes for finding new solutions independently, are those that also create commonalities between people. Having these commonalities, there is greater trust in the recollections as answers while there is an inability to analyze. The heuristic to trust others regarding their advice and information is extremely useful in somce contexts, but not in others. All superstitions and mysteries, and fictions from religions, folk wisdom, and so on, are existing partly because of this. The emphasis here though, is not that people will rely on what exists versus what does not exist regarding solutions and attempts at solutions; instead, it is about the fact that what they will use will come from memory and not from active thinking, analyzing or fast problem solving. This entails people are more unreflective than we think and are more likely to simpy rely on memory when making decisions. Using false teachings that are remembered quickly creates a feeling of agreement with others, and comfort with being protected by society even if that is illusory. One is not on ones own any longer trying to solve what one is ill equipped to solve. But this is not an active analyses happening, choosing between this older information and new real solutions, it's simply relying on what exists in memory already. Those who are much more creative and adept at problem solving like myself have a better chance at often replacin false ideas and are more aware of their falsity and the extent of their presense in culture. Intelligence results in a truer foreign animal.

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

## <a name="the-option-to-use-multiple-money-systems-at-the-same-time-for-different-purposes-may-not-have-had-sufficient-consideration)">The Option To Use Multiple Money Systems At The Same Time For Different Purposes May Not Have Had Sufficient Consideration</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Economics | Relationships | Consumerism

This is not about having alternative ways to pay and transact, like using cash, credit, gift cards, or other payment that roughly utilizes dollars or some dollar equivalent. This is more about having separate money systems entirely for different purposes, maybe with a goal I've been thinking of, of moving some businesses out of money, partly. As certain items become increasingly impossible to remove from the market and extremely pervasive, what I call "market harvestable goods", that I count as "free for the minimal cost", there could be a transition to requiring no payment at all. Other systems could continue to use cash or cash equivalents, perhaps for regular goods and services. Some industries may benefit from not using this kind of money exchange, like in health care potentially.

I'm not really certain what is best, but am exploring the idea and considering possibilities. It is strange to use money too often for too many basics, and there may be more optimal systems that use other kinds of money for other kinds of transactions so as to not link values that are better separated.

Actually, regaining some of my usual conclusiveness on similar subjects, I'm certain what exists is suboptimal. What is more optimal later will simply not be this system, and not being this system, will have another transaction configuration and approach, that will likely be simplified in some ways, made more complex in others.

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

## <a name="live-before-it-is-too-late-is-strange-advice-for-anyone-who-plans-to-simply-always-be-well-with-a-good-strategy">Live Before It Is Too Late, Is Strange Advice For Anyone Who Plans To Simply Always Be Well With A Good Strategy</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Another Ethic | Advice From Others

People have these ideas about putting off certain life events and experiences until later, the prospect of regretting what one did not do, and actually regretting in old age. This is so absurd given what one should actually be doing is ensuring htat one lives well given one's conditions in the duration of life and not just in periods of life. In that case one simply did enough of what one enjoyed. Strangely the better advice is very easy, and not difficult to see, making it strange that such wisdom-impoverished advice would be needed or given. 

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

## <a name="i-didnt-see-older-versions-of-myself-until-recently">I Didn't See Older Versions of Myself Until Recently</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Living Autobiography | Videography | Relationships

Photo taking was somewhat common in my life. In youth, I think photo albums held more value than pictures today, and people had some worries about protectnig their albums. But photos were less, and were more costly. The activity had less ease. One had to buy film and get film processed into photos on photo-paper. Later in life, and early for the rest of consumers, I adopted digital photography. Many pictures on this Book and Journal are from my older and first digital cameras. I took many photos, but seldom took videos. Videos used a lot of storage, and at that time, there was less confidence about video taking. The less costly and better understood way was to simply do photos.

While I do have some old videos, many I have not looked at in a long time. I focused on storing those videos, rather than looking at them, over the decades. A few times I watched them again, but not extremely long after the time I took them. Strangely, after having taken so many photos, and videos, and having photos taken of me in my youth, I had never seen an old video of myself that showed me an earlier version I no longer remembered, until recently. I did not see videos of myself as a child, or of myself as a teen or early adult. It wasn't until I saw an old video captured in rememberence of an old friend who was deceased, did I see a version of myself significantly younger, and since now I'm 44, and at the time i was 26, two decades had elapsed for a video I never looked at. Without that wait, still all videos would have seemed to be somewhat current. That is one of the values of childhood and teen videos, because even in early adulthood, one can witness that one has developed to an extent that the earlier version of self is not the same self. It could be learned at an earlier age, that one is not the same later as earlier. I knew this, but didn't feel it as palpably until seeing this video from when i was 26 at 44. I didn't watch it long, but it encouraged reflection about how we put our current minds in older selves. I am not the same person I was.

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

## <a name="the-legitimizing-type-of-news-as-a-minimum-legitimization-of-all-television-and-some-other-media">The Legitimizing Type of News as a Minimum Legitimization of All Television and Some Other Media</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Relationships | Entertainment | The Value of Social Platforms

It may be that much news is actually paid for, in normal ways of making payment, and abnormal ways through inside relationships, but within the news, there still appears to be some mminimal sharing, that is supposed to be actual news, but can be something pretended to be needed information, and this is all used I hink to justify in an important way the legitimacy of a media channel that has been largely forced on people unwittingly with voluntary purchasing leading to habits and automations that were already anticipated and have become too inalterable.

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

## <a name="why-would-anything-like-you-or-look-at-you-more-than-briefly">Why would anything like you, or look at you more than briefly?</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Relationships | Attention Seeking | Marketing | Fame | The Value of Social Platforms

By this I don't mean to say, that one should thinkk oneself in a bad situation, being unlikeable or being someone tha will not ever receive attention. This is about empowering one to not care about being liked or about getting attention, and not in a simple juvenile way, that is still useful. What is the reason why one would think that others ought to be attending to you? Why would they be liking you? What if, like an animal, one simply enjoyed one's environment, while all the other animals, largely acted separately. Among other people, they can do as they do. What is this additional desire that others should spend time liking and attending?

There is an unhelpful desire for fame that exists I think. In our culture it is so pervasive, to be seeking fame, that ones brain becomes too internally motivated by how one's behavior will create, alter, or destroy attention. How it will cahnge perceptions of oneself in others. Meanwhile, many people have learned to be unconcerned about others, and really do not think much about what others think about them, and do not seem attention seeking.

I have been thinking about this more, as I've been trying to reduce greatly what I call social elicitations, which are thoughts in the mind eliciting other thoughts, explanations, plans of behavior, reactions, etc... that were originally related to teachings received in the culture about gaining popularity or creatinging and maintaining good attitudes in others about oneself. In some ways this is useful, since gaining attention is needed to make financial transactions happen, but most of the thinking related to these social elicitations is not about transactions in my experience.

So I have sought to separate marketing practice which is regrettable but wanted still to make sales, from what is less wanted, like getting attention for praise or popularity, or to minimize negative thoughts and reactions in others. My writing serves to provide a good example of the difference. I want to write, to further myself more than I want to write, to gain popularity and persuade others. I would still want a large amount of book sales, if that were possible, but those book sales now would not be for gaining attention, or popularity, or to be loved, but now to earn some income and have further justification of the activity. It also provides funding opportunities. I also separate out, some expected positive benefit in others. while that is an objective, it is not the social reactions they have, or anything related to frienship building, or getting more love and attention, that is motivating me to do it.


Editing, and the way of writing, has to have some plan about having not too negative a reaction, but freedom of expression is at odds with caring too much about that too, and what benefits self and others is perhaps sometimes more blunt and honest expression, and especially a real and serious and enduring effort into subject matters that don't receive enough treatment.

Hisorically, I did like the idea of maybe becoming a famous author, but now, after many writings and thoughts relating to this subject, I think it mistaken.

Let's go further with this subject though. More fundamentally, why do you think you need others to like you? Why do you need them to attend to you, more fundamentally?

Isn't it a bit strange to think that they would attend to you ever, or like you? Look at you? There is a weirdness in that. What if nobody looked at you or heard you, and only thought of other things? That seems innocuous to me. To think they must attend, or must like you, is srange, and puts an obligation on them in a way, and an enforcement through oneself. These aren't the right words for this and I have to think about this more, but to think "I will do these various things, and I will be famous, having attention and love from people" is like saying, I'm going to do something or some things that will force others to like me and be interested in me. To look and listen for a period, maybe a large number of times. How is this supposed to happen, if one does not force something in front of them to see that hey might like? Is there some obligation for them to look at some thing? Thinking philosophically, we could say there is a problem of fame, in that in a scenario respective of their attention with no obligations about where to be interested, look and listen, for their free choice, we have this idea that they even *can* or *would* ever look at us. Imagine everyone really is just thinking in their minds all the time and enjoying natural surroundings. When and how do you get your fame, if they have the freedom to keep doing that. The conundrum I'm creating artificially is that they potentially will never attend, or like because they have not attended to like or dislike anything, and that there is no way *ever* to have their attention. To get their attention is like to force them. And to expect that they would not just forever remain in the detached but pleasand mode of thinking I'm talking about, one has the idea that there is something akin to an obligation to eventually listen and look. In advance of hem seeing you, how would they know that you are the thing to attend to and not something else?

Fumandamentally, I think it really is marketing efforts that force others to eventually have to see what others want to share. This is repulsive in many ways, but in any case is at odds with the idea that people have free attention.

For any individual who might want to get away from the "I want to be famous" mentality, or "I want more attention and to be loved", is to think that one really may not have any claim to anyone's attention, and that it is somewhat weird to think they would *ever look at you or care about you* or anyone else in particular, given their freedoms to do whatever they want. There is a beauty in not wanting them to attend too, maybe wanting them to attend to what makes them happy perpetually instead of oneself. I think it will also help one plan one's attention, thinking oneself not having any obligations to satisfy anyone's need for relationships or fame. Put in ratio, even the person who gets a lot of interest, has nearly zero interest from the whole population. What is the difference between having little love from ten in eight billion, and one in eight billion (yourself).

My primary interst in this posting relates to my self-development to get further along in reducing social elicitations in the mind, and while I have had success, I think there is more I can do. The other major interest, is in this philosophical conundrum that is interesting, that does seem to help explain and debunk ideas people have about relationships in general.

The writing here is for myself without much expectation of a like or a view, but with an expectation later that I will market materials for sales with some a view to helping others and myself too in various ways. They don't need to attend however and neither do I, and regrettably, the method to get the transactions still uses some force within marketing. I think to a minimal extent this is justifiable, but is still an area in which others are responsible for making changes so there are better ways to justify attention having for sales. The solution will be after my death so I will simply market in a reasonable way given this information and these thoughts.


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

## <a name="questioning-is-better-on-simple-tasks-and-simple-subjects-but-poor-oftentimes-otherwise-in-contradiction-with-prejudices-of-education">Questioning Is Better On Simple Tasks and Simple Subjects, But Poor Oftentimes Otherwise, In Contradiction With Prejudices of Education</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Learning | Question Formation 

Question formation is really much more poor than one would think given what people say in education. Teachers want students to actively be exploring and investigating and they do this with questions, and so it is said that their questions are "good questions" no matter what they are, but this is only encouragement. But before making this post a mere quibble with education providers, and everyone else who just adopted a phrase to live by, I want to talk about what question formation as an analytical tool that can be refined. Thinking that all questions are good, one forgets that very intelligent questions still have to work on what their method of investigation is, and have to often change course to remain focused on what is wanted to be learned, or what might be better to learn. Many questions turn out to not really be useful. There is a range in question quality. Questions are sentences, so there is a degree of quality about them like sentences. Questions can reflect poor beliefs, and an inability to probe and get at new information, or questions can be smarter, increasingly precise in what is explored, until answers that are significant are had. An intelligent question thinks about a problem and makes better questions along the way. Some have biasedly said that question formation is fundamental to the process of problem solving, and I think that is definitely false and have wrote about that in the past, and think questioning often not needed, but questions can be useful, and for those that use them, they don't want poor questions or ones false patthing their direction. Bad hypotheses are not useful in science, if they are really bad, they need to be rejected instantly, or very fast, to substitute others instead. For example, if I did not understand gases, and wondered how it was that ballons could be filled, and formed questions that would lter arise in a theory about gases consistent with science, I would reject any hypothesis that lazily asked which diety was involved or wondered why a particular diety thought it worthwhile. Some fools and religiounists will take a moment to say that balloons fill with air because their diety is a nice guy, and is good. This is absurd and requires immediate rejection. No all questions are good ones and what is obvious is there is a scale in quality. The scale in quality relates to quality of people and their minds, and level of maturity. Religious questioning of phenomena that includes mindsets that think about intentions of dieties, angels, dead relatives, and about things like miracles, and intelligent designs, are really foolish and immature ways of thinking. The more one is aware of this, the more rapidly one identifies an asker of this sort of question to be an immature person or person of low intelligence.

Finally, we cannot expect the handicapped to have very good quality questions.

Things differ a bit when regular tasks that are simple and are performed by everyone are considered. An average person, or a handicapped person, wanting to understand a simple recipe, might ask well about parts of the recipe. How long should this be cooked? Do I have all the ingredients I need? And so on. Similarly regarding mechanical and other work tasks. These are not mysterious and don't cause them to foolishly have questions pertaining to supernaturalism. Instead all is natural, and all is more easily understood to involve simple causalities. The child, normal adult, and handicapped individual, all behave not too unlike an intelligent person in these conditions, and behavior begins to appear more similar between people and less different. All seem together aware that natural question and answer, and observation and testing is what is useful in this setting, but what is missed is that this is useful in all settings.

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

## <a name="a-problem-with-human-freedom-in-the-present-day-relates-to-distances-for-which-there-is-unbroken-private-terriory-that-one-must-traverse-before-finding-relaxation-and-exploration">A Problem With Human Freedom In The Present Day Relates to Distances For Which There Is Unbroken Private Terriory, That One Must Traverse Before Finding Relaxation and Exploration</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Governments | Homelessness and Wealthy Camping | Outdoors and Adventure | Environments | Higher Order Attention

Earlier, I discussed the subject matter of having too much distance to cover to obtain sleep. If one has a long commute to work, and one becomes tired, sick, or fatigued suddenly, one has too much distance to cover to find a legal way to rest. One drives a long pathway, crossing much territory, to find a small coffin sized surface area to lay down. This is an absurdity in life of today, that one does not have the freedom to use land around even for simple recovery if one is feeling unwell, and since sleep is a fundamental human activity, it is odd that delays and transportation requirements exist to find a simple spot. Millions of acres are traversed for some to find a place to sleep. This is also an issue for the homeless, and the traveler. If one has arrived at an airport late at night, distant from a hotel, one has found there to be a severe problem with having to go too far to sleep.

This is not a small problem. I will not here persuade that it is as large as I think it is, thinking it obvious to anyne who can think honestly and intelligently about the topic. One can find food well, water somewhat well, bathooms poorly, but sleep very poorly. In some places free water is not available though. As more is reduced in each area, well being is reduced. Sleep has been reduced to minimums when one considers one must have a vehicle to arrive at a bed past the horizon to have sleep.

These issues are not only about sleep, but about enjoyment, recreation, and exploration too, and the cause is a combination of legal rules and of there being large unbroken uninterrupted swathes of public territories, that one must travserse in long lines between and past. In some places, this issue is very severe but in most it is already extreme. Even amongst public lands one feels one is not, I remember driving in mexico a very long distance, from Arizona down the Baja Peninsula, and there were very long distances in which one could hardly pull one's car over, and the road had the stranges curbsides, that were very tall and sharply angled, making it very unattractive to drive over for risks to tires and vehicles. The goal seemed to be to dissuade people from pulling over and tring to pull off the road. Along the same road, were almost no intersections or turns, so one was actually stuck in a channel going down the road for many kilometers! If one felt ill, needed to sleep, wanted to sleep, wanted to pull over and hike, explore, or see the countryside, one could not do it. All the land around was seemingly under great control, and the enjoyment of seeing what was around was greatly reduced, by the unkind reminder, that one was stuck in a narrow groove driving down the road, maximally unwelcomed to be anywhere else, while everything around seemed to be everything else. The groove of the road is nothing compared the territory! These were in natural locations too, where elsewhere, one would look feeling some possibility that one could go there, that one's current space blends with free space, and that one is on the road but also in nature together. Here it was not like this.

People have complained of fences having a similar effect, and I agree in many cases.

It seems there has been a serious mistake in societies design of space and its divisions. The constraint is very clear. The freedom associated is not so clear, but that is what is touted by some as being almost absolute. If one ventures to find ways to sleep in public, explore more readily, testing the freedoms claimed to be had, one finds that one is at risk of the law, and in ambiguities of the legal and law enforcement system, but what seems clear is that most places are places one will expect to not know whether one can go and one can expect that the land probably is private and has rules around sleeping and exploration. What remains is to find out what the freedoms are but there are still ambiguities, so some give up and simply cease or excessively reduce camping, free hiking, and natural exploration.

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

## <a name="belief-that-a-religion-has-total-total-topical-coverage-and-the-propensity-to-think-anything-heard-from-other-advice-givers-relates-to-something-authoritative-in-ones-own-religion">Belief That A Religion Has Total Total Topical Coverage and The Propensity To Think Anything Heard From Other Advice Givers Relates to Something Authoritative In One's Own Religion</a>

*449 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 23, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Relationships | Making New Religions | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings

Some people think when they hear advice from others that their "religion" covered it, and think their religion "whole" in its comprehensiveness, and complete regarding treatment of other subjects. Really, religion is not whole, auhoritative, or comprehensive, especially in its organization. What it does is try to cover a lot, try to be what people think about when they have a variety of perceived needs. The works of religion are not very organized and not at all scientific in growh. They are more of collections of writings, and outside of the writings, locations and activities, that are not really blending well as they might think. When one brings up a topic that a religious person thinks has coverage in their religion, they do seem to mistakenly think it is their "religion" as an entity that covers it. But the above shows that it is not really a unified entity, but a collection of sorts. The rest of a religion cannot be credited because of an inclusion in a loose collection. What relates is what relates. For example, a specific idea about a personal rule to follow in secular life, or just life without religion, speaking to oneself, may relate to a religious writing that covers the same subject matter, but what relates is just that one writing and the thought. There is a relationship. What is in the collection of the religion is a writing that does not have great connecivity with other parts of the work. It's added in like how a person adds new rules or pieces of knowledge. So the religion is not really invoked when one calls to mind the specific writing that relates, just that writing does. Just that small earlier addition to the religion. But the religious thinker believes oftentimees it simply credits their religion, which is their religion as a whole. For example, if the idea in that writing applied to that part of life really did have some merit, they would think the other parts of the religion credited. That's like thinking that if geometry did something well, that game theory has been credited. That is not the case, and Mathematics as a whole has not been credited either.Only the part of geometry was, wherever it had applicability, and not everywhere else. If I have good traits, and I give a piece of advice to someone, only the parts  of the nervous system that relate are credited. I may think myself "great in total" for thinking something useful, but what does my sportsmanship and athleticism have to do with the advice given, and if I'm a person who has other bad traits, why are those traits being credited, now as being good? Those are not good traits for as long as those traits are there and are expressed.

From this we can see we have to split ourselves into specific pieces and areas of relevance to undersand our merits aright. Sometimes, these merits do blend in with some other traits and parts of the mind that gave rise to them and do work together as a system, in a way that is true, versus a collection head. Religion is a collection head more than it is a cohesive and systematic approach.

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

## <a name="the-extent-That-one-has-changed-is-largely-observable-and-measurable">The Extent That One Has Changed Is Largely Observable and Measurable</a>

*443 Wanattomians, Friday, October 17, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Learning | Resumes | Behavioral Architecture | Velocity of Significance and Ideation

As I spoke about in The Velocity of Significance and Ideation, one can measure a person's intellect by the advancements made in their productions and productivity which exhibits deltas in mental development. Apart from the measurement of intelligence and creativity, one can measure the amount of change one makes which one could call progress, even when not apparent if it is learning, by observing their behavior, speech, environmental changes of their influence, and other productions. Sometimes it may be hard to see what has changed completely if one has observed a difference because some small advancements relate to bigger changes in thinking and depend sometimes on earlier improvements that seem unrelated (because people manage next actions based on prior completions, which means later completions that have little relation to earlier behaviors still depended n those earlier behaviors or changes in those behaviors to make it possible to schedule or have time or motivation to act, or because a person has a sequence in mind when performing activities over time), but we can still use these to get an idea as to extent of change with error in mind, and compare it with stasis. Stasis is more obviously going to happen with people who are not changing, learning, self or environment altering much. This would be exhibited in lower intelligences, where substantial change would more likely come from outside influence, and we do have to check for changes due to context and situations.

In some ways these observations seem simple enough in the idea that people change and those changes can be seen and quantified. But there are novelties in this type of thinking apart from that simple statement. One can ask "does anyone use this in practice?" and I think largely they do not. But if they are wanting progress in their lives, and are advocates and teachers of development, and are learners, why do they not simply survey their behaviors, environments and productions to self-estimate their improvements. They simply do not do this, and I think few at all do. This is an innovation of the Personal Form and the work on the Life Categories.

Obtuse or instant deniers to this would think again perhaps that people do do this, and I'm mistaken. I don't think it takes much as far as recollection, experience, and observation though, to see that nobody undertakes the efforts of the life categories or the personal form, and nobody is extensively doing what I am discussing, and since it is a simple idea, the simple expressions about this subject would be found in culture; but I'm aware they are absent. Instead what we have is focus on parts of personal advancement instead of the whole, and goals that relate to specific wants and desires for progress that require narrow concentration. My original intent behind doing the Personal Form and Life Categories *was because of this issue in myself too*, because advancement in one or two areas was insufficient and there was a difficulty of time management in relation to trying to self-advance more comprehensively. People tend to pick what to focus on and while they become very good on what they chose, they have difficulty advancing in many areas. This is why people tend to dismiss some especially great advancements as being simple specializations, even though those advancements were monumental or especially excellent. People will say the person hasn't advanced elsewhere and that they are not generally excellent. While I do not much like the harmful intent behind this way of thinking, there is in this writing a view that is not extremely dissimilar except would be used more fairly, and it's that a person's general progress can be measured in total to compare individuals. The more excellent people would be those who are potentially more generally quantifiably excellent on these measures. This does not rule out alternative paths, only that quantitatively it would be meaningful if someone advanced more generally. A simple point would make this clear, and it is that if someone was an olympian in all domains, intelligent and professor level in all areas of inquiry, and having beauties, athleticisms, and social excellences too, it would be impossible to deny that they are the greatest specimen of all, regarding *specific excellences* and total excellences. Oddly, I think some would want to reduce a person having very extensive advantages, but the honest truth is if someone is better everytime you check, and you tink in terms of comparisons of people in better as worse on specific areas, then obviously those specific areas exhibit excellences but there are many of them.

These comments really are about the sad state of human thinking, since I would not have to say such things if others were behaving well and were able to honestly admire and appraise people who really are generally very progressed.

There are more points in which this kind of thinking is significant and unusual. If one has not begun to think about how one would generally advance, one will not have a plan of action that is sensical given this obseration. I will simply state that for now as an obvious. Also, I do know that people who do well in one domain really do need to advance other domains that relate. For example, an athlete has to time manage, eat well, perhaps cook with discipline, know how to shop as a consumer for the right foods, observe and study competition and models to see how they can advance, need to be rapidly critical and honest about their own behaviors, need to have a decent social environment and situational commitments, and so on. There are *many* relationships, and so great advancement in one area does imply carrying along advancements in other ares. But it is not the case that this relates to quantifiable excellences in each of the life categories, it implies that some level of advancement creating the specific advancement were possible. Some are confused in just how hard it is to achieve a more universal excellence, and one measures it not by seeing what others display of themselves while they are trying to get high quality judgments somewhat manipulatively (it is always manipulative to a degree even without malintent), but by actually attending to the minutia of one's actual differences in life behavior, productions, situation, habits, etc... which largely can be seen. Even if privacy is occlusive from scientific measurement of some people, it is not in one's own life out of view, so one is able when one works on one's own self-improvement to measure each (time limited) and see waht advancements have occured. I found with the Personal Form that the effort of daily data collection is very difficult, and must be manually undertaking for learning reasons. In the future AI may be able to track this in parallel but for now one has to see the changes and collect the information oneself.

I think here I didn't want to go too far in that direction of detail though, since my main thinking was more closely like periodic appraisals or retrospectives, that repeatedly see where one is versus where one has been. If one is already understnding that one heeds to be comprehensive in a way like the life categories, then one *will* have much that will allow for estimating growth more generally, actually with an estimate as to one's total advancement and learning as a biological organism, or human.

This intuition came, after thinking a bit about a recent week of laziness and recovery from exercise and disinterest in travel, which may be considered a period of stagnation, regarding other areas of work, in which I'm more frequently routinely active. There is little of this period of less activity that is not still pleasant. I really enjoy sleep and relaxation, and focusing on a few things sometimes instead of more. At the time of the insight though, I was aware that I'd be moving towards greater activity again, and that is something I want, and I do sometimes still compare that to the present state, while I quickly remind myself successfully, that I do like this restful decrease in action periodically. But thinking about what is next with more energy, I did want somewhat to have alternative actions, but this is juxtaposition that is brief. Also part of the reminder, was that my actual situation has changed in many ways and I did not yet estimate these changes. Even where it seems there would be less, or that much seems the same. I have switched from a laptop to a new computer system that took considerable time and preparation to create. Many steps for the transition, and it is now successful. The way I work is different. Also, there are changes in my mentality as to how I will do work later, regarding a new area of interest in microcontrollers and so on. There are numerous changes in approach to many domains of thinking and activity in this update. My workouts have changed very slighly, thinking recently that I want those to e largely automated, but that too is a difference, and now as that is automated, I've become more interested in gaining new skills. I'm very good at quickly gaining new skills, but have not interestedly directed myself to having new athleticisms, and new ways of playing. The skills I have in mind are not work skills, but skills related to fun, enjoyment, and improvement of athletics. Learning jiu-jitsu, wrestling, or boxing more formally, and developing my whistling skill to be more instrumental, and connected with written music. These will be future developments, and the current development is mental which is needed to preceed a planned approach. There were many other improvements too. Seeing this, I realized I could easily survey and quantify my life advancements. As I state it again here it seems simple, but the significance relates to the fact that others don't do this much, and while I have done this hisorically with the Personal Form and Life Categories, *there are still ways* I do not do this. I have not periodically quantified my deltas on all domains. This is something I am sure I will be doing in the future. Typically before, with the attention management process, 3-day AMP process, and so on, shown in Architecure and Attentional Architectutre, relates to feeling and seeing change, but not necessarily measuring the change. I want change, I want progress, I actively track, set new goals, work piecemeal for larger total develpment, but I have not done the periodic quanitificaiton of deltas that aggregate into my total difference.

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

## <a name="slow-actions-in-which-you-are-artificially-prevented-from-fast-movement-and-doing-other-things-indicating-some-illusion-as-to-slowness">Slow Actions In Which You Are Artificially Prevented From Fast Movement, And Doing Other Things Indicating Some Illusion As To Slowness</a>

*443 Wanattomians, Friday, October 17, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

There are some areas of artificial prevention in life during this era that create some irritation about not being allowed to learn or improve more rapidly. There are many examples in which the nations and governments and other institutions create obstacles deliberately simply to make them earn more while making others move slowly. An area that is especially annoying to me, and to others too, is network speeds and data transmission rates which are very poor for this level of technical advancement. Network providers and computer manufacturers are setting directions for impreovment that are slow, and have almost inoperability at low cost, and only decent operability at high cost. In other nations, such stagnations did not necessarily exist, as I recall South Korea had very good internet, while the speed of networks in the United States was very poor. Anyways, this irritatingly creates numerous times in which a person tries to plan to find alternative pathways to get better, cheaper service, or free service, or to decide if spending more is worth it. Too much thought is against an artificial and deliberate boundary set by companies, organizations and governments.

After some time, I have arrived at a period in which my use of these technolgoies was revealed to myself to be largely unimportant, and that I could scale down use. My regular use is much smaller now. Being smaller, some realities about progress became more clear, and hat progression would be directed towards not trying to scale at a rate that companies expected users to. Instead, simple use of computing, entertainment, and so on was a path for personal advancement that was also consistent with making all this easier. But there are plenty of others who have interests that do not allow for this.

Nevertheless, there are silly personal improvements I was able to make, that indicate that slowness is not as prohibitive as thought even in some artificial domains if where it is slow there is a parallel activity, or activity while waiting, that simply moves more quickly.

This is really obvious after some small amount of time thinking about it, but bringing it into personal use immediately is not especially easy. If one is good at changing focus, has plenty else to do that one has interest in, and is able to shift away and be motivated alternatively, then more work happens to get done even while there are fake obstructions braking on pace.

To give a simple but silly example, when I would sometimes try to upload or download some wariting or asset between my local computer and my server, I'd want to wait, until the presently thought about activity and goal was completed. There is some sense in waiting, because then one is more aware when it has been completed and one did not forget to complete it. Forgetting is some risk transitioning to other tasks. But simply moving to something else to do more work reveals that oftentimes the slow process simply completes at a pace *that is still faster than one ever needed* and one gets more dne by having time away from a frusrating task.

Some in this is simply what many knew already and that is one can "multitask" and that "one simply does something else while waiting for something to complete" but there is more to this than these obvious strategies, although I think those are good strategies.

This is about optimizing one's movements while finding that what is frusrating often is not. Also, if there is some network limitation, this is still faster many times than waiting for mail. If there was something to pass along the network, and it took a week, that would be the time it took to mail it. A few hundred characters of text, passed bit by bit over he network, one minute at a time, may still be faster than the mail was. But whether or not this is specifically helpful depends on personal flexibility, and since I have the flexibility, it is a good time to be less concern about networks.

There is also the potential to wait until ne is at the location for hand delivery, or to simplly have it there. This is the offline work strategy, where one does the work disconnectd from the network, and instead of uploading it for use later to a server or the cloud for download at another time and place, one simply has it still and has redundancies.

And here we can see here are difficulties in having a comprehensive srategy for behavioral optimization involving switching from one task to another, or using another strategy altogether, in accomplishing various goals, where there are artificial obstructions. isn't this the kind of thing that many old people would complain of, about all that has to be done to work around and navigate social activities while faced with silly infrastucture issues?
So there are sitll issues despite what I said above.

One part of the strategy would still be that when one is doing something and is blocked, one can move to something else, sometimes to discover, the obstacle didn't slow things down as much as one might think.

Consider this point as well, that if one had to wait four hours for an email to send, that the send rate is the same, if it was just one email to send? In fact, if you don't have to send another email for two weeks, then the send rate is still ne per two weeks, on either approach. So here we see again, the slow task can be nearly equivalent to the fast one.

I believe there are more illusions involved but I will have to write about those later.

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

## <a name="a-more-absolute-commitment-or-decision-about-behavior-makes-a-more-clear-division-between-oneself-and-others-that-can-be-useful">A More Absolute Commitment or Decision About Behavior Makes a More Clear Division Between Oneself and Others That Can Be Useful</a>

*443 Wanattomians, Friday, October 17, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Higher Order Attention | Another Ethic | Life Categories | Personal Form

Suppose one decided that one did not want to have sugar. For a long time I did not have any sugar, for a period of about 20 years. But more recently, I began enjoying sugar more. No longer wnting to have sugar, I was reflecting on how more absolutely refraining from sugar is consistent with my morality (to be absolute where it makes sense), and that, when I did not have sugar or deserts, I was unaware that I could somehow be limited. I simply didn't care about sugar and it didn't effect my life in any negative way. Probably in positive ways. So I wanted again, to forget entirely about sugar.

This absolutism is helpful because behaviorally one automates away from it and there is no decision making burden any longer. If one likes sugar, but only some amount of sugar that is less than what is desired, then there is an issue in that one will decide wrongly sometimes, suboptimally, and that one will have to decide again and again either way, about when to have it and how much to have. This is eliminated by absolutism of just having none ever. I is forgotten.

But socially there are benefits, and these too lead to moral excellences. Sugar, involves a strange market, an artificial one, that really wants repeat customers, and has wanted them since the beginning. People strongly desire sugar, so, it is a good way to profit. One convinces them to not be absolute about not having it, until their indecision becomes a problem, and they simpy become regular consumers, thinking it a life improvement. In some ways it is, but I think it is net-negative. "Voting" as a consumer, for preferred life, one distances from these strange organizations, and absolutely stops providing any funding to them. These funds may be saved, by you, and perhaps being a "good person" it is better you have this money, than an odd CEO, who is unconcerned about diseases and obesity, and harming new offspings. So as a consumer, you seem to be morally upright, and your responsibilities go down, being absolutely disconnected. You are no longer "responsible" for the continued harmfulness of the industry (although I am a determinist, there is some meaningfulness still to these statements).

Also, slavey involved things like sugar cain productions. Why do I want to receive the bestowings of a loving sugar enterprise, built up from slaves, to reduce costs, to present day deals? I got my deals from the enslaved parents of kids having difficulties still? Their lives feel less valuable to them and others?This too I enjoy separating from a bit.

If one went industry to industry one could see there is a trend towards becoming an Amish person, full of wholesome life activities and habits. I use this illustratively, and don't think a life of religious lies a good one; but I do think a life of absolutism around what one thinks is healthy and unharmful does help, and very often it is feasilble and does not "take away from life".

In the above ways, an absolutist commitment to an alternative behavior can make one more socially separate from others, in a way that makes it clear there is moral superiority. But this is not the only separation from others I'm intersted in. It makes it clear in many ways these other people are not worth being with, and so, having a clear opportunity, one separates from them. The cocaine industry or other illicit drug industries would provide better examples than separation from sugar eating, to make this clear. Does on ewant to spend ime with drug abusers? One way to stay away from drug and sugar abusers and supporters of dangerous and deadly instusties is to not do cocaine and other drugs, or eat brownies and cookies.

If one goes into the meat industry one finds that there are perhaps very few people to relate to, who are free of guilt enough, to not want to heighten the guilt until it vanishes as "doing the right thing".

One might think, if using this reason too often, to be "consistent", instead of just improving here and there, one might have to reject all people, who would have one or several areas of behavior, that would call for the same absolute separation. I would argue to this, that all are absolutely separated from everyone, according to the views they have about "being alne in the world" that I don't necessarily agree with fully, but partly, and that we are absolutely separate from the others, because we cannot know all the billions of people. I am at this time, only connected with a small number of people and this is deliberate, but even when I had many connections, there was an absolute boundary from everyone else who were impossible connections.

What is the domain of possible connections in this small life? A few friends, family members, acquaintances? It's plain this is a small number, compared to the whole. Why are you so absolute concerning the whole? Well it's because you can only be that way. But in your occasional arrogance, you do go further to dislike them.

If one became really really moral, rejecting others opportunistically as one simply refined other activities, one would arrive at a small number of contacts.

Not too different from what one does anyways right?

If I switched to a religion that was zealous and irrational, having a few thousand adherenets, I would suddently perhaps have many friends and not just a few. It grows when you're worse! Sometimes.

The point is that people are obviously limited regarding their networks and are already selective, and if changing method of selectivity, are bounded by their possible network size, and would likely still find friend matches, if they were wanted.

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

## <a name="while-deciding-or-planning-an-inferior-substitute-to-myself-is-not-an-optimal-advice-giver-and-cant-think-that-way">While Deciding Or Planning, An Inferior Substitute To Myself Is Not An Optimal Advice Giver And Can't Think That Way</a>

*442 Wanattomians, Thursday, October 16, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Relationships | Moral Education | Abandoning Equality

I not at this point listen much to the advice of others, thinking it a chronic impulsive habit of all, including the majority of the population that is just not that intelligent, to think themselves grand educators of others, even with little education. But this idea seemed of interest: "Is the advice from this person and the person together a good substitute for you in your planning". If I am to listen to this oter person, or to what they advise, I must have some realistic expectation, that what they tell me, and who there are while they tell or however related, is not a "poor substitute", using economics language, to myself. Always they are inferiior substitutes as a heuristic with some small error.

More than this, the potential substitute for my mind, to help with my decisions, should not be equal, but should be better. Knowing that all can only be lesser or more on measures at high precision, I just rule out there are any equals. So if I'm not looking for someone to be equal and have equal information, but better information, I'm looking for a superior. Since that, using the same heuristic, concludes that none are superior, I can largely stop listening to any advice.

This is useful to others too, they would just have to alter their heuristic. My heuristic, or rule, is simpler, because as a rule nobody is giving me better information than I can get for myself and on those rare situations where that is not true, I already expect it and do not use the heuristic (or one could say it is expanded to this larger process, of listening at these other times), or one can say there is no heuristic which is more accurate, but I can't fix the langauge here yet, and in these situations I'm probably seeking expert advice, like from an accountant or lawyer; but in all other scenarios, I just dismiss because they cannot be superior and only can be inferior and as a rule never equal. For everyone else, it has to be admitted that superiors would be more possibly in the communication. So obviously, it benefits others to get more advice from others, especially since the situation for inferiiors is to stop listening to self more often, and listen increasingly more to others. At the lowest, wheelchair bound people, with reduced brains, experience and communication, have gone beyond listening to adive, and instead, let others be the brains entirely.

"Is this person superior to me in relevant ways here" seems to make for a good advice filter. More practiced, less advice will be heard, if ne is smart, from any of the common fools in the populace, thinking themselves grand educators.

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

## <a name="some-or-all-objects-including-human-objects-may-have-other-shapes-than-we-received-they-do-and-maybe-a-very-large-number-of-alternative-shapes">Some Or All Objects Including Human Objects May Have Other Shapes Than We Received They Do And Maybe A Very Large Number Of Alternative Shapes</a>

*442 Wanattomians, Monday, October 16, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Mathematics

Already there is the idea that different perspectives of an object yield different shapes, and many are familiar of the drawing of the shape dangling like a pendulum that produces two or three shadows, depending on the variant shared, with each shadow being an entirely different shape. That is part of what is thought in this idea, but what was closer to the main intution is that objects may have more definite shapes of different kinds not merely independently on perspective, but actually separate shapes that are more objective. This is an exploraory view: I'm still inclined to simply reduce this physically into more simple ideas to avoid any excess loftiness. But it could be that some objects have shapes that we don't think they have. For example, a human seems to have the typical figure we imagine of an upright primate with arms, legs, face and torsoe, which can be seen from front, back, side, and a large amount of other perspectives, many but not infinite in my estimation. This view would state that in addition to this regular idea about a human's shape, there are different alternative shapes that humans have that may have less or more primacy and less or more function. Leonardo Da Vinci is sharing something of this in his sketch of the encircled man showing proportions made to fit in a circle when drawing really do make for realistic drawings of people. There are also other geometric representations that allow people to draw people easily without too much measurement and correction or tweaking, showing there is a shaping that perhaps we may not be seeing that is common between people. The same would be true for other plants and animals and perhaps for many things in nature. I am not here advocating for any Platonic doctrine of the forms, althoughh I know this would relate. Instead, I'm merely stating that objects may have differen shapes than we think they do.

Using the example of the encircled man, created using legs and arms spread out, with a radius drawn from a midpoint in the torso to the hands which also connects with the feet, could be used to show that a better repreesentation of the shape of a human includes not only its present appearance but all its locomotion. When we draw the "shape" of a person, we do not include all else that they do, or all their changes in configuration. There may be a shape, static or in video, like a film, that represents more fully, the genetic shape arrangement. I'm not just fitting genetics into this conversation, but it does relate perhaps, that the tested object that results from genetic instructions, ahs a complex shape such as that that I'm describing. Considering a human's life to be very short, it may not be such a strange idea, to capture its many arrangements and movements into a shape including all the information or a video. This would be coextensive with what is visible about a person. We see them slowly, so we think they have separate shapes in time, disconnecting them from each other. Seated there is one, standing another, running and leaping another, and doing flips more still. but when elapsed time is quicker, one may be more inclined to want to relate these shapes. A gymnastics routine or wrestling performance, that shows sequences of dfiferent human shapes, are functional, exhibit to us, what is possible in the movements, which relates to information that is in preceding shapes that relate to subsequent shapes. Later movments in an act of grappling require positions earlier in the grapple. The same is true for miscellaneous performance sequences in gymnastics. The entire understanding of the sequences may depend on understanding each shape and the relation to the next. this information is encoded into a single image or shape, or shape-video or video. This is just a compressed and useful illustration of the whole. Thus a person has a kind of shape over its duration from "beginning" to "end". 
Notice that the human morphology and functions in movements do depend on the geometries involved, and as I said, alter movements depend on geometries of earlier movements. These relate physically to the earth and its geometry. A better perspective of a human may not be that it has a human shape, but that it's shape is much different one, comprising all of the functions.

Seeing it this way, it seems more ovious this would be the case. What circularity exists that artists noticed?

I don't know what of this I'd like to think is true or not. I'm inclined to think the shape would not include what is not present, thinking as I may have discussed earlier, that existence is closely related or identical with truth. Does a law of motion that demands a mathematically circle-similar path blend with a humans shape to make it so that humans do indeed have circularities, even when the contribution of the invisible portions are to rules of physics and motion? This is relevant even to the idea that there is a path taken by a planet that is elliptical, because while the planets encircle the sun in an ellipical form, they aren't doing that in any interval of time that does not comprise elipses. Instead, they simply follow a trajectory consistent with an invisible elipse.

My way of thinking is more like there are no elipses and no circles, just as I would claim there is no definite circularity about humans in their use of appendages. Notice if one agrees that there is an eliptical path to the mtion of a planet, there is a shape that is human that is circular even when it appears there is not one. This may not be quite right, but there are simple things that would need to be admitted from our views about the movements of planets on invisible shapes in regular human life, and I think many mathematicians and physisists would like to see changes to common opinions about one's own life on the basis of knowledge gained in work.

I'm more inclined to explain all in what exists and not what does not, trying to find some way to explain why there appears to e explanatory power and function in what is used as a tool to describe what exists that is invisible or not part of the existence of a system in some way. i think it may be a way to find issues in the sciences where it is not truly realist. However, insrumentality is realist, and what exists in a sequence of time may reveal a true shape that exists in the existing entities moving (making the physical primary still). The way I trend towards thinking about the shape of a human consistently with this heuristic thought approach I have is to think that a human's shape is really bound to the morphology of a person as they really appear, but inclusive of all space taken, but that over time, the transformations may need to be inclusive in the idea of morphology rather than discretely separate, and that all the movements and transformations need to be included. What this would do is still reveal to us that a human doesn't quite hae the shape we think they do, but that these shapes do not correspond necessarily to those shapes that have mathematical instrumentality, because we can reduce the insrumentality to only what is mapping to the reality and not further, again placing the physical in higher priority to what one finds useful in math that is used analogically.

This pathway in thinking although it did not move me here to a conclusion does I think reveal that a more inclusive perspective of objects is needed to better understand their shapes and functions in relation to mathematics, and interestingly this pathway in thinking would lead to similar approaches to those already used in the sciences to see the entire picture as a system of connected and caused ingredients that must be considered separately and together to build a more precise representation of the realities. Notice when we think of a humans shape, we do not think, that their shape is not the person standing there. Only a little observation shows that it is more than that.

Is the shape better understood as a single visualization that is a summarization inclusive of time, or as a video? This I find an interesting question an it too relates to the topic of what is more fundamental, visualizing and representing it one way or the other. Thinking to myself now, that an exact copy of a person in motion, and an exact copy of an earth, operating as it did before, and an exact copy of the universe, showing its video beginning to end, shows how it really behaves, whereas a static image does not? But how is the earth's information represented, as a single image file (pessimistic hypothetical), or as a video file (pessimistic hypothetical), or as itself as just an existing thing with the information being things. Notice the latter has more probability, because already that is what it is. Is there a need to purport that there is a separate information source? At present I would think it more reasnable, not to invent this hypothesis, but instead to state, that that actually is what it appears to be. Another copy of that thing seems to better store that information in existing things than to store it in files or other symbolic representations.

In information technology, we don't favor video files to static files yet, and maybe not ever, on the basis of their ability to represent phenomena, fundamentally. I'd be inclinded ot think a time inclusive file would be better, but this is not decided.

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

## <a name="friendship-matches-as-relating-greatly-to-matching-false-thinking-inferences-and-conclusions-else-common-truths-would-befriend-them-to-others">Friendship Matches As Relating Greatly To Matching False Thinking, Inferences, and Conclusions, Else Common Truths Would Befriend Them To Others</a>

*430 Wanattomians, Monday, October 13, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Relationships | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

Before I argued that there appears not to be anything singular such as friendship as people think, but instead it is better to understand relasionships such as those called fiendships as relationships between objects with different properties, and that different relationships could have different names than just those names and categories we think of. Those with traditionally constrained reduced vocabularies will think only named relationships exist, but there are many more, and those named are debunked but work nevertheless in an oversimplified life.

Those congenial friendships of matching personalities and thinking, or those complementary, arise for a number of reasons, but some of those reasons do often relate to an agreementin thinking. With the agreement in thinking is a feeling of a greater quantity of matches, and pleasantness and attractiveness of thoughts shared as they are thought in communication which seem to indicate additional agreements. For a long time people will sometimes go friendless or with less friends before finding a match of this kind, and when a match of this kind comes about there is a feeling that friendship may be possible becaue there is increased harmony and matching of thinking. Shared activities can create the perception that there are similarities in thinking too when in reality there is not so much globally. Colleagues, friends with similar club memberships, athletic friends, students of the same school, and so on, often share matches and agreements of thought, because what they are thinking about has a similarity.

But what I am writing about here isn't about just this, but about matches in thinking that relate to the thinking properties of each person. Sometimes, people will share commonalities, because what they think about having shared similar contexts and situations, involves true observations felt to be significant or important, and since both have those thoughts, that are believed to be important, and others may not be having them also, there is a good comfort in the friendship. There is matching of thinking, truth to the thinking, similarities in experience which magnify the similarities, while differences would exist, and these create mutual interest and comfort. perhaps some safety too.

However, i don't find most to be of high veracity, regarding a very large portion of their thoughts, not knowning logic, and often religious in ways that are unjustifiable (believing in supernauralisms, superstitions and so on). I was reminded recently of horoscopes. Horosccopes from asrology, a false discipline of thinking, results in sexual matches, since astrlogy is used as a wy to find sexual matches. it is not specifically for this, but those who use the teachings, try to use it to find similarities that may result in friendship or more likely romantic relations. Being common and of course false, this is an example of matching onthe basis of poor thinking, lack of truth, and sharing of bad information.

When I was reflecting about the portion of this writing that was about matching of thinking on the basis of trueths, I realized that if truths were what constituted the matches in friendship, then friendships should be easier. There are other aspects, like personality, type of humor, communication style, language prefereences and commitments, race, social standing and so on, that also cause to determine relationships. If truth matching is a cause to relationships, one would expect more to form than do, and it would be rarer than one would think to find friends, if people are able to find and identify truths. Fridnships accross groups just mentioned do tend to happen if there are enough parallels in thinking. The parallels in thinking might have more to do with false thinking than true thinking than friends might think. Many intimate relationshihps and friendships are thought by participants to be due to converssations that included special or important shared truths and honesies. I think now this is more false han one would expect. The rarity in friendshihps that are very intimate seem to me to relate more to shared mentality including propensity to think falsely, in addition to social standing. If I have to correct for saing more, I would say it definitely is a large measure in the causation.

More soon.

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

## <a name="a-persons-mental-biological-space-versus-information-loaded-space">A Person's Mental Biological Space Versus Information Loaded Space</a>

*423 Wanattomians, Saturday, October 4, 2025, Dubai, United Arab Emirates* 

Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Identity

A Person's Mental Biological Space Versus Information Loaded Space

Yesterday I was thinking to distinguish that mental space that feels more constant through one's life which includes feelings and sensations on one's body, visual perception apart from thought's about that perception, and other biological sensations. The time I thought I wanted to think further about this distinction was when I was laying in bed, with my eyes closed much the the time, readying myself for sleep. I was seeing, at that time, different shades of blackness, and gray, whatever changes in these monochromatic colors my retina was presenting to me, and I was relating it to the current feellings I was having being comfortable in bed, and very early feelings I had as a kid simply experiencing pulsatings and throbbings existing in my nervous system and body. These converged sometimes to some interesting sleeptime moments, and these moments are old, from when I was a very young child, and I think likely there is still some resemblance to when I was a baby experiencing such things knowing less about wha they were.

These experiences, I was comparing, to the verbalizations that were coming to mind, on the same subject, which were automatic largely, partly voluntary and partly involuntary, partly with control, and partly deliberately simply allowing to continue. The verbalizations, seemed more distinct than usual from the feelings expressed just a moment ago. Seeing this large distinction, thinking about it again now, I compare it to a chasm of sorts, or maybe a difference that is tremedous, making the one a different world of sorts than the other although they relate. Speaking figuratively only of course. It really may be the divide between these ways of thinking and feeling demarcate a very large divide even in the nervous system, impacting our experience more than we think, and I assume this to an extent already, knowing that there are regions dedicated to verbal thinkin, separate from those that are visual, in addition to others, and if one area is damaged, the others can be left largely unaffected. I could damage irreversably my verbal abilities and experience, but I'd still feel the other biological sensations and miscellaneous comforts and discomfors. I think it would be mistaken to claim that the sense of sharp pain would disappear also with such damage to the brain.

The above is not intended to segue into neuroscience, as much as it's to make it clear that on basic self observation, there really is a big difference between these things.

Verbal life, includes rules of language and vocabulary that really was existing in our environment, and excludeed what did not exist. I speak English because it existed in my life, and less Arabic, because that was less present. More Spanish because that was slightly more present, and a little Korean too, because there were Korean people where I lived. Many languages were entirely absent. When I write here, what comes to mind is culural information mixed with how I logically acted upon that information. My personality in my verbal life is largely a pattern relating to how I interact logically wih the information, and how I use language. Cultural life is what we say is contingent. Certain conditions need to be present in order for us to experience a mind and personality that speaks a particular language with a certain amount of knowledge. The knowledge relates to a section of time that comprises my lifetime and events around me during that lifetime. Everyone living in the current time period has little from 100 years ago and earlier, and very little of the distant future. I mention this because the gulf and divide concerning this is really different from those experiences I talked about above which are much less cultural, and time related.

Consider that how you feel when you are sick, may be similar each time you are sick for the duration of your life. When I think to how I feel when I am sick, it seems very similar to when I was a child. This may suggest that without language you'd feel this way too. If you grew up in another environment and culture, at another time and age, you'd likely feel the same when sick. Notice current events do not influence these feelings and experiences. What is going on now, what else you may have learned about recently, do not impact those feelings much or sometimes maybe not at all, and when sick sometimes you shrink your social life and experiences into the immediate surroundings and your own body only. When you're experiencing it it's like when you were a sick child again, or one can say the other way, that a child experiences sickness not unlike an adult.

Other experiences are like this. When I lay around staring at the walls, furnature, and windows, and things around, it is similar as an adult as it was as a child. When sleeping, at onset, during, and after, on waking, the experience is similar. If we continue searching through experience to see what is like this, much is. But in addition to these experiences, in parallel, or with more focus, we attend to verbal life, learning, and thinking about problem solving. Notice that these things do relate to the time period and culture more. Watching television, to see what is on, will include whatever is current and will largely omit what was old, and can't include the future. If we watch the history of television, we learn it is very poor at predicting the future. What is old becomes something so out of fashion that one skips over it when it presents. One wants what is current. It includes new current things to learn, and trendy things to talk about, The social life is largely verbal. All these things are changing a bit more in time, than those things I mentioned above, that are sensation related or are biological.

Between people, and between ancesors and those living today, it seems there is less difference if culture and language is left out amongst people, but not enough of course to make experiences the same. They more closely resemble each other. If you think of just your biological experiences and sensations you get closer to your animal (you're an animal anyways, but this helps to illustrate), and can see more clearly what you are like with all learning subtracted. There is this nature/nurture distiction that has existed, and this idea partly shows you what your nature is apart from your nurture. This area of interest, especially likes twin studies, because because in twin studies it is thought, that the genetic influence upon the animal is more easily understood when comparing animals arisen from identical instructions. If two identical twins are really similar in different situations, if they are adopted or are raised in different places, surely what is the same or similar, points to the genetic contribution, which shows their nature even with the nurture mixed in. These studies do indicate, that even with great separation, similarities are powerful, but not complete. These studies are useful. The observations above may help to allow an individual to add additional information to such studies for personal use. If I had an identical twin, the studies show that I should expect all kinds of similarities even where the cultures experienced differ when they are separated. But what is biologically and sensationally experienced by both of the twins is almost assumed to actually be identical or nearly identical. What is contingent in their experience is more left out, and what remains is what is felt early even as a child. Two identical twins who are children will be very similar in who they are internally. Really they are copies of the same animal. People who are more closely related will have experiences that are *very close* in this area. Those who are more distantly related, would be less similar, but we do from medical knowledge anticipate a lot of similarity. And further still, animals will be similar. The genetic comparisons continue with all life on earth that comes from DNA because that DNA is still shared. Biologists really do compare us with mushrooms when they study DNA. They conclude much is different, but not everything is different. There are growth rules and rules with cells. The cells need energy and need gases and nutrients. Comparing humans and mammals, much becomes extremely similar. Animals like rodents surely do experience similar comforts and sensations when they sleep for example. Dogs and cats too. Primates share much more in common. Humans with increasingly similar DNA share more in common in these things, until the genetics is identical; with identical twins, we have examples of maximum similarity of genetics and animal nature, not just for humans, but for all natural entities that are living. Twins are very special and important.

Other people certainly have similarities of internal biological and sensory experience but differ in how they interacted with stimuli as a result of their brain genetics that would be shown to be similar with twins, but more dissimilar as one moves from family, to related populations, to animals and so on. I know from experience, that my way of interacting with language, and manipulating symbols and visuals is markedly different from other people, although obviously there have to be some similarities or communication would be ineffective. Like understanding grammar, what words mean, and so on. But logically I seem to do much better with subject matter, and tend to divide concepts, and subdivide them, and expand on concepts more than others usually do. The verbal and visual part of my brain, and your brain, that interact upon symbols and visuals, are additive to what else exists, and adds to the brain memories and recollections that are like extra culture apart from what was perceived. So there is the add of culture to the mind, and then there is the addition from the mind to itself what it thought about using the culture.

I will need to return to this at a later time to expand on with new thoughts, but for now I need to talk about more of what my experience was when I was resting, seeing the divide between what is biologically me and what is more cultural or more of my acting upon culture with visual and especially verbal thought. So here I'll transition.

I can't remember everything I was thinking, but I do know that determinism and self automation were part of my thoughts at the time. I am starting to be able to just let thoughts continue with my usual logic happening, but with less of my feeling of interaction with them. Like I let my brain do it, but I do something else while it does it. It's like I was letting this get written, but I was doing something else. At one point, I tried thinking about something mathematical or verbal, with concentration, while the same verbal thinking was going on. This may be why I perceived the divide to be wider, between verbal experience and other experiences. I did also focus again on the darknesses around, since preparing to sleep, under my eyelids, or through them, and when open eyes. The verbal thoughts just kept going, but I'm focused on those. Not distracted-- the verbal thoughts kept going! I was just focused on the other experiences. The differences between the two felt wider, as I let them both go on separately. In the separation, I noticed that what was sensed and felt seemed more my nature, and the verbal was the cultural add, that I manipulated. My nature was in that too but that included more of the external world.

Here I think, is there a way to measure what has been added to a mind from outside, to on a gradient, see what contribution genetics made versus what it did not? There was what was only added by nature very largely, lik if my parents took me to some sight, and made me look at it, which would result in recollections of what I saw, which was decided by my parents and not myself. That would be more of the world upon me as is, without my modification. After that would be what I thought about it, and what I modified. A long way after that, is the feeling of my heart beat, when I'm relaxing, or doing strenuous work. How I feel when sick, when in bed, when I see only monochrome colors with my eyes closed, when I see retinal stimuli from pushing my eyes, and so on.

Some of these are added interests as I reflect on the experience now. I was thinking a bit more about verbal predermination I think, along with some other subjects. Not recalling those now, I'll have to add later.jj:w


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

## <a name="homogeneity-of-travel-lack-of-legal-understanding-and-security-a-restatement-regarding-non-nationalism">Homogeneity of Travel, Lack of Legal Understanding, and Security, a Restatement Regarding Non-nationalism</a>

Global Citizenship | International Law | Travel | Outdoors and Adventure | Environments | International Contradiction

428 Wanattomians, Thursday, September 31, 2025, Istanbul, Turkey* 

People who are traveling internationally need to know in advance if the destination is safe enough to visit, or has good enough relations with with one's own country, and one's own "type" of person, to make a visit. Before making my trip to each country recently in Europe, the Middle East and the Caucuses, I had to confirm that all were safe to visit and accepted people with US Passports. I also had to feel from searches the relative safety of being in these countries despite claims as to quality of relations and security. Each country I went to was one that had a good safety rating.

Each of these countries was supposedly a different country, with a different nationality. However, comparing security information, and relative safety, I could conclude that all these countries are safe for travel. Arguably, if they have safety and security equivalences, they have national equivalences. I can go to one country, and behavev like I'm in my own is the expectation. For all that I did go to, there was this same expectation. In a way, these were states of the same nation regarding what is communicated to me about expectations in my experience. All of these countries protect and secure me, they would advertise in a way, as part of their tourism marketing. "This place is safe for you to come. You are safe because of police and are safe from police. You are also safe from everyone there, because a peaceful environment has been fostered. Also, it hosts people like you and many diverse peoples to the same effects."

Clearly, this is an indicator of pretending to actually be the same as each other at a national level. I'm arguing, that in a way, they *are* the same, and this sameness is like the sameness that exists within diverent provinces, states or territories of a nation. Arguably, these governments have a concerted effort to be similar and even the same, regarding these apsects. Can we treat them as equivalent and what would that mean?

Within a nation, places differ. Between nations, they differ. What is promised by government is peace and security, both amongst people and amongst people commingled with law enforcement and military. These are supposedly fundamental provisions of government. Well, they are the same in these other nations roughly, such that we do not alter our behavior much.

People in tourist destinations, I would argue, could not retrain or alter extensively their own behavior. Deterministically, they arrived as the same people as where they were, and behave similarly. Extra legally, people simply act polite, non-aggressive, keep space, and behave in a civilized way, in order to fit in with others. When we look around, there is no question most are acting this way, when in a peaceful place. When a person travels to another nation, they simply keep this behavior going. Of course, sometimes they act in ways outside these expectations, and tourists do! Tourists get into trouble partying and having fun in other nations just like they do in their own countries. My argument is that they act this way and they can't act otherwise, because the suddenness of a trip does not cause massive behavior change. They only continue to behave as they did before, perhaps with more effort at civility *also done at home), and make little learning advancements. If I go to Japan on vacation tomorrow, I will simply act like myself in Japan, and will learn a few new points of etiquette, or will simply "act like them a bit". Imitation for a while.

Suddenly when in another country, one does not think one has very different laws, but in reality, they can be *very different*. If you just use extra legal norms of bhavior in etiquette one will be fine oftentimes, but sometimes differences still cause problems. These can still cause issues withh law and security. In another country, one has not been trained to know their laws. Fascinatingly, locals in their countries hae not either. Tourists are simmply more ignorant than locals happen to be. Both tourists and locals are confused about a nations laws where they happen to be. But the expectation that these extra-legal guides of behavior and imitation will suffice remain. This seems to imply that people who are all ignorant of the law simply think behaving peacefully is what you do. But this clashes with what laws actually are and what punishments happen to be. This clashes again with the fact the establishments and governments advertise their nations as if they do have the same laws, with no training provided. 

Tourism and tourism marketing try to attract and draw people to environments where existing behaviors are expected to be polite and civil already, with money added. Governments work on advancing tourism and citizens pay for their nations to attract travelers. All of this is an attractive force. The same governments have a repellant force if there are security issues in their country. One has to search to see if it is safe after being lured to come to see if it is worth the safety risks. Forexample, ads may say, along with Brazil, to come to Rio de Janeiro, but that country and place has safety risk and repels as it draws.

More soon.

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

## <a name=""></a>

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

## <a name="how-a-nations-public-services-and-tourism-industry-can-confuse-people-into-thinking-their-behaviors-can-be-similar-and-laws-would-have-equivalence">How A Nations public Services and Tourism Industry Can Confuse People Into Thinking Their Behaviors Can Be Similar And Laws Would Have Equivalence</a>

*425 Wanattomians, Monday, September 29, 2025, Tablisi, Sakartvelo (Georgia)* 

Global Citizenship | Law and International Law | Morality and Etiquette | Social Norms and Punishments

In the past it would not have been the case, but in the present, tourism and public services from nation to nation are laregely equivalent. One can anticipate, as a new guest in a city, that there will be a subway, and rail services, and after traveling extensively, most use the same ways to transact to obtain transit. Hotels exist in all nations that cater to customers in roughly the same way. If one knows how to book a room, one can easily travel from nation to nation and live in conditions that feel almost identical. One does not have to learn anything in order to live in these various hotels. This is especially the case if one knows some basics of the English language and has familiarity with international gestures and body langauge.

Restaurants provide clientele similar experiences, and urban neighborhoods with popular restaurants resemble each other from place to lace, making life experiences, services, and apparent expected behavior extremely similar. 

As a global traveler, I've found that popular touristy areas give a lot of comfort. I would argue that these days they simply are not even touristy. This is something people would sy in the past to denegrate these locations, but the reality is that "touristy" spots are "trendy" spots, or comfortable areas where those with some level of personal wealth or funding allows for a lifestyle that everyone wants. A great thing about these areas in town is that they indicate that a life of very good wellbeing that is preferred at various income levels really is more accessible than ever nowadays. One does not have to have a tremendous savings to enjoy time out at cafes, coffee houses, and restaurants, and to see what others consider the most beautiful sight. People within nations and those from abroad like the same places, and if locations are swapped, such that a foreigner in one nation is at home, and the person at home is now the foreigner, the experience is about the same. I have already argued that nationalism makes little sense given the vastness of the tourism industry, but this serves to provide more eidence and demonstration of this truth. Historically it would have been different, but nowadays there is a strong resemblance between locaions people prefer in different countries. The places that are upscale are also those that people already thought were cosmopolitan and more international. Embassies may be nearby and probably many in the area are from many different countries, but simply don't notice it much. The traveler is at home with the person who is at home enjoying himself/herself. These are not touristy areas anymore, they are just those places all like to enjoy.

There is a powerful confusion exising in the world, that there are gigantic national differences, whereas a look to life in these areas immediately indicates otherwise. People simply really do like to do the same things and live comfortably living the same ways as each other. They magnify the differences when they think about other subjects and are not aware of these experiences. When with people from other nations in the same place, though, they quickly shift to the international mindset, very willing to have friends and acquaintances from all different places and liking it more because it is more interesting.

That being said, there are still strange differences sometimes in expected behavior, despite the encouragement of others that there is a pannationalism and acceptance and freedom happening. There is still considerable bigotry and there are strange expectations regarding behavior. I will have to elaborate on this later and provide more examples but for now, I'll mention simple rulse of etiquette like those in Japan. Bowing for instance. What is the point of enforcing local social etiquette, when it is plain that life is international. Since others from outside are interesting, it doesn't make sense to enforce silly rules on them in the same way. Socially, it's as though pettiness is a "lasst refuge" of culture somehow.

I will retuurn with examples later, and now that the subject is prepared I can focus on these more exclusively.

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

## <a name="equalizing-babies-and-retards">Equalizing Babies and Retards</a>

*423 Wanattomians, Saturday, September 27, 2025, Tablisi, Sakartvelo (Georgia)* 

Abandoning Equality | Relationships

Incompetence and inability for a time makes nearly equivalent babies, retards, and sufficiently ignorant adults on their non-contribution level, which is, making equivslent their contribution level. I include myself here where applicable but not where not.
 
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

## <a name="the-relationship-between-citizen-participant-customer-or-subject-and-governmetn-changes-over-time-and-has-not-been-clarified">The Relationship Between Citizen, Participant, Customer, or Subject And Governmetn Changes Over Time, and Has Not Been Clarified</a>

*407 Wanattomians, Thursday, September 11, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 

Organizational Forms | Generals, Hierarchies | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

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

## <a name="what-system-is-appropriate-to-manage-various-populations-and-admit-that-governmetns-are-not-related-to-population-size-in-a-clear-way">What System Is Appropriate To Manage Various Populations, and Admit That Governmetns are Not Related To Population Size In A Clear Way</a>

*407 Wanattomians, Thursday, September 11, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 

Government | Organizational Forms | Generals, Hierarchies | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

I have not seen at any point, an technical analyses, that would be well known now and especially earlier, that shows what populations call for what government or system arrangements.

It is easy to see that such information has not existed historically, and has not been anything folks have thought about for government planning in all the various nations. We would be learning, if we did have such information, at what populations our governments would be operating poorly, and for some locations, they would know, that their governments are not performing well or are not performing at all. Some governments not only underperform, but have backwards or corruptly performing divisions which would negate anything positive ocurring. In any case, one would learn, from this information, *when one's government would be suboptimal* in relation to customers, and this would make it extremely obvious to all also, that there is no governmental form which is really permanently any good. 

This line of reasoning makes it very obvious that governments and governing systems would be mapped to circumstances within a certain period of time. This conversation can be expanded far beyond just the topic of population, bu the population issue is an easy one. Also, it would not be just about contracting or expanding government. Governments are conceived historically as fixed organizations, which may grow and reduce, and to some extent, new divisions and parts of government can be created, but the main formation of the government is not really changed much in vision, isn't changed much and has many hard couplings, and is not thought of as something that would change greatly depending on relationships and inputs.

It is not clear that any country should have a government sytem that should be so unchging as they have been in history. People often think that their countries should be empire like, and that they should have long histories, in which the earlier systems are thought to be very similar to later systems, such that they can really refer to them as being the same. It is not clear though, how adaptive they should be and how often they should really change and to what extent, but it appears they should vary greatly at least every 50 years.

Considering some countries enacted new constitutions and governments in the last 50 years and they appear to be performing much better than they did before (not necessarily going all the way back in time though), it appears really obvious the new governments can be created quickly and with good expectations.

It seems to follow, then, that they could be repeatedly changed.

This is soemthing to think about more but for now I think probably the population example really is enough to show that governments are not really well planned as people think they are. I am aware that many nationas have large populations that appear to be somewhat satisfied. But that this type of thinking has not been utilized indicates that we are in a primitive state regarding governmental forms. They are not very adaptable and modifiable. It is obvious the number of customers would relate to whether or not a managing body has capacity to support. Which countries are on a precipice regardin their governments due to population pressures?

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

## <a name="combining-meditation-euphoria-and-doing-nothing-to-get-comfortable-with-uncomfortable-comfort">Combining Meditation, Euphoria, and Doing Nothing To Get Comfortable With Uncomfortable Comfort</a>

Meditation and Mood | Constraint and Determinism | Death Plan 

*402 Wanattomians, Saturday, September 6, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 

I noticed while in Queestown, New Zealand, when feeling periodically moments of relaxation with a low level of thinking productivity, not verbalizing and only relaxing, I was a bit uncomfortable in comfort. I am occasionally somewhat uncomfortable doing nothing and thinking little. It has something to do with an uncomfortable mood transition. If I was meditative already, the comfort would have already been comfortable. That time I was also in a state of Euphoria. I liken this experience to feeling too good somewhat, or feeling too little.

This subject matter relates also to perception of determinism. I enjoy determinism and the feeling of being predetermined and caused but this discomfort at this time still relates. For me it is a transitory discomfort. Earlier today, unrelatedly, I thought to myself that for animal organisms, including people, in large measure, have to content with shifting in and out of occasional discomfort. This discomfort is so transitory it doesn't matter much although the resolution is still highly significant. It is almost ad significant if not more significant to know that all discomforts cannot be removed and animals tend to experience this switching without resolution. Eventually or soon confort returns. In this case it returns very quickly.

This makes some existential experiences not existential and contradicts what some writers have thought.
 
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


## <a name="science-and-technology-may-outpace-futuristic-and-ideative-filmmaking">Science and Technology May Outpace Futuristic and Ideative Filmmaking</a>

*400 Wanattomians, Friday, September 5, 2025, Antalya, Turkey* 

Technology | Creativity Management | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Non-fictionalism

Earlier, I had a discussion about the structure and knowledge building characteristics of truthful thinking. I claimed that honest and truthful thinking has a tendency to be rapidly ideative and knowledge building, while being dishonest or false does not produce as much. Also, that largely, what fiction, literature, and film poductions creates as far as knew knowledge relates to the honest and truthful component of the thinking. The result of honest and truthful thinking is much greater ideation and productivity than work on fictions.
I also talked a little about lies, and how that can include motives for structure building, but the conclusion was still that truthful thinking is the more generative, and not by a little bit.

In a way, it may be the only way it is built, but I have some perhaps incompatible ideas about this relating to the building upon details in nature. More on this potentially in the future.

What I want to say here relates to developments on this idea, into the domain of cultural improvements.

Historically, we knew there was an interplay between entertainment and technological creations. What was thought up for plays, films, works of art, for games, and other creations, were sometimes ahead of actual technology. Some of what was creative was called science fiction or sci fi, and nowadays we might say such ideation is futurist, or predictive about what will happen later. If not predictive in intent, it may include a desire for those things to arise. So what is wished for or wanted is written into creative works and productions and this information is used inspirationally to create those things in reality later. Shows like Star Trek and others influenced ideas about what computer screens, mobile phones, and virtuality could be like. Some ideas like the transporter and warp drive may influence future travel, depending on feasibilities. But what is infeasible can be helpful and stimulate imagination.

Since I was a teenager, I noticed that those shows that seemed intelligent that included sci-fi or futurist ideas that had seemingly feasible novelties or philosophical importances were rarer. Intelligence itself is rare, so it would be true, tha the very best works of these kinds would be less common. In reading I was interested more in classics, and in film too largely, or whatever new seemed to have good enough reviews to trust the value of the experience enough to pursue it. Very good quality things in general are more rare. This rarity ought to be anticipated in all cultural productions, except where copying and manufacture enable replication. But that is more about copies than about quanitty of actual good quality things worth copying.

I noticed more recently, within the last twenty years, that there are much fewer works of this kind in film in particular. This has caused me to be interested in film much less frequently. There have been some good works, but they are definitely more rare. This may be due to industry changes, or desire to gain larger amounts of business. I'm not certain, but creative movies that include new ideas are uncommon and there is much less of great quality. I am wanting more but am not seeing it when I loook for it, or check what others have given good reviews.

Since there is a decrease in creative futuristic movies with good ideation, and the rarity exits wherever such forward looking novelties would come to exist in the arts, I today realized that technology, which seems to be rapidly accelerating, may outpace creative ideation, eventually perhaps making creative ideation for new technology less interesting or common, and perhaps changing the role of entertainment to be even more popular in intent, and even less about futurism. Futurism may be just what happens at the location where it is created.

I noticed this could be true already to an extent when I considered the style of the upcoming blade runner movie which seems to have less innovation than the real world. For example, it keeps repeating the trend of showing led billboards in a dark dystopian cityscape, which was initially thought to be forward looking, but did not test well as time progressed. The last version of bladerunner, it showed technology that was certainly less than "The Sphere" which came into existence in Las Vegas. The iconic chinese video signage of bladerunner, now appears luddite instead of futuristic, even as it appears in adverrtising, for the very newest bladerunner 2099. In 2099 there will be less technology than today?

Technology, with developments in AI and the like, seem to be making certain sci fi creations that were hitherto thought to be inexhaustibly rich, again like star trek, instead make the shows seem dated. It was to be expected that they'd antique, but with the advent of AI it happened quite suddenly and only with recent tech advancements. The advancements in numerous areas including smartphones and other areas are really making such shows seem silly and not very fruitful to the imagination. VR became a reality, which makes the futurism of the holodeck in startrek seem really non-futuristic. That point is particularly strange, because it seemed impossible at the time. Now it seems unadvanced. I would not have thought in this lifetime that technology would have been shown to be actually not very imaginative. Already it is more imaginative than that in actual usuable features. I have a VR that is more advanced than the holodeck in many ways. Surely these ideas should be a hundred years further out from now? No, instead, in our lives already the tech surpassed it.

But what new ideas are we seeing that really show novel futuristic thinking? I think I'm not seeing it in artistic productions. This makes it seem sci fi lost its guiding influence. Instead those working on the tech are simply making that technology that appears more futuristic. The ideation is faster into reality. The ideation is happening more proximally to the development, and not off someplace else, where the dreamer is inventive. The inventive sci fi person really yearned to be a technology creator and user, and not simply an ideator.

The ideation is happening where technology can be made faster. Ability to create and develop is more simple. Continuous integration and development in software lead somewhat in this, and supply chains probably are smoother than before, considering in particular the work of Amazon and maybe some robotics. There are other considerations such as other advancements in logistics and in diverse industries that connect and work together, all needed to make tech development possible. The tech development has experienced more computing automations, more interconnectivity of work in networking and communication, and now we are seeing some advent in robotics. Out of view have been many advancements in warehousing robotics. Artificial Intelligence is further automating tasks such that ideation can proceed faster, and now what is wanted to be created is made partly by AI, so ideation can continue. This includes actual usable work that is put into product rapidly. Again this relates to continuous integration and development or devops which has the goal eventually of smoothly automating and executing ideas into realities.

This is simply faster in production than creative fiction writing. Filming is a slow process too. The thinkers who might be sci fi writers are aware that they would be separated from actual creation by making fiction, and since the draw of actual tech companies exists where work is really being done on novelties monare quickly, such minds are more likely to find real work. So creative scientists and technologists simply become those people doing the work instead of writers of screenplays.

I think it is the case that already technology has outpaced creativity in fiction. This relates to my view already expressed that honest and truthful thinking is simply more generative. Beyond thinking honestly and truthfully is intermixing such thinking with action, which is building. I think the difference is so great that culture has really started to show that tangible productions can outpace novel creative output.

There may be a law that might be usable here, simply the law that truthful thinking with a nervous system or AI is more structure generating than creative of lying brain and ai. The mixture is less generative than the more purely honest and truthful, all things considered equal in the powers of the brain or AI.

Creativity is still increasing in distribution, because people are more able to share than before, but the creativity is more fun and humorous, or child-like, than the rarer kinds I'm talking about. This does not mean it doesn't serve very important purposes or functions.

In the future, if technology extremely outpaces creative productions (remember for sci fi to work, people have to be insiders or sufficiently apprised into advancements to think about what might be later, and some science fiction writers were scientists), and if technology jobs became more inaccessible, it would be like creativity could never conceive of anything new. I'm not entirely confident that is the direction we are heading, but it does appear to me that it could be going that way. The people who could write something really creative that is futurist would be someone who understands the actual technology at its advanced level of development in a number of ways, which means they would have visibility or would be working in such a context, but then what they think of would have to be something that would be both interesting to others creatively, and be far enough into the future to have a genuine sci fi feel. What kinds of advancements could exist that would be like this in the future? The Post AI world seems in many ways to me to be one in which creative ideation seems less interesting than actual advancement, because the advancement is too near, or because what is thought of is insufficiently advanced and the delta is too small. 

I do think there will still be great films and great sci fi works later, but I do wonder if they can survive as a genre into the more distant future. If the trend I'm talking about above is true, then it almost already lost its market value to think futurist sci-fi. Playful re-creative sci fi and alt worlds and universes may still be of interest.

I will later try to be more accurate in what I think might transpire.

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

## <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>*

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

<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/#personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership](http://www.mattanaw.org/#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>

U2FsdGVkX1/XrpAlDl70If+OtPGSvohKWymsGWCZ4h/FizJ861CfHvvlUWS68eJwoWEds/NaXrIwAwJfz23eKABkNOWKZIzu4f98R6kaGSBpNRxGI9MHvFWIn+avwMNqKeu+gzHciok+efAyvlfuaUxMchM/GoVxZhMxHlgvBnIymy4AwWWojNUmm6jGeKaAdHvHW15p97wCFKOT9EhtvasxrNEIdsMn3hEdYlqrT6F2WpSRKFx+fm85ffNbELuXbfMJpQfC5Eb/VLUll/H1rLv/3g5N/io0b+KjhB+QJiiQEXWXoZGwSTAv9Dr9cce86IXkc5Jp8IThka0dXoRD8X3ntSC7PI+XWxukeqSnVo9jCP/JugiKUE7+HpG8AqJrSCqa2TBcsimIePQ6ppZ0+VSFP2qqmAkKm/iipzKem6BoBKnkj8BIsB2emnUvQYcWg63b7YgNSlx2ekbig56+ph14/CKJJYhV3c4l/5cwDzQ9cU78NcXd4C3f4b1/sXSY3IQ8VTQUjL6ty/rPFgEyrTmIOjULpCQ/BRKy6a+9PtdVI43+E3Jl1Q1nMRxekbfoO0k7BKWYBnPamM9M5BjTHPxUhi9BxYxcaEwoUCkvRVxQryGCs6XDUbuD3dxy2sjb7486dd6GjzEExpCM0o4jw13DvVISHCG4x69+iZFZgDeDDaWeCaNAhM3n//nxvZaccqFs+2tnoPvgoTQkTBcX0rY/n3Woke9FcE8mL9wYmUk5HbkSOy3mCsrMb7NOqAzDoNOagGNqEo9gECL+XcpeA/NjSTBfZ5BLGl7yTlnuoCZ3B7PShV6qFxGGy4uXuYMju+Cn7+fCyvT8PKwYfhbpwMLAiycsP6aqgX3nn/k5jz/DvlNokWKuLLSJHas18hUS

<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/#sharing-of-tasks-and-plans](http://www.mattanaw.org/#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/#im-not-that-into-relationships](http://www.mattanaw.org/#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.

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

## <a name="communion-with-cactuses">Communion with Cactuses</a>

*Preface: Regarding unknowability in the gifted.*

*Posted initially on FB, on November 11th.*

If you are very gifted, and you are speaking often, nearly constantly, and honestly, I think more is still hidden than for those who are not, and hardly ever tell the truth, or speak often.

Reason: communication has throughput limits. Plus for those who are gifted, the throughput limit is on the dumb's side too. (I.e. "Dumb: you didn't say that much and you didn't understand that much.").

Consider the handicapped and mentally retarded, or those much more deficient. Suppose they are open, and honest, and communicative. They can't share much. Suppose, a highly gifted person is open, and honest, and communicative: you still feel you know less than with the handicapped person, who communicated little.

Arguably, regulars, are much like the handicapped, in their inability to communicate, even if they were maximally open, honest, and communicative. They are not any of these things. And they can't receive from the gifted.

So even if a gifted person, is open, honest, and extremely communicative, they are still more unknown to all, and nearly totally unknown to the ungifted, who can't even hear.

Imagine if you are gifted, open, honest AND communicative, and you are still not having any communion. 

Eventually it's like trying to have communion with cactuses. (yes, cacti).

*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/#communion-with-cactuses](http://www.mattanaw.org/#communion-with-cactuses)

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


## <a name="cheap-camera-eyeballs-and-your-citizenship">Cheap Camera Eyeballs and Your Citizenship</a>

*Preface: At Birth You Agreed to Be Technology.*

*Posted on Facebook on November, 5<sup>th</sup>, 2022.*

You agree to social rules and customs and believe yourself belonging to your regional people, yet if you were born in the future, in a scenario in which life connected more with computing and hardware, you might find your eyes are cheap old cameras, and not newer more expensive ones.

Your senses and your experiences might be forced to be cheap ones, and ones that can be taken away or worsened without your permission.

Whereas some other group was made to have much better.

…

If you live in a small country you have tiny eyeballs.

…

What do you really get at birth that makes you decide

“I’m going to adopt all these rules

My shopping for traits and features was so good, I’d let someone else do it.”

And then you realize nobody cared really or shopped for your features or parts but you said

“This is the best life.” 

“I agree to all legal after the fact.”

Rationalization or purchase and contract, and continued use?

*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/#cheap-camera-eyeballs-and-your-citizenship](http://www.mattanaw.org/#cheap-camera-eyeballs-and-your-citizenship)

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


## <a name="doing-without-cell-phones-again">Doing without cell phones again.</a>

*Preface: Traveling without cellphone needs.*

*Started Writing: Wednesday, October 26<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>00:14:07 Mattanaw Reference Time A v01 UTC</time>

Recently I've become more interested in finding normal ways to function while traveling without using a cell phone, and without feeling any dependency on a cell phone to accomplish what should be simple tasks. Things that were simple tasks before, but are not now.

The encroachment on independence from cell phones seems manifested in growing disinclinations to do certain easy acts:

- Getting on a public bus in a new bus system unreflectively.  
- Trying out a metro or subway system without first reading about it, or obtaining an app on the phone.
- Waiting for things, when it is not clear how long the wait would be. 
 - There is a desire to be told by an application if it is worth waiting or not. I noticed this while waiting for a bus recently.
- Getting a taxi, or a ride someplace.
 - There is a hard dependency on taxi-apps at present for this, to obtain lower rates. However, depending on the apps may increase usage, and may decrease ability to act without the app. I.e. for a greater cost using a taxi, one may be more skilled obtaining transit alone. If taxi is felt to be too expensive, one might be more fit and able to save for willingness to walk.
- Walking.
 - Having an easy way to get a ride implies that it will be used more often, even for shorter trips.
- Finding directions, and being spatially aware.
 - Growing up I was very inclined to know where I was and to use maps if I needed directions. Now I rarely think to use maps and feel disinclined to think through where I am without using a phone. I'm very skilled at this but I'm still disinclined. At this moment I wonder what it might mean for the mental developments of youths, who may always feel inclined to use the phone and strongly disinclined to learn the basics of determinging alone one's spatial orientation and ways to get places and back.
- Communicating using other methods.
  - Recently on arrival in a new location I found I did not have cell service at the time I was wanting to check into an AirBnB. The host of that AirBnB did not give me a way to get into my room without first contacting him on arrival. Fortunately, I found the door open, and simply went inside. But considering it would be locked, I thought through what inconveniences I would experience trying to get inside. I had many possessions and wasn't near an available Wi-Fi. I would have had to walk some distance in a new location to find a business that would provide me Wi-Fi, at some cost since there is a feeling of indebtness for using such service. This inconvenience was small, however, particularly in retrospect, because after I came to learn the area, I found there were plenty of businesses that would likely provide me the needed wifi. Using the phone would have diminished the ease and speed of learning the new area. Using the phone made me disinclined to consider finding wifi an easy task. Before I would have had to find a pay phone, which was never felt to be too bothersome, even without funds.

I think this may be a very short list, but these are certainly common tasks related to traveler's needs.

What are some methods I can use now? What are some short term and long term goals I can use, to gradually diminish my dependency.

Firstly, I have decided that I will use my computer in an offline setting more often, making myself more comfortable and confident being disconnected. It's strange that one can do much that is fun and productive without ever connecting to the internet or launching a web browser. Typically I would do this writing connected to the internet, doing other activities that are network dependent intermittently between writings, but at present I'm disconnected and do not feel a strong inclination to have even Wifi.

Secondly, I think I will rely on asking people questions more often. Even simple questions such as "How do I pay for a bus here, and how much does it cost?" seem more difficult. However, it is very easy to walk up to a bus driver arriving on schedule to a station to ask the same questions, as this is a service that they provide regularly anyhow. In this way I can get on a bus without any planning or without any application. Writing this feels somewhat silly, but really I have been disinclined to try it, and I'm certain others would be too arriving in a new location for the first time.

Thirdly, I will try the rail system at my new location without any use of technology. I'll rely on the maps they provide at the station, their cues in the machines for how to pay and how much, and I will use my many decades of experience traveling as actual usable knowledge again, to go through various gates, to catch trains, and to make connections. "Shouldn't I know how to do this without any thinking at all at any place nearly, by now, knowing more generally, these systems function in the same way mostly every time?"


While enjoying my travels I focus on taking photographs over making purchases to have memorabilia, and to record my more pleasant experiences. To do this, I have shifted in my life span from manual film cameras, to disposable film cameras, to polaroids, to a dedicated digital camera, to cell-phone cameras. After taking tens of thousands of photos with my cell phone camera, enjoying its being combined wtih other uses so I have mostly a standalone device, I am now seeing tendencies in phone software that I do not enjoy, such as inability to transfer files easily, and to control their formats, and some indicators that cell phone companies and mobile apps will use the photos even without permission. For this and other reasons closer to my experience in software and content management and productions, I'm shifting to using my dedicated professional camera instead.

Recently I was considering that a primary reason for carrying my cell phone is really the camera. If I'm not on the network doing something social, I'm planning to do something social later, and frequently this includes some planning around photos I'm taking.

An implication is I have to carry the camera in addition to the phone, or alone without a phone, but since I'm carrying a very high quality camera it will result in an improvement on my productions abilities so this is fine.

Another motive for having my phone is for having music. I don't think I will stop using this function quite yet as I find it too enjoyable; however, I can do so without being attached to the network with some planning. I have used my website in the past for accumulating playlists and have recorded off those playlists, files which I can carry around and listen to at any time. In this way I can listen to music without that dependency on the network, which is really annoying given networks are pushing people to remain dependent on staying on network, without ownership of content anyhow. I'd prefer to have instant access to my own files without any need to use and pay for data, and have someone else management my music. Managing music is not something I'm wanting to do, but again, this disinclination to manage and own my own music is related to phone usage and dependency on cell and wifi networks.

Regarding maps and directions, I intend to ask questions, find maps already recorded at bus stations and other locations, and to use my natural abilities which require some attention to my surroundings. Attention to surroundings seems like something of value, and I even admit that attending to my phone for directions on google maps means I'm avoiding doing such things as recognizing trees and landmarks that could easily be used to find my way back home. In my recent walks I've found that I can get around just as easily as I always could, and so there should not be much trouble stopping my use of google maps.

There are some losses however, like for getting directions quickly if driving someplace new. But I'm finding that downloading large maps on google, even huge land areas, is easy now since storage space on devices is not an issue. You can download maps for entire cities and chunks of countries and rely on those for directions if totally necessary. Some really basic advance planning is needed (but consider you could go on your phone now, and download an entire region or set of regions and not need any other planning). Doing this I can use my phone for maps without a network connection, and I can use it more like normal print maps without desiring real-time updates for traffic and recalculations on turn-by-turn directions which became annoying. I'd much prefer looking at the map, seeing which roads go to a destination, and simply use my instincts without the maps to get there, using memory.

Finally, thinking about my experience with this AirBnB host, I could have done the following:

- At the time of booking, inform my host that I may not have a method of communication on arrival. I could re-use this message routinely so the host is thining in advance of how I will get in without aid.
- At the time of booking, I can simply look at the area to see if I can anticipate wifi being readily available at different businesses.
- I can exchange contact details in advance, so I'm not trying to find contact details without a connection. That was an issue during my arrival since the app did not have working messaging, and wouldn't load new windows to get to certain details. Even though I don't have a cell phone, someone does. I could easily let them know of my predicament and they may be willing to briefly allow cell phone use. Simply asking someone is fine, and they may be willing to take payment, if socially this has become more of a strange inquiry.

There are other devices that allow communication without any cell service. For example, my garmin allows satellite comm, via text message. I could easily use that instead of my phone for texting as long as I have working numbers. This also would permit getting off the cell phone network, with some safety features which are desirable too, although it requires having another small device with me. 

*Ended Writing: Wednesday, October 26<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>01:00:47 Mattanaw Reference Time A v01 UTC</time>

*Editing: No edits, no spell check, no grammar check, limited active reading, no blind typing, no re-reading. No high sophistication expected, medium-easy audience, due to content interest expectations, and potential subject matter popularity.*

*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/#doing-without-cell-phones-again](http://www.mattanaw.org/#doing-without-cell-phones-again)

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


## <a name="holidays-control-how-you-reflect-and-think-and-remember">Holidays control how you reflect and think, and remember.</a>

*Preface: You'll think of other things until next year.*

*Sunday, October 8<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:20 AM Utah Time</time>

Holidays are a method of control in which you are allowed to reflect a certain way, and consider certain topics, only rarely.

Annually.

And in the annual reflections, are rules about what is included and what conclusions are had, or remembered.

It is a method of enforced recollection and not a method of revisitation and genuine rememberance for re-processing and learning.

A confirmation that this is the case is that it is not open to reconsider whether the holiday should

continue.

Not only is it not for consideration whether it will continue, it is not for consideration, really, how celebrations will be performed

ritually.

If one is attentive this really does reduce freedom around what can be thought, recollected, remembered, reprocessed, and changed.

Suppose you try to think through and change, or celebrate, or revisit frequently, any of these holidays:

- Christmas
- Independence day (or some nationalistic day)
- Memorial day
- Labor Day
- Halloween

> "I will celebrate and change Christmas 8 times a year."

> "I will remember veterans every weekend, and each weekend, criticise what remembering them means and implies for what we will do."

> "I will revisit independence day and celebrate it differently, sometimes favorably, sometimes less so, once a month."

...

These ways of celebrating, criticizing, altering, are disallowed by others, who also celebrate

Freedom of religion and speech,

and call for:

"remembering always and forever" this and that.

Holidays appear to me to be methods of ensuring that one's mind does not depart on certain topics too far from ways that others think about it. 

They control how you think of them.

That they are annual is strange on reflection. They are not based on seasons if one considers that they are celebrated globally. 

If their subject matter is important enough, one can celebrate ritually more frequently than annually, and can do so with the ability to think about it carefully and make any changes desired.

> "You will observe the holidays, observe them similarly, and do so only once a year."

Outside of that period

> "You will think about other things."


*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/#holidays-control-how-you-reflect-and-think-and-remember](http://www.mattanaw.org/#holidays-control-how-you-reflect-and-think-and-remember)

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


## <a name="911-remembrance-slighly-off-schedule">911 Remembrance slightly off schedule.</a>

*Preface: Pretending your value in 911 and in COVID. Pretending your value when the news calls for it. Remembering it whenever you want.*

*Saturday, October 8<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>11:29 PM Utah Time</time>

I was alive and an adult during 911 so my recollections seem to have some special value, akin to the recollections of events of major wars. So I will here remember according to my own recollections, being a sort of primary source on 911 history.

I think many who were in New York at the time of the event found a variety of ways to be "cool" and "relevant" at the time of the occurrence.

More especially, I think NYPD and the New York Firemen used it as a chance to claim a special project involvement to advance careers and to pretend self importance.

During 911 there was no "shitty cop" and no "useless firefighter", but the reality is there were.

Across the country, people were suddenly, like with COVID, believing themselves to have importance, and value, if they latched onto this situation, to pretend to be part of some kind of reactionary solution. If they could make themselves part of the story, then somehow, they have increased their value.

But I don't think in retrospect, these same people remember having advanced their value by having certain opinions and reactions in relation to the events.

Being closer to New York City, one must have felt a greater connection. Being near DC I was inundated with quite a lot of news related to the Pentagon and NYC, yet, I did not feel my personal value increasing.

NYC firefighters and cops are not special in any measurable way I can think of apart from urban specializations that would not exist across the united states, that might exist in NYC. Cultural differences also might be of interest, between cops in NYC and cops elsewhere. However, an anomalous event in which they were not trained, in which some were deployed (but not all), seems to indicate unpreparedness and inability more than expertise. How could they be expert for a first occurrence in which the buildings were demolished with people inside? But to latch onto such an event, there can be a pretense that expertise was acquired, and that heroism in lack of expert work was achieved.

There were people latching onto the event in order to further their careers and pretend involvement, to establish "I was there", when "I was there" was "I didn't do anything special at all but watch". 

It's like 911 was a first time simulation, a training event for something not ever repeated, in which being near qualified one for heroism and expertise. 

COVID and 911 seem very similar to me in that people were ineffective, but pretend somehow they were valuable because it happened.

> "Watch the news and wait for the next thing to happen that will allow you to pretend your value."

*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/#911-remembrance-slighly-off-schedule](http://www.mattanaw.org/#911-remembrance-slighly-off-schedule)

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


## <a name="technological-shifts-and-generations">Technological shifts and generations</a>

*Preface: From a conversation with a fellow Mensan regarding the earlier posting regarding generations.*

*Monday, October 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>10:55 PM Utah Time</time>

Excerpt:

> here's Buckminster Fuller's use of grouping .... " industrial "tooling" generation" (go to near the end of the following quotation)--

> Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth

> 1. comprehensive propensities I am enthusiastic over humanity’s extraordinary and sometimes very timely ingenuities. If you are in a shipwreck and all the boats are gone, a piano top buoyant enough to keep you afloat that comes along makes a fortuitous life preserver. But this is not to say that the best way to design a life preserver is in the form of a piano top. I think that we are clinging to a great many piano tops in accepting yesterday’s fortuitous contrivings as constituting the only means for solving a given problem. Our brains deal exclusively with special-case experiences. Only our minds are able to discover the generalized principles operating without exception in each and every special-experience case which if detected and mastered will give knowledgeable advantage in all instances. Because our spontaneous initiative has been frustrated, too often inadvertently, in earliest childhood we do not tend, customarily, to dare to think competently regarding our potentials. We find it socially easier to go on with our narrow, shortsighted specialization’s and leave it to others---primarily to the politicians---to find some way of resolving our common dilemmas. Countering that spontaneous grownup trend to narrowness I will do my, hopefully "childish," best to confront as many of our problems as possible by employing the longest-distance thinking of which I am capable---though that may not take us very far into the future. Having been trained at the U. S. Naval Academy and practically experienced in the powerfully effective forecasting arts of celestial navigation, pilotage, ballistics, and logistics, and in the long-range, anticipatory, design science governing yesterday’s naval mastery of the world from which our present day’s general systems theory has been derived, I recall that in 1927 I set about deliberately exploring to see how far ahead we could make competent forecasts regarding the direction in which all humanity is trending and to see how effectively we could interpret the physical details of what comprehensive evolution might be portending as disclosed by the available data. I came to the conclusion that it is possible to make a fairly reasonable forecast of about twenty-five years. That seems to be about one industrial "tooling" generation. On the average, all inventions seem to get melted up about every twenty-five years, after which the metals come back into recirculation in new and usually more effective uses. At any rate, in 1927 I evolved a forecast. Most of my 1927’S prognosticating went only to 1952---that is, for a quarter-century, but some of it went on for a half-century, to 1977."

Response: 

A fellow Mensan friend posted the following excerpt from Mr. Buckminster Fuller, pointing out the end comments on the topic of generations. Following a reading of the excerpt, I gave the response shown below.

[Mensan friend}, I still have not given Fuller's work the attention I thought it would, but this excerpt is enough for me to want to revisit what you shared earlier. Much in here is interesting, and relates to many subjects that I'm thinking about... aside from just the OP, which is probably I'm guessing why you've retained it, or have it easily linked mentally.

I was thinking a bit on my recent reading of Adam Smith's work on economics. In his writing, he talks over reactions to changes of prices of grains, in centuries before his own period, and before the publication of his work in 1776. In it there are some indications that there were fewer changes (which we know from the period's being before the industrial revolution, and various accelerations), and I think there would be less perception about differences between parent and child, regarding the way they would live and work, and consume. Going on some reading on the history of Egypt, from Robert's History of the World, there was even less perception of change, and that there could be change (which would explain why in early history there could be debates upon whether change existed, or why some would think animal species could be immutable). Thinking of that, I wondered about Fuller's idea that 25 years could be workable. I think it can't be, because he would not be able to have that view on induction, but rather, it would be a feel about what is happening now. Perhaps it is a perception of current paces of certain technologies in relation to lifespans (i.e. I'm 75, and this 40 year old assumes that this technology always existed, yet I clearly remember when...). But 200 years ago, the age separation may have been 75 to 10, for large changes. The implication is that for certain technologies, there are no changes between living age groups even between the oldest and the very youngest, and without such a change, no generational difference would exist.

Going by that last sentence, I think I have an explanation for the relevance of acceleration of technological changes, and think that Fuller's view would be more current, but that going backwards, we would find markers of generational change to be perhaps smaller in number and more widely separated. It is somewhat interesting to think that now, maybe the better number is 10 years and not 25, or something less (But that focuses on changes that are happening and not what's remaining similar).

And then there are parallel technological growths happening at different rates. Which to focus on, to explain one people as being different from the other, or so they can self-separate?

That's if going by technological change. I don't know how often large changes of other types were likely to happen. I.e. wars, pestilences, and other uncertainties, which might exist for parents but not for children. But these would be perceived as perhaps being cyclical unchanging things to deal with, widely separate, and not about change.

There is more that I wanted to include but probably thinking further on it is better than writing more for the moment. 

...

Thinking a bit more on this topic, I wonder why there might be any clinging to the idea of "generation". I do find myself wanting to use it, and not totally remove it.

It seems to be this:

> "Everyone in one group of people, living at the same time, experienced a same happening, and were living near enough to each other to have been affected."

This would make generations a regional thing and an experiential thing, which we already unerstand because the context of generational differences are always regional, or somewhat national in focus. Even when international, it does not include everyone, what was shared in a large experience. Unless it was astronomical or catastrophic and affected everyone and perhaps every animal on the planet.

It is odd to think it is possible that all animal life could be of the same generation, marking a difference from subsequent generations.

But going back to the main point I was wanting to make. If your parents and everyone who was living after you and all your siblings had the same experience, your group of people born after the date that that experience was no longer experience-able, is in one way of another generation.

> "You weren't alive when this happened, but all of us were." 

Seems to be a good cause for thinking one set of people could be markedly different in various ways than another on what could not have been experienced by later generations.

However, using this idea to mark generations would only work if we are selective about which changes we were concerned to include, and their size. We would want big changes, and not small ones, so that those who are newly born, would have very little understanding of what preceded.

An issue, however, is there is no assurance that huge changes won't be rapid, and that generations may not be 4 years apart then, versus 20 years apart. Siblings can experience the world in ways with large differences, and while their ages may not be as far separate as parents and their babies, they can be quite large such that they feel very different in their histories.

These considerations give some explanation concerning what seems wrong also in the idea of generations, that:

"We seem to be selective in what marks one generation from the next, and there are many alternatives; but we don't want to use them all."

We don't want to use them all though, because we want to keep things simple, and have only one timetable. But probably it is better to do away with generations and speak about what the differences are, using a number of separate time tables that overlap with when people are living.

*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)

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


## <a name="amateur-vs-professional-work-vs-leisure">Amateur vs. Professional, Work vs. Leisure</a>

*Preface: In a response to a comment regarding the value of work.*

*Monday, October 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>9:37 PM Utah Time</time>

I'm for work certainly, but am suspicious about the meanings people have for "not work", "retirement", etc... I have become part retired, but am extremely active doing things which are identified with work. I have related irritations concerning the professional/amateur distinction. It also varies cyclically and over the lifespan, and to have a view that work, in a professional capacity, is too important, one may have difficulties over and above others in the change that retirement brings.

...

Outside of this comment I've said much about it already elsewhere. Leisure time is required for doing things that people would like to do, if that work done is not the same as professional work, that produces money. Someone who wants to write, develop an artistic skill, or do anything else of cultural value and importance that is not paid for, or something that is simply meaningful for the self, then one will need what has been termed leisure time to do it. This implies that one is doing less that would earn money at the time they are developing the skill, than they would be, if they are working on gaining funds; also this is what is hoped to be done during retirement if there is sufficient energy and motivation to do so.

It is really weird how there has been a division between amateur and professional. Amateurs seem to be called what they are because they have not gained enough savings or resources (or perhaps motivation), to continue on with developing a skill to the point of mastery, in the same way that a person who is working in an occupation does, in relation to their occupation, if they are passionate and are also incentivized by unrelated benefits like money, market (popularity), and attention (relates to market). Professionals, we know, have an easier time doing what they do because their efforts blend things which seem intrinsically valuable (doing what one likes, and creating what one desires, or solving problems, gaining knowledge, etc...), and needs of livelihood, which include social comforts, and freedom from worry in satisfaction of needs.

This is another area where it really appears measurement is useful, as it may relate to activities. There is so much dichotomous talking on points such as these, that result in people flip-flopping between one side and the other of the polarity. I said something of polarization illusions and this would be an example, in that one might believe these are opposed, when the actuality is this is about types of activities and behaviors and the results they bring, and the proportions of one type of activity and another in time/energy available. It does not appear to me that considerations on this are not somewhat small in total, and certainly finite, and I think with some modest effort one can complete this topic and the result would be one of sophistication and not one that is about debates over whether one should work or not. It also doesn't appear, that after this approach is taken, anyone would want to fall into one camp or another. Rather, people would simply discuss how they out to variously use their time, given different measures, and the diversity of their traits as different animals.


*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)

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


## <a name="ridding-of-the-generation-concept-for-current-and-future-population-groupings">Ridding of the "Generation" concept, for current and future population groupings.</a>

*Tuesday, September 27<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>1:29 PM Arizona Time</time>

I'm particular unfond of the use of popularized groupings we call "generations", which collect people in rough ranges, such that those born within those groups think they have important life-long commonalities. 

There are many obvious issues with this method of grouping, too numerous to record, but a few serious issues are that:

- There is no naming convention that resembles anything systematic.
- There are no standards concerning the boundaries (i.e. the start and end date of a generation).
- The groupings are too large, and do not take regions into consideration so much as time.
- They are used to explain too much about behavior of those within the group, and meaningfulness to history.
- Seems to guide history since popular: people come to agree that really such groups exist, and begin to self-designate with the labels, and claim belongingness.

The asystematic nature of the categories, "Gen-Z", "Millenial", "Gen-Y", "Gen-X", "Baby-Boomer", "Greatest Generation"-"er", and so on, indicates the method of creation of the generations might be media based, or news based. 

However, it also appears such a tendency exists for historical groupings looking backwards in history, in that groupings are done very roughly, for not having great precision. Tribes, nations, and many types of groups receive boundaries which seem to supply the historian what is needed to convey stories. They find landmarks that are not geographical, and use them to make separations, and create groups. When creating timelines, they pick out events which appear to create group related changes on a social level, and that is what is being done in the creation of "Millenials" and so on. Technology changes, war related changes, shifts over to a new millenium, and so on are used, to group people who otherwise might not be grouped together.

If the media and news is the source of terms like "Greatest Generation" and "Gen-X", and they use the terminology long enough, making it popularly employed, then the Historian will need to use the same language or mention it, whenever it is relevant to their history. This implies that the media and historians would work together in perpetuating the concept of a generation.

> "But is such a concept of a generation scientific and precise?"

It certainly is not. It assumes that a non-scientific approach to grouping people in generations is one that takes precedence even above a scientific approach for grouping people according to procreation occurring at population levels for differing land areas, in a number of ways. It assumes that, people shouldn't be thinking about how they can be grouped in a number of ways to describe what they are really like, and the various ways they align with the historical timeline of events, which really do influence their behavior, and have been created by them, depending on which event is under consideration. 

A person wanting to be scientific will not, as someone from a social group I belong to comment remind me, use "Astrology" to chunk human groups and behaviors.

A person wanting to be scientific will not, pretend that a group of 27 years, as with the [Greatest Generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation), which is supposedly the group of those born 1901-1927 inclusive, is useful beyond something really specific wanting to be communicated. Which is another serious issue with the generational concept: apart from a specific historical narrative on one topic of interest, like data around people born before, and living through and beyond, WWII. Popular culture and the media will continue to refer to this group again and again outside of this context as a convenient way of more permanently grouping them together, for other purposes. And again, the historian later, will have to utilize the same generational concept because the media has used it in various ways that contribute to other events and behaviors.

It is possible to utilize another method taking from the media it's asystematic and undetailed method of creating generations, to using a more scientific method that has many grouping methods, which then would be used to communicate with the public in a more sophisticated fashion, and which would be used by historians in a way which would inherit the quality of the science at the time.

Here I'm not discussing how this might be achieved, and for various ways it might be infeasible, because the media does not appear to want to research about science, or receive advice from science, on how to communicate with their audience. Also, the audience expects plain language, and plain language is related to what they are accustomed to. So it appears that both the audience and the media would not be wanting to suddenly rely on scientific methods of grouping and Demographics, which is supposedly a real science, definitely abandoned largely in our use of these popular generational concepts, in order to get things right. They are unable to tell anything is wrong with such an approach. However, historians will make use of these same concepts, and then it appears the historians are being less scientific, by being guided to an extent, in using these popular concepts, which need to be used, to explain the people who used them and the media that advertised the use.

There is a strange issue here, in that the historian, then, should still step back, and look at the history in a more detailed way, using dates and a more scientific method of grouping people according to actual similarities that might exist, and not too broad and irrelevant a grouping method. This means to get things right, the historian would need to do both: use the terms as they were used in the media (and therefore in primary sources) AND use the scientific methods of grouping to get the history right. But by appearances it seems they start using the popularly used groupings without taking that step back. They use the conventional or traditional groupings which became conventional and traditional via popular use.

Probably there are historians who attempt a greater level of detail than this, and I can recall some writings in which better regional and date related pieces of information are used-- but it does also appear that they do similarly themselves grouping things further back in time, and will use the same terms from the primary sources themselves. Perhaps better historians do more to take a step back, and group alternatively according to what historical science would guide, and not simply utilize terms like "baby boomer", as a primary method for telling the historical story to their audience. 

It would be interesting to survey current historical work and see to what extent the popular divisions of generations were used to relay the story, without altering the groupings to more sophisticated groupings, that historical science would require.

Having not really studied the discipline of demographics itself, it appears that would offer solutions for better grouping and measuring populations of people, than what is currently done with these generational concepts. 

When I think of a "generation" at a basic level concerning a group, I think of all the babies that were produced at the same time, for that group. In other words, I would not belong to the same generation as my brother or my sister, but I may roughly belong to the same generation of all my classmates at my school, born in that same region, and living there without relocation (which also complicates things). There are large differences between the life I experienced and the life of my brother, although certainly, because the difference is only about 3 years, they can be overlooked for various purposes. But if those differences cannot be overlooked, then the generation we belong to is not the same, on the demarcations required for that use of generation.

Notice that for our use of "Millenial" however, we have by some sources a separation of 20 years, including all babies born between 1980 and 2000. I was born in 1980, and my brother in 1983. The degree of separation between myself and people born in the 90s is very great in terms of early life experiences, and the difference is massive. I have been called a "Millenial" at work, while I'm 20 years older than those who were being negatively imagined (this was an older colleague). 

Oddly, some sources state that I'm not a "Millenial", but in "Gen X", having the dates for "Gen X" going from 1965-1980", and a "Millenial" from "1981" to "1997". This would place my brother in another classification, far too different from my own. Some would place me with one group, and another, because I straddle both, which implies that anyone living near a demarcation will be greatly misunderstood. At one moment I'm compared with those living in 1965 who are remember, with nostalgia oftentimes, earlier ways of living. Then suddenly, I'm shifted to much more youthful people, who are living lives still somewhat under interpretation. 

While this colleague at work refered to me as a Millenial, I was thinking things connecting me not only with Gen X, but earlier generations. Because my exposure to older behaviors and culture was not the same as it was for others, and included more and not less of what preceded. I'm comparing myself in many ways to people born in the 60s as if I too were born in that period, and certainly not someone 20 years old in 2016.

My preference is greatly to rely on specific dates and happenings to group and regroup as needed for thinking through topics of interest. As I think about it now, I don't think I would ever need to use a generational grouping akin to "Gen-X", unless I were specifically analyzing something that included that group specifically, with that level of non-detail, and then I would never use it again. But we use it over and over and that is certainly illustrative of the problem. We would need and want to regroup for any analysis we are doing to constrain the group to what is relevant. This seems to imply that these generational groupings are hardly ever relevant, and never well applied if more detail is desired.

*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)

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

## <a name="when-you-own-the-software-and-the-words">When you own the software and the words</a>

*Thursday, September 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>3:57 PM Alaska Time</time>

I haven't said much about this, but being in a happy moment, migrating my software from my earlier machine to my later machine, discovering it works without any special effort, I'm unusually self-satisfied at my accomplishment, of building a software system to deploy websites, that also functions to deploy my writing, according to the plan I've had for two decades. It does much more than that but that is a primary piece of functionality. I own the software of my system and the writing. All the bits are mine, words and code.

It's been since about 2016 having done this, but today it is better than ever, and I'm happy to celebrate a little about it.

I'm not sure how many people have built their own system to such an extent, in a sellable software product, specifically for use for deployment of their own writings, for total control and ownership.

Of course, I did well in the field of enterprise applications and have taken what I've learned to build my own system. I'm no longer a software architect so much as a management consultant and business owner, but I still continue my own development whenever I'm interested enough. But for a longer period of time, I've been a moral philosopher, and more than wanting to work in computing and related fields, I've been wanting to publish a book on moral philosophy and ethics. This is my primary field of expertise, and not computing; although doing well in computing may lead others to think that is my primary area of expertise. It is not.

*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)

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





## <a name="my-response-in-a-conversation-on-reverse-engineering-meaning-unicode-sensors-and-sensors">My response in a conversation on reverse-engineering meaning, unicode sensors, and sensors.</a>

*Preface: From an interesting conversation on reverse-engineering meaning.*

*Thursday, September 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>3:57 PM Alaska Time</time>

Monica, I was strolling outside thinking about this earlier. Interesting sense, collecting from a stream of unicode characters only. Here's how my thinking relates to that. If I'm a child, and I am exposed to the earth on other sensations, gradually I become competent at some specific observations about the world, even without any language. Like a non-human animal, say, I am able to correctly observe falling objects, and make predictions, but without using any language. Now suppose I learn a language of my nation. Knowing that language I can then, describe what I'm seeing regarding falling objects and predictions I can make about them, in a way that is congruous with the earlier ability acquired non-linguistically. Being a human, at current state of language, there would be, sometimes, a recognition of inadequacy in the language, to describe what is experienced, but nevertheless, I could form statements which correspond to parts of the experience, that I would be more committal to, and regard as true. Now, in that time learning language, I also acquired reading ability, which is separable to an extent from the verbal. Now I can type Unicode chars into facebook which match the verbal statements that would be true regarding my experiences of falling objects.

As I type, I recognize my type as a stream, originating in actions in my nervous system through my fingers and the keyboard, flowing into memory and rendered onto the screen, in sequence from beginning to end.

Enters Monica's sensor.

Monica's sensor is part of a black-box system on another part of the earth, taking public messaging input from FB. At one particular point in time, it takes input from my output, and it consists of those sentences which are those sentences I would consider true, regarding my experience of falling objects and predictions about those objects (which are specific to direct experiences). The sensor component alone, in the system, would have to be doing something which might not correspond to sensation or it might, but I would have to leave that for you to articulate further. Is it a biological sensor or digital camera sensor, or is it a program socket taking input programmatically, and somehow that is a sensor? All of these are interesting, but it has to be stated in what sense it is a sensor. Taking an analogy from biology, I would assume it is sensate, and not a websocket though, and there is some active scanning or watching happening, maybe some attention and the like. Which brings to

What is sensate of the sensor and what is processor? The sensor might be collecting Unicode chars as visual chars on a screen, or, it could be like a peripheral device, like a keyboard, noticing a stream and recognizing, which char each char is. A part of that sensor could be a processor which knows a bit more, or that could be offloaded to a computing portion of the black box system or a brain.

Here I would say that interpretation may not have happened yet, and streams of chars may not have become words. It may simply be a sequence of Unicode Chars and output of what those chars are in a translation (actual chars to unicode). Knowing that the chars relate to words which involve true statements, on experiences understood non-linguistically on years of exposure, these chars sensed, together in larger chunks, would have potential communication properties, which may result in true statements being understood, stored, and related, to another set of experiences in a mind that are not linguistic but are by analogy similar to those of my own.

However, if the black box system has no additional processing and only the sensor, it doesn't seem like it can do anything with the unicode chars, although it maybe can relay and translate them to unicode. If that black box includes a brain that has experience similar to mine, then it can dot he remaining work of interpretation in English, and has the physical experiences that are analagous to my own, then it could utilize it, as long as it has the additional interstitial brain to interpret the unicode, and understand true statements. If it were an AI, it may have different requirements in order to utilize the unicode, but to recognize them as true statements, it seems it would require matching with experience somehow, analagous to what a brain might have or what I might have.

OK so after all that, I will confirm that a unicode specific sensor is certainly possible and can relay unicode chars and maybe translate or reduce to lower code, or some biological equivalent. However, gathering the meaning I think requires more material than that sensor, because what is passed along, although it consists of true statements in language, requires matching to what was acquired using other sensors and channels in original experience apart from language. I think this would be true if the sensor was an input to another brain that has those experiences or another AI that has an analogue to those experiences, but either way, it appears those experiences have to be present to know that true statements were shared, and that the statements meant anything connected with anything physical.

I'm not sure a sensor of vision can be replaced entirely with a unicode sensor. I think whatever sensor is used has to be one that is interacting with nature physically in a way like vision, like sonar, but I'm not sure a unicode sensor could do that. So it seems a heterogeneous system is needed of a number of sensor types.

(This is all more to your first comment and not your second. I somewhat agree as to your statements although would think about it a little differently. I don't accept that there is a language device so agree on that too.)

...

Monica another thought. I think what might be useful is to have a catalog of necessary sensors, and know which if any can be replaced with a unicode sensor (and decide what sensing that unicode sensor has if only programmatic and not visual, or something else). When I think of instrumentation on unicode sensors I keep thinking of physical properties if not done with software, and if done with software it seems less sensate or insensate entirely.


*[Written in less than 38 minutes with some on-the-way spell-check proofreading in a Facebook chat window.]*

*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)


[http://www.mattanaw.org/#my-response-in-a-conversation-on-reverse-engineering-meaning-unicode-sensors-and-sensors](http://www.mattanaw.org/#my-response-in-a-conversation-on-reverse-engineering-meaning-unicode-sensors-and-sensors)

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


## <a name="challenging-claims-of-ignorance">Challenging Claims of Ignorance</a>

*Preface: [This seems to be of philosophical interest because it involves actually handling skepticism in a pragmatic way. It seems to erode skepticism, even if a little. You are not permitted to simply claim someone is ignorant. This would be helpful against bad philosophy]*

*Wednesday, September 21<sup>st</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>1:59 PM Arizona Time</time>

If someone happens to claim that you have an ignorant perspective, this means they happen to have a view as to what is missing in your education. This also means, they have the expertise to direct you to resources that would fill those knowledge gaps, and teach you, what it is that is missing. It could be extensive, but even if extensive, the recognition of a lack, indicates one can speak about the lack. Otherwise, it is not actually clear to the person making the claim, that there is a lack; which would mean, they are not really motivated on an insight as to missing education or knowledge, but something else. Even if there are extensive gaps, it is really easy for a teacher to show where to look for information, or to provide a list of subjects and topics to study. They should even be able to share some information, having the knowledge already, that would exist in those materials. If that cannot be done, then either they have learned it on their own experience, or, they may not have really learned anything that they claim expertise regarding. Such an expert, then, may go so far as to fraudulently point you to topics, subjects, and materials they have not read but only have some awareness concerning.

From the above it can be seen that challenges to any claims that you or someone else is ignorant would require knowledge that would resolve the ignorance, and therefore you can combat it by simply seeking out, from that person who made the claim, that knowledge they think is needed.

An additional issue is that while they may have the knowledge, it doesn't mean you don't. This occurs very frequently, when someone presumes that someone else would have conclusions on the same information that would be the same as the person listening or reading. People will respond to what I write thinking that they have more knowledge because they have a different conclusion; however, I often quickly show, that I have more knowledge than they do, which is the cause of having a better opinion. So it can even be, that someone who is more ignorant, will claim you are ignorant, on the basis of not having the conclusions they have had, on the limited information they had, which they thought was higher knowledge. It turns out they had less!

The debate as to who has more knowledge still depends on a conversation about what knowledge is required and missing, and someone who makes a claim that you or someone else is ignorant still needs to say what information is needed or which subjects or topics are required, for fully understanding what conclusions should be had.

*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)

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


## <a name="do-it-al-before-you-die-falsified">"Do it all before you die" falsified.</a>

*Wednesday, September 21<sup>st</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:59 PM Arizona Time</time>

[*Note: this is unedited and not spell checked, for important purposes mentioned here: http://www.mattanaw.com/editing.html*]

Some refer to lists of things one would really like to do, bucket lists.

I would suggest that these are things people would really like to do, that they are willing to procrastinate regarding.

If not procrastinate, they use the list to defer action until later, which can be reasonable, but it appears that is not the case, since the risk is dying before completing the list. "Bucket lists" are "Do it before you die lists", not "risk not doing these things before death lists". 

I think it is worthwhile for people, truly, to do many activities, and learn much, and have experiences they are wanting to have, throughout their lives. Procrastinating about doing items on a list, attached to a death milestone, really does seem to motivate doing the items later, or not at all.

A nice thing about these lists, is they could include items that are riskier, because if death is immanent, and one will do the items later in life, closer to death, or closer to when one really might expect death, one can do things one wouldn't otherwise do. That would be another kind of list than what people really envision concerning the bucket list. 

I have such a list and it includes finally indulging in drug cocktails, and flying in hot air or hydrogen balloons without plans. And similar other fun and deleterious activiites.

The purpose of this post wasn't really to show that these lists are risky, though. The primary message I want to get across about these lists is that they ought not be connected with death, but merely should be a backlog of items to complete when reasonable enough to really do, in a timely fashion, to have a more fulfilling life. 

> "But Matt, what is the problem connecting that with death? 'Do it before you die', seems fine to me."

The issue is that after you die, you will not look back upon what you've completed and receive rewards for having completed those things. Furthermore, if you die, having checked boxes right before death is not something you will experience again, as an accomplishment of all you wanted to do. You're dead, did you know that? That means you are not there...

But there's more than that. If you get old, and you do things late, you'll wonder why you didn't just have a more experience rich and fulfilling life the whole time. This connects with another compalint of the elderly, that one should do things earlier while it can be enjoyed. Bucket lists or death lists, really do encourage simply finishing, with a false promise of enjoyment after life has ended. But what the elderly want is:

> "I have lived a rich and fulfilling life, and in my remaining years, I can enjoy remembering those times, and a feeling of contentment and completeness."

The confusion here is that the enjoyment would be after death, and not after a time in which active life was possible. That still not good enough, actually, as I think about it:

> You really would be most happy if you were contented at the start of your life.

This indicates that whatever you need to start doing to have a good fulfilling life, you need to do even earlier than you think. 

This indicates that we have very low standards about quality of life, and that the elderly have not figured this out yet.We should be trying to make children content enough, so that they could die feeling fulfilled already. 

If children become aware they will die, we work really hard to make them feel like all has been good enough, from the beginning of their life, to the present.

But we don't know when anyone is going to die! Certainly all of the objectives of life are while living, and this includes having to plan for not knowing when life will end, and to include all things one wants

> While living.

*[Finished in 21 minutes, at 1:20 pm with no spelling check, edits, proofreading, and the like, corresponding to goals mentioned here:] http://www.mattanaw.org/editing.html*

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

## <a name="rationality-counters-child-having-unless-sufficiently-incentivized">Rationality counters child having unless sufficiently incentivized.</a>

*Wednesday, September 21<sup>st</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:47 PM Arizona Time</time>

There is an interesting phenomena I think with growing intelligence in a species, or else in sophistication of culture, enabling rational thought through education. Rational planning of children becomes opposed to allowing sexual desire to have its usual effects, of producing children without need for planning. If it doesn't lead some to have none, like myself (and I was married 19 years), it would lead people to have less. Unless a use for children resulted in incentives to have more (government stimulation for war preparation, or for slavery).

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


## <a name="pat-yourself-on-the-back-into-the-afterlife">Pat yourself on the back into the afterlife.</a>

*Tuesday, September 20th, 2022, 2:36 PM Arizona Time*

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

*Tuesday, September 20<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>2:42 PM Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="since-your-heads-are-separate-you-cant-see-that-mutually-youre-nonsense">“Since your heads are separate you can’t see that mutually you’re nonsense.”</a>

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


*Tuesday, September 20<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>2:36 PM Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="pat-yourself-on-the-back-into-the-afterlife">Pat yourself on the back into the afterlife.</a>

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


*Tuesday, September 20<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>1:47 PM Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="the-assumption-that-human-life-needs-to-continue">The Assumption that Human Life Needs to Continue</a>

Within our culture are ideas that pervade and eventually influence the recollection of thinkers, who might not realize how they would use those ideas later, unreflectively.

One such idea is that humanity needs to continue, which seems to be due to messaging from entertainment, and a modern feeling that the world has a commonality or a globalness, which needs perpetuation. This feeling could not have existed at a time prior to very recent times, as earlier there was not such a feeling that humanity collectively ought to persist indefinitely, as a group in which all are happy to belong together somehow, at least in this context of this type of thinking.

It is an odd view, considering people do not plan to coexist in any afterlife. Not wanting to coexist in an afterlife, for some reason, they think there ought to be some people living after us, who would somehow represent everyone who is now living, creating a kind of coexistence in the after death.

We don't live after we die, and somehow this gets overlooked. Even when young, I recall some friends insisting that there is not too much reason to care after death because they would not be alive. 
At that time, I was somewhat dismissive of that view, because I thought that one ought to behave in a way that contributes to betterment of the future somehow, but in retrospect, I think their point is one that must be considered and taken quite seriously, because not only does an individual not need to have children that would live into the future to continue such betterment (under obligations created), but no people need to exist or have children in the future, if that is not wanted. 

Notice if the earth’s population were reduced by natural disaster, and all died all but a few thousand Chinese and Indian populations, that their choice, the choice of the Chinese and Indians to have more childre, would not result in children who would really carry on for you. If you are these Chinese or Indian people, you still have a choice as to whether to have children or not and there is no special obligation to do anything in particular because everyone else has died. Furthermore, a short time later, the children may wish strongly to depart from the ways or cancel contributions of their parents, and certainly they would forget them.

The assumption that humanity needs to continue is one that is irrational and has harmful consequences. Certainly, a child born from the side effects of sexual desires of parents, and more rarely, plans that are mental and unrecorded, and as a rule, sketchy and incomplete and also irrational in vision, does not have any responsibility for having children of their own. 

There is no obligation on any child born that they later must reproduce. Most know this at one time, but then on other occasions, think, on social grounds, that pressure to have children is something worth doing. Decisions as to whether it is worthwhile to have children, certainly would want to consider whether the person would want kids, and what the later effects of not wanting them would have on the parenting process.

There is no law that exists that states that people may not remain single for life; a child born, may find life something worth having, only if they can remain single.

...

Any person now, who thinks there is an obligation to have children, will have no foundation for such a belief. It is a bias which has come into mind from culture in entertainment. There is no obligation in total, for any species to continue.

I think some might feel strongly that there is, but if they reflect they will see truly, it is a bias and they have no foundation whatsoever for that view. 

It is not clear what continuation of humanity would do for me. It's not clear what it would do for anyone in particular. It is not clear what it would do for everyone taken in total. 

Collective selfishness about a need for some few people to exist later, without any thinking about how anyone benefits who lives seems really odd.

It's almost like mostly everyone has chosen to dismiss the benefits to the living in the same way I did when I was a kid. Probably I inherited the bias.

What are some of the harms of this bias:

- Indiscriminate child-having and rationalization afterwards. 
  - "I'm helping the world carry on."
- Selfish peer pressure to have children regardless of situation.
- Selfish ideas about carrying on for everyone with one's baby.
  - "American children will extend the legacy of China."
- Stupidity around what really benefits a person.
- Taking credit for the lives of children, while not being willing to receive responsibility for negatives about their lives. 
- Inability to know that creation of human life can be a negative contribution.
- Adoption of extra-religious grounds in "survival" by those who think they didn't adopt a social-evolutionary worldview.

Arguing with someone committed to this view, I think eventually they realize they have no foundation and simply become committed to the assumptions.

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


*Tuesday, September 13<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>3:23 PM Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="how-beautiful-are-paper-stacks">How beautiful are paper stacks?</a>

What if you tilted the paper? Then bound the paper? Then organized somewhat findable, to a mind.

Did that stack not just kinda tip over?

More on beauty of libraries soon. Beauty that's biased.

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


*Tuesday, September 13<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>3:08 PM Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="james-dean-and-identifying-good-acting">James Dean and Identifying Good Acting</a>

*[Commenting to a FB friend about what he already insinuated: that James Dean was a moment but not necessarily a good actor]*

Thinking about now, it's really hard to know who is a good actor in anything. There are some good films with performances that create a self-forgetfulness in watching, but observing others who watch the same films and other films, I think they get absorbed in garbage too. There are very few movie moments that I would say are really amazing, and those movie moments are not only the actor but editing and direction, and cinematography. And this guy definitely doesn't have an scenes I would consider being good at the level that he could be analyzed for separation from his production team. "It's just bad so it seems they all did bad?"


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


*Preface: You think you like libraries, but they are furniture.*

*Sunday, August 7<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>4:49 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="nonaesthetics-of-books-and-aggregates-of-paper">Nonaesthetics of Books and Aggregates of Paper</a>

A limitation of self-publication for self, or on blogs or sites for others, is that there is a limiation on what content can be produced depending on the mind. Readers don't exist and so won't see what the very best minds have recorded and that's not yours, given your inability to record.

But suppose you write books, since you surely don't write sites. As an author, your book will be plain, mostly a copy of what has already been done before so far as formatting and sectioning goes, and your content will likely contain few truths, analyzing sentences correctly and logically, with a need for long sentences to get to even a passable level of truth.

Now your mediocre book which is mostly all books is placed into the library for *storage*. Reading rates are low. I don't only mean few are reading, and that few research, and seek out books that are not new enough to be in bookstores with limited shelving, but that library of congress has mostly untouched volumes.

Seeing and well-knowing that large bookshelves, tall and wide, with ladders and so on, and seemingly unlimited options, does not really make it aesthetic, on a later more mature view. These books are unread. Most are poor. Reading is slow, even when readers claim to be quick. I know this firsthand. My reading rate also is not incredible, but has allowed me to read, many volumes, while others pretend, and have volumes for show, and for telling lies later.

People don't read but have books.

Libraries hold books unread.

The books that are there are mediocre.

How does the library retain that beauty you thought it had, when you see it and know, it is unused unworthy material, largely.

Libraries do not have a timeless appeal that people think they do, in a consistent way. There can be no expectation of seeing beauty in libraries. I like to have access to books that I will read, but when I observe the library, I recall I want one or two books at a time, and one hundred thousand volumes of false statements, unread by others, and I now think that is not really beautiful.

Beautiful inefficiencies "abhorred by nature" as the saying goes?

What is efficient in nature in conveying experience for learning? 

An attraction to books for me was somewhat the material, but more the smells, and the paper and the feel of books. But this is paper.

This is not a commentary on my dislike for books, because I like them especially and that is an unusual trait.

The library is unusually empty and that doesn't make for a beautiful library in a way.

People share photos of large older libraries with many volumes in historic locations, and people enjoy. I've enjoyed. But it's suboptimal nature so maybe what is enjoyed is furniture, and knowing you have

two or three books you might read eventually in a lifetime.

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


*Preface: Clothes with totally unique assembly*

*Monday, September 5<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>6:18 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="textiles-that-are-never-the-same">Textiles that are never the same.</a>

Recently, in considering mathematics, I came to an idea that different divisions of pizza cuts would be truer to requirements of social pleasantries, than blind cuts, with knives and circle-cutters.

A differentiator in pizza business might be to supply different cuts for interesting and imaginative pizzas.

Well, in textiles the same or similar may be possible, if repeat-work on same-similar-cuts sewn and glued are eliminated. A new staff would be required, but I don't think they would sweat as much.

This is a designer brand making textiles that you fit into, but their construction is never the same.

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

*[Finished in 1 hour and 30 minutes, without edits, spellcheck, grammar check, or reading. Finished at 4:30 pm]*




*Preface: We can't yet classify leadership in a way that makes when and where manipulation is required, and how to disconnect malintent from that manipulation.*

*Wednesday, August 30<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>10:09 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="finding-the-relationships-between-manipulation-and-leadership">Finding the relationships between manipulation and leadership.</a> 

*[Note: This is a comment I posted on a FB connections wall, who was inquiring into perspectives on leadership and manipulation]*

A typology would be required to clarify this. Suppose I'm a professor and I'm charismatically telling the truth and am giving away great information freely, with an expectation that learning is personal. That is a kind of leadership, that is more devoid of manipulation, and can exist in a range of other contexts, including parenting. Then there is leadership knowing that people or children won't decide in their best interests for a large amount of situations. Being informed is then a risk. Not being informed of plans implies manipulation, but not with malintent. The same person can utilize different strategies for situations and roles. Within this I think a classification can exist that would allow people to identify which is which, and have a shared vocabulary.

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

*Thursday, August 25<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>1:20 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="higher-order-attention-notes">Higher Order Attention, Notes</a>

Currently in progress is my work on Higher Order Attention, a topic that I've already written about in my [Dark Green Notebook](). The handwritten book needs editing, and some additions and improvements, before it can be republished as a complete mini-book or long article. The purpose of the book is to describe a method and strategy in which people can improve their lives by altering their attention, which includes subjects which might seem unrelated, like choosing a place to live and location away from people who are harmful or would utilze your attention in ways that are not in your best interest. So it touches on spaces and time and not only attempts at ignoring specific experiences, or trying to find better things to put one's attention on.

Here I'm wanting to include some notes on social irritants and some connecting strategies to mitigate or alleviate unwated effects. 

I've attained a level of fame in my life such that I'm recognized wherever I go, and people, for whatever reason, enjoy tying to invalidate the supposed claims they pretend I'm committed to, translated poorly from various sources in my social media. In other words, they lock hold of things they think they can use to irriate me.

A fascinating side effect of this is that it does test my work on higher order attention, to an extent. That work is not for unusual circumstances really. It's more of a strategy which can be used under a variety of circumstances tha are not by design strange or retaliatory. The point of the work is not to help every situation, but to define a strategy that does work, for many scenarios, that is needed and currently doesn't exist. In other words, I do have unusual circumstances but these circumstances to not imply that what does not exist for anyone, that is more challenging for some, is debunked because of the some (the exceptions). 

Anyway, it is of interest that I can refine this article and strategy on the basis of my experiences which are more demanding and not less. The items below pertain to current attempts on attention and distraction.

Social irritants are the primary method used by others for trying to take attention, in a way they think is meaningful, or humorous, or satisfying to them for a variety of disturbing reasons. Everyone has some familiarity with some of these having been children, stuck in places with other children, fighting verbally, or with any method which might cause discomfort. Thinking back to when one is a kid, one can come up with many annoying things that one can do, to distract or otherwise annoy, and consume attention of others. 

The items I've placed below are things that a child might do, but what I experience is adults doing these same behaviors.

- Speaking with a strange voice:
  - Strange tones
  - Irregular rhythms
  - Rhythms matching heartbeats or other rhythms
  - Abrupt statements
  - Whispers with jarring words, or items about you
  - Threats in any of the voices or whispers
- Mixing you into conversations:
  - Information about you intermixed with regular conversation
  - Stating things about you, or relating things to you while pretending nothing is about you
- Saying things about you which might provoke:
  - Abrupt random statements about what might cause an emotional response
- Pretend control or dominance
  - Prompting a reaction in you then noting they were the cause
  - Prompting a reaction they say they can use, making you an employee or worker of theirs
- Ganging up, collective bullying and nuisance/harassment
  - Targeted teasing or piquing in group
  - Group change of volume, high or low
  - Group feigned reactions to you, or whatever is attributed to you by them first. (I.e. they say something that relates to you, then pretend you're not there or you do not relate, then they as a group reactive negatively to what was said, to make it seem as though you were suddenly rejected. But they simply said something, pretended you didn't relate, then pretended to all have a negative social judgement on it).
- Laughter
  - Irritating or jarring false laughter
  - Laughter that seems like it would be connected with mischief or teaing, or resulting from harms of others.
  - Laughter that is simply annoying and doesn't include you, or is to indicate you're not included 
- Pretend involvement
  - Some will pretend to know you, or pretend to have knowledge of your activities, and pretend to contribute, be knowledgeable about those behaviors, or critique what is being worked on at the moment, while it is being done. 
  - Pretend self-crediting while obstructing.
- Pretend "I got you."
  - "I caught you doing _____."
  - "You're panicking, crying, etc..." Another way of saying "I got you" or, "I caused your feeling and I cuaght it" or "You're weak" etc...
- Invented junk criticisms, slang, etc... Akin to "gamer win" speak.
  - Slang used by teens when believed victorious, even if not. Simply used whenever. A way of claiming perpetual winning. Christian "victory" used against others.
- Pretend Justification that keeps changing.
  - "I'm doing this because of __________."
  - "I'm going to do this until ___________."
- Talking dumb or slow, when not.
  - Sarcastic "I'm dumb". (even if true).
- Stressed voice, or voice to grab attention
  - Especially among women. Used to get your attention, or to manipulate you into having a feeling they don't actually have, but are pretending. Acting distressed, using a stressed voice, causing you stress that they don't have! Somewhat like a child trying to get something from a parent, by causing a readiness or desire to help.
- Act that you're going to be in.
  - This is a harassment method intended to create a cause at damaging you through others. People will create an act and pretend it includes you as a negative character, or try to get you to become involved, in order to make you involved with whoever else will be brought in. This may allow denial of services, and use of law enforcement in false ways.
  - Preteding you're a risk, so that they can later take actions on that assumption. This can be done in many ways. They'll choose on the basis of what garners unreflective support.

*There are many other methods which can be added later but they are not inexhaustible. There is really a total number of irritating things which can be done*

Reactions to these statements are the symptoms they hope to inflict upon you:

- Thinking about what you would otherwise not think about
- Time distraction from other activities or thoughts
- Involuntary facial reactions
- Involuntary reactions in breathing
- Involuntary reactions in other bodily feelings or sensations
- Creation of unwanted imagery
- Distress and crying
- Submission
- Creating competition

Even those items above which you think you might not experience, can be gauranteed nearly over time or with enough negative stimulation using the methods above. Even if one thinks "I'm strong and I would not submit," one will still have thoughs, which might be perturbing, even if very brief, that would related to placation or an understanding that the expected behavior is placation, or supplication or begging, etc... When harassment has been very great I have had ideas come to mind which were from others in origin. Another method is to include in teasing or irritating behavior suggestions for thoughts which you will then later have, or nearly have, or recall—any of which can be intensely aggravating, even if you do not at all show it in outward expression.

*There are many other reactions which can be added later.*

Many of these items can be dealt with using some easy techniques, which I have not mastered myself. I utilize many methods which do cause success, and I definitely do a great job in my circumstances, but that is also because of a history in childhood of being a dominant child and not being one easily subject to bullying. So I'm not really especially easy to damage using these attacks. However the attacks are very frequent in my case, like what might occur to a targeted celebrity, who has no place to hide really, who spends a lot of time in public. Some of these methods will surely be useful to others. I'm recording them here for myself primarily though, so I more quickly grab a partcular solution and apply it to what it resolves or alleviates, without being lazy about it, or forgetting which reaction resolves which stimulation.

- *Intense concentration on task into flow.*
  - This may be the best option of all because it does create a mentality in which nearly anything which is not totally strange and socially unacceptable from others can be ignored. This is equivalent to going into a daydreaming mode, in which the world is blurred out, and what is focused on is focused on very intensely. 
  - For me this is achiveable when writing or doing work on the computer, which may also involve my speaking to myself in my mind, or vocalizing in my mind what I'm writing.
  - Drawback: This cannot be maintined easily for more than a few hours, and I don't think most would be able to maintain it even that long.
- Rhythmic voicing matching a rhythm in the environment.
  - Matching rhythm that is meaningless or retaliatory, even if inaudible to others.
  - Strength: This is really easy to just continue for very long periods.
  - Drawback: Can cause you to overutilize it, when one of the other reactions is a better antidote for what is happening.
- *Sound decibel matching.*
  - If someone suddenly gets more loud than a situation calls for, can match their loudness. That corresponds to a social rule. As others become loud you'll notice others join in, and this alternates with lulls and quieter moments.
  - Drawback: There are situations in which people would still use this to pretend you were the odd person out. I.e. you were causing problems with noise, as if they were not the causes, or because they are unreflective and do not know their own behavior.
  - Strength: It creates a feeling of increased power and decreases reactivity to what is done. It dulls what people are doing and may be somewhat akin to what is felt when someone is realizing they are winning.
  - Drawback: Engages you in competition you may not want. Although it may be possible to internalize that this is simply an antidote and remove the feeling that one is being forced into competition. 
- *Giving no harasser any special respect, social position, or sympathy*, given that they will utilize that to harm you. This when someone who is harassing is oddly hunched, or diseased, old, young, or other. Famous people really do deal with comments that are negative from every kind of person, including people you wouldn't expect harmful things from. This is dangerous as one might want to feel some special kindness for a person, then find they are wanting to damage you.
  - Some might read this, and claim you cannot diminish your kindness. Anyone who is subject to harassment over a period would know, however, that the reactions which are antidotes to affects you will experience from attacks, ought to successfully support you. Sometimes you need to really simply do what is necessary to thwart attack, and these people are not respecting you anyway.

More brief list with less detail:

- Sudden vigorous exercise (causes concentration and allows for controling ones internal environment). 
- Any change of posture, or standing walking, stretching.
- Talking to oneself (in mind or quietly aloud).
- Working and being absorbed.
- Showing strength. (with detachment is something I aim at, to not have related feelings with showing strength). 
- Noise blocking, matching, covering, etc...
- Having music on (sometimes there are numerous irritations happening at different volumes and tones, and rhythms. Music may not eliminate all, but eliminate much.
- Meditating.

The harder ones over time to eliminate or alleviate:

- Ones with semantic properties that jolt your thinking into a place that is stressful to the person targeted in particular. I'm not realy sensitive on many topics, and do not believe myself an easy target at all using this. However, I think this implies some others would be in very great danger if targeted in the same way, if they are merely sensitive in many ways, or if they lived private lives, and have too many secrets which can somehow get picked at over time, with doxxing, testing and using, and other techniques. In my case, I have noticed that understanding what is said, will cut through many methods of ignoring. If someone just blurts out to you something personal to you very suddenly in public, while pretending you're not there, you will probably notice, and be somewhat affected, even if you're able to ignore most everything else that is more meaningless. Simply ignoring works well except when the meaning somehow relates to something which is more irritating, even if just at that time, in that mood.
  - This is best targeted I've found with working in flow. But flow is not something that is necessarily an option quickly, for just before or after that might happen. One may not know, and probably will not know, in order to get into a mindset that is less susceptible. However, if one is going to be in an environment where this can be anticipated, working for a long period will cause those attacks to be more blunted, during that time. 
  - Talking to oneself about a topic of interest for a long period of time (aloud or as I usually do, simply in my own mind), that allows you to have a conversation with yourself. Notice that conversations with others cause one to not hear much of what is going on around, if the conversation is good enough. This is like doing the same kind of thing, only alone. This technique is related to the flow in work technique, and while I'm not quite in a flow right now, I'm working and verbalizing to myself, in a way that is focused and interested and it does blunt incoming irritations.

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

*Thursday, August 18<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>4:14 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="exploring-distance-to-town-in-provisioning-of-the-camping-traveler-and-the-homeless">Exploring distance to town, in provisioning of the camping traveler and the homeless.</a>

In a recent posting I came to the idea that distance to a quality sleep location, which might be determined on a sleep quality index, might be used to determine some key issues blocking the fixing of homelessness and related travel discomforts. It was considered that travel indecisiveness even among those who have wealth appears related to the lack of a market fulfilling sleep needs, in a way that would place high quality sleep locations ranking well on a sleep quality index, closer to a traveler at any particular time. If this issue is resolved for the homeless in a way that is satisfactory for their well being and dignity then it can be presumed that the dignity would imply a solution of good enough quality to be utilized by wealthy travelers who just want sleep too.

Here though I want to develop the topic from the other direction. I still want to find an inexpensive and natural environment to camp that is near a city location where I can enjoy various businesses, but easily access my sleep location shortly afterwards. This of course is the flipside of the earlier issue. If one did have a good sleep location or camp site as a traveler or as a homeless person, and one is doing well, is clean, and is safe, one would still get bored vary quickly. When I imagine sleeping in a tent, in a campsite location in any national park, in the rain, I do not imagine it to be pleasant. Worse is the issue of what you do when you are exhausted and need to recover, and have nothing to do, and have hours or days ahead in a tent. People already do not wish to be at home too long; after a few days, it will be very attractive to leave the house and visit a business and see people. It would be much worse in a tent, in poor weather over an extended period, with very few "amenitites" if one could call comforts such a thing at a camp site, and one would quickly want to see people, and enjoy various businesses in town. 

For my own travel and lifestyle interests this may be as big of an issue nearly as the sleep issue. Because even if I find a location that is comfortable to sleep outside the city, in a location that is not too far away, I will not want to stay there long. Which does illuminate another reason why the sleep issue needs to be resolved: people really just want to sleep, they don't necessarily want to go anywhere. It's somewhat humorous to think that sleep implies travel. This is again where the homeless person is linked with the traveler.

One way to resolve this is to have plenty to do while camping at the camp location, if the camp location is one that can be stayed at during the day and not only at night. It may be that being in a tent overnight in a location is suitable because it isn't so visible; but during the day, it may be subject to potential detection, and in that case, one will have to move, if one can, depending on the weather. But if one can stay, one can simply have plenty to do, sitting outside the tent, or nearby, or sitting in the tent. This to me still sounds a bit ridiculous, as sitting in a tent for a long period of time is like choosing to have very little space and visibility in an open environment. So I suppose I would want to stay out of the tent anytime the weather is good enough and I'm not at risk of excessive sun exposure, or other. I do enjoy solitary life, so reading is totally acceptable for a long period. If in network range it may be possible to use the internet, accomplish work, or play games and so on. One could easily exercise nearby, hike and observe nature, and take photographs, or do art if one liked.

But how long does it take to get bored when doing this?

Camping in a tent seems to be somethign that is only tolerable in one single spot for a day or two, unless one can leave the tent behind and drive into town. If one is on a hiking trip, then it makes sense that it would be enjoyable to hike each day, and set up camp in a new and exciting place every night. For most people, camping in one location for a very long time might not be too comfortable. Continuing the hike keeps things interesting and gives one something to do. 

It seems odd that there would be a requirement in backpacking that for enjoyment one might have to continue moving, even if in nature in locations where camping is easy and one is well provisioned. If one wasn't moving, one would probably not want to camp, and go into town.

...

It may be of interest here to research life outside of the market in our history. We know that people preferred to be somewhat near town centers in order to have access to goods and necessities, and at a reasonable price. However, others have lived rural lives at fairly great distances from supplies, and in western life in the United States, there is the idea that people enjoyed trips into town as periodic entertainment, which may happen only weekly or biweekly or monthly. Some may have spent much longer periods of time away, living as homesteaders and so on. What I don't know is how comfortable that was, and how able one was at keeping oneself occupied and happy. The dwelling structures that people would have lived in in these scenarios would have included some shift from the market to the homeplace for entertainment. In other words, things are at home that are enjoyable that could be elsewhere. I.e. "I'm keeping books and games at home, and more possesions that have the purpose of keeping me free from excessive boredom." Tenting does not allow for the same level of self-satisfaction as having a home, but maybe with technology and so on it allows for even more in some ways, than what was available in a cabin, or small home in the country. Except now there is some need for obtaining energy, which again pushes one to need to visit town.

For a very long period in my life I could read most of the day and be contented. Now however, I do not wish to read for nearly as long. It feels as though I've read enough and having a book in my face for more than a few hours is excessive. So I have to quickly think of other things to do, but most do seem to involve a screen. Using a screen I will need to return to town to get a charge.

There is a definite need to find a location to sleep that is in a safe location outside of town. But then there is an interesting question about why you don't just stay there. It's an odd question to ask, because it's not unusual to stay at home for very long periods of time and people don't really need to ask themselves why they would stay at home, where they are paying excessive amounts of rent, whether they stay or leave. But if the objective is sleep (and for me it is largely for sleep even if I do have a home, or a hotel room, which seems more aligned to sleep needs), then when one is finished sleeping it's not clear why one would remain in the same spot.

 "Why are you staying in that one spot renter, or homeowner, if the goal was sleep?"

My ex-wife and I would spend most of our time outside of the house, doing things at the gym, at the coffeehouse, eating at restaurants and so on, and would not spend too much time home. Later one vacations. In all this time away, payments are still made for the home. But for us, the home really did mostly represent sleep and relaxation, in a high quality location, which would score very well on a sleep location quality index. 

 "What if a tent were as nice as your home?"

This sounds like an impossibilty clearly. But playing imaginatively, what if you had a pop-up tent that had everything and was the size of a large studio apartment. It is in a box like an inflatable raft, which can be quite large. You pull the cable and the whole thing pops up, and provides you a very nice and secure shelter with all you need, including electronics and entertainment, and place to sleep. It is a portable hotel room, of high quality. 

In such a case would it not seem that the tent is becoming the same as the home?

But the tent is not the home. It has to be something that can be carried on one's back. A home, on the other hand is immovable, and stays in one place. In between this is the hotel room, which may be scattered about in various locations, somewhat close to a city center.

In my future plans I do want to reside in a hotel the way I did when I was a travelling consultant. But I also want to be able to camp as well. There is still an issue in that hotels are not really distributed as well as one might think, and they might be overpriced and booked. A backpack is always with you, meaning you can throw a tent out anywhere, excepting for prohibitions by rules. In between this would be that market for sleep I was talking about that would provide more structures of various types that would score well on a sleep location quality index. But wouldn't these start to seem like that tent that has everything I just mentioned, if the product were designed really well. There are pods and so on that have been created, and these ideas for 3d printing of homeless dwellings, and many other kinds of portable structures. But what is missing is the existence of these structures in a market where you can really use them.

Such structures initially would be geared to sleep. But they seem like the would also develop later to solve issues of boredom. 

 "Now you're done sleeping in your pod. Get out and find something to do..."

This doesn't seem reasonable either. Maybe you need to lay around, and read, and maybe have some basic VR entertainment, or something that would expand the function of that sleep dwelling a positive way, that would enable people to occupy their time when they are not sure what else to do.

The sleep location also seems to be a location where other activities for resolving boredome take place. Of course there is sexual bahavior. But there is also just laying and daydreaming comfortably, and reading, and playing on an electronic device.

This would assist with homelessness too because their behaviors would be channeled towards forms of enjoyment and entertainment that are positive, rather than perhaps doing other things which might be related to criminal behavior, or self-injurious behaviors like drug abuse.

Not expecting or anticipating such a market to open in the near future, I think to myself now that I may need to find a way to make my camping plans include maximum positive self-entertainment and comfort for more than one or two days in one location. Because even if I resolve the issue of finding a place to sleep in a nice natural environment not unreasonably far to walk to/from a city or town center, I will need to find a way to make that same location one that can be stayed at for a prolonged period of time. If that goal was completed, and really the camp location was comfortable and enjoyable much like inside a home, then it should begin to seem homelike. Some of the smaller experiences of comfort, which fall within user experience in using various products, should become part of the camping. If not, it may be that camping really is infeasible. And I admit I have never really enjoyed camping in my life too much. But I also don't like spending thousands a month on rent.

It seems to me that if camping is only for sleep it is entirely feasible. 

If camping is supposed to take the role of a hotel room, then I think it may not be feasible. 

There are other serious issues like making biological needs that are recurring transparent to the daily experience. I can run into the restroom and use it and hardly reflect that I'm using it, if I'm at a hotel room. But in a camping scenario, there are many things which make urination alone somewhat impossible to be totally ingnorable. For example, one risks urinating on oneself in a tent. There is no sink. Leaving the tent over and over and over to urinate is really annoying. It does not take long before one is really wondering whether that is worthwhile. 

However, there was a time before bathrooms. So what does it take to return to that period in mind, to have the same level of comfort that would have then existed.

Where can I be out of view when I urinate? Defecation is an issue too, but I leave it out because urination alone is enough to rule the whole thing out over time. 

Whenever I was camping, or using my RV, even in my RV with a very nice bathroom, I was inclined to want to save up to avoid defecation. I would prefer to find a restroom somewhere, at a cheap gym or at a gas station, or other business. This is not really feasible for comfort over a very long period of time either. I was able to overcome it for van camping and traveling, but I don't foresee making it comfortable for camping in a tent.

...

In this posting I have not covered the various other reasons for going into town:

- I want to see people.
- I want to sit in a comfortable climate and drink a coffee.
- I want to use nice restroom.
- I want to feel normal. (which is a hard to define and requires definition, because it can be overcome in specifics).
- I like these various goods on a daily basis: groceries, drinks, ...
- I want to exercise at a gym.

If it is not too far to find a place to sleep from a city location with these services, then it may not be too hard to return to the city on a daily business too to fulfill each of these needs. My earlier requirement on remaining in one location for a period of time, near or at the sleep location, might still be fulfillable, if that period of time is only a day or two at a maximum, and the time to get back into the city is short enough.

This means that all market desires are fulfillable. One is comfortable in one spot for a period in the same way as "down time" at home. Most don't have down time for more than a few days on average, if I'm not mistaken (and I could be, and am if everyone on earth is considered). Suburban people in the United States might be a good representative group. One can easily get from the market back to sleep and the sleep is high enough quality. If this scenario is doable then I would argue that it's pretty close to fulfilling the needs of many travelers and homeless people, and myself as someone who would like to camp periodically and avoid unnecessary expenditure.

In the earlier post, I was saying that choice of location and region would be necessary to enable this. This is a research problem then perhaps. Being a research problem it means I can solve it for myself, but others would not necessarily be able to do the same, or they would be like me in their willingness to do this. This implies it does not solve homeless issues, but it does solve issues for a class of travlers and some homeless. The extent to which it is feasible depends on what reserach would reveal about the total quantity of locations available in which this would work, and how widely distribute they are, and where they are. Just the spatial constraints on this particular solution. 

Even before going back, I'm certain this would work right now in Flagstaff, Arizona. This would be an examplar locaiton potentially of where this would be possible. Research seems like it would be on towns and cities, and not at all on countryside. Towns that are very small may be good candidates though. This means research is about the relationship of land areas to town locations, in what uses are permitted, and the quality of the landscape and market resources for people who would want to live this way.

Next I think what I might do is create a set of requirements for both the traveller of my type and for the homeless, and for city locations on impacts to people who live nearby. Using this I will perhaps be able to overcome what nuissance laws happen to be, and maybe find a way to make it impossible for complaints to break the solution. Where there can be no complaints is ideal for now, but I want the solution to start to move towards locations where people could complain. If I can find the legal method to make such complaints impossible if behaviors and impacts are within tolerances, then I think I'm closer to a more complete solution to homelessness and needs of travelers.

Then perhaps I can find a solution to: "Why can't I camp in an airport?".  

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

*Sunday, August 14<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:14 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="factors-in-basic-travel-and-homeless-life-provisioning-continued">Factors in basic travel and homeless life provisioning, continued.</a>

In the last post I listed some factors or important areas of interest for developing a more clear analysis of related problems of travel and homelessness.

Travel and homelessness are extremely related although for a variety of reasons that is not brought up in discussions on solving homelessness problems in the media.

Before moving on to focusing on more factors, it may be of interest to list some parallels between the two briefly. The second to most recent posting goes into detail on some some relationships, and may be worth exploring.

- *Sleep Disallowed*. Even wealthy people are prevented entirely from being able to sleep at airports, even if they are at risk in various ways.
- *Demands on Decision Making*. Beginning and Experienced travelers experience indecision, or a threat of excess demand on decision making, to find accommodations that are acceptable and safe/comfortable.
- *No Market for Sleep or Cleanliness*. Related to the above, when traveling, suddenly one feels that basics are not available. Even a wealthy person may not have a place to simply defecate or urinate, or sleep. And money might not be able to buy it (i.e. Airport sleep accommodations).
- *Odd Requirement to Move Around*. One cannot remain in a location too long without drawing attention and eventual expulsion. Expulsion happens quickly. 
- *Distance to comforts*. Suddenly there is a great distance to comforts. There is a market for this but one has to have funds and either way, the time loss is felt. Consider time from the airport to a hotel room, or home.
- *Requirement to look or behave in a way that is not a nuisance to *someone.** Anyone can face a random complaint from someone who is in a bad mood, or has a poor character or disposition. A kind and clean homeless person can simply be victim to a habitual complainer, and even become a suspect to various unsolved crimes. A wealthy person who may already be of public interest can be slandered and defamed nearly anywhere and face false accusations for gaining attention.

There are many other relationships that I think are more fundamental. This list didn't do a great job at pinpointing the problem. When anyone leaves home, they are suddenly a traveler. A vagrant, or a transitional tourist, or transient. I've mentioned it appears we've arranged a system, somehow, discouraging anything but destination focused travel, by implementing various market omissions and by ensuring discomforts. It explains why you really cannot sleep anywhere but someplace that resembles a final destination. A home or a hotel. It explains why closing your eyes is something that makes it appear you are a homeless person, unless you are unusually well dressed and exhibitionist about wealth. You may be allowed to sleep at a location, if you are dressed like an official in the military, or if you are wearing only luxury branded clothing, obviously marked as such, and of good quality. Anyone else dressed even somewhat nicely will be get odd looks if their eyes close. I wonder if this is another reason for the existence of an aftermarket for, or market imitating, military goods. If you dress like you are in the military, even cheaply, you may also have some protection from being judged transient or homeless. 

There is also a view that you need to keep moving. You cannot stop anywhere too long, unless again, it is something that is like a final destination, or a homelike place that would clearly fit on an itinerary. Then there is love of itineraries and sharing of plans. You are supposed to have plans as though travel cannot be just how you live.

Camping resembles what is considered a public nuisance already, of aggregation of homeless people. The difference is where it is happening. Tent villages really are identical with camping, where the tent villages are well kept, and where duration and intents are similar. Consider if you are a backpacker, and you are in an urban environment. If you were to choose a place not too far to sleep, using your gear, you would be a tent villager of one. If a group of National Park enthusiasts who happened to be enjoying an detour through an urban area decided to join you, seeing your example, they too would be building your village. From the start you were a nuisance like a hobo, and with a larger group, a larger nuisance. Except now like the homeless, you might be able to fight collectively for a time if anyone causes issue. "This is not a location for camping tourism..." might be fought off successfully. So just as with the homeless, individuals, like you, are more at risk of being unable to defend. But that's how many travel who travel often. "Before you have a family, make sure to do your traveling." The implication is that you are individual, and perhaps more at risk. If this is the case, that you are more at risk, then there would be no time that travel would be more acceptable, for anything that at all resembles homelessness. But backpacking resembles homelessness.

Right now I'm at a Starbucks, and beside me I have a stuffed backpack, that is higher quality and more expensive than usual, which helps a bit. But either way, it is a backpack that backpackers carry. Now, I'm in an urban environment. Can I use it as it is intended to be used, to utilize my gear that would attach and be stowed in various ways, here or many places for long? Well in an urban setting, it became a normal travel bag. Just an option to a carry-on. Outside the urban area there are long expanses of locations where it is uncertain as to the legality of sleep, or long distances to paid camping locations where people are oddly clustered together, hardly remote in nature. Camping backpacks have two very separate purposes. One is to support very specific back country hiking trips that are supposed to be contained. You depart and return to your home. The second purpose is, as I already stated, for normal travel. But then it's a strange design for normal travel. Now you appear a hobo/camper in an urban setting. "How long exactly are you going to be here?"

I think there may be some expectation that you have reasonable need to stay somewhere slightly longer if you have such a bag though. There may be some benefit. But the bag cannot be disgusting, and can't be unsightly. However, it is also an indicator that you may stay too long. It is also a sign you are a vagrant or transient, or may not have a place to go. Contrast this with a business traveler carrying few things except maybe a slim computer bag. You can sit places quite a long time anyway with that appearance, and people may not notice you even remained. It appears you do not intend to remain, and that you have some place to go. You cannot be adequately prepared to try to live like a homeless person. But a person who is backpacking in an urban environment is equipped precisely to live self-sufficiently, or at least has what appears to be ready for that same purpose (obviously a backpack may not have what is needed within it). 

...

The topic I was planning to focus on a bit more, but did not, was on complaints that would relate to criminal nuisance. I have not researched this much. Being a landowner of a large parcel of land, with a trespasser issue, this is of interest. Humorously the trespassers are like vagrant wealthy people at times, unruly and certainly behaving as a nuisance. There is no way to remove them given the way law is not enforced in the countryside, even near to Anchorage. In Anchorage, however, I think public nuisance laws are enforced. Right now though I'm in Nevada, where public nuisance events really do occur probably with more frequency. I found a law, and some examples provided, which included language like "vagrant resorts". Here's the law:

**Nevada Crimes and Punishments**

*Sec. 202.470*

Maintaining or permitting nuisance: Penalty.

Every person who:

1.Shall commit or maintain a public nuisance, for which no special punishment is prescribed; or
1.Shall willfully omit or refuse to perform any legal duty relating to the removal of such nuisance; or
1.Shall let, or permit to be used, any building or boat, or portion thereof, knowing that it is intended to be, or is being used, for committing or maintaining any such nuisance,

- shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The vagueness of this law makes it more obvious why the homelessness issue seems unresolvable. Too many things can be complained about. Take any person from the community and ask them what the scope of nuisance behavior is and they won't really know. Ask them about what they would do if they were a traveler or a homeless person in an urban environment, needing to sleep, and whether that behavior would constitute nuisance behavior, they wouldn't know. Ask them if they could urinate or defecate in public, if they were at a point that it would become involuntary, they would not know. Ask them if they can vomit in public, if they feel ill, they would not know. But for each of these things, people really can become victims of police interrogation and even arrest, for being considered a public nuisance at the minimum. They could be falsely accused of drug use, intoxication, and public nudity if someone who complains is more intolerant, or if the person who is employed as an officer is in a bad mood, or isn't of good character.

Two key ingredients to the homelessness problem appear to be:

- Ease of making someone a nuisance for invented reasons, 
- Knowing and getting to spatial coordinates that have low sleep risk index ratings 
  - (such an index does not exist, but could be created. That it does not exist is a problem too).

Areas in which complaints would be high would be as dangerous, or more dangerous, due to police, as areas where theft or violence could occur. Going to jail, or being accused of an additional crime is worse than say, having something stolen that is of low importance. 

*[Written somewhat slowly in 54 minutes. Finished at 1:08 pm. No edits, grammar checks, spelling checks, or reading. Earlier notes such as this should have also included "without reading" also.]*


*Saturday, August 13<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>3:24 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="factors-in-basic-travel-and-homeless-life-provisioning"></a>Factors in basic travel and homeless life provisioning.</a>

This post isn't intended to be more than a development on the prior posting, which indicates that ability to cover space to find sleep is an important focal point for resolving problems of homelessness.

I assume there are a number of ways of categorizing key ingredients/factors and that the concepts could be organized in a variety of ways. Probably, however, there is a finite number of clear and discrete measuresthat can be used to arrive at a nearly complete description of the problem, and to arrive at a strategy that would be workable under present conditions.

Here is an initial list of factors:

- Comfort
  - It is not clear to me how fundamental this is. It may be possible to overcome discomforts through repetition. I often change plans simply because I'm uncomfortable. When I'm uncomfortable due to lack of sleep, I can be extremely inclined towards some more conventional alternative, like a hotel room, even if there is high expense. Additionally, those who appear to have overcome the discomforts, if they are really identifiable to me, are the one's who seem dirty and worn down. They appear to be in hardship. I wonder if maybe becoming comfortable in such a life implies certain losses, which are not well known to people. Consider if you had to camp forever. To what extent would you become like a homeless person in appearance and behavior?
  - I keep coming back to comfort on different aspects of this style of living. When traveling, camping and such, backpacking, one cannot carry much food. This implies discomforts of finding food and using energy for that purpose, which for me implies down time for recovery, and of physical discomfort with climate, and of, again, poor sleep.
- Sleep Quality
  - Sleep quality includes more than might be obvious at first. Having a good sleep implies that your shelter needs are met (even if you sleep in the open), that you feel secure, that you feel safe, and so on. This may mean training is needed to become aligned in one's mind with actual risks. In other words, someone might simply be too worried where risks do not exist. If you are not worried at all, and there are risks, then you might be similar to a homeless person who has become accustomed to being harmed. Your possessions can be stolen when you sleep, and you can be victimized. Quality of sleep implies locale considerations. You can't visit the worst part of town, and sleep on concrete without serious risks, but some do it. You can visit certain parks, more proximal to nicer locations, and do it, but many don't because they become worried of risks that might not exist.
- Homeless and Camper Quality of Life Index?
  - Thinking about this further as I write down factors that are certainly not reduced to measures, I realized that an index of quality of life could be created for measuring different spaces, to provide a means for determining which places might really be suitable for some number of homeless people or campers. 
- Coordinates of centers, and boundaries, of reasonably highly scoring locations on the above index.
  - This makes the index seem more plausible, because what we are doing as campers when we think through where we can go already includes thinking about what is satisfactory and unsatisfactory, and it is already unerstood that there is a gradient. This is akin to a user-generated ranking system, like Yelp, where visitors can say if a location was worth visiting or not, and measure on a scale up to five stars (which is really a scale from 0-10 because halves are allowed). But there is currently no system which allows for ranking any location for how welcoming it is to sleepers, the homeless, or campers. It is more for designated areas. Areas which already have some specific purpose assigned.
- Degree of welcomingness of an area.
  - Seems to include the designation part, because an area is not welcoming, or is even hostile to, sleepers, homeless and campers, if it has another recorded purpose. Land is zoned for different uses, particularly when somewhat populous. Even in locations outside of townships, however, huge tracts of land may be owned by private owners. Privately owned land is already zoned though, so even if not privately owned, usage is questionable.It appears now on reflection though that ownership is the primary factor, because without being owned, it cannot be zoned. Thinking further, in writing, there is a pair of items of interest. Who owns the land (including nation), and what is the designated use of a tract within certain boundaries.
- Sleep risks for coordinates.
  - At what coordinates can you sleep? What is the welcomingness of such a location for sleep and risks for each coordinate? Even if you book a hotel visit, these concerns arise to the toursists mind. Any traveler has to think: "Is this hotel one that has risks?", and if one does not think it, one's plans already have it covered. I.e. "I will stay at this fine hotel in this nice part of town, because I know it will be on coordinates that have few sleep risks." Even if you don't travel, and you stay at home, you have to have considered where your bedroom would be. Are you comfortable sleeping at home or not? Not everyone is. And that would relate to sleep risks at those coordinates where the bedroom is located.
- Laws about stationary behavior versus movement.
  - In some places people are encouraged to move along. They occupy a range of spaces along lines, but occupy each space only for a brief period. How slow can one move in locations such as public trails, and section-line easements? Can you take time to rest and recuperate. Section line easements are quite long? Public trails may be very short. Length of the trail and proximity to owners of other property seem to be factors. What power do owners of nearby properties have on things they visually dislike? 
- Risks of being called a visual nuissance.
  - This fits into what was already written but it seems we would benefit from additional attention to elaboration of concerns. Why did I add this? Well, aside from property ownership of specific parcels, and of public use, and so on, is people's opinions about what they see, even when they are not on their own property. This seems to matter, because even in locations where someone is allowed to sleep, or camp, or be homeless, there would be certain limitations that would relate to the potential arising of claims about the existence of a public nuissance. Someone looks bad, someone smells bad, someone is doing things I don't like, etc... Even if you own property, you could be attacked by someone, including law enforcement, on the basis of some claims about nuissance. These claims can be false claims. Visual nuissance is important because it can happen over a great distance. Audible nuisance could be included. Either way, you might be on a location where you are allowed to be, and someone or some group can purge you, simply by claiming that you are a nuissance. 
- Risk of false claims.
  - Risk of false claims is of special interest, because people really will lie in order to get what they want. Suppose you are a homeless person, and you have chosen a location using a mobile application, which says there are few people in the area, and it has a high safety rating, or the sleep quality index rating is high. Even if you were to visit that location, there would be implied rules of appearance, decorum, and smells/sounds. Which false claims can result in a criminal complaint, or a civil complaint, that would be enforced by police. 


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

*Preface: Interested in the issue of not having a place to sleep suddenly?*

*Sunday, August 7<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>2:29 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="finding-places-to-sleep-as-a-hobo-or-traveler">Finding places to sleep as a hobo or traveler.</a>

After spending many years traveling, with and without plans, and under varying circumstances, I've found that a fundamental problems is just finding a place to sleep, and the distance between where you are, and a reasonable place to go, to get that sleep. 

Consider a normal scenario in which you are working in standard conditions. You are employed in a job working normal hours, roughly on a 9-5 schedule. You commute to and from work with a vehicle, and that commute is about 10 miles. Your home is where you ordinarily sleep with comfort enough to get the rejuvenation you require to be and appear to be rested. Anytime you are at work, or near work, then, if you feel an urge to get rest, or feel sick, or excessively fatigued, you automatically default to thinking about how to get home.

If you have been living this way for a very long time, considering other places to sleep would seem unnecessary. You simply go home to sleep, even if there is a long drive, and since there is never any problem, the downsides are not really apparent to you. If tired, you go home and sleep. Done.

When traveling without plans, issues become more apparent. Imagine you jump on a flight to Phoenix suddenly. You just bring your small bag, with clothes and only a few possessions. You have a small amount of money and a couple credit cards. When you land you do not have a hotel arranged yet, and after a delayed flight, you arrive late. You look to book a hotel but find prices are too high for what is available, and everything else is booked. What do you do?

In that circumstance usually I'm about to rent a car. So I would rent a car, go to the rental station at the airport and pick it up, then leave. Having no place to go for a hotel is not an unusual condition for me. I would sometimes book in transit, or stop somewhere and decide where to stay. Howver in this circumstance it is late at night and there is no hotel to go to, and no friend to stay with. I could sleep somewhere outside, or else I could sleep in the car. Sleeping outside is not an option, even if I were carrying a tent, coming from the airport. That's because to sleep outside, one has to be a good distance from an urban location, in a place where sleeping outside is not totally unacceptable. Campling locations are always outside the city. As a business traveller, I wouldn't seriously think about sleeping outside. I would just sleep in the car.

Sleeping in the car is very uncomfortable for some people, but not everyone. Car models are rarely comfortable to sleep in, and there isn't going to be great control with vehicle type at a rental location. If you rented a van, or something large, with a design permitting a large and flat surface to sleep on, it is going to be a very expensive rental most likely. In my case, I avoid rentals that are overly priced, and tend to prefer full-sized vehicles, that are larger cars that are nearly as inexpensive as economy cars. Still these vehicles are uncomfortable for me. I have owned few vehicles that have been very comfortable to sleep in. It is very clear when I'm in this situation that  I'm not going to be very rested, and I'm not going to be very comfortable, but I am going to try to sleep in the car.

Now the issue becomes: "Well where do you park when you sleep?" Some might be willing to park nearly everywhere, but then that gets police interested. It's very odd to have a police officer wake you up sleeping, when you are very well off in life, and the cop assumes otherwise. That is a situation I prefer to avoid. One wants also to feel safe, a place that is more quiet, and a place where it is allowed, or tolerated, or permitted. This means, however, one will leave an urban area, and again have to drive outwards towards where people normally reside who commute. So you become a sort of homeless commuter living in a car. 

There are many choices for where to sleep in this situation, but no matter what it requires decision making. It isn't super clear where to go, and even if it wasn't a travel scenario, one cannot go to the same place too many times. Because frequency will create interest, and will convert a situation where it is allowed and permitted, and tolerated, to one in which it is not, and in that situation, police can quickly get involved. Either to check it out, or to remove the vehicle, or other. 

My preference is to choose a place to park that is at a 24 hour business with plenty of quiet parking. For that purpose, I have a gym membership that works across the country but is not guaranteed to be available everywhere. In Phoenix, I could find a gym in a nicer part of town, that is 24 hours, and park in a portion of the parking lot that is uncomfortable. That requires a commute to that location. Once there, I sleep uncomfortably, with some lingering unpleasantness relating to concerns of social expectations. Even if it is allowed it feels like it never is.

This is a really odd situation to be in if one really thinks about it. Even if you're very well off you may need to do all this to get some sleep. But why would that be? Everyone needs to sleep. There must be a market for people who need to sleep, I would think. But there isn't! It appears that this is an artificial situation, however. Various legal constraints and costs seem to be the reason why this has not been well developed.

Another strange question, beside "Why are guests not cared for in this kind of scenario?" is "Why can't I just sleep right over there! (pointing to the floor, or a grassy locaiton outside in a public spot." Well, if you do that you feel unsafe, and you also feel that you will get judged by others, and that the police may pay you a visit. Very serious matter for simply trying to sleep on a public surface!

But it is even stranger with a car. You're driving around and there are many surfaces. Many totally acceptable places to lay down and sleep. In Phoenix it is warm enough to need very little to feel comfortable. You can sleep nearly anywhere. Driving nearly the same commute you would normally drive, to a business that is 24-hours with parking, just to sleep in a car feels oddly strange. There is a "Why is there so much effort in this?" feeling. After many years I still have this feeling, even employing various other strategies to find places to sleep. I think it really relates to the observation that there seems to be so much space, but no place is sufficient for laying down? No business has been created to cater to the needs of anyone who just happens to be very tired?

Now imagine you want to live on less. You are not a business traveller like the example above. You don't want a car, and you don't want a house. You would be fine with a really small apartment, or a really small dwelling (an RV or tiny house), and it needs to be very inexpensive. In this situation you will still need to sleep, and sometimes you will want to suddenly get rest.

A fundamental thing that will always arise is:

> "What is the distance to my comfortable sleep location that is socially acceptable, and how do I get there?"

Assuming such a dwelling exists, and often it does not, depending on region, it will again, not be near where you work or spend some of your time. You will need groceries and so on. Again, it will likely not be in the urban area where walking is possible, where more expensive apartments exist. Suppose even the cheaper appartments in those locations are too much, and that you don't want those anyways. It's your life, and you should be able to choose your life, right? So instead you opt for a micro-partment, or a tiny houe, or an RV more towards the edges of the city, or in suburbs. 

Now you can take a bus, or a taxi, or app-related taxi, or walk, or ride a bicycle. Each of these have very serious drawbacks.

After exploring options, I find that the bus is too slow. It creates unreasonable wait times, and it is somewhat odd to coordinate choice of home location and bus stops. You will be walking even if you ride the bus. 

Taxis and App-related Drivers are too expensive to do routinely. They might work when there is a sudden need, but the costs of using these regularly will quickly grow to more than a car rental, which is just too much for normal commutes for most people. 

Now we have the bicycle and walking. I have thought much about this in a sort of fog, as to which is better, and why I dislike one or the other. Last year, I wrote something that I think clarified it. Which is more reliable for each amount of distance moved was what that prior writing was about. Now as I think it through, while typing, I think it is:

"What is the reliability of bicycles versus walking for effort/energy, and the relationship to the distance needs and speed."

If one lives very close to home, I think walking is the easiest. You have no possession needs, no need to maintain anything, and it is always reliable, and fast. At a greater distance, walking can begin to feel infeasible. It requires too much energy, recuperation from walks, time, and it becomes unreliable. Because if you are spending too much time recovering, you won't even want to walk, and will resort to something more costly.

Cycling can make pretty vast distances easier. But they can be dangerous, they create worries of theft, one spends time locking/unlocking them, and they definitely will require maintenance. They do get stolen. One might go through several bikes and have them all stolen. You can get stranded. They can behave in irritating ways. Cycling at long distances gets less reliable too for recovery needs, and one can be sweaty getting around. 

Between the two I think walking is an easy win. Walking is faster than one thinks, requires no maintenance other than bodily maintenance (and the cycle does require bodily maintenance too), is very enjoyable for viewing surroundings, feels safer than cycling, is really consistent, and requires no possessions. One doesn't have to lock anything up.

I think this decision may be up to the reader ultimately based on lifestyle choices. Let's say the choice depends somewhat on where someone really lives and sleeps, and where one needs to go for work, or other definitely routine needs.

Here we are closer to the problem. If you ride a cycle, probably you live 3-8 miles from work, in your tiny home, or small apartment. If you walk, you probably live 2-5 miles from work. Again, becasue there is the constraint that the housing you want would not exist in the city center. If you live 2 miles from work in a small apartment that is really inexpensive, that seems a rare find. But that is possible. Let's assume you're further away, about 4 miles way. And since biking and cycling now are somewhat about the same issue now, of distance and time, let's just forget cycling and focuson walking.

So now you're at work, you need to go home to sleep. You're exhausted. You have a 4 mile walk, which is almost certainly over one hour. That still seems oddly unreasonable for a basic life function,and it would become tiresome. But after your search to find a small tiny dwelling to live in (which is rare), and your workplace is near to it (which is rare), you can do the same thing daily in some comfort, and still manage to get sleep when suddenly in need. Maybe with an occasional expenditure of paying for a cab. But there is this odd thing however, again:

> "With all this space, why do I need to walk 4 miles to lay down?"

But now let's go further, and relate it to the travel situation. You did not find a home that was cheap enough, or nobody wants you to live at their home. You don't have a place to sleep at the moment. You don't even have a car. You can walk though, but sometimes you are exhausted. Now where do you go to sleep?

> Notice: if you *did* find a place to sleep, wouldn't it be outside the city?

So now even if you found a place to sleep, you would be like a camper, or traveller with tent, who wants to find a place to sleep in a place where it is: allowable, tolerated, or permitted. But frequency becomes a problem, just like for me when I'm in a car. I can't go to the same place everytime. Now you have to think and decide over and over "Where am I going to go" knowing also that it is someplace far, and that you will be walking.

Now you are in the situation of a homeless person who is perpetually unrested, at risk of social judgement, at risk of being of police interest. Some might think: "Why not just earn more?" But then one is not noticing that getting a job is not easy for everyone, and not everyone wants to choose that standard lifestyle of commuting. I somewhat fall into that category, even though I'm finished with my careeer mostly and have attained definite success and savings. I would prefer to have an easy and safe place to sleep that is nearby to places I need to go, but that market does not exist. 

Always it seems, there is this odd lingering feeling: "There is all this space but I cannot simply use the floor or ground, *anywhere near*!"

Some readers might not think this a real problem, but even they really do have to deal with it. When really tired at an airport waiting, or at a hospital, or other location where there are only benches, in parks or wherever, there is this same odd issue of not having a place to simply rest on the ground, or on a surface. In airports, benches needlessly have arm rests, that are not for resting arms. They are for blocking sleep. Similar sleep blockes exist on benches in locations I've seen, like at Atlantic City parks where homelessness is really discouraged. 

In places that seem more comfortable, where long visits are allowed, there may not be such obstacles. Like at 24 hour gyms with lounges, or casinos. But in these locations, duration of stay is roughly similar to frequency of use. You might be able to avoid irritation in employees or patrons, by napping for moments, but for any extended period of time, people will want to control your eyelids. If your eyes are closed, it must mean you are not a customer, or that you've been there too long. Not knowing if either is true, they will assume it is true. Eventually you will not be welcome, and you will either not be permitted, not be tolerated, or allowed, and you may be trespassed with police, or face false accusations and charges, from anyone who really wants you removed, who might face resistance, from anyone who might disagree on your behalf who you don't know about. Suppose you sleep at the gym, for example. After a couple days, you are unwanted by someone. That person then begins to inquire internally at the company what to do. Some at the company might not care. But wanting to get what one wants, that person now begins to escalate the situation, even though you are not involved. Suddenly you are a possible problem, for risks that may or may not exist. Risks that certainly don't exist for you, however.

At this point I would like to say I have a solution for this problem. But oddly I do *not*! After many years travelling, and many hundred thousand miles of driving, and over a million miles of flight, I have no idea what one can do reliably under these common circumstances.

It appears, in a very wide variety of ways, the social world has decided discomfort is the solution for a class of problems, related to homelessness, and unwanted people who might resemble the homeless, even if they don't really have much in common. Everyone who would like a place to sleep, in conditions in which transit to home is not an option, faces discomfort. But instead of solving it, it is ignored as a periodic nuissance, and not a severe problem. It is even a *solution* to a problem of keeping people away from places, who might need to sleep, indicating possible homelessess.

> "But what does that mean of our intentions to solve homelessness?"

There are a class of related problems obviously, indicated in this brief article. The solution of discomfort would have to be dissected, and reasons for not having a market catering to the rest needs of everyone would need to be thoroughly considered. I will likely go deeper on that topic in a future article, but in the meantime, I would say, if someone else solves this issue, and creates a business, or a more permissive environment with different social rules, that still keeps risks low, I would be very pleased with their accomplishment. It would create a solution for myself, a person who is already successful, very many travellers, and homeless people too.

I am now activley considering other options, as I explore this issue on foot. In Anchorage, Alaska, I have a home that is about 8 miles from the city. I have chosen to walk and not cycle, and periodcially use app-taxis. I have ruled out sleeping at a business as an option, even a comfortable 24-hour gym I belong to, with a rate of 138 per month. I ruled out hotels, at least for this season, because they are each nearly 300 per night. Plus I lived in hotels a long time, and doing something different is of interest. App related room rentals are also not in consideration for costliness. So I will either go the full distance home to sleep, or find alternative sleep methods.

For example, in this article it was not considered that one can sleep during the day at parks. There are parks where this is not totally unreasonable. But these are also somewhat distant from the city, so walking to these parks would be necessary, and in directions different from my own residence. Also, there is the option of not only sleeping once, but sleeping several times a day instead. Some are interested in alternative sleep schedules of chunks for 2 or more periods of sleep a day, upwards of 8 or even more. It is possible, but maybe not comfortable, to sleep very briefly in different locations, with emphasis on sleep during the day. Then, however, one has the flexibility to live at night, with acces to 24 hour establishments. I happen to have such access, to my gym, and am semi-retired, so can basically sleep anytime I like. This enables me to have chances at life-experimentation that others might not have, and I will use it to see if this is really a possible option. If it is, it may be possible to teach others to have a similar lifestyle.

*[Written with no edits or spell check in 1 hour and 27 minutes. Finished at 3:56 pm]*

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


*Saturday, July 2<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>2:33 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="you-lived-in-dogsgrace">You Lived in Dogsgrace.</a>

> [For those not having any issue with fur and dog events].

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


*Do you support Dog Trafficking, or the Fur Trafficking Event called Fur Rendevous?*

*Friday, July 1<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>2:29 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="are-you-infurriated">Are you infurriated?</a>

- furrier of dog
- Infurriated?
- In fur?
- false infurrences?
- inviscerated?
- In all your fury?
- I'll be your infurment of dog furmentation
- How you're hiding infurmation
- put you infoment
- in your furmament
- when you have your fur moment
- Fur Tinder. 

- Buffalo-dogging
- Wolfalos

- Frankenweenies?
- Dogscar Bin Laden
- Dogscar de la Hoya
- Wolfensteiners
- DogLoveDoMort

- "DogScar de la Renta" (Heard this one).

- WolfgangFuck
- Wolf gangfucked?
- Wolfgang flocked?
- Tax a dog me, Taxa dogme
- Tacked adogdown

- Dogstars? (Can't give up attention?).

- Vet Overstock
- Seamly dogs
- Peltsenasia

- Natives: dogfood? Dog's the food? ("Eat it up", "Use it up?", "Use it or waste it?").

- Siberian Huskwolf
- Open skinsource

- Your missing dog?
- Balto?
- Family skins?

Supporter of the

- Dogolocausts
- then you doctor dog?
- Dog Youthenasia

- Dogolestation (Grab it and cut around that part).
- Dogodder
- Doogooder

- Doglostidon
- Dark webofdog
- Sketchydealistan? ("Rendevous"? really?).
- Churchmenistan
- Dogmennistan.

- DogPackistan
- Dogfurrentiation?

- Dog Trafficking?
- Dog underground deals?

- Rendevous with your fur?

Now you're own dog murder is getting in the way of change?

"Be the change you want to see in the world?"

- Wolfgang Pocked?
- Wofgang Armadaeus Dogstarred?

- Tirechains of Dog
- Dog Chutes and Ladders
- Dog defurrance
- Dog Defur It ("Put off change about dogs?")
- Dogphloggiston

- Cobweb of Dog, Dogcobwebs

- Dogsinthinair, 
- Dogsphyxiation
- Dogassfixiation
- DogAssFixation

- Bitch Rubbenstein
- Dog TannedHerHyde
- DogHyde InPenNetieri

- Dogsit Traps
- DogSAW Traps
- Dog SatTraps

- Dog Stake Umaimey
- Dogsteak Youmaimedme
- You lived Indogsgrace
- Maimesed Best Friend

- Slumdog Millionslayered
- Hungdog Millionaire
- Dogslung Ill-ionaire

- Brokeleg Mountain

- Dog PetSleeves
- Dog Pet Reprieves

- Gucci DogManes

- Dogslum Milliondares
- DogsCum Millionstares

- Strangled Things

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


*Thursday, June 30<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>2:38 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="lgbtqmattanawirn">LGBTQMATTANAWIRN+</a> 

I'm miscellaneoused.

[Glosssary](http://www.mattanaw.com/glossary.html#miscellaneoused)

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


*Thursday, June 30<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>1:43 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="has-anyone-created-a-science-of-facial-manipulation">Has anyone created a science of facial manipulation?</a> 

Which facial expressions are maintained,

which are transitioned, or encouraged for transitioning and when?

Which behaviors are engulfed in it in descriptive science,

and which strategic behaviors are unaccounted for?

Could the rules of face changes be fully defined. It appears to me,

low effort.

We appear very limited in how we can transition from one facial expression to another,

without breaking rules.

What are all the rules?

Who would it "out" in terms of manipulative tendencies,

and what woudld be manipulative or not,

in the transition-leading of others in their faces

and emotions?

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




*Thursday, June 30<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:52 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="welcome-to-the-dogolocaust">Welcome to the Dogolocaust.</a>

Also Known as:

Fur Rondezvous or "Fur Rondy"

and

Iditerod.

You bought the evidence?

...

Don't get too infurryated.

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




*Thursday, June 30<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:30 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="youre-infuryier-you-furrier">You're Infuryier, You Furrier!</a>

Alaska, indoctrinated in Fur,

Celebrator of Fur Rendevous

You have not yet noticed your Infuriority.

Pointed out, that you do not use the interior of the animal,

Ignoring native values,

That natives themselves to not have,

You and the natives

Infury.

You are an Infuriated, Infurrier.

You should consider

Not being a furrier.

Shave your face.

> [Aside: a proto-poem.]

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




*Monday, June 27<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>1:04 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="i-dont-recall-wanting-to-forget-or-blot-out">I don't recall wanting to forget, or blot out</a>

naturalistic places,

populations haven't touched much

or are in.

...

There are plenty of artifacts

I'd rather not think much about. 

...

Some people I don't need to recall too.

> [Aside: I think some would react negatively to that, but they enjoy murder mysteries too.]

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




*Sunday, June 26<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>8:08 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="harnessing-lack-of-death-fear-in-children">Harnessing Lack of Death-fear in Children</a> 

*to Preserve Confidence Over the Lifespan.*

Thinking back to when I was a child I don't recall ever feeling especially fearful about the prospect of dying, while I did exhibit those same fears, and remember dreams about, trying to avoid things that seemed dangerous or scary, with the result of successfully evading the danger. Of course that expectation of evasion was an irrational one. These fears were about things like tornados and dangerous people, and not about actual death. I recall when I was a tutor, one of my pupils was scared about tornados in the same way I was. I wonder how common certain dreams about evading such terrors might be.

While I was scared of things such as this, and spent quite a lot of time thinking about them, I still do not recall really being very scared of death. Later, certain ideas would pop into mind that would provoke a fear of what I would imagine death would be like (a darkness of sorts), but later I overcame that by realizing and really habituating the realization that nothing can be imagined that is death, and that even imagining darkness is incorrect. Really, any such imagined death feeling is just something imagined, and the moment that is remembered, once snaps out of any bad feeling about it. One might not transition out of the imagination immediately, but recall that eventually everyone does return to a regular state in which they are not thinking about death at all. It is desirable though, to quickly recognize that one is imagining something that really is not death at all.

I already wrote about this topic however, and included other postings that relate to this, which can be explored below, if anyone is interested. What I intend to talk about next is imagining oneself behaving as someone else might be imagined to behave at death. I'll clarify momentarily.

- [how-i-inhibited-my-fear-of-death](#how-i-inhibited-my-fear-of-death)
- [final-thoughts-fear-of-death-and-death-plans](#final-thoughts-fear-of-death-and-death-plans)
- [death-and-your-mind-right-now](#death-and-your-mind-right-now)
- [life-is-easy-contrary-to-your-worldview](#life-is-easy-contrary-to-your-worldview)
- [elders-tend-to-lie-when-the-topic-is-of-the-greatest-importance](#elders-tend-to-lie-when-the-topic-is-of-the-greatest-importance)
- [making-death-plans-a-rational-choice](#making-death-plans-a-rational-choice)

### How would others react to death, and how does it affect you?

This is about something I just experienced in the car but have experienced a number of times. I went into a daydream, and during that daydream, thought I imagined myself, or another who I was in the place of, shaking the head violently trying to avoid helplessness in a death moment. There was some image in my mind which I cannot recall with any vividness, but I did recognize the source. I put myself in the place of a copy of a memory of my ex-wife shaking her head when she felt in pain and helpless. She had some behavior, which struck me as odd, of shaking her head and having a sort of dissociated expression anytime she felt she was in a kind of helpless pain. Not only when she was in very serious pain but even with what appeared to be normal uncomfortable pains (in other words, she did not appear to be in any serious danger and it would quickly subside). I come from the field of psychology, and from my studies assumed, but did not research further, that it related to her reaction to events in childhood when someone put her in a position of feeling like she was not in control. I feel I've seen or experienced something similar, when wrestling and losing for example with friends as s kid. Suddenly there is a violent perception of losing, and wanting to purge unwanted thoughts and achieve some kind of other control, which is unrelated to actual control of what is occurring. It is also something that happens I think to victims of rape, or others who perhaps were pinned too often.

Anyway, so what I imagined in a moment of a kind of fearful event just before a death (still not death itself), was not even me. It was a recollection of my wife's behavior, but I vicariously placed myself into the image which was outside myself and felt empathetically what it would feel like, such that I confused for a second the image for myself. Like I said above, I recognize what is not the actual event but a false thought about the event, so I quickly snapped out of the daydream, but I did feel discomfort for a short second or two.

Right after this, or just before it, I don't recall, I thought to myself:

"Kids don't really seem like the are afraid of death."

I thought about how some kids can't comprehend it, because their brains are developing and there is some abstraction required to understand that people's lives end, and without any experience of the end of a life, it does not appear anyone is going to disappear. Through certain conversations with adults and exposure, however, children do come to realize that they will die. I'm not certain, as I reflect now, that any human really comes to understand clearly what is implied, but all eventually do outwardly recognize that life ends and people deteriorate and decompose, and that it is inescapable, and that all organisms have a life cycle. But it does appear people still struggle to conceptually arrive at a comfortable understanding, and I do think religion is a culprit of causing it to be hard to deal with.

In any case, what I'm observing here though is that I don't really remember feeling scared about death as a kid, but instead being injured or being exposed to scary things. I don't think I witnessed any real fear about death in any family member or other person, but instead have inferred that maybe they feel some discomfort in private moments. I don't remember anyone ever showing a facial expression related to death fear. At most when the topic came up, people would become quiet.

Now consider that if kids are not fearful of death, and don't understand it, and are fearful instead of injury and scary things, then if one removes the fear of injury via teachings about inevitabilities and inability to control (which works), and also teaches that horrors are kinda funny and ridiculous (also works), then what remains is a lack of fear and lack of understanding of what death consists of. One would also want to create an understanding of what death consists of in reality, but here that doesn't appear especially important. Think about it, if you were not originally fearful of death and didn't understand what it was, then as long as you weren't seriously injured, or didn't encounter anything too scary, then you wouldn't have cared if you lived or died.

An idea for the moment which builds on prior ideas which might have some validity, but depends on an understanding of how children really feel about death across all populations (variety has to be accounted for), then a viable approach to feeling better about life and death might involve preserving a natural lack of fear of death, and readiness to admit that certain final moments are inaccessible to understanding on the experiential level.

That might not feel satisfying to a reader who wants to know more about what the experience will consist of but recall this post is just about what might do a large percentage of the work to feel just fine about it. There are other postings I've included that would help about actually understanding death better, including the following ideas:

- That one's mind is not thinking about what the brain may never have access to already. Admit to yourself that the rest of your mind that you're not now using could have been completely destroyed in a stroke and in a sense that part would already be dead. In that way, not accessing your brain is like it doesn't exist.
- An implication of this is as one's brain becomes activated in various ways throughout the day it is kindof like those other areas that are not accessed do not exist. You are comfortable with that.
- Every night when you go to sleep, if you are really tired, you don't care about life any longer. You would eventually become so tired that sleep is desirable over any additional life. I think it likely that if you were tired enough, and you were told that you would never wake again, you would still be totally confident and comfortable just going to bed!

Additional ideas and considerations related to the above are in the links provided. It may be worthy of research to see how children really do grapple with the idea of death and what their fears really consist of all over the world, at different young ages: because if they're not scared then they're already done with most of the work, and instead we are adding problems when there weren't any. If this is the case then we can perhaps recognize this in ourselves and make any adjustments we need to make, already being exposed to fears of others.

Now I just remembered how this relates to what I was saying about my ex and my experience. I was thinking of death in this way because I witnessed her behavior and somehow substituted her helpless reactions as my own. This means that one can easily come to have fears simply by observing the fears in others, which should not exist. A challenge with this example though is that her reaction didn't appear totally connected with death but with helplessness, but I imagined an addition that that might be how she would react if she would be injured. This experience I had putting myself in that position was not precisely a thought about death, but about how one might feel being hurt before death, but it is the kind of development that might influence how one feels about death, and can be confused for death, and would still be an example of how fears could be developed by seeing and observing the fears that others have that might not exist with other teachings.

*[Completed at 8:46 pm in 38 minutes, with quick spell check and no edits.]*

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


*Sunday, June 26<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>3:50 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="permanence-of-placement-in-gifted-schools">Permanence of Placement in Gifted Schools</a>

*This was a comment on a posting I just added, on social media concerning the topic of special schools for the gifted.*

I was tutor to one girl who was placed in gifted classes in school, but it was not clear to me at any time if she were placed in that context because of intelligence or because of high quality performance, and she did not go to a special school, but remained in the same school, which happened to be in a high income location. She was a very good student, smart and curious. Over time though it started to seem as though it were a challenge for her to remain in gifted courses. I was from the same state, where IQ tests are definitely performed; however, it appears in this school district in Howard county, there was recognition of very good performance probably and not only IQ for giving people vertical advancement opportunities. I'm not certain that is the best course of action although I do like the concept, because testing of course can result in some failures to identify. But, there was an odd feeling that she could lose her place. I had no such feeling in my life that I could lose place because it was already established with standard test. I would have liked more the idea that performance would also indicate permanence of value, but still, I'm not even sure she was comfortable trying to maintain her placement. Since I was only a tutor (7 years though), I was not comfortable asking her parents about her intelligence scores and actually it didn't even occur to me to ask, likely because of how inappropriate that would be. Anyway, I'm somewhat of the opinion that testing should establish a permanence of placement. I would have liked being placed in a special school but was not. I was given opportunity permanently, but did not do it permanently because of the nature of the guidance I was getting from my parents at the time.

<Mensan Recipient Name>- I was tempted to respond, thanks for the share-- but may be offline a while per my earlier note!

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




*Sunday, June 26<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>3:50 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="whos-checking-on-vietnam">Who's checking on Vietnam?</a>

Did you check on Vietnam? How are they doing? 

How is their news?

Can we combine all news yet? 

More news channels would create diversity on the Earth's crust?

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




*Thursday, June 24<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>11:59 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="salvationstony">Salvationstony.</a>

Do you believe in, Deathtiny or

Salvationstony?

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





*Thursday, June 24<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>11:54 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="deathtiny">Deathtiny.</a>

"Do you believe in Deathtiny?"

Say it with a lisp like you're trying to say "Destiny"

but you're a geek too and you

can't.

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




*Preface: For Dog lovers, Christians, and Equalitarians.*

*Friday, May 27<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>~2:45 PM Anchorage, AK</time>

## <a name="for-dog-lovers-christians-and-equalitarians">You pretended harder with your love on dogs.</a>

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





*Preface: What are you disallowed from doing in public that everyone else can do?*

*Friday, May 27<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>~2:45 PM Anchorage, AK</time>

## <a name="you-are-disallowed-in-public">You are disallowed in public.</a>

"Happy Birthday to Me!!!"

Tolerant, Optimist, Loving of Handicaps, Singing, Noise-making on "Special Occasions"

"Happy Birthday to Me."

Prove it's my birthday?

LGBTQ+ Love

Whatever the group does, I can do as many members as they have, and same decibels, and volume of sound.

Recovering from illness.

Handicap parking.

I'm not yet certified in illness, since I have no health insurance.


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





*Preface: what images can be produced by earth, off earth and for earth, given its sun?*

*Tuesday, May 24<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>8:03 PM Muncho Lake, BC, Canada Time</time>

## <a name="suboptimal-sun">Suboptimal Sun.</a>

The Earth Doesn't Have an Optimal Sun.

For knowledge, the Earth simply,

does not have an optimal sun to know

itself.

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



*Preface: I'll be off Facebook a while everyoneone, wanted to let you know.*

*Sunday, May 15<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:03 PM Jasper, BC, Canada Time</time>

## <a name="positive-health-event-and-planned-time-away-from-social-media">Positive Health Event and Planned Time Away from Social Media</a> 

Hello all, letting you know I will be off of Facebook and social media for a while, and potentially for a long while. If you have anything of importance to tell me about feel free to send me messages via FB or using my cell number if you already have it.

Yesterday I experienced an interesting health event, which is a reason for wanting to be off social media a while. It was not a negative health event; rather, it was a very positive one. Apparently I've had a kind of condition since I was hit as a kid around 3rd grade. I was punched in the stomach randomly completely on surprise, and could not breath as a result. In order to cope with that mentally, and attempt to find ways to self-protect going forward, I became more vigilant and started to self armor. I would tighten my stomach and otherwise try to feel fortified thinking I could control future occurrences of aggression.

I continued the practice of tightening my abdominals through my childhood and later as I started bodybuilding in highschool. 

During this time there were no serious side effects so I had no obvious reason to stop doing this, and looking good from bodybuilding and feeling strong and tight in my midsection, and having a good appearance, I kept doing it, until a couple years ago, after a stress event being chronically harassed for political reasons in Anchorage, Alaska, and elsewhere, as desire to harass spread.

Initially there was no dramatic improvement to my breathing as a result of stopping my self-tightening and armoring, which can be likened simply to keeping a tight stomach to feel trim and strong. I simply let my gut out a bit to try to feel more comfortable breathing. However, breathing improvements did not really occur and actually worsened for a period. 

This issue was not COVID related and began as a result of chronic group harassment in public locations that I would refuse to stop visiting. It improved during COVID when I had it, because of forced quarantine rest, in which I experienced relieved breathing problems. I would continue to put myself at risk for the purpose of retaining a normal active life, even though recently single, which was a contributing stressor too.

The side effect of this armoring appears to have affected my voice growing up even through voice change as a teenager. Additionally, later, it seems to have affected how I accumulate mucus in my lungs as a result of stress. It also affected my ability to sense my diaphragm and control the enlargement of my lower left lung cavity. I would feel sometimes as though my lower lung was not functioning periodically, in the last two years.

Yesterday, however, after a very long period of trying to force my lungs to open, and my diaphragm (or other internal unknown control organs) to function, I finally had a less than small incremental success-- a large success, finally controlling this area of my lungs, but also, in deepening my voice to a lower pitch which felt oddly more natural.

Next time you see me, or hear from me, on video or in person, or on the phone, you will probably be surprised I don't even have the same voice. It's much deeper and much more calm. 

I wasn't anticipating that such a transition was even possible or desirable. I was experimenting with a lower voice to see how it would feel recently. With this event I've confirmed my breathing system, and voice, and abdominal controls are working together better as a system and suddenly I feel much better, even though, I'm the type to always be cheerful in any case. In other words, this did not create happiness for me that did not already exist, but created a sudden comfort.

I'm highly motivated to focus on myself for the time being and return again to social media and make contact with friends again after a prolonged time away.

But I also wanted to make sure that everyone knows I'm not trying to ignore anyone in particular, or that I'm not wanting to have communication, but instead I want everyone to know that I've had this positive happening, and that I want to talk again in the future, after really habituating the changes completely.

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


*Friday, May 13<sup>th</sup>, 2022*

## <a name="ordering-and-paying-at-the-outset-at-restaurants">Ordering and Paying at the Outset at Restaurants.</a>

Today I decided I'm returning to a method I used earlier for ordering, paying, and tipping at restaraurants, that I recommended to a friend, who also subsequently used it, because it's much simpler, and creates self-control in ordering behavior.

This method is very simple. At the outset of the meal choose what you want in total at the start. Order everything at one time, and pay in the same interaction.

This does a few useful things:

- Minimizes awkwardness with service staff.
- Makes your behavior more rational, particularly when you notice negative ordering trends.
  - I vaguely recall using this method at the Cheesecake factory to ensure I didn't order appetizers (or to ensure the order was smaller). I realized I knew the entree alone, or a simpler meal would be adequate, and that I would need no deserts. The result is:
- It provides a plan for ensuring meal costs are lower,
- that you eat the right portions without risking overeating, or
- creating waste through takehome containers.

Just today I realized:

- It creates peace and quiet if that's desired, and
- Keeps tip costs down, and removes the gaming on the side of the servers, for gaining more tips with you,
- Making the deal more honest,
- Without losing all the service that is really wanted which is the goal of the restaurant visit.

Today was my first time using this method in over 10 years, but on reflection this is a much better practice, and I intend to repeat it until it is the only way I order. 

If there are any limitations to this approach I will reveal them; however, since I've done it before, and I'm reflecting on it afresh finding additional reasons, that seem to have no harmful side effects to the experience or relationships, I think it will likely be permanent. However if not I will share otherwise later.

Probably this method can be used in other buying scenarios but I'm not sure what those scenarios might be. I have the intuition that this would be the case but no examples come to mind at the moment. I don't think it's the best method for all buying scenarios, and can think of counterexamples. I.e. when the up front costs are not fixed or are unknown.

Correction to the above. There is the risk of having a poorly prepared meal. I realize now however, that one only has to ask for the check up front. One does not have to pay. Depending on what is ordered, if there is risk, one can simply arrange everything for payment, and consider along the way what is a reasonable payment. However, for this present purchase, a beer at a Boston Pizza here in Cranbook, British Columbia, Canada, I could pay in advance for the beer with lower overall risk of poor preparation, and paying in advance, minimizing service, minimal tip is necessary. I paid a 15% percent but doing things this way may create opportunities to tip less. Consider that if you order, all food is brought by someone else, and you receive drinks at once, and no further interactions are needed. It's like ordering from a register. In that case a 10% tip may be completely reasonable and still quite good for the effort provided by staff (they can focus on everything else while you are still there, already satisfied).

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




*Thursday, May 12<sup>th</sup>, 2022*

## <a name="whos-checking-on-niger">Who's checking on Niger?</a>

I realized, it's been a long time since anyone checked on Niger.

Have you checked on Niger?

When would you check on Niger? 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger)

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




*Thursday, May 12<sup>th</sup>, 2022*

## <a name="unthinking-hearts-that-save">Unthinking Hearts that Save.</a>

Awweee.

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




*Preface: When is being a guest over?*

*Tuesday, May 10<sup>th</sup>, 2022*

## <a name="when-is-being-a-guest-over">When is being a "guest" over?</a>

Suppose you are married, but get divorced. At what point is the group/family membership of the spouse cancelled?

How long was it before you disconnected from your spouses family

after your connection to them, through that person, was cancelled?

...

After a death, did you start to feel as though you were not really that tight,

or that much a true member,

of the family that was supposedly yours?

...

When you left a job, at what point did you decide,

you really aren't an employee anymore.

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




*Preface: Transitional Minds are to be Avoided*

*Tuesday, May 10<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>12:07 PM Billings, Montana Time</time>

## <a name="how-transitional-is-your-mind">How transitional is your mind?</a>

A criticism of topic switchers.

"I'm not that smart and/or

I can't handle a topic except briefly."

A critique of social conversation development.

And mind-extent.

You might call it "deepness".

I'm not deep is a result of high transitionality.

...

Aside: 

"Never forget"

versus

"Never forget but don't dwell on it?"

"Recall it often and forget it fast?"

Nobody knew what it was and then forced it on everyone else, in ritual?

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




*Preface: Positive Psychology is a newish field worth some attention. Here is my summary view after reflecting on a course I took on the topic roughly ten years ago.*

*Monday, May 9<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>7:25 PM Billings, Montana Time</time>

## <a name="a-brief-summary-view-of-positive-psychology">A Brief Summary View of Positive Psychology</a>

I took a college course in Positive Psychology. A summary view after: 

It is a small discipline for being very young. It also relies, because it hasn't had time to construct its own concepts, on borrowings from Asian philosophy. It is nice to read but there are clear signs it would fail operationalization tests on the Asian philosophy (But also, that entails, I think, much Asian philosophy fails). It's objective is a worthwhile and maybe a necessary one of jumping off the path dependencies created by early medicine, of correcting things and not focusing on strengthening things. Internal medicine versus other techniques, etc... were focuses of our medical system, and there are other approaches that have not been adequately developed. The strengthening approach in Psychology does to me offer some really amazing changes in perspective that would benefit most, but it will take some time to develop and take hold, if it ever does. In a way the entire field sounds a like a book title, that could get old and vanish from interest, rather than a growing school of thought that will contribute towards the total understanding as a named portion of the field, with name visible at the main organization (I.e. contents page versus index).

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




*Preface: A social snippet for creating valuable conversations.*

*Saturday, March 7<sup>th</sup>, 2022*

## <a name="humancan-add-or-mod-the-solution-or-related-problem-statement">Humancan, Add or Mod the Solution, or Related Problem Statement.</a>

Please add a comment if you are willing to constructively add to the solution, offer an alternative solution or a modification to the problem statement that might arise in another solution. Otherwise I prefer no response because typically I am already knowledgeable or aware of issues, limitations and additional information offered, even historically when I have not volunteered that that is the case. I don't say that I already know what is shared typically, but I have discovered, over the years, that I nearly always know what is offered already. But what is often useful and different involves feedback of the sort mentioned in the first sentence above. I invite that kind of intelligent discourse for mutual growth. I can tell based on experience I don't really need anything but what is included in the first sentence. It appears readers are unable to estimate my mentality going into my writing. What is best involves creative contribution to problem statements and solutions (including mods). Feasibility concerns already well covered, even if they seem they are not. Solution abandonment is already well covered even if it seem like that might not be part of intent working on solving it. Purposes are manifold. 

I use a related social snippet concerning mutual growth. I am only interested in conversation around mutual growth. I'm not fond of censorship, but wanting to use my time wisely, I will prune the conversation as needed to create quality related to what I've started. The paragraph above is a short path to mutual growth conversation.

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




*Preface: Now you're on abortion.*

*Friday, March 6<sup>th</sup>, 2022*

## <a name="attending-to-your-own-mind-versus-having-your-head-pointed-by-others">Attending to your own mind versus having your head pointed by others.</a>

An odd thing, is that almost everyone is willing to have their head pointed by others primarly.

What is of interest today?

Is not a question anyone asks. Television is on.

It's been decided for you that

You are into abortion,

and not Covid.

...

Didn't finish or start yet.

Any of the topics you didn't bring up.

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




*Preface: What you want are rare things. Not probable things.*

*Tuesday, May 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>6:20 PM Vernal, Utah Time</time>

## <a name="im-still-an-elitist">I'm still an elitist.</a>

I'm still an elitist. 

Not in any way that takes away from what people want.

Just from what they think they want, in the illusion of "we the people".

You want to celebrate greatness, and excellences of various types, and excellent decisions.

Not decisions you would make.

Find the excellences of the regular populace, and find that, they are rare already.

Right? 

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




*Preface: You're not certified on science.*

*Monday, April 25<sup>th</sup>, 2022*

## <a name="youre-not-a-scientist">You're not a scientist</a>

Admit it. You're not a scientist.

Who is really? 

Corporate scientists are IP generators.

Repeat the science if another corporation. Without Replication? Without the benefits of replication?

...

You are NOT a scientist.

If you are not in a field of science, you may experiment from time to time.

But your results are not the results of accumulation.

...

Watching over many years, decades, I can say:

You think you align yourself to science.

But you don't even know what the scientific rules of alliance are.

...

How did you scientifically come to the erroneous view

That couch potato, employee person is scientist?

...

You can't even watch 

science.

...

Pretend you ARE a scientist.

...

At best you have some history of

highschool lab.

(or something near to that).

...

If I'm mistaken,

how UNCOMMON are you?

Can you share the percentage of people who are like you?

That would be like an estimation of the number of people who are really scientists?

Which would be nearly nobody?

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



## <a name="making-science-a-part-of-more-regular-behavior">Making Science a Part of More Regular Behavior</a>

Have you thought about how we are lacking in our ability to act as scientists?

Do you consider yourself a scientist or subject to the sciences?

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



*Sunday, April 24<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>11:44 PM NM Time</time>

## <a name="hardware-supply-as-scientific-supply-for-the-learning-population">Hardware Supply as Scientific Supply for the Learning Population.</a>

Recently I've been enjoying myself visiting various hardware stores across the country browsing stores in order to find materials that would facilitate my scientific projects.

While browsing stores I have noticed that there are many markets that have not been coordinated in such a way that their standards of componentization would work together. I mentioned this earlier, but lately have noticed additional concerns apart from those that I already mentioned, which did include one worth stating here, that in order to realize certain project goals, one needs to shop unnecessarily in different markets.

Science is interdisciplinary and in order to do scientific work using materials from hardware stores, which are the only places where one can browse easily for many different tools and  materials, one finds that different trades use standards that are not lined up.

Some examples:

- Gauges of copper cable do not match the standards of metric bolts, and building materials, and do not match gauges of shells used in guns.
- Many tools use engines that simply utilize rotation and a simple interface to control rpm, power, etc.. Yet these tools do not share the engines.
- Tools use different types of connections which appear proprietary or industry specific, with the result that a tool appropriate for one use, which could fill another function cannot, because the method of connection does not allow interoperability.
- Joining metals, and metallurgy, demolitions, and soldering have not been combined.

One might think that there are no serious consequences to this, but I think there are major consequences which have been overlooked.

One serious consequence is that people consume more unnecessarily, including people who don't have sufficient resources to do so, and also that people have less learning opportunity for inability to join fields effectively.

One has no control, for example, on what diameters of electrical wire one will receive. They will be along the standard gauges. These wires cannot be altered in their diameter. The result is that someone who would like to join usage of these wires used in electrical fields will not have simple ways to mix the standards with parts and materials in other fields that use alternative intervals for diameters.

More interestingly:

Any innovation for joining the trades where the standards mismatch would spend too much time for the reward of the innovation, which may be only private, but even if it is desired that it is not only private, it cannot alter the field, because again, one would not have adequate influence to change the standards in the supply, and if one did, one would not be rewarded by the industries change, particularly if the project is just one among many, as it is in my case.


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




*Wednesday, April 20<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>3:10 PM Tucson Time</time>

## <a name="responding-when-stopped-by-police">Responding When Stopped by Police</a>

Recently after being harassed in a Starbucks, I took a picture of the person harassing me with my laptop. She had already pretended to take a photo of me first. After seeing that I may have taken a picture of her and her companion, she immediately demanded that I remove it from my device, and started to create an altercation. I decided to leave, and while leaving a Starbucks employee followed me out the door as if I had done something wrong, and asked to explain what ocurred. Without at all considering that nothing was wrong, and immediately assuming I somehow did something wrong. I told him "talk to her" and simply left.

In the last few years I have been targeted with a good amount of harassment and I think it likely that a similar ocurrence will happen again. I also noticed there is a very strong trend for people to simply harass people until provoking a response, in which they plan to lie about to create a negative situation with police.

I also thought earlier it might be necessary to have a very solid approach with law enforcement in case of getting pulled over too, and for that reason, I planned to have a strategy that would mostly cover all situations and ensure that I have a good position with law enforcement even if someone has complained and lied in their complaint.

*Process*

Rules of Thumb.

- Be willing to park a further distance from a business than necessary, so as to ensure that there is no immediate connection between your vehicle and yourself.
- Do not carry your identification everywhwere.
- Be willing to wear a hat or change your clothing quickly if you have clothing available and deny that you were invovled to anyone except law enforcement. Perhaps even law enforcement if you have reason to believe they would not have footage that would make it possible for them to definitely identify you. This might require some quick thinking. For such an event it would not go any further to the point of your being called for identification.
  - *Rationale:* If someone harasses you, then calls the police to make a false complaint, you can leave immediately without anyone being able to say who you were, or connect you to a vehicle that would be used to identify and locate you (notice: they should not be able to locate you because you are the victim of harassment and are at risk of being targeted with fabrications. There is no reason to think that someone cannot simply call the police to attack you. If someone calls the police, there is no obligation for you to remain or even acknowledge that a complaint was made. This would imply that simply creating a complaint obliges anyone complained about to acknowledge the complaint and work against it, rather than totally reject it and put in no further effort. Already a person complained against falsely has been put under some stress, beyond any stress created by what transpired before the complaint).
- Be willing to call and file another police report, and if addressed or approached by police, claim they are responding to your complaint. Do not acknowledge the other complaint. Only acknowledge your complaint. They are only there to help you with your complaint, and they have to.


*Have Camera and Recorder available. 2 if Possible.*

- Before approached by police, start both cameras. Do not acknowledge that you have more than one camera. Mention that you are recording.


*Have Generic Written Response, on Legal Letterhead.*

Thank the officer for their service BEFORE handing over the legal letter.

- Say to police if approached, stopped, etc...: "Please read this from my attorney before we talk".
- Hand written response that includes:
  - What the response is for and ensure it is generic "This is for my client Mr./Mr. <blank> in case of any conversations with police..."
  - Who you are.
  - Some positive life details.
  - Support of law enforcement and the legal system generally.
  - Details about how you always behave. (Prescriptively like organizations do. "My client only strives to drive defensively and carefully, and conducts himself/herself within the law at all business establishments."
  - Indicate that your time is valuable, and that any situation must be dealt with swiftly.
  - Indicate that your lawyer may need to be present, and that will take a while.
  - Indicate that according to legal professional conduct, you will be defended vigorously and will take action against the police force if necessary, although you support in other conditions.
- Comply with any requests for identification or other information.
  - Make sure your vehicle registration is available and have a copy.
  - Make sure your insurance is available and you have a copy (even if there is no accident, because they may cite you for driving without insurance or not having your proof of insurance available).

Ask what the specific reasons are for your being addressed.

Deny any wrongdoing, or that there has been any severity to any ocurrence. Everything is great, and you are doing very well.

Indicate you cannot speak much because your lawyer should be present, but comply with simple questions.

Be assertive, but polite, about the need to end the police visit.

If the officer informs you of specific information, be polite and accept. 

Thank the officer again briefly on closing interaction. 

...

This is not a complete approach and certainly needs editing, and inclusion in a better developed method, but in the meantime this can be used to keep fresh in mind what a good approach is for remaining safe of harassers and police who are misinformed.

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




*Wednesday, April 13<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>2:58 PM Tucson, Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="fetal-alcohol-syndrome-your-religion-didnt-fix-your-habits">Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Your Religion Didn't Fix Your Habits.</a> 

Who are the fetal alcohol babies of the world?

Or better: Which mothers can we identify, who are alcohol moms?

"I couldn't resist a drink."

Again,

You are inexpert on morality and you claim yourself YOU need salvation.

You cannot be an expert of the morality of life, which humankind omitted from study.

...

Are you a fetal alcohol baby?

Did you ask Mom?

Did you ask your mom if she is a fetal alcohol baby?

That may explain the reason you want

for your life.

[Aside: I'm against that there would be any singular reason].

...

Let's chat.

I'm thinking of being a dad.

Are you going to fetal alcohol my baby?

Or is it your baby

To fetal whatever...

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




*Wednesday, April 13<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>2:58 PM Tucson, Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="modern-on-your-technology-but-not-on-your-moral-technology-or">Modern on your technology but not on your Moral Technology, or</a> 

behavioral guidance.

Whatever you want to call your activity guidance.

Then you claimed you needed salvation, AND

that you're a moral expert.

You needed help and then you were the expert?

I didn't need help on that and never would.

Help on my whole life?

Let me help you reorient your family and civilization. 

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




*Thursday, March 31<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>Start: 8:00 PM Flagstaff, Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="adding-detail-to-nature">Adding Detail to Nature.</a>

Imagine our digital sensors, and computing capabilities, exceed in capability what exists for sensing and recording, in small or minute situations, intially?

Currently some is missing, in the subatomic,

but what if we exceed all but that?

What could we add to nature given that portion has not been included?

What could we add to nature if all has been included even the subatomic, to the most detailed level. Confirmably low base level?

The prior question may be more interesting for a while. What can we add to nature to improve nature, omitting the lowest level details?

What gets added and how, and what is the typology of details that can be added?

All things have details or contents that could be added since all things omit everthing that is not included in their parts.

This means there is quite a lot of possibility that can be added to various things, beneath, above, beside, and alongwith.

What would you add to you, or erase from you, with lower level of information, interpeted by new eyes? 

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



*Thursday, March 31<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>Start: 7:21 PM Flagstaff, Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="more-detailed-than-nature">More detailed than nature.</a>

*[Only a few major punctuation changes. Unedited for a research purpose that will be revealed later]*

Sometimes it is astonishing to see the level of detail that exists in nature on close inspection. Just a few moments ago, I was presented on my Facebook feed with a hummingbird's eye, and the area around the eye, in very close focus. The detail in the feathers at first confused me into thinking it might have been a chicken, but I was incorrect. That same level of featuring occurs at a smaller scale in the hummingbird, and it isn't noticeable with normal eyesight since they are very tiny, and their feathers have details that need some magnification for us to see.

Some things living in nature which we are well acquainted with have detail that is omitted from our views of them, using our own biological sensors, and visual capabilities in our brains; but the detail exists, and our devices for viewing those details are increasing, which allows us, for a short time, to see those details indirectly. I.e. we can "see" the detailed features only by relying on something to provide us a view which has better detail, for us to view in the same limited way with our regular senses.

Certainly there is a maximum ability of our eyes which we are all well acquainted with, suddenly being unable to see things on various conditions. We cannot see with great detail, and so certain things appear blurry, or seem just out of view. This implies our resolution has limitations viewing things afar and up close. Of course this is known, but the implication is that our technology must be eventually better at capturing the details even in our normal personal recording and capturing devices. When will the camera have a better capture of more pixels than my retina? When will its focus be better. When will the full range of devices that are sensing be better than my own senses?

On the consumer market it appears that my senses have not yet been beaten, but based on current position it seems safe to conclude that the non-consumer markets doing research and development must have much better. Probably these technologies are far from as good as humans in finding things to look at and look at them effectively, by exploring the world robotically, but for specific sensing acts of different things in my environment, I feel certain that we are at a point where human abilities are surpassed. 

An interesting question though would be: "When will the cameras "want" better pictures it could take that cannot exist?"

Yet there is also the limitations on nature for cameras, which is interesting. Nature cannot present to my eyes things that can be seen that differ from what it cannot present. Similarly, I'm accustomed to faulting my eyes on not being able necessarily to see very fine objects, but even on the human average, we are all not very good at seeing really fine details; however, we have not faulted nature for being unable to present us given the apparatus we have, via nature, for seeing fine details. I could as easily fault all of nature for being poorly adapted to my eyes, and not the other way around (although I wouldn't normally morally blame inanimacy).

Having cameras and apparatus that can exceed in providing detail than what nature provides and what nature has equipped animals, and what itself can provide in content, creates questions about why more does not exist that is interesting, and why it would be possible to be able to know more than nature can provide, and perhaps create more than nature could provide.

Suppose you have a camera taking a video of a small animal not normally carefully observed. Suppose it watches an ant colony very very closely. Assume it can view at maximum fidelity, using a range of sensor types, such that more detail cannot be seen, and that anything further might be down to particles. It seems that it would follow then, that using software, the virtualization could overtake the actual object in interest, if the software adds fidelity that does not exist.

When would it be possible, for virtualizations to become more complex and more detailed, and not less, than small natural things? Perhaps the virtualization does not simulate the lowest-level, non-observable subatomic-particles, but maybe it adds more elsewhere. If it could not add more elsewhere, it would lead perhaps to a view of the appropriateness of scale for certain objects, with there being no need for the infinitesimal. 

*<time>End: 7:46 PM Flagstaff, Arizona Time</time>*


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




*Monday, March 28<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>Start: 10:41 PM Taos, New Mexico Time</time>

## <a name="social-snippet-no-need-to-respond">Social Snippet, No Need to Respond</a>

*No Need to Respond.*

Don't worry about responding to this post, if you intend to do any of the following:

* "Golden Retriever" it, by quickly finding an article to answer the question, instead of using your own mind.
* Provide a comment that is unsubstantive or rude, or trolling, or uninterested. If you are not interested move on, please.
* Plan to use non-unique communication not related to your own uniqueness. I.e. reliance on traditional answers, or cultural recollections without any reflection.
* You are not a subject matter expert, or do not have a creative interest in exploring the topic fallibly with uniqueness.

I am interested in kind, substantive and logically sensible conversation, that is from a human mind with subject matter expertise or willingness to explore fallibly. Fallible exploration and sharing of already existing expertise, in conjunction with some reliable reference resources, is part of the objective of the post. Not any pretense of having useful knowledge due to the post itself.

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




*Sunday, March 27<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>Start: 12:53 PM Lubbock, Texas Time</time>

## <a name="calculating-temperature-with-digital-photographs">Calculating temperature with digital photographs.</a>

Using your memory and no resources, except for tabulated or reference data or equations, what is the minimal number of photos that can be used to estimate the temperature of a burning flame using knowledge of the properties of light?

*[Note: No golden retriever searches, please. Human expertise is appreciated!]*

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




*Saturday, March 26<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>Start: 6:10 PM Lubbock, Texas Time</time>

## <a name="insectivory-and-earthworm-eating-as-early-market-forcing-regulations">Insectivory and Earthworm-eating as Early Market-forcing Regulations.</a>

*Initial regulations forcing market consumption* 

[Note: The writing below is in the context of my considerations about how to live a more primitve lifestyle, off grid in remote Canada and Alaska. Also, very few edits have been done, in keeping with my research which I've mentioned but will write more about in the near future.]*

Today as I was thinking about plans to find a way to live primitively with few human-artifacts, other than those I create myself, I wondered about foods that would better enable self-sufficiency. A question I've been wanting to answer for myself is:

"How can I minimally sustain my diet living in a remote location with fewer resources and fewer activities expending thought and energy?"

I'm a strict vegetarian so already there is greater complexity than for someone who is ready to hunt large game. Howver, somewhat recently I realized even as a vegan I can scavenge for food, and eat already-dead large animals and fish, since as long as they are cooked to a high enough temperature they are still edible, even if decaying. It is not unusual to eat decaying meat. Currently there is a trend on social media to eat different dry-aged meat products, which are plainly discolored and rotten by the time they are processed for eating.

As a backup, I did consider, after 20 years of not eat any meat, that to enjoy my adventures, I could eat Salmon, if they are heading back upstream to die ultimately anyway. I could spare them, perhaps from a slower death, or from having their skins ripped off by grizzley bears and bald eagles. Animals nearing demise seem more appropriate for vegan eating, if that were necessary for survival or to avoid excess discomfort. Already pet-owning vegetarians euthanize their animals at death, and while they do not eat them, they could. But instead they are prepared to waste the animal completely, like they do with human corpses, rather than eat them, and regain some taste and interest in meat potentially. My excuse for not wanting even a single taste of eggs, even from free chickens, has been to not fall back into an interest in eggs. Friends have asked questions before about which animals would be suitable for eating given my commitments, and I've answered mostly none, because of this view that to try it out could alter taste and create a craving that could lead to a return to eating meat, or, as I think of it now, a discomfort in having to remember perpetually what the meat tasted like, or the eggs tasted like, after being free of the taste for a long time.

Let's transition back to the present topic. Above I explained backups that can be used while trying to live primitively as a vegan-vegetarian. I realized today, as I was driving through Texas, that insectivory and earthworm eating might be another good option. While it isn't my preference to harm anything that might suffer, it does seem also quite in the norm for vegans or vegetarians to want to exterminate pestilence. The lower the life-form, the more open I think vegans and vegetarians would be to eat other options periodically. Our earlier ancestors were composed of herbivores, and frugivores, who were undoubetdly, and confusingly, partly carnivorous for their eating of insects, or were more definitely insectiovorous. It is also possible easily scavenged small animals were eaten, but at a lower frequency, for bing more difficult to catch, and for being uncommonly easy. More definitely, our ancestors were herbivorous, frugiverous, and insectivorous, somewhat like other large primates living today in Eastern Africa. While eating vegetation, insects would be present, and based on how primates eat, it appears humans also would have been largely unconcerned about insects residing in, or appearing on, different fruits or vegetables, and if they lived nearby, and were found delicious, they also would have been targets of eating habits. Similarly, probably honey was desirable, and larvae may have been present nearby, in, or around honey.

As a young kid I would collect tulip poplar flowers and eat the nectar found at the base of the flower near the stamens, at the bottom of the petals. Not knowing if these flowers really had edible nectar or not, I ate it anyway, and naturally found the taste quite good, somewhat similar to honeysuckle nectar, and ate it whenever the opportunity arose. Oftentimes there were already insects trapped in the nectar, or other unwanted debris, and unknown materials. I was mostly disgusted by this, and did not eat that, but I think living in nature, I would have been more concerned about eating enough than to eat foods that have a high level of purity. 

Already we eat foods that are known to have insect parts and eggs within them, and if we leave some products on the shelves at home, they will eventually have worms and things living in them. As a kid I recall opening old boxes to find foods to eat, when we were mostly out, and found insects in them. Certain foods are well known to have these things growing in them if left a while, perhaps with some damp conditions. I remember oatmeal would be one food that would fairly predictably have worms in them if they were left too long.

Another possible cause, however, is insects finding their way into some of these foods and laying eggs which later hatch. Sometimes the source is already in the food (fruit flys for example, which means we routinely eat fruit fly eggs if we eat bananas often, unless they are only within the rinds), and sometimes the source would be external to insects which lay eggs which later hatch. Either way, we are eating insect parts, and insect eggs, even if we are vegans and vegetarians. This does not mean that vegans or vegetarians are not vegans or vegetarians, however, since upon inspection, it is clear that the supply chain necessarily includes animal contributions whatever choice about diet is made, even if one were to obtain all food products separately by growing at home or by gathering. The commitment is related to primary food target selection and depending on the vegan/vegetarian, fulfillment of certain health benefits and probably also, to reduce cruelty to animals we already naturally have some concern about. This is not a complete statement on this topic, but rather serves to give some information relating to the present topic about potentially choosing more deliberately insects and possibly earthworms, if one wants to try to live more primitively, in environmens like the environment I'm most interested in, but have not yet stated, which is northern territories in Canada and Alaska. Elsewhere it might not be necessary to consider these options.

In northern territories, it is possible to get along quite easily on fish, already dead animals, and insects, at least during the summer time. In the winter, some conservation would need to be relied on, for what was previously gathered. Initially, I will be trying to live off grid, in remote territory, as a hiker/gatherer, during the summer time after thaw and before any snow begins. In this time, depending on location, insects can be very plentiful.

How does this relate to early regulations on behavior and possible disincentives to life self-sufficiently.

Going from memory, I recollect that strict Kosher Jews prohibit the eating of certain potential foodstuffs, including very specifically insects.

From my understanding, it is not known why this prohibition would exist, although some would claim that the prohibition of eating pork products would relate to possible health risks that were unknown at the time. Those risks would then justify completely abstaining for lack of any other better strategy for treating the foods for eating. Insectivory may have some risks around disease that are unknown, and I do not know anyone who I would ask to find out if any ailments would result from eating insects, so complete is the prohibition in our civilization. We do not know and do not have common knowledge for not having sufficient interest to eat the foods and for conducting science to discover what risks exist. There isn't enough interest to try. However, given our knowledge of bacteria and viruses and what it takes to kill them or prevent illnesses more generally in foodstuffs, we can predict that we can cook a huge range of insects and effectively kill any risks contained. Drying the foods may also provide a mechanism of protection. Either way, now we do have knowledge about more specific risk factors, and have the means to discover risk factors scientifically, making earlier prohibitions irriational today, if reasons cannot be given. It appears however, this information is not based on wisdom, but is based on a transitory need to avoid issues where the true risks were not well understood.

Relatedly, but as an aside, it must also be acknowledged that fear of rodents and other insects also have little rationale behind them. For example, it must be admitted that rats do not pose a known risk, and may not be as risky to have around, as people claim. The same appears to be true with roaches and other "vermin" which may not really be vermin at all, as much as an irritation to keep away, for purification of one's living environment, to keep it more consistent in appearance and in overall comfort.

What were the true motives of making a prohibition against eating insects, and in some places, prohibitions against eating earthworms (which I hear is a prohibition in Asia, although some will continue to engage in the practice)?

There is the want of maintaining certain appearances to seem more civilized to outsiders who might judge adversely, and perhaps use as a pretext on annexation or attack.

"They are mere primitives and we can take them."

There is also the possiblity, which could even be a germ of current regulations, which is the desire to prohibit certain actions to force market consumption. This could exist wherever there is a desire by a ruling or elite class to force people into dependency and into having to spend money or exchange resources, in a disadvantageous way, to obtain goods which are not available except from sources in the interests of the elite. Knowning that this is a continuing issue, and concern about regulations, in a variety of types of concerns, it is likely that this motive existed even then, and that a desire to prevent earthworm eating, and insectivory, and self-sustaining lifestyles that might seem less than civilized, would come from elites who would benefit from having more customers, and they could achive the switch by creating social pressures. As I think about this, I find it likely that the above interest in creating an appearance of greater civilization would be due to manipulation more than by a desire for self-protection.

An issue with living in the north for vegans and vegetarians who do not want to be dependent is having sources of non-animal proteins and fats, and frankly, enough variety in plant crops. As an Alaskan resident, I am quite dependent on the grocery store and on foods shipped from all around the world. Even if I were to rely more on local produce, I'd be limited to cold weather crops, some other crops during the peak of summer but not in great plenty, and berries. This is not satisfactory for the entire year. In any case, there is still the need of oils from elsewhere, and proteins from legumes and other sources that are not in the state. 

When I imagine myself living in very remote locations, in itially as I learn, I imagine starting with food I bring with me. This would include store-bought products that are vegan/vegetarian. However, I want to gradually find a way to be self-sufficient on ingredients that exist naturally in the areas, which means I will need to scaveng on already dead materials, find already dead or dying fish, or eat something I wouldn't otherwise eat. Those foods are insects and potentially earthworms (depending on region), or grubs and other things that live in the soil.

While I prefer to not eat these things, by finding seeds and other vegetable foods in the environment, I am considering considering not entirely vegetarian food sources, like insects and earthworms, which are more simple animals, which migh be killed easily and swiftly, and might provide all the nutrients of protein, fat, and other micronutrients I would need to survive.

It's not clear if such a choice would lead to increased culinary abilities, or less, or that I would ever be able to serve the foods to anyone else than myself, in a condition of definite need, if I'm wanting to live or maintain comfort.

*[Finished in 56 minutes, at 7:06 pm. Again, without edits, for a research purpose which will be revealed later].*


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


*Friday, March 18<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>5:33 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="did-anyone-check-on-uruguay">Did anyone check on Uruguay?</a> 

How is Uruguay doing?

Amidst all the

Anti-Uruguayanism? 

As of late.

...

Which nations

did you check on?

If you didn't check on Uruguay?

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





*Sunday, March 6<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>8:50 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="when-is-a-nation-a-property-of-a-thing-in-a-durable-way">When is a nation a property of a thing</a>

in a durable way? 

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




*Sunday, March 6<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>6:48 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="metals-with-nationalities">Metals with Nationalities?</a>

What is the nationality of your metals?

Can you celebrate your gold and silver with your nationality in mind really?

Does this not seem moronic?

Olympic games?

Sports and metals with properties of nation-states?

I think I can test the volume and weight of my gold and know the purity.

I don't need a nation-state to stamp its queen on it?

...

The video below shows an ounce of platinum and an ounce of gold I purchased.

Both are of Australian origin, and a queen is imprinted on the reverse.

What do nations have to do

with gold advertisements, and the certification of

pure gold, which is easily known?

...

Precious metals are not yet scienced?

You need a national ad to tell you if it is the metal or not?

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




*Saturday, February 12<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>9:56 AM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="what-can-you-disable-in-your-mind">What can you disable in your mind?</a>

What can you turn off, and 

refrain from turning on?

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





*Saturday, February 12<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>9:31 AM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="people-who-have-interests-that-are-not-worthwhile">People who have interests that are not worthwhile.</a>

Do you know anyone who has interests that seem entirely not worthwhile?

You could watch them all day, everyday,

and listen to their minds,

and not have anything worthwhile as a result?

...

Are you that person, despite

any gifts you think you have?

...

How much attention must you give, to someone

who is of this sort,

who has few or no interests that are interests
 
that nature seems like it should support.

...

"I just couldn't find my interests?"

...

I reflect on some people I have known,

and I wonder if I should have attended more to their interests

to cancel relationships earlier.

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




*Saturday, February 12<sup>th</sup>, 2022*,&nbsp;<time>9:00 AM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="survival-of-the-fittest">"Survival of the Fittest"</a>

is make your replacement?

Topic shift in your mind moronically, for a long time,

then shift your organism? 

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




*Saturday, January 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>11:24 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="jobs-as-internment-camps-where-people-can-concentrate">Jobs as Internment Camps (Where people can concentrate).</a>

The modern version of a Japanese Internment camp, would be to give them jobs carefully, that have no influence, and provide control mechanisms.

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





*Saturday, December 25<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>6:40 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="life-is-easy-contrary-to-your-worldview">Life is Easy, Contrary to Your Worldview.</a>

*No edits*

Thinking back, I know I've heard that "life is hard" many times. Life is so difficult, people think they need to pursue ancient solutions, and think their missteps are not just theirs, but are common. "Everyone is living a difficult life" is a religious message, and people seem to have adopted it even today. 

What I have not heard, maybe not even once, is that "Life is easy". Recently I considered that life is extremely easy, but somehow people have not recognized it. 

People, true, may believe their lives are difficult and may have also made it hard on themselves and others. I want to avoid a confusion so I'll offer another clarification. Making life relly simple is not hard. A solution for making life easy should not begin with a persuasion that it's hard. Instead what I want to do is pursuade that it's easy and show that it's easy.

"Life is hard, look, I'll show you how hard it is" is a message of the religious. If you can make it easy, then why not begin by persuading that it is easy, and by showing how and why you can ensure it remains easy. Can't you adopt your own solution easily?

It's so easy you don't need to look back on ancients and involve yourself in lengthy spiritual journeys. You can just write it down how easy it is, for yourself first, and then maybe share it for others so they can feel like they are current, and not ancient.

...

But really even looking at others and their difficulties, I think to myself, life is easy despite you. It is easy despite what you say, what you think you should do. It is easy despite how you think you "solved it". You face the paradox you created by claiming you solved it and that you didn't. "Life is still hard" you say. I say this even while thinking there are differences in lives and therefore some lives are more difficult than others, but the lives that are difficult are not common. Maybe you got in a car accident and your eyes point the wrong way, and you were born with a birth defect that makes you mostly immobile and unable to eat. That's not you. Ok?

...

Most problems are created by those who complain, and in relatively few ways:

- Creation of health problems,
- Entering into relationships, or keeping relationships, that are not valuable,
- Becoming addicted to drugs,
- Having a sex life, that is not autoerotic,
- And entertaining non-reality based thoughts and goals,
- Living or frequenting an unsafe location.
- Miscellaneous hazard creation.

Victimization certainly exists and can occur even without creating relationships. However, much still involves those items listed above. 

Yet you learn from others that living in simplicity is what results in a "good life". "Simplicity" does not mean you do not live well. Rather it means you live well, but you simplified, according to risk avoidance.

...

Imagine you decide in advance you have no kids (you don't know who they will be anyway, that was a fantasy). Imagine, you have few sexual relationships. Instead, you choose to enjoy yourself (and you enjoy yourself more), and make use of being around people who are attractive, and using entertainment that is safe (you don't want pornographers to be at risk either, or you can use other entertainment), and thereby avoid unwanted children and STDs (you did nothing for STDS, and Trojan did not solve it for you, or solve it). Now, imagine you are armed with a solution that makes life easy, and doesn't claim it's hard and that it will stay hard, and that you'll need an afterlife, but somehow it is still "solved". You are smarter than believing that religions have solved your life for you.

...

Your parents created you as a result of a combination of sexual disire side effects, and social customs which lead them to unreflectively imitate the lives of others. "Should I have a family?" is not really a question taken seriously.

...

This is not a conclusive article on this topic, and I can think of other ways that people can make their own lives challenging. However, I am not convinced that life is hard. Life is easy. It is usually easy. When it is not easy, it is still easy usually.

When I was reflecting on when I was sick, or when I was hurt, I realized, those were easy times. I was not working, I was sleeping and eating, and simply resting, not doing much. But social expectation leads me to think of telling people things are not going well and so on. But things were going well, in that I did not work, I did not concern myself about many other aspects of my life and I spent my time doing only a few things and had rest from many other things I might otherwise be concerned about.

Making a realistic ratio of experience to time living is helpful to convey that life is easy and not hard, because you'll find that hardships were only a small fraction life life experiences.

For example, I had some terrible digestive pains, and other pains. But if I express this in a histogram, on a frequency distribution, what I find is that it is only a few moments in my total life.

If I complained, it would likely be to get attention, or to get some positive benefit from other people.

...

Lstly, death is easy. Death is not hard. Pain is not enjoyable. But death is not pain. Everyone dies, and if you die early, then that is not really hardship.  If I were to get seriously sick or injured, death is not really an additional hardship. Instead, it is a solution for hardship. Life is easy most of the time, and there are few moments of pain, and if there is severe pain, then death may resolve that, confirming that pain can be infrequent. However, some elect to remain in pain. This is not something that is hard to resolve?

...

A few drugs are useful in life for pain managemnt, and using those or planning to use those seems desirable. One wants to avoid addiction. But even if addiction causes trouble, it can still end in death which is not so painful. Everyone will deteriorate, and I'm mindful of the drug addict who has permanently altered their health. Their lives are still fine. We are judgmental and that causes their additional issues. Here I will consider that if I were to become a drug addict, and died, it isn't so differnt, than say, becoming old, and dying. Becoming old is worse perhaps. It can be drawn out, particularly if one has religious views about prolonging pain, against ending life in a way that is comfortable.

...

Now I recover myself from thinking too much about those who say their lives are hard. I think they delude themselves. In foreign countries, some are very happy, with much less. Religions state there is very little needed to live well, and one would do better with less. I find my life easy, even when society would lead me to think perhaps my life should be considered hard. I shouldn't consider others who think this way as much, remaining "positive" (sarcastically), according to their views.

...

Would anyone adopt a life strategy that indicates it is really easy?

...

I was thinking, perhaps such a strategy could be conveyed to 4 year old children in a span of 6 months or less, in what would amount to a single period in school, for those in later grades.

Consider:

The objective of school is supposed to be to make life easy.

But for some reason, adults are going on "spiritual journeys" to be "saved" and are cretaing kids who they will teach need the same thing.

You need a spiritual journey but you were in elementary school, in the "best" country or countries in the world?

Did your teacher go on a spiritual journey?

...

I depend on myself, and life is easy.

If I were to teach in school, the objective would be to make life easy.

If you left school and your life was "hard", I would want to be able to conclude:

"You did it to you."

If you taught well then that would be what you would want to hear, otherwise, it is because you left them ignorant about something important.

So it soundedharsh but was not. Instead, being taught in such a way that life turns out not easy, and you feel ignorant, and you think you need celestial assistance, is harsh.

"I left you ignorant after all that time, and searching for the wrong things in the wrong places."

...

When people are struggling, don't you think somewhat, that they are deluding themselves?

Ok you eat, you drink, you are somewhat active, and you repeat.

Sleeping all the time is fine.

How does life in misery result from good sleep?

Sleep might help, but again, the social world teaches otherwise.

"If you sleep, you are not doing what I think you should do."

But when I was in Mexico recently, they seemed calm and restful.

What exactly are you saying they need?

...

You didn't check other cultures for an easy way of life.

Ok, consider: If you eat food, drink water, and sleep, are you not doing well?

So now you are supposed to be "Great"?

Ok, so let's do a frequncy distribution of great accomplishments (popular accomplishments), over all people.

How many people were popular at school?

How many are popular over the globe, in entertainment, business or politics?

It's a very small fraction. 

Ok, now consider, sleeping is nice. Food and drink is nice. You may accomplish, but you can't hold onto it in any case.

Living as a kid, without being too much distrupte or controlled, is easy and nice.

So what exactly made it hard?

What if it's not hard?

I think it's *very easy*, and maybe we will be presented with some discontent that it's "too easy".

However, then it's "too easy" and what complaint can you really have?

Except perhaps that you did not want to live.

But you said "life is good". So you do want to live. "Life is hard" but you still think it's good.

I think if your life became easy, incompatible views could easily be taught to you still.

But instead, consider an easy enjoyable life is enjoyable.

...

You are an "optimist" and are "positive" and so I shouldn't believe you when you say life is hard and you need an ancient "spiritual journey" for salvation.

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


*Friday, November 26<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>12:00 PM San Jose del Cabo, Baja Sur, México Time</time>

## <a name="homosexuality-creates-a-survival-advantage-because-you-actually-like-yourself">Homosexuality creates a survival advantage because you actually like yourself.</a>

You might survive if you are sexually attracted to yourself.

Some have defined affection and kindness in terms of desire to see another thrive.

Even if you are a homosexual you have a choice concerning sexual reproduction, which is better too

because before now, animal desire simply created babies.

Now a real option is presented. Admit you've had near accidental pregnancies, or accidental ones,

hetero person.

I suppose a question for research would be

Can it be confirmed if homosexual people, or those more near to homosexuality, or those having some traits of homosexuality, are cognitively in one way or another more attracted to themselves?

Does it require that one be attractive and homosexual to be attracted to oneself?

I really like me, although I'm not sexually attracted to myself.

Extreme arrogance has survival value because I love myself so much I can continue to show myself affection, whereas, maybe the humble cannot?

Thus even better might be attractive homosexuality with extreme arrogance, which seems to exist in the arts, which includes also those who create things.

And you're not woke, if you didn't already know this or consider this?

When will you be "woke" finally?

Keep up with the creations of others is woke?

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




*Sunday, November 14<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:16 PM Ajo, Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="were-you-creative">Were you creative?</a>

I'm not going to have an urn or a casket.

Were you creative?

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




*Sunday, November 14<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:03 PM Ajo, Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="you-depended-on-everyone-else-for-your-morality">You depended on everyone else for your morality</a>

Then you thought it was truthful and honest?

What was your motive for accepting the morality of others, nearby?

Who did you depend on?

Would you be willing to depend on me too?

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




*Sunday, November 14<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:46 PM Ajo, Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="wanting-to-die-as-is">Wanting to die "as is".</a>

An interesting thing I was thinking about. Everyone seems ready to die in their Bullshit.

Seriously, people are not concerned about having a truthful life, or a life that includes true statements.

If you look closely, this is definitely the case. If someone recognizes that someone else has an honest view, and is truthful to a much greater degree, you can anticipate they will *oppose* them, and die in falsity.

There is not a driver to living in truth and honesty in most people.

They are wanting to die without modification.

The highly intelligent do not seem to be differentiated on this point either. 


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




*Monday, November 8<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>7:53 PM Tucson, Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="death-and-your-mind-right-now">Death and Your Mind Right Now.</a> 

<pre>
Author

Mattanaw,

- B.S. Psychology,
- B.S. Computer & Information Science,
- B.A. Philosophy (Nearly Completed, 2003),
- Masters Business & Economics (In Progress)

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu
</pre>

*[Written without any edits or spell checks, somewhat slowly, in 26 minutes. Writing without editing is part of a study I'm working on. I will reveal the purpose of that study in the nearish future. This one could have some issues, so skip ahead as needed. I hope it makes you fear death less. If that is the result, then missed edits is just fine.]*

Here I want to spend some time continuing the topic of reducing fear of death by sharing some points regarding your current state of mind and your lack of feeling that the rest of your mind, your inactive mind, could be dead already and you wouldn't know it.

*Thoughts that never load, or recur*

Your brain is a repository of a very large amount of information, and you know this already, when after many years, you suddenly prompt an old memory, from a smell, or a sight, or a reminder from a friend. I frequently recall experiences only when I have conversations with people who somehow manage to bring the conversation to a point that relates to something I normally would not think about, but perhaps thought about in depth in the past.

So when these thoughts do not load, they are just in there, in some brain structure that has been maintained over the years by your physiology. Your cells get replaced, over many years, and your diet shifts, and yet your brain is able to maintain certain pieces of information, that await some elicitation. You are not aware if it's there or not, or what's there at all. This is a point where there can be no refutation: Everyone with a brain has information stored, memories, that they don't know exist, and they are unaware of what precisely exists in storage and what does not. So they are unable to state precisely, what is already dead in them and not. 

This is soothing to me to know, because what this means is that I'm already familiar with death, not only in falling asleep, and experiencing anaesthesia, but every moment I'm awake too.

In addition to the points above relating to not knowing what all is stored, is the point that if you never load it again, it is also like it is dead already. Another universal experience above noted, is that we are triggered suddenly to recall bits of info we did not retrieve in a long time, and perhaps could never retrieve. I had a conversation about this with a relative who believed that they stored their entire life in memory, and I commented to them that that is not all that useful, if nothing is around to prompt its retrieval ever again. 

Which brings me to an interesting idea: even if you could store all the information in your life, and let's say more, all that resides in a large library, it would not be all that interesting if you could never retrieve it, and if you were utterly dependent on smells, and sights, and conversation to bring it out. It would be dead in storage.

What can also be inferred from this is that your brain is not constructed to know what information might be useful later, so much of your information stored in your mind could be useful, but will never be retreived again. Which means it can hardly be asserted that human beings are all that well equipped in future management. Rather it does what it can by allowing for a good amount of storage, compared with other animals, but maybe not compared with future animals or computer systems, and that it creates pottential opportunites for retrieval. 

This is also soothing to me. Because again, it means that I am well acquainted with death. If I never recall my life, and cannot recall it without certain rare opportunities that depend on my environment, then it's like I'm just in a fraction of my mind anyway, and this fraction shifts around a bit in my mind, but does not use all of it at any time. So that section could really be dead, and I'm content with that part being dead all of the time. I'm content with a small mind, and it shifts, so I'm also content with shifting away from things perhaps permanently.

*Learning*

As we learn, our minds shift from prior structuring to newer structuring corresponding to the difference between our prior thoughts and our newer thoughts. Learning is growth, and also implies different structure in the brain an utilization of that structure in the future. Consider that you would not suddenly have the thoughts you would have had as a child on a topic you did not yet consider as thoughoughly as you have more recently. When you think about that same topic, it's as if the other structure were dead, because you are never conscious of that older structure. But, more importantly, connected with the prior point, while you have this topic in your mind, you don't have any of the other topics that could be considered in your mind. You would not be aware if all structure corresponding to these other topics were suddenly destroyed, as long as they are sufficiently unrelate to the current topic.

From this you can think "All that has been substituted or changed is already dead." Why would this help? You are already comfortable with the fact that when you change topics, you are not thinking everything else that you could think at the same time. It is comforting or me to know, that I'm unconcerned as I think that everything else might not be there.

I'm comfortable with the death transition from my earlier brain to my later brain. 

*Conclusion*

What I'm trying to do in sharing this is provide people with additional ways to think about their own minds that will make death seem less worrisome, if it is at all worrisome for people. Perhaps it will become an area of worry as one ages, if we can believe what people say about death experiences. Thoughts like these make death seem not fearful at all. 

*[Written without any edits or spell checks, somewhat slowly, in 26 minutes. Writing without editing is part of a study I'm working on. I will reveal the purpose of that study in the nearish future.]*

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





*Saturday, November 6<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>1:05 PM Tucson, Arizona Time</time>

## <a name="justify-your-sex-and-discover-your-lack-of-moral-sophistication">Justify your sex, and Discover Your Lack of Moral Sophistication.</a>

*[Written in 13 minutes with no edits, and no spelling or grammar checks. The reason for this will be revealed later, after my study on this topic is ready for sharing.]*

Regular people who have not studied moral philosophy pretend to be morally upgright, while the reality is that they cannot explain their own moral system, and have a system that has no development. I've commented on this before on a post about the "Heap of Advice" which is basically a list in memory of phrases from religion and culture, that cannot be reconciled or made to be consistent.

A simple device for revealing that people have very little moral sophistication is to ask them to justify their sex lives and their sexual behavior, and to reveal it to you. This will reveal that privacy is connected with lack of reflection, and lack of ability to reflect. It also reveals that there is no knowledge at hand for making sex related decisions from religious texts or from the culture, if the culture has provided only a "heap of advice" and is itself private. Because if it supports privacy it is unable to inspect relevant information and grow, and is stifled. Thus at an individual level, and collective level, there is a lack of sophistication, and arguably, lack of consistent morality, at least on sexuality. Do you think morality is consistent?

Now, suppose you did have a process on sexuality. It would include when to have children. But the problem with that, for you, is that in our culture, you were taught that it was meaningful to get salvation, or otherwise select among religions, which are often called spiritual journeys. Why did you need salvation and a spiritual journey if your life was worthwhile, and how do you justify creating a child if this observation is true of you. Did it enter into your decision making when you thought about how you would decide when to have sex? You don't even know when to create life? Again, how do you justify your sex?

It is clear that sexual behavior drives much of the market, and the information that we are exposed to very frequently, if not most of the time, has some sexual aspects or components. What this means, is that your lack of decision ability on any morality pervades most of your life. Including your purchasing behavior, planned life behavior, etc... since presumably, when to have sex, includes who you will have it with and for how long.

STDs we are told are quite common. Yet I see no worry about AIDS or other STDs at all, when I'm out at the bar. I'm unaware of any social media behavior that includes within it a good approach to testing the other person you're having sex with for STDs. Nevermind you don't test, and you don't test between instances of sex; the more important thing, is that even if you were monogomous and married, your spouse isn't necessarily monogomous. So how do you know that your spouse doesn't have STDs? You believe cheating to be common, and an average reader did cheat, and potentially said nothing about it. In that case, the reader knows, their significant other could not test them appropriately, for possible deadly STDs.

Did you know that our culture, and you, truly have a primitive idea about morality. You just say you are moral, but that doesn't mean much for your sophistication, does it? If you were more sophisticated, you would look at others like yourself now, and realize you are hardly moral at all, and don't understand what it means to be moral.

*[Written in 13 minutes with no edits, and no spelling or grammar checks]*


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





*Monday, October 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>1:28 AM Banff, Alberta, Canada Time</time>

## <a name="avoiding-who-what-where-when-why-and-how-for-all-things">Avoiding "Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How" for all things.</a>

Particularly

You're a primate loaded with geo-spatial-cultural-data

And you think you *are* something not a primate.

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




*Monday, October 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>12:44 AM Banff, Alberta, Canada Time</time>

## <a name="i-dont-know-who-me-am-but-i-know-some-who-me-were">I don't know who me am, but I know some who me were.</a>

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




*Sunday, September 26<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:03 PM Whitehorse, YT, Canada Time</time>

## <a name="final-thoughts-fear-of-death-and-death-plans">Final Thoughts, Fear of Death, and Death Plans.</a> 

*Death thoughts could be somewhat random and unexpected shutdown thoughts.*

> [Aside: Back to the need for a real death plan, and the topic of removing fear of death]

We should give up on believing we can control our last thoughts.

"What was my last thought before sleeping?"

That did not concern me.

Sometimes, dreams start fast, when I'm very tired, and my thoughts when half awake, and half asleep

can be very strange.

I'm fine with that and it can be somewhat funny.

Final thoughts must be more subject to lack of control than thoughts before dreaming.

They may make less sense, be less cohesive.

I can't pretend they are the same, because that would be forcing them to be the same, to provide comfort.

There are similarities only.

Truth is important, and truth provides *more* and not less comfort.

Because the thought could arise later, after coming to believe this is true

that your belief that it would be like entering a dream is preparing you

for something that you suddenly notice must be different.

"Now I'm unprepared for this, and I'm fearful," could be the reaction.

...

Death involves deterioration of a vital organ, and with age may include brain deterioration.

Either way, if it is organ deterioration or failure, or brain deterioration and failure, the result

is loss of brain functioning.

We say rightly people are dead, in the way that matters, when their brain has stopped functioning.

So at the time of death, you can expect your thoughts will change over.

The change of thoughts depends specifically on what actually happens to your brain.

Consistency cannot be expected.

Control certainly cannot be expected.

This means religious plans for thoughts before death,

and 

"last words"

are plans doomed to failure.

If one looks at the full variety of death,

one sees people are usually dying differently from each other

because their age, ailments, and final death event is unique.

This does not mean there are not commonalities.

But a doctor who has seen many deaths, must agree,

particularly if the communicate with army medics,

and people who have seen deaths outside of controlled environments,

that it does not occur with controlled thoughts.

We have to give up the idea that we will be able to control our thoughts at death.

Our thoughts may be nonsensical, opposed to our views

We could think gibberish.

We could think enjoyable thoughts, or painful thoughts.

The variety relates to the variety of conditions that a brain can have, or be exposed to.

So at this moment I have difficulty expressing the full variety.

It is *that* variable.

It may be *more* variable than many other experiences in life.

...

This makes the plan for death EASIER however, and not harder.

You cannot plan your last thoughts.

The better strategy is to be comfortable with any thoughts you have, as you are living

as you fall asleep.

Strange thoughts, illness thoughts.

This strategy is part of living anyway, because if you are comfortable

with how your mind operates one way or another while living, you will live better.

This may have some utility when transitions occur at death.

Other than this, one might be better off not trying to control thoughts.

One cannot train for death thoughts.

Also, one can plan for how one will die, rather than handing that over to a final medical visit.

What drugs might end you while you're still clear?

I have stated before, that a plan to let a hospital control your end,

after an unpredictable health event,

is not a controlled plan.

It is much better to admit, that any chosen death pathway is a chosen death.

This means people who are willing to have suicide are

saved from shame before and after death, because they planned differently

and want some control.

This is not all that can be said on this topic, of course.

But it reveals that one can have a larger plan that will make things better very likely 

at time of death, if it is not anomalous or really unpredictable.

But then additionally, in our plan, we have to account for what cannot be planned.

In this brief post it was final thoughts.

I would recommend not giving final thoughts much value for planning consideration,

except perhaps to include ways of death, while not completely deteriorated,

that may involve drugs.

When you have surgery, and you get the drug to put you to sleep, it is understood by all that it is not painful, and does not include anything mentally that you do not greatly fear.

You count down until death, and if you wanted

you could substitute that countdown, for any planned thoughts.

Although I recommend not planning so much on that.

Giving up control is what makes it work well.

"I will count down and then sleep."

Controlling too much may result in 

"I didn't do it right, let's start over."

...

Perhaps for next time:

"How much do you let other people control your death thoughts?

To what extent is it related to

Your ancestors having been conquered.

I was controlled on death by conquerors of my ancestors.

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




*Sunday, September 26<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>12:11 AM Whitehorse, YT, Canada Time</time>

## <a name="i-didnt-realize-mattanaw-was-a-diety-until-moments-before-i-died">"I didn't realize Mattanaw was a diety, until moments before I died"</a> 

What were the consequences?

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




*Sunday, September 26<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>12:11 AM Whitehorse, YT, Canada Time</time>

## <a name="losing-fear-of-death-because-your-life-is-tv">Losing fear of death, because your life is TV.</a> 

*When your death is pulling the plug on existing plugs *you* can't pull. (Electrical plugs)*

When your fear of death, going by your behavior, amounts to fear of turning off your television.

Your entertainment.

They are the same thing, or are nearly the same.

You work, and then you experience your "life", because you "have a life" when you don't work.

But that life is really television watching.

Then you say you are afraid of death? 

Which show will you miss?

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





*Saturday, September 25<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>10:40 PM Whitehorse, YT, Canada Time</time>

## <a name="social-snippet-the-error-hunting-of-those-who-dont-understand">Social Snippet, The Error Hunting of those Who Don't Understand</a>

*The Error Hunting of those Who Don't Understand*

I'm noticing a trend in which people who appear quite intelligent in written expression, dodge failure to understand a thesis by engaging in semantic fault-searching. They are unable to see the meaning of the writing and somehow remain interested, apparently for the fun of doing something that still requires smarts--finding what could be considered inexact in the language. Some people seek out typos, misspellings, and grammar issues, that amount to syntactical oversights, while others look for "blemishes" related to meaning and semantics. They often miss creative usages, or usages intended to elucidate, and instead consider them mistakes. 

Either way paragraph and document meaning and syntax are missed, because they lost holism and missed the main goal and thesis.

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




*Monday, September 20<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:06 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="how-universal-is-personal-history-alteration">How Universal is Personal History Alteration?</a>

<pre>
Author

Mattanaw, 

B.S. Psychology, 
B.S. Computer & Information Science, 
B.A. Philosophy (Nearly Completed, 2003), 
Masters Business & Economics (In Progress)

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems 
cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu
</pre>


How Universal is Gaslighting?

Gaslighting, in short, is altering history to make it favorable for some objective. Most commonly one is accused of gaslighting, if one starts to play with someone's mind, to alter their ideas about what has happened, even though they were exposed to what happened.

I'm not going to explain the unfortunate moronic gaslight metaphor though. I hope we can change it at some point.

Well, I used to think only other people gaslight. I think I'm incredibly not guilty of this compared to other people, since I'm honest, and strive for truth. If I thought I committed this error, I think I would correct it afterwards upon noticing.

However it is worse than this so I have to admit I am guilty and so is everyone else. The reason is that it rationalization IS a gaslight. 

When being highly introspective, one recognizes sometimes, the order of thoughts in relation to decisions is unclear. You may feel that your rationale preceded your decision, or that you had it, when in reality it was forming, and you didn't have it, and you decided--then the rationale formed, and you articulated it afterwards. 

If you are unaware of this occurring in your mind, I promise you that you simply haven't noticed it yet.

This means that after you make a decision, you lead yourself to believe, that the preceding rationale was had, but it was not. Other reasons within you existed for the decision. So your afterthoughts gaslight you. You are gaslighting yourself.

Ok this occurs so frequently, that you are certainly doing it to others too. Many of these are forgivables, being lighter cases of rationalization. Some who are less scrupulous, have less introspective capacity, less experience in psychology, less practice with honesty, or more practice in lying, etc... will do this often.

So it must be stated that it is universal that people alter history, and at the time of recording history have already performed gaslighting in their minds, and will commit those results to paper. Partly because they don't know they do it, and partly because there is a strong motive to do it. If people do it naturally, in the process of rationalizing, do we not think it goes further? 

Particularly in autobiographical accounts.

There is a range in the propensity to make the error, and the size of the errors, and therefore, being predisposed to do this does not make one an example of the worst case. However, I think the average case is a very bad one. Particularly if we enter into this a supposed need for privacy.

...

Response to a commenter, connecting skepticism to the above.

It sounds like you are connecting this with a skepticism for absolute worldviews. I did not make this connection as I was writing this, but your thoughts, and the OP, do support some growth directions of skeptical thinking more generally.

An issue that I think you probably noticed, and would appreciate my comment on, is that there are a lot of other psychological things that should lead to that same skepticism. For some reason though, religious zealots and those who committed without enough thought, to an absolutist perspective or school, are unpersuaded by these considerations.

I think this is due to inability to introspect effectively, and process what is observed in introspection. Training in psychology or in biases, and logical fallacies might help, since of course education improves ones reflection on one's own thinking. But I think also there is just a brain limitation.

Religious tolerance could actually, in the near future, be about tolerance of lack of brain development.

...

Response to a commenter, about the reality of rationality, despite rationalization:

Both [Rationality & Rationalization] have not been given a phenomenological or physiological/psychological basis, or a really clear description, and so we struggle. But yes, rationality *does* exist. Some people truly are rational at times, and I count myself as a person definitely in that group. If I were not in that group, I would claim it doesn't exist.

One can really sit down, plan, evaluate options, consider probabilities, one's inclinations, and choose, and even train oneself to have habits consistent with planning. Is this a complete description of rationality? No, but it is a pointer at what is a trend towards more rational thinking, and not less rational thinking. I say this because it indicates that there is something akin to rational thinking that is real, and I don't think one can seriously claim there is no such thing. Also, notice people who are rationalizing, want to gaslight people into thinking that they did plan in a way that maximized detachment. They are pretending to be like people who really are objective.

There is this other thing about pretending to be rational. If you speak clearly, and show clear thinking, and consideration, you *look like* you are rational. People who are rationalizers are very good at pretending to be like people who are admired, and I'd say are better at pretending, than being, since rationality 1) comes natural to the talented, and 2) is hard. But people can pretend to be that one guy who was rational frequently right?

"Behold, it's me, enunciating!"

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




*Sunday, September 19<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:44 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="earlier-and-later-than-your-religion">Earlier and Later than Your Religion.</a> 

I'll take both absolute authorities. 

Earlier knowledge, and later knowledge.

And you can go on a spiritual pilgimage, young child, because spiritual pilgimages is what the other kids do.

There are four destinations, three are to the desert, and one not.

All to the desolate time of roughly the same period of unknowledge in our history.

Why did you think you needed anything?

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




*Sunday, September 19<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:37 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="pretending-equality-in-advance-and-truthfulness-of-halves-of-a-dichotomized-species-in-the-animal-kingdom">Pretending Equality in Advance, and Truthfulness of Halves of a Dichotomized Species, in the Animal Kingdom.</a>

Ye Zoologists doing no observations.

A man and a woman each tell a story about a crime scene witnessed.

Can one expect any difference on veracity going by sex alone?

(Hint: It wouldn't be equal)

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





*Sunday, September 19<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:34 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="high-culture-versus-low-people">High Culture, versus Low People</a>  

How much value does a work of art, or a very well written book of truth, have compared to another living person?

Speaking for myself, there really are people I never need to see or hear, or know exist; Yet I do want and desire, and arguably need, written works, from people who are no longer living, potentially.

For anyone who would argue otherwise, I challenge you to select for yourself, in your limited time, amongst the 8 billion people, who is worth your presence? In your time in this life, you have to choose people, and stimulation.

Can you pass up the stimulation of knowledge and the arts? Creations of other people?

There are many people I can take a pass on. There is no harshness to this either, because you will take a pass on people, and pretend they are all equal. Your falseness is the harshest of all, and for anyone who does this, I'd take a pass on you quickly.

This is a writing for anyone who might read it, among all who can read, or might read. It isn't directed at you, necessarily, my friend.

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




*Friday, September 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>5:26 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="sentences-about-yourself-if-honest">Sentences about yourself, if honest</a>

are more likely to be improbable sentences.

These sentences were supplied by

The complexity of a complex organism in a complex situation.

The mind did not produce the complexity.

Even the least developed then, in their personal stories,

can provide interesting sentences, that are improbable.

...

However, apart from this, the person who is of lower intelligence

will reliably produce sentences that are more probable.

Outside their unique autobiographies, there is less of interest.

...

Your autobiography is interesting.

If you can be honest and share it truthfully, including all those improbable sentences, then you provide others with something important.

If you skip honesty and share sentences that are typical, you undercut that you

don't have anything other than your autobiography of interest to share.

[Special Sentences are a Rarity](#special-sentences-are-a-rarity).

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




*Friday, September 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>4:55 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="solidified-in-ceremony">Solidified in ceremony.</a>

It has been considered, now you can recollect.

Don't question.

"What do demolitions look like, when they are used?"

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




*Friday, September 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>4:55 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="an-intolerable-thing-about-marriage">An Intolerable thing about Marriage</a>

There is an agreement that the person who is "right" or not relates to a historical frequency distribution of "rightness".

Let's correct the facts with the histogram containing data on an unrelated social topic.

So the next time, and the time after, and the time after, the evaluation for correctness is based on, well, not correctness, but whether or not it seems to lead to an inegalitarianism in rightness in the relationship. As if that's supposed to be egalitarian.

"You're right honey" going one direction or the other.

Then it's confused what the result of the conversation was. 

Dishonest for the need to pretend there is an equality in rightness produced from each spouse's mind?

...

Another solution, maybe too hard, is that "rightness" isn't the objective? 


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





*Monday, September 6<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:33 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="well-grow-our-knowledge-tree-however">We'll grow our knowledge tree however</a> 

*Some Thoughts on our Unplanned Master Project of Knowledge Development, and Works like Berkeley's*

As I read the Introduction to Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge, and Three Dialogues, written by Roger Woolhouse, I realized there are some strange motives for writing, that are part impersonal, part not.

Also somewhat disconcerting and disillusioning about the history of Philosophy.

Berkeley's work seems to fill a gap in a context, in which alternatives that were similar to his philosophy seemed already explored, and pointers to his philosophy somewhat well discussed. At least, participants in the philosophical correspondence, that involved actual communication in person, in letters, or in works/books themselves, and a small community of participants, seemed to have exhausted systematic concentrated efforts on similar pathways. 

A question that arose in me, reading Berkeley is, did he write this because he became aware of a pathway that simply was not explored, and that he, having a certain compatible disposition of belief and commitment with this pathway, followed it because nothing prevented him?

Did some of these philosophers simply develop down an available direction that had some interest?

Write a book, because you can fill a gap your life is compatible with?

Then I wonder to myself, am I seeing opportunities for writing, that result in my related writing? Or do I have some other approach that I follow?

My motives seem very different than Berkeley's, from appearances.

His system seems to *apropos*, too timely, on a topic that does not require development.

It is very clear that I am not interested in this sort of writing. Certainly, I have novel ideas, and wish to explore those ideas. But, if these ideas are not completely tenable, I will not pursue them. Moreover, I do not follow pathways of writing that relate to gaps in community contribution. It appears Berkeley filled a gap that is predictable, one that someone else would have pursued further, if he had not pursued it himself.

I considered perhaps he developed his writing here because he saw an opportunity for receiving a readership. However, this could not be his only motivation, since his worldview is compatible with the outcome of his writing. It is possible, that he introduced his work, that explored a nearly explored region of thinking, because he recognized an opportunity congenial to his interests. Being congenial to his interests, he had incentives to remain interested. However, the results of his writings have two qualities:

1. The system he devised is absurd and cannot be seriously adopted, and
2. He had opportunity for readership, filling a clear gap in the literature.

...

Do some write primarily because they see holes to be filled?


"My results are untenable but as a business move it's effective?"

"I would be seen as authentic writing this, given my background, and what I'm writing pursues a path that, well is one of only a few available paths already followed, and I'll get a readership, and will earn money, and a place in a community of correspondence?"

...

His work exists, which means someone has written about the topic, in a way that completes the need.

But his work is being taken seriously, and certainly it is untenable.

Which means he performed an odd service by filling the hole, but a disservice in making his contribution seem, well worthy of reading.

...

An interesting point: what works of science are being produced for seeing a hole that exists, that need not be filled, and need never be considered?

Perhaps this is the reason I'm feeling an uneasiness about this works existence. It seems to point out a human tendency to want to have a book in the library covering a topic, because the topic somehow arises as a gap to be considered.

Creating volumes that distract.

Funding exists to create volumes that consider all that seems to be open for consideration?

...

Which topics are those we should simply pass in a cursory fashion?

Which are those we should develop?

It does not appear that we develop knowledge in a way that values what the outcome of such an inquiry would be, and instead, intellectual freedom and other independent decisions take precedence.

I'm interested in developing this unfruitful pathway, out of various self-interests.

One cannot align personal interest with the objective project of knowledge growth unplanned.

What is this plan of knowledge growth?

It does not appear there is any overarching plan for developing human knowledge as a master project.

So we end up with Berkeley's Principles, and scientific research papers that have no reading value.

We have this tree of knowledge, and it certainly grows like a tree, growing however it grows.


[Aside: As I was writing and finishing this, I felt I was being unfair to Berkeley. Yet this was my thought process arriving at the important intuition, about the unplanned nature of our tree of knowledge.]

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




*Sunday, September 5<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>8:51 PM Alaska Time</time>

*From a post to Facebook on Septeber 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2021*

## <a name="philosophical-questions-not-very-puzzling">Philosophical Questions, Not Very Puzzling</a>

Philosophy is this odd thing, where there is an argumentative interplay of various Philosophers, recognized by name, who focus on questions, which are not answerable to regular people, or the religious, or the scientific, but are plainly answerable.

The oddest continuity of obscure questions existing over hundreds of years is a result.

Philosophers dispute and get nowhere, and those outside of philosophy seem completely inequipped to handle their questions, and yet they are all easily answerable. 

It's the oddest narrowmindedness that leads to this result. You missed the answer and then you wrote one hundred more pages on your error, Philosopher. 

*Easy Questions, Hard for All Who Look.*

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




*Sunday, September 5<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>4:27 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="special-sentences-are-a-rarity">Special sentences are a rarity.</a>

If you listen into conversations at coffeehouses, and other establishments, most of what you hear are not special sentences. You learn little, much sounds the same.

What can these people do to produce special sentences? I think speak autobiographically with honesty. In that case probably we will hear things of interest.

Otherwise sentences that spring from mouths seem probable sentences, more than highly improbable ones. 

People are not creating many sentences of interest.

There is a definite connection of quality of mind, with the production of special sentences.

Because those who can't don't, and you hear they don't. 

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


<!-- Recovery from live site --> 

<p><a name="social-snippet-no-analysis-assumes-complete"></a></p>
<p><em>Tuesday, August 17<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>7:52 PM Las Vegas, NV Time</time></p>
<h3 id="social-snippet-no-analysis-assumes-complete.">Social Snippet, No Analysis, Assumes Complete.</h3>
<p>On reading this comment it appears the reader has a view they believe to be complete. However regarding this topic it appears the writer is a layperson. An expert in this topic would be someone who is called a "“, or someone who has researched to become approximately an”", with the added constraint that learnings relate directly to the problem. An alternative, or in addition to this, one can gain the expertise necessary given talents, other related experience, and research that is suitable for a mind to bring the topic to completion. Just these do not imply the mind has arrived at completion. One must show that analysis and sophistication that would first indicate profundity is adequate. This is a rarity; but even apart from the rarity, it is a stark contrast it seems to what the reader is showing.</p>
<p>A quality analysis would show some understanding of math although mathematization of topics are long and torturous; so there is some recognition that mathematization would not be shared, but an awareness of applicable principles might be adequate. Completeness would require that it is finished. “Intuition backed on the mathematical method that would apply but has not been rigorously applied” would be akin to “Leadership Judgment” that is still better than leaderships who are available usually apply.</p>
<p>Lastly, complete views finalizing topics would stand up to reconsideration and time. However, these responses seem haphazard and reactionary, and not cool and well considered.</p>
<p>Single links to posts that are not themselves complete by the above criteria are not bolstered into completeness. If you shared a link, I may look at the link and believe.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="social-snippet-no-analysis-assumes-complete"></a></p>
<p><em>Tuesday, August 17<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>4:33 PM Las Vegas, NV Time</time></p>
<h3 id="social-snippet-confined-criticism">Social Snippet, Confined Criticism</h3>
<p>This comment appears to fail to acknowledge that writing that is performing a function of social criticism is attempting, quite often, to reach a solution by first identifying a problem. That is the case here as well with this posting, even if this is not obvious. The intention may go unrecognized but this is a key intention. Critical postings arouse various reactions in an audience. Some will find it a challenge and will via cognitive dissonance attempt to reinforce their views. Some will feel the same but instead of offering a reasonable response, or a non response, will react with emotions to create damage as if the emotions were founded on valid thinking. Some will simply want to consider it “negative” and create distance or do the same, even without knowing the meaning. This might be called “cognitive dissonance of the type: mismatching emotional preference for topic.” This would be cognitive dissonance where the reader has a conclusion they believe to be “positive” and if it appears different, it is still a challenge even if the content is ignored. These people will respond reinforcing their view by attacking without even understanding, or with understanding but the content out of view (preferring to attend to the cognitive dissonance issue resulting from social attitude.</p>
<p>Additionally comments like those above generalize. A confined act of criticism is about the topic and not about all topics. The dissonance can elicit a range of errored responses, and I have no desire to identify which applies, because the reader is already required to make sense in responses. This requires an understanding about which emotions are appropriate when, what rules of collaborative argumentation are when there are disagreements, and what is logical or illogical. The last requirement can have some forgiveness because our cultures failed to teach logic. Logic is nothing special and uses regular language but is not easy to independently discover. However, if too illogical I will consider communication with the reader impossible (permanently depending on the severity). It is easy for the experienced logical of natural language to see the issues, but they cannot be communicated to those who merely assume they make sense with no experience, who in fact can’t make sense.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="grouping-and-ungrouping-frequences"></a></p>
<p><em>Tuesday, August 17<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>3:24 PM Summerlin, Las Vegas, NV Time</time></p>
<h3 id="grouping-and-ungrouping-frequencies">Grouping and ungrouping frequencies?</h3>
<p>Earlier I posted that you grouped too frequently, in the same way, and without variation.</p>
<p>Now I ask,</p>
<p>How fast do you group and dissolve your grouping and what is optimum per type of grouping?</p>
<p>Is it safe to say that you don’t know?</p>
<p>But you put so much in groups why have you not discovered this optimization problem yet?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[Note: Please do not provide affirmations of the traditional, like “I started and ended college and it was just right” as if the world understands this. Even college has monopolized you. I don’t want to rule out all responses though when you don’t realize you didn’t optimize, but I want the responses to be about optimization of joining and creating groups and disolving them. No need even to think about optimization of this phenomena in parallel on rotation of the Earth.]</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="significance-of-mind-and-the-plausibility-of-the-conception-of-will-to-power-in-nietzsche"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, August 8<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>1:42 PM Phoenix, AZ Time</time></p>
<h3 id="significance-of-mind-and-the-plausibility-of-the-conception-of-will-to-power-in-nietzsche.">Significance of Mind, and the Plausibility of the Conception of “Will to Power”, in Nietzsche.</h3>
<p>The plausibility of Nietzsche’s conception of the “will to power” relates directly to our experience, over our entire lifetimes, of delight at attainment of all our skills. The “willing” aspect of this “will to power” relates to the willingness to struggle to overcome a difficulty, which might be as simple as learning to walk, or learning to ride a bicycle, but includes all those skills that are necessary to become a normally functioning child. The “power” element relates to the attainment of the new skill, subskills, and other transformations feeling like they are learning experiences leading to attainment. The striving element we are familiar with in the “will” is for making gains that are felt to be necessary. There is a need or a want and we are motivated to act, and this active and catalytic motivation is ‘willing’. There is more power in completion of something that leads to more general skill acquisition that can be seen to apply to a range of things, than less; and when this is noticed, and attained, a more significant transformation has occurred. Something akin to potential energy in physics. One has a potential biological process that can be used again and again, and you continue to have power in reserve through that skill, which is rooted in our biology; the greater the applicability and remaining life-energy the greater the reserve. It is not exaggeration to say that learning proceeds with this power element being almost always involved. It is involved in the detection of a need or a lack, the sudden drive towards taking actions that will satisfy the need and lack, the effort required and undergone to fill a lack, and the accomplishment of the skill that covers a range of lack. It is likely that this “will to power” can be further reduced to other more basic principles of psychology, and we should completely reduce the phenomena to this and related scienctific findings; but a recognition of the will and power elements at play here are pervasive give credibility to Nietzsche’s view and reason for looking into reducing it further. Without such a recognition, the underlying causes of this phenomena may be buried another hundred years.</p>
<p>A person who is able to extend the skill to cover more lacks, and fill more needs, has attained a greater significance in their method of action, than someone who only fills a lack that is less general in application. There is a relationship here between significance in action and skills, and significance in ideas, which is further reduced to significance in mind. This connects to my view that those who are more intelligent and more creative have a greater velocity of significance production in ideas (Mattanaw, 2021), but in connection with Nietzsche’s will to power there is also the component of significance in action, and not only in ideas. A life that concerns itself for mental growth includes both, and I seek to have this in high degree. Those who recognized in my earlier article something of themselves in ideation <a href="christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html?fbclid=IwAR2GhTeEVpiCxCTcTI3dOaPQdEFds0l3-t0ZsPS8lPTCl0jRgmfWD3VIuFM#the-significance-of-ideas-and-creativity">“The Significance of Ideas and Creativity”</a>, will notice that it is somewhat distinct from action, but not entirely distinct because range of significance of action depends to some extent on range of significance on ideas, except in those cases where a skill is attained that is accidentally applicable in many cases elsewhere. However even the actions that are significant enough attainments are applicable elsewhere, one needs to have the vision and opportunity, to create opportunities and detect times to apply the skills. This offers strong argument against living without pursing significance of action in addition to significance of ideation. Here my desire is to segue into the importance of feedback loops in action to gain both opportunities for creation of improved and more significant ideas and actions; however, this is not the best moment to develop that point.</p>
<p>One takeaway would benefit the reader. Creating feedback loops on actions can increase one’s minds’ value. Because a sedentary intellectual that does not experience results of their own actions and ideas will not have feedback to build upon (Relates to weaknesses in Aristotle, not yet being an experimental scientist. Not without justification). This is how intelligent people eventually, through laziness, fall into the trap of having “untested ideas”, and they feel the effects of having had few feedback loops, for having only a little motivation. This relates to my interest in motivation, and my already prepared material for improving motivation (<a href="strategy-one-tips-and-tools-managing-procrastination.html">Strategies for Managing Procrastination, Part One</a>). Since motivational issues involve what prompts action, and prompting action is a lifelong experience, beginning in youth, one article targets youths in particular, with the intent that it extends beyond youths to everyone, because everyone can relate to being or having been a kid. A prior work which I may include soon was the very first article on my website relating to procrastination. In this location I do not offer heuristics like I do in the previous, and instead move forward to offer a pathway at more permanent development. This work on procrastination requires minor edits and will be added again soon. It is 5 years old now, and was the very first work on the site, yet has not been edited to the satisfaction of the author, which speaks to both procrastination (in the editing), but not procrastination in the original urge to creation.</p>
<p>The notes below are the source material for the above writing on this topic, and I include it along with the original marginalia, or notes in the margins, of my copy of Walter Kaufmann’s fair treatment of Nietzsche’s thinking. In this work concepts of Nietzsche that have been misunderstood are clarified and placed in context, and as I was reading, I noticed the will to power has a good foundation in animal experience including humans, and has great significance.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[Marginalia of mine in Kaufmann’s book on Nietzsche, and transcription, with minor edits.</p>
<p>The purpose of sharing such marginalia and scans is manifold in that it provides visibility into how ideation can be achieved by forgetting certain rules that might be harbored, such as a rule about causing book damage or other. Another purpose, closer to my more recent objectives, shown in doing this, is verification/validation of my own thinking and thought processes, and authenticity of my current and existing work, and future productions.]</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="marginalia-kaufmann-on-nietzsche-mattanaw-1-web.jpg" src="marginalia-kaufmann-on-nietzsche-mattanaw-1-web.jpg"><br /></p>
<p><a href="marginalia-kaufmann-on-nietzsche-mattanaw-1-master.tiff">Master</a></p>
<p><br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="marginalia-kaufmann-on-nietzsche-mattanaw-2-web.jpg" src="marginalia-kaufmann-on-nietzsche-mattanaw-2-web.jpg"><br /></p>
<p><a href="marginalia-kaufmann-on-nietzsche-mattanaw-2-master.tiff">Master</a></p>
<p>Will to power as a primary motive force and sociological core/commmon explanatory central principle is impalatable probably due to our bias against power.</p>
<p>It may be more palatable and discerning of weak but popular aims, if it may be connected with all purposeful action since purposeful action includes the element of power to control actions and control outcomes. If the power necessary to secure sedired objectives did not exist, all objectives and controls along the path to objectives would fail. And if failed, learning would be wanted, and this is want of power and this way we made the same conception popular.</p>
<p>In the bias against power all have forgotten their own phrase that “Knowledge is power.”</p>
<p>So it turns out that “knowledge is power” may not be as available to awareness as bias against power. Oddly education is knowledge for power, and so the bias indicates minds are greatly contradictory, since when “knowledge is power” is remembered, education is forgotten? In education, bias against power is largely forgotten. In this line of reasoning Nietzche’s high consistency can be seen, and it would explain a split in approval in his audience, between those who react to their first thoughts involving bias in power, and those who react to first thoughts about power in knowledge and learning.</p>
<p>Everything you do is dependence on your own skill and learning which satisfy power requirements for doing anything, including walking and chewing and drinking and swallowing. Even in nature the early learnings are empowerments, a word we enjoy probably because we feel an increase of power in it, whereas if the fear power and feel less powerful that bias wins out.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[And while it may not directly apply, there is an alternative sociological framework created by Mr. Bertrand Russell. This work is very much in keeping with this, and while it handles subject matter differently, has influenced my work as well. Having a background in Sociology and Psychology, I am certain this work has not received the attention it deserves.]</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>References</strong></p>
<p>Kaufman, W. (1974). <em>Nietzche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist:</em> Princeton.</p>
<p>Mattanaw. (2021). <em>The Significance of Ideas and Creativity.</em> Ref: <a href="http://www.mattanaw.com/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html?fbclid=IwAR2GhTeEVpiCxCTcTI3dOaPQdEFds0l3-t0ZsPS8lPTCl0jRgmfWD3VIuFM#the-significance-of-ideas-and-creativity">http://www.mattanaw.com/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html?fbclid=IwAR2GhTeEVpiCxCTcTI3dOaPQdEFds0l3-t0ZsPS8lPTCl0jRgmfWD3VIuFM#the-significance-of-ideas-and-creativity</a></p>
<p>Russell, B. (1993). <em>Power: A New Social Analysis.</em> Routeledge: London.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="social-snippets-sharing-thoughts"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, August 8<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>4:39 PM Chandler, AZ Time</time></p>
<h3 id="social-snippet-sharing-thoughts">Social Snippet, Sharing Thoughts</h3>
<p><em>Sharing Thoughts, Social Snippet</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I post as anyone else would who is a writer, and share with those who might be interested. Particularly, I share with those in communities that seem to be intelligent enough to appreciate it, and I feel I’m excluding too many people by not sharing elsewhere too. But then there are <em>people</em> who get in the mix, thinking they don’t have FB controls to determine what they see and don’t see. I invite criticism for mutual growth. What you offer is trolling I assure you.”</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="social-snippet-trolling"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, August 8<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>4:18 PM Chandler, AZ Time</time></p>
<h3 id="social-snippet-say-trolling">Social Snippet, Say Trolling</h3>
<p><em>Trolling, Social Snippet</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“It is not entirely easy to determine who is trolling and who is not because we have not found a clear definition of the term and have not seen clear examples for identification. Here are a few examples of trolling that lead me to believe that this is what you are doing: Sharing a meme or video that is irrelevant but has the effect of provocation, or goal of leading others to censure and discount a message without additional thought, with hopes of gaining a following of commenters taking interest in the comment over the actual posting. Goal is to create a subthread that dominates and shadows the main thread. Comments that are verbal and short that simply stab at the author on grammar, on spelling errors, on typos, and other issues where the meaning is apparent, and the intent of the writer ignored. When the intent of my writing which is positive, clarifying, or otherwise educational in intent is discarded on grounds that it is critical, or other grounds that are within the normal methods of teaching and artful thinking. This comment isn’t to expand on the conversation of what is trolling and what isn’t. It’s merely to show how I reasonably think you are in here as a troll. Sometimes trolling activities are ‘covered up’ by pretense of ‘genuine or honesty in reaction’, whereas in my experience this is used to exculpate the troll and for the troll to pretend suddenly they are not a troll, and are really trying to contribute. Trolling in fishing is a method of catching fish and stringing them along another direction. It’s related to ‘red herring’ too, and often has hopes of guiding more than one person off track.”</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="the-significance-of-ideas-and-creativity"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, August 8<sup>st</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>3:06 PM Phoenix, AZ Time</time></p>
<h3 id="the-significance-of-ideas-and-creativity.">The Significance of Ideas and Creativity.</h3>
<p><br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="significance-and-idea-generation-mattanaw-1-web.jpg" src="significance-and-idea-generation-mattanaw-1-web.jpg"><br /></p>
<p>I was recently asked to do an interview on intelligence, and one of the questions I encountered related to identification of people who are frauds in the IQ Community.</p>
<p>My IQ has been verified again and again since youth with proctored exams and is well established, although I did not join Mensa and IQ related groups until later in life, after independently confirming with more tests.</p>
<p>Significance is lost on people who are not as intelligent as they think they are. I’m thinking cross-domain, multi-discipline connections to diverse fields.</p>
<p>Sometimes when someone shares a significant new idea, I can identify within seconds 5 or more applicable fields. But depending on the idea, it might impact all fields.</p>
<p>Earlier I have written related information about creative generation and the number of ideas that can spring to my mind and other minds in a period of time. One might call this the “velocity of ideas”. I have commented that periodically the velocity of ideas and their quality greatly exceed the ability to record them on paper or record them using any means whatsoever. Particularly if they include visual aspects that would require “movie making of what’s in the mind” which is impossible at the moment. Some few words are sometimes worth many pictures, and some strings of pictures in video are sometimes worth many words. Either way failure to record occurs.</p>
<p>Anyway, how does this relate to “The significance of ideas”.</p>
<p>If one has highly significant ideas the velocity of creativity is greater than if there is a lower level of significance to the ideas.</p>
<p>Suppose one has a string of ideas each of which impacts many disciplines. How does one quantify how many ideas have been had?</p>
<p>Now compare this with an idea for a product, or a product improvement, or a business idea to fulfill a social need.</p>
<p>The latter could be quantified more easily as ideas approximating the singular. Although they are still complex and include other ideas, otherwise there would be little reason to believe the ideas have general value, or have <em>significance</em>.</p>
<p>This leads us to the question as to what a single idea is. A single idea, I will briefly explain, may be a very specific vision into filling a hole in functionality. Something doesn’t work, and there is an immediate insight into adding a component that would fix it in a makeshift fashion.</p>
<p>Underlying this idea is still an admixture of unconscious mental events corresponding to neurophysical alterations and motions, and changes of a variety of types. So even underlying an idea that might be called a single idea might be ideas or “proto-ideas” that are merely biological actions. These could be considered unconscious ideas, but I would prefer to keep ideas in the area of what is noticed introspectively.</p>
<p>But one can see how this differs, compared to say a string of ideas that impact many things in diverse fields. These ideas drive hundreds or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of other ideas, and the thinker knows this. The thinker identifies those who can instantly recognize the significance, because the significance is not recognizable without a similar mind, and the thinker who had the ideas can tell if someone else has really recognized it.</p>
<p>What requires more conversation is the decision as to whether or not someone has “seen all of the significance” or “only part”. Depending on the level of experience, someone you speak to can, really, notice more significance in your ideas than you do. This is a reason for the fear of idea theft: “This person, who is very smart, noticed the significance and noticed it as well as they did because they are prepared to act on it, and they moved forward to act on it.” In my case I worry little about this because I do not meet anyone who can even act on my ideas, and more than that, I have given up on trying to act on any of them in particular because they are so numerous I don’t worry as much. But this relates to the significance of ideas and their velocity.</p>
<p>Creativity is not all the same. Creativity in the domain of ideas that relate to significance is what has value in the world. This is connected with the velocity of idea generation and the measure of creative intelligence between people. It is also a measure (one measure) of an organization’s workforce. Significance is the sign that more ideas will be generated and came along with the first idea, or were included within it. Significance then is important for the determination of just how creative a creative is, and the value of those creations in connection with the world.</p>
<p>Another point I’m stumbling on here, is consilience and value. What is the relationship of the significance of an idea in many domains and the value of the idea in total. This implies that inderdisciplinary consilience is a measure of the significance of an idea.</p>
<p>[Written in 27 minutes, with minor edits only. Errors likely remain.]</p>
<p><em><time>3:36 PM Phoenix, AZ Time</time></em></p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="all-local-examples-as-metaphors-for-the-universe"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, August 8<sup>st</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:15 PM Phoenix, AZ Time</time></p>
<h3 id="all-local-examples-as-metaphors-for-the-universe.">All Local Examples as Metaphors for the Universe.</h3>
<p>In cosmology we see the taking of experiences in local settings being used to create explanations for the entire universe.</p>
<p>Confirmation of this can be done by exploring and researching native/aboriginal explanations of nature. There are many examples, and most share some similarities to what is seen in the book of Genesis, although there is diversity, which is to be expected. In our current society we are glad for these diversities, even when they apparently falsify the entire approach and indicate our more general advancement through primordial stages of thought to greater sophistication, which we simultaneously value. While it is not the purpose of this writing to discard the inputs of ancient thinking into history, it is part of the purpose of this writing to make it history.</p>
<p>A huge mistake in modern throwback cosmological thinking is that metaphors from local experiences are still used to explain wholes in which no experience has ever been had, and that people think they can still understand cosmology, as if it is a genuine topic for exploration and not speculation. I do not think it is not an unworthy topic for thinking about, however. It’s just not as explorable as one pretends it is and one relies on metaphors from a local setting exclusively in the pretense at arriving at an answer. Notice native cosmologies were taken as unchangeable answers.</p>
<p>“You will not revise Genesis.”</p>
<p>An interesting idea I came to this afternoon is:</p>
<p>“Why not make all local examples as metaphors for the universe?”</p>
<p>We have to admit we’ve been simple minded in thinking how the universe would be constructed based on our experience and constrained without any thought the use of our metaphors, as though some are those that can be used and others are excluded.</p>
<p>However a <em>very creative</em> person can see that a story of the creation of the universe could be done with many subsets of the total possible metaphors to everyday experience and not only those a shaman has chosen. A creative person in impromptu can <em>run with</em> almost any input whatsoever. What this means is that Genesis is a very simple work to write, and many alternative cosmologies could, <em>and have</em>, been written, and many more could– millions and billions could. We could likely eventually use a computer to generate alternative cosmologies, one per second, over and over, until finally we could see they have little value, because in their diversity, all are unconfirmable. Again, I like diversity, but I would like cosmologies to be entries into our history of first attempts at explanations, that now would be immediately discarded as easy and simple stories that can be concocted by any creative who starts with certain aspects of everyday experience that can be used to build a story.</p>
<p>But again, even in such a way of thinking, of taking examples from our normal everyday lives, and moving it into the origins of the universe, we are selective. “Light was separated from Darkness”, “Earth is an egg”, and so on. But what we have not acknowledged is that maybe, according to this line of thinking, anything is metaphorical of the whole, and perhaps we have constrained ourselves by our imaginations and what we like. Consider for example:</p>
<p>“The universe can be rewritten at any moment in specific locations by a software engineer outside the universe.”</p>
<p>This would be an analogy to everyday experiences of a software engineer.</p>
<p>Perhaps we could say:</p>
<p>“The universe has begun with a limited mind, just like a business that failed was created by a limited mind.”</p>
<p>I thought of that last one in about 5 seconds.</p>
<p>How many more could we think of? Many more.</p>
<p>But the point is people have chosen with no experience at all of the environment that has created the universe, and we are constrained to our own solar system, and can’t really get anywhere else. Then we tell ourselves the universe is massive and unexplored, and there are so many things to look forward to and places to explore, that we have never been. But out ancestors acted like they were there already and witnessed creation first hand, while getting the details of the Earth itself and basics wrong, because their access to everyday experience was:</p>
<p>Primitive and animal and very small.</p>
<p>So I recommend, we try to do what they did, except on more experience, just as animal because we are animals, but less animal, in the smallness of experience. Now we can have entirely alternative stories of Genesis.</p>
<p>Practice writing Genesis yourself! Other versions. See what you come up with. How much better or worse are your stories?</p>
<p>Draw upon everything in your experience and use it as a metaphor for the whole.</p>
<p>[Written in 17 minutes with 3 obvious typo edits only].</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="efficacy-of-wishes-and-prayers"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, August 1<sup>st</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>11:21 PM Sedona, AZ Time</time></p>
<h3 id="efficacy-of-wishes-and-prayers.">Efficacy of Wishes and Prayers.</h3>
<p>What’s the relationship between wishes and prayers?</p>
<p>How do they differ in efficacy?</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Does it depend on the type of conversation you have with yourself?</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>They are equally ineffective as would be expected</p>
<p>by me?</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="wishing-wells-for-morons-that-were-everyone"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, August 1<sup>st</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>11:20 PM Sedona, AZ Time</time></p>
<h3 id="wishing-wells-for-morons-that-were-everyone">Wishing Wells for Morons that Were Everyone</h3>
<p>What happened to all the coins in the wishing wells?</p>
<p>“Morons giving free money wells.”</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Like tipping on an iPad before getting service.</p>
<p>At a too high pre-programmed amount?</p>
<p>Make a wish with that extra amount?</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Prayer wells</p>
<p>Give your mind</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>your money</p>
<p>to nobody</p>
<p>and somebody</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="keep-splaining-agesplainer"></a></p>
<p><em>Saturday, July 20<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:34 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="paste-dictionary">Paste Dictionary</h3>
<p>Who edits dictionaries?</p>
<p>Randos do.</p>
<p>Rando folks who think they know the language well enough to put the words in it.</p>
<p>You could make your own dictionary, or</p>
<p>you could simply write words into one.</p>
<p>Paste-dictionary.</p>
<p>Paste entries into the dictionary.</p>
<p>Which one?</p>
<p>Any one.</p>
<p>All of them symbolically via one.</p>
<p>Pick on your nearest dictionary.</p>
<p>Put it in other people’s dictionaries.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mattanaw.com/mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html">Wordly Coinages</a></p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="keep-splaining-agesplainer"></a></p>
<p><em>Saturday, July 20<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:25 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="keep-splaining-agesplainer">Keep splaining, agesplainer</h3>
<p>I coined a new word today, “Agesplainer”.</p>
<p>You’re old and you don’t know.</p>
<p>But keep splaining!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mattanaw.com/mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#agesplain">Agesplain</a></p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="pretend-strategies-and-algorithms-that-are-christian"></a></p>
<p><em>Saturday, July 18<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>4:11 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="pretend-strategies-and-algorithms-that-are-christian">Pretend Strategies and Algorithms that are Christian</h3>
<p>If you’re Christian your algorithm is “Love everyone.”</p>
<p>Their minds don’t actually figure in, you just love them.</p>
<p>Does this seem like a strategy to you?</p>
<p>It is an algorithm that doesn’t seem like a strategy?</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="making-death-plans-a-rational-choice"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, July 14<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>10:52 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="making-death-plans-so-it-becomes-a-rational-choice">Making Death Plans so It Becomes a Rational Choice.</h3>
<p><br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="pet-death-mattanaw-1-web.jpg" src="pet-death-mattanaw-1-web.jpg"><br /></p>
<p><em>Minimal edits as usual</em></p>
<p>How does one decide at what time it makes sense to expire the life of a household pet, such as a cat or a dog? Do you choose on the basis of insufficient funds or inability or lack of desire to provide further care? From all I have heard about those who choose to exterminate their pet ostensibly there is a strong desire to care for the pet but that desire is offset by other concerns like financial well being. Never did I believe all considerations were shared. One gets sick of caretaking.</p>
<p>Beyond this is the question of who terminates. Is the extirpation done by dropping the pet off in the country hundreds of miles, or is it done by leaving them outside to be in nature? Is it done by shooting it, or drowning it, or using a method that doesn’t cost anything, that might be effective. Or do you choose to pay someone? Who?</p>
<p>Enters the animal doctor. The animal doctor is the doctor Kevorkian of the medical community, that’s not quite the medical community. Maybe it has quite a lot more to offer, like drugs that are cheap and still work. Nevertheless, they offer a death service and they get paid for it. Do they pressure death by offering forced choice situations between easy path to the dogfood plant or a costly surgical procedure they are not a specialist for? Are they general practitioners or death advocates? Either way there is a conflict of interest strong enough to ensure they feel guilty at times about their honesty and quality of salesmanship.</p>
<p>What could support us in finding a better way that finally care for our pets in a way that is rational, and maybe gets better and not worse over time? Well, one method would be to have a preplanned process diagram or software game that allows the user to consider the true conditions of the situations and probabilities, and see the quality of life outcomes for all involved and the costs. Done well, everyone feels better about their having not been completely alone and ignorant in their decision making, or if not ignorant, not pressured and not short on time to figure it all out. Such a “death calculator” or “euthanasia helper” would allow for one to really feel confident that a conflict of interest with a paid part-time killer doesn’t get in the way. It can also ensure that you don’t become a killer with the wrong strategy. I said wrong strategy because killing can be free and can amount to high quality “sedation to death”.</p>
<p>Now, lets switch to the real topic. I hope this is helpful for planning the deaths of pets but this is for your death. People have decided for religious and other reasons to leave their deaths open-ended without any planning at all, thinking that health issues will determine the result. We don’t plan which health issues should do it, or are worthy of choosing for us, which means you’ll take any condition to the end. There is a conflict of interest with the humans who get paid while you die, or who get paid for something related. You can’t insure yourself for suicide. Dr. Kevorkian was locked up and placed into prison for attempting to provide aid to elderly who wanted to leave like your pet would. Happy and sedated, free of severe injury or unlivable health condition.</p>
<p>What is the solution for this?</p>
<p>A death calculator, put in the crudest terms, because whatever the terms we use are, amount to a plan that is conditions, probabilities, and logical statements leading to a recommendation or set of recommendations. If you have figured it all out, and have become the calculator yourself, then you are the human embodiment of what is needed. However, it is needed for it to be written, to be objective, modifiable and traceable, and historical. It needs to help as many as it can. Notice our system chose the same. It chose to help everyone by doing very little–by steering all to the hospital, where the human doctors make mistakes and decisions for you, with unknown processes and payments.</p>
<p>[Written rapidly on iPhone 12 Max in less than 25 minutes. 2 spelling errors corrected with spell check. No grammar check]</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


<p><a name="social-snippet-say-again"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, July 13<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>1:00 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="social-snippet-say-again">Social Snippet, Say Again</h3>
<p><em>Say Again, Social Snippet</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I don’t know at this moment how to respond. I may not be understanding. Can you say it another way to help me understand?”</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<h3 id="social-snippets">Social Snippets</h3>
<p>I am now beginning canned responses via snippets for dealing with tiresome problem people, and for clarifying intentions.</p>
<p>I will publish all of these on my site. Feel free to use them too, as-is if you like. This is contrary to what is in my privacy policy, but these snippets, marked “Social Snippet”, may be used however you like even without any attribution.</p>
<p><em>Unsubstantive Response, Social Snippet.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This is not a substantive response. I’m not sure why you would be interested in responding if not to share and mutually grow in a meaningful way. It is understood you may not agree with what is said or how it is said, but this is meant positively, and there is reasonable expectation that you should provide a reasonable response, if you provide one.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>Tiresome Social Responses, Social Snippet.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p>You need not respond if you don’t have much time (observing that perhaps a one word response is all that you need to commit too, but I still thought I should add some notes in response. In other words, not trying to put you on the spot, or require that you defend an initial reaction).</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="explanations-on-this-work-in-conversation-format"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, July 11<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:47 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="explanations-on-this-work-in-conversation-format">Explanations on this Work in Conversation Format</h3>
<blockquote>
<p>[Aside: Had a conversation with a friend recently regarding a couple friends who told him they unfriended me, due to some content they did not enjoy or approve of, or other reasons. I gave him some explanation and thought it would be more generally useful, so I added it here, while protecting his identity.]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah I think so, and have been hearing confessions from some in some locations that they felt they could not comprehend [in the High Intelligence Community], but the thing is that is why we are in these groups. But it’s always up to them too, I mean I understand that. So no hard feelings with any of those folks if you talk with them, and if anyone else raises anything, tell them I would understand but would suggest that they pause me instead of blocking me. Because as things progress the topics will certainly come swinging around to be progressive (or conservative in the right way), depending on how you view things.</p>
<p>You sent Today at 2:30 PM</p>
<p>The “penis hand” post was ridiculous obviously. But what is meant is not so ridiculous. It was meant to highlight the potential differences that can occur in sexual selectivity due to interesting arrivals of traits, including very large penises.</p>
<p>You sent Today at 2:30 PM</p>
<p>I think you and I already agreed on race as speciation in progress before, and I think between you and I we know others would not be happy about that type of view, given culture.</p>
<p>You sent Today at 2:31 PM</p>
<p>But what I intend to do is reintroduce Darwinian thinking, and I will use odd puzzles and such</p>
<p>You sent Today at 2:31 PM</p>
<p>Main idea is diversity is valued, and we need to get past certain obstacles to move further along. It ties into my ethic.</p>
<p>You sent Today at 2:32 PM</p>
<p>In fact, if you could, I would request that you copy this and forward it along to them. Because maybe then they’ll see better what is going on and perhaps have a better interest.</p>
<p>You sent Today at 2:33 PM</p>
<p>Ok chat soon, thanks for reaching out, looking forward to convo. Zoom won’t work right now because connectivity isn’t great in Anchorage but we could do something like that in the near future I think.</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>In real life we can goof off and so on, and it would not appear anything like that. The issue is that in writing for some reason people cannot be mentally flexible and for some reason people cannot see significance. Some do though. Got some good feedback, even on strange posts.</p>
<p>You sent Today at 2:35 PM</p>
<p>If relay what is the current social norm you are safe. If you try to push it along, you are not safe. Kinda sad. Unless it is really really obvious how things connect. I wish people were more aware that people’s work develops.</p>
<p>To give you an idea though. Check out this article and let me know what you think. Typos are left deliberately and for good reason. Including in the title, where it says “Lllama” instead of “Lama”. Few errors remain but they have to stay. Other than that, I’d like to see what you think about this content.</p>
<p>It’s a bit about our inability to reflect in relation to certain topics. Particularly that of the Dalai Lama, who has been forced into a leadership role as a child:</p>
<p>…</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mattanaw.com/#enabling-the-dalai-llama">Enabling the Dalai Llama</a></p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, July 11<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:15 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right">“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”</h3>
<p>You’ll keep doing what you’re doing, to make it feel right.</p>
<p>[Yesterday was the starting point of using the first date time as the start, and today for using the later date/time as the end]</p>
<p><em>Sunday, July 11<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:17 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="being-vegan-at-kaladi-brothers-jewel-lake-anchorage"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, July 11<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em></p>
<h3 id="being-vegan-at-kaladi-brothers-jewel-lake-anchorage">Being Vegan at Kaladi Brothers Jewel Lake, Anchorage</h3>
<p><br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="anchorage-is-going-more-vegan-yay-alaska-mattanaw-1-web.jpg" src="anchorage-is-going-more-vegan-yay-alaska-mattanaw-1-web.jpg"><br /></p>
<p><a href="anchorage-is-going-more-vegan-yay-alaska-mattanaw-1-web.jpg">Master</a></p>
<p><br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="anchorage-is-going-more-vegan-yay-alaska-mattanaw-2-web.jpg" src="anchorage-is-going-more-vegan-yay-alaska-mattanaw-2-web.jpg"><br /></p>
<p><a href="anchorage-is-going-more-vegan-yay-alaska-mattanaw-2-web.jpg">Master</a></p>
<p>Alaska is slowly becoming more and more vegan.</p>
<p>I do not believe veganism is incompatible with lifestyles that diminish meat until there is no factory farming and it’s all kindness. Although I’d feel skeptical about what is really ocurring.</p>
<p>This mindset is not incompatible with veganism but factory farming is.</p>
<p>I started a book called “Being Vegan” when I first lived in Anchorage in 2009, and became vegetarian just before Thanksgiving 2000, and Vegan in January 2001.</p>
<p>Soon maybe we’ll be keeping pace here in Alaska too. It doesn’t not exist. It’s just slowly growing and there are some good options.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="when-you-loved-your-own-post-did-you-love-but-not-like-you"></a></p>
<p><em>Saturday, July 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em></p>
<h3 id="when-you-loved-your-own-post-did-you-love-you-but-not-like-you">When you loved your own post, did you “Love you but not like you?”</h3>
<p>I agree this is kinda possible, because you could, if you’re not me, want to care for yourself honestly, and still think also, that there is something not likeable in yourself. You wish you were different and further along, or had a chance to alter yourself, but you can’t, but you still deeply care. So I can see that you can love someone and not like them potentially, despite prior posts. I think though, that this usage is an intellectual process blocker, because what is meant is specific, and focused to specific experiences, and very often it is better to see like as more middle in the spectrum to love. That’s what the button here on FB is in large part. The heart hug is closer to concern and desire for care. We have three “like” buttons of a sort. I could even say “I like myself but I don’t like myself.” Because the focus of one like is my whole life, and my attitude is positive, whereas, in a moment, I may not really like who I am (not me really though). Notice that in moments where you might “love but not like yourself” would be specific times, where you don’t like something specific about yourself. But you love “like” the whole.</p>
<p>Now let us conclude then. That you could redefine all love included in these situations by a scale of liking if you wanted to, with discrete time boundaries and frequencies, and specific situations. This is an incomplete analysis so by all, think “huge portion” of uses.</p>
<p>If I say I love you then I like you too.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="did-you-ever-feel-weird-for-loving-your-own-post"></a></p>
<p><em>Saturday, July 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em></p>
<h3 id="did-you-ever-feel-weird-for-loving-your-own-post">Did you ever feel weird for loving your own post?</h3>
<p>Did you not love it becuse others wouldn’t approve of that?</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="have-you-ever-had-a-moment-lost-because-you-were-focused-on-a-defect"></a></p>
<p><em>Saturday, July 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em></p>
<h3 id="have-you-ever-had-a-moment-lost-because-you-were-focused-on-a-defect">Have you ever had a moment lost, because you were focused on a defect?</h3>
<p>This is wide and general and connects with a plan. Nobody in particular is being “called out”. Something local and current to my experience motivated me, more proximally than perhaps any of you did.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="could-it-be-that-ebonics-is-just-english"></a></p>
<p><em>Saturday, July 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em></p>
<h3 id="could-it-be-that-ebonics-is-just-english">Could it be that Ebonics is just English?</h3>
<p>Let us consider that Ebonics, which is the formerly suggested name for a subset of English that is used, and mastered by African Americans, and those who closely associate with their culture, including perhaps, to some degree myself, is actually just English.</p>
<p>Ebonics expands on the usage within English. It gives flexibility and power in expression, and opens inventiveness that is celebrated in certain writers who are responsible for those coinages that we rely on in the etymologies provided in the Oxford English Dictionary.</p>
<p>In this way, those who involve themselves in Black Culture are doing a service to the entire culture, in a similar way we knew they were doing all along, in their inventiveness which is evident in entertainment of all kinds.</p>
<p>Consider I have written a post criticizing the Western World for having become thoroughly entertained. And we enjoy this. Our teachings come from it, after we leave school, fail to read, and resume only listening to music and observing entertainment.</p>
<p>Now imagine you are the English teacher who has neglected Ebonics, and Black Culture entirely, along with all those who enjoy it, and imagine themselves a part of it. It extends through all entertainment, back in time, to before they were acknowledged in any way, and worse still, were slaves ignored.</p>
<p>But today we’re equal and all is complete.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="when-you-are-saved-by-the-complete-inefficacy-of-prayer"></a></p>
<p><em>Saturday, July 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em></p>
<h3 id="when-you-are-saved-by-complete-iefficacy-of-prayer">When You are Saved by Complete Iefficacy of Prayer.</h3>
<p>You prayed for the wrong thing.</p>
<p>And you apologized, even to the person who you thought you could affect by that means.</p>
<p>But then that person you apologized to, says they are glad Prayer doesn’t work.</p>
<p>But at that moment, you get angry, wanting prayer to really work.</p>
<p>Connectedly, you wish your prayer worked.</p>
<p>But the whole thing is then fixed, by the prayer not working,</p>
<p>and by the person praying being</p>
<p>Ineffective.</p>
<p>And they were saved too.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="enabling-the-dalai-llama"></a></p>
<p><em>Friday, July 9<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>4:32 PM Anchorage Time</time></p>
<h3 id="enabling-the-dalai-llama">Enabling the Dalai Llama</h3>
<p>While many focus on the Dalai LLama’s supposed expertise from a long life lived as a Buddhist beginning as a person named as leader of Tibet, believing that somehow he has special insight into spiritualism, I’ve become focused on his being falsepathed from youth. I am certain that the Dalai Llama has not sustained sufficient honest criticism. I don’t mean that we should damage his life by attacking his credibility completely and entirely, but we should have actually paid attention, instead of giving him complete credulity. What we’ve actually done is enabled as system that pretended he was an expert at birth; a system that forced him on a false path of being restricted to only one religion and worldview, and actually, only one manner of dress. He has been required to wear a single costume since he was a small child. A movie was made, starring a very famous movie star, depicting his life as a child, and even in this movie, which is favorable to him, proably in ways that are truly to his credit, since he was living in hard conditions and could have been killed, if the history is at all correct. But the weightiness of his situation does <em>nothing</em> to make his worldview true. The only thing that makes his worldview true or not is the extent to which is is true, in correspondence with reality. Can all his views and his person be demonstrated, or can they be thought to be reasonably reflective of, reality, with very few falsities. I’m typing not feeling particularly well at the moment, and so I would not make the prior statement my final statement about how to evaluate a person with respect to their level of development, in honesty, and value as a supposedly actualized figure.</p>
<p>To make it more clear, I have read some from the Dalai Llama and have heard his statements, and I think he’s really very profound at times in his insights. Nevertheless, he has been falsepathed into a single religion, and has been required to protect a people from demise. Thus he is biased, but I think we can understand, why he would be biased, wanting to protect people from potential genocide. Again, this does not save his religious point of view. His religious point of view, from what I’ve seen, is primitive. And his people were very low in the maturity of a developing civilization.</p>
<p>If I were to survey all he did, and all he wrote, I could probably write a similar short article on all that is excellent in his worldview, and I think he appears to be a dignified leader, offering really valuable ideas and historical perspective. This article though is more important than that, because that is the <em>only</em> thing I have seen anyone do for him, without knowing much about him; although, probably, within the Church or in other religions, he has been made a fool, since I’ve witnessed Christians pretend that Buddha is a fool, without having read any Buddhism at all.</p>
<p>This article is about how he is a special exemplar of being controlled in his youth, potentially to the extent that he is stuck in a worldview not of his making. I have no idea if he is creative enough to break free of his religion by binding religions and creating one of his own, which is what I’ve done (although what I’ve done borrows and is in keeping with Philosophy and Science and growth of Knowledge). It appears he would not be able to do this, and that he does not want to, but I don’t know of the pressures that exist on his decisions. But if it is the case that he can’t on that account, isn’t a sad thing, that he is stuck forever as a Tibetan Buddhist, from birth? There are so many other options of how one could be, and one could combine these options. But it appears he is very much forced to be a single category of person, within a category he himself did not create.</p>
<p>Which aspects of his life appear to be problematic in relation to excess singularity in worldview and action?</p>
<ul>
<li><em>Firstly his manner of dress.</em> It is a costume, or a range of costumes of a similar type.</li>
<li><em>One Nationed.</em> He is Tibetan and not a completely global citizen. He is of a nation.</li>
<li><em>Starting point is the end point.</em> He had a tutor to provide some international education in youth, but he does not have the appearance of an interdisciplinary professional, arriving at actualization. Instead, it appears he started with pretend actualization and held onto it. But that does not mean he has not learned more–I think it’s contrary to that. But the completion point was taken to be the starting point. Baby mangered.</li>
<li><em>It is ignored that he was really a baby.</em></li>
<li><em>Separated himself from enemies.</em> He doesn’t appear to identify with his enemy, as an American fails to identify with other nations. Even in war, you are a Jap to an extent, and you are a Sand Nigger.However, he may want to. But his manner of living is greatly compartmentalized.</li>
<li><em>Chosen Religion.</em> I was focusing mostly on his mode of life, and appearance, but he has also accepted Buddhism. This means that he himself has a chosen leader at the origin, and in this respect he isn’t very different from anyone else who has chosen a religion. But he chose one. You don’t even need to choose anything that’s already been completed as a singular worldview, because the arrival is a very high level of knowledge that is a reflection of actual truth.</li>
<li><em>Controlled by a region.</em> He seems to be controlled by his earliest environment, and they were from one region.</li>
</ul>
<p>The big strength of the Dalai Llama is that he is an international Diplomat travelling extensively, and despite the above, I cannot claim he does not become other people as he learns about them, or that they don’t become him. However, the divisions in religions and nations continue, and probably he has to protect “his people.”</p>
<p>From my perspective, though, his people are not even his people. They are incidental to his early experiences and while he may want to protect them, because it may be a horrible thing for his heritage to go extinct, I do not believe he is totally responsible, and there are plenty of others who can do the protecting. Can you imagine if you were born, and forced into a religion, forced to wear their garb, and then forced to protect them until death, all while leading your portion of your religion? This is where we can quickly determine if you believe people should be free and individual, if you are an American. I would suspect, that you would think that the Dalai Llama is supposed to keep doing whatever it is he is doing. But he was in an environment he did not choose, he did not choose life, and like a “tabula rasa” baby, he was implanted with cultural knowledge of his region. According to the American worldview then, he should be able to select other options, and go according to what he thinks will make him happiest. I would disagree with this too, because one can be tricked into what will be the happiest life, and I think most likely, he would choose, to be exactly what his starting point decided for him was.</p>
<p>[No spell check. Unedited. Written in 44 minutes with many many distractions in public, during about 14 of 16 ounces of a beer, feeling sick, but well too.]</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>


<p><a name="the-presence-of-children"></a></p>
<p><em>Wednesday, July 7<sup>nd</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:59 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="the-presence-of-children">The Presence of Children</h3>
<p><em>Written without edits, and no spell check functionality. Reasons for this exist and are somewhat experimental. I will write more about this in the future after I gather information and am motivated to consider it thoroughly</em></p>
<p>Roughly ten years ago it was still common to say if a woman dressed inappropriately she “was getting what she deserved” if she ended up being sexually assaulted or otherwise victimized, and depending on where you live, or who you associate with, you may still find people saying it. There is also a sense to it, that is factually accurate, which is the cause of the continued use, and that relates to the increasing attention you get if you dress provocatively. However, I find myself in agreement with those who think this illustrates the problem that the perpetrators pose, and that they can actually be increased in their interest and edged towards doing wrong, simply by behaving and dressing in a way that is free. As I say this I know I also need to tell you, I did not ever agree with the view that “People get what they deserve” from simply doing what they freely would like to do. I don’t even agree that the concept of “desert” has a solid foundation. But that’s for another time.</p>
<p>For this occasion, what I’m wanting to talk about is the seemingly unrelated topic of how such a perspective impacts involvement and presence of people who would benefit from being included, and who would benefit all those others, who are not of the psychological type to commit acts of molestation and predation. This topic is that of the hard boundary we create between adult life and the lives of children; and what applies to children, you will see, applies to women. With this we have a framework of sorts because we then have a gradient or spectrum, and not just a single case along that spectrum, involving women who want to dress provacatively. Did we not want to include women who wanted to be included, however they wanted to dress? Why dissuade regularly dressed women from being in public for fright, relating to risks of being predated upon, because statistically, a women who is raped, increases the expectation that any women would be raped, when probability is conducted with less information, and not total information.</p>
<p>I am writing this at a bar at the moment, in Eagle River, Alaska, and while it functions as a restaruant, for families at various times, it is also more adult at other times. Other bars function completely as venues for adults after a certain time, as all know, and one cannot even join in, without having identity verification with an age above 18 at the lowest, and above 21 for the usual. What this means is that we do not think anyone younger should participate.</p>
<p>Not all of the reasons for not wanting them to participate relate to their risk of being predated, because what we are actually attempting to do is create a semi-private space to behave in ways that even we think are unacceptable to ourselves, in addition to those categories of private and social interaction that we feel children should be protected from, even if reasonable for older people. We made this decision as to who can and who cannot engage in these actions by using a concept of “adulthood” and we set a milestone as a single date (or 18/21 for two categories), instead of considering interpersonal differeces.</p>
<p>But some reasons do relate to predation. We know women are predated on. We do not want to include children in situations in which they can be confused as potential mates, or be in situations in which men or women are already of a state of mind which is not easily switched from, to be non-sexual. Since we consider any sexual advances towards children to be predatory, we created a hard boundary. So they are not allowed to enter these environments where they might be at risk; not only at risk of receiving sexual advances, but of giving them. They are also protected, we think, of becoming like us. I would like to develop that topic further, but maybe another time. For now I’ll say that if they were present, but we were not predatory, and understanding of their potential range of actions, we would probably behave more wisely, and then, they would be exposed to almost all adult human types of behavior, and learn how to behave in a way, that is less predatory too, and safer. Moreover, they could have their own space for doing it, since even that admits of degrees. Children enjoy music and can learn from adults being adults, and not only adults pretending to be kids, or adults acting in a constrained and somewhat false fashion, always and all the time in their presence.</p>
<p>So the presence of children can improve us even when we are acting as adults. But this has not been explored thoroughly.</p>
<p>The reader may feel shocked by this observation, or suggestion, that we go on a new course in this area of our adult lives. But consider, there is no such division in certain situations, at home parties, where cousins and more distant relatives collide and sometiems find privacy, but also at weddings, and reception parties, and all sorts of other social events, where those same sexual behaviors emerge. This creates a unique risk, because not only are adults not trained on how to behave in these new situations, there is a sudden intermixing of adult and youthful behavior. I think this is an area where there is insufficient data and experience to know what happens; but it’s probably an area where entertainment professionals could tell us more about what goes on. Children drink alcohol in these situations.</p>
<p>Finally, we can move to the main point related to my thesis concerning the need to be inclusive, and allow for the presence of people, we think might be at risk. They might not “ask to be predated upon” by bing women dressed a certain way, or children or teens who might be even more attractive, but might simply be those who <em>would be</em> predated upon, because of the nature of predators, who are untrained in normal behavior. Infrequent stimulation of predators could be related to infrequent sudden uncontrolled impulsive behavior. More importantly, though, I want to convey that they are the problem. That is what the movement is about, or submovement, or activism concerning the need to free the victim from the predator. The predator has the problem and everyone else should feel like they are able to be present and involved in all sorts of social situations, otherwise, the predator has access, but they do not.</p>
<p>Have we not considered that predators are granted access to behave however they like, and be present and included in all events; whereas everyone else ends up “asking to be a victim” or else, is told they are merely increasing their risk to become victimized? And their freedom is diminished, and their good judgement called to question. I can tell there are many major consequences aside from these, but they relate to the fact that we are controlling where free people can be, and are quick to judge their minds, because predators exist.</p>
<p>[Written in 27 minutes, unedited, no spell check]</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="honesty-and-getting-off-religion"></a></p>
<p><em>Friday, July 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>3:03 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="the-time-it-takes-to-get-off-of-religion-will-relate-to">The time it takes to get off of religion will relate to</h3>
<p>Honesty.</p>
<p>Are you able to divest when you realize it was all wrong?</p>
<p>Are you ever able to divest?</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="ability-to-answer-direct-questions-and-religion"></a></p>
<p><em>Friday, July 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:49 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="ending-religion-in-the-western-world-should-be-easy">Ending religion in the western world should be easy.</h3>
<p>Everyone would think always in the way that they think most of the time.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="ability-to-answer-direct-questions-and-religion"></a></p>
<p><em>Friday, July 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:59 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="ability-to-answer-direct-questions-and-religion.">Ability to answer direct questions and religion.</h3>
<p>Christians struggle with taboo and personal sex related questions.</p>
<p>How are people from the other cultures and religions?</p>
<p>What is hard for you to talk about and what does it have to do with your religion’s propensity to conceal?</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="friend-lists-of-christians"></a></p>
<p><em>Friday, July 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:44 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="the-friend-lists-of-christians">The Friend Lists of Christians</h3>
<p>Is it fair to liken the openness a church is supposed to have, with a requirement that a Christian maintain an open friend list?</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="discarding-religion-for-love"></a></p>
<p><em>Friday, July 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:41 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="would-it-be-worth-discarding-religion-if-it-secured-love">Would it be worth discarding religion if it secured “love”.</h3>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="toys-to-indicate-civilization"></a></p>
<p><em>Friday, July 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:39 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="we-use-our-toys-to-indicate-our-civilization-and-not-ourselves">We use our toys to indicate our civilization and not ourselves.</h3>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="facial-expressions-corresponding-to-love"></a></p>
<p><em>Friday, July 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:43 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="what-is-the-facial-expression-that-corresponds-to-love-and-how-long-does-it-last">What is the facial expression that corresponds to love and how long does it last?</h3>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="mattanaw-certification-program"></a></p>
<p><em>Tuesday, June 29<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>3:10 PM Anchorage Time</time></p>
<h3 id="announcing-the-mattanaw-certification-program">Announcing the Mattanaw Certification Program.</h3>
<p>Mattanaw cannot be understood without taking this program.</p>
<p>Yes, it is true, Mattanaw provides useful and interesting postings that may provide some information around Mattanaw’s religion and philosophy, but it cannot be fully known, and he cannot be understood, until the certification program has been completed.</p>
<p>Some simple elements of the certification program.</p>
<ul>
<li>Students must read his entire website, which is roughly 250,000 words at present.</li>
<li>Students will receive additional materials, not currently published on his website, providing greater insight into his philosophy.</li>
<li>Students will be certified according to their understanding of Mattanaw’s mind afterwards.</li>
</ul>
<p>If you would like to join the certification program, please send a one time donation of</p>
<p>$12,000 USD</p>
<p>to</p>
<p><a href="https://www.paypal.com/donate/?cmd=_donations&amp;business=mattanaw%40mattanaw.com&amp;Z3JncnB0=">Mattanaw’s Paypal</a>.</p>
<p>and send your name and contact information to</p>
<p><a href="mattanaw@mattanaw.com">mattanaw@mattanaw.com</a>.</p>
<p>You can expect a response within one week.</p>
<p>Readers are not discouraged from reading. Like many readers, the site may only be of periodic interest.</p>
<p>However, Mattanaw cannot be claimed to have been “understood” without certification, in any context, including any legal context, to the extent, but not limited to this extent, that any excerpt read in isolation could be grossly misinterpreted. Mattanaw’s writings cannot have legal meaning without full knowledge achievable in the certification program.</p>
<p>Substantial aptitude is required for full understanding. However, Mattanaw will still provide certification for a subset of his mind, for those who are unable to complete the entire certification.</p>
<p>Additional details will be provided upon receiving donation, and donations are refundable if one decides not to begin the program, after considering the new information received.</p>
<p>This post is not intended to be humorous in any way, and is entirely serious. This is mentioned only due to the introduction to the ThoughtStream, which could lead one to believe, that each and every posting on the ThoughtStream, including this one, could be merely a passing thought, or a thought without complete commitment or seriousness. This posting, concerning Mattanaw’s Certification, is entirely genuine, and legally binding.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="cageism"></a></p>
<p><em>Monday, June 28<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:45 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="cageism">Cageism</h3>
<p>“Cageism”</p>
<p>a movement.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>…</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>[Aside: After some questions in a group to clarify the meaning of the suggestion to promote non-vegetarians as Cageists (since it was not spelled out), I included the following response]</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hello all, explaining some more. It is not necessary to allow non-vegan/vegetarians to have a non label, if they are not willing to understand yours. You can feel free to ascribe to them a label that seems appropriate to their system. That system has thoroughly included cages all over, from within the industrial factory farms, to cages of pets, to cages of zoo animals, to cages for fishing crab, and if one includes nets as a form of fabric cage, then they are caging fish. The entire animal agriculture system relies on entrapment.</p>
<p>So what I’m suggesting here is we think of them as “Cageists.”</p>
<p>They’ll try to argue that whatever a vegetarian is doing is fanatical or unusual, and they’ll claim that vegetarians and vegans are excessively open about their diets and views, even when that is not the case. For those who are not honest, and not kind/polite, I suggest reminding them they are</p>
<p>Cageists.</p>
<p>Vegans/vegetarians would not be cageists, and the difference is very stark.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="my-wants-dont-change-much"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, June 27<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>12:07 AM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="my-wants-dont-change-much.">My wants don’t change much.</h3>
<p>It may depend, from person to person.</p>
<p>But what I want,</p>
<p>once chosen,</p>
<p>doesn’t really change much.</p>
<p>And I can watch it age,</p>
<p>and like it.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="my-wants-dont-change-much"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, June 27<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>12:07 AM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="my-wants-dont-change-much.">My wants don’t change much.</h3>
<p>It may depend, from person to person.</p>
<p>But what I want,</p>
<p>once chosen,</p>
<p>doesn’t really change much.</p>
<p>And I can watch it age,</p>
<p>and like it.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="pretending-youre-backed-by-science-and-recollection-people"></a></p>
<p><em>Thursday, June 24<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>4:18 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="pretending-youre-backed-by-science-and-recollection-people">Pretending you’re backed by science, and “Recollection People”</h3>
<p>How would you characterize your reactions to postings involving scientific points of interest, challenging current social norms?</p>
<p>A trend I noticed, is that people tend to respond with their own recollections of related points, or will respond according to social norms, pretending they are backed by science or are familiar with the science, or that they have knowledge akin to that espoused by authorities, which they also do not know or understand.</p>
<p>Social recollections might be one harmful form of recollection that is used in the place of thinking. I would add these to what I recently thought of as “traditional” or “cultural” recollections, which are also used in the place of thinking as reactions to challenges.</p>
<p>This might be helpful for understanding why political posts, or posts challenging social customs don’t go anywhere. Most responses are types of</p>
<p>recollection.</p>
<p>People are happy to remember and speak about it quickly, and if one thinks about it, willingness to talk about something does require quick loading of memories–otherwise speech would not be possible. Speech includes recollection. However, it does not appear that speech requires much processing.</p>
<p>If you look at what people respond, you can work to parse out what is recollection and what involved processing, because whatever involved recollection would be “I thought of this before” or it would be identical with something someone else taught or communicated (i.e. the social and the traditional). This means you can listen to what someone is saying and find where the processing is.</p>
<p>Over time I find myself wanting to avoid those who avoid processing, because I do not wish to converse with socio-traditional recollection people. Another category that I mentioned before are what I called “fact people”–people who pretend intelligence by recalling various facts without any additional processing.</p>
<p>Here is when I can say “fill in the blank”.</p>
<p>So some recognition of a relationship has occurred, but I think this is related to simple speaking and communication, because that seems to be associative, and only requires loose relations. So there is the recognition that something might relate, but not really relevance in many cases. Usually it’s speaking recollections with very little processing.</p>
<p>Certainly there can be no expectation that people will be continually processing information without at times relying on recollections as they arise to the mind, but I do find myself preferring people who are not just recollection people. Recollection people are biased by availability of certain facts ready to be spoken.</p>
<p>[Written in less than 17 minutes]</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="races-as-early-speciation-and-penis-size"></a></p>
<p><em>Thursday, June 24<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>5:12 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="races-as-early-speciation-and-penis-size">Races as Early Speciation, and Penis Size</h3>
<p><em>Only minor edits. Relates to work pending on the value of editing.</em></p>
<p>The pervasive resistance to accept race as an obvious feature in human divergence is an issue needing permanent correction, particularly now that we already well-understand the effects of isolation across continents, what species are, and how genetics works.</p>
<p>I suggest we create a list of topics we all believe could be easily concluded at our current state of knowledge, and that this topic is one of those, that we resist, not because we don’t have adequate expertise, but because we are biased in the wrong direction due to social concerns.</p>
<p>Before saying more, I want to first mention, that I’m quite aware, that with the blending of peoples over a long history, but in more recent times, because of human population migrations, and effects of warfare, it isn’t entirely simple to cleanly break people into racial categories on appearance; and we should not even attempt to do so.</p>
<p>This area of lack of discernibility of singular races between groups due to their intermixing is where those who complain that there are no races at all tend to focus; but they focus here without giving us any additional clarity and detail, about what has happened to the races, which were formerly more discernible, because of their long term isolation. For example, at one point in time, Japanese would have been much more distinctly separate in appearance, and even if today, we can claim, they’ve become more mixed with other races, such that they are less identifiable visually, this does not mean that, historically, visual identification would have been easy, and certainly would have been due to the characteristics of their biology, and results of their sexual preferences, and restricted population pool for sexual intermixing.</p>
<p>Darwinian evolutionary theory on speciation, which is not out of date, and will not be, at least until we begin to procreate via scientific methods more commonly (i.e. we decide to inseminate instead of have sex with each other), is still the guide for how we should see history with the detail necessary to understand race.</p>
<p>Again, race was more clear historically, and only now became an object of questioning, due to the desire to progress our society towards mutual appreciation and tolerance, and to remove ill effects of excess emphasis on appearance alone, particularly because we have not been able to erase messages, and memories, of prejudiced ways of thinking, which still spring to mind, and can be measurably detected, even in youth today, even if they might claim it no longer exists. It has not been erased from culture, and speaking for myself, my mind still generates recollections, often at unwanted times, of thoughts that are not desirable, because at an intellectual level, they seem irrational, but still exist in my history, from exposure to my culture. Additionally, these ways of thinking tend to arise when we are combative, and there is no claiming that we have erased from the brains of our population these thoughts we would prefer we did not have.</p>
<p>Fortunately the longer portion of this post involves this prelude to the main conversation, but unfortunately, all of the time spent is in preparing an audience that would probably be unreceptive, again due to bias. Consistent with prior posts in this ThoughtStream, only recently, you’ll see I’ve discussed that your biases are recollections of more recent cultural teachings. If you are of a thinking disposition, meaning you are willing to process information and not only recollect according to your attitudes to what you hear, then I think you will find this point of view has more explanatory power, and is consistent with other experiences you’ve had, that would have been otherwise very difficult to explain. Moreover, this interpretation is more in line with our scientific expertise, even though, pseudo-experts, who have social commitments, and those who are too unintelligent to understand their own professions, may espouse what is simply the expected recollections.</p>
<p><em>Speciation in Dogs</em>.</p>
<p>The primary defining feature of a species is that it only intermixes and does not successfully intermix with others. However, even here there are overlaps, and there are occasional successes, but sometimes there is infertility. An example is with Horses and close relatives of horses, and probably there are many examples over the animal kingdom, but since we cannot frequently see animals behaving sexually, it’s not something we would have good data on. We do not even have data on our own sexuality, because we hide it. How much more hidden is it, for all species on earth, which we cannot observe at a distance, and could not observe regarding sexuality, even if we were nearby. However, in or ordinary experience, it appears clear, that there are quite hard limits between species, and we do not expect to see blended animals all over. Rather, we expect to see distinct species, and this is one reason why early hypotheses about animal evolution stated that they were unchangeable or immutable, and not mutable.</p>
<p>Simple observations of dogs indicate however, that it is very simple to steer animal live along a trajectory, based on sexual controls, that result in differences in appearance that can be quite large. We simply call all these various breeds of dogs “dogs” because that is a simple lay term, but what we have not observed, in greater detail, is how they are able to behave sexually as a result, even if their populations are intermixed.</p>
<p>Consider Mastiffs and Chihuahuas. These are very different breeds of dogs, with very different appearances, and we continue to assume that they are the same species. However, there is a limit in which this can be true, considering interoperability of sex organs and desire. Mastiffs could not be expected, due to a huge difference in size, to mate with Chihuahuas. They would prefer Mastiffs. Even with a mix of large numbers of both dogs in the same environment, they would mate within their own groups, and not with each other. If this were to resume over thousands of years, we would have animals, and I think we already have them, that we would call different species. There are arguments that can be brought concerning what could happen about mobility of traits if interstitially sized breeds were included (mastiff traits going downward to Chihuahuas over different generations of mating with dogs that are between them in size). But what this does is complexify the pool for sexual selection. One could easily separate them out, and isolate them, such that after a period there are no other dogs, but Chihuahuas and Mastiffs, and forever they would not mate together again.</p>
<p>To be more clear in relating this topic to human populations, let’s consider the height and total size of the Mastiff and the size of the smallest Mastiff’s penis. Consider that the size of a small Mastiff’s penis would be quite large compared to that of the female Chihuahua’s vaginal space. These would not be a good match, and furthermore, the way that the dog actually mates would not work, because the Mastiff is simply too tall to mount and hump the Chihuahua.</p>
<p>This is something to be tested in practice, although instantly one believes it to be reasonable to conclude, on thought alone, that it is not feasible; and even if feasible, we could make Mastiffs greater, and Chihuahuas smaller, until it is totally impossible.</p>
<p>There are populations of males from Africa, who were isolated from groups elsewhere, who operated on different cultural ideals about appearance and sexuality, than many elsewhere. Left alone, they attained penis sizes that are vastly greater than many other populations. Like with breeds, their appearance was different and consistent to their population pool, and earlier, there was less intermixing, with other groups with obviously different features, like the Japanese. Now consider, if like we dogs, these populations stayed separate longer. It could arise, that in the Japanese, and emphasis on the smallness of female frame could result in a very different sexual sizing than with those isolated in Africa. Those in Africa, likewise could become taller, with larger penises and larger vaginas, and this could continue for many thousands of years; or deliberately, if we were to want to try and test our love of diversity, to the extent that we make our diversity so great, that certain groups could not perform sexually, and would not enjoy intermixing. Because it is not only inabilities to match by size but inability to mate due to preferences.</p>
<p>Even today there are very large differences in preferences, and these relate to appearances, which are different, due to intermixing and breeding in regional isolation.</p>
<p>This post, in conclusion, indicates that humans were, in fact, divergently moving in different directions affecting appearance and that this affect of appearance relates to sexuality. It does not only relate to skin color. Today we have the remnants of these differences, and even if it is not clear to separate races as it is with different species, historical differences in regional populations still exist and are somewhat separable at the trait level. I suggest this is pronounced when it comes to penis size and that we’ve been in denial about this difference as we’ve focused only on skin color as an indicator of race, and that, while there’s more to be said about it, our inability to relate results from sexual differences which also relate to speciation.</p>
<p>When populations are intermixed, there can be a very dramatic shift in preference. For example, if there is a match between Japanese women, and African males, there could be a very big shift in preference from a desire for certain other characteristics to others. It would be expected that affected populations would react culturally to try to prevent a very big shift in sexual behavior, and even the reasons for this cultural shift could be hidden, particularly because sexuality is a taboo topic, and this would explain, why in the United States, we do not have a good understanding of the bodily variations apart from what is uncovered.</p>
<p>And we are covered.</p>
<p>[Written in approximately 40 minutes]</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>[Aside: As an afterthought, I would add, that taboo topics such as this lead to a cultural intelligence drop, due to inability to communicate and process, roughly analagous to what occurs at the individual level. People who refuse to address certain topics are unable to process them, and make use of their intelligence in the same way they would with topics that are less threatening.]</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="you-didnt-make-your-bias-so-your-opinion-is-recollection"></a></p>
<p><em>Wednesday, June 23<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:50 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="you-didnt-make-your-bias-so-your-opinion-is-recollection.">You didn’t make your bias, so your opinion is recollection.</h3>
<p>I hear your prejudices.</p>
<p>But you didn’t make your biases.</p>
<p>Biases arise! It takes time to cancel them.</p>
<p>You didn’t make them though, but that also means,</p>
<p>you didn’t think them.</p>
<p>Your biased reactions are recollections that are not your fault or your credit!!</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="biases-arise"></a></p>
<p><em>Wednesday, June 23<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:36 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="biases-arise.">Biases arise.</h3>
<p>We can let biases arise in our minds, without struggling too mucht to alter them.</p>
<p>Particularly when we didn’t create them oursleves.</p>
<p>“I didn’t make this bias”.</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>This doesn’t mean no effort should be expended on correction.</p>
<p>Timeliness of correction matters.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="bringing-topics-to-rest-with-papers-via-incentives"></a></p>
<p><em>Wednesday, June 23<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:33 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="bringing-topics-to-rest-with-papers-via-incentives.">Bringing topics to rest with papers, via incentives.</h3>
<p>What are some papers you would like to see written, that were not, perhaps, incentivized?</p>
<p>What topics would you like to be brought to completion?</p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>I would like a precise sexual calendar, describing all human behavior and psychology, by description only.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="pseudo-chirality"></a></p>
<p><em>Wednesday, June 23<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:40 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="pseudo-chirality.">Pseudo Chirality.</h3>
<p><em>A string of posts on FB worth sharing, starting on June 18<sup>th</sup></em></p>
<p><strong>Original Comment</strong></p>
<p>How do you know if a chiral pattern is a chiral pattern?</p>
<p>How many distinct unrelated pseudo-chiral problems are there?</p>
<p><strong>Follow up Claifications</strong></p>
<p>…yeah I’m aware of what Chirality is. I suppose I should admit that the application of the term to different domains according to the definition given in the second paragraph is acceptable, but to my mind, this does not indicate a chiral pattern, and a kind of reductionist phenomenon. And maybe it shouldn’t be considered one. But such a collection would serve to indicate the problems and patterns are related, while I would claim perhaps the relationship is a superficial one. Meaning we collected and aggregated these “chiral” examples, but perhaps have mislead ourselves into thinking they are related in a way, that the underlying causality would automatically have analogy, and that there would be an underlying pattern we may also call “chirality”. Probably these levels would confound. The mix of Chemical examples with Anatomical examples shows this I think. There is very little reason to assume there is any underlying commin chirality, and they may not be suitable analogies. If use of two hands coming together has a functional result advantageous to an animal that involves growth that cannot be perfectly symmetrical, although the function relies on symmetry at a functional level (which might mean there is <em>no chirality</em> with respect to the functional symmetry), it does not mean that it is related by analogy to the chemical examples, except by superficial reason. It’s ok, it just means that the collection is an aggregate. An aggregate that can mislead though.</p>
<p>…to continue relating this to the above post. A pseudo-chiral problem would be one that on the surface apprears to have something underlying that is of interest relating to chirality. For these problems, having identified chirality would be useless for identifying an underlying pattern. Instead it would falsepath or distract. This might be called a pseudo chiral problem. The problem Jade shared appears to be a genuine chiral problem because chirality is not incidental, but important for knowing the problem itself. And it is chemical, and in this domain it seems more relevant. Taking it another direction. Asking why hands are chiral might not be useful at all, and I think it probably isn’t. The chiral item of interest is maybe more at the root, about why growth results in uniform asymmetry. There are other issues as well, concerning a metaphysical expectation of symmetry. In that case chirality is even less interesting in its pervasiveness at a superficial level. (again it’s not clear which chiral examples are similar, which is the point of the OP. The superficial visual unconfirmed analogy (what is the essence of the analogy, i.e the blueprint pattern?). It is more verbal than it should be. I think I blueprint could be created using a graph that would resemble chemical relationships, but it’s not clear of that blueprint would have any utility at all. Maybe it would though…</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="radio-towers-premade-and-fabricated"></a></p>
<p><em>Wednesday, June 23<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:28 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="radio-towers-premade-and-fabricated.">Radio Towers, Premade and Fabricated.</h3>
<p><em>A question I asked on FB around my plan for a 70 foot radio/communications tower.</em></p>
<p>I’m able to raise a 70 foot tower on my spot in Anchorage and am comsidering buying either inexpensive prefabricated sections of antennae scaffolding or materials to build one myself.</p>
<p>Cost and quality is an issue. It’s a new project and I’m not sure what would be best value. Main requirements:</p>
<ol type="1">
<li>It must function as a good antenna platform providing the appropriate antenna-like properties by default.</li>
<li>It must be able to support the maximum number of antenna related projects (max spectrum).</li>
<li>It has to be durable and proven for maintenance and weatherizarion in a windy environment. 100 mph gusts.</li>
</ol>
<p>Even better would be if I can attach a windmill.</p>
<p>Any ideas?</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="loosen-the-coupling-between-yourself-and-history"></a></p>
<p><em>Wednesday, June 23<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:25 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="loosen-the-coupling-between-yourself-and-history.">Loosen the coupling between yourself and history.</h3>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>
<p><a name="good-bartenders"></a></p>
<p><em>Wednesday, June 23<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:20 PM Alaska Time</time></p>
<h3 id="good-bartenders">Good Bartenders</h3>
<p>12 year old hot female bartender.</p>
<p>Talented.</p>
<p>what happens next?</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Now</p>
<p>65 year old male bartender</p>
<p>hot, complete and</p>
<p>Talented.</p>
<p>what happens next?</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Sometimes they share shifts.</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>SUPER Talented.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="end-of-chess-victory-to-white"></a></p>
<p><em>Sunday, June 13<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em></p>
<h3 id="end-of-chess-victory-to-white.">End of Chess: Victory to White.</h3>
<p>Finally, after many years, I will very briefly, explain, with some impatience, my distaste for chess.</p>
<p>You might complain, defending chess, that it has utility for use as a serious source of illustrative analogies. While I have heard some such analogies, they do not save the game, since it is easy to find other analogies.</p>
<p>The game exists and so you find reasons to make it important.</p>
<p>Proofs on deterministic advantageousness of one starting position over another, black or white, on a standard 8 x 8 chessboard are misguided, focusing on all possible responses to various possible movements, creating high demand on computing power, resulting in lack of finality due to insufficient time to arrive at an answer.</p>
<p>You enjoy chess on the condition that it is too hard to figure out, but not so difficult as to make strategizing elusive. Many of those who dislike it find strategizing elusive.</p>
<p>Tic-tac-toe is a game of small scale, of low complexity, elusive to the lower animals, but too simple for anyone to enjoy who has already arrived at a complete understanding of the game, knowing that the advantage goes to the first mover, who can never lose, as long as they comprehend the game.</p>
<p>Notice the <em>scale</em> of the chessboard, which is arbitrary! You have not chosen a 24 x 24 square board, with, say 14, unique pieces, instead of 6!; nor did you choose a 2 x 6 board, with only two unique pieces for each side!</p>
<p>And what we await is a proof relating to pattern and scale, and not verification in complete games at large scale, involving all possible movements, failing due to lack of computing power, and adequate time.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I will do more work than provide this as chess is no longer of interest to me, and has not been of interest to me for more than 15 years:</p>
<p><br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="end-of-chess-mattanaw-1-web.png" src="end-of-chess-mattanaw-1-web.png"><br /></p>
<p>One move, check-mate, first mover, <em>white</em>.</p>
<p>This is a post on race now too.</p>
<p>Buhdeagle, (Bald-eagle), a white-headed predator, (i.e. Amen. I use animals instead of “Amen”).</p>
<ul>
<li>Mattanaw.</li>
</ul>
<p>Master <a href="docs/end-of-chess-mattanaw.pdf">PDF</a></p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="the-soul-is-as-primitive-as-you-can-get-you-animist"></a></p>
<p><em>Monday, June 7<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:36 PM Vegas Time</time></p>
<h3 id="the-soul-is-as-primitive-as-you-can-get-you-animist">The “Soul” is as primitive as you can get, you Animist!</h3>
<p>Before you know anything at all, you may wonder, what is it that makes animals move, and enables them to feel?</p>
<p>Feeling your own body, and sensations coextensive with your limits, of skin, you wonder what is the cause of the feeling, and what you are, inside, and not only on the surface.</p>
<p>Instead of adopting the obvious answer that you are all that is contained in your skin, you took those sensations and made them a ghosty, equal to the shape of your body.</p>
<p>This means when you “Soul” you are committing to what might be claimed to be nearly the least informed perspective. Instead of even seeing that you are an animal self-contained, with all that produces what arises in experience, you chose to create a ghost with unknown properties, and of course, it is completely invented.</p>
<p>Moreover, you will find that those who “had a great soul” upon death, were those who did not have great minds, otherwise you would celebrate their minds, and something connected to reality, and not resort to things that didn’t exist.</p>
<p>Consider if your soul were celebrated, that it is not even you!</p>
<p>Now if your soul were celebrated, but your soul had, supposedly, properties you had, then you could celebrate you? In that case you might be knowledgeable about biology and that all you were was actually in your organism.</p>
<p>The soul is claimed by religions, but the soul long antedates religions. So before you get offended, ask yourself,</p>
<p>why did you allow your ancestors to make you an Animist?</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>

<p><a name="omission-reveals-suicide-is-the-norm-unless-you-dont-make-any-decision-at-all"></a></p>
<p><em>Monday, June 17<sup>th</sup>, 2021</em>, <time>2:15 PM Vegas Time</time></p>
<h3 id="omission-reveals-suicide-is-the-norm-unless-you-dont-make-any-decision-at-all.">Omission reveals suicide is the norm, unless you don’t make any decision at all.</h3>
<p>What everyone is really doing at the end of their lives is choosing to suicide by doing nothing.</p>
<p>They are knowingly selecting the outcome they want, even if they are leaving it somewhat open ended.</p>
<p>Whenever an omission seems to be important, it is considered to be a factor in moral analysis, and not a non-factor.</p>
<p>What we have been doing, meaning many and nearly all of the deceased, in the western world, where suicide is considered “sacrilege”, a word I don’t even like to hear, is act like we are letting “nature take its course” as if we did not decide on an outcome that seems more desirable for us.</p>
<p>In other words, in the choice of how you die, your suicide, you opted to let nature finish you.</p>
<p>You missed a couple things.</p>
<p>Firstly, you missed that nature does it even when you do it.</p>
<p>Secondly, you missed that you decided either way.</p>
<p>So henceforth, I will state that your suicide is “death by anything health related”, due to your omission to use a more active method.</p>
<p>Try to convince yourself you didn’t decide.</p>
<pre><a name="create-a-gap"></a><div class="ui section divider"></div></pre>



<!-- End of recovery from live site -->

*Monday, May 17<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:45 Las Vegas, NV Time</time>

## <a name="think-of-a-verb-as-a-stored-procedure">Think of a verb as a stored procedure.</a>

Your verbs are your

functions, methods, subroutines, stored procedures, triggers to these, etc... 

Your history creates your implementations.

Which functions would you prefer not to have?

Which verbs?

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


*Monday, May 17<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>Las Vegas Area, NV Time</time>

*Missing Title added (still unedited): Sunday, February 12<sup>th</sup>, 2023*,&nbsp;<time>Waitara, NZ Time</time>

## <a name="not-understanding-einstein-or-the-very-intelligent-at-all">Not understanding Einstein or the Very Intelligent At All</a>

An interesting point about reading Einstein's autobiography, which was focused on, and included technical details, surrounding his thoughts about the edges of his theory and his field, is how easy he is to understand, if one has the mind equipped for such an understanding.

If one does not have a mind equipped for reading Einstein, however, one will never know, ever, what he meant. His meaning was very clear.

This made it clear to me today, that even writers in antiquity cannot be understood today, and will not be understood by anyone, ever, until mentally equipped. Which is never for most into the "foreseeable future", since that's a few days.

This was made ever more clear to me, when I gave as a gift, a work of Aristotle to a very close friend since childhood. I listened to his views of Christianity for many years. Tolerated them to a large extent. He told me he will not read this book, and more than this, that he cannot understand it.

Yet he still thinks I'm going to listen to his same sales pitches regarding his religion.

Nobody will understand Aristotle today who is not mentally equipped to understand Aristotle. As old as it is, he is *inaccessible* to certain minds.

My friend will forgive this because it was his decade's long indiscretion and his admission.

From this we can arrive at this short, but apt, heuristic, if not a more solid rule:

*If a mind is not equipped to understand, it will never understand. Therefore, for any work produced by the mind, even if sufficient communication be given, to make it clear what the creation is about, and is, it will never be understood by a mind not equipped. Being not time dependent, it applies to all of history and prehistory and future. Such that anything created before, cannot be understood after, and anything after, cannot be understood before.*

This doesn't mean you need to understand.

But compare all this with

"I'm a fool, but through some messiah I have learned the secrets of all creation."

You'll never understand Einstein and he did not unlock all creation for you.

...

There are some interesting points I think about this observation:

* Everyone already knows this, but fails to accept it. They resort to pretending to understand, while contradictorily lofting and praising his *unattainable* intellect.
* 

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




*Monday, May 17<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>12:28 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="history-shouldnt-just-make-you-feel-proud">"History shouldn't just make you feel proud."</a>

This is a paraphrase of a comment from a friend posted on FB. Well, it was a meme shared.

This was my response:

If the world were copied such that it could be repeated, simulated, inspected, and so forth, history would be boring. But, sometimes it would be cruel, and sometime s cheerful. Mostly very boring (well, virtually nothing of interest is happening, and the general pattern is "entirely natural" or "animal but mundane").

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




*Friday, May 14<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>9:39 AM Mesquite, AZ Time</time>

## <a name="minimum-structures-extending-into-space">Minimum structures extending into space.</a>

What is the minimum amount of material required to build a structure that would be stable, going from the surface into space?

Suppose a requirement is that it must have a minimum life expectancy of 250 years.

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




*Friday, May 14<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>9:26 AM Mesquite, AZ Time</time>

## <a name="direct-to-space-transport">Direct to space transport</a>

Shouldn't it be a somewhat simple matter to build a large structure that could transport things directly to space?

I'm thinking of a tower, with many tunnels going from the surface directly into space. Maybe objects are thrusted into space using magnetics, like magnetic trains, but hurling things much faster than that.

What is the minimum amount of material that could achieve this with a stable result? (Just the shell first).

Imagine a minimal volcano going directly to space with the minimum amount of material (first). Imagine massive tubes that start horizontally, creating a place to gain speed, transitioning to vertical position, directly to space. Like the magnetic train in China, and proposed magnetic trains for underground transport via tubes. Huge objects can then be hurled directly into space.

...

Magnetic hurling directly into space at thousands of Kmph?

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


*Monday, May 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>11:02 AM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="clinched-that-debate-barely-thinking-about-it-did-you">“Clinched that debate barely thinking about it, did you?”</a>

For those canned arguments that are mere recollections only, and don’t do what people purport they do.

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


*Monday, May 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>9:46 AM Meadview Vegas Time</time>

Posted yesterday on my [FB blog page](https://www.facebook.com/mattanawTM)

## <a name="tombstones">Tombstones</a>

Tombstones.

Impermanent short thoughts.

Falsified and said more concisely–

nothing at all.

What is your twittertaph?

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


*Monday, May 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>9:37 AM Meadview Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="more-on-determinism">More on Determinism</a>

Videos of robotic mastery of feats that usually are done somewhat poorly by humans supports my view that we are trending towards more clear evidence of predetermination. Here I’m imagining a video I saw recently, that included robots playing bowling and baseball. While we might have difficulty rolling strikes, or hitting a baseball in a certain direction, or hitting it at all if the pitcher is very talented, robots can do this with ease. It’s a scale issue, and for a long time I’ve found it to be obvious, but not easily explicable to others.

Consider, for example, that machines like these could roll dice and flip coins in a way that would reveal that physics is quite predictable, and that the randomness is the insertion of inconsistency and complexity.

There could be some disagreement on the fringes about predetermination in that even with precision, there is uncertainty, and variation. With complexity, more. I think there is a very close relationship between statistical trends, when they are onto something, and are in fact trends, and mathematically definite representations. Complexity appears to me to be the cause of the gap. Simple elegant solutions with a character of near definite finality, as with Newtonian mechanics, show how extremely predictable things are when elements are isolated sufficiently for exact mathematical modeling.

Where things are more complex, we rely on statistical methods. I’m not sure there is a fundamental cleave between statistical representations and exact models, although I don’t think there’s been a complete unification of physics regarding statistical methods and more precise mathematical models. This is related to some of the reading I’ve been doing lately on Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s relativity.

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



*Thursday, May 5<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>8:07 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="swap-your-language-with-a-small-language">Swap your language with a small language.</a>

Suppose you had to swap your current language or languages for another,

that you do not yet know well.

It is a small language with a small vocabulary.

All that is in your mind that is in your current language or languages will be removed.

Which would you choose?

Why? 

What would you lose in your life?

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




*Monday, May 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:33 PM Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="abraham-lived-900-plus-years">Abraham lived 900 plus years? And the biologist believes it.</a>

You can't even make anyone live 900 years by force or by 

Science.

By what you believe and what you don't, and what you only

USE.

...

Moon landing. You can't go back, and show me Neil Armstrong's footprint as he hopped

telescopically.

I'm going to look.

The moon is right there, and the footsteps stay put.

I'm going to look.

...

Abraham lived 900 years.

Prove that you can FORCE someone to live

900 years.

Or admit you can't.

If you can't then

WHAT ADVANCEMENT HAVE WE EXPERIENCED?

Admit your science is garbage

Or admit no human lived that long.

130 years is the cap.

...

So you're going to admit you can't science,

or Abraham didn't live that long,

or better yet,

There was no Abraham.

Pharoah is recorded, better than

ANYONE has ever been recorded.

You DUG HIM UP.

Extracted from a permatomb.

Nobody permatombs these days.

They don't have the 

RESOURCES.

Or power.

...

So what exists in the above that matters additionally?

let us learn logic.

Abraham lived to 900,

and others still can,

or parts of BIOLOGY are debunked.

(hidden premises but that is satisfactory here).

The biologist can do their job, and stop being religious to fill it in.

...

Judaism is a story

overlaid on animals.

Christianity is a story

overlaid on animals.

...

(It's a series).

i.e. Fill in the gaps,

You false mathematicians.

Weak in that you can't apply it where 

it applies.

IN YOUR LIFE.

...

In maturity modelling, hard stuff comes later,

and easier stuff first.

We went to the Moon.

The moon should be 

EASY.

So go to the moon,

OR

I'm going to look through my telescope to confirm

NEIL ARMSTRONG's

Footsteps are where the videos show they were.

Because you landed on this side of the moon.

...

AND

I'm good to learn.

I didn't see his feet yet.

I didn't see his footsteps yet.

So when I see them I will

LEARN.

Likewise,

When I meet the 900 year old man,

The BIOLOGY

of the Christian-Judeo-Christian-Muslim

will be established.

In the second case,

I assume it is false. Because

BIOLOGISTS are JEWS and Christians.

AND they

CANNOT TELL

When they are working or not.

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




*Monday, May 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:26 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="suppose-you-learn-logic">Suppose you learn logic.</a>

You are what happens when you don't use it.

But you didn't learn it.

I'm what happens if you learn in and use it.

But I'm an animal.

I wouldn't have it at all, without

technology and culture.

Although I'm a determinist so to be more clear:

I could not be other than I am and therefore necessarily had it.

However, I was a baby.

Babies are loaded with information, from the surroundings.

...

You were loaded with misinformation and illogic and I'm 

supposed to respect that?

Plus you didn't look to be loaded with anything better.

You respect tradition and laziness, and 

took the information that was forced on you.

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




*Monday, May 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:26 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="reconsider-your-baby-reconsider-your-lies">Reconsider your baby. Reconsider your LIES.</a>

If you choose to have a child, they will live the majority of their life without you.

Not only will they only be with you part-time as children, at the age of, say 20 years old,

they will depart from you and only see you on short occasions.

For a male, with an average life expectancy of 74 years old, this means 50/74<sup>ths</sup> of their life will be almost completely without you except for periodic contact.

Prior to that, they are also only with you part-time, since they need

Public Education

to receive their

Education

AWAY FROM YOU.

...

This means you will create a kid, probably out of desire, and not any plans

Since parents

"learn along the way"

meaning, they will live out the same misery you did

for which you require

SALVATION.

...

Most are unattractive and live out the misery of the unattractive.

Most are not all that intelligent and live out the miseries of the unintelligent,

Including the homeless and the handicapped,

And all those who depend on

Minimum Wage,

if you are fortunate enough to dodge starvation,

by living someplace lead by 

Whites or Asians,

or Middle Easterners.

This is an incomplete statement but is not far off.

...

So to be clear.

You have kids without any justification given your own life.

You don't spend much time with them in their lives.

You teach them to believe in Hell and that they need

SALVATION.

AND

Your religion claims that only a few will be spared.

All face oblivion but a few lucky.

Like those few who were lucky and who were attractive and smart,

Who lived good lives,

Unlike yourself.

...

Tell me again about your RELIGION

And your justification for creating life

that will be hard and will end with hell.

This is your story not mine, please

EXPLAIN

While making sense if you can.

...

You cannot and probably this communication has been terminated.

Because I don't want any relationship with you.

...

As soon as you're honest and truthful

life gets better and

You become truthful.

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




*Wednesday, April 28<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:22 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="proactive-retroactive-and-along-the-way">Proactive, Retroactive, and Along the Way.</a>

Do you do things along the way, or retroactively? 

This is a more fundamental concern than you might think.

...

How should the law be changed given your selection?

Will you be prepared in court? Will your documents be ready in advance, or will you do them later?

Will you pretend documents you submitted were done when you did them, or beforehand?

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





*Friday, April 23<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>12:18 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="to-search-to-be-exposed-to-it-randomly-or-to-know-where-it-is">TO SEARCH, TO BE EXPOSED TO IT RANDOMLY, OR TO KNOW WHERE IT IS.</a>

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




*Sunday, April 18<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>12:56 PM Gallup, NM Time</time>

## <a name="we-are-not-one">We are not "one".</a>

When someone says we are "one", you can immediately assume they are a fool.

...

At most, we are a part of the earth.

But that does not mean that things on the earth,

are combined, or identical with each other.

We are not one.

It's not confusing.

End dumb new-ageism.

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





*Friday, April 16<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>1:45 AM Santa Fe, NM Time</time>

## <a name="your-equality-was-founded-on-appearances">Your Equality Was Founded on Appearances</a> 

How does evolution happen with equality?

With any evolution

you have a local improvement

and there is no way to decide

who has or has not evolved

because you're going by

appearances only.

And no one even looks the same.

...

When you realize that all our judgements of human sameness

were based on 

appearances which vary

and 

Pretended outward behaviors that

also vary.

Original [PDF](docs/your-equality-was-founded-on-appearances-mattanaw-1-master.pdf)

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




*Monday, March 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>12:40 PM Tucson, Arizona</time>

## <a name="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership">Personal Identification, Naming, and Species Membership</a> 

[Proper names have been experimentally written in small caps. Some edits made from the original longhand for clarity.]

We have not come a long way in our methodology of naming our children, and ourselves, as is apparent in having a two name system with excessive repetition where there should be uniqueness, and no name at all where higher family names are required, which should be repetitive since they would be shared amongst very large numbers of people.

There is also an incredible inability to choose new and satisfying names that are unique, and instead, people such as myself have names that are shared with a huge number of other individuals, who, later in life, would prefer to have a special and more individualized name. It makes little sense to have many people in the same room, or in long term relationships, as friends, colleagues, or as acquaintances, with the same designations.

Two aspects of this immature naming convention interest me. The first is the need for systematic uniqueness that would enable improved social system functioning, and the second is the fact that taxonomies of our animal kingdom taken down to the individual level, to the biological signature of choice, which may be DNA, but is probably yet to be determined, would satisfy both the requirements for uniqueness of names and the goal of having a correct representation of the earth with respect to the animal kingdom, down to the individual people we simply refer to as human beings. Since clarity about Earth and its animal objects would be more clearly represented, we would also have clarity about the history of humans and animals, such that an ongoing confusion about divergences and our racial history would come into clearer view. One could not, knowing one's name, not know ones lineage and relationship with history and position in the biosphere. 

Two related issues exist. Firstly, our methods of consistently storing identity information between systems and institutions is in flux and they cannot be synchronized. As a former software architect I can see that this is and should be considered a computing problem, and therefore the solutions to naming can and should be solved using knowledge about mathematics and of computer science; however, since the objective is to represent the earth and not only represent and identify individuals, a second problem must be considered, or planned for, and that problem is this: our taxonomy is not going by our latin/greek tree of life, and even though improvements have since been made in taxonomy, they have not yet become popular such that laypeople could recall it effectively, and certainly have not yet become complete. What did it take to have a complete taxonomy/model of the earth's animal kingdoms?  Since we do not yet have, and may never have, complete knowledge of animal life on earth, and do not have a complete representation at present, and we cannot recover completely earth's history, we can expect modifications to the system as we learn more. 

This means that a permanent commitment to a new naming convention is not wanted or needed, but that we can make it both permanent in approach including any number of human individuals to a date, and a flexibility in design to plan periodic/required updates. Probably you can have a totally unique name that will not change, because you are the object that is not subdivided further. If we change this, and we might, it will mean quite a lot has changed in our views about ourselves, and probably I cannot even say "ourselves" honestly, and at that point this work may be less interesting. However, I do think solutions to problems in the future would still be extensions to this solution, and simply more mathematical and more accurate as to available information about the earth. Going above the individual name you would have that may never change, upper structure in the path name to the root which has the name earth, and other roots, such as our sun, and milky way, and universe, would be expanded as more information is gained and this expansion would correspond to increasing fidelity and resolution of our vision of the universe and its relevant parts.

At maximum fidelity the earth's representation would be identical to, an exact partial description of the universe and its total history. A sliver, from the beginning of the universe down to the named individual.

In the near future you could even have the name "milky way" in your name if we don't opt to choose another less figurative designation.

To be continued...

[Written in a single sitting in less than one hour by hand, with fountain pen.]

Original [PDF](docs/personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw.pdf)

Original longhand also below.

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page5-web.jpg" src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page5-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page6-web.jpg" src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page6-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page7-web.jpg" src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page7-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page8-web.jpg" src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page8-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page9-web.jpg" src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page9-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page10-web.jpg" src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page10-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page11-web.jpg" src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page11-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page12-web.jpg" src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page12-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page13-web.jpg" src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page13-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page14-web.jpg" src="personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership-mattanaw-page14-web.jpg"><br />

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




*Sunday, March 21<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>5:52 PM Tucson, AZ Time</time>

## <a name="reality-probability-or-reality-feel">Reality Probability or Reality Feel</a> 

[PDF](docs/21032021-reality-probability-or-reality-feel-mattanaw.pdf)

[Audio](audio/21032021-reality-probability-or-reality-feel-mattanaw.aiff)

It seems to me that Facebook and other media channels would benefit from allowing users to report their perceived reality or unreality of messages received, and instead of only relying upon their own fact checkers, because validation of information is important not only for improving news. More generally we want to understand detection of falsity in any way it presents in our information channels.

If we value education I think we will head in this direction.

I hope it is used to counter false messages in advertising too, and maybe the approach would help show what I've long noticed, that advertising is fundamentally at odds with education, the way we do it, and for some reason parents have been OK with the transition from rationality and stability provided by good public education to adulthood in lies and fabrication.

Original longhand below.

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="reality-probability-or-reality-feel-mattanaw-1-web.jpg" src="reality-probability-or-reality-feel-mattanaw-1-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="reality-probability-or-reality-feel-mattanaw-2-web.jpg" src="reality-probability-or-reality-feel-mattanaw-2-web.jpg"><br />

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="reality-probability-or-reality-feel-mattanaw-3-web.jpg" src="reality-probability-or-reality-feel-mattanaw-3-web.jpg"><br />

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





*Friday, March 19<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>11:22 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="cumpleañosiphilia">Cumpleañosiphilia</a>

Ever notice that psychologists went wild with "phobias" and "philias"?

I remember learning extra varieties, and not only those taught, in psychology class.

And it's easy to make up more.

So here's another invented philia.

You probably have it.

Cumpleañosiphilia


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




*Friday, March 19<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>1:37 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="homo-sapiens-sapiens-mattanaw">Homo Sapiens Sapiens Mattanaw</a>

When you realize your species name could end with your name.

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




*Monday, March 15<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>5:38 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="low-probability-next-thought-or-high-probability-next-thought">Low Probability Next Thought, or High Probability Next Thought.</a>

Not too long ago I posted on our inability to know what next thought we would have, and the challenge of knowing what to do next, that also, is largely not within our control.

Another interesting topic involves the probabilities involved in your next thoughts and acts of speech.

Everything you think and say that consists of words is a finite list of words joined together. These sentences can be constructed of simplistic words, and simplistic vocabulary, with simple intent, and associations of thought, to the effect that they are quite easy to be predicted.

Some people are cliché people. Saying the same things as the next.

Some people are recollection people. People who hardly think of anything new throughout the day, and simply remember prior thoughts.

Then there are clever people who construct novel sentences regularly but of low complexity, short words size, plain combinations, short total sentence length, and sentence quantity. Intent and total association mighth be of low complexity too.

It is easy to see what type of measures and spectra would exist in relation to this. Some are quite predictable in their thoughts and change little from day to day, and say things that are nearly purely copies of their earlier thoughts or thoughts of other people, and maybe not too complex even in their recollections. In other words, they are easier to store and remember too.

Others, however, are more adept at generating novel sentences, that might not be recollections at all, and may be built from a history of generating longer more sophisticated sentences, with words of longer length, and intention of greater complexity. 

This amounts to people who are producing less probable thoughts and language.

This is not restricted to language but is evident in language, and is largely measurable.

It has been stated that a book is simply one giant collection of one arrangement of symbols. If a computer were leveraged to create all combinations of symbols for a certain number of pages, then all books of that length or less would be written by that computer, although they would be hard to identify in the giant set of meaningless books also created. Books that are shorter, comprised of easier language, copied messages, and recollections, would be more easily predicted and reproduced by a computer system, that places emphasis on existing inforamtion including sentences already known, and simple words. But minds that produce works that are less predictable, would certainly have the traits of not using recollections as frequently, or copies of sentences, and phrases that are more usual, and therefore a computer system would have more trouble creating these works, particularly if they are using a weighted system placing emphasis on simpler words and simpler expressions.

One can consider the extent to which one would want to discourse with another kind person, by similarity in the spectra of production of language. We already value those who produce unexpected and meaningful sentences of greater length and vocabulary, than those who obviously have trouble producing thoughts in language of more repetitive and obvious or expected constructions. 

A test of this is the fact that you would not enjoy speaking with a person you cuold predict easily from the very beginning meeting them, if they are being open and are expressign themselves the way they would when they are most generative and least predictable. These are people who would instantly bore us because they would fail to surprise us any longer, and therefore we would have fewer learning experiences in their presence. We enjoy spending time with others, however, who are sponteneously generative and are continuously surprising us as though they themselves are sources of new and unexpected information, and are like new experiences in the world on their own.

If someone, in advanced age, becomes more predictable than they were in youth, the same effect would result, in that people would become disinterested in their company, at a speed matching, perhaps, the speed that they become known.

Some people, from this, we can see, are more unknowable than others, because they continue to build, and create, with a level of sophistication that can be far more than others. Our enjoyment of their company may last as long as they are able to remain unknowable, and provide continuous stimulation, and interesting novelties, so long as what we are valuing is communication, and companionship, and not something more, like novelty of experience in the outside world. Although it is possible, to become more interesting in both domains, by expanding the sponteneity and novelty of activities in the world, while at the same time trying one's best to remain creative and generative as far as one is capable of doing so with one's mind.

 
[Finished without edits 5:58 pm, in 20 mins]

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





*Thursday, March 11<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:08 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="turning-parts-of-electronic-devices-off-and-computers-containing-numerous-separate-systems">Turning parts of electronic devices off, and Computers containing numerous separate systems.</a>

[Only minor edits.]

A major limitation on consumer and professional personal computer products is the inability to have more than one start to the computer.

At this point in time, computers have multiple processors, and storage and hardware is inexpensive enough, and small enough, to live on a watch or a phone. Being small and inexpensive, and easy to package, there is no reason to not consider including more of each into the shell of a laptop computer, that could presumably contain multiple phones.

Recently I began thinking more about related topics to this considering the advertised performance of the processors in phones and watches, and other devices, that provide no method for the end user to truly benefit from those additions.  

Why would anyone want to have a computer with multiple sets of hardware? I can think of many reasons, but here are a few:

- I could separate client data completely into different compartments on the same computer, and run them independently.
- I could have an actively running webserver going at all times to host my public website, and turn off the rest of the computer.
- I could have more secure things stored one one computer internally, and less secure things stored on another computer internally.
- If I host a large number of VMs like a small data center, I have the limitation that if I turn off my computer, my entire data center is turned off, whereas, if my computer has many computers contained, I can host as many VMs as the number of independent systems would allow, without any need to turn them all off when I switch off the computer. Again, I could be running a data center with a complex application on my machine, even with internal networking, while my personal portion of the computer would be off.
- I could separate business from private.
- I could charge different customers for use of different parts of my computer, rather than carrying around multiple laptops. 
- I could protect others from risk.
- A family could get more from one or two laptops, instead of having to have many laptops, which certainly must be very expensive, for families that cannot afford numerous computers for each and every family member.
- It would push us towards a more advanced understanding of computing and networking at the individual level, such that all consumers/citizens would be more well informed and potentially more capable for work in software and technology, and therefore more competitive internationally.

There are many other benefits, but have you ever wondered to yourself, what does this on/off button do, and why can I not turn on and off parts of a device, and not only the whole device?

[Only minor edits].




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




*Sunday, March 7<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:01 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="my-idea-versus-true-idea">"My idea versus true idea."</a>

We should get better recognizing

"My idea people"

and should find people who can combine

"I have plenty of ideas" 

with

"I care about true ideas"

...

When my ideas are incorrect, I adapt them to truth, because the most important thing to me is that my mind  is true, and full of real knowledge.

And not urges to power my ideas into reality, whatever they are.


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



*Sunday, March 7<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>1:34 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="allowed-to-hate">Allowed to hate.</a>

For some reason people have come to the conclusion that "hate" is some especially heinous condition of complete lack of any positive emotion, wheras, I'm of the opinion hate is dislike. Sure, for someone it can become a more pervasive thing, and people can end up wanting others to be eliminated, but I think we're better off allowing certain forms of hatred and frowning on others, so that at some point we can be more discerning, and then the paradox you have above would dissolve because we will be more accurate and detailed.

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



*Sunday, March 7<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>1:43 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="money-beginnings">“Money Beginnings”</a>

This year’s name for a startup should be “Money Beginning”.
So to sound cool you just talk about how many money beginnings you have going, that you don’t.

...

So startups either have money beginnings or they don't. Startups are just businesses being formed. It's not all that interesting, but there is a pop culture desire to have other ways of saying you are doing businesses that you aren't doing. But sometimes the attempt to generate interest is real, and to get a real start some funding is necessary. So let's call it a Money Beginning until we learn that we don't have anything until we have money to get it going.

Why did the nepotistic business you wanted to create with your friends fail to work. You had no money beginning.

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



*Sunday, March 7<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>1:34 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="sharing-what-starts-in-your-head-versus-secrecy">Sharing what starts in your head, versus secrecy.</a>

Is it better to solve problems no one can see, without first telling others there is a problem, or is it better to reveal there is a problem, maybe revealing your plans to solve it?

If you solve it and nobody knows why, you may have a cool or luke-warm reception, and low promotion. If you talk about the problem in a way showing you really understand the questions, you may intimate the solution.

We can think this type of thing through or we can rely on advice like:

“Complain with a solution.”

Or 

“Keep your plans and good ideas secret.”

Or 

“Marketing is necessary for sales success.”

[Unedited from mobile, iPhone 12Max, Kilo Club, Summerlin, Las Vegas, NV]

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




*Sunday, March 7<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>1:34 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="you-should-see-my-little-scabbies">"You should see my little scabbies."</a>

I'm whispering that to myself and it instantly makes me feel good. You can try it too.

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



*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>5:01 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="equal-to-the-disabled">Equal to the Disabled</a>

and the Self-evidence of Inequality.

I am allowed to exhibit the symptoms of anyone who has a condition/disability, such that as a result, I am again valued equal to them.

To give just one example. If someone has a parking space that's very close to a building, because they have trouble walking, I too can have those symptoms of having trouble walking, and therefore, I restore equality, and there can be no discrimination. Thus I can use handicapped parking spaces, because I'm again equal to the handicapped.

The principle of equality is axiomatic in the United States of American from its inception. This means I'm equal to any person who has a disability, and means that I can express any symptoms a disabled person would have, if I choose to, without any loss of value as a person.

Accordingly there is no right to be heard. Because if I wish to be deaf, or attentionally disabled, or "listening disabled", then I can fail to listen too, and just like any person with the disability, there is no obligation of "listening" to anyone.

This and other paradoxes result in our insistence of "equality morality". False viewpoints can be shown to be false by a principle of reductio ad absurdum, which is directly related to the formation of paradoxes. The idea here is that we show that our commitments clash in ways that reveal there cannot be consistency. Equality morality was said to be "axiomatic" in our Declaration, but in fact, it results in obvious paradoxes, and is the opposite of an axiom.

It is fascinating, that the opposite appears to be true, that inequality is self-evident and axiomatic. For another example of this, scroll down and view the posting on "One-oneths People".

Equality depends on having valuations prepared, that when compared, result in an identity in values. Our major issue is that we do not actually compare any values, and wherever we do, inequality is found, and not equality, when the precision is great enough. Inequality is so obvious an extensive when values are taken, that it is self-evident that equality is rare, an confined to comparisons where values are expected to be identical, as in the exchange of currency or comparison of atomic weights.

Additionally, there is no such thing as self-evidence, because for anything that is concluded, there must be something else that must be looked at. Nevertheless, for my purposes here, I use "self-evidence" to mean "obvious" and in that case, inequality is obvious.

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




*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>4:09 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="youre-one-oneths-a-person">You're 1/1ths a Person.</a>

According to the Declaration of Independence, it's axiomatic (self-evident), that all two people are equal to each other. This means, that we have taken a valuation of all individuals, such that their total value, each taken, amounts to being 1/1th a person.

But it appears very readily, to almost anyone who "keeps it 100", that keeping it 100 is not the norm, hence that most are not equal with respect to their honesty, and going by that measure, each person would be a fraction of 100, and not 100/100, or 1/1.

This means that we cannot us honesty in our valuation of other people. Because if another person's keeping it 100 status was really keeping it 70, then they would be 70/100, which would surely bring that person's valuation to be less than 1/1, also because everyone values honesty in their estimation ofother people. So should we conclude that there is a contradiction here (this is humorous and serious), that instead of 1/1, a person who is only somewhat honest sould have a reduced value, to something maybe only a little less than 1/1.

It is self-evident that people do not value each other equally, so it is confusing that we have committed to a perspective that all people are 1/1th people.

Failing to observe the 1/1th person rule results in a reduction of moral worth in our estimation, for failure to adhere to our perfect equality morality.

Consider that in our history some people were considered 2/5ths people. Now we believe them to be 1/1th people, but that anyone who considered them to be 2/5ths people, are worthy of being erased from history, since presumably, by their moral error, they themselves are reduced from 1/1th people, to

0/1 people.

Who are 0/1 people?

These are the "cancelled" people.

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




*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>4:00 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="how-important-is-listening">How Important is Listening?</a>

 [Aside: This was not my question, but my response below is mine]

Since you can be disabled, and totally deaf, I would say, it can have very little importance, depending. Enforcing listening, because of deafness, becomes a kind of social-insensitivity. If anyone were to claim that I had a limitation because I did not listen, I would claim I have as much rights as the deaf. Of course this is not intended to be a complete and thorough answer to the question from all perspectives, but if I can be deaf and listen to nothing, and we value the deaf, and they are "equal", then I am equal to the deaf, and am valued as much as they are, when I listen and do not listen.

Notice that key premises in he above are axiomatic according the United States Government, from its inception and very first official document, its Declaration of Independence.

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



*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:08 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="homo-sapiens-sapiens">Homo Sapiens Sapiens</a>

Wise name choice.

Extra redundant.

Mattanaw Mattanaw<sup>TM</sup>. 

...

Homo Mattanaw Mattanaw<sup>TM</sup>.

"There can only be one".

[https://www.facebook.com/mattanawsblog/posts/1107254423073487](https://www.facebook.com/mattanawsblog/posts/1107254423073487)

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




*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:08 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

*First posted on Facebook on February 28th.*

## <a name="the-relationship-between-knowledge-and-action">The relationship between knowledge and action</a>

What is the relationship between the rate of knowledge accumulation and action?
What is optimal when and why?

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




*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:11 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

*First posted on Facebook on February 27<sup>th</sup>*

## <a name="priveleges-and-not-serving">Priveleges and Not Serving</a>

[Only Minor Edits, Typed via Mobile]

With privileges you see that the purpose of life is not serving other people. Self-described degenerates (sin). It’s hard to say if any one of them is saying they believe it’s their purpose, or if they are saying it’s someone else’s. Judging by behavior, it’s nearly nobody’s purpose.

Personal betterment seems a better aim, and that way nobody can weasel their way out.

Furthermore, one need not believe one is a degenerate permanently. That is, you don’t need to be saved from anything.

The goal is partly to have others serve your interests so you can progress further. We call it job creation although it’s socially programmed to provide only modest advancement if any. Some are needed to never advance since merit is supposed to allow others to be better than others. If you never improve, you would never be better than yourself, and therefore anyone like your unchanged self should not advance. That would be “unfair” and so under this system that person remains in a more “highly extracted” state, for the benefit of the persons being served, including anyone above like managers, but most notably the owner.

I have no employees, but interestingly, since I’ve done well, some push to employ, to share, but if I’m to do that, following the model they have in mind, I would create a pyramid extracting value from everyone beneath, growing myself at their benefit and expense, skewed towards my benefit. I would build jobs, but they could never do what I do of course, so I would be in a role that would never be passed to another, and if so there would be one slot, for whoever I prejudicially select, to fulfill my legacy (since others believe in legacy).

From all of this it is clear that the privileged do not find their purpose in “serving others” or “serving the public” and that’s partly because others think they shouldn’t, including everyone who thinks they should hire to share. It’s not at all clear how else they should share, because others want to merit it.

Going further, others desire fame. Fame depends on the limited attention of people being aimed at a fewer number of individuals than exists. The ratio is maybe 100 thousand to 8 billion. The fame aspired to is fame of the United States, for the duration of the famous person's life if possible, since all is wellest that ends wellest. The best stars die well and die while famous and their image is preserved. This amounts to few to no individuals in the entire earth’s population. This fame involves the requirement, then, that everyone on earth seeking the same fame is prevented from having attention. People consume entertainment, vote, and pay for this fame, which is fundamentally exclusive, and self-promoting, and therefore they promote self-interested advancement of the privileged, who are successful because they believe they serve themselves. In other words, the values match the expectations, which is a necessary condition for good marketing and success.

However, it is admitted, that one who includes the public interest in at least a modicum, creating a palpable benefit people can feel, there will be an even more popular opinion, and the additional attention created will be entertaining and pleasing, but it cannot seem so good as to cause boredom.


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



*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:13 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

*First posted on Facebook on February 27<sup>th</sup>*

## <a name="dead-totalitarianism-and-your-leaders">Dead Totalitarianism and Your Leaders</a>

There is totalitarianism

Then there is

Dead totalitarianism.

If we followed Mussolini, it would be 75 year old dead totalitarianism from historical text.

If we followed, someone from the Middle Ages, well, then it would be from then. Really dead.

But we chose 2000 year old dead. That’s very very dead and limited rulership. They can’t speak or even stay preserved in mummification.

Can we choose better leaders please? The first requirement should be, that existing rulers exist.

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




*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:14 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

*First posted on Facebook on February 27<sup>th</sup>*

## <a name="cycling-vs-walking">Cycling vs Walking</a>

Cycling vs Walking

Or wheels vs pendula

Imagine you are told you will receive 1 million USD if you can walk or cycle 2000 miles to a destination determined for you. You are told both are easily walkable or cycleable with very little effort. You can take as long as you want. The only catch is that you can never maintain the bicycle, but if you choose the bicycle, the bicycle must make it to the destination too, and you can never just walk.

There are no catches. When you find out about the destination, you realize it is easy. If you live in a location with different terrain, another starting point is provided that makes it easy. Everything else is assumed to be covered including all costs.

The only requirement is that your feet will do all the walking, or the bicycle will do all the driving.

Which do you choose?

....

What is the point of this? I’m reconsidering the bicycle as a worthy method of getting around over a combination of walking, public transportation, and driving/Uber, when the goal is to have a minimum number of possessions for ease of movement. The bicycle seems to hard to transport and to maintain.

Side topic:

There may be something more interesting about animals vs machines. Because no animals have wheels and nature has opted for pendula. 

When do you choose one or the other and when? 

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




*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:16 PM Las Vegas Time</time>*

*First posted on Facebook on February 26<sup>th</sup>*

## <a name="the-united-states-is-multicult">The United States is Multicult</a>

The United States is Multicult.

Not only multicultural. 

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




*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:18 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

*First posted on Facebook on February 26<sup>th</sup>*

## <a name="math-professors-and-mathing-their-occupations">Math Professors and Mathing their Occupations</a>

For all those math professors who never mathed their professions... 

More to come on how to fix your jobs.

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




*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:19 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

*First posted on Facebook on February 26<sup>th</sup>*

## <a name="confirming-mathematical-answers-in-professors-and-math-texts">Confirming mathematical answers in professors and math texts.</a>

I enjoy problem solving but I have never enjoyed word problems in mathematical texts, or texts of other disciplines calling on mathematical thinking, because on arrival to the answer, even where the answer turns out correct, but especially when not, I have a feeling that I need to validate that the author’s answer was correct, swapping roles potentially creating errata without incentive, or interest from the often deaf author/instructor; and also to validate that the question was clear enough for a single problem interpretation matching the one generating the answer.

Too often, the question and the answer both were poor, and all I would think about is that, and how to do all of it better, rather than find the characters/symbols creating a psychological match to the unknown person’s mind.

A problem of instantly thinking better than every math instructor you ever had, and knowing that the interesting problem is this problem. Because if solved and socialized, nobody would have to deal with it and all mathematical instruction would be improved for everyone thereby (and therefore generate mathematicians and more math?).

[unedited from Mobile]


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



*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:21 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

*First posted on Facebook on February 25<sup>th</sup>*

## <a name="not-utilizing-rooms-per-capita-for-social-distancing">Not Utilizing Rooms Per Capita for Social Distancing</a>

How many rooms per capita are there in the US/Canada and what does that imply about how we could’ve social distanced at home?

It seems like you sacrificed your own family but not other families. (Interplay admitted, however).

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




*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:22 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

*First posted on Facebook on February 25<sup>th</sup>*

## <a name="covid-didnt-affect-birth-rates-substantially">Covid Didn't Affect Birth Rates Substantially</a>

How should COVID affect birth rates if we are all rational about it?

Last year there were 3.75 million births.

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




*Thursday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:23 PM Las Vegas Time</time>

*First posted on Facebook on February 19<sup>th</sup>*

## <a name="with-enough-content-you-may-finally-feel-content">With enough content you may finally feel content.</a>

A post about experience and maybe

Extending life.

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





*Tuesday, February 16<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:20 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="autocorrect-now-exists">Autocurrect now exists</a>

because errors are expected behavior.

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




## <a name="animal-cruelty-via-reptiles">Animal Cruelty via Reptiles</a>

*Sunday, February 14<sup>th</sup>, 2021*

I didn’t think about it until today, but it appears reptile ownership is a loophole to commit acts of animal cruelty.

To illustrate, consider the odd case in which a guy was drowning cats in plastic bags and posting videos. Apparently he may have been forced to do this by a dangerous person (oddly enough), but until that was known he was considered especially heinous. 

Now consider that the average reptile owner can feed anything they want to their pet. They can feed them chicks, hamsters, mice, guinea pigs, and cats if they wanted to. They could feed them anything as far as I know, and could watch while relishing the events again and again. Because, of course, the reptiles need regular feedings and not feedings in isolation.

So this can be far worse even than the guy who drowns baby cats.

What do you think about this odd loophole. Kill the cats by direct strangulation, or kill them by strangling and crushing them with a boa constrictor?

Or cage them in confinement with them unable to move, and slaughter them, and grind their babies like how we do with chickens? Because we need to eat again and again too, and not just once or twice.

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



*Friday, February 5<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>5:37 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="more-on-interpersonal-differences-in-individuals-and-in-aggregate-and-elimination-of-equality-as-the-justification-of-social-justice">More on Interpersonal Differences in Individuals and in Aggregate and Elimination of Equality as the Justification of Social Justice.</a>

[Full Audio](audio/more-on-interpersonal-differences-in-individuals-and-in-aggregate-and-elimination-of-equality-as-the-justification-of-social-justice.aiff)

 [Originally posted on Facebook to clarify some statements on this topic for a FB friend]

[FB Friend Name Omitted], ok well I’ll send you the article too since a few sentences won’t really do it. But In the meantime, I would say all traits. Anything two characteristics two people can be measured on is cause to value one person over another with respect to that trait. In the market that’s what we do. If this is true for one trait, taken separately, it’s true when they are present in aggregate (entire races), and when combinations of traits are desirable.

For example, if you will film Black Panther, every white person on earth is of no value for the lead role. This means individuals are ruled out and the entire aggregate of all individuals with that trait, and in that situation they are offered no job and no money, and so are certainly devalued. If devalued then, they might be devalued for any situation in which that presents, meaning more pervasive devaluation occurs. When it comes to intelligence this is plainly true, because our entire labor force and education system selects for this trait.

I’m not sure what trait cannot be valued or devalued meaningfully depending on the contexts.

That’s how we hire. But, when a trait is irrelevant, we understand it is questionable to value differently, all else being equal (although all else is never equal either). What is annoying are bigots trying to justify plain irrelevant selection to satisfy some other desire. We identified some traits we really do not want people to consider for valuing in employment decisions, and we are all familiar with that short list now. Notice the list is short. This means it is legal to discriminate on any other trait. I go beyond this and think all irrelevant traits are irrelevant, but I have no way to enforce this. But all else is allowable discrimination on the basis of unequal traits that may not exist in entire populations. For example I would not hire you if you cannot speak English or cannot speak effectively. This rules out all of Asia from employment for the most part.

Really what I want to get to is a really subtle understanding of justice founded on respect for diversity, although even that requires considerable elaboration and I don’t even like stating it that way, but it shows how diversity can be valued greatly amidst extensive inequality, and I think it can support a more refined and satisfying social justice with the idea of equality largely removed. (equality may be an occasional litmus test of sorts for some systems, but would not be the driver).

I hope this gives you a better idea what I mean, and since I depart from the norm quite a lot of explanation and background is needed, and in the article I do a better job of this I think. I see this as a probably necessary progression because it clarifies everything whereas ideas about equality do not.

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



*Tuesday, February 9<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:25 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="did-i-stutter">"Did I stutter."</a>

[Unedited]

As I continue to collect reasons supporting my position that editing serves an instrumental purpose with a colleciton of strategies that have not been spelled out, and must be sophisticated, and not simple and global, and the same for all modes/mediums, I am finding more and more support of my view, and not less.

The more educated reaction is not to immediately and summarily fault communications due to blemishes.

Consider the experience of speaking to an imbecile who claims to fail to understand a verbal communication, some might angrily say:

"Did I stutter?"

What does "Did I stutter" mean?

It means this: Why are you failing to understand something anyone could easily interpret, or are you pretending to not understand, or are you acting like you can't understand because of some insignificant lack of clarity?

There is more to it even than this, which is interesting, but the main point is:

"Why can't you understand this communication?"

This is an interesting example of taking the burden of editing off oneself, and one's message creation, and placing the burden of correct interpretation, even through mistakes of speech, to the listener.

"Why do you fail to understand" could easily be transfered to the reader.

why can't you see that this misspelling, or extra comma, is easily passed over by others, who are eager to understand.

Are you pretending to misunderstand, because of a typo?

Do you pretend to misunderstand, because of a typo?

Consider there is an art to defects as well (see below). This means I may provide communications with defects artfully, and volunteer errors, in writing, as in speech, not to diminish the meaning, but potentially to enhance it. 


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




*Thursday, February 4<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>12:48 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="more-on-equalization-bias">More on Equalization Bias</a>

[Full Audio](audio/more-on-equalization-bias.aiff)

> [The following is a comment I added to a Facebook friend's thread, touching on bigotry]

I think if we go measure by measure of various traits that people have, then certainly we will find that those measures vary, and we will value those traits differentially, meaning that indeed, people are not equal to each other, and that is more of a bias than a reality... but... I think that also supports the idea that people are valuable differentially, and that it's good to have diversity for that reason, over homogeneity. I'm not too sensitive about thinking someone is better than me in one way or another, and I'm fine being better than others in various ways too. Personally I think there is a cultural hangup on equality, where folks want to find equality where it does not exist, and want to hide interpersonal and cultural differences. I want to see the differences, and I want to be able to value them differently depending. After all, what amazement is there to be had about another culture, if they don't have something especially valuable and different, by comparison with other things. We are trying to have good things that are different from other cultures, while simultaneously pretending that valuation is independent of these things. We are making comparisons, will continue to do so, and there isn't anything wrong with it, as long as it is done correctly, and without other especially harmful forms of bias (valuing entire people on the basis of some insignificant trait, for example).


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






*Wednesday, Januray 27<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>2:51 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="the-garbage-in-garbage-out-problem-and-richard-feynman">The "Garbage-in, Garbage-out" problem and Richard Feynman</a>

[Full Audio](audio/the-garbage-in-garbage-out-problem-and-richard-feynman.aiff)

There is a major "Garbage-in Garbage out" problem. Even if you are very good at searching for information, you are at a loss, if you don't have the keywords, and industry/domain specific pieces of information, in which to create good questions, that would prompt others, and machines, to give you right answers. So sometimes, I can google effectively, sometimes I cannot. I can ask anyone in the place of Google, but they oftentimes will have no answer either. Feynman seems to be a person who will save you all the time, and that is massively huge. He will take a question that is meaningless, or unanswerable to almost anyone. Determine what is needed to answer it, translate it, change it, even completely take it out of the picture as the wrong direction, which means "some questions are not good questions" which is what we always knew to be true. He then substitutes those questions with good ones, ones that lead to the *most* meaningful answers. That's what I think I'm seeing happening here. An interesting question, is what would be a technical solution to the garbage-in garbage-out question. Given that Google cannot do this, and only select, highly impressive people can, I think Feynman is doing something, that not only nobody can do (or very few), technology is unable to do it as well, and it is honest! 

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




*Sunday, January 24<sup>st</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>3:33 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="more-on-the-art-of-defects">More on the Art of Defects</a>

[From a response to a comment received on the related article below, on Facebook. I thought this was worth sharing here as well. This is also unedited.]

In this part of my blog, the entire thread in it, not just the article, it is all considered a mandala of sorts, and part of the idea behind it is that editing is not always necessary or desirable, and that the mind itself is noncommittal, vacillating, and willing to abandon trains of thought for others, and much of what we do in publications is to cover this up, to give the impression that our thoughts themselves are more complete and defect free than they are, and we are embarrassed upon the discovery of small errors. Instead, we can, sometimes, be more like how we are in everyday conversation which has a similar character to our thoughts, in that we interrupt, adapt, vacillate, and err much of the conversation, but in the end we come together sometimes and even have emotional connection and mutual understanding through all the chaos of imperfection, and it's kinda sad that we don't use the same approach in written conversation.

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





*Saturday, January 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>7:25 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="an-art-of-defects">An Art of Defects</a> 

[Full Audio](audio/an-art-of-defects-audio-mattanaw-1-master.m4a)

(This is mostly unedited. And there are reasons for that which I will write about soon to explain why. So expect an error or two).

I continue to write many postings on this ThoughtStream with unconcern for defects, occasional deliberate avoidance of editing, and a feeling of tension between a desire for sharing my mind as it thinks, through my fingers, and another desire, to share something without flaws. But there are always flaws, because even the language is flawed.

Today I was listening to a song that apparently had some deliberate defects. A section didn't sound right, seemingly on purpose, to create a flaw, as a signature of sorts, or a message to the world "I'm in control of this and I can insert what I like."

There is an artfulness to defects that goes overlooked. In some ways I have developed this art, but I know I have not summarized it. I think there's much more to it than is appreciated.

A painting has a signature, that mars the painting itself, for the sake of including handwriting, with a pattern and color mismatching the rest. "I've done this."

Other paintings, more abstract, may have all sorts of deliberate defects. Maybe a painting, nearly perfect, is destroyed as viewers are enjoying it, as I've heard was done. Maybe another painting, seemingly consistent, superimposes another painting, of another type, to provide some alternative meaning, or to create a kind of juxtaposition or tension. 

There is no way to describe all the ways that "defects" may be added into paintings and other forms of art deliberately, to convey meaning, or to complete the art in a way, that at another level, a meta level, or a meta-meta level (or some other abstract "level") may reveal is more consistent.

If I leave errors in this ThoughtStream, sometimes it is for a similar reason, although not always. Sometimes, leaving errors, is simply to provide an authentic datum. An edited work is an alteration. But there is another point, that revealing to the reader flaws reveals something about the writer "This is me, and I deliberately overlooked this, so you'd see error, and perhaps judge me for it. But I'm also hoping for that reader, who will notice, that I've shared my flaws, to provide more information about myself, rather than to cover it all up.

There is an art to defects. There is a mathematics to it. For myself, I admit it's not completely explored territory, but it is somewhat contrary to editing, and that's one reason why I include it here, to further explore the meaning of not editing, but instead sharing. And as I said before, spoken words are not edited, and we consistently overlook defects, to find meaning we are trying to provide each other.

[Written in less than 15 minutes]


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




*Wednesday, January 20<sup>th</sup>, 2021*,&nbsp;<time>7:59 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="same-religion-for-everyone-in-a-society">Same religion for everyone in a society.</a>

Another interesting issue with our inherited religions is that they are perceived as solutions for everyone in a particular community. Missionaries extend this view to the belief that the same religion is for everyone. 

A question that came to mind, while I was young, was whether or not humans colonizing other planets would impose the same religion on other species and if they would send missionaries. I do not believe in this scenario, but I do think if there were sufficient similarity, humans would do the same that they already did between continents, even in scenarios where cultures were quite dissimilar.

The motivating idea for this post, however, was not the above considerations, although is certainly related; that is, that people of differing mental capacities and capabilities should find the same religion satisfactory or pleasing or applicable to their lives. 

I have never found religion satisfying and several friends commented that it may not be for me ("too smart to accept"). Interestingly, some advocates of religion will say that some have to have a certain disposition or readiness to accept, making it seem that adherents themselves don't believe their religion is for everyone, while at the same time, their leaders offer their religion as a single panacea for all or a large portion of human problems.

It seems more obvious to me that diversity of dispositions would be quite great and many simply would prefer alternatives.

That there are not more alternatives is a historical issue, and one of intolerance between people and nations.

I reject religion myself, although I characterize my own philosophy as my religion. It is not my expectation that I could formulate my point of view in a way that would be instrumental or palatable, satisfactory or understandable to all people. Rather, what I hope to achieve, is to provide a way of thinking that is based on factual information, that is truthful to such an extent that it is consistent with a permanent approach to moral thinking; but I do not think my writing would be palatable to everyone. Instead, I think a number of people with additional information, and actually the entire truthful literature of all civilizations should provide the support people need. 

It is hard for a single collection of works, or a single work, to support everyone's needs, which are quite diverse, apart from the diversity of their backgrounds and natural constitutions. Is should be much easier for the literature of the earth to satisfy all the other needs, given there is a way for people to find useful information, that is truthful, reliable, and more relatable to their experience. 

[Written in less than 12 minutes with no edits]


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

*Saturday, January 17<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>2:30 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="coping-with-non-holism-a-start-part-i">Coping With Non-holism. A Star. Part I.</a>

What would it take to conceive of and understand everything that exists? On reflection on our own experience, considering our fellow animal companions, and the tools and robots that combine them, exploring off-earth locations, and ourselves, we can see quickly that there is no singular tool or sensor we can rely on for complete information, on almost anything. When we want one piece of information about something, we might use our eyes, while another animal might use sound; using equipment, we might rely on a camera, or a thermometer. The starting point for understanding an object is having some way to gather information, and working up from very basic sensors and measuring devices, to computers, to computers combining devices, we find ourselves with ever increasing complex heterogeneous systems. And we must notice that we, too, are complex systems built of subsystems specialized on special tasks, and wherever that involves gathering information about the world using a specific approach, or reflecting using a related approach, we are talking about a component or module, or specialized system, or organ, that is not itself intended to understand the whole of any object whatsoever.

To my mind, at the moment, the only way I would be satisfied that I could completely understand any particular object, like a planet, say Earth, would be to be have a complete copy of that planet in my mind, or be able to conceive of the whole at once without any need to rotate, or change levels of fidelity; but maybe I wouldn't be quite content with that, as I think about it now, not having the actual thing, relying on a mental simulation or representation, and so instead, I would want to have a copy of the exact thing, and an understanding of replication of the thing, testing the new thing for comparison against the original, and probably an understanding of all natural patterns that act on or influence that thing, which would be invisible to someone, who can say, see only an image of the accurate globe, but not how things behave completely.

These considerations exclude what is going on in the rest of the universe influencing the motion of the object, it's location (where is it?), and so on and so forth, and so it is clear, that to understand the object entirely, one has to understand more about the system, and how much more is required is unclear. Is one finished when one completely understands the universes, or does one need to know the position of the universes relative to something else, or in the context of something else? It's my view that still we would not know where we are, even if we understood where we are in relation to the rest of the universe, with seemingly complete information about the universe, if we have no understanding, or open questions about what else there might be. Instead, all we could do is content ourselves, with the seeming completeness and consistency within the system, if it existed in such a way that there is no peering out of it.

What it would mean to have complete knowledge is not the topic of this brief article however, although it is an important point to state "You will not have complete knowledge" in a way that is final, before moving on to how we might cope with that fact. I think this is a topic that can be put to rest.

Another related thought, which will make this clear, involves an idea I had, which I called "Mattanaw's law", mocking in part the need to append an egoistic name to each andevery singular discovery, which is hardly an honor, when one has thousands of ideas, for I would not want to be remembered for one idea only, although to be remembered for one idea, for a few hundred years, is better than to be deleted instantly on death, than a short while later.

Mattanaw's law is simply this. Any unit of storage has to have a configuration that is greater in complexity, or has more potential information, than what it is actually storing. Using this law we can quickly see, that one could not ever acheive even basic self-understanding. The main point, is that one's brain could not fully understand one's brain,even in an isolated context not taking into consideration the remainder of the universe. More than this, one's brain could not understand one's brain AND the rest of the body, because of course, if the storage cannot completely represent itself, it cannot represent all else related that has nothing to do with the storage. And it may be that the total body includes more potential information than even the brain and mind, simply by the quanity of mass and complexity of the other organ systems.

So on two points it is impossible to have complete and holistic information about ourselves and the world around us, and I believe this is irrefutable, to the extent that we acan move on from this, and begin to discuss coping. It is clear that we all have the difficult issue to deal with of having multiple seemingly different identities, stemming from thinking in different contexts with different emotions, foci of conversation, and so on and so forth. Feeling drawn from one desire, one emotion, and one thought to the next, we never attain that feeling of complete synthesis that we really want that would bring it all together into complete clarity. Instead, it appears we have, and we are fortunate for it, occasional insights and experiences that do put some of the pieces together that we have moments of ecstatic understanding. Even these moments are incomplete, and are transitory, and an understanding of why precedes an approach for dealing with discomforts that result. 

We covered why this is necessary, to an extent. I will continue on this point, and then move onto how we can deal with it in the next part.
 
[Written in 20 minutes with no edits. Started very close to 12:10 pm Hawaii time]

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

*Wednesday, January 13<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>9:45 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="sawing-bicycles-in-twe">Sawing Bicycles in Two</a>

For a while I've been considering purchasing a bicycle that would fold for travel, but have been very annoyed at the price of the bicycles, the non-standard sizing of folding bikes, and the difficulty of purchasing and having them shipped. 

Instead of buying a folding bike online, it is much easier, efficient, and inexpensive, to simply buy a bicycle at Target or Walmart, that is more standardized for less than $250.

At least then the bicycle appears similar to a normal bicycle and has parts that can be expected to match parts that are available elsewhere, for replacing tires and brakes and so forth.

But there is the limitation that these bicycles are *not* easy to transport. I've taken a bicycle on a plane, and I concluded it is not worthwhile.

So at this moment, I'm wondering:

"Why don't I just saw a bike in two pieces and hinge it?

Or

"Why don't I drill holes in the frame, confirm that I can shove bolts through, and affix braces, and then cut it in half?"

...

Some might say this is a risky activity, but I think probably

it is easy and nearly risk free.

...

So I'm going to buy a bike and saw it in half.

Maybe I'll even saw it into three chunks.

Want to see a bike in three chunks?

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




*Monday, January 11<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:27 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="where-would-you-expect-to-find-a-non-pattern">Where would you expect to find a non-pattern?</a>

Patterns of Patterns, and Expectations of Patterns.

Example: Kilauea

A recent interesting occurrence where I'm living is the eruption of Kilauea, the world's largest active volcano.
Below is a video showing the current growth of a pool of lava in a caldera, near a location where lava is spewing out like a fountainhead.

Watching these videos, you can see there are patterns emerging even with simple pooling and cooling of lava, near the surface. 

What do you think about the pattern that patterns will emerge such as this?

======

In the sciences we are apt to notice patterns such as this and then attempt to represent the patterns abstractly with mathematics or statistical models.

If there are analogies between phenomena, then we will be inspired in research to apply what we find in one location to another, with or without some modification.

But what do you think about our expectation to find patterns, and where would you, if there is any place, expect to find a non-pattern?

*[External videos have been removed]*

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




*Monday, January 11<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>4:40 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="which-diversity-to-continue">Which diversity to continue?</a> 

 [Aside: This post includes responses to questions about an implied preference of light over darkness, and a point of view that assumes that love is desirable, above all other traits, versus other traits, that we certainly have but don't think necessary or desirable all of the time. The below perspective assumes that diverse traits were required to get us into the position of dominance as a species that we are now in (not that dominance is desirable, but is speaks to the survivability of those traits), and what to do in the future given these traits. There is some missing conversation, and I am indebted to the promptings of other questioners/users in my group, who I cannot necessarily name here, for not enough familiarity.]

I'm not sure. It's attractive to want to think "darkness" is more than a metaphor, and I see Ego as magnetic as well, perhaps more than affection. If we look at species like Chimpanzees, we can see that love is not magnetic, except in group subsets, and only temporarily. I think the same is true with humans, even among those who claim to place love at the highest.

...

 I think Humans, true, exhibit different behavior than Chimpanzees, but I do think if we look at anthropology without bias, we would find that there are trends towards enjoying dominance, particularly of strong males. Strength and proof of acquisition seems to be very important to humans and it is important to Chimpanzees too. This is why we are likened to Chimpanzees versus Bonobos-- animals that show different, more egalitarian, loving patterns. Yet loving/affectionate patterns exist in Chimpanzees too.

There could be some trajectory for preferring love/affection in evolution, but there is the issue of self-protection from competitors that causes issues, and in any event, the anthropology/zoology of our history should be employed to inductively infer what is next for us, even apart from any genetic analysis.

What is even more troubling for those who might prefer some particular religious viewpoints, over others, is that it may not ever be beneficial to prefer any particular trait over others, including love, if the consequence is deleterious, given certain conditions.
So I don't know is the answer, bec we need to support diversity in order to get all we need collectively. A better question might be "What should that diversity consist of, and can we remove any certain undesirable traits" and in that case, I think we have to support Eugenics again. And that actually is my position, that we need to eventualy plan our species.

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




*Monday, January 11<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>4:29 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="love-versus-hatred-and-other-such-excessively-basic-behavioral-comparisons">"Love versus Hatred" and other such excessively basic behavioral comparisons.</a>

 [Aside: A friend, Iakovos Koukas, respected in HighIQ Societies, posted concerning the preference for love versus egotism, and this was my response. My response in no way was intended to be excessively critical of his intent in his post, which was not supposed to be really detailed and analytical, yet I think it is worthwhile to share here, what I think is a common error about how we "choose" between dispositions and behaviors, in a way that is less scientific, and more received/traditional/inherited than we might think.]

Russell was asked what his final message might be on video, and in all his sophistication, and vast publications, still chose "Love is wise and hate is foolish" or something similar. I think your view is in keeping with his, and might be a sensible message to the world, knowing that the world cannot read the rest of Russell's works.

But when one looks at it closely, I think the reality is much more complex than this dichotomy, which is based on linguistic analysis, and not psychological or zoological data gathering. The reality would be more elegant, and I think skewed towards the ego, since we have to convince ourselves of love, but we don't have to convince ourselves, that acquisition is necessary, or that emulation of others who could achieve such acquisitions is desirable. But at the same time, I don't accept the ego so much. It's just old nomenclature for self-preference, and is directly at odds with "Your body is a temple," and other ideas about beliefs of the paramount importance of the self, which I don't agree with either-- however, I think "My mind is a temple" is better as a heuristic than say "Forget your mind and treat the minds of others as temples."

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




*Saturday, January 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>1:32 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="kilauea-volcanoes-earth-is-old-and-just-nature">Kilauea, Volcanoes, and Earth is Old and Just Nature.</a>

Since Kilauea has erupted again, and I'm posting videos of the before state when I was there recently, I started wondering again about the explanations various religions give about aging of the earth, versus clear indicators that the earth is quite old, with accretions of growth of places like the entire state of Hawaii, which is known to be the result of highly separated, periodic, volcanic activities, that could not build islands except over hundreds of thousands and millions of years.

*[Video of Kilauea Removed]*

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




*Sunday, December 27<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>11:05 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="quantifying-influence-and-what-to-learn-next">Quantifying Influence and "What to learn next"</a>

Is anyone here aware of any tool that is able to measure the influence of a particular author or the work of an author on the total published documents available in a range of languages?

I recall hearing, not long ago, that a particular author was the most cited, but now I question that information, and think instead it was not based on actual data. Having no available method for surveying all textual information, and having no clear methodology for extracting references when they are not clear citations, or bibliography entries, I don't think it is even possible currently.

If there isn't a place to search for all available textual information, I question the ability of any tool to consume such information, and output a result about how often any author was referenced. Anyone who searches in Journals or Legal repositories knows that much information is sectioned off, for the purpose of ensuring profitability. 

This question arose as I was wondering which play of Euripides to start my audiobook journey with. I purchased an iWatch and would like to be able to listen to audiobooks while doing all sorts of activities. The question came up though, which everyone faces, about what exactly to read. What is of interest and value? Already knowing I wanted to read Euripides, I still want to be able to determine the relative value of the work, without relying on hearsay, using some quantitative method.

I'm not certain how to separate popular works from works of high value, other than using my own judgement, after reading the documents.

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




*Sunday, December 20<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>9:04 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="amen-and-other-punctuation-marks">"Amen" and other PUNCTUATION marks.</a>

Don't be confused. "Amen" is the

"."

A poor "∴"

A poor "QED"

A FIN.

A "The end."

A "You will agree."

A "I'm in power and you are not."

"It was said", or 

"it was written."

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





*Sunday, December 20<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>9:04 PM Hawaii Time</time>

## <a name="has-a-female-ever-clogged-a-toilet">Has a female ever clogged a toilet?</a> 

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




*Tuesday, December 15<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>9:51 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="the-consequences-of-dough-mastication">The consequences of Dough-mastication.</a>

What were the consequences of becoming dough-masticated? I've heard that wild animals, placed in a laboratory, soon become docile, and after not many generations, behave quite differently from their wild ancestral counterparts. 

What were the consequences of human dough-mastication?

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




*Sunday, December 6<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>1:47 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="how-patient-are-you-with-your-censors">How patient are you with your censors?</a>

Do you wait to speak?

Do you fail to say what you want?

One way to have freedom, is to have it.

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




*Sunday, December 6<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>1:44 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="parental-perversion-by-default-a-diatribe">Parental Perversion by Default. A Diatribe.</a>

Baby Pictures.

Wipe your daughter's butt, wipe your son's penis, have sex with your husband, wipe your daughter's vagina, clean it with care, have sex with your wife, pull back your son's foreskin and swab, and stare at your baby's eyes, then have sex with your husband, then take pictures, and take more pictures, unwanted pictures, save them on your phone, then on your desktop, you didn't know security, look at the pornography, look at tinder, look at your wife, look at your daughter, aren't they alike?

Give birth to the baby, claim it is painful, give birth to another, have it again, have the doctor take a video, get those first awkward photos, save them on the computer, on the phone, intermixed on the camera roll, backed up in the cloud, by your engineers at the software company. Can they see the pictures, you didn't know security, your phone has baby pictures, and you published them.

Three daughters, two boys, lots of diapers, sex for more babies, I like babies.
I like children.

Look at the teenage daughter, wipe the baby, watch your middle child act like mom, isn't she like mom, sex with mom. Same day, minutes after, connected thoughts sights, eyes, private parts.

I wonder what my older son's penis looks like now? Is it like daddy's? How did he grow? Why can't I have pictures like my, naked, baby pictures again. He doesn't like his naked baby pictures. Where are those naked baby pictures?

Thoughts of family are near. Private time alone, pornography, my wife, my daughter, my other daughter, my other daughter, fresh in mind, saw nude, try to forget. What visual is appropriate when, by age?

Daughters, friends of daughters, sons, friends of sons, I like the friends. Can we see your friends? Can you have more good looking friends? I still think of your friends. Your friend on the football team—how much does he work out exactly?

Parental Perversion by Default.

 [Aside: To be continued...]

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




*Sunday, December 6<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>1:21 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="what-kind-of-rejection-do-you-have">What kind of rejection do you have?</a>

concerning something that is completely false?

How detailed is your strategy,

about rejecting falsity.

How many times do you reject the same

obviously false ideas?

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




*Tuesday, December 1<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>9:26 PM Vegas Time</time>

## <a name="i-dont-know-what-thoughts-to-have">"I don't know what thoughts to have"</a>

 [Aside: A play on Eminem's "I don't know what words to use", as used against his opponents.]

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




*Thursday, November 26<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:32 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="earth-chose-another-animal">Earth chose another animal.</a> 

What other animal is a good candidate for being the best the Earth could produce?

This includes, potentially, future evolutions, including those a human might choose. (We could choose another animal to become the best earthly lineage, if we are truly altruistic).

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




*Thursday, November 26<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>4:51 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="you-hid-the-handicapped">You hid the handicapped</a>

The mentally retarded,

and those too deficient,

to allow for unembarassing conversation.

Well, you were embarassed.

I'm embarassed by you, very likely.

Why have we not also hidden the stupid?

The ones who hid the retarded?

Because they are just too numerous.

But they ought to be hidden to some extent.

Their views and their votes,

are not helpful.

Why were you not hidden?

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





*Thanksgiving, Thursday, November 26<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>4:24 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="inability-to-create-meaning">Inability to create meaning.</a>

Collectively, our cultures seemed to have recognized their own

inability

to create meaningful lives.

I deny the necessity of answering the question as to

life's meaning

as misguided,

but I think

on a personal level,

my creativity has allowed me,

to arrive at my own answers,

superior to what the ancients have provided,

and since we have received little more than what the ancients have shared,

with respect to morality,

I have independently eclipsed even current

thought on life's meaning.

Yet it cannot be expected,

that others would be capable of doing the same,

at least not until,

they admit they are not being creative!

You cannot create meaning and so you become

a Jew.

 (Speaking to the Christians, and Jews, rejecting their solution, but not their humanity).

You cannot create meaning, and so you became,

an ancient Buddhist.

The formula applies,

for wherever you did not

*have enough time*

to create your own answers.

You cannot create meaning and so you

fall back on 

what existed,

pretending it is adequate!

And then you give problems to the 

new creators in the world!

The one's who are right and accurate?!

Admit that you were even uncreative,

in your oppositions!

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




*Thursday, November 26<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>12:05 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="omelettes-are-just-egg-tacos">Omelettes are just egg tacos.</a> 

Today, I realized, after little reflection, 

but only after many years, that

Omelettes 

are glorified tacos.

Shells of egg,

with delicious ingredients inside.

Into the future, I will replace the egg coating-wrapper,

with other shells,

of Thai, or other Southeast-Asian inspired 

varieties.

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




*Thursday, September 17<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:55 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="skepticism-is-not-a-strategy">"Skepticism" is not a strategy.</a>

*[Written in a free moment, edits may be forthcoming]*

Skepticism, to be clear, has always been extremely important to me. Skepticism, which might be characterized as a willingness to question almost anything that one finds to have some defect, is a key concept within the field of philosophy, and its continual resistance against various forms of objectionable dogma. I consider myself a Philosopher before anything else, and one might say that Philosophy is my Religion, taking religion to have a meaning that does not require any superstition or afterlife. Since skepticism is a concept that is key to philosophy, and I'm by nature a problem finder and solver, it is very important to me, to have the freedom to question any point of view that seems to have errors, regardless of the popularity of related opinions.

Nearly every philosopher that is well known historically has been a skeptic to a degree, although the most famous exemplar is most definitely Socrates, as portrayed by Plato. Skepticism in Philosophy is a tradition is well over 2400 years old.

However, as of late, I've become opposed to terms that are thrown about as if they are, in themselves, strategies. Oftentimes, the meanings they are immediately associated with, their denotations/connotations, are mistaken for what might be considered as well-developed methodologies for dealing with various situations that we find ourselves in. I have to admit, I have the feeling that "Skepticism" has a certain vagueness, that leads me to admit, on close inspection, that there is no clear methodology represented by it. Earlier, I made the comment "What is the form of your strategy" which meant "I think your perspective is not well developed and is mostly mental." Strategies, policies, and procedures, are only such, in my estimation, once they've been clearly explicated. Otherwise, we find people say they have strategies when they have none. Very notably, politicians will say this: i.e. "We have a plan..." When one inquires if one can read the plan, one finds that the plan is actually mental, in that it has not been recorded into a tangible format, and actually is quite vague. In my experience, whenever this is the case, one can expect a failure to record the strategy. Because strategies, policies, and procedures, are developed creatively, as they are recorded, and as edits and revisions are made iteratively.

For those who live in the software industry: Can you imagine if someone said they had a complex program in their head, but that they did not yet record it? Naturally, the software architect and engineer, and anyone else involved in software, would recognize that such a program would not be readily recorded without changes, and the usual case is, that it cannot be recorded, because it is vague, incomplete, or would not work. 

I can assure you that there is no Philosopher that has a program of *Skepticism* ready to be written into code, or that they could even describe a complete Skeptical process or approach in a narrative format, in a way that is totally usable in real life, or would be agreed upon by other parties.

 One might contend that the entirety of philosophy constitutes, to some extent, a method of skepticism, but I have to confess that I don't think this is the case, as there is no clearly defined *method of skepticism* in Philosophy or class of methods that are well known, or agreed upon, by any Philosophers, and in my opinion, most take it to mean something rather obtuse, on close inspection "Question everything".

Interestingly, this is at the base of Philosophy *and* Science, and yet it is not really as strategy. It is mostly a readiness to question. 

However, I find the trends in Science to be somewhat opposed even to this inclination, even though it is supposed to lie at its root, in that people will try to enforce a supposed scientific authorities viewpoint on everyone, without exception, without listening to interesting or novel dissenting opinions.

A current example is the case of people who are questioning the current policy with respect to COVID-19, which in my estimation, is not a strategy, but a quick ad-hoc reaction to provide some "answer" that would be quickly adopted, without much change to how we were already living. In other words "social distancing" to me, is not a strategy, or is a strategy of the most minimal variety. An incipient strategy, or more precisely "A way to hide from working out a strategy".

I'm afraid, this must necessarily apply to a massive number of other words that are really poses for strategies and approaches, that are either not well developed, purely mental, or not recorded in a way that anyone can agree upon, or point to it as a common reference.

Genuinely, I have now devalued even "skepticism" which lies at the core of philosophy, for its failure to be a strategy. It is simply propped up to be something more than it is. I will admit that I find it important to use my mind to question whatever I like, and that I will not limit myself and allow myself to be limited by others in what I'm allowed to think about, criticize, or solve. If I find problems in something cherished, that does not mean they are not still problems, because people find something valuable in it. But what I'm doing isn't really skepticism in my opinion, and I'm not sure, precisely what Skepticism is, strategically.

Let's put it this way. Many people may consider themselves Skeptics. But few of them have written anything down. For them, it is mental, and probably vague. Others have written it down, over time, throughout history, but none agree on what it is precisely, and none have limited the class of methods that might comprise Skepticism, more completely developed. And finally, Skepticism is probably mathematical, and probably could be developed as far as one would like, for a huge number of situations, perhaps with implications, that certain methods that are found to be desirable mathematically, are not actually skeptical, as originally conceived. I, for example, also reject "Open mindedness", which is related to Skepticism, because some things are well understood, and it is better to move on, and gain more knowledge, by closing off such avenues of thought. This to my mind, defeats some views of Skepticism. Except they have not been defined as clear strategies...

An interesting problem I don't think humanity has adequately considered is:

What exactly is a strategy, and what is a minimal strategy, versus a mature and well developed one?

When is a strategy "ready" for certain situations? When is it done?

After determining the above, what status can we say "Skepticism" has? I think at most, we can call it a *proto strategy*, meaning, it has some insight in mind, and some methodologies attached, but is vague and not clearly defined, however historically important it has become.

Strategies that have these characteristics, to my mind, are "non strategies", becasue even the most thoughtless rememberer of the term can pretend to have a method, when all they have is a word with no clue how to use it. That is quite different, than being able to point out an extremely extensively recorded methodology that seems to have some validity with respect to optimization and applicability to real situations.

(Written in approximately 35 minutes.)

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





*Saturday, June 6<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>4:47 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="woah-hes-scrumpty">"Woah, he's Scrumpty."</a>

For around six months I've been referring to women I find attractive as "Scrumptys". They are "[Scrumptyous](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#scrumpty-scrumptious)".

The word comes from the English, "scrumptious" which is here pronounced "scrumptyous" and is purely about the deliciousness of other human beings. Not in a cannibalistic sense, but in the other sense of the word "delicious". Although "Scrumptious" still pertains to human flesh in a number of ways you are probably very familiar with.

You can make fun and humorous use of this regularly as you think to yourself about how attractive another life form seems to be. It does not need to be used only for human beings, although I constrain myself naturally in my application of the word. The more completely [miscellaneoused](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#miscellaneoused) may have other ways of applying the word, and I would not want to reduce their natural tendencies in any way.

Even better, to improve quality of life here upon the Earth's crust, we can refer even to those we are not attracted to, who remain attractive to us nevertheless, insofar as we are admirers of them. Let me explain.

You are a heterosexual man. You see another very attractive man at the gym. In this case, think to yourself: "Wow, he's a Scrumpty."

Similarly, if you are a heterosexual woman, and you spot a beautiful woman at the mall, you should think of her as a Scrumptyous human being too: "Jessica, check that one out. She's a Scrumpty like you!"

What is the purpose of such an activity?

You can begin to open yourself and everyone else to their true feelings about the attractiveness of others, in such a way that it reveals to everyone that everyone can find anyone else attractive. Even if that doesn't lead to additional levels of perceived sexual attractiveness, or additional arousal.

What does this do? It will make the cognitive aspects of attractiveness more clear. Thus homosexuals will come to seem like heterosexuals, and the overlaps between the two will become more apparent, and greater clarity will be established, about the cognitive levels of sexuality, that are quite separate from, physical gender and chromosomal and organ-related sexuality typing.

I've felt this way since I was a teenager about classification of human sexuality, but only now did I become so fortunate, as to coin the word Scrumpty.

So I'm going to start thinking of good looking Alaskan Men, here in my home towns of Wasilla and Anchorage, as "Scrumptys", and not only the women.

So if I look at you in public, just think to yourself:

"I wonder if Matt thinks I'm a Scrumpty?"

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




*Thursday, May 21<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:40 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="celebrating-4-years-in-business-for-myself">Celebrating 4 years in business for myself.</a>

For those who might not know, I was a Software Architect for a while, and later a Consultant in Software Sales for big companies. 

More recently I decided to use my expertise more generally, and try to find ways to gain customers who would benefit from my ingenuity, apart from anyone else's branding.

I'm celebrating my 4<sup>th</sup> year in business. Who would have thought? I'm building something for myself, and it's been long enough now that I can announce it with certainty, that it's been a success.  I have my own brand and my own approach to offer. I have the required 3 years of financial reports, and more. 

Not many know it takes about 3 years to really establish credibility in business, and now I have another year to add to that.

The longest job I ever had is my work for myself; longer than all the time I spent in High School.

High School felt long didn't it?

Maybe some have had jobs lasting longer than 4 years. But I didn't. I always felt the need to move on, to advance and so on. But now there isn't really any desire to advance, at least not in the same way.

There was some "feast and famine", but mostly feast fortunately! I'm lucky to have amazing customers, especially during Coronavirus and I recognize that. While others were and are facing some adversity, I somehow made a turn around and obtained new business. 

Last year was tough for me. So it isn't totally uncalled for to have a reversal of circumstances at this time. Circumstances are good. I'm forced to be at home like everyone else, and forced to focus, rather than spend time out and about. 

I wonder how many people are happy to be redirected to focus attention to home life.

"I used to shop, and work at the office, and ignore my family and personal well-being..." and so forth.

I rarely celebrate anything and was thinking at least I should celebrate having a successful operation. 4 years as of May 16<sup>th</sup>!

Wahoo! 

I even find myself wondering if this is my last job.

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




*Saturday, May 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>1:45 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="stuttering-sweaty-awkward-hard-uncomfortable-truth-and-honesty">Stuttering, sweaty, awkward, hard, uncomfortable truth and honesty.</a>

That's what I want.

Not this new sham authenticity thing.

I don't want to see a TedEx from someone with perfect makeup, and composure, saying nothing.

"I'm authentic."

I want a leader, spilling his or her or its guts.

> [Aside: you can call me "it" and I'm good with that].

Not with fake stories, which happens.

"I was suicidal but I wasn't..."

People will use anything to get attention.

All I want is truth like this:

"I'm not sure I should say this, but it makes me feel relieved."

...

I don't care how it is delivered.

It can have horrible breaks in sentences, with

ums,

pauses,

stutters,

and other "defects".

No edits. Real stuff.

As long as it is crazy meaningful, I'm happy.

Even attempts at being crazy meaningful.

Goofy meaningless stuff added is great too...

Just not B.S.

...

Another thing: "Dr. Authenticity."

"Let me help you with your comfort while still being authentic."

Can you see how that doesn't work, most often?

The moment you make a shift to being super empathetic,

you go into fako "I'm super helpful" mode.

So EQ is related to: Bullshit.

I know because I do that. 

When I'm being authentically empathetic,

I'm pretending stuff.

I'm carrying out an act I saw on ER.

I learned it from somewhere!

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





*Saturday, May 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>12:44 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="anytime-anyone-chooses-a-new-fashion">Anytime anyone chooses a new fashion, they can be considered inauthentic.</a>

"Authenticity" is *not* what people *pretend* it is.

It's not that useful.

When I was a baby, I was none of the things I am now, and I got where I am

by playing and

pretending.

...

Became a rock star? Well, you were a baby once.

You advertised an image that was palatable...

Became a Christian?

You pretended while you were a kid,

or later most likely.

I've seen it so don't tell me it's not true.

4 year olds talking about Jesus is pretend time.

Sunday school.

When daycare becomes

"pretend you're like Jesus"

becomes you think you're authentic as an adult.

You just stopped changing.

Keep changing like a kid,

keep pretending,

keep trying something new,

and you're inauthentic?

Think of:

Mexican food that never changes,

and never gets good.

and compare with:

Fusion cuisine that is well executed and new.

Chipotle when it first came out.

Let's go eat authentic Chipotle?

It's authentic *now*

because it hasn't changed!

...

The most inauthentic thing is to pretend you're authentic.

You don't look like a baby to me.

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




*Saturday, May 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>12:32 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="can-you-massage-my-palms-please">Can you massage my palms please?</a>

We can eliminate the handshake now, if we all join together and commit.

When I say "join together", I don't mean by making a human chain,

with palms touching.

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



*Friday, April 25<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:23 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="i-am-everything-except-what-you-dont-want-and-more">I am everything except what you don't want, and more.</a>

Ask me about the "more" part.

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




*Saturday, April 11<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:55 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="did-jesus-or-buddha-need-editors">Did Jesus or Buddha need editors?</a>

Or writers who would,

write more?

I would say yes to both.

Jesus did not speak to all audiences.

Neither did Buddha.

Yet some will claim, they spoke to all audiences,

such that they could be received by any reader.

We can see instantly that this is nonsense.

Clearly this is not true.

Particularly because neither were edited to become entirely

TRUTHFUL.

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



*Saturday, April 11<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:52 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="coronavirus-deaths-were-not-deserved">Coronavirus Deaths Were Not "Deserved"</a>

It is important to note, that whoever happens to die during this pandemic, apparently wasn't in the "remnant". 

I hope this allows us to finally acknowledge that nature will decide who lives and who dies, and that no group is responsible for the deaths of another group, and that no death is a result of any karmic process, involving past mistakes made.

So if you are affected by Coronavirus, directly or indirectly, I hope you are not troubled by anyone's claims that it was due to anything done previously by anyone.

Nature does what it does.

You are not to blame. No one else is to blame.

...

Why do I post this?

There are still many people who say that people who die, en-masse, deserve it for some reason.

I.e. if you died in WWII, and you were of high quality, you are diminished by some who will insist you "must have done something wrong to deserve it."

Believing that some "deserve it" in such a way that it is built into nature is embarrassing.

Gays didn't do it.

LGBTQ+ people didn't invite it.

People who die are not being punished for "sins".

Karma is ridiculous and needs to die.

The idea that plagues are invoked by groups of people some find "undesirable" is even more foolish.

...

I really hope that we can get passed this style of thinking.

But I also think that people who have subscribed to this type of thinking in the past,

think hard about what they've done to other people,

who faced their own misfortunes.

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





*Saturday, April 11<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:02 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="coexist-is-not-a-strategy-ii">Coexist is not a strategy, II.</a>

You said on your bumper sticker,

that all the religions can coexist.

Your entire strategy was in one word,

indicating it was not a strategy,

but nevermind that.

For now

Just notice that your COEXIST does not include the afterlife.

If you are a Christian,

the COEXISTENCE is on earth,

and everyone but your "remnant"

will go to hell.

And the other way around for you, from the perspective of the other religions...

So do you understand that COEXIST

has no plan at all for eternity?

In fact, the people who state as much, probably chose an exclusive heaven.

"This heaven is mine."

COEXIST?

Then there's this point:

Who cares about coexistence when what matters is eternity?

Life is short.

Eternity is forever.

Isn't it better to die to get into heaven 

than to adopt "COEXIST"?

...

Let's admit that COEXIST is not a strategy.

The truth is naturalism.

The answer is in a new revelation,

that of Mattanaw, for example,

that insists that nature will do 

whatever it does...

And coexistence is established by nature,

and not your bumper sticker.

Nature has no provisions for your afterlife.

So a sound strategy, 

eliminates any religion placing hopes in an afterlife,

and instead insists that this life is the one worth living,

IF

it can be made worth living.

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



*Saturday, April 11<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>~5:00 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="coronavirus-was-your-religions-fault">Coronavirus was your religion's fault.</a>

You did not reject the religious leader from your own cult who blamed previous disasters on homosexuality and personal differences.

Perhaps you thought prayers would cure you, and that vaccinations were not necessary.

You can try out your prayers!

Maybe we can scientifically test them for their efficacy?

You were stricken directly with this plague, for which there is no vaccination, to leave you with no escape.

Prayer only is your escape.

The priests of your religion made many mistakes. 

Told countless people they were to blame, and that they would rest for eternity in a hellish dimension.

Unfortunately, you will live your single life,

if you chose a fiction,

in the this one dimension,

full of untruth.

A life of untruth.

...

This post is a lesson in how not to blame people

for what randomly kills.

Nature is in charge,

not your religion.

Unless your religion is naturalistic.

But your religion is not naturalistic,

it is fabulisitic.

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



*Saturday, April 11<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>4:43 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="mattanaw-is-a-revelation">Mattanaw is a revelation.</a>

Mattanaw is a revelation. He is the image. 

He has decided he will not be tested.

His interest primarily is truth.

You can live in your falsity if you choose to.

He hopes you have not adopted the fictional plots of the other religions,

only to make truth

subservient to storytime.

If you have truth then your truth will be celebrated by Him.

If you are in falsity then it will not pass without notice.

Mattanaw denies your religion,

as you deny the religions of your adversaries.

The ones you envision in hell for eternity.

The ones you say you can COEXIST with,

on earth,

but apparently not in HEAVEN.

Mattanaw denies all these things, 

and reveals to you that you are an animal living in nature.

...

Tests concerning the revelation of Mattanaw from others will result in no more than confusions.

Where you place your trust,

is up to you.

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



*Friday, April 10<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:57 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="before-he-became-man-he-was-trout">Before he became man, he was trout.</a>

First Mattanaw was a trout,

mostly neuter in appearance.

Only later

did he become a man.

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




*Tuesday, March 31<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>4:40 AM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on Monday, March 30<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>~7:30 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="what-language-is-required-to-permit-inferences-about-how-someone-feels">What language is required to permit inferences about how someone feels?</a>

I'm adept at knowing how someone feels in person (or at least considering the actual options), or on the phone. What I'm interested in, is knowing how to infer what someone feels from what they say to you in text format without much other information. When I say infer I actually mean infer logically and based on experience, and whatever math or logic is implied by the *combination*

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




*Tuesdya, March 31<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>4:28 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="reuse-the-alcohol-one-million-times">Re-use the alcohol one million times.</a>

Now that the pandemic has altered all life on earth, I've been reluctantly thinking about the uninteresting topic of hygiene.

We're supposed to already have good hygiene, and it's questionable to what extent more hygiene will prevent transmission. 

Nevertheless we are expected to have sanitizers at home.

I'm single and am living independently, so there's no one to infect but myself, and if I have it, I probably will have it.

Nevertheless I'm coming up with some ideas.

The store was completely out of sanitizers. Since they were all out, I went to the liquor store and bought some grain alcohol at 151 proof, which has a high enough percentage of alcohol to be an antiviral and antiseptic. First my brother asked if I could send sanitizers to him, but he ended up finding grain alcohol himself, and so I kept what I bought for my own use.

Recently, thinking about this alcohol, I thought "Why couldn't I just pour this in a vessel and use it to disinfect my hands without ever pouring it out? Would this work?"

What are some factors that might make it not work? Here are some that came to mind:

1. Unless you can get the alcohol off your hands and back into the vessel, it will run out.
1. It may evaporate gradually (although you can seal it).
1. You would introduce substances into the alcohol, perhaps changing the overall concentration, of affecting it in other ways.
1. Gradual deterioration or change of the alcohol due to the air surrounding it, or other chemical reactions.

My inclination though, is to think that you can actually use it any number of times, except for the limitation created by number one above, and maybe the number 4, although I think that's unlikely.

I would expect that the alcohol would stay unchanged for a very long period of time, perhaps indefinitely. 
After all, you can leave it in a bottle and it will not change. One could circulate the alcohol from the bottle, into a container, and back into a bottle again.

So potentially one could actually just use the same alcohol forever perhaps, especially if it gets filtered and cycled. 

Maybe just having it in a vessel is not good enough but I think that would work too. 

I intend to test it out, even though I may be unable to measure any results, other than to see how the liquid appears over time.

I will have to wash my hands before using the alcohol, and maybe after as well (if the alcohol gets too dirty looking).

Maybe I can use the same alcohol the rest of my life, as long as I can keep getting the alcohol back into the container (which is unlikely), but with a large enough jug, and an understanding of the rate of loss by evaporation off my hands, maybe I can figure out how much I need, to never have to buy it again.

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




*Tuesday, March 31<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>4:08 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="my-grocery-list-for-tomorrow">My grocery list for tomorrow.</a>

I started a grocery list for tomorrow, and the first item turned out to be "Do the dishes."

When you start shopping simply because you don't have the equipment to cook what you do have.

What action creates more options than this one? If I shop I can eat convenient foods. If I clean, I can eat what I have and potentially most of what is in the grocery store too.

So "do the dishes" creates more food options in a sense, than buying food does.

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




*Saturday, March 28<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:21 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="i-died-and-went-to-heaven">"I died and went to heaven!"</a>

Oh you did huh?

So you liked it?

Maybe you ate something and it tasted good.

In that case, you could've said:

"Wow, upon eating this delectable treat, I was suddenly brought to ecstasy because of its pleasant taste."

Probably that is false too.

"I liked it" might be more accurate.

Both are more true than the statement making the analogy to those non-existent places.

Those "heavens" of the various cultures.

Anytime I think, or hear this phrase,

"I died and went to heaven",

I will try to replace it with

"I died, and then I died."

to indicate and remember the extreme absurdity.

There are many phrases to be replaced.

We do not need to use these another thousand years, but can begin replacing them now.

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



*Saturday, March 28<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>8:57 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="mattanaw-is-an-animal-three">Mattanaw is an Animal.</a>

You are an animal.

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




*Thursday, Month 26<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>3:23 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="its-an-american-virus-own-it">It's an American Virus. Own it.</a>

It's here. You're American. When you have it it's yours. Might as well call it an American virus. Or your virus.

If I get it, it will be "Mattanaw's Virus"

It's like Kentucky Fried Chicken, but not in Kentucky. It's at your house.

It's at my house.

Matt Fried Chicken.

Other countries have nothing to do with it.

There is no chicken, but there might be virus,

at my house,

when I get the virus,

from someone else's

slime.

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




*Saturday, March 21<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:51 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="wield-the-opportunity-for-your-goals-in-waiting">Wield the opportunity for your goals in waiting.</a>

This how you make disasters work for you and not against you.

while others spend their time,

mostly bewildered,

thinking about how their lives have been impacted by the situation.

...

Do not say what those goals are.

...

This is what the elite do.

You cannot have the privileges,

of the privileged.

...

In a sense, they are not even in your *time*.

You cannot know of the ulterior motives in advance.

Insurance companies have plans that are activated,

when the disasters that they have already thought about,

arrive.

Do you understand this?

Who else plans in this way?

Are you knowledgeable about those plans?

Or are you only knowledgeable about your plans,

that have been interrupted,

so that you only think about,

what is presented to you,

and what is in front of you?

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




*Saturday, March 21<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>6:40 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Minor Non-substantive Edits: Thursday, March 26<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>6:58 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="be-careful-what-you-wish-for">"Be careful what you wish for."</a>

Is not useful. 

Like most other phrases of guidance in our culture.

In my experience, it is mostly useful for people who wish to

1. Sabotage other people's efforts, or
1. Dissuade folks or diminish their energies in trying to realize their goals, which also is somewhat like sabotage, or
1. Try to relieve themselves about their inabilities to realize goals.

"Be careful what you wish for" is used to mean:

1. "You said you wanted X, so I'm going to make sure that X isn't good for you. Didn't you know that X was going to involve me harming you?"
1. "Don't you know that what you are trying to achieve, isn't worthwhile? Don't follow your goals."
1. "The cons outweigh the benefits of your wishes."
1. "I can't reach my goals, but that's OK, because not doing anything results in better outcomes than realizing goals does." (An obvious rationalization).
1. "Just don't change and things will be better for you." (e.g "I can't change and I don't want you to either", or "I didn't want you to.").

Most often this phrase is simply not used in a useful manner, although there is a useful interpretation. That interpretation is:

"You really should understand what it is you are seeking, and define your goals very carefully, so you're in control as much as you can be regarding the outcome, which can be made very favorable if you do it right."

That is roughly equivalent to:

"Separate worthy goals from those that only appear worthy."

Notice that in practice, people don't use it that way.

In other words, they use it in a mostly useless and harmful way.

Really strong thinkers don't think according to these silly phrases and expressions.

More often, I think, they break them and find something more detailed and precise.

Because "The devil is in the ignorance."

And "The ignorant are  more likely than the wise to be the devils."

> [Aside: I don't believe in devils...]

...

Another issue with this phrase: 

1. *It's a recommendation about **wishes**.* Who wishes for things? That is incredibly superstitious. Now, to make sense of it, it would be translated to "Be careful what you plan for or work towards." A wish without any action is hardly something to worry about. Because the wish won't happen?... You might as well say: **"Be careful what you PRAY for."** This statement can only be sensible if it is about how you choose to plan your life. Now, improbable things happen too. But these are not the results of wishes..., but nature. 

...

It can be used as a threat, and as a recommendation, or as a way to make results seem less desirable, or plans less rational.

I think it is rare that people use it as a useful recommendation, from kind and supportive intentions.

...

This phrase also relates to the common story about Genies, and their granting of 3 wishes.

Of course, most think:

"I'd wish to get as many wishes as I want..."

Well, let's go with tradition and assume you cannot do that.

Instead, you get three wishes.

In the fictional story, of course, each wish does not turn out as desired, or hoped.

This is because the person who did the wishing

"Was not careful what they wished for."

As a rule, the character who has the genie, wishes quickly, without much reflection.

Their wish is comprised of a single sentence.

"I would like to become the richest woman in the world."

And so when it is granted,

everything else was taken as a variable, to manipulate,

and the genie provides a life in which the woman is grotesque, hated, and rich,

and perhaps has no means of spending the money in any favorable way.

So by not being "careful"

we are to think,

she has not gotten what she really desired,

or that she does not know what she really desires to begin with.

...

I would agree with this interpretation, if wishes were real.

And what I say below applies to prayers too.

Why? Because how careful are your prayers about others?

You want someone to have some gain, but you don't define what that will come along with?

That resembles the foolish and simplistic wish a person might make to a genie.

But moving on.

Let's say I meet a genie. I'm told I will be granted three wishes.

My wish would include a highly complex request, somewhat like a legal contract, covering all bases:

1. My request would be no less than 100 pages long.
1. My request would create prohibitions about avenues for negative possible futures.
1. My request would involve not suddenly appearing in the future, but actually executing all the steps to realization in a real way (otherwise, one would feel one did not merit the results or that everything was magical and reality was false).
1. I would require for the result to be real according to the correct interpretation of realness (maybe).
1. I would require that the genie interpret it with my mind for full understanding.

There would be many other considerations. But the key is, I would be *careful* about how I select my future, and more importantly,

I would be *detailed*.

Because wisdom is in the details.

Note that if I'm as detailed as the future reality would be, I would get what I want exactly.

Now, since I cannot be that detailed, I can only create some request that included that *due dilligence* that would most likely result in the reality that corresponds to my request, and not some addition to it.

This way, I would not be surprised, as all the fictional people who make requests from genies are.

...

Since the story is fictional, it is designed to support an author's erroneous ideas about reality.

it is possible to form a plan that is knowledgeable enough to have a reasonable expectation as to what realization might entail.

Of course it cannot consider everything.

But guess what? Then the issue isn't about the care in the wishing,

but in the impossibility of knowing the future,

and the variation that life would add into the mix.

And in that case, again, it's not about "being careful what to wish for", but

learning how to not be concerned about the results.

So that defeats the idea "Be careful what you wish for" because in that case, all you can do is

plan the best you can. And if it doesn't turn out as expected,

you simply realize "It was not up to me"

and 

Nature was too complex,

and as I think "It was predetermined that I would not plan as well as I could, because

I only have the mind of a man,

and my prior planning was not adequate enough

to lead to having the skills to make this plan good enough."

In other words

"My history and mind made me not have omniscient planning capabilities."

...

Notice something else about my method.

I said I would want the result to feel real.

Else I would feel like I'm living in a fantasy world.

If you wish to be "The greatest athlete who ever lived"

and your skills were magical, and did not seem to result from any abilities at all,

or any practice,

then you would forever feel like you're living in a video game.

So if you want what you wish,

to connect with your current reality,

it means that goal has to be *realizable* anyway.

Unless you wish to become someone else.

But notice that if you wish to become someone else,

then you wish to be removed from existence.

That's like if I wished to become a brand new pro athlete.

If I did that, why did I not consider that:

The result would be that I would die and a new athlete would be created who is not me?

Or, somehow my memories are inserted.

Is this something worth wishing for?

...

So really "Be careful what you wish for" amounts to:

Be selective about who you want to become, and try to take into account all the outcomes, that can be reasonably known in advance.

For everything else, you will just find out, 

like everyone else will find out in the course of their complex and unpredictable lives.

And that's another reason why the advice is worthless.

Because it can always be used against you,

because there will always be negatives

that you will not account for,

because that is simply a part of the complexity of life.

So you could have an amazing plan,

execute it,

get what you want,

and want what you get,

but people who wish to tear you down will say that anything that negative that happens to you,

is due to your

Not being careful what you wished for.

...

And that's why this is not a useful phrase to live your life by.

[Amen](#and-thats-the-final-thought-amen).

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



*Friday, March 20<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>11:46 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on Friday, March 20<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>11:41 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="lack-of-concern-about-overpopulation">Lack of Concern about Overpopulation.</a>

A friend in a social group on Facebook asked about why interest in overpopulation has diminished over the years.

The following was my answer:

I've brought up "overpopulation" many times over the years despite recognizing and sensing that people have developed a distaste for it. My ongoing interest in it, is likely due to exposure to authors from the 1800s and early 1900s who did not yet have the biases that people have today.

That it's a fundamental issue is not really seriously up for debate. People will procreate with no possessions or resources at all, totally destitute, and in complete ignorance; and that is an example of overpopulation on the micro scale. Starving babies that keep coming and so on...

Here's my list. People sense that overpopulation means:

1. Control over reproductive rights. "Rights" to reproduce.
1. Potential trend towards use for Genocide.
1. Ethnocentrism/Elitism since certain populations would be the ones that would be considered overpopulating, in comparison with others.
1. Urban perspective. Urban people tend to not see the problem (They have a different idea about what a good life consists of in relation to nature, and may see nature as a tool, potentially, to expand an urban lifestyle).
1. Eugenics is what is in the speakers mind (as has already been mentioned in the thread). But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Eugenics and it is probably necessary to rid of some really bad traits that we continue to pass along. (Some form of Happy Eugenics, for readers who have prejudices about what eugenics entails).
1. "Spread forth and multiply" is being challenged. Spread forth and multiply is an imperative, whatever the consequences.
1. Touching on a Taboo, something not PC.
A couple other reasons:
1. Non-issue. Competing scientific conclusions. You mentioned at one point 2 billion was the supposed maximum number. I encountered literature at one point suggesting that 12 billion was a number that we would approach as a limit, but that we would not cross that limit. This led people, including many students, to believe, that population control is a non issue. So I think several years' worth of students seriously disregard population control as something worth pursuing out of bias, and belief that it is a settled topic. (no reason to think it over any further)
1. Inability to discuss it intelligently (some weird barrier I have not been able to identify. Maybe this is part of what your post is about. It could be cognitive-dissonance due to existing commitments or prior choices, or belief in legacy, etc...).

...

When debating this topic with people outside this group, I get the feeling that they don't want to discuss it or seem uninterested. Either it's taboo for many, or they haven't given it good consideration. There could be other reasons but I notice people are very poor at discussing this topic. 9 might give some reason for this.

I think this is a very good topic to point out, to reveal that people are often not as serious about solving the world's problems as they claim they are.

I'm still interested in automating work so we can depopulate and live lives of maximum quality, with more clean environments mostly everywhere.

I had a nice stream that I used to play in when I was a kid, and as I grew up, I noticed it go from somewhat clean to completely unusable. It's far too polluted now. So naturally, people are deterred from using it, and from valuing it... but that is only because of their reaction to its current state. If they were exposed to it as I was, they would value it.

It reminds me of the end of the movie *Soylent Green* with that one gentleman who wanted to die after watching a video on how earth used to be, and how Charlton Heston's character only then realized what he should have been valuing all along.

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




*Thursday, March 19<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:23 PM, 8:42 PM Next, Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="saying-something-truthful-with-we">Saying Something Truthful With "We"</a>

is even harder than saying something truthful with "I"

or just saying something truthful...

...

when someone says "we"

I'm sometimes wondering,

when I'm attentive enough to notice the mistakes

"Who does that "we" consist of?"

and 

"What is the scope?"

^^ that last one involves a tough truth.

You will not be able to say to what extent

"We"

really is a

"We"

when you make a statement about it.

...

This is true when people say

"We Americans"

"We Alaskans (or some other state)"

"We Earthlings"

or "We" whatever else.

...

Because other people are individuals 

and there is *no way* for you to know

to what extent they are aligned with you.

...

"We" as a family

doesn't even make sense.

...

Totalitarian and dictatorial relationships,

demand "we"

when there might be very little of that.

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



*Thursday, March 19<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:18 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="when-you-do-not-receive-adequate-recognition">When you do not receive adequate recognition</a>

you have to make sure to give yourself enough recognition on your own.

...

If your good deeds and hard works are going unrecognized,

make sure to recognize them yourself at least.

...

If others never recognize them,

you might need to amp it up a little.

...

I'm going to keep amping it up.

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




*Thursday, March 19<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>9:07 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="happy-thoughts-or-more-complete">Happy Thoughts, or More Complete Analyses</a>

leading to more frequent and recurring, 

Happy Thoughts?

...

This is the contest between

pretend optimism

and realism.

...

Realism bears more real fruit.

Optimism bears more perceptual fruit.

...

Realism has optimism built in.

Even if it might not appear that is the case.

...

Real fruit or perceptual fruit?

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



*Thursday, March 19<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:11 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="mood-of-a-conversation-and-narrow-mindedness">Mood of a Conversation and Narrow Mindedness.</a>

Some people seem to have horrors and hard lessons ready at hand for conversation, while others do not.

Horrors I've seen or learned about are easily recalled, and I'm ready to add them whenever the addition is necessary or relevant.

Many others seem to want to "sweep certain topics under the rug", so to speak.  

Many want to limit the number of premises that might be considered in an argument, because they do not seem "optimistic" or "happy", even if they are applicable.

Yet certainly any important premises need to be included to be certain the conclusion is a valuable one.

Some might not understand why I might bring into discussion topics like brain trauma, the skinning of live animals, the self-burning and immolation of Buddhists, and the genocides of Auschwitz, and others recorded in the Bible, and elsewhere.

Of course these topics are not pleasant, but pleasantness is often irrelevant.

For a very long time, I have found it really uncomfortable, that others do no recall these things readily whenever they are applicable. Whenever not recalling them, results in the wrong conclusions or decisions. 

It is irrational to not include such considerations whenever they are relevant. Even if that would seemingly convert a "positive" conversation to one that feels "negative", to *some people*, but not all people, in the conversation.

I don't mean to be a *downer* (I'm not. If I am, it's to a few, temporarily), inserting macabre subjects into conversations where some think they don't belong. The issue is that these subjects do belong, but that others are not willing to hear them, whenever they are brought up.

The mood of the conversation sometimes dictates the social appropriateness of the subjects to be discussed.

If people are more euphemistic, as with political PR, it would indicate that narrow mind is being applied. Because listeners, and questioners, will be limited to what is supposedly the most civil discourse, only allowed to bring up topics that do not diminish a certain civil propriety of the conversation. 

"We don't need or want to discuss *that* right now".

Sometimes the mood of a conversation, it seems, determines, in advance, that an improper conclusion will result; that inferences will be drawn from an incomplete set of premises; that narrow-minded thinking will be preferred to exhaustive, broad *and* penetrating thought.

Notice that the mood of the conversation does not determine the requirements of proper analysis. 

If someone is hired to solve a problem, it will be important that they have all the information, and make all the correct relationships, to find the right solution. It will be their job to make the correct analyses.

Politicians don't seem to communicate like these problems solvers.

...

Let us consider one example.

One topic that is so often left out of conversation, but so often relevant to it:

Brain Trauma.

Does the reader happen to understand, how many topics this relates to?

Consider: 

"I'll remember you forever" is a false promise. 

How many relationships does this impact?

Have you ever watched a video, or saw a photograph, of someone you loved, only to wish you could feel them in person again? The video and the image, are just "dead" artifacts, from a time when someone was alive. 

When enough time has passed, the images and videos surprise use, because they include much that we could not recall any longer. "How did I forget so much!?" one might lament, causing one to become sad at having so little recorded.  

But at the same time, the recordings are limited: 

"I see the video, but I cannot feel (him or her)? I somewhat remember how they feel, and smell, but that is all disappearing! I'm not sure I can really feel it any longer!"

A book that did an excellent job of explaining this topic was C. S. Lewis's "A grief observed."

In that book C.S. Lewis discusses the experience of losing his lover, who was to become his wife. He was a Christian man, so it occurred to him to consider why he did not have faith that he would see her again, among other topics. Grief is unpredictable and highly individual. But one thing I think is universal, is the feeling of loss of memory, and of the ability to relive what was originally lived. That memory is a mere copy, that dies over time.

We all experience memory loss and brain damage, as we die.

When we die, brain damage will be complete.

But some suffer more significant brain damage, and we cannot pretend that it does not impact them the way that it impacts them...

This is not a complete treatment of the importance of Brain Trauma in everyday life.

But I hope it is clear to the reader, that even minor brain trauma, which might be called "everyday brain trauma" effects everyone, and is of mortal and profound significance.

...

Let's consider another.

That life has serious downs, and that these downs are often random.

"Life is good" is false. It varies. Auschwitz. Slavery. Warfare. "Life is good" is used when people seem to have temporarily disabled the horrible things they know about from their conscious awareness.

It is not disrespectful to make these points. To bring these extremely relevant but saddening points into conversations whenever they offer something conclusive or definitive, or when they bring an analysis to completion, is to be real. 

What does it have to do with optimism? It's about being smart and having thorough knowledge.

If someone's life is nothing but torture and pain, it is unfair to conclude, without considering all fact, as if it were a foregone conclusion, that "life is good" is truth.

"Step into my shoes and say life is good" is something that a few billion people might tell you, if you were to *listen* to them.

Or they might tell you that "life is good" out of a desire to convince themselves too. This is something that happens. This is one reason you cannot trust:

The Optimist.

Because the Optimists include people who are willing to 1) lie in order to seem positive, or 2) try to explain to themselves why life is worth living, despite their experiences.

Realism is the only perspective that may be used to analyze a topic correctly, and it must take into consideration both optimistic and pessimistic mindsets.

Many analyses are incomplete without these considerations. But we keep analysing life as if these things are not relevant. Or we push them from the picture, or from our awareness.

In my life, I've spent much time listening to what people say, without completely expressing my feelings on topics because I thought they would dishearten others, or would bring down moods of conversations. 

Too much gravity; too much depth. 

From childhood, not only in adulthood. 

"Nobody wants to hear this."

Or, conversations would be changed, or disinterest encountered.

People change the subject, when it goes in a direction

*they do not like*

and that is hardly rational or realistic.

Or honest and truthful.

...

One more. Let's look at enlightenment and "self-actualization".

So many messages are incomplete, if they do not include conversation about the human brain, and about identity over time. We need to cover the changes we will experience mentally due to trauma, sickness, or other changes in health. We cover up important issues when teaching kids because we will think we will scare them. But the truth is that we will enable them and remove obstacles by teaching them with these relevant facts often in view. 

"Is it possible to achieve enlightenment?" Maybe. I think not. But whatever that happens to be, don't you think it is temporary, given the nature of brain tissue? 

When you attain enlightenment, or self-actualization, do you not think that means that brain tissue will assume some configuration, without which, you did not achieve it? And if so, do you not see the impermanence, and fragility of this brain tissue?

Thus "salvation" could only be a temporary thing.

The idea that is sold to us, though, is that once you reach "salvation" you are saved. But this makes no sense.

All enlightenment is lost as the relevant brain tissue is lost. All salvation is lost, if the brain is broken or destroyed. No one is "invincible". Salvation, in any form it takes, is not invincible. Nobody is unchanging. Your friend can easily become someone else. You will see this as you age. People some would call saints can easily devolve to horrible people through cancer, or brain tumor, or dementia, or other neural deterioration.

...

Last one.

Final judgement. Are you good? Well, suppose you have a traumatic brain injury and your personality is changed, for the worse. Which of you gets judged? I don't happen to believe in any "final judgment", but what I would say, is that there is no reason to prefer the "good" version of someone in judgment. The implication of this, is that if you actually change your personality to improve yourself, it does not necessarily mean that "that you" is the one that is worth judgment. But most of us think that if we reach some state somehow it is permanent, or the only one that matters, or the only one worth judgement. We see the same thing with "success." Someone attains success, by getting an amazing job, or having great accomplishments, but then their life takes a different course, and they find themselves destitute or unhealthy. Are they then unsuccessful in total? We know these are absurdities, simply because we are unable to admit the fact that each of these things are transitory, that our brains are altered over time, or that our environments and 

"I was born again" *includes an understanding of this topic*. Whatever change you make, it must be complete. Or else, it is to admit it is impermanent, and that there is no clean break between the horrible you, and the new you.

But it is clear that there is no such thing as being "born again".

How convenient. When you change, you are totally new and fresh? I think you carry with you, much that was you:

Otherwise I would not know who you are right now?

...

Remembering horrors, and harsh truths,  makes one reasonable and realistic.

Allows one to see through poor arguments immediately.

Is often met with resistance, hostility, or even anger.

But I will try not to shy away from bringing sense to nonsensical conversations.

Even if that means

the partial deaths of religions and sources of national pride.

Ever consider that culture,

including religion and national pride,

mostly consists of living brain tissue?

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



*Sunday, March 16<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>2:25 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="the-height-of-heartlessness-to-me-is">The height of "heartlessness" to me is</a>

to deny reality,

and substitute it with another one

instead.

...

Do you not care about the long-term consequences?

...

Well, probably not the height.

Skinning animals alive is more heartless.

Or could be, depending.

And saying "the height of (fill in the blank)"

is another error that needs to go on my [Lists](lists.html) page.

It is the same error as that which invokes

"Bestest."

...

E.g. "The height of stupidity is (fill in the blank)"

Most likely,

what you fill that blank in with will be false.

It won't be the heigtiest of the stupid things.

Plus stupidity has no height,

so it can go in the dumb metaphor section too.

> [Aside: Well maybe I shouldn't say "dumb". 
> 
> How rude of me.
>
> I indicated earlier we should not say that word.
>
> It's worse than calling people "retards".
> 
> Instead I should say,
> 
> it will go into the
> 
> "Metaphors with problematic visuals" section,
> 
> that I haven't added yet.
> 
> The fact that it is so frequently spoken
> 
> does make one forget,
> 
> that there is a metaphor in there.
> 
> It's baked into that idiom so well, 
> 
> you might think it isn't in there at all.
> 
> It's like saying:
> 
> "It's the pinnacle of stupidity"
> 
> As though there were a stupidity pyramid,
> 
> with this instance of stupid at the very top.
> 
> This is different from saying there is a spectrum,
> 
> and that this would fall on the far end of the spectrum,
> 
> from least to most stupid.
> 
> It's adding a hierarchy into the mix.
> 
> Not only hierarchy, heights.
> 
> Vistas, pyramids, and so on come to mind.
> 
> This is not a good visual,
> 
> for "stupidity".
> 
> Funny enough,
> 
> if you were to say
> 
> "It was the height of all mountain overlooks."
> 
> it would make more sense,
> 
> but it would seem redundant and ridiculous.]

OK, long tangent.

Back to the point.

Skinning animals is very heartless.

So is substituting one reality for another.

Truth is usually less heartless in the long term.

"Oh, it was just fine that you skinned the animals alive.

Keep doing that."

Saying that to make a trained animal-skinner,

who skinned many animals alive,

may make the animal skinner feel

better about herself.

But who does it make feel really really bad?

Your distant cousins.

Those little skinned guys. 

Glistening and suffering.

Get the idea?

In this case, substituting the reality that animals feel pain

for a reality in which they do not,

is actually more harmful,

in terms of long term consequences,

than single acts of skinning animals alive.

Opt for truth.

> [Aside: there is a better strategy than this
>
> but [strategy building](#what-medium-does-your-strategy-take) is not easy.
>
> Also, the animal skinning example is only one.
>
> Going with a false reality is almost *always* (if not always) going to have
>
> ill long term consequences.
>
> This should be justified mathematically,
>
> or with a truly representative model,
>
> but I'm not in a position to create that at present.
>
> For now I think it is better to state that it does seem to be the case.]

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



*Sunday, March 15<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>9:23 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="wakey-wakey-morning-earthquakey">"Wakey, Wakey, Morning Earthquakey"</a>

Or something like that.

"Eggs and bakey" ain't Veg.

Time to replace it.

Not everyone eats the same thing

*anyway*.

It's not 1940.

...

I'm going to wake up,

to imaginary earthquakes.

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



*Saturday, March 14<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>4:23 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="when-are-you-irrationalizing">When are you irrationalizing?</a>

A point missed in the previous post, is that it is sometimes very hard to tell which you are doing. 

Are you rationalizing,

or are you

irrationalizing?

...

Just now, I was clouded as to whether or not I was doing one or the other.

It requires powerful introspection,

since one has to track thoughts, motivations and intentions,

and rationalization can happen

intrapsychically

in a very short period of time,

while one is not thinking about this topic at all.

It takes one by surprise.

It's like if someone asks you to repeat a sentence you said,

word-for-word,

20 sentences ago.

You can't do it,

if you weren't tracking.

...

When someone thinks you are rationalizing,

this means,

you might not know if you are rationalizing or not.

"Mattanaw, you seem to be irrationalizing..."

The inclination is to say no,

but what about in the gray area...?

What about when you were not attending to your thoughts,

THAT closely.

Before I said there were two kinds of rationalizing.

Let's just stop with that.

Let's rename

"RATIONALIZING"

"IRRATIONALIZING."

except when,

we know we are making it actually rational.

We might not always know.

...

I'm sad to say,

I think this is paradoxical within our introspection.

I'm not sure we can ever perfectly know,

when we are doing one or the other,

when we are not tracking.

Usually, we are not tracking.

If your powers of introspection, memory about your mental states, and what you say, and your emotions are weak,

you may seldom know.

...

When are you irrationalizing?

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



*Saturday, March 14<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>3:48 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="two-ways-to-rationalize">Two Ways to Rationalize</a>

The first way, thought negatively upon, rightly so, is:

"I take something that is incorrect, and nonsensical, and fallacious, and fallaciously make it appear as if it were rational."

Goals of this method: to cover up. To disguise. To manipulate. To make your goals seem reasonable, or worthwhile, or rational, when they are actually irrational, founded in error, based on desires or emotions, or otherwise unjustifiable.

More can be said about this because it shows up in many forms, but for now I think this is adequate.

We know about rationalizing mistakes, and bad habits, and errors, etc...

...

But there is another kind of rationalization.

It's when you make a mistake, think an incorrect thought, or detect an irrationality in yourself, and find a way to correct it, modify it, or otherwise fix it to be actually in keeping with rationality.

Some people are more inclined to this form of rationalization than the other.

People should be educated to move from the first kind to the second kind. 

Because the second kind results in 

RATIONALITY.

While the first kind results in,

IRRATIONALITY.

"Rationalization" is a sad misnomer, in the first case.

There is taking something and making it appear rational, and then there is starting from something and making something new that *is* rational.

...

In both cases, one has some idea of what rationality is actually like.

One is concerned with the appearance, 

and the other is concerned with the reality.

Be concerned with the reality.

Remember that there are two ways to rationalize.

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



*Saturday, March 14<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>1:33 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="excitement-trumps-rationality">Excitement Trumps Rationality.</a>

This is partly why warfare is recurring.

If Coronavirus were an attack, we would be "awoken from our slumbers" to something more entertaining, in a similar way.

Involving, like death and stuff.

And not just shopping,

hoping for more time off work,

like it's a snow day.

But more like hoping,

to see some carnage, 

including friends and family,

and community,

like it's the Zombie Apocalypse.

> [Aside: Ever wonder why people like the idea of a Zombie Apocalypse?
>
> many would welcome it.]

The conferences got cancelled.

The excitement didn't.

"Bring on the

Gore. 

Where are the people who are coughing blood,

who aren't me?"

Surprisingly, most are not actually fearful of death.

"If I get coronavirus, I do.

If I get killed having a good time in combat—

sure I'll take that too."

Just look at how eager kids were,

to enlist for World War II.

[Military use of children in World War II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children_in_World_War_II)

It's sad.

We put medals on the stupid.

They may be deserving, nevertheless.

Parents were like 

"Sure, go to the trenches. 

Jimmy's a good boy."

Many Americans were quite excited to kill some Japs and Nazis.

When they weren't too busy, 

killing black people.

(Most were not busy killing black people, I know.

But hey, many were.)

Don't agree?

Have you watched any Quentin Tarantino movies lately?

*Django Unchained?*

*Inglorious Basterds?*

These movies did make *some* sense, right?

Did you like killing those Nazis vicariously,

when watching those movies?

...

"Son, I can't go to war,

I'm too valuable to die,

but you,

you son,

go kill some for both of us,

I'll be keeping the tally."

...

That killing excitement was not limited to young people, though.

Elders have maybe a greater blood lust.

They are bored.

"I have no sensation in my legs."

> [Aside: Why would the elders be excited, you ask?
>
> Oh. They aren't any smarter. 
>
> This is why the young, wait for the elderly
>
> to die so truth can win over
>
> lies and falsity.
>
> there are exceptions.
>
> Exceptions help you
>
> rationalize to honor whoever it is,
>
> you think deserves honor.
>
> "Oh, they didn't have the blood lust,
>
> and joy of deathly entertainment."
>
> "Except they did watch hangings back then,
>
> with picnic baskets."]

Usually, adults imitate youths.

Fashion is not old, it is new.

And the target of fashion are young people.

"I'll wear those jeans."

"Yes, I'll watch that teen movie. Sounds great."

"TikTok is cool,

how do I advertise,

awkwardly on TikTok?"

"I'm not sure what I'm doing here right now."

said that old guy

and old lady

on TikTok.

...

But when it comes to politics and war, youths imitate adults:

"How can I go kill me some Japs?"

"A-Rabs"

"Sand Niggers."

Don't pretend it didn't happen.

I don't know of any little kids,

running around saying "Sand Nigger."

...

or just

"How can we buy all the Clorox from the store 

without any need whatsoever."

To combat an invisible "enemy".

"Dang, how do I use this Clorox,

to disinfect *everything*?"

No one is scared.

They are excited like it's Black Friday.

"My money,

it's for this."

"I'll be the last to die,

and I'll buy it all. No need

for anyone else to live."

At a store today, a cashier said

"Everyone seems to be in a good mood today."

I agreed.

It is to be expected.

People are usually happy,

when someone is killed in a traffic accident on the highway too.

When will this aspect of human nature vanish?

Good question.

Why did you just ask it?

You didn't, 

I did.

Nobody asks these questions.

Maybe this sad tendency,

will be engineered out of us.

Either by biological engineering,

or teaching.

> [Aside: Teaching is a form of engineering]

Maybe those most inclined, 

to enjoy this stuff,

don't procreate.

I'm not sure.

Weirdos abound.

"They know not what they do."

"I never said Sand Nigger."

...

I recently visited the Walmart in Wasilla.

Not one case of the Coronavirus has been reported in Alaska. 

At all.

And the strategy Alaska has taken on,

like everywhere else,

(Yup your state is dumb too.)

has been to buy all the supplies,

and *not* distribute them evenly.

A better way to put it is:

America has no strategy.

It's all excitement.

"America is the greatest of all nations."

This great planless nation.

With massive resources dedicated,

to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (more than 1 trillion USD).

Yet there is no process plan,

for a disaster scenario.

> [Aside: Would you like me to work on this. For this effort, I will only charge,
>
> 1 billion dollars. 
>
> Selling point: The hoard couldn't do it for 1 trillion.
>
> Yes, I know there are good people in these orgs.
>
> Disaster scenario planning is lacking, and that's just truth.
>
> But also it's "I'm HHS but i have no way to 
>
> disseminate this information.
>
> The emergency broadcast system has not yet been
>
> activated for this virus.
>
> Why not activate, and share the plan?
>
> Because there is no plan]

Excitement about possible death,

in the community.

"When can death finally arrive?

I need this."

"Oh, it won't actually be me."

People don't believe that accidents

apply to them.

Everyone else dies.

"I have communion with a diety I read about,

everyone else will die,

because of the (name a supposedly evil group)."

"Ooops I'm infected.

I take it back that I was a chosen one.

Instead, I'm chosen,

but in a different way.

I'm on my way to heaven,

now that the diety,

wanted me to have the virus,

but I'm not evil,

he wants me to have it because

I'm good."

My life has been boring so far,

bring on the death.

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



*Friday, March 13<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>11:19 PM, 12:47 AM Next, Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="you-just-wanted-to-say-that-thought-you-had">You just wanted to say that thought you had.</a> 

Most people don't understand arguments, 

as found in the discipline of logic.

They don't know what an "argument" is.

This can be easily demonstrated.

> [Aside: they think an argument, is a confrontation of sorts.
>
> It is, but there is another, vastly more important
>
> meaning of the same word.]

[Argument as defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#Arg). Some may be thrown off by the fact that this definition is in an encyclopedia of Philosophy. But, that's because they would also unlikely expect that Logic is a branch of Philosophy. If you were to study logic in school, it would be in the Philosophy department. Other logics are found in other departments, but core logic, as part of the extension of linguistics, is still in the department of Philosophy (i.e. Symbolic Logic, Systems of Deduction, and other Formal Logics). So the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an appropriate source on Logic.

[Argumentation Theory on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory)Wikipedia recognizes the interdisciplinary nature of logic, since of course, logical argumentation applies to any discipline relying on language whatsoever. But notice, that this article, is still heavy on contributions from philosophers.

[Argument, on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument) Also heavy on contributions from Philosophy.

The most influential treatment in History has been that provided by Aristotle, since his logic was dominant until the time of Gottlob Frege, an early founder of modern logic, whose works appeared in the late 1800s. Aristotle's work was dominant for two millennia until it was improved upon and corrected. His work is still taught in the beginnings of many courses on Symbolic Logic.

> [Aside: Aristotle was not Christian and he predated Christianity.
>
> Yet his logic dominated and is largely accurate. He contributed the
>
> Syllogisic Logic. Christians attempted to fuse his work with theirs.
>
> A primary objective of Thomas Acquinas was to fuse the rationality
>
> of Aristotelianism with his religion (Catholicism), in order to provide a more firm basis for Christianity.
>
> This is the typical account.
>
> Mattanaw likes to emphasize that Christianity is not as logical as Philosophy,
>
> and there is no dogma in Philosophy, where you are free to
>
> question anything.
>
> Christianity would depend on Philosophy to have any logic at all.
>
> The same is true with all of the other disciplines. Science included.
>
> Aristotle was probably more logical than you are.
>
> Most would be unable to read Aristotle because he is more intelligent 
>
> than they are.
>
> The character Jesus did not write anything,
>
> and it is not clear that he was logical,
>
> since his authors did not
>
> fictionalize his character to deploy much structured reasoning.]

...

There is a serious consequence to this.

It's that people have no idea what conclusiveness regarding a topic consists of.

They don't know when the logic of an argument, 

has lead to the answers,

however tentative they might be.

Instead, they just think,

that their thought on the topic,

is in some way

"The most important thought"

that deserves the most attention,

or in the least, consideration.

When they hear the thoughts of others,

they do not appraise for the logical quality of their thoughts,

or the degree of completeness of their analyses.

"Sure, you wrote a program that simulates the 

situation completely, 

including outcomes,

and it even optimizes decision making...

but you haven't heard my thought on it."

...

This can be used strategically in politics.

Although I have never witnessed this approach myself.

This is the approach of:

Taking people's thoughts on a topic, fitting those thoughts into a total situational analyses, and showing back to the public, how their thoughts actually fit into the scheme of things.

Most would be satisfied that they have been acknowledged.

Many would be disappointed, that their thought was not the conclusive thought,

that determined the right perspective.

But at least they would likely see that that is the case, by:

A) by being shown the complexity of the total situation, and

B) by seeing that their thought was placed properly in the situation, even though their part was small.

...

Some few would expect actually anticipate this result,

and may be totally happy about the outcome,

because they build on their own thoughts, such that they frequently see how their analyses improve, and how their earlier thoughts were of lesser quality than their later thoughts.

...

All this assumes, however,

that the total situational analysis

turns out to be

done by someone who is skilled enough to do it really well.

Or some group,

skilled enough to complete the project truthfully.

...

In the end,

the argument will be logical.

The analysis complexity will suit

the complexity of the real problem.

People will see that there is a match between the problem,

and the analyses.

...

People's political thoughts,

are really just thoughts.

"This is what seems important to me in this issue."

and not anything conclusive.

Some will have more conclusive thoughts,

but it will be those who have conducted such an analysis,

or see the complexity.

these people are not often found.

And either way,

a full analyses, 

conducted by one individual or

any number required,

would match closely,

with the person who did happen to have a complex enough

mental representation.

...

Everyone else just needs their view,

to enter into the total analyses somehow.

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



*Friday, March 13<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:37 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="i-did-not-like-the-messenger">"I do not like the messenger</a>

and so I disregarded the truth."

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




*Friday, March 13<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:23 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="and-thats-the-final-thought-amen">And that's the final thought. Amen.</a>

When someone says,

"And that's the bottom line."

or 

"Period."

when they are finished talking,

you can trust they are probably uttering something false.

When you hear it,

you actually have reason

*to extend the conversation*

nearly

every

single

time.

In fact,

trust the desire

to say something else,

like:

"Ahem, how did you logically arrive at the conclusion 

that 

what you said was the conclusion?"

...

Some conclusiveness warranting termination of thought,

consideration,

and additional analysis,

and information gathering,

has been *assumed*.

"Sir, can you tell me,

when the science is finished,

on this topic?"

...

"Ma'am, can you tell me,

when I'm allowed to think about this one again?"

Or

"Ma'am, can you explain to me,

in detail,

under what circumstances,

I can finalize the conversation,

such that you will suspend thought

on a topic

like or unlike this one

too?"

^^ No one will have an answer to that last one.

...

If you say these things,

forgive yourself. 

Promptly self-correct.

Correct yourself when you notice the error,

if you notice it later,

and not immediately.

Practice until you notice it when it

hasn't departed your head yet,

through your mouth.

Then at some point, you will not have to self-correct.

You just won't say it.

Then you won't think it.

...

Your thought may have been equivalent to:

"This was the most important consideration, to my mind."

or

"This matters most."

These are fair translations,

for some, but not all

instances of

"That's the bottom line."

But it's still an error,

even on these more favorable,

less socially demanding 

tyrannical interpretations.

But notice that's the mistake of 

"Bestest"

described earlier,

in the ThoughtStream,

"This is the bestest idea in this whole conversation."

It could be true,

but it's not the bestest idea in all conversations.

So it might not feel so final,

When McGenius the 3rd steps into the conversation,

and reveals to you,

like a revelation,

how mistaken you were.

> [Aside: McGenius the 3rd could be a woman, by the way. 
>
> It's not a flattering name for a woman.
>
> Just like the word "genius" apparently.]

...

"This is the final thought on this topic."

Amen.

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



*Wednesday, March 11<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>1:26 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="instant-motivation-part-one">Instant Motivation, Part One.</a>

Look through a bunch of old ugly pictures of yourself.

Just worked for me.

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


*Sunday, March 8<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>8:25 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="bird-kiting">Bird Kiting</a> 

I was going to go to the Iditarod "re-start",

> [Aside: The official start, versus the ceremonial start in Anchorage], 

but missed it.

I only live about 15 miles away, so 

I really should have made it.

...

So today, I was thinking 

"Dog sleds aren't that cool anyway",

compared to the newest thing out there:

Bird kiting.

I conceived of it,

but I suspect it already existed.

Because if it didn't exist,

a more perfect world would include it.

But this world is the perfect world.

Therefore it existed.

> [Aside: see the [ontological argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument) for the
>
> existence of things that don't exist.]

...

So how does bird kiting work?

You have a flock of bald eagles,

or geese, 

or other trained birds.

They are tethered to a hang-glider like aircraft.

It's much like a dog sled race,

but it utilizes bird power,

instead of doggy power.

...

Small helium balloons assist the lift

of the hang glider,

so the birds can still feel

free like

a bird

should feel.

...

It takes some time to train the geese,

or the bald eagles,

or any other bird,

you find suitable.

Pigeons may work, but I'm not sure that's been attempted,

or if any of this has been attempted.

I haven't searched it on google or YouTube

yet.

But I'm sure you can do it,

if you put your mind to it.

Because you can do

*anything*

you put your mind to.

Right?

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



*Saturday, March 7<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>1:09 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="sometimes-broken-software-is-better-than-working-software.">Sometimes broken software, is better than working software.</a>

What I will tell you

is that most cannot tell you a large list of the reasons why.

There are more reasons than I am aware of,

but I'm certainly more aware than most.

I know this from experience.

> [Aside: This has no relationship at all to deploying code for clients, which must work.

> I'm not super fond of disclaimers and qualifications, but in my working life I strive for error free products.]

Why would I assume I'm more aware of this than others?

Because most of the software industry is confirmably biased,

in favor of "Perfect code".

So much so,

that few have taken the time,

to see why and when,

broken, incomplete, or partially operable code can be better.

...

This post is not about why.

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



*Saturday, March 7<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:43 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="practice-makes-whatever-practice-makes">"Practice makes, whatever practice makes."</a>

is the new version of

"Practice makes perfect."

And it's actually true.

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




*Friday, March 6<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:35 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="naming-your-other-selves">Naming your other selves.</a>

I'm fine with having a single identifier, for reasons of

"I have only one body,"

but I'm exploring the idea,

of having more than one name, for all

my clearly discernible personalities.

To be most authentic,

maybe it is not enough,

to use the name "Mattanaw".

Maybe I need,

three or four other names.

Eight or nine?

I'm not sure yet.

...

This way,

you can ask me specifically,

which persona you want to talk to.

Do you want country Matt?

Or do you want,

Intellectual Matt?

You cannot have, all of them at once.

Did you notice,

you can't have all of your selves,

at once.

Even for yourself,

if you wanted to?

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





*Friday, March 6<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:16 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Minor Edits: Friday, March 7<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:47 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="have-a-mentor-for-the-right-reasons">Have a mentor for the right reasons.</a>

A friend recently posted on Facebook about the fact that many people choose a mentor, so that they will be able to relinquish thinking.

"This person, will save me from thought."

Well, not in these words exactly. But close.

And I agree. It's sad. 

It's one of the [reasonss](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#superpluralification) behind the existence of cults.

And cultiness. You know about cultiness right?

But I think mentors are important too (he does also I'm sure). 

Here's was my reaction:

> *...in many respects I agree. But I make one important addition; an exception, if you will: a well chosen mentor produces a concrete example of what you could potentially become yourself.*

> *Consider this. In athletics, people think it impossible to achieve certain feats until they've seen it done by another person. Thus a heroic athlete who did the impossible is quickly emulated, and surpassed by those who choose him/her as a mentor. If not a mentor, we can say that someone has created a goal that has now become realizable in the concrete. This is a kind of leadership even if it may not provide durable guidance in all the varieties of ways a person may provide it.*

> *People avoid trying certain things, because of dangers, risks, and seeming impossibilities. Examples of people who seemingly defy these constraints are very helpful, and may not be lesser than the person who strives to overcome those same constraints.*

I wrote about this before. 

You should look for role models who seem to have similar traits to you,

to see what is possible, given your characteristics.

You shouldn't choose just one role model!

Maybe you don't need to consider them role models at all.

Instead they are realistic examples of what is possible for you, if you are more like them, and less like someone else.

People do this naturally to a degree, I think.

Just have a mentor for the right reasons.

The goal is *not* to pass the responsibility of thinking onto the mentor.

Otherwise you are simply choosing a leader to follow.

...

That can be OK too, but that is for another post.

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



*Wednesday, March 4<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:00, 10:24 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="deciding-when-to-retain-knowledge">Deciding When to Retain Knowledge.</a>

I've been advising large corporations on their technological strategies for a long time now.

One thing that I find shocking, is the lack of appreciation for:

"You should decide X, because you will then have more critical knowledge, that you can apply."

Knowledge retention at large corporations is a massive problem.

"What does that have to do with me?" you might be thinking.

Well if large companies can't retain knowledge,

what makes you think your information is being retained,

or

that you would ever find a strategy for retaining your knowledge?

This website is largely for this purpose, although what I communicate, quite often, is goofy, or odd, or apparently unimportant or even frivolous.

But I think most, would want to retain, even their twitter pages? Right?

But saving critical information that is useful is more than just being able to save twitter data.

Companies know this, because they are already aware of the importance of talent. If the brains of their talent leave their organization, much can be lost.

I'm not overly fond of naming significant names. But we can think about Steve Jobs and the impact of his exit from Apple. And the impact of his *return to Apple*!

Apple aside, companies continue to struggle with retaining knowledge and it's not always possible to retain a key employee.

Knowledge loss happens in four vital ways, as I see it at present, without too much oversimplification:

> [Aside: There are more ways to organize this information. There may be more or less categories based on how you choose to split it up, and it's partly arbitrary. I'm not fond of enumeration in this way, like "12 steps to life" etc... It conceals arbitrariness and appeals to people's fondness for particular round numbers, or familiar measures.]

1. **People are lost.** The HR view that people are replaceable results in permanent loss of critical knowledge.
1. **Documents are lost.** There is an inability to retain that knowledge, *even if* the knowledge was recorded somehow.
1. **Knowledge Transfer limitations create loss.** There is an inability, to get that information from one person, or one document, into another person. This is due to: 1) People simply cannot use information the same way. KT doesn't transform one person into another. The total knowledge of one person, with the additional key information, constitutes the information. 2) There is not enough time and interest, often, to absorb what has been recorded (documentation often goes completely unused).
1. **Application Knowledge is lost.** Finally, even if people were retained long enough for KT, and documents were created, and people were educated, there would be failure to apply. And this is connected, again, to talent, in 1.

From this it should be apparent that knowledge retention is related to talent retention.

But people don't go much further than this. We can still strategized effectively upon this information.

Long before getting to this point, however, companies seem to be lost, and give up.

They don't even get to the point of admitting:

"I'm OK with losing this vital knowledge."

The people, and the knowledge are both lost.

People seem not to even notice, somehow.

It is my job, oftentimes to determine what knowledge needs to be retained and when.

And how.

It is not an easy job, but it is a fun one.

It may seem like it is easy to solve any of these problems, but each and every issue is so complex, that I've devoted a huge portion of my personal time to solve them (although, I tackle these issues mostly indirectly).

There is no universal solution to this problem at present.

In different companies, the issue is cost and budget related.

It is too costly to retain all information, forever, while still making it available and searchable.

Nevertheless, I've been working on this for a long time to produce approaches that can be used in specific situations and at different companies, and aspire to have something more generally applicable.

Not only for companies, but for everyone.

This goal relates to this entire site, the technology underlying it, it's storage, and my personal archive, included here: [Inky fibers](inky-fibers.html).

Matt, why did you call this article "Inky fibers"?.

If you think about records, historically, they amount to ink on paper, or papyrus, primarily.

We have tablets too, but right now, our best way of retaining wisdom, is on paper,

and not in digital formats (not yet, perhaps).

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



*Sunday, March 1<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>8:52 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="priby-proboscus">"Priby Proboscis"</a>

What do you think that is?

If you think you know, take a guess and mail me.

email: [mattanaw@mattanaw.com](mailto:mattanaw@mattanaw.com)

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




*Sunday, March 1<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>8:42 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="youve-been-musked">"You've been Musked"</a>

Elon musk should wait 20 years,

and then tell everyone they've been musked.

It doesn't sound good.

It's memorable.

"You've been musked."

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



*Sunday, March 1<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:11 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="fatty-pigeon-ranch">Fatty Pigeon Ranch</a> 

What should I name my ranch? I'm still partial to "Fatty Pigeon Ranch."

There are no pigeons in Alaska. And it's not a proper ranch, but nevertheless. What do you think of the name? I will pretend that the moose are captive. They are free but they don't care how lesser mortals, humans, are misinformed about them. I will gossip adversely against the moose.

[Aside: I'm prepared to hear unfavorable reactions]

email: [mattanaw@mattanaw.com](mailto:mattanaw@mattanaw.com)

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



*Sunday, March 1<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:00 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="911-war-advocates">9/11 War Advocates</a>

were reactionary zealots.

They were everywhere throughout America.

As dumb as dumb can be.

I witnessed it with my own eyes.

Intelligent skeptics,

recoiled at the fervor

of complete imbeciles,

paying no critical thought to the information provided.

Ready to react.

Ready to push the red button.

To kill anything and anyone,

the President recommended.

How accurate are our

Presidential addresses?

I accept little,

at face value.

And when I do,

I'm a bit disappointed about

not knowing any better.

...

Millenials,

you should be taught more about,

how foolish the post-9/11 reaction was.

I'm a Millenial too BTW.

I'll speak for my kind.

> [Aside: I don't actually agree with generation categories.

> They are dumb and unscientific. Not much more to say about it.]

"I'm ready to kill, just point me in the right direction.

I'll trust you concerning,

what "right" is."

...

Christianity,

didn't steer anything.

...

In retrospect,

I think many know this is true.

But few knew it was true,

as it was happening.

I promise you,

that this is a correct posting.

The correct account,

was that people became stupid,

in their anger.

Many in their pretend anger.

War is entertaining.

...

On September 11<sup>th</sup>

this post might be considered to be

bad taste.

that's also due to mistakes.

But for this time of year,

it is just fine.

When 9/11 approaches,

I'll consider,

if reposting is appropriate or not.

After all,

this was written about 9/11

but not on

9/11.

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




*Sunday, March 1<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>6:38 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="jesus-would-be-killed-again">Jesus would be killed again.</a>

And you would chuck a stone along with everyone else.

Or would fail to step in,

to prevent the killing,

even if there were an opening

for you to step in to prevent it.

...

The lynch mob,

was filled with people,

just like you.

...

You 

modern-day 

stone-chucker.

...

Christians think they would be tipped off,

to who the modern day Jesus would be.

Doubtful.

...

Ever think that the message

from before

would not be the newest message,

given it was only

a preparatory step,

perhaps?

Incomplete,

with errors.

Since it was transmitted,

by stone-chuckers?

Church of stone-chuckers?

...

I don't believe in Jesus, BTW.

But I do believe in,

knowledge-based revelations.

...

> [Aside: going by probabilities here. You're probably not the guy depicted below.

> I know I am! If you are, then I congratulate you.

> It means you are willing to have stones chucked at you too.]

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="lone-detractor-from-nazis-historical-web.jpg" src="lone-detractor-from-nazis-historical-web.jpg"><br />

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




*Sunday, March 1<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>6:26 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="old-cars-are-oddly-comforting">Old Cars are, Oddly Comforting</a>

Shows recalling the late 70s and 80s seem to be pretty popular online.

The show "Stranger Things" seems to have created a trend,

if one did not already exist before that show began.

I'm seeing older cars.

They have an odd attractiveness.

Fresh and new but old on screen.

Keys and locks.

Knobs and functions.

Not too much going on.

You get in and drive.

...

I'm wondering when

there might be a 

new trend concerning

recoil from technology:

"I do not want a screen."

...

Old cars didn't have any screens.

And neither did anyone,

sitting in them.

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



*Sunday, March 1<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>6:13 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="parents-and-mentors-remove-obstacles-and-other-stuff">Parents and Mentors Remove Obstacles (And Other Stuff).</a>

A couple years ago, I attended a conference with the Congress on the Future of Engineering Software (COFES), in Phoenix, Arizona. Many prominent figures in engineering, software, and academia were present: [Attendance List](https://web.archive.org/web/20181209181629/http://cofes.com/Events/COFES-2018/Key-Participants.aspx).

I was fortunate enough to be seated next to Mr. Stephen Tsai, a very interesting and influential figure from Stanford University, and an Intern. I wish I knew her name, but I do not recall it and don't have a clear way to find out who it was, without looking excessively eager to find out. There were other participants, but I can't recall their names either.

Anyway, at the table we began talking about mentorship.

And I suddenly had an insight.

Mentoring needs to be about removing obstacles primarily.

Not about teaching, and trying to make an impression using authoritative words and quotations.

We already know people are self-guided.

They learn, when they are interested. They are interested when information is relevant and connects with experience.

What is more relevant,

than obstacles to present and future interests?

I was talking about this with the Intern, while others were listening in.

Feedback seemed to indicate, that all were in agreement.

There was an interesting level of agreement on this topic. 

Some unpalpable "This speaks to me, this is right."

There was energy.

But then the conference meal started and some presentations began.

But I'll always remember that this seemed to be a conclusion,

worth investigating further.

...

Ageism is a problem.

Pyramids are a problem.

Elders want to protect their positions,

and block growth.

Removing obstacles to growth, and idea realization,

also means removing obstacles,

to incentives,

and funding, and elevated roles.

...

How many managers, volunteer to be replaced?

...

Some occlusion to advancement is necessary of course.

There are not enough spots at the tops of pyramids,

for all talent underneath.

...

But think about it.

If we are to live in a real meritocracy,

then wouldn't it end up being situated,

such that we would agree with the obstacles?

They are not artificial,

or subjective,

but are just?

What of the social justice,

of the corporate pyramid?

...

This is another post indicating that equality is not real.

We want to remove obstacles,

for talent to show itself to the maximum,

and allow us to rationally select.

We do not rationally select.

And we have conflicting ideas, about equality,

and advancement.

...

But maybe the biggest issue of all,

is conservative values,

about how people are entitled to their positions.

Or are entitled to career growth.

...

I wrote a related post before, called;

[Obstructing Corporate Turnover](#obstructing-corporate-turnover)

The idea in this post,

is that once you are in an organization,

you think you are entitled to stay, or to advance.

But in a meritocratic system,

there would be a continual rational shuffling.

Sometimes, the very youngest, would shoot straight to the top.

That this so rarely happens,

is an indicator that there is a problem.

I am just at this moment,

realizing it should happen *frequently*.

For consider the quality of talent that must exist,

in a company of 100,000

with an executive leadership of fewer than 25?

...

Which executive, is ready to be replaced,

by the *genius intern*?

I'm not fond of the word *genius*

but it works here.

That really intelligent intern,

is going to quit,

or be pushed out,

for being too talented.

Do you realize that?

[The Inappropriately Exluded](http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/the-inappropriately-excluded-by-michael.html)


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



*Thursday, February 27<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>9:21, 9:55 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="what-is-the-value-of-coronavirus-news-per-capita">What is the value of coronavirus news, per capita?</a>

Say I watch the news, and I don't change the channel immediately after the weather,

when it says something about Coronavirus?

The weather seems to have a clear value.

it impacts my decisions.

But I'm not clear on the value of Coronavirus news.

I could be mistaken, but here's my guess.

I can ignore it completely, and never talk about it, never listen to conversation about it,

and pretend it does not exist,

*to my benefit*

rather than to my

*detriment*.

What do you think?

...

Other than that, I'm curious now.

What is the value in USD of any particular piece of news,

to a person who can choose to ignore it 

or actively listen and participate in it?

I feel like the core value,

is not saving oneself from coronavirus,

but in the entertainment value of gossiping about it.

In that case,

Coronavirus only needs to seem important.

In that case the news is creating value by exaggerating...

Anyway, the point has been made.

I don't think I'm at any risk of contracting this virus.

If I do, then,

"Hey everyone,

I contracted Coronavirus."

Gossip value still obtained.

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




*Thursday, February 27<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>9:15 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="pretend-to-be-responsible-so-you-can-pretend-to-be-special">Pretend to be Responsible, so You Can Pretend to be Special.</a>

Consider something horrible in the world that people pretend to want to alleviate.

Starvation in other countries for example.

You might feel responsible for that, but I assure you, you probably are not.

If you are responsible, then you are probably a killer of sorts.

Maybe you live there and you are diverting food to other people for your benefit.

In that case you are responsible, but you are certainly not special. At least not in a sense that you can feel good about. You might consider that you should feel bad, about being responsible for that.

Maybe you are especially horrible, but you're not good.

Now, let us assume you are not responsible for the starvation carnage around the world.

Then in that case, you can feel great about yourself, if you do something that actually impacts the problem to a degree.

You weren't responsible, and yet you wanted to do something.

That's *really rare.* 

"I just want to help them, and I know that we are not actually responsible."

Notice that usually what people say is:

"I wanted to help because we are responsible for it..."

Then they guilt you into providing money, and insist that there is some minimum that you should provide.

And they'll even help you believe you are responsible somehow.

...

*Usually* the goal for a person doing this

*is only to feel and act responsible*,

without ever doing anything.

"How does that work Mattanaw?"

Here's how.

Suppose you feel responsible for starvation.

Other's will not feel responsible.

You will talk to them, and probably try to convince them, that everyone is responsible, if you feel strongly about it.

I've been there.

Many will disagree.

Suddenly you are motivated by their disagreement, 

because you have political adversary of sorts.

You have someone to overcome.

You are convinced now, that you have a special mission.

You need to convince them they are responsible too.

But what is funny,

is you might come to believe that only they are responsible really.

Because even though you are doing nothing,

by convincing them they are responsible,

somehow you are helping starving people who still have no food.

You are convincing others they have a right for food,

and that makes you feel like

they'll get food.

> [Aside: Rights don't get anyone anything. If they have it, then the have it.].

...

Now, what is funny is that people who are of this mindset,

become *less insterested* once *everyone is of the same opinion*.

If you convince everyone to fix starvation,

you are no longer the starvation warrior. Everyone is.

You're not special. But you'll remind everyone,

that you were an early proponent.

Now that is valuable! If starvation was eliminated by your efforts.

But being an early proponent of something that doesn't happen,

might indicate that you are enlightened, and ineffective.

Oops, you focused on feeling enlightened.

...

I see this in the actions of Vegan people myself.

Although they are quite right in insisting that everyone is responsible, who eats meat.

They are actually right.

Consumerism has an impact. 

But like the people who pretend to be responsible,

the Vegans want to feel unique.

"The few of us are fixing this problem, and I am getting attention."

Notice the attention requires, for the problem *to exist*!!

"I get my meaning from the fact that you eat meat."

Personally, as a long time Vegan,

I'm excited for when it will become a non-issue, and everyone is Vegan.

Then maybe the word "vegan" falls out of favor,

because everyone is that.

Or there are synthetic meat products that do not harm animals,

although they may actually be farmed from real animal tissues.

I will happily call myself a vegan,

even though everyone else is a vegan too.

Although like everyone else,

I'll probably look for a new problem,

to make myself feel more special again,

for being unique.

See how that works?

It doesn't end.

...

I'll try not to feel special,

until someone who is a meat eater, 

insists they always were on the side of the animal rights advocates.

You weren't.

Like the people who were on the side of slavery,

you were on the side of animal cruelty.

But I won't derive my importance from the existence of a problem either.

When the problem is over, I'll only invoke

"Special Vegan Mattanaw"

to counter the 

"Liar."

...

It is fairly sad that this is the reality.

When people notice that there is a worldwide problem,

that they are *not* responsible for,

they pretend to take responsibility,

and 

1. they do nothing to alleviate the problem, and
1. they derive attention by setting themselves apart, and
1. they create guilt by making other people feel responsible.

...

We need to be watchful for this type of person.

Why?

They aren't actually *doing* anything,

but learning about something they don't like,

and taking a position on the topic.

It's shocking how common that is.

Don't you hate homelessness?

I do to.

It's sad.

And what else? 

Nothing else. It will continue and you'll just talk.

...

One more example.

This example is better.

You can feel important, by pretending you are responsible for "Sin" in the world.

Then you can pretend that you are responsible for saving people from "Hell".

However, you are not actually responsible for these things.

neither exists...

They are not distant like starvation.

They don't exist *at all*!

Since neither exists, and neither can be fixed (you can't fix a problem that doesn't exist),

then you are pretending.

And you are taking actions that don't result in anything.

And you make yourself special, because only you,

or some designated few (a "remnant") can fix it.

So you've done exactly what I've mentioned above.

You've self-designated yourself as important.

You pretended that you were responsible so that you could pretend that you are special.

...

Another totally different approach that you can follow is:

1. Acknowledge that you are *not* responsible.
1. Acknowledge that other people are not either, and that they therefore don't have to do *anything* to fix it, even if you think you should, *because you are interested*.
1. Choose a problem that exists, that you can work on. [It needs to exist.]
1. Actually do something to solve the problem.

Again, saving people from "Hell" is not actually doing anything.

...

The crazy thing is that people who don't think much about "Hell" or "Sin"

will become angry with this sort of thing.

But they never do anything about it ever!

They just get annoyed, when they hear someone say, it doesn't exist!

...

Don't be like these people.

1. You are unique, and so you are special in a sense.
1. You should actually do things instead of pretending to do them.
1. You are not responsible for much that is wrong in the world.
1. Other people are not responsible either, largely.
1. Personal value doesn't depend on "making the world a better place." 

If you accept these things, suddenly you might feel just fine how you are.

Then you won't feel like you need to pretend to be responsible for what you're not responsible for.

But you can still choose something you're interested in,

and focus on making improvements,

so that you make real changes in the world, that you can feel good about.

Make sure that change you choose exists,

and isn't "Saving people from Sin or Hell."

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




*Thursday, February 27<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>6:55 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="mattanaws-academic-papers">Mattanaw's Academic Papers</a>

To date, I have not been publishing my academic papers. 

I have many papers that are awaiting publication, which were produced either as a graduate student, 

or articles that were originally intended to become books,

or submissions to other peer-reviewed academic journal.

Here is a first publication of many to come.

This one may not be of great interest, unless someone has concerns

about managing sales teams with sales technologists,

in large software companies (Like Microsoft, Apple, or others).

On this website: [Executive Proposal to Correct Salesperson to Technologist Ratios](proposal-to-correct-the-salesperson-to-technology-expert-ratios-to-recover-from-excess-salesperson-hiring.html)

On Academia.edu [Executive Proposal to Correct Salesperson to Technologist Ratios](https://www.academia.edu/42090045/Proposal_to_Correct_the_Salesperson_to_Technology_Expert_Ratios_to_Recover_from_Excess_Salesperson_Hiring_Current_Policy_Practice_that_is_Problematic_Excessive_Hiring)

Many more papers on diverse topics of more general interest will be published soon.

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



*Tuesday, February 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:54 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="when-the-editor-who-can-chooses-not-to">Typod Forevr. When the Editor Who Can, Chooses Not To.</a>

So today, I looked at my post from yesterday night.

There are some grammatical problems, and typos.

Mostly typos.

I can distinguish "its" from "it's".

Obviously, I know "an" is not "and".

Yet I decided to leave it there for eternity.

Or for however long it can be there.

...

Some readers believe,

their reactions to typos, justifies

summary inferences about the writer.

But we know that is fallacious,

so I won't even go there.

Waste of time.

...

But here's what I will say.

I probably typed 10,000 words yesterday before writing that post.

For my course at Harvard University;

for a book I'm writing in another class led by a Georgetown Professor;

for some writing relating to my legal case that I'm self representing myself on;

regarding a large tract of land I procured in my occupation,

leading companies with my

writing;

And programming (i.e. the code runs);

and chats with a couple beautifully smart friends I talk with regularly.

Now, ask me if I care at all,

if I mistype "it's" and it comes out "its".

My multiple degrees and certs are still over there beside me.

I promise you "Edit everything to perfection"

is not a strategy.

"I don't know a better rule than this"

is really what that person should say.

It's seriously the dictum of an imbecile,

with very little understanding of the subtleties,

of quality advice.

Fine, for the grade student, 

"Try to correct it so you actually know how ultimately."

Kinda makes sense.

But guess what, already you made my point in that.

Your twitter message,

is not a billboard on Times Square.

And meaning and productivity,

come first. Not second.

Make a ton of sense in bad grammar and be productive,

and let other people make no sense in perfect grammar and let them be unproductive.

They're always going to be scared of people,

who will judge them,

like they judge everyone else.

This post is not only about grammar,

can you tell?

If I spoke that last post out loud with lisps and errors,

you would probably receive the message.

And I already published it.

What did you publish yesterday,

grammar critic?

Look at my typos

and understand I'm ok with them being typos

forevr.

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



*Monday, February 24<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>11:20 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="when-big-data-is-just-data">When big data, is just data.</a>

There are some limitations on how much data, can be stored in anyone's repository.

However, in marketing,

we see the obvious advancement,

of pulling records together on individuals,

about how they are using software,

across channels and across devices.

So when will these massive data sets

be made available to everyone?

You have our data,

when can you provide it back

to us?

...

There's a problem.

When the data set gets large enough, 

it becomes infeasible to provide an interface

to all that data.

It becomes especially impossible,

to provide the data.

Because a user will not be able to afford,

the storage hardware.

This problem could become permanently

insoluble.

If we wait too long to solve it.

...

Here is a concern about privacy again.

I don't have rights to your data.

You don't have rights to mine.

But why do we care?

Why are we willing to give a company

access to *all of the data* without

accepting anything in return?

By pitting you against me,

and me against you,

in our unwillingness for each other,

to know each other completely,

we allow them to have everything.

The conjunction of data of all people.

While we get,

some tiny subset of the whole.

If I permit you to see me,

and you permit me to see you,

we have a right to all of the data...

well, we can make the case for obtaining such a right.

Or, in my way of saying it,

we'll have a way for obtaining it...

(You can cut out the word "right" entirely).

...

Think about it.

Do you know how software companies

can control information?

They can say:

My software holds it an it is costly.

My software processes it and its costly.

We would have to write software to provide access,

and that's costly.

And... we are in business, to have

Intellectual Property,

based what we learn from 

our software.

And you are our experiment.

Yes.

Experiment.

...

When I took Psychology courses at the University of Maryland,

we covered the process for conducting a study,

which involved getting approval,

as to the Ethics.

It is not easy. It is complex.

But guess what?

In software,

You are a study and you don't even know it.

...

What subset of data can be made available to everyone,

and what subset remains proprietary,

and how is the distinction justified?

This is a fundamental decision that needs to be 

openly decided.

...

Oddly enough, I don't really see much

democratization of data happening,

given Democracy.

...

I am perpetually saddened,

by how silly America is,

in its pretense of having things,

it doesn't have.

...

How can I have

My data lake?

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



*Monday, February 24<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:51 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="called-the-coperator-and-they-did-not-coperate">Called the coperator, and they did not coperate</a>

Yesterday night I called the coperator,

because of breaking and entering.

Ever arrive at home to find the door wide open?

Hey, ummm... 

I didn't open this door 

and leave it open like this?

Second time it happened.

So I called the dispatcher lady.

She was nice. 

Nobody came out.

No police report comes to a useful end here in Alaska,

from my experience.

Maybe I have to get shot first,

for anything to happen quickly or efficiently.

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




*Monday, February 24<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:15 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally Commented on Facebook, in Response to Rio Zak, on Sunday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>~6:15 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="the-cure-to-fatty-clogs-of-death">The Cure to Fatty Clogs of Death.</a>

Recently a friend on Facebook, Rio Zak, posted an article about how extra protein may encourage plaques to build up on blood vessels. At least as may be indicated by a study on mice. I added a comment to challenge, not her, but the article shared, at least with respect to its guiding motivation, which can perhaps be surmised.

The article she shared is this one: [High-protein diets boost artery-clogging plaque, mouse study shows.](https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/high-protein-diets-boost-artery-clogging-plaque-mouse-study-shows/?fbclid=IwAR1_MPpgImhvF1WDy1cgniudmunBpm0MNeE19rjSci-rKn4UgtrcjwUjJhY)

Fatty clogs result in strokes, heart attacks, and various other conditions that probably account for the majority of premature deaths in the Western World.

"Premature" in the sense that an alternative lifestyle would easily increase life-span to, or beyond, whatever the average happens to be for a region.

Here is my opinion on this topic:

> *"I find this to be unlikely if the diet is both vegan and high in protein, because as usual, the study's design is for the normal population, and not those who are not consuming a high fat, diet, with saturated fats and cholesterol.*

> *"Plaque contains a mix of fat, cholesterol, calcium deposits and dead cells."*

> *So the easiest solution is to not eat anything that would result in a plaque to begin with, like Bill Clinton ended up doing.*

> *Using myself as an example, I don't eat any cholesterol, and eat only some saturated fat, which I would be better off not doing, because I bought a tub of coconut oil and am feeling too cheap to throw it away (and I should).*

> *You can see my blood tests results here indicating low cholesterol levels, low VLDL, HDL, etc...:*

> *[Open Health](http://cmcavanaugh.com/open-health-mattanaw.html)*

> *So even if I eat a high protein diet (and I eat a very high protein diet now for bodybuilding), I will probably not end up with much plaque.*

> *Now if I decided I was not going to be vegan any longer, and I ate a combination of a high protein diet, with high cholesterol, maybe I would have more to worry about, by adding more protein. This is the kind of thing that makes me think that such studies are misguided though.*

> *It seems that researchers are really concerned about how to not change the typical diet that's rich in fat and cholesterol."*

In other words, the desire to avoid the conclusion that the vegan diet is beneficial (or a near vegan, near vegetarian diet, which is what I advocate), results in studies that have a poor design.

What's the other cure for my problems since I cannot make the changes, the doctor should be recommending?

This attitude ends up controlling the imaginations of scientists in their considerations about what studies should be conducted.

When I die, it will probably not be due to fatty clogs. 

I can't control for all variables but this is a great one to control for.

As people already know in theory,

but not in practice.

*"Check yourself before you wreck yourself."*

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



*Monday, February 24<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>6:58 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="my-political-tendency-test">My Political Tendency Test</a>

Last time, if I recall correctly, it was directly in the center, except shifted 1/2 units to the right.

This time, it shifted down 4 blocks.

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="mattanaw-political-tendency-fun-test-1-web.png" src="mattanaw-political-tendency-fun-test-1-web.png"><br />

[Test here.](https://www.idrlabs.com/political-coordinates/1/91.7/1/69.4/result.php?fbclid=IwAR3TBCpqBW9hkY5MEqk_LwDze2fNj1R-rSIEHOLoEmbkZomuGdXLDJUm7PU)

The difference appears to be due to changes in perspective influenced by courses on economics, but I can't quite tell.

I'm highly averse to answering questions like these, because I see correct, or representative answers, as going one way or the other, depending on how the question is extended. In other words, it depends on the meaning of the question, while the meaning is not actually provided for.

I think that people are mostly mistaken, if they think that the questions mean what they think they mean, except in a few cases.

A better test would be one that is more detailed, where fewer readers are able to understand the questions, for increased specificity and less generality.

Fun test!

It is more fun because of the ambiguities of course, but that does make it less accurate.

I don't usually even like to participate with these things,

but hey, every once in a while,

It's OK to play.

And let yourself be classified 

and stigmatized permanently maybe.

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



*Sunday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>11:38 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="im-empathetic-and-thats-why-youre-going-to-manage-your-own-emotions">I'm empathetic, and that's why you're going to manage your own emotions.</a> 

People who think that they are "empaths" reveal how little they understand,

about empathy,

in their insistence,

that empathy entails,

taking on the role of managing emotions,

from the other,

to the self.

For all people.

...

Someone who has done that for long enough,

gets sick of it,

> [Aside "Did you get sick of it yet?" is an excellent question,
>
> to separate beginners and pretenders from experts.]

and learns that

an empathetic person,

who is not ready to sacrifice

*their own emotions*

and

who also

understands some functions of each emotion

may not perform the acts

that are anticipated,

by those who think they know what an

empathetic person acts like.

...

An empathetic person,

is not necessarily a woman,

being permanently,

soft and yogic.

...

So get used to the idea,

of the empathetic person,

who cares about you,

but does not care about

becoming a slave 

of your emotional volatility.

...

This is the empath

who cares about himself/herself/itself

the same 

if not 

more than others.

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




*Sunday, February 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>3:46 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="when-never-give-up-is-not-the-answer">When "Never give up" is not the answer.</a>

As a Determinist, I think whether someone gives up or not, is predetermined.

"Giving up" is given a negative connotation in America, but that is lamentable.

There are triumphs that have resulted from perseverance in one direction.

But the are triumphs that have resulted, from changing course too. 

"Never give up" and "Learn something new" are both recommended.

What do I choose and when?

On LinkedIn I encountered a post, sharing a video from Deshauna Barber.

*[External videos have been removed]*

She experienced triumph after *many* failed attempts to win Miss USA. 

Finally she won. Who does not feel glad she won, after watching a video such as this one?

As usual, I disagree with the message, however, although not entirely.

I think a more subtle, and more useful message can be delivered, using this same experience.

"Giving up" is wise.

Mathematically, giving up is a *frequently* recurring, and important decision that one has to make, and can make well, in many different circumstances.

As you age, you will need to give things up.

Giving up is not incompatible with perseverance.

Maybe what she is hoping to instill in people is that they should have perseverance about things that are really possible to them.

However, in the world, there is competition, and if everyone were to follow this message, it is not clear that perseverance would result in the same result.

Because in competition, one has to have something different from the others to succeed.

She may have won because she had more perseverance than the others, but it is hard to imagine, that her speech is about teaching her competition to have as much perseverance as she had, if not more.

Here is my comment from LinkedIn regarding this.

It may appear negative, but I assure you, it is not.

> *"Never give up" is not the best message coming out of this though. The message is to "not give up when there is a reasonable expectation of success" where the results expected are better than alternatives. Because she would not have won any of her pageants if she was not already close, and there were many who tried and had no chance at all. In that case, the experience alone may justify the work, but the phrase "Never give up" is far too simplistic, and sometimes "cutting losses" and "trying something new" and "doing something different" and "experiencing more in life" is as good and as positive an answer as "try it again."*

...

You can tell that her message is incorrect, because it is the accepted and traditional message.

The correct answer is mathematical.

It is also a strategic message, that not everyone can use.

If everyone were to use it, then it wouldn't be a heartwarming message.

It would simply have a more cutthroat result, due to greater competition.

And there would not be an increase in the number of people who can win.

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





*Sunday, February 17<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>8:20 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="dying-speech-of-an-old-philosopher">Dying Speech of an Old Philosopher</a>

<br /><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="dying-speech-of-an-old-philosopher-bywalter-savage-landor-1-web.jpg" src="dying-speech-of-an-old-philosopher-bywalter-savage-landor-1-web.jpg"><br />

> #### Dying Speech of an Old Philosopher

> *I strove with none, for none was worth my strife:*

> *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Nature I loved, and, next to Nature, Art:*

> *I warmed both hands before the fire of Life;*

> *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It sinks; and I am ready to depart.*

>  *&hyphen; Walter Savage Landor, 1775-1864*

This fairly old piece of text,

is oddly consistent with the point of view of this website.

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



*Sunday, February 16<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:32 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="lets-change-marketing-together">Let's Change Marketing Together.</a>

It will make whoever does the changes,

strange,

for a bit but then it will just be normal.

If it catches on.

...

Amazon sent me a message,

saying "We've found a suggestion for you"

with some product information for something I searched for myself.

I think it was in my mailbox.

...

The problem with this is that the Marketing/Advertisement

is lying to me.

* An Amazon "we" did not send anything. Amazon's software did...
  * There was no person who sent the message. Not even one.
  * It takes two people to make a "we".
  * It is a lie. It is false.
* There is no person involved in this.
  * This means that they are trying to give the impression that someone is helping me.
  * There is no someone.
  * They are not helping. They are looking for a sale.
  * Therefore there are multiple lies in this. Multiple false elements.
  * If I believed this, I would have a false understanding of the interaction, intentions, etc...
* There was no "suggestion". 
  * No one did any work to see if this is something I need.
  * This is not a product I was unaware of.
  * I searched for this product myself, creating the analytics data they stored, connected with my identity.
  * This information was something I knew about sent back to me.
  * Therefore I did the work to create the data in part, and linked it to myself.
  * Therefore, if anything, the information was partly from myself, since it was initiated with my interaction.
  * Therefore Amazon lied. It is false. There was no suggestion.
  * A computer simply read through my history, and spit back to me a product I already saw.

This is why in a previous posting, I said "There is no wisdom in the marketing."

This is hyperbolic.

Marketers are people who can have wisdom.

But the ads, and the propaganda, is designed to

Manipulate us, with lies, fabrications, false directives about what's in our best interest.

It's contrary to education.

Education is for wisdom.

We have to educate people to be wise enough to avoid marketing,

and to see through ads.

Some are not smart enough to do this,

even with education.

Everyone has trouble doing it all the time,

because of limited energy,

since stimulus in our environments cannot be controlled,

and we cannot always direct our logical minds,

to anything that might catch our attention,

or our subconsciousness.

This is why I said that there is no wisdom in the marketing.

Of all things we aim to achieve,

with Wisdom,

is to see through what Marketing is trying to gain

from us.

Marketing does not care,

what it might do to you,

to get what it wants.

...

Do you want to educate your children,

well enough to see through this marketing,

and attain wisdom?

...

To be able to see through the marketing,

enables one to see through,

lies, false authority, and almost any other manipulation tactic you can think of!

...

The Amazon ad could have said:

Our system saw that you were reviewing this product,

and Amazon would like you to consider purchasing it again.

...

It is still something I do not wish to see,

which is a violation. Because I prefer to buy,

when I'm looking.

I didn't ask Amazon to consume my attention,

when I paid for that Prime membership.

There are too many things to opt out of,

to ensure, that I don't see that ad,

when I'm on *someone else's website*.

...

I'm afraid,

people don't care about their kids,

as much as they think and say they do.

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




*Saturday, February 15<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>6:22 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Minor Edit Concerning Oxygen Freezing/Boiling Point. Sunday, February 16<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>6:53 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="creating-an-oxygen-rich-living-environment">Creating an oxygen rich living environment.</a>

One current interest of mine is exploring how exactly we can improve the oxygen concentration in our living atmosphere.

How can we increase the amount of oxygen available to us in our homes, or in our cars, or other contained environments?

After doing some cursory research, I have stumbled upon a few options.

The first option would be to go to a doctor and either pretend to have a medical condition, or reveal a medical condition, such that you will get medical treatment using specialty devices, that allow you to obtain oxygen and administer oxygen to yourself.

I don't want to do that at all.

So on to option two.

For option two, I'm considering visiting a supplier of oxygen who sells tanks for various purposes. For example, it appears that you can buy pure oxygen for burning with torches used for welding (the oxygen would allow for a hotter burn than would be possible in the normal concentrations found in the atmosphere). Not having hardly any experience welding, and no certification, I will discover soon whether or not I'm allowed to purchase it. I'm thinking it might be a controlled material.

If it is not a controlled material, or is not cost prohibitive, I will buy a large tank of it, and along with that tank, purchase a gas level detector that can read out, in the least, the amount of oxygen present in the immediate environment to at least a tenth of a decimal place. This way, I can open up the oxygen tank valve to a certain degree, and test how much the percentage of oxygen present in the environment will increase, and to what degree it will fluctuate. With some experience, I can then find a way to control the environment such that air transfer is understood, and the amount of oxygen lost over time, to become closer to the amount on average present in the atmosphere can be determined, and how long it takes for that transition to occur.
Finally, I can then gauge the costs associated with it and see to what extent it is realistic to continue to take this approach.

A third option that I considered, is the use of household plants.

The use of household plants appears to be completely debunked as a viable method of producing oxygen in the home to an appreciable degree. From what I have read, it appears that the amount of oxygen produced, and CO<sub>2</sub> absorbed, are determined by plant respiration and photosynthesis, in very predictable way. The amount of oxygen produced, depends on the growth of the plants in the home, and in conjunction with the chemical reaction formula for photosynthesis measurement of the growth of the plant, can be used to estimate the contribution of oxygen the plants will make to the local atmosphere. It appears that the plants would need to grow almost a pound a day to make any contribution whatsoever, and this would require having a small jungle within a living space, and even in that case, it may not be as impactful as one might hope. So I ruled this out as an option, preferring instead, to simply buy the gas from those who are able to separate it and bottle it.

The final option, option four, is to separate the gas from the atmosphere myself.

After some review of the process on YouTube, it appears that whatever approach you use, you will end up with a small industrial multi-phasic refinery of sorts. Two methodologies are used from what I see. The first employs playing with temperatures of the gaseous mixtures to ultimately vapor or liquid distill the mixture until ultimately oxygen is separated, because for each element, there is a different boiling point and freezing point that can be used to separate them out. This process is not simplistic and it requires liquification and/or freezing of each of the gasses of the atmosphere, with temperatures at play as low as −182.96 Celsius, which is the boiling point of Oxygen. It is lower for Argon and Nitrogen, and this is how they can be separated from one another at low temperatures. Overall, I don't see this as being feasible, unless I were to opt to spend very large amounts of money one 1) creating a laboratory, or 2) buying the tools that amount to a small refinery.

The second approach seems to be more modern, but less precise in the separation (recall that vapor distillation of water uses a similar process and results in pure water, at about 99.99% or better [and assumption with no research]). This other process uses small porous minerals called zeolytes as filters of the mixture of gases that can bond with argon or nitrogen. It may be used in a multi-phased system that also has some distillation process, but from one system I was examining on YouTube that is for sale, it uses these zeolytes multiple times, to gain an ever increasing level of Oxygen purity, kindof like a multi-phased water treatment system. Just like with a filter based water treatment system, purity probably does not approach vapor distilled, at least for rudimentary systems. This zeolytic system appears to produce Oxygen purity of 99.5% or better. But again, this process is very expensive, and there is no way to construct, by myself, a system that uses Zeolytes. It seems more feasible to create a system that separates based on temperature alone, than to purchase zeolytes and incorporate them into such a system. 

So at this moment, it appears I will take the easy way out, and purchase oxygen tanks, and procure a oxygen sensor.

I have not been researching this long (about an hour), so if anyone has any interest in this topic, or experience improving the oxygen concentration of a local atmosphere (at home or in a lab), please let me know via [email](mailto:mattanaw@mattanaw.com).

BTW, I am aware that Oxygen is an explosive material, and highly flammable. Nevertheless, it is in the air, so I will have it one way or another.

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



*Thursday, February 13<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:55 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="can-you-see-the-root">Can you see the root?</a>

To what extent to you think you see the root?

Not the envelope.

The root.

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



*Thursday, February 13<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:35 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="our-emotional-dance-with-reality">Our emotional dance with reality.</a>

Reading [this](mattanaws-social-nuggets.html#prom-king-matt) over, I'm like "Man, don't be so glum." Oddly enough, this is not actually glum. This may shed some insight on my personality. I really like reality, in its alternative perspectival emotionalities. Or something like that.

There is this emotional dance we have, with reality.

...

The light did not understand the darkness

And the darkness did not understand the light

such that the greater realization was not forthcoming for either.

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





*Thursday, February 13<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>2:10 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="if-i-do-it-or-i-dont-do-it-is-already-determined">If I do it, or I don't do it, is already determined.</a> 

Over time,

you get a feel for this.

...

Destiny, predetermination, "Inshallah", God willing, etc...

These are in alignment in many ways.

I don't suppose the extra entity.

...

Now let us realize, that the simpler

point of view

is the one that experiences it

without adding anything.

...

Coexist is not a strategy.

I think a good strategy,

is one that merges,

and subtracts.

We'll come together on this point.

...

Propaganda and marketing

steer you to the purchase.

The existence of the device,

steers you to the device.

A single example.

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




*Wednesday, February 12<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>Past my bedtime, at 12:16 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="hey-i-thought-we-were-fwinds">"Hey! I thought we were fwinds!"</a>

This is way more fun to say than you might expect.

I'm thinking it and not saying it right now.

I'll say it later, OK?

There is nothing profound about this post at all.

Maybe if I reflect on it, I'll find something.

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




*Sunday, February 9<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:32 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="see-you-later-potential-friend">See you later, potential friend.</a>

Whenever I used to meet someone new,

I would expect something to develop from it.

I suspect some others thought that was a weird

thing about me.

If they didn't recognize that intent,

maybe instead

they were more 

just trained to be ready to forget someone

after an interaction.

I was never that way before.

But slowly I'm becoming 

this other kind of person.

We just met,

and that's that I guess.

...

I have many friends,

on social media,

whom I only met once or twice.

But I remember.

I remember you.

...

It's impossible to get to know everyone well,

or follow up with everyone

you ever meet.

So maybe there is a lesson that took me a long time to learn.

...

Every person I met was a new relationship in progress.

"How do I build on this conversation?"

"What can I say I will improve in myself based on this chat?"

"How can I show someone I valued them 

and what they said enough

that I made a personal change?"

...

When I meet someone new now,

I mostly think it is over

after that first casual interaction.

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




*Saturday, February 8<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:01 PM, 4:00 AM on Facebook, Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="sleeping-as-much-as-I-need-to">Sleeping as much as I need to.</a> 

Recently, I decided I was going to sleep as much as I felt I needed to. I've been sleeping way more than I expected, and I feel great.

I don't at all feel like I'm oversleeping. Rather, I feel like I'm sleeping as much as I should.

12 hours or so per day. It is bizarre. But I've been seeing gains in muscle growth, and psychologically I feel very well rested.

Since very young I needed a ton of sleep. It varies day to day. But I don't at all subscribe to the idea that individuals, each and every one of them, require 8 hours per day. I certainly need 10 hours or more on average.


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



*Monday, February 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>10:05 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="you-and-everyone-you-know-as-a-public-notary">You and everyone you know as a public notary.</a>

Save the time. Need a notary? 

Find the person with a face.

I want to become a notary.

I want the stamp.

You want the stamp too.

I know you do.

Mostly everyone can have the stamp.

There should be a holiday,

called "Public Notary Day"

where everyone signs up to become

a 

Public

Notary.

There should be more notaries than voters.

...

I'm being serious.

This is something that could actually change America.

Everything legal gets easier.

Be the strange you want to see in the world.

In this case the strange,

involves becoming a public notary.

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



*Friday, January 31<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:59 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="a-current-issue-in-logic-and-mathematics">A current interest in logic and mathematics.</a>

Below are some comments, made to a friend, indicating some current interests in logic an mathematics, that may be of interest to others (slightly edited from my comments in our convo):

"In Mathematics, I've been thinking of the significance of the Sheffer stroke, and Russell's approach vs Gödel's, in the context of the continued rise of computers, AI, machine learning, and so on. I really do wonder if something is amiss regarding people's assumptions about Gödel's conclusions. Intuitively something is amiss. Natural logic vs. Mathematics.

In a state of nature, you do not first Math a problem to an answer, but you will natural logic a problem to an answer (although intuition precedes both)."

This would be a worthwhile topic to consider for a thesis in mathematics, logic, philosophy, or in a host of other disciplines.

There are unsettled issues contained in this.

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



*Friday, Janurary 31<sup>st</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>1:51 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="process-diagram-your-way-to-mathematical-answers">Process diagram your way to the mathematical answers.</a>

Even your mathematical solutions,

arise because of some process,

that could be captured,

in a process diagram. 

After the fact,

or before.

I am thinking of profound mathematical solutions,

just as much as I'm thinking of

everyday mathematical solutions.

...

Thanks to Roddy Young of Tokoroa, New Zealand,

for catalyzing my insight.

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




*Thursday, January 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:35 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="the-software-is-botched">The Software is Botched.</a>

While I'm enjoying myself, working for, and running my own company, I decided it's time to look for new opportunities. 

In that search, I've discovered just how terrible the job search truly is.

Using tools like LinkedIn, show how horrible integrations between product really are.

"You're a major software company, and you don't know how to parse data?"

Is what I think to myself.

You can't parse the JSON and the XML.

The String.

...

I want to help you.

But your integration,

won't let me submit

my application to you effectively.

And you are the software company!

LinkedIn passed me off to your site,

that doesn't work.

And now you cannot see my 

extensive history,

because there's no way,

I'm spending 8 hours applying to your company,

after many years,

constructing a flawless resume

that already does the job.

You want me to submit my resume,

then fill in hundreds of form fields,

and my resume already has all the data in it.

Data duplication?

LinkedIn Duplication.

You need me badly, 

and it is short work.

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





*Thursday, January 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>6:01 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="can-you-ever-really-tell-if-you-need-more">Can you ever really tell, if you need more,</a>

or less,

when you are thinking

"less is more"?

...

It is not about more or less.

It is not about simplicity.

It is about optimization, given certain

*variable*

conditions.

...

Can you ever really tell if you need more?

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



*Thursday, January 23<sup>rd</sup> 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:25 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Typo Edited: Friday, January 24<sup>th</sup> 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:33 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="ever-notice-that-the-best-option-for-a-decision">Ever notice that the "best" option for a decision</a>

is simply the idea you have,

that seems to be preferable to others you are aware of?

Are you aware of them all?

Another thing. There is no "all options".

"All options have been considered" is false,

for every decision.

What you have,

and what we all have in joint decisions,

is what we have imagined thus far,

and can recall.

And the best option,

is only the one,

that your limited imagination,

has produced,

by the time the decision has been made.

...

The best decision,

was merely that idea that you had,

that you 

and possibly others,

wanted the most.


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




*THJA23<sup>RD</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>PMAK1250</time>

## <a name="yergonnadecryptit">Yergonnadecryptit</a> 

<div style="word-wrap:break-word;">

U2FsdGVkX1/2uKczTXanixCGMRZNsBH4RpV97ruMcExEYSItLKWGjk4KsgZpqSxnFg66vdsnBMW1Wnj0k+mU9yYpN3jc6YCcbXGACYFQyAbGSNRci0WNfHU9QwVUb+vG1UYsl4OcT/2BAgVUJnP4LU0klqT7R/N9MrJIh0gjpgKpjESEZ2zAkZI6ITbmJU0N/hUbjByifIo0LmXm0Tt0lheOeaxic3UosD31YvQMJ6qU0ESxOULn1vMKe6wCI5WNDH0IF1caZlE4FKKlyweQLsdYvvE7c9jdaGLGN7tXKfE=

</div>

[Decrypt Here](http://cmcavanaugh.com/message-encryptor.html)

Put message into Ciphertext field.

Password: Yergonnadecryptit 

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





*Wednesday, January 22<sup>nd</sup>, 23<sup>rd</sup> 2020*,&nbsp;<time>12:15, 12:40 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="ith-chotomies">"Lord, Liar or Lunatic", i<sup>th</sup>-chotomies, and complexity calling for math. </a>

There is a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", that says that we are to ask ourselves, if one particular prophet is the Lord, is a Liar, or is a Lunatic.

The error here is one of a false trichotomy of sorts.

It's a salesman's tactic, used to channel people, like cattle, through one door, and then through one of three other doors.

What about, when something is just fiction?

Or an admixture of fact and fiction, with many tangles?

"Tangleebuses"

> [Aside: Pronounced: "Tangle eeeee bus es". It's not a real word.]

...

Many are aware of the phrase "false dichotomies". Dividing something into two when that division is illusory.

The way that that illusion can play out depends on many factors.

This is a false trichotomy.

But there is no limit to the types of labyrinths you can send cattle into.

OR people.

There are false i<sup>th</sup>-chotomies.

Or just massive multi-level trees on trees on trees of i<sup>th</sup>-chotomies.

Many branches and dendrites on three or more dimensions.

The spatially limited won't often go there.

...

So whenever you hear someone say "false dichotomy",

think to yourself

"This could be much more complex than that,

and a mathematical representation is probably much

better suited for the job.'

...

I'm no professional mathematician, in the sense

that all I do is math,

but I imagine,

this is the pain in the mind of the Mathematician,

who knows that almost every problem encountered,

is far more complicated,

than ordinary language permits,

them to discuss,

or other people to understand.

...

Yes I care about you,

Person Mathematician.

"Person" is an honorific here.

Pr. Mathematician.

...

Did *this* bring some relief, to you?

...

Relief for one person,

is not relief for the other.

...

So the work must be finished,

for each person to get the relief,

they need from the master work.

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



*Friday, January 17<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:33 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="fight-for-your-rights">"Fight for your rights!"</a>

So that you can have them?

And what if you don't fight?

...

Again,

my opinion is that rights

are not preferable

to having something secure.

...

Instead of a right to food,

and shelter,

I'd rather have food and shelter.

Fighting is not easy,

when malnourished.

...

If I could forgo having

"rights"

and choose to 

say

have the same things

that rights say I have

I would choose to have them,

and not NOT have them.

Wouldn't you?

...

We tell people in poor countries,

they have human rights,

and so on.

What do you think they care about?

What you say they have,

or their immanent starvation?

...

Got rights?

Or do you have to

do something

to secure whatever it is you need?

In that case,

Why not just say,

You can play the game,

and pay the money,

and provide the effort,

and *maybe*

you'll have what you're

*hoping for*,

that you don't actually have secured

until you have it secured.

...

What's the difference between,

fighting for something you need,

and fighting for your rights?

Fighting for what you need,

is less confusing,

because there is no middle *thing*

called rights to mentally deal with.

...

The most important thing is

"To what extent does this system

secure what I need

mostly effortlessly."

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




*Thursday, January 16<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:35 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="if-you-are-not-deep">If you are not deep, you are, well</a>

superficial probably.

...

There is a gradient though.

Do the superficial,

want to hear more

about the gradient?

No they don't.

"What's a gradient?"

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




*Thursday, January 16<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:31 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="mixed-origins-of-the-culture">Mixed origins of culture, and the "You have no idea where it came from."</a>

As you go through your day,

thinking your thoughts,

and doing your deeds,

notice,

that every single thing,

involves culture...

and most of these,

cultural things,

have a history, 

to which you are completely ignorant.

Yet you accept it.

The culture has mixed origins,

of good,

and less than good,

of American,

and less than American.

> [Aside: Since "America is the greatest".
>
> What are the next thousand places, that will be the greatest,
>
> since America is not forever?
>
> Eons of America?]

How do the origins,

of every aspect of your day,

get justified?

Do they go unjustified?

Trust me,

your day goes unjustified,

and so do you.

So do I.

This is why the reformation is needed.

You accepted Karma.

Remember that.

Just because the idea was there.

You heard of it,

and then you accepted it.

"You have no idea where it came from."

Compare with:

"I know the history of everything."

What is the fractional knowledge,

of your history?

Can we quantify this?

We *should* quantify the ignorance

of our history.

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



*Thursday, January 16<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>5:21 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="karma-is-not-in-your-religion">Karma is not in your religion.</a>

Good news though,

Karma isn't real.

Karma isn't a strategy.

It is an idea devoid of depth.

It isn't even desirable.

> [Aside: more on this point later].

The guilty think that Karma is real,

more than the innocent.

Why?

Let's think it over together.

...

If you did something wrong when you were young,

you are watchful.

You feel guilty.

When the same happens to you later,

you think:

"I deserved this."

But what you forgot, 

is that whatever you did,

others also do,

and so you simply became the victim,

of a common indiscretion.

...

If you were angry,

and someone becomes angry with you,

was it Karma?

No. People get angry.

If you stole,

and someone steals from you,

was it Karma?

No. People steal.

If you killed,

then someone killed a loved one of your own,

was that Karma?

No. People kill each other.

...

If you move into the Ghetto,

you can expect MORE Karma,

for your same past?

This is nonsense.

You will experience more violence,

and crime,

because you relocated,

to a high crime area...

...

The innocent don't perceive Karma as readily.

Why?

They will be harmed,

far far more,

than any harm they created.

Especially if they live in poverty.

...

If you were raped as a child,

what was that Karma for?

You didn't even live enough life,

for Karma.

Will good suddenly be thrust upon you?

If you are poor,

you might starve to death,

soon afterwards.

...

There is no Karma.

"What goes around comes around",

arises in the mind of the person,

exposed to a sentence repeatedly.

It springs to my mind.

But I cancel it out.

Because it is foolish.

...

There is no connection

between past events,

and causally disconnected

events occurring later.

If you lied when you were six,

and someone lies to you as an adult,

there is no relationship.

...

If bad things happen to you as an adult,

late in life,

it is not because you are being punished.

It is because these things happen.

...

Those who died in Hiroshima,

and Nagasaki,

minding their own business,

died, 

not out of Karma,

but because of a war.

...

"Shit happens"

is a much better way to look at things.

...

What of those who want Justice?

Who wants Karma?

Karma is not Justice?

...

Think I'm wrong?

Explain to me in detail what Justice is.

When you fail,

then recognize you don't know how Karma

can be just.

...

After that failure, 

tell me what the strategy of Karma is,

in detail.

Show how it is more just,

than the Justice system,

and that it actually does the work,

Karma says it does.

How much time is required?

...

When you fail,

then tell me why we have a justice system.

...

After all this,

it should be seen,

that the Justice System,

was created because,

there is no Karma whatsoever.

...

Karma is not Christian.

Karma is not Muslim.

Karma is not Jewish.

Karma has made its way into American culture.

Like most other things in American culture,

people have no clue about the origin.

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



*Sunday, January 12<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>3:28, 4:18 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="your-maturation-will-happen-inevitably">Your maturation will happen inevitably.</a>

If you live.

So just grow 

and be satisfied with yourself.

> [Aside: This is a post for the oldest of the old people 

> and everyone who's not that old yet.]

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




*Originally posted in HighIQWorld on Facebook, Sunday, January 10<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>3:05 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Edited and posted here on Sunday, January 12<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>3:08 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="procrastinating-you-are-on-more-than-one-cycle-of-activity-and-inactivity">Procrastinating? You are on more than one cycle of activity and inactivity.</a>

>[Aside: this was in response to a question from an administrator and friend  who asked: "Do you ever suffer from burnout? What helps you deal with it effectively?"] 

I am on a cycle. Sometimes I have periods that are less active, and confuse them for burnout, for depression, etc... But as soon as I have a responsibility, or a calling, a down period can be immediately stopped, and high activity can commence.

Sometimes, I just need to resume exercise, or get out of the darkness of winter, etc...

I found that as I accepted my cycle, I became more productive and realistic. Downtime is fine.

After exercise, you must recover.

Humanity operates on an economic cycle as well.

I deal with it, to a large degree, by waiting for whatever that next impetus to action happens to be. I can't make it happen necessarily. It is just triggered. With acceptance, we can wait, and find that trigger, or let something from outside us be the trigger, once it arrives. *It will arrive*.

We do not question that we must sleep to recover, and do not judge our active lives on the basis of our periods of motionless, paralyzed, prolonged daily episodes of sleep.

We should not be surprised that we have more than one cycle happening in our lives.

The way that I've come to deal with it, is to not give up on activities simply because downtime happened.

If you resume where you left off, and maximize your productivity when you have energy, you will build on what you were doing before. You will find new ways to make use of what you were doing before. And, you will find that while you were having downtime, or a time of burnout, you were learning about yourself and were slowly changing. You were really like a moth in a cocoon.

You still want to find the motivation to become active again.

But as long as you build on who you were before, you're growing.

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



*Thursday, January 9<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>2:15 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="scientists-achieve-warm-goals-through-cold-logic">Scientists achieve warm goals through cold logic.</a>

If you reject logic, as being too cold,

> [Aside: It is neither warm nor cold]

you end up with warm people,

not necessarily accomplishing anything.

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




*Thursday, January 9<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>2:02 AM, 4:36 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="empathy-and-grounds-for-rejecting-it">Empathy and Grounds for Rejecting It.</a>

[Edit: This is not a post against *having* empathy. I'm strongly in favor of being an empathetic person. This is an analytical post meant for providing elucidation about empathy, especially since it can be abused by others.]

A friend on Facebook asked a group a question regarding this, and I included the thoughts below as a comment.

I thought it would be worthwhile to share here as well (with some minor modifications), in case anyone happens to find it useful:

Some thoughts.

1. Empathy is not easily disentangled from other states you might witness in another person, since mental states are complex and admit of admixtures, and
1. people transition over time in and out of various mixed states.

*Example issue.* Would you consider this scenario one that reflects empathy or not?: "I'm warm and empathetic, while I'm simultaneously planning something contrary to your interests, and later today, I will recall interactions with you, in another mood and state of mind, that does not include empathy."

Questions: Which empathetic states, correlate with which outcomes? Are empathetic states frequently the controlling factors, or are admixtures of states happening over time the more important consideration? (Let's measure the state along different aspects, along with other elements of the person's behavior and personality, and then judge the value of their empathy and to what extent we should respond to it or reject "it" [socially or conceptually])

I would certainly reject someone's empathy if it doesn't really factor into outcomes with them. A person can be empathetic in the moment and then later switch into an unempathetic state (due to stress, drug use, personality disorder, or other factors), and take action against you.

I would reject the concept of "empathy" if it can't be [operationalized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization) given the entanglement with other mental states over time (Is it really entangled, or are we just artificially grouping states together, and is there really an "it" or are we creating a false unity). I'm inclined to think that "empathy" is something admitting of distinctions, but that we are not advanced enough to make or use such distinctions effectively. Instead we just feel it out, and 'reject' it when it feels like it makes sense to reject it.

Everyone rejects empathy in practice from time to time, when it is perceived that empathy has less force in an interaction than it appears to have, as when someone is being manipulated. 

Potential summary thoughts:

Empathy is complex, even though it appears we can find people in whom it is totally absent, and those who have it in greater supply. So in the human being it is both discrete (you have it or you don't), and admits of degrees and characteristics of expression when it is present.

Empathy cannot be easily teased out from other states, all the time. This is why it is really risky to claim that someone does not have any empathy. They might not exhibit it the way you expect, or might turn it off, or might express other traits and mental states more obviously than the empathy they are also experiencing.

People who are skilled socially have intuitions supporting their decisions about how and to what extent someone's empathetic behavior should be considered in responses to their behavior, and when empathy does or does not work as a useful concept in a given situation.

That not everyone who is socially skilled does this in the same way tells us about the complexities involved.

...

This post is simultaneously logical and warm.

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





*Saturday, January 4<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>11:18 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="we-are-empty-space-now">We Are Empty Space Now?</a>

Ever wonder, if what is valuable in life

is variable, and temporary, AND relative?

That there is NO justification for reproduction?

Because there is no justification for existence?

And so, we just live,

because,

well...

because of nature?

Animals reproduce, because of

desire to have sex,

and not out of any aim,

or any plans...

It reminds me,

of what happens,

without education.

Education the children away!?

First educate until families are controlled,

then are small, 

then,

don't exist.

...

Nature may decide,

against life,

just as it has,

about the darkness of space,

where there is no life.

Look at the stars,

and behold,

the lifelessness of it all?

We have confirmed the lifelessness,

with all our searches,

that resulted,

in finding nothing at all,

like ourselves,

much less,

anything of great biological interest.

The darkness of space is common.

Earth is not.

Earth is the exception and not the norm?

"The exception to the rule..."

is used to establish the rule.

In this case,

the rule then,

is emptiness.

Earth, too

was mostly emptiness,

until our sliver of time.

Or is it still emptiness,

and we have not recognized that fact

yet.

We are empty space?

...

This is a positive post.

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




*Saturday, January 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:07 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="usa-the-extractive-international-customer">USA: The Extractive International Customer</a>

The United States,

eventually,

will become an IP Pirate.

With all its money and resources,

it will find itself,

*intellectually* disadvantaged.

"How can I become a customer, that can maximally extract ideas?"

...

And it will be unsustainable.

The alternative is force.

And conflict is still about resources.

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





*Saturday, January 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:00 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="your-eyeball-is-always-slightly-downward-or-upward-compared-to-the-other">Your eyeball is always slightly downward, or upward, compared to the other.</a>

That's how I know...

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



<pre><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="memorial-day-web.jpg" src="memorial-day-web.jpg"></pre>

*Monday, January 4<sup>th</sup>, 2020*,&nbsp;<time>7:26 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="honor-veterans-with-the-truth">Honor Veterans with the truth.</a> 

Below is a post from earlier this year,

that became relevant again.

[Original here](#memorial-day)

Among the biggest contradictions I can think of in American culture,

is that we honor veterans for their sacrifices,

but have trouble supporting them when they return injured,

> [Aside: Why is this there a need to *donate* to support veterans who have been maimed? Obviously they aren't being cared for effectively.]

and then we use their heroism,

for recruiting purposes?...

and to convince people it is worthwhile,

to be deployed overseas,

to risk becoming killed,

or risk being permanently altered?

*Honor them with the truth.*



## <a name="memorial-day-thoughts">Memorial Day Thoughts.</a>

Let's honor veterans with the truths due to them.

I've said elsewhere, that

"Remember Forever",

is not genuine.

People will forget just one day later.

And remember the phrase, when the ritual repeats, a year later.

This sounds negative to say.

But think it through, and you will see...

that people who sacrifice themselves in war,

are sacrificed completely.

Our memories are short.

When America is no more,

and we are blended with other nations,

memorials will lose significance.

So let's think hard about it now,

and not plan to remember for eternity.

...

Is this not a more real,

and important message,

than any lie about remembering someone's sacrifice forever?

Death for no reason,

is a part of war.

We need to value veterans enough,

to not lie to people who are thinking of joining the military,

and to encourage their children,

to think hard about the risks,

and to find other opportunities,

like rich people almost always do.

...

I am grateful for my freedom to think and write what I wish on this website,

and speak my mind in public. 

And I understand the cost.

This is why I decided early that I would never serve in the military.

And why I am unwilling to join in on the rituals.

I value the holiday,

and my freedom to think,

how I want to about it.

Thank you Veterans for this freedom.

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



*Thursday, January 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:08 PM Pacific Time</time>

## <a name="it-wasnt-brilliant">It wasn't brilliant.</a> 

Life is still beautiful in many ways, 

even if you refrain from exclaiming

"Brilliant"

after experiencing anything you like,

or pretend to like.

...

Actually,

life doesn't change much,

when you stop speaking.

Your culture convinces you,

that you need to use these superlatives,

all the time,

to have any enthusiasm at all,

especially as you get older.

Old people are constantly admiring,

excessively,

because they have less feeling

to begin with.

Thus everything becomes "brilliant"

when very little seems 

brilliant 

any longer.

Kids have enthusiasm,

without any need

to rely on these words,

or any words at all,

Right?

...

Old people,

are frequently guided by

their own act.
...

This was a positive post.

Can you tell me why?

Can you then tell me why,

you could also see it as a negative post?

Then can you tell me why,

it was neither?

You will learn to think how I think,

using this exercise.

You cannot simply choose,

it to be a negative post,

based on your reaction to it.

Or a positive one,

if you like it.

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





*Thursday, January 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:43 AM Pacific Time</time>

## <a name="survivable-enough">Survivable enough.</a>

If one is honest:

"Perfectly adapted"

becomes

"Well adapted"

becomes

"adapted"

becomes 

"survivable"

...

Our traits are such that we have the ability

to survive, 

for a short time. 

We are not "perfectly" adapted for anything.

...

Use the "eye" as an example,

of something perfectly adapted,

and ask yourself,

why it doesn't last longer,

and why there is room for improvement,

and why we have the ability

and desire 

to compare

between specimens

of the same species

and differing species,

if already,

we can trust that each

is "perfectly" adapted?

So much for perfection here.

For now we will merely add it to the list,

of concepts that we can mostly eliminate.

[Lists](lists.html)

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





*New Year's Eve, Tuesday, December 31<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:20 PM Eastern Time</time>

## <a name="whats-the-size-of-your-clan">What's the size of your clan?</a>

"Strength in Numbers"

Stupidity outnumbers...

What's the size of your clan?

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




*New Year's Eve, Tuesday, December 31<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:14, 1:20 PM Eastern Time</time>

## <a name="say-nothing">Say nothing</a>

and you'll still hear back from others

what your views are

supposedly.

...

People have no idea

what a good inference

consists of.

They don't even know

when they are making inferences

or when they should be 

making inferences.

...

And most will never know.

[Lists](lists.html)

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



*Tuesday, December 24<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:55 PM Eastern Time</time>

## <a name="yer-that-word">Yer that word.</a>

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




*Thursday, December 19<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:45 PM Eastern Time</time>

## <a name="cause-effect-is-not-thought-to-inference">Cause-Effect is not Thought-to-Inference</a>

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





*Thursday, December 19<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:43 PM Eastern Time</time>

## <a name="having-the-thoughts-of-thers-vs-truth">Having the thoughts of others vs. Truth</a>

"Fake News"

Can we start,

by fact-checking

rumors and gossip?

Reduce or control our

pro-social learning

for the sake of

truth?

Pro-social learning

is due to a long evolution,

of trust for other people's

thoughts and conclusions.

We know,

however,

that we are credulous by nature,

and are more adapted,

to believe false stories,

than to disbelieve them.

Credulity,

makes us faster at learning

what other people think,

but less able,

to learn what is true.

I'm in favor of filtering and reducing

this propensity,

because it is necessary

for having truth,

over having the thoughts of others.

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




*Thursday, December 19<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:14 PM Eastern Time</time>

## <a name="i-agree-that-is-a-quote">I agree that is a quote.</a>

"To each his own."

Yes,

I agree 

that *is a quote.*

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





*Sunday, December 8<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:17 AM Eastern Time</time>

## <a name="quotes-that-are-really-old-one">Quotes that are really old, Part I.</a> 

Sometimes I am shocked just how old certain quotes are. I once encountered a quote in Plutarch (from the second century AD), that had a modern feel, that Plutarch said was at least another thousand years old (or something to that same effect). I do not recall this quote off hand.

Just today I encountered a quote I use regularly, mainly to amuse myself:

"Birds of a feather flock together."

I found this quote in Aristotle's *Art of Rhetoric*, written roughly 2300 years ago. (Henderson, p. 127, 2000).

He used it as if it were as well-known as it is today, indicating it could be much much older.

Not only is it interesting that it is old,

but that many,

particularly Christians,

might be surprised to find our culture has descended from

Greeks and other cultures,

and from Philosophers,

like Aristotle, 

and not merely those sources they would assume

or expect.

Cultures overlap significantly.

Not only in their current expression,

but in their sources.

Henderson, J (2000). *Aristotle: Art of Rhetoric.* Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

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




*Sunday, December 8<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:48 AM Eastern Time</time>

*Non-substantive edits on Thursday, December 19<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:35 PM Eastern Time</time>

## <a name="i-dont-like-what-you-said-therefore-i-can-do-anything-i-want-to-you-part-ii">"I don't like what you said therefore I can do anything I want to you." Part II.</a>

Previously I stated the fact that people tend to think that their feelings

amount to rough equivalents 

for valid inferences.

If you do X, I feel Y, and I react R, given Y.

I do not concern myself if my feelings or my reactions to my feelings,

involve a valid chain of inferences

from X.

...

This is not a logical progression,

and we end up with:

"I don't like what you said and therefore I can do anything I want to you."

Just a moment ago,

as I was reading Aristotle's 

*Art of Rhetoric*,

I stumbled upon a proverb he quoted,

that said

"Evil doing only needs an excuse." (Henderson, p. 135, 2000).

That such a phrase is over 2300 years old,

to me verifies my position,

but from an alternative perspective.

Some are on the precipice of committing evil acts,

and only wait 

for something they can use

as a catalyst.

That catalyst can be something as simple as,

a verbal slight...

or less than that,

something said, 

that can be taken the wrong way,

or twisted to be something 

publicly offense worthy.

Feelings are not inferences.

So unfortunately,

all it takes to become a victim,

is to first say something, such that a feeling

is aroused in another

that is mistaken for a valid inference

from that statement

and then used as a mere excuse

for some greater and disproportionate reaction.

...

The causal chain is as follows:

Statement made > 

Feeling aroused > 

Feeling mistaken for an inference > 

Amplified retaliation planned or performed > 

excuse and retaliation is rationalized

(The use of the feeble excuse is excused).

...

Mistakes made are threefold:

1. A feeling aroused is simply not an inference from what caused it.
1. Retaliation planned or performed is disproportionate and may not be required at all.
1. Retaliation is due inability to cope with the feeling, not due to logic.

...

Reference: 

Henderson, J (2000). *Aristotle: Art of Rhetoric.* Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

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





*Saturday, November 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:57 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="fasting-undefined">Fasting Undefined.</a>

If you eat one meal a day, for 30 minutes, does this mean you fast 98% of the time?

For a long while I was fasting 98% of the time then.

I find the "fasting" concept pretty absurd. It's just not eating for a little bit, and no one has defined what segment of time creates "fasting".

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





*Saturday, November 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:36, 6:14 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="fact-people">Fact People.</a>

When I was young, I was a typical "know it all".

Facts were plentiful.

I was very curious and wanted to express what I knew,

when I knew something.

It is one way that people,

indicate to other people,

that they are smart.

But now I realize this is actually 

a mistaken way to appraise someone,

and fools capitalize on it,

by spitting out supposed facts.

And then later,

fools try to measure people,

by their ability to spit out facts,

but the problem is,

every person on earth has access to what

they think are facts.

So it amounts to

How much you talk,

and say what is

*traditionally accepted*

as a truth.

So all you have to do,

is remember things that seem like 

facts to everyone else.

This is what the mansplainers do.

...

There are very smart people with powerful memories,

and in a sense,

this is *a* mark of the intelligent person,

but everyone can remember facts,

and most can talk fast.

...

But now I see,

from tons of experience,

that fact spitting,

is just remembering.

It isn't thinking at all.

So now, what I value,

is the strategic thinker.

The person with many tools,

that apply to any question

that might crop up.

The person who has gotten

*past*

factiness

and realizes,

that almost everything is complex,

and that 

very often,

the "facts" 

that others have

simply are not facts.

They are truthy thoughts,

with many errors built in.

And when this is not the case,

and H<sub>2</sub>0 is water,

there is a feeling that

everyone knows that,

or that one can look it up,

like a Chemist does,

when it is not

H<sub>2</sub>0.

(They remember more than this obviously, but I find it humorous for the moment.)

[Aside: Smart people offload facts to books, and value knowing how to find facts. To give you an example, I used to own many books. I am fond of libraries. The reason I really liked books, especially books I was exposed to or have read, wasn't that I memorized everything contained, but that they were extensions of my mind, such that I could access the information again if necessary. It is nicer to be able to instantly recall certain facts, but the mind is not limitless. So we have to choose what is worth remembering, and what is worth accessing via our fingertips, from knowing where to look.]

...

What we end up with in the end,

are rankers.

Everyday people,

posturing,

as Fact People.

Testing people,

for facts,

without understanding,

how much more complex it really is,

to test someone

for what they know,

and what they can do.

...

The effect is that leaders posture

by holding a stack of books.

Bill Gates currently.

I held the stack of books,

and I can tell you,

it is largely B.S.

A stack of books,

does not mean you remember the facts contained,

or that you really read them,

or that it is worth your time

to read them.

...

Effective people,

know how to form a problem first,

find what they need,

problem solve with an assortment of tools,

and *offload unimportant facts*

even when curiosity creates a desire

for those facts.

This does not mean they do not also read for leisure,

but it means,

they know the difference.

Other people don't know the difference.

And guess what.

Gates knows the difference.

But he will market himself,

as the guy who holds the stack of books,

because you might not 

know the difference.

He understands

"Fact People".

But he is a thinking person.

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




*Saturday, November 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:19 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="equality-is-real-what-about-preferences">"Equality is Real"</a>

What about preferences?

"I'll take anyone as my

next husband."

...

People can't figure it out.

They especially cannot figure it out,

in America.

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



*Saturday, November 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:13 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="cultures-with-mansplaining-built-in">Cultures with Mansplaining Built in.</a>

Some cultures are undeniably Patriarchical.

More so than others.

We're supposed to think cultures are equal.

We know that they are not.

How do we know? 

Because we want to move our own cultures,

to have certain strengths,

that already exist in other cultures,

or we want to push all cultures,

to the next level.

And we wish to move as far as possible,

from primitive humanity,

where their systems,

were founded on ignorance.

...

As I sit here,

I think to myself,

about how mansplaining is built into 

certain cultures,

such that woman have to forever sit,

in deference to older guys.

Think of Asian cultures,

for example.

Mom is beneath her eldest son,

by default.

This is not perfectly accurate,

but there is a structure in place,

that I will not explain here.

...

Feminists,

must have preferences,

between various cultures.

If they do not,

I wonder if they are 

biased by

that false teaching of

equality.

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



*Friday, November 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:45 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="public-opinion-is-not-a-process">Public Opinion is Not a Process</a>

What things,

that do not have processes,

are really worthwhile?

...

This is a good question to ponder.

It is a bit vague, but to a good effect.

...

Natural processes and their outcomes have to be compared with

artificial processes and their outcomes,

and linked together to make something worthwhile.

Public Opinion straight to Judgment would certainly fail to be

a worthwhile process.

It is a "knee-jerk" reaction.

> [Aside: Notice how we forgot the word "reflex"]

I imagine completely ignorant public stonings, by reflex, for example.

"The women were yelling, 

and so we killed the man."

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



*Friday, November 19<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:30 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="unremember-the-word">Unremember the Word</a>

I'm told there are things I should not say.

I understand what these things are, which means that

1. I would understand them if someone said them to me.
1. I know something.
1. It is stored in my brain.

Now let us consider,

that for anything that we have stored in our brain,

enabling us to say we know something,

such that we would understand it when someone says it to us,

means there is always a chance,

That I would *think* of it...

And if I would think of it,

on occasion,

perhaps,

[Aside: probably I would think of it eventually, and maybe not at the best time.]

I might speak of it... 

or say it...

...

For these reasons we should permit,

lapses in political correctness,

from almost anyone,

so long as they would not commit,

necessarily,

to the negative aspect of what it is,

we are wanting people to not think.

[Aside: There are dangers in even wanting this unless there is a really good process for doing it. "Public Opinion" is not a process.]

...

There is an odd thing here,

that to really eliminate usage,

we have to unlearn it.

The proof,

is that we try to keep children,

from learning curse words,

because of course,

what goes in,

comes back out again.

...

Our elders,

can be expected to say things,

we would not necessarily like,

because they have them stored.

...

Fault people for their storage?

This is faulting people for knowledge.

There is no unlearning.

Fault people for not unlearning?

...

A weird thing about this,

is that it is lost to history,

if it is unremembered.

Because even to read history,

if it were written about,

means to learn it again. 

(And therefore it is no longer unremembered then).

...

These and other uncomfortable truths,

indicate that we are quite lost,

when we are so harsh in our judgements of 

what people say,

apart from,

the content and meaning they

would commit to.

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



*Friday, November 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:25 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="hey-troll-i-wasnt-thinking-about-you">Hey Troll!</a>

When you were thinking about me yesterday,

I wasn't thinking about you...

Now I'll wait for your to repeat this back to me.

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



*Friday, November 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:58 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="the-uninitiated-dont-know">The Uninitiated Don't Know.</a>

The uninitiated don't know

what it takes to be prepared enough

for initiation.

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





*Thanksgiving Thursday, November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:58 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="the-winter-holiday-season-may-be-simply-for-tolerating-the-winter">The Winter Holiday Season May be Simply for Tolerating the Winter.</a> 

Consider that we have a very prolonged sense of holiday,

and winter festivities,

crossing over months of cold.

If we did not have any holidays at this time,

how would we feel.

Consider also, that Christmas,

Yule, Thanksgiving,

and so forth,

are holidays for those living in 

colder climates, and not warmer ones.

Further consider,

that much of the celebration,

involves celebrating surpluses,

of work from earlier months.

Meaning we are to be happy,

for having enough "extras"

to live through the winter,

without much effort,

and with enough,

to fatten ourselves easily.

We stay warm with our fires,

we eat more than necessary,

and the holiday cuisine,

is comfort food,

and items we would hardly want to eat,

in the summer time,

or in a desert environment.

...

It is my opinion,

that it is highly likely,

that we would have a winter holiday,

no matter what our cultural heritage was,

and no matter what our religious commitments might be,

if we have to endure,

a long winter,

where we reside.

...

For this reason,

I think,

Christians and others,

claimed Christmas.

We do know,

that Christmas was claimed.

It has nothing to do with any birth date 

on record.

It has to do,

with the onset of winter,

when it was already cold,

and there were months of cold remaining.

December 25<sup>th</sup>,

is not far off from,

December 21st.

I think it is good timing,

for such festivities.

...

I'm not a Christian,

(and I'm part Christian too

although that's best explained

at another time),

but I do like the fall and winter holidays.

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




*Thanksgiving Thursday, November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:03 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="relief-comes-soon-after-you-get-real">Relief comes soon after you get real.</a>

Whatever other cure you're seeking,

well,

isn't real right?

*Statement:*

"I don't want truth."

*Response:*

"So what are you defending exactly?"

*Answer:*

"What makes me feel good...

and I'm prepared to threaten your

life 

to keep it."

(Let's not pretend this is uncommon).

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



*Thanksgiving Thursday, November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~2:00 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="head-start-means-started-from-behind">Head Start Means Started from Behind</a> 

Some might think this sounds rude to say.

But let me tell you,

*permanently disadvantaged people* 

are convinced later,

by tricky people,

wanting to preserve their own merits,

that really

the disadvantaged people received all they needed,

because in fact, they got a "head start".

We open ourselves up to these games,

by not being totally honest with ourselves.

...

The euphemism can be flipped,

to be used against you,

and not used,

simply to prevent you from being stigmatized.

...

So it is much better to 

get real,

and say that Head Start,

is well,

something different.

I'm not sure what is best to call it.

But it is certainly there,

for those who have limitations.

...

Why not address the limitations,

at the core.

It's because of parental issues,

economic issues,

and lack of inheritance.

"I inherited no possessions,

no wealth,

no knowledge,

and parents who are

of lower quality,

or parents,

who are not there at all."



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

*Thanksgiving Thursday, November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:56 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="if-we-were-to-give-up-on-inheritance">If we were to give up on inheritance.</a>

We would be able to stop pretending,

That rich children,

somehow merited

their head start.

We know what a head start is,

and we don't.

We name a program,

for giving kids a better chance,

head-start,

to cover up,

the fact that they are starting,

from behind,

and will likely remain behind,

even with the additional education.

...

The way it works currently,

is 

rich children get old enough,

to rely on memory loss,

to recreate their history,

such that only those accomplishments,

coming *after* High School or College,

when they are totally alone,

count.

"My parents did nothing for me."

"Nothing at all depended on my parents, grandparents or family."

...

"I remember everything I did,

in a way that is disconnected,

from everything I received."

...

One of the reasons we want to leave money for our children,

is because we think

*they will **NOT** succeed without it*.

...

"All families are equal"

so why not leave fortunes,

to children from other families?

...

Before I focused on how,

we don't believe in equality,

because we are unable to trust in the 

interchangeability of adults,

in our guidance.

But we can switch the direction.

If all children are equal,

(which is closer to truth, although still false),

then why not,

leave your money to someone,

who is not your child.

....

Because if all people are equal,

why not give them equal access,

*to inheritance?*

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



*Thursday, November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:35 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="single-people-get-made-fun-of-for-masturbation">Single people get made fun of</a>

for masturbation.

But people in relationships,

masturbate too,

so it's really confusing,

how people can be so stupid.

Nobody is satisfied...

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



*Thursday, November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:31 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="first-there-was-the-gesture">First there was the gesture.</a>

Then there was the grunt...

the attempts at speech.

Then the words,

Then the short sentences.

And we didn't get much further than that.

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



*Thursday, November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:28 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="who-are-all-the-people-struggling-with-evil-inclinations">Who are all these people who are having internal struggles against doing "evil"?</a>

Are they the Christians, and others,

who say that you'll 

"live longer"

if you don't openly say things

that disagree with their views?

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




*Thursday, November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:32 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="in-the-beginning-there-was-the-words">In the beginning, there was the wordss.</a>

[superpluralification](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#superpluralification)



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





*Thursday, November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:06 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="nothing-is-as-demonic-as-two-thirds">Nothing is as demonic as two thirds?</a>

Get real.

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



*Wednesday, November 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:54 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="when-lying-for-a-higher-purpose">When lying for a higher purpose</a>

is what it usually is:

Lying for a lower purpose.

Lying for *your* purpose.

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



*Wednesday, November 20<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:24 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="grateful-often-means-I-dont-plan-on-doing-anything">"Grateful" often means "I don't plan on doing anything".</a>

I don't mean it never makes sense to feel grateful.

It means we should recognize,

when being grateful means

"I'm rationalizing feeling good about something I don't intend to ever improve."

...

I'm not fond of examples, because they are plentiful.

Nevertheless to give one example,

The meat-eater,

eats over the carcass of a Thanksgiving turkey,

saying how grateful they are,

for the turkey,

but in deed they don't care at all

where it came from,

how it died,

or how it lived, 

and they never plan to care,

ever.

This is the kind of "grateful" I find abhorrent.

Because it conceals apathy,

and if it were pointed out,

hate for better ways would emerge.

So what is more likely,

is that this is a ritual,

like burning a sacrifice,

than any actual instance of being,

truly grateful. 

It is unreflective,

and automatic,

tradition keeping.

...

Nevertheless,

I do think at the dinner table,

with the turkey at the centerpiece,

there is plenty to feel grateful for,

like family,

health, and friendship.

But notice this is mostly,

acknowledgement of what one has,

and not what one plans to do.

And sometimes, 

what one decidedly plans to avoid doing.

"I am thankful for this kill,

and this alone makes it OK,

and satisfies the requirements,

for continuing to take animals."

People think this,

because they care about animals,

truly,

but also plan,

to change nothing,

even when options become available...

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




<img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="chaco-canyon-petroglyphs-mattanaw-1-web.jpg" src="chaco-canyon-petroglyphs-mattanaw-1-web.jpg"><br />

*Petroglyphs from [Chaco Canyon National Historical Park, New Mexico](https://www.nps.gov/chcu/index.htm). Taken on my cross country trip in August 2019.*

*Wednesday, November 20<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:04 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="signatures-handwriting-and-hand-markings">Signatures, handwriting, and hand-markings.</a>

I've been receiving letters of recommendation from colleagues, partners and clients over the last week. There is something special about seeing someone's signature in their own handwriting. I wonder to myself, how may people, worry about showing their handwriting to others. It would make very little difference to me what the signatures look like. What makes the difference is that it came directly from someone's hands. This is not just nostalgia for a time when people did things without computers, although some nostalgia is intermixed too.

A friend on Facebook was posting petroglyphs recently. The petroglyphs were not remarkably beautiful. In fact, they looked the same as many petroglyphs over the globe tend to look.

Signatures and petroglyphs both evoke the "someone with a hand like mine touched this differently" feeling. It says "this other person is real" in a sense.

Is this an unnamed feeling in English?

...

I don't think this feeling means, we ought to return to petroglyphs.

Or even cursive.

Because I should recognize that the writing itself bears the mark of the mind of the person who wrote it too, more significantly than the markings.

Perhaps this is where I should notice, that there is more sentimentality in the experience, than I first recognized.

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




*Tuesday, November 19<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:22 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="fault-the-earth-for-what-it-does-to-itself">Fault the Earth for what it does to itself,</a>

through us?

Or fault us,

for what the Earth does to itself?

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






*Monday, November 18<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:50 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="you-dont-reject-what-doesnt-exist">You don't reject what doesn't exist.</a>

I'll explain this one briefly.

Imagine someone offers you a gift.

They hold out their hands, and tell you they are giving you a box, wrapped up with a bow on it.

But they are just holding out their hands, and there is nothing there.

Are you rejecting the gift, if you cannot receive it?

Is there even a gift?

If you say you don't want "it", 

you still are *not* rejecting the gift, 

because there is no corresponding object satisfying the sentence.

...

Let's put it another way.

A child presents you with their imaginary friend.

They tell you that their imaginary friend needs a job from you.

(You don't need anything).

The child gives you an imaginary resume and job application too.

Do you reject the job application,

or do you simply understand that there isn't one?

...

Why did I use a child for the above scenario?

When I'm presented with an imaginary friend,

of adults,

I usually get the feeling,

that they are children in a way.

And I don't need anything,

yet they tell me I do,

and they give me an ancient text,

that is a resume of sorts,

that I don't really feel,

matches the format of a real resume,

that would include facts,

about living, 

existing people.

And if they can't make sense,

how much does it really matter,

for me to make sense for them?

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




*Monday, November 18<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:47 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="when-to-think-and-when-to-remember">"When to think, and when to remember?"</a>

That is the question.

...

...

Like Shakespeare,

or Hamlet...

I took my enjoyment of my question too far,

and I just committed an error of false oneness and singularity.

[Lists](lists.html)

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





*Monday, November 18<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:40 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="if-it-permanently-aint-broke-dont-fix-it">"If it permanently ain't broke, don't fix it."</a>

This is a variation of the old quote.

"Matt... why are you fixing that quote that ain't broke?"

Everything is changing.

That which is not broken will soon lose function.

But that which is not broken, might be broken,

by various changes.

"Problem solutions".

...

The quote simply is untenable.

The reason is there is always a game-theoretic

rationale,

for choosing to maintain something,

or to not maintain something,

with many possible ways of doing the maintaining,

and many possible outcomes to compare,

for any given scenario.

Meaning, the choice isn't to simply leave things as they are

by default.

What about replacement?

So really, what you should do,

is list the options,

consider the energy you need to put into the solution,

compare solutions,

compare risks,

then make a choice.

Sometimes that choice is to fix something,

that will soon be broken.

...

Very few proverbs such as this,

suffer from no serious defects.

This proverb,

has sent millions into the land,

of not thinking.

They just remember,

when they use this quote.

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




*Friday, November 15<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:55 AM Alaska Time</time>

*Minor readability edit, Thursday, November 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:43 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="using-ai-and-machine-learning-to-verify-what-works-of-religion-are-fictional">Using AI and Machine Learning to verify what works of religion are fictional.</a>

We should be able to feed

AI/Machine learning systems

with known fictional stories,

and known real stories,

in order to train them,

to begin to identify,

which other stories appear to be

true or false, 

or how "truthy" or

"falsey" 

they appear to be.

(Since entire books are not either true or false,

but admit of degrees of truth or falsity,

and quantity of truths and untruths to be found.)

...

Why do I know this?

We already do it with more complex things,

first of all.

Second of all,

if we do really long expansions 

of my [Lists](lists.html),

that were designed to allow us to instantly 

cast aside obvious falsities from our lives,

we would find that these

falsities

occur frequently in works of fiction,

but less frequently,

in works of truth,

in total,

and on average.

By determining, the degree to which,

these fictions,

figure into the story,

we should be able to flag certain works,

as being suspect.

...

In the future,

we can go beyond this simple method,

and we will start to get a clearer picture,

of which stories approximate those

that seem to have high veracity,

to those with low veracity.

Low veracity works,

I expect, 

will be like the religious cosmologies,

other stories of mythology,

prognostications and prophesies of religion,

and obvious fictions written

without any intention,

that the works would be taken

for literal truth,

that are more for entertainment.

...

More importantly,

we already know,

which stories are both

important and 

would fail this kind of test.

Some of us,

just won't admit it,

until AI tells us,

we were wrong to pretend.

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





*Wednesday, November 13<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:35 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="can-i-get-a-yeah-right">Can I get a "Yeah right."?</a>

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



*Wednesday, November 13<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:31 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Minor Edit, Friday, November 15<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:01 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="just-saying-smartness">Just Saying "Smartness"</a>

Use of the word "retarded" is considered rude.

At one time it was just fine, when it was fitting.

We were fine with calling a handicapped person who is less intelligent,

"Retarded"

which meant roughly,

less intelligent,

but was more specific than that.

But we do not like its use now, 

because the way we use it attacks people,

for things they cannot change,

and thus it would cause long lasting

harm to make fun of them this way.

But I find our distaste for using "retard" to contradict,

our readiness to use "stupid".

Not only when it is apt,

and therefore, 

involves an unchangeable aspect of a person,

but also,

because we'll use it when a person

certainly is not stupid.

We're ready to call everyone stupid.

to the effect,

that smart people wonder

about themselves unnecessarily.

This is how we previously used  "retard".

All we are doing now

is substituting a term,

that should be nearly as offensive.

It's only because

"retarded" brings to mind the handicapped

that we feel the way we do about it.

But how do you feel about calling someone

who is really slow "stupid" really?

Someone who is also really kind,

and peaceful, for example.

I would argue,

that "stupid" is far more harmful,

because a very large portion of the population,

is not incredibly smart,

and depending on who you are,

many other people could be called stupid,

by comparison.

Meanwhile,

some handicapped people would really

need to be trained

to even understand what retard

actually means,

and therefore,

cannot be offended,

without your help. 

And if they are not offended,

then what is the problem?

Then it is more about

parents and caretakers

and not the handicapped people.

Nevertheless,

I am not arguing,

that we should return to use

"retarded" again.

...

We struggle with this,

but really the solution is simple in this case.

When we say someone is retarded, or stupid, or slow,

we merely mean they have a level of smartness,

that is lower than some arbitrary reference point.

Meaning, we compare people,

when we say "stupid"

to either average people,

or to really smart people.

Either way, it is arbitrary.

I would argue,

that we should compare ourselves with the next

smartest animal instead.

Let us admit that Chimpanzees are very smart animals,

but their smartness is lower than our own.

Almost all people 

are smarter in the ways we think about

when we say "smart",

than Chimpanzees.

[Aside: Not everyone.. but that is OK. But also notice, Chimpanzees are *smarter than us* in some ways, just not the ways we normally recognize as smarts (IQ for example).]

Now,

this means that,

everyone is smart.

Now if you are average,

why don't you recognize

how smart you are compared to all

dead matter in the universe?

The next smartest animal,

is nowhere near as smart as you.

Most smart*er* people, are really probably smarter than you,

in a lot of ways,

but not necessarily all ways 

although some very smart people,

may be smarter than you in nearly

all ways.

That doesn't mean,

you don't have strengths they aren't lacking.

[Aside: Although we shouldn't strain to hard to equalize people, since some people simply are very magnificent examples of people].

...

Now, what is the point?

We don't call anyone "stupid".

We don't call anyone "retarded".

We don't call anyone "moron".

We have to be

*more specific*

from now on.

It is OK to speak about someone's

*level*

of smartness on a scale,

when that is relevant.

Even if that is awkward,

or harshly truthful.

Sometimes that is necessary.

But this doesn't

devalue anyone completely.

...

But notice,

that if you do this,

you are becoming a "[ranker](#beware-of-the-ranker)"

in that you think you can

mark where someone falls on a scale,

without doing any measurements,

and it is possible that others

can abuse this,

as I've said earlier in 

the ThoughtStream

[Beware of the Rankers](#beware-of-the-ranker)

And if you try to do this,

you are still summing up

someone's mind completely,

so it is an over-generalization

as well.

...

How do we correct that?

My thought is,

start thinking in terms of a scale,

from smart to very smart,

> [Aside: Not "smartest". That will cause problems. See [EstEst](#estest)]

or from lower in smartness to higher in smartness,

It will be *hard* to make that change.

Everyone else will have to work on changing it

also for it to be really successful.

I still stay "stupid",

and there is a post here in the ThoughtStream that uses the word also.

> [Aside: Although the point I'm making there, is not lost by using this unfortunate term. (See [The Lady Who Cried Ad Hominem](#the-lady-who-cried-ad-hominem))

...

But after this stage, we can get better.

Even if everyone else fails to improve,

it might be worthwhile to take the steps independently,

anyhow.

Why not get even more specific:

"You don't seem to be doing X correctly."

"After watching you, I think maybe, you don't have an aptitude for this."

"You could have done that in a smarter way."

"Your IQ test indicated you are high on smartness in visual tasks, but is lower on verbal tasks"

...

So in the end,

what we end up doing,

is moving from using very short sentences like:

"You are stupid"

that claims way too much about a person,

to longer sentences,

that say less about someone,

but are more specific,

more truthful,

and more kind.


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




*Monday, November 11<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:33 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="be-authentic-but-thats-unbecoming">Be Authentic, but that's Unbecoming.</a>

"That's unbecoming of a gentleman."

"That's unbecoming of a rapper."

If you're an elite figure, you're expected to display certain traits,

have certain interests,

engage in certain behaviors,

to the exclusion,

of many other behaviors.

You end up,

ignoring various things you like,

diverse activities you might want to do,

to achieve an image of sorts.

This to me is not authenticity.

It's not complete inauthenticity either though.

You have to make choices.

Authenticity on a scale?

Authenticity does not matter so much?

...

Pretty much everyone you can find,

will have diverse interests,

that cross outside of what is prescribed,

by some definition,

or expectation,

of authenticity.

I think the eclectic personality,

is too hard for people to sum up,

with the effect that,

inauthenticity is assumed,

when someone has too many interests,

or too many personas.

...

I'm inclined to think,

that a complete expression of self,

in all guises,

is closer to high authenticity,

on a spectrum,

than any attempt,

to fit into some specific image.

But I hesitate though, 

because it's authentic,

to want to give up aspects of self,

to become something new,

that is maybe

something less eclectic.

And so I find myself,

questioning the value of

the idea of authenticity.

...

An inauthentic person,

is sometimes merely a beginner.

"That person is fake."

Maybe that person,

is trying to be like you,

and therefore is more like you,

than you think.

Why?

Even the rapper,

started out a kid,

who somehow started acting like

a rapper.

If placed in Saudi Arabia,

that kid would start acting,

Saudi Arabian.

...

People can be authentic,

and be

seemingly something completely different

at different times.

...

Anyone could take violin lessons,

in their free time.

How would you be 

during your violin lessons?

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




*Monday, November 11<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:15, 9:33 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="your-heart-is-a-blood-pumping-organ">Your Heart is a Blood-pumping Organ.</a>

In my [lists](lists.html) page, 

I discussed an issue with metaphors.

Metaphors are when you say figuratively,

that one thing is another.

Similes by contrast,

are when you say that one thing

is *like* another.

I claimed that the identification,

of one thing with another,

using metaphors,

causes confusion.

Here is an example.

What does it mean,

to say you have 

"heart"?

I find it highly likely,

that if we trace the etymology,

of various words like heart,

used for things other than

blood-pumping organs,

we will locate metaphors,

that resulted in confusions.

After the original confusions,

people who are

beguiled by the beauty of the

works of literature,

making such comparisons,

people begin to say,

for example,

"heart"

instead of,

"perseverance".

Now,

"heart" means all sorts of things,

that are quite confusing,

and

people will symbolically use

the symbol

representing the blood-pumping organ,

that also represents 

*love.*

Good dictionaries,

like the Oxford English Dictionary,

that I have ready at hand,

determine the meanings of words,

by usage,

and trace the history,

back to examples of popular works,

of authors,

who used words in the ways,

indicated in the definitions.

The OED is a trusted

authority in such matters.

I consider it to be a certainty,

that such words will be found,

in the OED,

within initial metaphorical uses,

at least in secondary definitions,

and those created later,

and these uses

resulted in the confusions

that now exist.

And now we have 

"hearts"

that have nothing to do at all

with hearts.

And we have a symbol,

that confounds the two.

...

Now,

how inseparable do they seem?

Love and heart.

Perseverance and heart.

Perseverance and love?

These concepts,

have very little to do 

with each other.

Why not,

Perseverance and Brain? Heart and Brain? Love and Brain?

Another source of the error

is old folk-biology.

Because even the literature,

gets its inspiration,

from someplace.

...

As I said in my [Lists](lists.html) page,

I do not want to constrain literature,

but rather,

I want people to be aware,

that this is how confusions are created,

so that people,

become good at detecting,

issues,

that go unrecognized,

in heart symbols,

to take one example.

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





*Monday, November 11<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:46 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="not-having-a-better-way-to-say-it">Not having a better way to say it.</a>

Much of what we say,

is insufficient, inaccurate, or false.

Take "perfect"

for example.

When we use this word,

we are not being accurate.

It is insufficient, and usually false.

Why do we continue to say it?

Well, 

because we are imperfect,

at being accurate.

But also because we 

do not have anything better to say,

at the time we are motivated to say it.

Perfection is relative.

Not only is it relative,

it is criteria based,

when it is accurate.

There are other issues with the word,

besides this.

The most important objection though,

is that we don't really know,

what we are saying,

when we are saying it.

When someone says:

"That work of art is perfect."

Ask them:

"According to what criteria?"

And you will find,

they simply mean,

"I like it a lot."

...

We need to find,

a way to express our experiences,

such that,

we are not chronically

over-exaggerating.

...

One such way,

is to stick to descriptions.

"I like this moment because... x, y, z."

To this you might object:

"But there is not enough time to get it right."

At that moment,

I'll point you to this thoughtstream.

Notice,

how I care little for editing,

unless I find it important enough,

to do it later?

Likewise,

I recognize,

that we cannot commit to saying,

everything exactly right,

the first time,

in the moment.

And it is possible,

that we will never have enough time.

Nevertheless,

we have work to do,

to improve our language skills

to stop lying to ourselves.

Why?

Because people think

Perfection is real.

And not merely,

a shortcut,

when there is not enough time

to be detailed.

...

At this moment,

I kindof like

*"I am not inclined to change anything

in this moment."*

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




*Wednesday, November 6<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:00 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="life-is-empty">"Life is Empty"</a>

...

Some would say

"Good.

Finally I 

achieved emptiness."

...

I don't think 

"Life is Empty"

to myself.

Sometimes I wish a friend

or family member were present,

and in a sense,

they are not there,

when they are not there,

but I don't think

"Oh no, my life is empty!"

This is a logical error.

One: Think of what emptiness really is.

You always have plenty of resources around you.

Two: You are attributing something to your entire life.

Nothing but life can be attributed to your entire life.

Once you think about it that way,

you can see that what is meant,

is something simpler:

"Don't you want these things,

I have in mind?"

...

Then you get to the point.

People say it when they think

you don't want certain particular things.

You don't want family.

OK, so your life is lacking family. 

That is not emptiness.

...

This is how our language leads 

us into error.

...

I hear others say it.

I had a friend or two,

say it to me once.

He thought that if I did not have children,

suddenly I would find myself,

living an empty existence.

I still think that

is unhelpful and somewhat meaningless.

...

That point of view,

might be more convincing,

to people who experience,

some kind of dread,

for not having someone,

and some things,

to distract them from 

life.

It may be that those,

who are afraid to be alone,

are more likely to 

feel this way.

I enjoy being alone.

Not always,

but most of the time,

I'm just fine.

When I'm less than happy,

it's not due to

emptiness.

That is,

it's not due to

not having what you want,

for yourself.

...

In fact,

sometimes I chase after

a sort of mental emptiness.

The serenity of it.

"I want to think nothing at all now."

Some Buddhists would agree.

Meditation,

done a certain way,

brings you to a kind of emptiness.

> [Aside: Not emptiness itself. I think even Buddhists are making this error. Because they are not being specific enough, and psychologists would probably be more quick to explain that what you are doing is not so mysterious as Buddhists would like to think, with their posturing and marketing. It's kind-of amusing to think about how Buddhists posture. Yoga right?]

that is also,

clarity and contentment.

I think that people who 

fill their lives,

with other people

entertainment,

and trinkets,

might benefit from

learning about

not needing or 

wanting 

any of these things,

quite so much.

"Give away all your possessions, now!" Right?

Not only were you told,

maybe,

to give everything away,

you're told,

you need to do it now.

...

What do we call

addiction to the presence

of other people?

What do we call

withdrawal symptoms,

from the lack of their presence?

Sexual addiction is one form

of this issue.

but I don't think,

it is the only form.

Do we call it emptiness?

Or should we say

"You just don't know how

to be by yourself,

because you've been around

others often,

or you simply really want

people to be around.

It's your drug.

Friendship,

makes you feel a certain way.

Not everyone,

is into,

or more importantly,

*addicted*

to your drug."

Remember that things

in your environment,

unlock drugs,

in your brain.

When these things are not present

any longer

neither are those

chemicals.

At least,

not in those proportions,

or combinations,

at the same times,

and places.

So when you experience,

"Empty nest"

you suddenly sit at home,

and that cocktail of 

drugs

in your brain,

just is not the same

as it once was.

You also suddenly,

are thinking incomplete thoughts

about them.

You cannot recreate them

in your mind.

They are more real

than your memories 

of them can ever be.

And there's no way,

to get that back,

unless

they are back.

...

So learn to be alone?

And enjoy that?

Because then,

people can come and go,

as you would expect,

over decades of your life,

and these people,

will be just fine,

either way.

They might not need you.

...

They won't tell others,

that the others will lead empty lives,

if the others don't choose the same lives,

they themselves want.

*But maybe that's what you do.*

...

Consider the solitary adventurer.

What solitary figures,

can you think of,

who had full lives,

> [Aside: It is not clear what a full life entails either.

> That would depend on the person and their desires.

> If they want adventure, and many experiences 

> in travel, then sure, they can fill their time with that.]

who seemed to want to be

alone all the time?

You are just like them,

in that you are alone,

in a sense,

whether you think so,

or not.

You just might not,

want to call attention to

that.

But isn't it weird,

that some people

want more and more of that!

They seem to be those,

who really like,

the outdoors.

...

The point of this is not to say,

you shouldn't fill your environment

with things and people.

That's your choice,

and you could make other choices too,

if you wanted.

Just don't make it seem like,

if others do not choose what you 

chose

that their life

is worthless somehow.

> [Aside: I don't even agree with my use of worthless
>
> here, but this is fine for now.]

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



*Wednesday, November 6<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:00 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="that-centenarian-who-slanders-their-way-into-heaven">That Centenarian who slanders their way into heaven.</a>

Everyone knows,

that centenarian right?

...

By centenarian,

I just mean that older individual,

who still doesn't know any better.

...

But I guess it is the ThoughtStream.

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




*Tuesday, November 5<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:53, 8:33, 10:47 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="hello-there-from-the-car">"Hello there", from the car.</a>  

Have you ever thought about the limitations,

around the visibility

of an engagement or wedding ring?

You are attractive.

You are spotted from within your car.

But you are in a committed relationship.

How are you going to make that clear

to that person in the other car?

Are you going to,

stick your hand out of the window,

and point to the ring on your finger?

Or are you,

going to say 

"Hey there" back 

mentally?

Or are you going,

to wink,

and flaunt wildly.

"If you've got it

flaunt it?"

...

I think you're going to say

"hey there"

mentally

without doing anything,

but continuing,

to look good,

for your window-shopping

admirer.

...

An invention idea,

that is incredibly easy,

is simply to have a kind of "wedding ring"

added to one or both of the mirrors.

or someplace else,

it doesn't really matter,

as long as it is visible,

and nice enough,

to justify the purchase.

It should be luxurious.

Like an actual wedding ring.

"Look I'm taken,

by someone,

who can like,

afford me."

...

Mirrors on the car,

are like big ears.

I'm thinking of one SUV I had before.

Why not put a big earring on 

one or both them.

It's cool OK?,

and I'm not going to make it,

so it's a free idea,

for you to work on.

...

Look at what it would do.

You do realize,

it would actually have an

impact.

Much more of an impact,

than any other thing,

stuck to your car right now.

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



*Monday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:12 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Edit Tuesday, November 5<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:02 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="honesty-is-not-extreme">Honesty is not extreme.</a> 

If the post below seems extreme, consider this.

"Honesty is the best policy."

already accepted.

"Be true to yourself."

already accepted.

"Your body is a temple."

already accepted.

"Purify your mind."

already accepted.

ad infinitum.

...

Ad infinitum,

what I said below is supported.

...

Think about it,

if you were already completely honest

with yourself

about *everything*

wouldn't you

already be immune

to hearing truths

that you've

already heard—

to the point 

that you've been

desensitized?

...

I know it is hard

to hear certain messages

from certain people,

but even that 

is practiced

with complete self-honesty,

if you assume,

different faces and voices.

Because if you are 

sensitive to an audience's perspective,

it is because

you've created a fictional account

for them,

such that you are shocked,

when they do not go by that account.

...

Give yourself a true account of yourself

AND

give everyone else,

that same account.

...

I'm still working on the issue,

that many seem

to get their facts wrong.

I cannot anticipate

everything anyone might

say about me,

that is a lie.

Although I do not often lie to myself,

and try to think through all the variations

of lies I might encounter,

I am still taken aback by what I hear,

because I cannot anticipate everything,

other people might say.

However, 

I'm becoming immune to this 

variation too,

since the messages

tend to carry,

the same unnecessary

emotions and attitudes.

But still,

I have not encountered,

the super weirdo,

psychopathic,

sociopathic,

OCDish,

stalker,

my-hobby-is-hurting-you,

freak.

The one from television,

that exists out there,

somewhere,

watching, 

when you are unaware,

so you never know,

if you should be aware,

or not.

...


There is only so much,

one can prepare oneself for.

...

Back to the main topic.

It should be clear,

that there is nothing extreme,

in being honest.

Honesty creates resilience.

Your brutal honesty,

is 

kinda where I live.

And it's a nice place.

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




*Monday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:45 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="im-immune">I'm immune.</a>

Mostly immune.

to "brutal" truths.

They are not brutal.

Well,

the brutality is relative.

This means,

you see it as brutal,

because of you.

That's what relative 

means in part.

It depends on

your level of preparation,

of yourself,

with honesty.

I'm honest with myself,

so what do you think,

you can come at me 

brutal-like

with?

I already did that,

and it didn't feel brutal,

when I did it.

There are benefits 

in the preparation.

...

If you "fairy tale" your world

you will be very fragile.

...

With truth,

you won't even want

fairy tales.

You won't want anything

containing lies.

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




*Monday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:03 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="uncage-your-animal-you-animal">Uncage your animal, you animal.</a>

...

Exalt your animal-self.

...

[Aside: In a productive way. I'm not telling you, to completely debase yourself. Let's get that misinterpretation, out of the way. Although, some forms of "debasing" yourself, are not actually debasing yourself. You'll have to decide on that.]

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




*Monday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:24 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="im-not-a-masochist-but-hey-falsepath-me-anyway">"I'm not a masochist, but hey, falsepath me anyway."</a>

[Falsepaths](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#falsepath-and-truepath) are horrible.

You'd think only the masochist would submit.

But mostly everyone submits.

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




*Monday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:21 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="getting-real-in-the-debate-team">Getting real in the debate team.</a>

Are you on the debate team?

How real do you get?

The more real you are,

the less capable anyone is,

of defeating your argument.

Or you lose,

really fast.

...

Is this debate team

thing

worthwhile?

...

"Devil's advocate"

team?

Aren't you supposed to argue,

for positions given to you,

in advance?

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





*Wedneday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:58 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Minor fix. Thursday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:03 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="saw-it-coming">Saw it coming.</a>

Ever see a fighter,

supposedly "cheap shot" an opponent,

and wonder to yourself,

"Did he know to hit first,

because of that look,

on the other person's face,

and slight motion

in their frame?"

...

"I saw it coming,

and I chose to win from the start."

...

Why do I bring this up?

In real life,

people play the appearances game.

They do everything they can,

to injure others,

and either you are required to do the same,

or you can take,

an alternative,

more open and powerful approach.

This puts you at risk,

however, 

even though you might be using

less force than your opponent.

...

So we think,

the first to strike,

is the one who loses,

because we perceive the

force to be excessive.

Even though it was,

minimal,

by comparison,

to the accumulation,

of small slights,

and so on.

...

Or,

as in the case of the fighter above,

the action was to

prevent the very same from happening,

to himself.

...

I will continue to stick to my position,

of letting small things go,

not such that they are forgiven,

but such that they will pile up,

in the pile over there,

mostly out of mind,

but on record,

if the type of person,

deserves such a record.

Then I will hit hard,

and will have no concerns,

whatsoever about it.

Because whatever it is they are doing,

is not something I would do to them.

Although that type of person,

keeps false records too.

...

"The meek, passive-aggressive person, shall inherit the earth."

and that earth

would not be worth living in.

...

Do you know a person,

who cannot get through a single conversation,

without stabbing you somehow?

...

I'm drama averse.

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




*Wednesday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:48 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="vetting-the-remnant">Vetting the "remnant".</a>

I haven't vetted you yet.

Have you been vetted?

...

Don't be confused,

there was no admission process,

and you self-designated,

if you think you're,

in the remnant.

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





*Sunday, November 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:36 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally Posted in HighIQ World on Facebook, October 7<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="obstructing-corporate-turnover">Obstructing Corporate Turnover</a>

Imagine you are a Managing Director of a corporation. You have been on the job for two years. You feel you are doing a good job but you have no objective criteria really to provide ultimate justification of your continued employment. To what extent are you entitled to defend your role in a company that is not yours?

...

Facebook group located here: [HighIQ World](https://www.facebook.com/highiqworld).

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




*Sunday, November 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:40 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Edited: Monday, November 4<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:43 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="the-views-of-your-ancestors">The views of your ancestors.</a>

They were variable.

...

Christmas approaches.

Celebrate someone else's culture,

on your holiday,

per the usual.

Much time elapsed between biblical times, 

> [Aside: We say biblical times, but there was only one place that was biblical. We really mean super ancient Jerusalem and areas nearby.]

and current times,

and many ancestors,

came and went,

who were not Christian.

Yet you forgot them,

and discounted their views.

Probably by

never thinking about them.

You do not know their views actually.

Because they did not record them.

You have the views,

of the conquerors.

Your mind was conquered.

...

This is where

the yet to be conquered,

> [Aside: I'm thinking of the native peoples across the globe]

have an advantage,

of being able to compare.

And they don't necessarily,

want the Christmas of your conquerors,

and the mismatching climate,

and calendar.

And what is interesting,

is you are seeking to 

conquer them too.

If not by active "conquering"

by 

substitution.

...

A more ancient substitution?

"Native people,

your ideas are current to you.

But here,

have this 

2,000 year old,

Middle Eastern 

[falsepath](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#falsepath-and-truepath) instead."

...

The desire to 

force Natives to substitute,

is in part,

because they think,

the Native ideas,

are falsepaths.

Let's be real,

OK?

...

Let's not substitute falsepaths for falsepaths.

...

My descent is

cloudy.

I'm a mut,

like you.

[Mattanaw is races](#mattanaw-is-races).

But I can tell you,

I do not decend directly from

ancient Jews.

In part,

maybe.

But Christmas,

was by way of warfare,

that finally resulted 

in my family.

My family seems to have

no idea,

or any concern at least,

that this was the case.

"Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer"

Ya know?

...

We haven't had 

that 

holiday-changing

conversation yet.

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



*Sunday, November 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:25 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Edited Monday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:52 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="do-you-have-the-patience-and-open-mind-to-receive-a-new-revelation">Do you have the patience and open mind to receive a new Revelation?</a>

Or are you impatient,

in your dismissal of truth?

Revelations,

have to meet your expectations?

You know in advance,

what the Revelations will

*reveal*

to you?

This is not open mindedness.

...

Revelations

may take time

to be conveyed,

and would they not be expected

to alter your criteria?

The whole point is that

you could not come to the truth yourself.

It had to be revealed to you.

This is not supernatural 

revelation.

But it is Revelation.

I capitalized

the 'R' just now.

Powerful education,

is Revelation.

...

It is hard to admit,

you did not know things here

in advance.

So hard,

that after you learn 

things here

I would expect

you to pretend you knew it all along.

...

Adulthood,

is worse than 2<sup>nd</sup> grade.

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




*Sunday, November 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:42 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="its-brutal-because-you-werent-honest-with-yourself">It's brutal because you weren't honest with yourself.</a>

Otherwise,

You'd be prepared.

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



*Sunday,  November 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~1:35, 1:50 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Edited Monday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:17 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="the-whole-world-is-ok">The Whole World is Stuck Here.</a>

There are few exceptions.

You're not one of them most likely.

...

[See the post below](#most-are-stuck-here).

Don't be confused. 

I mean to say that probably,

you are stuck here.

I do have hopes

for you.

...

In religion,

there is the idea,

that the world is wrong,

and that the cult 

you are guilted to pay for

and belong to

is right.

The self-designated

"[remnant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remnant_(Bible))"

is an example of this.

"I just joined a small church,

and now I'm 

a survivor."

Nevermind that "remnants"

disagree with each other,

and have the easiest admission 

process possible.

It is easier to become

a chosen person,

than it is to enter

a private Highschool.

You just show up,

and self-designate.

Then,

you pretend your "knowledge"

is secret,

and privately act as though,

everyone is an enemy.

Publicly,

you claim,

that everyone shares the same religion as you.

This is the gimmick,

of the religious cult.

...

If they took it seriously,

they would openly declare,

that they are the few,

while everyone else is the many.

...

That only a few,

really know quite a lot,

is certainly true,

with respect to knowledge,

however.

So when I state that the world,

is stuck in obvious falsities,

I am saying you probably are too.

These are facts.

This is why we value education.

All of humanity,

for thousands of years,

until recently,

did not have information.

And so the elite of today,

in knowledge,

are the elite for all of history too.

...

I will say it to anyone I meet,

when I have nothing to go by,

as far as what they might know.

But I will acknowledge,

that they might be very 

honest and knowledgable too,

and that I simply don't have enough

information yet.

But I will not claim to be in the remnant,

and then act as though,

the remnant doesn't exist,

in the open,

or first that nobody but my

*clique*

...

*clique*

is in it,

and later,

that the clique,

includes everyone.

...

"Do you not know what a team is?"

...

Let us consider that obvious falsities,

do exist.

They do,

*right*?

Who is the keeper,

of obvious falsities?

They get shared,

communicated,

and preserved,

by the bulk of humanity?

I can tell you though,

I do not believe in any

ghosties...

yet,

people do.

How are these ghosties preserved?

> [Aside: "ghosties" is my placeholder for everything that is obviously foolish]

It is undeniable,

that people are,

preserving,

and communicating,

and believing,

obvious falsities,

else they would have been lost

to history.

...

You read about it,

in amusement.

...

So yes,

most of the world,

is stuck in that position.

They have some truths,

that is clear,

else they could not,

sew clothing together.

But they also,

are the carriers of the infection,

that is easily cured.

...

Oh,

and I forgot to mention,

that institutions,

and organizations,

are the keepers of the obvious falsities.

Propaganda is a technique they use.

Bullying and manipulation too.

It would be very difficult,

for individuals,

to preserve ghosties across nations,

if not for organized

misinformation.

...

Public education,

strives to not be this.

While public education,

is day care

in disguise,

it does have one of the most

valuable missions,

that has ever existed.

Of teaching what is true,

and only what is true.

This is why,

they have rightfully censored,

religion.

...

You are more likely to get falsepathed,

at home,

or outside of school.

...

Remedial education,

for institutions?

"Institution of Ghosties,

hear about,

how there aren't any."

...

Another alternative,

already taken:

Shelter them,

from taxes?

...

My religion is philosophy.

I'm excited to build my

new tax shelter.

I will not guilt anyone

into donating.

I am already,

living mostly

tax-free.

But hey,

cash me.

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



*Sunday, November 3<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:26 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Edit Monday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:52 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="advice-dynamics">Advice Dynamics.</a>

"When X happens, I do Y."

That isn't very effective actually.

Because you are implying,

you do the same thing Y, 

under any circumstance X,

but X is too variable,

to call for Y,

every time.

...

In other words,

X and Y are not variables,

but are placeholders,

according to the ordinary understanding.

But to work they need to be variables.

Otherwise Y does not apply to X, which will change.

or X does not call for

Y.

What does X call for?

Is a

*super interesting question*.

Why?

Situations don't call for anything it seems.

We just create

advice.

...

This variability,

that calls for

*variables*

leads to our common feeling,

that advice is amiss.

You,

the person who knows the situation,

has to select from the advice

in the heap.

...


You alone can decide what applies.

There's often no time or capability to explain X,

to tradition.

Tradition won't respond.

But a thinking person,

might unthinkingly respond,

with something canned 

in tradition.

...

Traditional morality,

has not accounted for this.

This is why morality,

is a heap.

And not an organized

*method*

for applying answers,

to real situations.

It's a matching game

of sorts,

with few rules,

and no way to know,

when it is being done correctly.

We just look at our outcomes,

and think,

it turned out OK

this time.

...

There are too many situations.

To simplify,

people pretended,

variation did not exist,

or did not matter,

or was not enough variation,

to justify,

sufficient variation of response.

"My advice is universal".

Even the best of the philosophers,

fell into this kind of trap.

"I found the supreme principle of morality..."

This guy,

couldn't figure out,

how to apply the principle

he made up.

He did seem to be,

very honest however.

...

When things don't go well

and people are not helpful

and tradition harms

instead of helping

people tend to think:

"Don't judge me unless you've walked in my shoes."

"Don't cast the first stone."

And variants,

that all mean,

it is hard to understand all the situations,

that can occur.

...

Tradition,

has not taken any "Hippocratic Oath."

It's just a dead and lifeless,

information pile.

The life

of tradition

is in people,

who cough up advice,

committing the mistake of the [availability heuristic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic).

We think the first thing that comes to mind,

is the answer.

...

Listen to advice from your parents.

They are the keepers of tradition,

and they are available,

so they are the easiest to test

this truth on.

When they judge,

and provide advice,

how frequently is it 

the very first thing

they think of

when they react

is the advice they give you.

They trust their reactions.

But reactions are variable.

So who's reaction do you trust?

Your parents or someone else's?

You are better to trust,

those who take multiple reactions into consideration,

and think things through carefully,

or those,

who have trustworthy intuitions.

...

If you look at how advice is given,

one piece of advice is expected to apply,

to situations that are not analogous,

to those that prompted the 

creation the advice.

We rarely,

inquire into advice creation events.

Why? 

They are gone?

What is the significance?

We cannot find analogies to them!!

...

Advice is created,

somehow,

and attains memorability,

and is recorded.

This is how disorganized heaps are created.

Where were the morality architects?

It's a cluster,

from all sorts of individuals,

in the culture.

...

A toolkit is not provided,

that would satisfy variable conditions.

Usually it's some canned phrase,

taken directly from tradition,

as a mostly thoughtless reaction.

If only we could measure the thoughts,

in the reactions.

> [Aside: For now we ignore that there is nearly always an opposing piece of advice from tradition]

Did you weigh the options,

or know the options,

in your reaction?

Intuited,

to the regular?

Or intuited,

through the problem,

to the solution?

Can you see the difference?

Some will intuit to the anger.

*Straight to the anger.*

...

But if you take X and Y to be variables truly,

where X is a situational input,

and Y is a tool, 

within a set of tools,

what you find,

is that you do not really do some static Y,

when some X occurs,

but you use different tools,

alternately,

alternatively,

or in combination,

over time.

This means that,

if you encounter similar situations,

minor differences,

will still call for,

different reactions.

We have trouble,

speaking in terms of,

dynamic time-related combinations and alternations.

...

This is truly another problem.

If you accept that X is a variable,

again,

that your situation changes,

then your tool is supposed to vary,

over time.

This is clear,

in athletics,

where improvement,

demands changes in activities.

The situation does not remain the same,

but differs only slightly,

but *significantly*,

and so the advice,

about what to do,

changes.

Notice that tradition,

does not have this 

understanding of dynamics

in situations and solutions.

...

Let's take it further.

I was talking about how *advice givers* 

change too.

Different people are different inputs into this.

Also,

the advice I would give 5 years ago,

would not be the same

as the advice I would give today.

...

It's really is largely a pile of advice.

The advice givers,

are snatching from the same pile.

And they don't

*snatch*

the same way,

as each other.

...

Variability in the access of "morality"

exists too.

I mentioned this,

with the availability heuristic.

That is instant memory access,

of moral understanding,

that had no method,

other than first recall.

...

Advice givers are 

a variable.

The advice giver heap.

How do you choose from this heap?

First adult you see in front of you?

The most proximal?

I never met a child,

who sought advice,

by specialization.

Parent know-it-all

generalists.

With no knowledge.

Or training,

or certification.

"How did you become a parent?"

"Well first,

we copulated like animals..."

Parents,

don't seek advice,

often,

from specialists,

to fill their gaps.

They fill their gaps,

with another

less than justifiable

methodology.

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




*Sunday, November 3<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:51 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="the-thoughtstream-is-also-a-punching-bag">The ThoughtStream is also a Punching Bag.</a>

...

Some advise,

that when you need to "vent",

to avoid hurting other people,

or yourself,

you should

take it out on a punching bag,

or scream into a pillow, 

or release your energy in some other,

socially acceptable way.

Be violent,

in a non-harmful way

for example.

...

This is often called 

*[Catharsis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis#Therapeutic_uses)*

...

Before doing any of those things 

however,

you can try thinking honestly to yourself

and "vent" 

in a journal.

You can try to think things through,

until they no longer frustrate you.

This is another method,

you can mix into 

your cathartic medicine.

...

These are all tools.

Use whichever happens to be handy,

at the moment,

and use more than one option in alternation,

or combination,

over time.

...

You should at least

try it out.

You might discover,

you are a natural

cross-fitter,

climber,

singer,

or yodeller,

or something.

The most obvious form of 

catharsis,

is any kind of 

energy releasing

activity.

...

Uncage your

animal,

you 

animal.

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




*Sunday, November 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:15 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="most-are-stuck-here">Most are stuck here.</a>

<br />
<img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="ignoring-what-is-definitely-false-2-web.png" src="ignoring-what-is-definitely-false-2-web.png">
<br />

See more [here](lists.html).

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




*Sunday, November 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:00 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="ignoring-what-is-definitely-false">Ignoring What is Definitely False.</a> 

<br />
<img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="ignoring-what-is-definitely-false-1-web.jpg" src="ignoring-what-is-definitely-false-1-web.jpg">
<br />

See more [here](lists.html).

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






*Saturday, November 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:45 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="busy-bee">Busy Bee.</a>

Do bees,

busy collecting pollen,

seem concerned,

about how organized their pollen collecting is?

About how they look,

covered with sticky,

yellow dust?

It clings to their legs nicely,

but in caked-chunks,

not at all beautiful,

on close inspection.

Be a busy bee?

I think I'm like a busy bee,

to an extent.

At least I can use this,

to praise myself,

in my incomplete efforts,

at building something,

that seems to be within me,

to complete.

...

I expect my final product

to have the regularity,

of a honey-bee hexacomb.

But like the bee,

I'll work on it,

and perhaps die,

from a hand-smacking,

before finishing.

In the meantime,

I'll just work at it.

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




*Saturday, November 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:19 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="tension-between-preservation-and-letting-go">Tension between preservation and letting go.</a>

The hoarder knows this tension well.

Civilization is a hoarder.

We want to archive.

But we have never been successful at creating any real permanence.

Change destroys relevance.

History becomes disinteresting.

From the personal level, 

to the everything level.

I am thinking about how to record something permanently meaningful.

I am not fond of pyramids,

because they seem foolish for the effort.

But I keep thinking,

messages have to be inscribed in permanent physical things,

that withstand weathering.

But weathering always wins.

Great plains.

Appalachian range.

Pyramid dust.

...

Perfect clocks.

Permanent archives.

Permanent utility.

Unsolved,

unsolvable problems?

...

Perhaps we would benefit,

from the proofs,

that these are insoluble.

Math would undermine 

these plans,

that perhaps,

need undermining, 

because from the start we cling to any solution,

offered,

and maybe,

the Buddhists have it right.

...

Another reason why I say,

my website is a mandala.

Life is a temporary mandala?

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




*Saturday, November 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:06 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="my-website-is-a-mandala">My website is a mandala.</a>

I would not destroy it immediately as some Buddhists would.

But I expect it to fade into nothingness,

eventually,

nevertheless.

...

Pyramids carry messages no one is concerned to understand.

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




*Friday, November 1<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:02 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="solution-problem-it">What? Solution-problem it?</a> 

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




*Friday, November 1<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:58 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="laundry-and-time">Laundry and Time.</a> 

Ever go to fold your laundry,

and think to yourself,

"All of these clothes I like, are already old?"

Textiles don't last.

These underwear.

I need them to last forever,

OK?

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





*Friday, November 1<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:50 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Edited: Monday, November 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:15 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="its-a-blessing-and-a-curse">"It's a blessing and a curse."</a>

You mean,

It has pros and cons?

That's what this means.

...

What difference does it make which you think 

and use?

Well,

"blessings" and "curses"

are prohibited,

or are flagged,

by our [list](lists.html).

The first one makes you think:

1. That you are important.
1. That you are actually "blessed" in a supernatural way. It's fine to think you have advantages to be grateful for. But it is another thing to think, you have received supernatural preference. 
1. That you are cursed. This doesn't really help at all.

...

"Pros and cons" works for many things,

over and above

"blessings and curses".

It is just a better tool.

...

But let me fill you in on something.

Analysing using pluses and minuses

is also a *basic* way of looking at it.

...

You can tell this is true,

while you are doing it.

...

So, 

if you think in terms of 

blessing and a curses, 

you are either,

falling into a cultural trap

> [Aside: I fell into it this morning.]

or you are possibly superstitious 

and maybe unaware of more 

sophisticated ways of thinking,

that bring you closer to truth.

pros and cons,

is one more sophisticated way of looking at it,

that is hardly sophisticated.

...

Later we'll get to a higher level,

but for now,

let's leave the lowest level.

*Deal?*

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




*Thursday, October 31<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:28 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="heartwarming-somethings-one">Heartwarming Somethings, One.</a>

A cat with only one half of a leg,

learns to run again.

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



*Wednesday, October 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:00, 11:10 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="i-dont-have-a-favorite">"I don't have a favorite."</a>

I knew I did not have a favorite color,

since I was first asked 

what my favorite color was,

as a small child.

"Pick pink,

or blue,

children."

...

I chose pink and I was

dishonest.

...

Maybe you had the same experience also?

...

Favorite color? Among which options?

2, 3, 8, or 400?

My favorite,

on what?

My favorite color of bagel,

is beige-ish.

Certainly,

it is not blue.

Green is even worse.

Moldy green-blue fuzz.

...

Favorite food?

I don't have a favorite.

You don't either.

...

Favorite _____________?

I didn't try enough of the ____________ yet,

to both select a favorite,

>[Aside: because compelled]

and to realize, 

I couldn't have one.

...

What would you like to be your final meal

prison inmate?

"Can I choose,

on the day of the meal

please?"

Better yet,

can we push it back,

a few years.

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



*Wednesday, October 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:01 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="be-90-now">Be 90 now.</a>

Many older people say they regret that 

they cared so much about what other people thought,

throughout their lives.

Nobody takes this advice. It's interesting.

...

I choose to be 90 about 5 years ago.

And if anyone gives me a hard time,

I'll point out,

I'm following the advice,

of *their* elders.

...

I look really good,

for ninety.

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






*Wednesday, October 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:33 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="youre-woke-so-youre-a-determinist-now">You're Woke so You're a Determinist Now.</a>

[You're woke?](#few-are-woke)

I said I'd revisit this in a decade, 

but I need to revisit it now.

You're woke,

so that means,

you're a Determinist.

...

For now,

that is the most important awakening,

I can think of.

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




*Wednesday, October 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:22 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="aligning-yourself-with-probability">Aligning Yourself with Probability</a>

Hope and Improbability.

You should know where I'm going to go with this one.

Instead of aligning yourself with hope,

shouldn't you just align yourself with,

probability?

...

Recall the hopes,

of wartime losers.

...

Once committed to some probable outcome,

that's within your power,

or not,

you should attach your hope,

to your commitment,

in some way,

perhaps.

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




*Tuesday, October 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:22 PM Alaska Time</time>

* Edited, Tuesday, October 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:34 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="movie-ideas-for-people-who-can-make-movies-one">Movie Ideas for People Who Can Make Movies, One.</a>

When is a robot with AI truly human-like?

When is it "alive", in the sense that humans are alive?

This is not a new question. It has been covered in science fiction,

probably innumerable times.

*Star Trek*.

Kubrick's *2001 Space Odyssey*.

And others.

Let's take this idea one step further.

Humans created useful human-like robots.

They are improved and refined, until the life of the robots,

seems more desirable,

than human life itself.

The means of copying human brains,

into digital brains is completed.

Suddenly there are thousands of robots,

supposedly having human minds.

They behave and act exactly like humans.

They seem more advanced, more secure,

and more immortal than humans.

But nobody is quite sure,

if they are actually alive,

or if they are merely simulating human lives,

in incredibly complex ways.

...

Time progresses,

the new form of life seems so much more desirable,

than human life,

that most have made the switch.

only a small number of humans exist.

They have to make the decision,

to end humanity,

at the risk,

that the new life form,

isn't life at all.

Perhaps guaranteeing,

that there will never be any other form of life,

ever again in the universe.

...

Or else,

the decision is made,

because humans,

were automata,

with no more significance than the robots,

all along.

It's just life,

renewed.

Nature,

taking its next step,

through us.

...

Add some drama and all that,

and I think this is a good movie plot.

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





*Tuesday, October 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:00 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="remember-cryogenics">Remember Cryogenics?</a>

How many bodies are frozen for no reason at all?

What percentage are recoverable?

> [Aside: I assume zero percent.]

Resurrection of frozen bodies,

doesn't even seem possible.

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




*Tuesday, October 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:13 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="ignorance-is-bliss">Ignorance is Bliss?</a>

The future of the person who says so, 

is to cry out:

"Why didn't I know!?"

...

Knowledge is power.

Power is bliss.

The power to not be ignorant is

basic.

...

This is false too but I had a point to make.

...

This is why I said let the elite tell you,

what elite privileges are.

Because ignorance,

is,

not,

bliss.

...

The ignorant might tell you it is.

From the slums.

It's self-talk though.

They want to believe that the nothing they have,

is what is truly desirable.

This is understandable.

...

Why not make the best out of what you don't have?

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




*Tuesday, October 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:03 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="let-rip-rip">Let R.I.P R.I.P</a>

There isn't anyone to rest.

There's a lot to learn, trust me.

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



*Monday, October 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:41 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="nice-job-at-the-gym-I-see-you-accomplished-veins">Nice job at the gym. I see you accomplished veins.</a>

...

"Nice job at the gym. I see you accomplished _____________."

Fill that in with something awkward. 

It has to be true though.

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





*Monday, October 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:28 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="focus-on-yourself-because-you-like-you-right">Focus on yourself because you like you, right?</a>

OK, so you don't like me because I'm _______________________?

It's easy then,

you prefer someone more like you.

You are just like you.

So, 

wouldn't it make your life easier,

to focus on yourself?

Like I do already?

...

Or is that something you're unable to do for some reason?

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




*Monday, October 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:06 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="dr-lunch-part-one">"Dr. Lunch", Part One.</a>

**Cast:**

Mattanaw, as Dr. Lunch

Some Other Guy, as the Patient

**Stage:**

*[Enters the patient, who quietly waits in the examination room, after the nurse performs some initial checkup tasks. He is not in a hurry, but he is getting slightly irritated about the wait time.*

*Dr. Lunch then enters. He is apathetic, but makes the appearance of being interested in his new patient. He looks like he has someplace to go.*

*Lunch box. There is an old-school lunch box in the corner of the room, clearly in view.*

*It's a classy antique lunch box.]*

**Scene**

> *Dr. Lunch:* 

Well Hello there! 

The nurse told me you were having some trouble with acid-reflux. 

I'm sorry to hear about that. 

We'll get you fixed up.

I understand you are a new patient. 

> *Patient:* 

Yes, that's correct. 

> *Dr. Lunch:* 

Well, nice to meet you for the first time.

New patients are my favorite.

*[grins]*

My name is "Dr. Lunch".

> *Patient:* 

"Dr. *Lunch*?"

*[There is an awkward pause]*

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to... 

well...

[Patient is interrupted]

> *Dr. Lunch:* 

Oh, don't even think of it.

It's exactly like it sounds.

"Lunch"

L. u. n. c. h.

Like the meal.

I LOVE my name. 

It's memorable.

You remember it already.

> *Patient:* 

Hmmm...

I think you're right. 

> *Dr. Lunch:*

I am!

OK

Well let's get to it.

One thing.

It's 11:40 already.

and...

We're almost out of time.

> *Patient:*

What?

Out of time?

We just started.

Out of time for what?

> *Dr. Lunch:*

Noon approaches,

and, 

I always have someplace I have to be

at noon.

I think you can understand that,

right?

> *Patient*

Ummmm...

I mean, I'm serious about my acid-reflux,

and I have a lot of questions.

At noon I'm usually at work,

around that time,

and I do,

have something to do,

usually,

at noon. 

Almost always at noon.

That's why I chose this time.

I usually have a break,

around this time.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself...

[Does a partial face-palm]

> *Dr. Lunch*

Me too, me too.

So I think we can agree,

we both have something to do,

at noon.

[grins] 

So here we go.

I promise we will get through

everything.

...

To be continued...

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




*Sunday, October 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~11:53 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="do-you-ever-wish-you-could-sing-like-a-woman-and-a-man">Do you ever wish you could sing like a woman and a man?</a>

If you are a man,

I know there are songs,

that you wish you could sing along to,

with that lady voice.

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




*Sunday, October 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~11:49 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="when-your-negative-is-my-positive">When Your Negative is My Positive.</a>

I'm afraid your negative,

appears to be my positive.

And I don't think of things in terms of positive and negative anyway.

So can I suggest we start 

by talking about 

learning?

Which is positive,

whichever way,

you look at it,

*right*?

Now can you understand?

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




*Sunday, October 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:45 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="you-cannot-make-any-inferences-from-the-thoughtstream-to-my-behavior-in-the-workplace">You cannot make any inferences from the ThoughtStream to my behavior in the workplace.</a>

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





*Sunday, October 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:17 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="as-a-heuristic-device-i-dont-listen-to-anyone">As a heuristic device, I don't listen to anyone.</a>

I take their input, when attention calls for it.

People who I've clearly listened to--

you should feel proud.

...

What I do with input received is up to me completely.

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




*~Friday, October 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:16 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="logic-teachers-have-the-responsibility">Logic teachers have the responsibility</a>

first and foremost,

that children and adults leaving their classes,

are able to separate the most obvious falsities in our culture,

from our culture's truths.

...

Isn't it the *goal*...

that the students,

who will be life-long logic users,

will be able to sort out truths?

...

Why not make it easier,

and help them

instantly cancel out

obviously false things.

...

Then we can rely on them 

and aid them

in the hard work finding

the trickier falsities that exist,

that would take a while to find,

and not require them,

to find *all of the falsities*,

including those that are the very easiest to detect,

but are pervasive and numerous,

and are encountered,

nearly randomly,

over many years,

and not all at once.

...

If I taught logic,

I would from the start,

point out the set of all words,

that we can trust,

will falsify sentences,

and then will introduce,

the more difficult concepts,

that are taught in logic,

as logic.

> [Aside: I returned to actually start this here](lists.html).

...

I'm not sure logicians,

understand what it is they are really

trying to teach,

or do?

Otherwise,

we would not have so many 

Introductory logic texts,

that vary mostly in syntactical preferences,

than in anything useful.

I feel they are

trying to show,

they understand logic,

but not what it's

for.

...

I suggest that courses in logic,

should become standard in elementary school,

because first of all,

it is easy,

and second of all,

children should be able to start sorting out,

truth from falsity,

while they are young,

and not only when they are old.

How sad is it

that people have to sort it all out

on their own.

And this way,

kids can identify,

if their parents are at all logical,

and determine,

if they are to be trusted.

It is weird to me,

that parents don't realize,

that other parents,

are harmful to their own children.

This is a primary issue with society.

Parents.

...

If I were orphaned,

I'd want parents.

*But not just any parents!!!*

Some homes,

are dungeons.

Are you not aware,

of cults 

and psychopaths?

Choose a mental disorder,

and someone's parents

has that.

*Get it?*

...

A core problem in life is

"Who can I trust?"

Some learn while very young,

they could not trust,

those they were told they should rely on.

So why not teach them,

from the very first,

to trust themselves,

as long as they can,

*trust in logic*,

and clear thinking.

...

This is much better than,

"You might have nothing at all

to trust."

The very best,

of what can trusted,

can be made available,

to anyone and everyone.

It is logic,

and clear thinking.

...

I need to say more about this topic

later.

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




*Friday, October 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:27 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="sanest-not-a-sadist">Sanest, not a Sadist.</a>

See the list below.

Add 666 to it.

Completely meaningless.

"Friday the 13<sup>th</sup>?"

Numerology. The number 7.

Astrology.

Completely meaningless.

But fun, 

*as long as you know* 

it is for fun.

...

Let's talk about 13.

There are still buildings today,

that have no 13<sup>th</sup> floor.

This was only because of superstition.

People wouldn't buy property on the 13<sup>th</sup> floor.

So they would simply go from the 12<sup>th</sup>,

to the 14<sup>th</sup> floor.

So people would buy property on the 14<sup>th</sup> floor instead.

But that was just the 13<sup>th</sup> floor renamed.

...

Think about how common,

this superstition had to have been,

to have built buildings,

without 13<sup>th</sup> floors?

Elevators had to have 12<sup>th</sup> and 14<sup>th</sup> floor buttons.

Mailboxes had to skip numbers with 13.

...

Superstition is embarrassing.

It's costly.

See the list below.

Not only have we been unable to create logic classes,

that were logical enough,

to teach what in our culture is really false,

but we tolerate,

in public education,

the continuation of these ridiculous ideas.

...

Part of my religion,

which is philosophy,

is anti-superstition.

...

Superstitious people aren't completely sane.

Philosophy,

creates sane people.

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




*Thursday, October 24<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:54 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="nunavut-is-real">Nunavut is real.</a>

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




*Thursday, October 24<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:24 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="every-logic-course-in-history-was-incomplete">Every logic course in history was incomplete.</a>

Why?

It failed to make the list mentioned below.

How can a logic class come to completion,

without including the list of all terms,

that falsify nearly any sentence,

they would be a part of?

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




*Thursday, October 24<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:20 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Minor Edit, Wednesday, October 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:25 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="challenge-three-find-words-that-dont-appear-in-true-sentences">Challenge III. Find words that don't appear in true statements.</a>

These are mostly useless, superstitious words.

Well, they are useful in a literary sense. 

We can make interesting films and novels using them.

But usually we fail to make sense at all,

when we use them,

in real life.

...

The word "conjure" came to mind today.

It's funny. I was having a good time with it.

On reflection, I don't think it has ever been used in a true sentence.

This might be hyperbole,

but it is close to the truth nevertheless.

Unless you say something like:

"They thought they could conjure dead relatives, but it turns out, there is no way to conjure anything."

But this is true,

because,

it is basically making the point I'm making, 

right?

...

For challenge three, 

I suggest we find words 

that never appear in true statements,

unless the sentence is like the one above,

negating its reality in some way.

...

Example.

"Resurrection."

This is something that just never happens.

It never happened either.

You can have more faith in me stating this,

than in whatever else,

anyone might tell you about it.

...

If I insist that Benjamin Franklin needs to be resurrected,

to get his opinion on gun control,

I'm not being serious.

I'm joking about how resurrection is as impossible,

as getting Benjamin Franklin's opinion on the topic.

...

More examples:

* Demon
* Devil
* Ghost
* Spirit
* Benjamin Franklin (if used for something present).
* Equality (of complex things taken in total).

None of these things refer to anything, 

so we can expect,

that these terms are more useful in a literary sense,

for our amusement,

for persuasion and marketing,

and so forth,

than for conveying truths.

...

If someone claims you are a devil for example,

they aren't making a true statement.

You shouldn't be offended.

You should laugh.

"X is a Devil" is always false.

"X has been resurrected" is always false.

"X was conjured by Beelzebub" is always false.

"I was visited by a Ghost at night" is always false.

"The spirit of Great Grandma is watching me" is always false.

> [Aside: You don't believe that anyways in practice, otherwise Tinder would not be something you would have a login for.]

"Benjamin Franklin thinks X" (where X is a topic of current events), is always false.

"Bill and Jane are Equal" (Where both are complex objects taken in total) is always false.

...

At this point you should see how this can be made useful.

You can completely ignore what anyone says about anything and everything,

taking these things seriously.

Take a look at my notes on [imagination and filtration](imagination-and-filtration-dark-green-notebook.html). 

On Attention.

Our attention is very valuable.

We want to use our minds for true things,

or fun and amusing things,

and not superstitious things.

...

To an extent we can use a list such as this,

as a guide,

to determine just how much we should interact with someone else.

"This person believes in 600 things on the list of 2000 ridiculous

sentence-falsifying terms?"

That's a scary person.

...

Is that your parent?

If that's your parent,

remember you are free to believe whatever you find true,

and deny whatever you think is false.

Your mind is free.

You don't belong to your parents.

Your country is unable to ensure that you are educated

by parents

who

believe true things.

But since we insist

that parents do guide correctly,

you can think of them as being interchangeable.

You can substitute the teachings,

of your friend's parents,

for your own.

If you prefer.

It is not fair that they had parents

who knew things,

when your parents didn't.

...

Ask your logic teacher,

to provide you the more complete list,

and learn,

they don't have one.

...

I'll add a list here.

Let's make a list together.

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





*Wednesday, October 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:32 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="risks-of-not-knowing-your-rights">Risks of not knowing your rights, and not really having rights.</a>

I've said before that I don't really believe in rights,

but in something more valuable than rights.

I'm more concerned that,

whatever it is that is desired is actually secured.

That you actually have what is supposedly established,

through such a right.

*through such a right*

But rights don't work hard for you.

In fact they do nothing but exist in writing,

until someone takes action regarding them.

...

One example I've given before involves providing access to water.

Suppose there is a right to water.

In Flint Michigan, it would be unclear what that right actually means.

Water has to be provided by technology and work.

So I would prefer a system that provides water access,

to any right to access.

Because on the one hand, the work was actually done,

on the other hand,

nothing might ever get done.

There is a big difference between having an infrastructure for something,

and having nothing,

but words indicating,

that something should be provided,

given enough money and resources,

to mobilize people to actually 

start to create that same technology?

By basic human processes,

involving the legal system,

and lawyers and so forth?

If there was already a system to deliver water,

there is no need for any right to water,

except maybe

as a *last resort.*

"Rights as a last resort"

is not how people usually think about it,

but it is much closer to the truth.

And many do not ever get what they supposedly,

have rights to.

...

If you don't think that this is the case,

consider the legal system,

where you are told, that you will be taken advantage of,

if you don't know what your rights are.

This means,

not only that your rights are not secured for you,

that you can only secure your rights yourself.

Furthermore,

you are at a disadvantage,

if you cannot afford legal counsel.

Through this we can see that,

if you are poor,

are unintelligent,

have any disadvantages whatsoever relating to 

not understanding the law,

or the legal process,

or having funds to obtain counsel,

you are at risk,

of not having your rights secured for you.

So this is why I am correct,

when I say that rights,

do not actually obtain anything for you.

It is much better to have something,

than to have rights.

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





*Tuesday, October 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:27 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="esquired-and-exchequered-bro">"Esquired and Exchequered, Bro."</a>

Mixing older English,

into

Bro-parlance.

...

Plus done that,

to an extent.

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




*Tuesday, October 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:52 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="on-what-cycle-should-I-consume-your-recommended-ingredients">On what cycle should I consume your recommended ingredients?</a>

Everyone is familiar with meal advice.

You should eat more (fill-in-the-blank).

What always seems to be missing, is the cycle you should eat such foods.

Daily cycle?

Tomatoes 3 times a day, once a day, once every two days?...

Once a month?

What is the recommendation actually?

It seems to me, 

that if you recommend consuming a particular food,

you are saying there is some minimal amount you should eat routinely.

As with vitamins.

With vitamins, we can basically

have a tablet once a day.

But with food recommendations, we cannot do that,

and since so many types of food are

"good for us"

it is hard to know what our meals should really look like,

across days,

into weeks and months,

and years.

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




*Tuesday, October 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:05 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="youve-been-miscellaneoused">You've been miscellaneoused.</a>

Let us move to the next stage,

in the LGBTQIA+ movement,

and get [miscellaneoused](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#miscellaneoused) together,

to become completely all-inclusive.

...

I feel [miscellaneoused](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#miscellaneoused) already.

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



*Tuesday, October 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:44 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="i-did-exactly-what-my-parents-told-me-to-do">"I did exactly what my parents told me to do".</a>

So, you're telling me...

I should do what your parents told you to do?

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




*Tuesday, October 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:34 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="dont-be-a-sock-blocker">Don't be a sock blocker!</a>

"Don't be a sock blocker, Mom."

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




*Sunday, October 20<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~10:35 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Edited Monday, November 11<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~11:57 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="legacy-in-the-eternity">Legacy in the eternity?</a>

Eternity is a long time.

We know this, but 

we don't know it in practice,

or in planning.

How long is a legacy supposed to last?

A legacy of a few years does not

seem to be something of great value.

This is why I do not concern myself with having a legacy.

By this I do not mean to say 

that I don't think my work

is of importance.

Instead,

I mean to point out,

that no deceased human is known after 200 years,

except in name.

Pythagoras.

...

A rare few will read and 

understand the mind,

of an eminent person,

through their writing.

But that is only if they wrote something.

People who I know,

who are concerned with legacies,

do not write,

and seem more concerned,

with some sort of

sexual conquest.

Which is why 

Personally,

I prefer to write,

and if I want anyone at all to have any understanding

of my mind,

I need to first of all,

write it down.

There's much to be said.

This is why I think

"getting it out into the world unedited"

is so important.

To me that is vastly superior,

than having nothing written at all,

only to trust others,

who have no idea what you would write,

to tell a story,

that ends up being theirs and not yours,

no matter who they happen to be,

and how close the relationship.

...

In ten thousand years, no one will have time,

or any interest,

in reading anything I write.

No one can tell my story,

but myself,

and the audience dwindles,

as millennia pass by.

Could you ask your great grandchild,

100 generations from now,

in a will,

to read my memoirs?

...

What is the lifespan of a will?

How long,

can we expect

someone to honor a time-capsule?

This is why there are pyramids,

and everyone,

already knows what was inside of those.

Mostly

really ancient 

useless

stuff.

...

Which leaves only one legacy of interest:

How can I make my mark upon the destiny of the world itself?

Everyone does this easily.

This is where the Pharoahs actually had an impact.

Although we know next to nothing about them,

and *we* chose their legacies for them!

...

But even if we consider changing the world

something of great importance to pursue,

we have the troublesome issue,

that everything appears to be predetermined.

So even what you do,

is what you will do.

...

For these reasons I do not concern myself with

having a legacy,

but work anyway.

And this is why,

I have a planned extinction event,

for my lineage,

when I die,

there will be nobody else,

to claim they came from me.

Biologically at least.

If your child,

wants to claim they came from me,

somehow,

that is fine.

But I don't think,

that will result in an eternal legacy.

My extinction is immanent.

...

Life is easier,

without the demands of 

planning for a legacy.

There are just too many people to pay for,

and too many people

to manipulate.

That's not "Mattanaw".

Then there's the problem

of who they will become,

regardless of my efforts,

to educate them,

according to my visions.

While I would think the right DNA would pass to my offspring,

there is little evidence,

that DNA,

will create the children,

I imagine,

when I'm using my imagination.

They always become,

something utterly different.

Better than expected,

or something different than expected,

but never,

*what was expected*.

Wanting a legacy,

creates high expectations.

All my children have to be recyclers,

if not saints.

Never will there be,

someone,

with a legacy greater

than my own,

or one opposite to my own.

How do you plan to

outdo your parent's legacies?

Surely,

you are not merely,

ensuring their legacy continues,

without any concern for your own,

right?

Then this conversation,

would only be about,

our ancestor's legacies,

and never our own.

...

Suppose I decided

instead I would have a legacy,

and

I had 10 children,

each of whom had 10 children,

whom had 10 children more.

After 3 generations,

they would not know each other,

there would be so many.

And if I had the

*power*

to create a legacy,

upon all these families,

my legacy,

would be one they might wish to escape,

or one to overcome,

or emulate,

but not merely maintain.

> [Aside: Nobody of worth *ever* simply looks upon the achievement of their ancestors as something to simply remain unchanged].

I say this while keeping in mind,

that children and grandchildren,

do love and admire their grandparents,

and remember them

sometimes.

But I do not know who my great-great-great grandparents were,

would probably rarely think of them if I did,

and 10,000 years from now,

maybe everyone on earth,

will be related to my grandparents,

in some way.

Nobody truly looks to the origin of the species,

for inspiration,

[great-grandma australopithecus](#pay-homage-to-animal-grandma).

She has no legacy whatsoever,

and everything depended on her!

> [Aside: and she does not mind it. The dead are not concerned about legacies.]

...

Since the desire to leave a legacy,

involves a desire to control,

people who don't even exist yet,

who will somehow selflessly create the

selfish vision of 

some guy at the top,

of a self-created "success pyramid",

I find it mostly disgusting and

abhorrent.

> [Aside: Women seem less concerned about legacies and more concerned about familial well-being. I greatly prefer that perspective].

Never have I heard some guy talk of leaving a legacy,

without feeling some disgust concerning his motives.

At the same time, of course, I understand their desire to create a family,

which is not the same thing,

as trying to create a legacy. 

...

I will remember my parents and grandparents fondly,

but they will certainly not have

eternal legacies.

...

After this clear and

easy

destruction of 

legacy,

in the eternity,

I will turn my attention to

inheritance.

Since the root of so many of our issues with social justice,

involves how and where we start our lives.

I think we need to consider,

what role,

handing down money from parent to child,

really should have,

if we are to claim that there is any

sort of equality that makes sense.

There must be a better strategy,

to ensure a more just distribution,

of life starting-points.

...

Parents cannot choose their children,

but children cannot choose their parents either.

If parents have no resources,

we cannot pretend,

that disadvantages will be corrected,

by changes with public education and affirmative action.

They have to go home,

to be with their ignorant parents,

and whatever home and neighborhood,

they are unlucky enough,

to find themselves in.

It's about cash and resources.

People who inherit,

are,

well,

not exactly *deserving* in any

meaningful way.

...

Of course,

making everyone start from a position

of health and well being,

and plentiful resources,

will not equalize our DNA,

and it shouldn't,

because we need strength in diversity.

But what it will do is

make 

meritocracy something that's not just 

bullshit!!

...

Elimination of

inheritance might not be the answer.

Some diversity might be beneficial here too,

but I would prefer,

no inheritance to inheritance,

given the forced decision,

because the idea of a lasting

legacy is nonsense.

...

Have you ever questioned

your motive of having a legacy?

Where did you even,

get such an idea,

if you had one?

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




*Saturday, October 19<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:31 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Minor Edit, Sunday, October 20<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:25 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="inspired-by-women">Inspired by Women.</a>

When I imagine myself running,

I imagine that I'm a woman doing it.

When I imagine myself squatting with weights,

I imagine that I'm a woman doing it.

When I imagine myself playing basketball,

I image that I'm a man doing it.

...

Even when I'm doing so-called 

"Manly things",

I'm sometimes imagining,

that I'm a woman doing it,

and not a man.

...

I only recently realized,

my preference to use women as role models,

for things ordinarily

dominated by men.

I've chosen them,

from TV and from real life.

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



*Friday, October 18<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:11 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="complain-with-a-solutionss">Complain with a solutionss.</a>

[superpluralification](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#superpluralification)

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



*Friday, October 18<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:01 PM, 5:28 Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="disruptors-are-already-out">Disruptors are already out.</a>

Not long ago, there was the idea of a 

"Disruptive Change Agent".

It seems that people now think,

that this type of figure is too negative.

"You're just too negative" == "I don't like to think"

So the phrase has to change to:

"Positive Disruptive Change Agent"

which is an oxymoron.

It is self-contradictory.

...

What you really need is the Disruptive Change Agent,

just like people already thought.

But this person has to have a realistic vision,

with some form of agreeable progress in mind.

...

You need the pattern detector.

The issue finder.

The critial thinker problem solvers.

Those who,

first of all,

*can* find flaws...

And second of all,

are able to resolve some of those flaws.

But the key is flaw finding.

Everyone together is responsible for finding the solutions,

to all the problems this type of person would find.

There is not enough time to

"Complain with a solution"

Or to make it more accurate

with [superpluralification](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#superpluralification)

"Complain with a solutionss"

...

"Complain with a solution"

is a phrase used by the ignorant.

Well...

some people do 

just complain,

without the ability to find real flaws that need fixing,

or solutions.

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





*Friday, October 18<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:37 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="sleep-on-it-twice">Sleep on it twice.</a>

"I think I'll sleep on that."

"Right now and maybe tonight too."

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



*Thursday, October 17<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:24 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="elite-privileges">Elite Privileges</a>

Let the elite tell you, what the elite privileges are.

After all, the elite has had the privilege,

of misleading you,

about what those privileges actually are.

And it takes a lifetime to understand them,

once you've "gotten" them.

[Aside: There is a sense in which they cannot be received.]

...

In other words.

The underprivileged cannot claim to be expert,

on what the privileges actually are.

And so I will add additional items to the ThoughtStream,

to help you understand,

what privileges really are,

from the perspective of someone who has them.

And I'm not going to feel concerned,

about what the underprivileged say,

is wrong in my experience.

That is one of the privileges too...

...

I have some privileges, but not all of them.

...

[Aside: this post is *entirely* about making people, including the underprivileged, understand what they should really be seeking.]

I typed this out,

with one contact lens missing.

I have the blurriest vision right now.

But it looks good to publish.

So here it goes!

Trust me—

you don't even need to see,

to publish.

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



*Thursday, October 17<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:11 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="plural-plurals">Plural plurals</a> 

When it's not enough to merely use the plural form of a word.

And when you need to make fun of,

the norm of using the singular,

in some common expression that is ridiculous.

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



*Thursday, October 17<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:52 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="there-has-to-be-a-reasons">There has to be a reasons.</a>

...

Yes, you read that right.

"A reasons".

...

It happened for a reasons.

Many reasons.

Plurals are more accurate.

And are less comforting,

at first...

...

[Someone asks] 

What's the reason for your behavior?

[You respond]

You mean reasonss?

With an extra 's'

signifying, 

[super-pluralification](mattanaws-wordly-coinages.html#superpluralification).

("There's not enough time to explain it all to you because it's life...")

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



*Thursday, October 17<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:31 AM, 2:03 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="how-to-get-out-of-caring-about-waste">How to get out of caring about waste.</a>

The best way to reduce waste, is to not have children.

I haven't had any children.

And this means, I do not need to be concerned about waste at all.

I've done my part.

Let's compare by the tonnage.

> [Aside: I've been the person who would cut down dramatically on waste, and was a re-user, sorter, recycler, hypermiler, bike commuter, etc... I would carry utensils, a re-usable towel, re-usable bags, and so on around with me, so I would not use disposable materials in fast food places, and so I could avoid avoid buying plastic bags at checkout lines. I lived in a studio apartment for a long time partly for this reason. If you cut down on waste well, you make yourself an oddball (not that I'm against being the strange you want to see in the world). 

> What does this mean? 

> You are socially expected to do a poor job at it, and have plenty of children, who are as bad as you are at it, but probably worse. They don't really know how to do any of the things you've learned to do, and nobody re-uses diapers...].

This will make the world a better place,

because we will stop doing pointless activities,

pretending that we are making change somehow.

And some pretend,

that this is the good they are doing in the world,

and it's all that they are doing!

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



*Thursday, October 17<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~12:15 AM, 2:03 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="what-medium-does-your-strategy-take">What medium does your strategy take?</a>

Perhaps this makes it more clear, what I said before.

I question the extent to which anyone actually has a strategy,

when they say they have one.

"Can you show me your strategy?"

...

As kids grow up, they learn ways to handle situations 

such that we might say they have strategies,

to avoid having their lies detected,

avoid getting in trouble with elders,

and so on...

We can all recall,

having strategies,

for such things.

And we know they would be able to tell us what their strategies are,

if they were asked,

in a consequence-free environment.

Most likely.

This information could then be translated into some medium,

such that a tangible strategy comes into existence.

...

It's a little different for adults, who claim to have

bigger, 

loftier strategies.

...

This isn't merely about communication.

A strategy that is just in someone's mind is dubious, 

and is more likely to be a cluster of thoughts,

not really a strategy at all, 

and certainly probably not strategie*s*.

When things are complex,

strategies don't tend to exist.

...

Personally, I intend to record my strategies,

such that I can say I have them.

...

Adults seem to not know when they have a strategy,

and when they don't.

Or at least,

they confuse learned behavioral strategies,

they can no longer communicate,

or identify,

for strategies,

that can be used.

Because if you cannot communicate a strategy,

how do you know,

that you are using one,

when you are supposedly using it?

...

So,

Is it on paper?

Is it in the computer as a process diagram?

Did you write a program for it? 

Did you write a narrative about it? 

...

Or is *it* just a glob of brain tissue,

somewhere in a head?

I will bet it's just brain tissue,

scattered without much unity,

somewhere in a head.

In business, sometimes it isn't even in the head

of the manager,

claiming to have the strategy.

...

What medium does your strategy take?

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




*Tuesday, October 15<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:39 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="what-form-does-your-strategy-take">What form does your strategy take?</a>

Think about that carefully,

then consider if you really have *a* strategy or not.

...

"What is the form of your non-strategy?"

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



*Tuesday, October 15<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:36 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="perfection-is-not-a-thing">Perfection is not a thing.</a>

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



*Tuesday, October 15<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:13 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="where-did-this-thought-come-from-ultimately">Where did this thought come from ultimately?</a>

It is too simplistic to think the thought just came from you.

If that is what you think,

then you have *a lot* to learn.

...

Trace it backwards.

It came from brain tissue,

created,

by cultural experiences.

The brain itself,

was DNA,

and food enabled.

Generations enabled.

...

What language did you think it in?

Where did that language come from?

How did you come to be able to hear,

sounds intelligently?

...

Where did this thought come from?

And is it really yours?

Or a better question:

In what ways is it yours?

...

What is yours and what isn't,

is culturally defined.

It has no fundamental foundation/basis that you can discover.

You can only define how you would like it to be.

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



*Tuesday, October 15<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:04 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="freedom-in-politics-being-independently-minded-as-an-independent">Freedom in Politics. Being Independently Minded as an Independent.</a> 

One way to extend your freedom, 

and freedom of mind,

in the political domain,

would be to register as an independent.

...

Have you considered how your single choice of affiliation has determined your opinions?

...

If you register as an independent, 

or as "unaffiliated", 

or with  whatever equivalent happens to exist,

where you live,

remember that this does not entail

any commitment

to candidates classifying themselves the same way.

...

Instead,

you can be as open minded,

as perhaps you pretend to be.

By actually being independently minded.

...

A test of open mindedness,

is how independently minded you happen to be.

[Aside: This does not mean you ought not commit to some of the same things others commit to. The extent that you should commit to anything and everything other people commit to is questionable. I.e. commitments to everything espoused by large institutions, like the church. Where people are actually, in fact, more independent minded than they are willing to admit, and perhaps not as independently minded or outspoken as they ought to be.]

...

I challenge the view that the United States is not collectivist,

since it is a matter of degree,

and what is more collectivist,

than a two-party system?

*Only a **one**-party system.*

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



*Saturday, October 12<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:58 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="est-ested-again">EstEst.</a>

That's right.

EstEst.

And you said you would never EstEst again.

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



*Saturday, October 12<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:55 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="the-political-candidate-placed-in-front-of-you">That Political Candidate Placed in Front of You.</a>

Where did you come from political candidate?

You sprang from nowhere.

From the millions.

And you don't seem all that good at what you do.

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



*Saturday, October 12<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:33 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="every-little-bit-counts">"Every little bit counts" when you are on a false path too.</a> 

But "counts" isn't really what you're concerned about,

then,

is it?

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



*Monday, October 7<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:00, 10:06, 10:21, 10:24 (from Editsville, AK) PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="time-versus-logic">Time Versus Logic.</a>

When both really matter at the same time, and nobody understands logic.

Consider the legal system. Trial cases for example.

...

*Logic on the Witness Stand.*

[After being asked a question]

"I'm not sure what you can infer from what I just said."

"Do you know what you can infer from what I just said?"

Can you show me the logical structure of the argument so we can record it,

*and return to it later after we actually confirm it!?*

...

*Working off of another person's prior argument.*

"What is the set of satisfiable sentences taking my propositions as an input?"

...

*Questions after presentation-sauce.*

"How did you arrive at soundness in your argument leading up to your question,

because I'm not sure,

I should work with unsound premises,

because that may be incriminating."

...

*Yes or Nos, when nobody knows.*

I'm not sure how to answer your question,

"Yes" or "No"

because 

"Yes" and "No"

don't map to the same situational model in your mind,

as it does in mine.

Please help me with the logic?

...

[Speaking to Jurors]

Did you understand the logic of the argument?

Can you demonstrate that knowledge?

Juror: "I cannot".

Judge: "You've been dismissed." 

> [Aside: I have no idea if they can be dismissed like this, but it 
> seems like they should be, right?]

...

And the undermining has been completed.

QED.

[That's not really a QED, but notice how QEDs aren't quite QEDs, unless it has taken a really long time to get to.]

...

This is all usable BTW.

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



*Monday, October 7<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:29 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="you-programmed-me">You programmed me!</a>

But, you programmed me to program you to program me to program you,

without knowing,

that's what you did.

And I keep better track of the recursions,

And it doesn't matter who started first.

...

Yes, this is childish.

But you programmed me first, remember?

...

There is a real context for this,

oddly enough.

...

"I let you program you."

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



*Sunday, October 6<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:30, 11:41 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="how-do-you-handle-ambiguity">"How do you handle ambiguity?"</a> 

Is a common interview question,

although I never heard it myself in an interview.

It's used to gauge a person's comfort working in an environment where not everything can be 

made orderly,

due to excess complexity,

lack of time,

or some other reason.

It's a question about coping,

and getting through ambiguous circumstances,

and not about really "handling" it.

I find it to be an attempt to rule out problem solvers...

When I encounter ambiguity, I try to fix it... 

if that turns out to be possible.

Is this not what one wants from an employee,

to find solutions to business problems,

of all kinds whenever that is possible?

...

The reason I think it is an attempt to rule out problem solvers,

is because the people who thrive in ambiguity,

are those who try to take advantage of it,

for sneaky purposes,

and not those who try to correct it,

else there would be less ambiguity,

handed down to the new candidate.

...

Or I try to see,

using my intuition,

what matters in the cloud of the unimportant,

if truly there is no time,

to fix anything,

and only decisions are necessary.

...

The oddest thing,

is that people who ask this question,

will expect the candidate,

once hired,

to control future events and circumstances,

to creates success.

And if they fail to do so,

they might be "fired",

  [Aside: their employment contract might end].

but in almost all cases,

even the near-term future of the business,

is ambiguous.

...

"Clever interviewer... how do you handle the ambiguity of

Q2 2020 since it's currently only Q3 2019?

Or how about Q4 2020?

Do you want to know my

5-year plan for growing your business?"

...

The stockholders,

are interested in how you handle that ambiguity,

by **NOT** trying to control it.

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



*Sunday, October 6<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:11 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="if-hindsight-was-2020-we-would-know-how-to-distribute-blame-correctly">If hindsight was 2020</a>

We would know how to distribute blame correctly.

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



*Sunday, October 6<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:08 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="thats-what-he-said">"That's what he said"</a>

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




*Friday, October 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:06 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="infinite-recursion-continued">Infinite Recursion Continued...</a>

Historically people have found infinite recursion to be somehow offensive to reason. But my opinion, is that recursion is useful as far as it is useful, for describing whatever it happens to describe.

I have no issue thinking that I have some endless number of mothers in my heritage, but at some point, it fails to be descriptive to say I had a mother, way back in time. 

But we can't take this to mean that we can arbitrarily choose a date where our first mother came into existence.

It means that whatever happened to be my first mother, wasn't very clearly a mother in the way that we think of our more immediate parent. 

...

It could be, that the reason for disliking infinite recursion relates to an intuition about instrumentality, or to an intuition that no exemplar has been found, apart from, perhaps, natural processes themselves (since we cannot identify a beginning or end to *everything*). 

Instrumentality of the explanation will be questionable wherever there is no explanation...

And therefore we cannot say that infinite recursion does not apply,

or that there is, again, some arbitrary starting point that we think we can identify.

...

Failure to perceive that an instance of recursion would be instrumental is not the same as identifying where the recursion should happen to start or end.

Infinite recursion of everything could be preferable for reasons that we would understand, if we came to understand the reasons.

Infinite recursion continued...

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



*Thursday, October 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:06 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on October 17<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="infinite-recursion-is-fine-and-freedom">Infinite Recursion is Fine, and Freedom</a> 

Infinite recursion is just fine with me. It is a matter of instrumentality. Freedom depends on it, kindof. Maybe even a heightened, more useless recursive conception of freedom as well. I enjoy that some other people enjoy that others disagree with them politically. Maybe someone can enjoy that I have that enjoyment. Maybe someone else can enjoy that I enjoy *that*. Woah, that's super permissive and tolerant, and inactively distant. Maybe I can vaguely enjoy their enjoyment. It goes on and on, and it becomes more useless as it gets more abstract, but we can make a contest of it. Whoever can make the least useful abstraction wins in the "I believe in freedom the most" war.

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



*Friday, October 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:13 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="six-degrees-of-correlation-or-cuasation">6 Degrees of Correlation or Causation.</a>

I thought this was an interesting article: [Six Degrees of Separation Between Any Two Data Sets](https://www.newsletter.datasciencecentral.com/click.html?x=a62e&lc=uSX&mc=j&s=Nbn&u=F&y=b&z=wyQJuIq&).

It seems to be a decent blog with an author who consistently creates interesting things. I recommend signing up.

You'll probably learn about some emerging technologies that are worth understanding.

I enjoyed the observation at the end, placed in context: 

> "In some way, one could say that anything is related to everything, by a short path. Or that anything is caused by everything" 

As I spend time at home in Anchorage, out in public, I notice the impact that people around me have, and this makes me wonder the extent to which everything causes everything else, since the interaction of each person with me, would then, be connected with the interaction of every person on earth. 

How many of my neural connections have been influenced by how many neural connections of some person taken at random, from any point on the network?

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



*Wednesday, October 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:56 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook in HighIQWorld on January 26<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="get-the-flu-vax-before-it-doesnt-work-or-after">When does one decide to get a flu vax? Before it doesn't work or after?</a>

> [Aside: There is humor in this, and some degree of truth. I haven't worked out the degree of truth, and you haven't either!]

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



*Wednesday, October 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:23 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on September 26<sup>th</sup>, 2017*

## <a name="determinism-is-a-comfort">Determinism is a Comfort</a>

Determinism is a comfort. People will see soon enough, soon enough... It's going to get really weird in the near future.

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



*Wednesday, October 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:16 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on May 20<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="volunteer-to-be-offended">We need to challenge and push each other to higher levels. Volunteer to be offended!</a>

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



*Wednesday, October 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:12 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on July 13<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="the-un-newsification-of-the-news-seems-nearly-complete">The un-newsification of the news seems to be nearly complete. Boycott time?</a> 

> [Aside: I was thinking mostly about national news, not local news.]

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



*Wednesday, October 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:08 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on September 13<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="what-if-you-didnt-believe-anything-you-didnt-instinctively-act-on">What if you didn’t actually “believe” anything, that you did’t instinctively act on?</a> 

I once believed in a “magnetic hill.” I found later, to my astonishment, that it was an illusion. An obvious one! Did I believe it? Yes. Why? I acted on the internalization unreflectively. But there is a lot that I consider that I would never act on without pause.

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



*Wednesday, October 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:45, 5:49 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="lose-weight-to-see-your-body">Lose Weight to See Your Body.</a>

This sounds obvious but it is not as obvious as you might expect. If you are naturally skinny you might take it completely for granted!

One aspect of weight loss that is easily overlooked, but is very important, is that a person cannot actually see easily correctable and important physical asymmetries, imperfections, and errors in form, until a sufficient amount of body fat is lost.

I lost weight several times. The most I ever lost was 100 pounds, when I dropped from 270 pounds to about 165.

I've gone through the experience of having mostly a dull view of my musculature and my movements, to having an increasingly clear view as I dropped pounds.

To give just one example of many: until I'm at about 180 pounds, I cannot tell if my legs are of equal size. 

Only now, after reaching that weight, am I able to see I need significant work on my left inner quadricep to make it equal to my right. 

I experienced atrophy to this muscle because of arthroscropic knee surgery, but I forgot about it, or at least I failed to notice it, until I lost enough weight to actually see the problem.

It's almost like the experience of shaving, only to reveal that there was some acne or other imperfections hidden by the hair.

Why is this a problem? A physical therapist would tell you that if you don't correct it, it will affect other parts of your body as you age, making the problem more and more severe.

Perhaps more severe than this asymmetry, is the difference between my two pectoral muscles, created by an injury to my left tricep when I was a teenager. Failing to strengthen my left tricep led to excess use of my left pectoral muscle when doing chest exercises. Now my left pectoral is much larger than my right, my right tricep is much larger than my left, and I have considerable difficulty creating the right shoulder positions when doing a whole variety of exercises working my shoulders, chest, and my upper back.

This becomes increasingly obvious as weight is lost, but when we are heavier, it is concealed by extra body fat.

So obesity creates more risks than we would normally think about. It's not just about heart health. It's about being able to even have visibility about what is going on directly underneath our skin. Being thinner allows for being able to have a better estimate about what is going on with musculature, the skeletal system, and anything else that might be concealed that is easily overlooked.

...

Similarly, when I was heavier, it was harder to notice improper form.

If you are thin, like a dancer, any irregularities of movement would be readily apparent. 

Somehow we are better able to notice movements in thin, graceful appendages and bodies, which makes dancers so attractive to begin with when they have mastered their artform.

More total movement is apparent when viewing thin dancers than dancers who are heavy. 

I think this is because a line covering a path between one location and another, creates a long visible distance. There is greater white-space in the movement from one position to the next, making the total distance of movement seem longer. When heavier, an arm that is fatter would cover more area in space, and when it changes position, there would be less apparent whitespace.

So graceful dancers achieve their beauty of movement by apparently covering more background as they change positions.

How does this relate to form.

Well, you see more clearly errors when you are thin. So thin dancers, in a way, have to be even more exacting to achieve a flawless performance. Likewise, if you are thin you will notice when you are doing something incorrectly more easily.

At the far extreme, we can imagine someone who is, say 1000 pounds dancing or training. From this, we can see the truth of the points made above. They would nearly completely cover space behind them and therefore would have very little negative space showing if they were to dance. They would be unable to see little if any of their musculature, or their skeleton. Would they be able to tell if their shoulder blades were out of position while performing an upright row? How about if their arm movements were parallel? Or if their chest muscles were contracting equally during the downward motion?

As I was saying before, I have difficulty positioning my shoulders. This is becoming much more obvious as I lose weight, and only now am I motivated to take careful steps to correct it.

I could probably have stated all of the above in much fewer words.

Nevertheless, writing is not only about being succinct, but about communicating a way of thinking natural to the writer.

I give greater access to my mind by not taking too much care to get it exactly right, like in real conversation.

I hope this is appreciated. 

I do see the flip side, but the benefit of giving my mind this way, without too much editing,

is that you do actually get closer to my mind.

And not a posture.

[Written in approximately 32 minutes.]

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



*Tuesday, October 1<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:10 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Minor Edits, Tuesday, October 2<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:16 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="saving-as-investing">Saving as Investing.</a>

It is a horrible mistake for people to be convinced,

that if they do not invest, 

that they will not end up well off when they get older.

This is because investing is *hard*.

It involves knowledge and discipline that takes time to acquire.

And some think:

> "Well I guess I won't save because I don't know how to invest"

That is a horrible mistake.

First save,

then you will have money to invest!!!

Then only invest,

if you can invest wisely.

Otherwise, you are gambling.

If I could go back in time to when I was 10 years old,

I would get a job of some kind,

and I would save 2/3 of everything I earned,

with the promise that I would never use it.

...

Eventually, I would start spending more, 

but only a little more,

as my pay increased.

If you work out the numbers,

you will be extremely well off,

by the time you have money to invest,

without fail.

Of course, something can always happen to reverse it,

but that won't be because of anything in your control.

...

It appears that for almost all young people,

this advice is impossible to follow,

because of the temptations of spending.

...

Sure, you only live once.

I would tell myself 

live like this is your last day.

I wore a ring that said this.

But then I corrected myself, to remember:

> "But it is also probably your first day."

My wedding ring had this meaning, and I wore it on the other hand.

To remind myself,

that I had a lot of life remaining most likely,

and others to care for.

...

There is another perspective,

I would offer to older people,

who did not follow this advice,

but for the time being,

I would advise older people,

to advise younger people,

to take this advice seriously,

and realize it is not about understanding,

it is about self-control.

Remember:

smarter children,

do a better job taking care of their parents,

than children who will make some of the same mistakes,

as their parents.

...

There is more to say for this but I will wait for another time.

Except I will say:

Saving is investing in your future self.

Don't limit your future self, 

unless you have a very good reason to do so.

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



*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:32 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on October 17<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="optimism-as-a-buzkill">Optimism as a Buzkill</a>

Pessimism isn't always negative. It is quite fun. I'm in a pessimistic mood and it is hilarious. Optimism, not so much right now. Optimism is a buzzkill.

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




*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~5:31 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on December 16<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="effort-in-education-and-work">Effort in Education, and Work</a> 

When I was a kid, I had no idea how much effort was needed to get an A. I would either overdo it, or do nothing at all. Today, I put in just a little effort, and I am surprised about the feedback I get from my instructors. I got a "Wow" reaction from my professor on a recent paper, and was told I "*definitely* think like an empirical economist." It made my day, since I did not expect it at all. This was from a highly respectable professor. I thought I was going to get a "C" for sure. It always turns out better than I expect. I think back to childhood and wonder why I cared so much, and why I would prefer an F over imagined harsh judgment. I became embarrassed way too easily.

Today it seems there are many paths to success. Some would be shocked to learn that I dropped out of High School, obtained my G.E.D., and took the longer path. It took a while but I finally made it work for me. Earlier, when I was in High School, there were fewer chances (I appreciate the many opportunities we have these days with all sorts of novel education pathways). At that time, there seemed to be great emphasis on straight 'A's. Perhaps it is the same now, and I'm disconnected, but it is unnecessary. If I had a kid, I would emphasize speed in education and living life well, over straight As. "Aim at a low A or B and just get it done".

In the workforce, all I see are mediocre productions. Yet people retain their dignity, respect, and their paychecks without much worry or concern. No one is going after them for sloppy work. Put in your time, and show some gray hairs, and you will get promoted. Job-hop your way into higher salaries, if you're not aging fast enough. Getting praised for "straight A" type behavior in the workforce is rare. It will backfire actually. No one wants to work that hard, and they don't want to see you working that hard either. They are ready to give you the equivalent of "A" marks for "D" work, as long as you show up and do it.

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



*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:25 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on January 31<sup>st</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="joining-success-pyramid">Would you join a company called "Success Pyramid?"</a>

Which business couldn't also be called success pyramid? (Now added)

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



*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:25 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on April 4<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="time-to-realization-of-incorrectness">A quality I value highly now: time to realization of incorrectness.</a>

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



*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:24 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on April 5<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="learning-is-real-so-equality-isnt">Learning is Real, So Equality Isn't</a> 

Learning is real. So you can trust that equality isn't. Otherwise, you would be equal to your former self.

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




*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:22, 5:57 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on April 13<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="determinism-and-the-swayed-vote">Determinism and the Swayed Vote</a>

A whole mass of people revealed their dependence upon information presented to them as if they were passive players in the vote. They are active participants, true, but what they revealed is that they can easily be strategically guided one way or another on the basis of manipulated information and its presentation. This implies that the manipulators have insight into how they think, their patterns. Decision making is just active rule governed bio intelligence applied to problem solving. The idea is that if all the information is controlled and if people are well enough understood, then their voting behavior in a sense isn't up to them, and is actually predictable. It is becoming more and more predictable as the information is fine tuned. This supports the idea that complexity is the only obstacle to predictability. Probability is just what we use in the absence of information. Micro-scale quantum indeterminacy cannot help in this ether.

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



*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:20 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on May 6<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="a-field-for-taboo-elimination">A Field for Taboo Elimination?</a> 

There should be a new field of study, with the specific purpose and goal of eliminating taboos.

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



*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:18 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on May 11<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="agreement-is-a-partial-analogy">Agreement is just a partial analogy</a>

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



*Edited and Re-posted Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:45 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on May 16<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="dodging-undesirable-tongues">Dodging Undesirable Tongues</a>

One's language mastery and availability of resources are intimately related. No one is going to waste their time on learning aboriginal languages. Obviously there is a spectrum, so there are other languages worth avoiding too. Some are more fortunate in their luck in avoiding unworthy tongues. If not by birth, they avoid it by opportunity. If an opportunity presents, pouring effort into that opportunity is necessary. If the opportunity was at birth, pouring all effort into that opportunity that others take for granted is still probably the best choice! In other words, maybe you should chase that degree in physics in Chinese, if you are Mongolian or Chinese, and skip learning Mongolian. If you speak English, maybe you should stop watching TV and learn some more English.

> [Aside: this post is about the value of being in a society with a large language, versus a society that has a very small language. There is cultural value in small languages. I do not deny this. But if one has the opportunity to skip over all the time it takes to master a small language, or a foreign language one will seldom use, to a low level of mastery, with no real goal or objective in mind, then one should take that opportunity to skip it.
> 
> We talk about white privilege. Or privilege of the elite. These privileges include the ability to ignore and overlook other languages, because the language they learned is already the one everyone considers to be the most valuable.
>
> So the reality is that they are able to save time, which is considered all valuable to the most affluent people, while everyone else needs to struggle to change languages from one that is less desirable to one that is more desirable. Or to pretend to be a member of the same culture as the white privileged culture, and not the unprivileged cultures.]

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



*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:13 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on June 5<sup>th</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="fitting-in">"Fitting In"</a>

"Fitting in," appears to be, in large part, "mutually shared socially-contextualized pretense." The goal to exhibit the shared narrative on required inauthenticities.

This appears to be more important than having actual commonalities.

People who are concerned with authenticity seem to be really concerned with enforcing or spreading standards of authenticity. But the result would just be more attempts at "fitting in."

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



*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:13 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on December 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2018*

## <a name="premeditation-for-defense">Pre-meditation for Defense</a>

Pre-meditation for defense with a gun, has no power compared with pre-mediation to do harm with a gun.

Furthermore, pre-meditation to perform defense with a gun, is very time consuming, and very costly (I can go into great detail about why), and is rewarded largely with delusions.

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



*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:12 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Originally posted on Facebook on January 14<sup>th</sup>, 2019*

## <a name="resolutions-that-happen-repost">"Resolutions that Happen"</a> 

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



*Monday, September 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:03 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="degrees-of-attachment-to-present-thoughts">Degrees of Attachment to Present Thoughts</a>

> "I'm inclined to think so this moment, but I don't want to give any finality to that..."

Is a proper response to almost any inquiry about your views.

There is no need to commit to any particular point of view, 

in a sentence,

simply because someone asked you a question.

...

I have varying degrees of attachment to my responses to people.

No one gets special permission,

to my final thoughts.

...

I give myself the freedom,

to have better

more thoughtful thoughts 

later.

Am I not expected to have better thoughts tomorrow than today?

...

Don't cave into other people's expectation

that you should commit to every word you utter to them.

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



*Sunday, September 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:06 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="knowing-someones-plans-doesnt-mean-you-inherited-their-gifts">Knowing someone's plans doesn't mean you inherited their gifts.</a>

Another method of the ranker.

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



*Sunday, September 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:32 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="my-dad-knows-better-than-your-dad">My Dad Knows Better Than Your Dad.</a>

My Dad knows better than your Dad,

about some things.

Your Dad knows better than my Dad,

about others.

*And there are billions of Dads outside the United States.*

...

Maybe I would do better,

by only listening 

to the best of them!

Statistically,

Dad is average,

or slightly above average,

or less.

~50% are less.

I'm talking about knowledge, 

don't let your mind wander,

like mine does.

...

But then there's love and stuff like that too,

so I wouldn't take it too far.

...

Above when I said "Dad",

I could have said "Mom",

especially because,

Mom says more than Dad does.

...

> (Aside: I think abstractly. I'm not at all thinking of my own parents. 

> Even if I was though... 

> I have to admit that other parents are pretty smart and cool too].

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



*Sunday, September 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:01 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="elders-tend-to-lie-when-the-topic-is-of-the-greatest-importance">Elders Tend to Lie, When the Topic is of Great Importance.</a>

This is one reason why taboos exist.

Let's begin looking into taboos here on the ThoughtStream.

Taboos do not come about only because of shame or embarrassment. 

There are other reasons, why subjects end up

excluded 

from free communication,

and are actively censored—

suppressing valuable knowledge.

Maybe a useful 

first taboo to talk about,

would be

"Why parents lie and why they cannot agree."

or

"Why your friends parents are more trustworthy,

than yours are."

Here are a few reasons that come to mind,

why elders lie:

* *In our culture, teachers do not admit when they are ignorant about something*. It is rare—frighteningly rare, in my experience, for a teacher to say, "I don't know about _______ (something important), that I feel like I should know, because I'm the teacher".
* *Parents want their children to be just like them*. They don't want their children to be like a person who knows more, who might be different.
* *Parents had false beliefs and expectations, when they had kids.* Before a child is born, they have completely fake ideas about who their kids will be when they grow up. But they try their best to force the child to resemble what their hopes were, or continue to be.
* *Culture disallows certain conversations, because of social disapproval that would result, if it is found out, that the child is taught something that differs from community standards.* For example, if you live in a christian culture, you're supposed to baptise your child. However, it is not clear that that does anything at all. If you don't do it, you might be considered a parent who is willing to send their child directly to hell. But in reality, maybe you just understand something they do not. Perhaps they are doing it, in order to continue doing it.
* *They are not critical thinkers.* They are unable to determine when certain points of view have weaknesses, and when there are alternatives that are vastly superior, even if they are just unfamiliar.

...

So if a child says,

"I'm afraid to die. What happens when I die?"

You can expect the parent,

instead of saying,

I don't know,

will pretend,

not only to be unfearful,

but to actually know,

the unknowable.

...

And remember,

Since we are all equal,

Or so our elder's tell us,

we can ask someone else's parent this question,

and we should trust what they say,

as much as our what our own parents would say.

Even if they have a different religion.

After all,

they would encourage,

other kids,

to listen to their own parents.

Why would they do this,

if they didn't have good things to teach also.

...

Think back to when you were a kid,

if you are not now a kid.

What would your friend do,

but listen to their parents,

and not yours?

...

Personally,

I think the best choice,

is to listen to people who know,

and not people who don't,

and it makes no difference,

who that is.

For some, 

unfortunately,

it might be better to disregard,

much of what their parents say.

Why do I think this.

Parents utterly despise,

what other parents think.

We can learn about this by watching the news,

on politics and religion,

and it is not easy to find,

ignorant people,

who happened to have children.

...

This is a fundamental problem with education.

Children do not get to choose who their parents are.

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



*Sunday, September 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:36 PM, 4:41 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="how-i-inhibited-my-fear-of-death">How I Inhibited My Fear of Death.</a>

I am not afraid of death,

although that was not always true.

There were some stages to get through before I arrived at my answer. 

The first step I can recall is getting over my fear of darkness.

This might seem unrelated, but it is not.

So I will discuss getting over this fear first,

after moving on to talk more specifically about fear of death.

...

I write this with some reservations,

because people might claim that I have no experience with this.

Of course, who could have experience with it,

without having died, and never returned.

But this is actually not a good objection.

The reason is that what people are trying to get over,

is not fear of death itself,

but a fear they experience,

while they are still living,

imagining something,

that they consider to be related to death,

but as I will share later,

there is no resemblance.

Consider this point,

did you die, 

and afterwards confirm,

that what you were fearing,

had any relationship with death at all?

...

I can't guarantee my approach will work for you, 

and I also can't guarantee that it will work for me,

for my entire life,

because as my brain deteriorates,

I will lose what I know,

and I will lose my discipline,

to the extent, 

that I will be a very different person potentially,

than I am now,

much as would happen,

if I suffered a personality altering aneurism,

or if I had severe brain damage.

But for the most part,

we are able to retain what we've learned,

up until death,

although many very old people disappear from our view,

so we cannot say to what extent,

they lose who they were before.

...

Either way, we do not refrain from teaching each other,

for fear that what was taught,

will be lost,

but in this case,

the interesting thing is we die once,

potentially when we are old and did in fact lose all we learned.

This is why any arguments about what someone does on their deathbed,

as having any value for determining,

what their actual belief system really was,

is simply false.

Doctors and soldiers well acquainted with death,

will testify,

that it is the persons state of mind,

at the time of death,

and the conditions,

that will determine the result.

If grandma has Alzheimer's,

she might not be able to use,

what she knew before,

not even if what she knew,

was Christian.

...

However, what I have to discuss here,

is not really how to prevent fear at the time of death,

although I suspect this will help.

The point of this,

is to have no fear of death,

as long as you are living,

with *hopes* that the discipline will allow you to 

remain unfearful,

when you die,

if you are in a similar disposition,

mentally,

to how you are now.

But how much better would it be,

if you surpass what is mentioned here?

Because I have no claim to having the greatest level

of training on this topic.

I'm self-trained and can only state

what my experiences happen to be.

...

So I suspect that what I say here,

will help many who choose to give my approach 

a real chance.

Why not give it a chance, right?

Is it not important?

I hope people will take seriously what I have to say about it.

How many people do you know,

who claim to have knowledge on this topic?

Who would your mentor be?

If not for someone who first claims to have something to offer.

Judge for yourself.

Who knows, 

maybe others will emerge,

who are also not afraid. 

It's not all about religion.

So you can open your mind to hear suggestions.

Suggestions.

Some have simple and practical answers to these,

supposedly weighty topics.

**Weighty for those who are scared!**

Maybe easy for those who are not!

...

I hope others open up and explain how they got over it,

but only if they really did.

I really did.

And if this helps you,

Then *that is your confirmation*,

that I was right.

But it is not confirmation,

that it's the only way.

This is what the excessively religious will tell you.

Selling you solutions,

only they can provide?

I won't make this claim.

...

When I was a kid I was afraid of the dark.

Upon returning to my bed,

after using the bathroom in the middle of the night,

I would jump from a distance,

so something underneath the bed,

would not be able to reach and grab me,

and pull me underneath,

before I could get on top.

It was irrational.

Maybe I would be eaten? Who knows?

> [Aside: For some funny reason I didn't think it would come out from under the bed while I was sleeping and get me anyway].

I was also afraid of the closet, and other dark spaces,

usually because I thought something was inside.

Somehow by becoming dark,

something dangerous would suddenly emerge from inside,

or be transported inside.

Which of course, makes no sense,

especially indoors.

...

Like other kids I just thought there might be something inside.

But there never was anything inside.

...

I have a suspicion that many adults never completely got over their fear of darkness.

I have strong reasons to think this, but I won't discuss that here.

Because that would include telling information about friends and family,

who don't necessarily want to share that fear.

There is no reason to be embarrassed if that is true.

I'm talking about *really* getting over the fear of darkness,

such that you can roam around in the dark,

at night, without a care.

...

Although I remember being afraid of the dark inside my house,

I cannot remember a time when I was afraid

to be outside in the woods,

in the darkness.

I probably was.

But since I got over this fear specifically,

to cure my fear of darkness,

all I can recall is not being fearful of it.

I was still a kid when I conquered this fear.

And later I built upon my experience with this.

...

How did I achieve do it?

One day, 

I imagined myself in the woods, 

both during the daylight and during the night time.

If you think about it, 

the change from light to darkness does not change anything in the woods.

The trees don't change, 

and the space is all the same. 

Nothing moves from where it was before, 

which is why in the morning, 

when it is light again, 

everything is as it was.

The only difference is that animals that might startle you during the day, 

might be asleep at night, 

if they are diurnal (meaning animals that are awake only during the day).

Other animals might come out, 

but where I grew up, 

they were all non-threatening. 

These were the nocturnal animals. 

I was a diurnal animal pretending and imagining myself to be nocturnal.

In a way,

humans cross over.

After thinking of things this way, 

it changed my perspective quickly.

A switch was flipped,

and now, 

and forever,

I'm not afraid of the dark.

The trick is to find this mental switch.

First you imagine that everything is the same,

at night,

as during the day...

but then you have to test it with action.

You have to walk around at home in the dark.

You have to go outside in the woods in the dark,

(as long as there is nothing dangerous where you live in the dark.

It is not wise to roam around in the dark if there are bears,

or other dangerous animals present,

unless you're trained or experienced enough for that of course).

If I wake up at night, and have to use the bathroom,

I can walk without any light at all, 

even in an unfamiliar place, 

like a hotel room.

Nothing changed except the light.

I also played outside in the dark in the woods,

as a kid,

without any flashlight and was not scared.

Here, where I live now, in Alaska, I would not be scared to do the same.

But, I would be scared of being eaten by bears.

And this is very different, however, from being scared of the dark.

Being scared of the dark, in itself, is not a reasonable fear.

But being scared of what you can reasonably expect to be dangerous,

in the dark,

is.

It's more about what is actually present, and what isn't.

Darkness doesn't make scary things 

spring into existence.

...

In some places we should be more scared to be out in the day,

than during the dark.

Why?

Well for one,

we are told,

people are more dangerous,

and they are plentiful during the day.

We go and find them to spend time with them!

Even strangers.

But at night,

we are scared of empty space?

...

Try out walking all around your home,

at night,

with no light at all.

You don't need it.

It might just prepare you for understanding partially or completely blind people as well.

And you get a good sense of orientation and movement in the dark too.

You don't need very much light.

Some facts will help you do this easily.

One thing that I learned,

that is related to this,

is that peripheral vision is good at night,

but straight vision is not.

This is because your retina contains "cone" receptors

primarily in areas that are used 

when you look straight at something.

You have really good perception of color and detail,

when you look straight at something, 

but a more poor sense of color in your peripheral vision. 

During the day, this works just fine.

Your vision is designed for this!

But the problem is, you have less "rod" receptors 

which help you see things good in black-and-white

and in low light,

when you look straight. 

But you have many rod receptors helping your peripheral vision.

So at night, I walk around, 

focusing on what I see more towards the corners of my eyes, 

and try not to look straight ahead.

If you test this, you'll see

that when you look straight ahead at night,

it will be almost completely black,

but around the sides of your vision,

you will see light.

But conditions have to be dark enough.

And during the day I do the reverse, 

which is what we normally do.

By doing this, you can become much less fearful of the dark,

and you can come to understand blind people,

and prepare yourself for having poorer vision,

when you get older.

Again, notice the point,

that when you get old,

you will not be like how you are now.

You need to be prepared for this.

So just because you get over your fear of death,

does not mean that you will not be fearful,

when you die.

When you get really old,

there is a chance you will lose some of your senses.

...

I will resume this soon and talk about the next steps.

I am not going to edit this now,

just in case,

I die and the information is never conveyed.

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



*Friday, September 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:37 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="estest">EstEst</a>

If it wasn't entirely apparent,

there is a method in the post below,

To combat our tendency to use false sentences,

using words like most, greatest, best, and so on.

They are usually wrong.

We can see it by simply adding another "-est".

Bestest.

Greatestest.

Stupidestest.

Strongestest.

Poorestest. Richestest.

I'm trying to use this to train myself to become more accurate, 

and it is slowly working.

Do it every single time and you'll see how frequently it makes you truthful.

It's fun.

...

We can use it to combat lies of all types we were raised on.

What is the greatest hometown?

Your hometown is the greatestest of course!

...

And we can use it to counter clearly ridiculous movements.

When you're told you're the most special, consider that you're only

the mostestest special.

"America is the greatestest country."

The Guiness Book of World's Records can be converted to

The Guiness Book of World's Greatestest 

(they have no idea).

Unless it's something clearly confirmable, like the height of the tallest building.

Smartestest Man or Woman in the world.

...

We can use it to break false advertisements.

We can use it to reveal flaws in nationalistic movements.

It counters propaganda effectively.

To counter the propaganda of white supremacists,

from within and from without,

we might *insist* they say that whites are 

the greatestest race, and not merely the greatest.

...

We'll have to practice together to stop making this mistake.

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



*Wednesday, September 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:40 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="you-are-the-mostest-special-person-in-the-world">You are the mostest special person in the whole world.</a>

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



*Wednesday, September 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:20, 1:42, 1:56 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="history-is-not-very-actionable">History is not very actionable.</a>

If we are honest with ourselves, 

how much 

does the typical person really know 

about history?

How *actionable* is,

whatever it is,

they think they know?

...

Some might know history well enough

to use it,

but it is hard to know,

*who that is!*

And if they are involved in politics at all!

I met a few people

well acquainted with history,

who seem to live in imagination,

having very poor judgment as to practical matters,

who are also too religious,

non-philosophical,

and unscientific,

to be trusted to make policy decisions,

for other people.

> Example: "Is it worthwhile to create a museum for creationism?"

The historian of tall tales,

*would* tell you "Yes it is!"

and millions will be spent,

on artistic exhibits,

that are only artistic,

because they are not historical.

Or they are artistic lessons,

on errors humans tend to make.

...

In my opinion,

a sign of a poor leader,

is too much talk about history.

Because more often than not,

they are using it to posture,

more than they would use it,

and certainly more than they *could use it*,

for successful planning and decision making.

Whenever I hear talk about history,

from a politician, 

or anyone really,

I find issues of relevance,

that are not obvious to the person who is relying,

on that history,

to deceive,

perhaps unwittingly,

the people they are trying to persuade.

They enjoy telling the stories,

of things they did not experience,

just like they like telling stories of what they did experience,

for gratification of their impulse,

simply to tell the stories again.

We all know people who do this.

And we are allowed to like them for it too.

...

And of the best historians,

who are the best,

at making correct analogies,

with the innumerable causal relationships,

or weak correlations, to make things worse,

between what has happened, 

and what is happening.

And what are the methods required,

to do it so well, 

that they can *forecast with it*,

from positions of leadership,

dependent first on placement, 

by voter judgments,

certainly not equipped,

with the same profound decision making machinery?

...

Whatever it is that leaders are doing,

when they are performing well,

it probably isn't as dependent on history,

as people think.

By history, I'm not thinking of personal history.

Although personal histories are also questionable,

because people don't seem to remember their own lives all that well.

...

I say all of this,

completely admitting,

that I'm a student of history,

and still find that knowledge useful,

probably because it has made me understand,

what people do to each other.

...

And I also say all this,

while laughing to myself,

because there is fun to be had in scepticism.

I was close to writing,

a promise to include solutions to some of these problems,

or descriptions as to what is best in what currently exists,

but to be as truthful as possible,

I'm trying to avoid such promises and commitments,

although I hope I'm able to actually do something of the sort at some point in the near future.

...

Much of this is for my own amusement, 

(this post in particular),

and I'm sure other people will enjoy some of this too,

if they are at all like myself.

...

We all deserve to enjoy,

and find, 

people who are like us.

And not only find people who are *merely positive*,

for the sake of fulfilling,

the social requirements of the age.

...

I,

for one,

find truth more inspirational.

[You Wanted this Guy](#you-wanted-this-guy)

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



*Sunday, September 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:20 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Edited Wednesday, September 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:26 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="finding-change-levers-by-creating-public-systems-models">Finding Change Levers by Creating Public Systems Models</a>

One way to be sure one does not spend too much time dreaming about how to create social change would be to have public systems models available that identify where changes are actually possible, and how much effort is required to make the changes.

Which organizations should provide transparent systems models, and which should have secret models, or some combination of the two, is not something I will discuss yet. Instead, let's consider what would happen if clear systems models for public systems and other organizations that are expected to be transparent, actually come into existence. 

What is clear is that such systems models are not available for public consumption currently. At least not systems model diagrams that provide most of what is needed in an easy to understand medium. One would have to do considerable research to understand a typical organization, and it would be nearly impossible to discover where transparencies exist, and where they do not. Systems model diagrams would provide most of what is needed for quick comprehension. This would certainly be beneficial and would provide a *standardized way* for understanding and interacting with organizations.

What would creating public systems models achieve?

Firstly, it would convert activists and politicians who are somewhat aimless in their work, following dead-end pathways, to people who have clear goals connected with the reality of the systems they are working with.

Even high level politicians don't have the resources to fully understand their own organizations. And this is apparent when listening to them speak on television.

One thing I have noticed, is that people fail to recognize just how ambiguous the systems they are working with are, for lack of understanding, and for lack of insider knowledge. 

Or for lack of "insider knowledge" knowledge.

...

Lack of knowledge about how organizations work, relates to consumer reactions to business policies and procedures, making Twitter and other comment-based feedback systems places where little more than attitudes are conveyed. We would not turn to Twitter for a good understanding of organizations and their change levers (including policy change levers). In other words, Twitter is much like a voting box. It is likely to contain information about peoples likes and dislikes, but not so much knowledge about proper operation of a complex organizational system.

Secondly, in connection with the first, voters, activists and leaders would have actionable knowledge about political systems, for having knowledge about the systems themselves. Furthermore, they would have an understanding of what it takes to change the systems themselves, since levers identified wouldn't simply be those that permit working from the inside of an institution or organization out, but also working from the outside in, from the top down, and whatever other ways that might actually make envisioned changes possible. Or *realistic*!

What does this also do? This would make it so that people don't waste their time in politics, or on political issues, when they could be doing something they understand more fully. Some things that would bring themselves tangible rewards, like money. Otherwise, they would not only be working on something they do not understand, they would be clogging the system up, because processes would have to be in place to please them, that would create inefficiencies in the systems that could be designed for better aims. Consumers need to be satisfied in ways that make sense to their experience and the exchange they are making with the businesses; but it is not good for organizations to have to spend time countering activists who are completely ignorant about how their business works, or how any organization in general would work.

Thirdly, we would then have folks who could vote and analyze policies appropriately, because they fully understand the systems in which they are civically participating. This means it is possible for people to change from a mere attitude communicator, or voter, to a person who is actually educated enough to influence policy by adding new and relevant information. 

Would you want to spend your time trying to change an organization in a way that is costly for society and would never actually succeed?

As things are now, we have to do things that won't succeed in order to get the knowledge about organizations required, to ultimately succeed, but that is a symptom of the problem of not having the knowledge required about organizations to find the right buttons to push to make the changes happen.

...

These are ideas stemming from a course I took at Harvard University, in their Extension Program, on Systems Thinking. Ideas like these are used in business school, so that leaders will have a better understanding on how to steer and transform their organizations. So there is nothing in this idea that is not already well supported in higher education and academia.

> [Aside: To a large extent, you do not need the Harvard course if you understand what I just wrote above. Instead, you can search books on Systems Thinking, and Systems Modeling, and Learning Organizations, and you will find texts that will guide you in exactly the same ways that Harvard students are being guided. If you are a leader, or someone who wants to understand organizations and their change potential more completely, then I would suggest reading these books. And if you are interested enough, you may want to take courses as well.
>
> Either way, I hope that organizations have folks you understand this well enough to make the systems models and to publish them so people can understand how organizations really be influenced.]

One last comment. I think it is important to be totally truthful in publications about these systems, including showing ways they could potentially be overthrown by force and by civil disobedience. As I said above, even if fundamental change is necessary, there should be ways that that can be done, and that needs to be depicted or made clear, even if it is something that is uncomfortable or something that people would not wish to discuss (How else would we be able to connect systems and institutions with history, which included periodic warfare and social uprisings to make change? If we are open and candid about this, we might be more imaginative in the future, even if we have no knowledge about history. Because if we are honest, how much does anyone really know about history?).

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



*Sunday, September 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:20 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="alternative-grading-methodologies">Alternative Grading Methodologies.</a>

Competition on a national level for entry into the university system creates constraints around what exactly can change in grading methodology within public schools.

This is unfortunate since it is clear that alternative systems would be preferable, but the potential for making changes, due to lack of clear "levers of change", are unavailable (Where are the switches you can flip to actually influence it?). It would be desirable to understand the education system and how such changes could be made or *made possible*. Without the right levers, any work to make changes in the education system could be pointless. The levers have to be identified one way or another. (See the [above comment](#finding-change-levers-by-creating-public-systems-models) for more on this idea).

So... what is the alternative grading methodology I have in mind?

While taking tests, in high school and in college, I sometimes wondered:

> "I just learned from this test, and the errors I made. So why is my grade not now higher, for having increased my understanding to what was expected."

Once I spent time trying to come up with an alternative system, but I don't believe I have that document any longer to share it here.

But today, my main thought is that education should not be about containing subjects into quarters and semesters, and years, with final grades at the end, but rather, a system of working kids through subjects by repeatedly testing and re-testing them for proficiency, allowing them to learn from previous mistakes on tests, to repeat mistakes until competency is met.

Because what is the point other than to gain competency quickly? The goal is not to get an "A" at the very end of the year after taking a test, but potentially, to master a subject in any amount of time it takes to master that subject, and then to move on. For some a course that might take two years and for others it might take two weeks. It would also allow people to identify weaknesses and to abandon certain topics entirely, to take courses where their strengths lie instead, and to maximize those areas where they are strong while they are still young. Why should they have to wait until after their education is finished to learn what they are truly good at?

A system such as this would:

* Make grading unnecessary. It would be about finishing a topic.
* Competition would be about how many topics are mastered. This would allow kids who sit in courses day-dreaming about why they are there, to switch over to students who are continually stimulated and are able to learn things to mastery while they are very young. 
* Interdisciplinary mastery is possible. Children can be led to college level mastery of topics while they are still young. With the time gained, they can switch to other topics and gain mastery in those topics as well.

I think this is a good system for making the changes that are possible to get to even better systems that allow for merging disciplines together into "problem first" systems of learning, where children guide themselves to mastery in areas that they are interested in. 

Such a self-guided system could result in children driving forward innovation, because even young children are capable of finding problems that have no solutions, or finding for themselves solutions that might already exist (it makes no difference if it was already found or not--what matters is the problem solving. Finding a solution to a problem that already has a solution does not make it less innovative, because it is as innovative, or nearly as innovative, as the process undertaking the first time). By doing this, children unearth the process that is required to do real things in the world, by encountering obstacles.

The teacher then is a remover of obstacles, rather than someone who is supposed to know everything already.

I first mentioned this idea to an intern and a fellow attendee at the COFES event in Phoenix in 2018 (Congress on the Future of Software Engineering), and received good feedback. I think we all want mentors who will show us the way to realize our own goals, and if we receive this, it is incredibly meaningful and is something we do not forget. 

I have a few teachers in mind who were maybe life-saving, and will always remember what they did for me, and they were closer to this way of doing things, although the system did not allow them to fully teach according to this style (and they may not agree that this is the best approach anyhow).

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





*Tuesday, September 17<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:10 AM, Minor Edits 1:14 AM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="our-civilization-is-cultures">Our civilization is cultures.</a>

Much like how an individual is races.

Mattanaw:races::civilization:cultures

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



*Monday, Labor Day, September 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:17 PM AKST</time>

*Minor Edits* <time>5:06 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="activists-of-inequality">Activists of Inequality.</a> 

Activists of inequality for the improvement of justice will come into existence.

Out of the activists for equality who finally come to plateau,

in their usefulness.

Activists of the future will find that they will have to maintain their historical success,

by giving up on some successful ideologies of the past.

The thing that is consistent between generations of activists,

is activism.

Ideologies that have come to characterize the success of America,

have gained this success, 

by advancing,

and defining itself,

against itself.

This was an incremental advancement,

not a permanent one.

Thus we can expect,

or hope,

that America will have success

*against itself*

again.

Redefining what is important.

And so the America of some folks' children and grandchildren,

will become better, 

and likely unlike,

what we think of it today.

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




*Monday, Labor Day, September 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:34 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="challenge-two-finding-texts-that-dont-make-the-mistakes-of-challenge-one">Challenge Two: Find texts that don't make the mistakes of challenge one.</a>

See again the earlier challenge: [Challenge One: Say "Best" or "Worst", only when it results in a true statement.](#challenge-one-avoiding-logically-risky-words)

Consider the full implications of the failure that ultimately results from this challenge. 

Consider the near permanence of this problem, of creating true statements, since the deficiencies are built into the way we use our language. The issue involves collective psychology and culture as a whole. It's not only about trying to make corrections here and there.

The change required is not only to change the way we use our language in speech,

which is hard enough, 

but in thought itself! 

Because how did you arrive at false sentences, without first thinking them? 

And how did you arrive at them as a destination of your thinking? 

People struggle to make statements, 

that suffer from these defects.

They aren't only the ones we first think of.

It isn't just falsity along the way, it is falsity all the way, or most of the way,

until the end of the path!

Where you judged it true enough to say it,

or write it.

Or publish it?

...

"Publish it"... that is interesting.

What works exist that have not made these errors?

If there are works that did not make these errors, what does that tell us about the minds that created them?

How would we judge already written works that suffer from these defects?

And which texts suffer from them the most?

The most ancient texts— how would they fare?

How far were they from understanding logic?

This brings us to challenge two:

*Challenge Two*

Find a text of at least 200 pages that does not commit the errors listed in challenge one.

And remember we were only considering *two* logically risky words.

Once we get to a more full treatment of logic, that most readers will be able to understand clearly, we'll find,

that everything is defective.

And then you might be more forgiving,

of errors you find,

here in the ThoughtStream,

and in your own ThoughtStream,

and you'll see the importance of logic,

and creating true and meaningful statements,

and arguments,

over editing punctuation.

...

I am bringing us slowly to a more important point, that is both moral,

and mortal.

It is worth the journey.

[Written in 31 minutes.]

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



*Monday, Labor Day, September 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:05 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="more-where-that-came-from">More where that came from.</a>

Don't enjoy a post? More where that came from.

Really like a post? More where that came from.

A post, or an act, or a thought...

Endurance.

Persistence.

Since it's not your vision you can expect to find things you like and don't like.

If your likes actually involve looking.

And if you are able to avoid taking positions against wholes,

without statistics.

Or wholes that aren't whole yet.

Or will ever be whole,

or complete.

Is a person ever complete?

A person,

scattering thoughts and actions with nothing to,

bring it all together,

except the animal.

...

So I'll put up with a variety of judgments of my scatterings.

There's more where that came from.

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



*Wednesday, August 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:37 PM AKST</time>

*Minor Fixes at 11:03, 11:12, 11:28 PM AKST* 

## <a name="is-the-urge-to-finish-things-the-result-of-the-escalation-of-commitment-bias">Is the urge to finish things the result of the escalation of commitment bias?</a>

"Cut your losses" is a common expression, but it seems to be less popular than "Complete what you started".

"Cut your losses" seems to be the better phrase of the two, because at least it implies that one can make the decision,

to stop something,

if it no longer makes sense to continue any longer.

"Complete what you started", is not the opposite of the first phrase.

"Complete what you started if it still makes sense to complete it." would be closer.

"Retain your gains."

...

I enjoy the heap of expressions we have in our culture,

because there are so many problems with it.

Which item in the heap do we grab when?

Why does it seem that for any one piece of advice, there is an opposite piece of advice for the same situation?

There is no rule book about which principle to follow at any given time.

People who are biased towards completing things will grab the one about completing things.

Those who are biased against continuing projects that look like money pits will choose the other. 

But what is clear to me, is that it is foolish to follow either of these pieces of advice. 

Instead it is better to replace it with the idea that if something is amiss, it is worth re-evaluating with

*thinking...*

*and not just *remembering**, 

so long as re-evaluating with thinking itself, wouldn't be too costly.

This alone should show that it is really tricky to know whether or not it is worth completing something once one has already started.

How many times in a project/plan, should the project/plan itself be re-evaluated in this way? And when?

"Stick to the plan" includes the same defective thinking.

If it were easy to know the answer, then wouldn't we find that there are few failures? 

Because projects would be completed successfully or else they would be abandoned at the right time.

From this we can see that no principle is really all that useful for guiding us in complex decisions of this sort, and that we are better off, having an alternative way to make decisions under uncertainty, that involves the actual weighing of options. And tracking of options.

But most are not studying game theory, and there is no clear way to put this into practice at present. 

And we are even further away from admitting that pieces in the heap,

are ready to be thrown into the fire,

and replaced with something new,

because no one is tracking the heap, 

or potential replacements, 

and even if replacements were known,

how would they be taught to replace what's in the heap?

Since the way that we learn what's in the heap, 

is by punctuated accidents of experience, over large portions of our lifetimes.

...

And so we go with the judgment of experience,

with the next problem,

that experience differs,

in what it thinks should be done under almost any circumstances.

...

And this is another reason why I love philosophy. In philosophy we are permitted to question received notions, and from the above, it should be clear, that received blurbs are not so useful as we might think, and that instead, there are better approaches that are more eclectic and are less biased, that include reasoning and not just recollection.

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



*Tuesday, August 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:52 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="increased-justice-and-understanding-what-justice-actually-is">Increased Justice and Understanding What Justice Actually Is.</a>

A mostly optimal process for arriving at a just solution model to implement for correcting a particular set of related social problems, shared openly and transparently, would be one that would be mostly agreeable to any citizen who analyses it independently, if they are equipped to fully understand and appreciate the process, and the social justice criteria used to judge it. As time goes on, and as justice is improved, our ability to analyse the systems for unfairness, and other issues, would create a larger and larger burden on individuals in terms of their mental capabilities, talents, level of education, and ability to understand and use tools for the purposes—tools that themselves could be flawed.

Therefore increased justice creates the issue of a greater inability to analyse the system for injustices, even when it is done well.

When it is done well, the level of detail is so great, that it will be hard to understand why it is done well, and where the errors are.

Thus we may end up giving up understanding exactly what justice is as we get far along in the process. One thing can be certain, it is simplicity in the idea of "equality" that has kept it around so far. Once we get to an improved sense of justice, based on real situations and real human and animal diversity, we will find ourself wanting to get more and more detailed, to the point where not everyone will be able to analyse the system or understand exactly why it is just or unjust, unless we are willing to start engineering humans, each and every one, to be able to comprehend what justice evolves to be.

In our state of simplicity now, have you noticed, that no one can pinpoint what is actually fair in any given situation?

This is because we have not yet taken the leap to see people in all their diversity and situations in all their detail, to see what is optimal in terms of human well-being and satisfaction, that itself also has not been determined clearly in terms of criteria connecting to individual differences.

[Written in approximately 15 minutes]

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



*Tuesday, August 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:15 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="what-party-does-a-business-decision-belong-to">Which party does a business decision belong to?</a>

I asked an old friend this recently when I was explaining my perspective regarding the 2-party system in the United States.

I think it is a clear and succinct way to show that situations are not better understood through any kind of party system.

Party systems do not facilitate understanding of problem situations and their solution models.

If you were to vote for a business decision as an employee of a company, would you search for truth through a party system? 

Or would you do what you actually do--

simply look for an answer that makes sense to you,

by examining the problem situation,

and then look at the recommended solution to compare? 

While at work we do not think about how a party would influence our decisions.

And this should indicate, how ridiculous the party system really is, because if it were to be added, it would not do anything to improve the answer or the outcome.

...

A good system model for a problem situation and a good solution model or policy would have nothing to do with voter party commitments, and would not be better understood by dividing the topic into a pre-existing team framework, where the teams are opposed by default.

Furthermore, it is hard to say how bite-sized chunks of information from the media, from already opposed viewpoints, would be of any benefit to the U.S. or any other nations worldwide. 

Such models probably do not even exist, and even if they did, people would not look at them before deciding how to vote. Because the parties already decide for folks how to vote, and who to vote for (not solutions to problems, but people, who never show clearly any models or policy solutions themselves!). 

Then couples vote jointly, forgetting that they would vote differently if remarried, and then their children are expected to vote like their parents and not someone else's parents.

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




*Monday, August 26<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:05 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="all-quotes-must-include-my-errors">All Quotes Must Include My Errors</a>

I updated my terms and conditions to include the following:

> "Quotes must include all errors and may not include "[sic]" or any other indicator that there is an error in the text that might require editing."

If there is an error, it has to remain an error in your text too.

In fact, there is at least one editorial/proofreading error below in "What is Trivial?".

And it will remain in there **FOREVER**.

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



*Friday, August 24<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:48 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="what-is-trivial">What is Trivial?</a>

I find that one great difference between people who are highly intelligent and who are not, involves the appreciation for what is not trivial in apparently mundane things.

Fools will seldom find anything of interest in things that are seemingly well understood in our everyday experiences.

> "Aha! There is something new in this supposedly familiar thing. Something went undetected! And it affects many other things... I find this worthy of investigation." 

This is a common experience of the scientist or the intelligent person who finds a new pattern.

When we learn as children, we depend on curiosity and surprise. New things surprise us, and we pay attention. We focus on these new things, until we understand them well enough that nothing in them surprises us any longer. Later it is almost as if we never learned it anything new to begin with, and we move on to other more interesting, surprising things.

There comes a point, in adulthood, when we take most of our everyday experience for granted, such that nothing really seems surprising any longer, and we need to search harder for novelties and curiosities, in order to recreate the youthful experience of surprise, and to continue learning. 

Very smart children are hard to satisfy, because they so quickly get everything they need from almost every experience they have.

...

Now, what I want to focus on for the moment, is the significance of this period of high familiarity.

Some people will get stuck in this high familiarity, and cast aside anything that seems to have been previously considered, as unworthy of reconsideration.

But people who are especially insightful, observant, or intelligent, will continue to find surprising things even among what is superficially trivial and mundane, and this creates an obstacle to communication, with people who are unwilling, or are unable, to get past the feeling that they already understand the topic well enough to give up the idea that they are already an expert concerning it.

My personal interest is moral philosophy. Unfortunately for me, everyone thinks they are so well acquainted with morality and ethics, that they have nothing else to learn about it; that there can be no authority other than the authorities they have accepted; that there is nothing new to learn in basic human interactions. I've known this for a while, but I'm so intensely interested in the topic that I will not give it up as my primary area of interest. Because morality addresses topics that are ever present to everyone all the time, and so, there is great difficulty in convincing adults, who are not already familiar with a philosophical treatment of topics, that there is anything new to discover, or that there is anything that cannot be put aside as already well covered, in some familiar source, like the Bible or other respected and probably ancient text. At the same time, since it is a topic that affects everyone, it is one that is very important, because if a new discovery is found, it can be expected to change a very large amount of what we think we already knew about the topic, and ultimately, if the observation is correct, it should result in a change of behavior for large populations of people.

So I'm interested in it because of the potential impact, and this make it worthwhile to study, even if people think they actually already understand the topic well enough that they don't need to consider my findings.

And this is another point. Ancient texts are respected in this domain, because the topic is *so* mundane, that there is a belief, that it was already well enough treated 2,000 years ago, that we cannot make observations, or discover new facts, that would completely disrupt our current paradigm of thought on the topic, which would require an overhaul of our ancient thinking.

I'm reminded of heliocentrism and its impact upon its discovery. And the risks that came along with the study of Astronomy, since people thought that was already well understood, and it was built into a moral framework that was thought to be at risk if there were any changes.

At the moment, I'm not sure there is a way around this.

Why? It seems that an appreciation for learning depends on built-in surprise capabilities. One has to be able to detect something that is surprising in order to be able to feel surprised, and therefore curious enough about it, to learn from the experience.

Also, it is hard know for sure when we've analyzed something thoroughly enough to know if *some other topic* will not have general relationships with the well examined topic, such that the seemingly well examined topic would not need reconsideration. Like mathematics, logic, and human equality, for example (people think it is well understood that people are equal and are unwilling to receive new information on this topic that would create a need for some serious overhaul in moral and political thinking). The reconsideration could require a new way of looking at the topic, implying another psychology, that is an evolution from the previous way of looking at it. And it is hard to know if such a new perspective would resemble the previous perspective in ways that we would expect.

I'm sure someone will say they can summarize topic more briefly, but I assure you, they were not interested in summarizing it, until they read what I wrote here. So I'm not to concerned about receiving that sort of criticism concerning the ThoughtStream, since it's another attempt, to cast something aside, as something already completely familiar. You should not be dissuaded by such criticisms, when you find something of interest, in something another person thinks is already well understood, because there isn't a good reason to let the other thwart your interests and curiosities.

[Written in 47 minutes]

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



*Friday, August 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:58 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="mattanaw-acts-alone-on-the-thoughtstream">Mattanaw Acts Alone on the ThoughtStream.</a>

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



*Friday, August 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:56 AM AKST</time>

*Minor Edit: Saturday, August 24<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:00 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="origin-of-the-thoughts">Origin of the Thoughts.</a>

The origin of the thoughts,

is with labor determined,

to be from the writer,

based on previous works.

This is one reason why I provide previous works.

Why I am concerned about continuity.

Not only for transparency in creation and history,

but in the ease of establishing authenticity.

Thus copyright is not so difficult to establish as people think.

But it could become difficult.

If we do not counter AI in the preservation of history.

Since AI can recreate history,

to create a false continuity.

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



*Friday, August 23<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:24 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="when-will-genesis-ever-end-really">When Will Genesis Ever End, Really?</a>

Genesis hasn't finished yet.

...

What if nature didn't actually unfold slowly?

It happened quickly. It *happens* quickly.

What will come is of importance.

Maybe.

A trillion years from now.

We are in the primordial slime,

from which real life emerges.

Our lives amount to a micro-step.

A pico-step.

A **to-be-forgotten** step!

An animal taking an *INITIAL* evolutionary step!

Still in Genesis!

Forever in Genesis?

...

Only a subset of us are needed for it to happen.

For genesis to move forward.

The rest are superfluous?

...

The entire bible is chapter one of the new "Genesis".

If it even needs to be written!

Do we need a text concerning the transformations,

of slime!?

How long might this "Genesis" take?

Can you say?

No you cannot. Because these are questions you have not considered?

These are questions you cannot answer.

This is why Philosophy is to be preferred over religion.

When does genesis ever end?

[To be continued...]

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



*Wednesday, August 7<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:11 PM Eastern Time</time>

## <a name="employment-relationships-are-not-romances">Employment Relationships are Not Romances.</a>

I'm not sure if "fired" is a *legal term*, and I don't see any reason for power-play break-up drama.

On one side or the other.

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



*Saturday, August 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:17 PM Eastern Time</time>

*Edited: Saturday, August 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:32 PM Alaska Time</time>

*Minor Fixes: September, 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:12 PM Alaska Time</time>

## <a name="challenge-one-avoiding-logically-risky-words">Challenge One: Say "Best" or "Worst", only when it results in a true statement.</a>

"Best" and "Worst" are *logically risky* words, 

because they so predictably result in sentences that are either

* Fallacious, or just plain
* false.

Once these words are heard or spoken, 

it is safe to assume the resulting sentence is going to be false, 

especially when the number of objects for comparison are large.

Very often the comparison is large—especially when we are comparing people, or things connected to social life (foods that are best or worst, least or most healthy, etc..). 

Words that frequently create false sentences.

1. Best
1. Worst
1. Always
1. Never
1. Everyone
1. No one

The "-est" words:

1. Stupidest
1. Smartest
1. Strongest
1. Weakest
1. and so on...

A complete list of words having similar underlying logical structures would be very large, but the reader should be able to easily find examples in the course of everyday conversation, to find other issues with creating truthful sentences.

*The Challenge:*

Pay attention to when you use the words "best" and "worst" and try to see if from now on, you can consistently use these words (or *skip* using them) to make sentences that are completely true, and not false.

See how long it takes for you to have success,

and while doing so,

count precisely how often these words spring to mind,

creating sentences that are definitely false.

As you have success, you'll begin to see, just how serious the problem is,

since it goes unchecked on television, 

in most forms of entertainment,

and advertisement,

and pervades Western English culture, and cultures with similar tendencies.

This will lead you to observe, as I have, that it is very difficult to create truthful utterances—and we are only looking at *just two* risky words in this challenge!

...

### Difficulties to Expect

Here are some issues making it difficult to have success with a seemingly easy task like this one:

1. *Habit and Automaticity*
    * You will keep wanting to automatically use these words to create false sentences.
1. *Frequency*
    * It will happen so often, in so many different types of situations, it will be hard to correct issues each and every time.
1. *Peer pressure*
    * It is easy to be re-taught to do it the wrong way, because of how often it is used incorrectly in our environment. Friends, family, colleagues, and other people we talk with daily will not be trying to make the corrections you will be trying to make... *[Consider the full implications of that, and consider the near permanence of this problem, since it is built into the way we use our language. The change required is actually to change the way we use our language in speech and in thought itself! Because how did you arrive at false sentences, without first thinking them? How did you arrive at them as a destination? It wasn't just falsity along the way, it was falsity at the end of the path!]*. They may not see the problem at all. People will use these words and then expect you to accept their false statements as truths, and you will find yourself complying with their expectations, by not openly disagreeing with them. Otherwise you will be correcting people too frequently, you'll find.
1. *Unpredictability* 
    * Practice opportunities occur at unexpected times and places, often after mistakes have already been made, or when one is not in the right state of mind to avoid old habits.
1. *No training* 
    * There is no training program that currently exists to teach people to avoid creating false statements. Thus learning depends on remembering to practice as issues arise, and this is not an easy thing to do!
1. *Pervasiveness*
    * If you are successful in changing your way of thinking, you will find, over time, if you are not careful, that typical usage in the larger culture, through entertainment and normal socialization, will cause your improvements will be eroded, so that your thinking and your speech will come to resemble what it was before you started. I currently find myself in this predicament, for lack of maintenance over a several years. So not only is it challenging update ones linguistic tendencies to avoid saying things that are false, it is hard to maintain improvements, after they are painstakingly practiced to mastery. Trust me, you will be practicing alone, and once you are done practicing, others around you will not understand that you've made improvements. Instead, they will try to drag you back down to where you were before.

When one really sees how many aspects of our language and culture contribute to forming incorrect sentences, one realizes just how hard it is to be entirely truthful. 

In short: even when you know what the problems are, it is very difficult to change yourself, so that you can consistently avoid even simple logical errors.

We will continue to see reasons here in the ThoughtStream and elsewhere in my writings.


### Key Problems

There are many similar words to those listed above, that have the same effect, and this relates to key problems, that I did not mention already above.

* They are used about people or things that are part of a large group in which not every individual has been measured or even looked at, and
* There is a strong desire to assume that the object or person in consideration would, after measurement, fall on one of the two poles, while a spectrum has an infinite number of positions between poles (and there are no poles, aside from those objects or individuals that are measured to be the furthest on both sides of the measure. Very often there can be no assumptions about a minimum or maximum. Poles exist in the sense that these maximums and minimums create current limits in a scatter plot that maps to an infinite line pointing in both directions.)
* Oftentimes what is measured is a collection of items or aspects of objects that should be individually measured. This results in an issue of summarizing the data in aggregate, because it will not be clear how the different measures combine to make a total measure. It will be hard to know if an aggregate summary is even appropriate (consider trying to determine who the greatest athlete might be, for example, without admitting that one is merely taking measured strengths in a variety of areas and somehow arbitrarily combining them to determine who is greatest in total). This last point indicates that the questions that we try to answer are also faulty. Why would we be so inclined to find the very best athlete among a group of athletes, instead of say, trying to find ways that each athlete excels in comparison with the others, on specific areas of measurable performance?

In short, these issues relate to incorrect generalizations, or incorrect results or summaries about incomplete data (or errors about assuming that data even exists). It is tempting to think that only one or two errors are involved in this type of mistake, but there are many ways that this type of falsity arises.

...

On the plus side, once we are aware of risky words like those above, we can quickly infer that the statements are incorrect when these words are used. Although we do need to actually look and not simply guess that the sentences are false.

On the negative side, these words cloud our judgement and fill our thinking with falsities, that are hard to remove.

A fundamental issue with Western Culture involves the desire to rank everyone and everything on a hierarchy.

We are very quick to say that someone or something is the best, or worst, highest or lowest, greatest or least, without realizing that almost anytime we make such a claim, we are actually saying something false.

Also notice, that this tendency, points to the human assumption about inequality between things and people. The fact that we so quickly think of things as best and worst, greatest and least, and so on, shows that we are very quick to dispose of any assumption that there is equality in a group. It speaks to our desire to get away from equalities in a panoply of ways, and to our desire to celebrate people and things that are quite distant from what would result in an equal measure with most other things. We are continually seeking to be amazed by things that are *maximally unequal* to what is most common or normal in groups of things.

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



*Sunday, July 21<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:51 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="record-a-commitment">Record a commitment.</a>

To see,

that you really would not want to commit to it after all.

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



*Friday, July 5<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:48 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="a-wave-can-be-an-oath-too">A wave can be an oath too.</a>

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


*Thursday, July 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:49 PM AKST</time>

*Minor Edit, Thursday, July 5<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:11 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="you-are-funny">"You are funny".</a>

I saw part of an interview with Maya Angelou once. 

She said "You are funny".

It was directed to everyone.

But the way she said it was confusing to me though.

It didn't really fit into the conversation naturally.

She had a special message to share.

After detecting something was different in her meaning,

or after detecting another interesting perspective, 

she probably also intended,

it left a bug in my mind that had to be resolved. 

There was some gap that needed to be filled because I couldn't understand it fully.

> [Aside: See [The ThoughtStream is Terse](#the-thoughtstream-is-terse). This explains that she could fill a gap that *I could not fill* until later.]

Later, I filled the gap.

Maybe not with exactly what she had in mind, but something close.

Or at least I arrived at the alternative meaning I detected.

"You are funny".

to me also meant:

"Everyone is a joke". 

("You are a joke" directed at every person on earth).

I don't think she was only trying to say that every person had a sense of humor.

I think she was trying to say everyone can be ludicrous or amusing.
...

I took being called ridiculous, or absurd, or imperfect, in *in the kindest possible way.*

Because we take ourselves too seriously.

The moment we let go,

we allow ourselves to see that "everyone can make fun of everything else in the world",

including all people in it too. 

No matter how perfect you think you are,

you are self conscious,

until you see that others will always detect funny things about you.

So her meaning, is a blunt one,

delivered in a hidden way,

that once discovered,

can change your life for the better forever.

...

Some might say that is all obvious.

But let me tell you something: 

I haven't learned it yet.

Not completely.

It takes a lot to let go of the fact that certain imperfections you have,

or actions you've taken,

are going to allow people to make fun of you forever.

And that is OK.

But how long will it take to figure out how to feel OK about that?

A very long time.

Famous people and politicians might not ever get over it themselves.

But there is tremendous relief in what she said,

if it gets used for self-help.

Because it becomes funny to you too,

eventually,

when you start to see,

that you are funny in the ways that other people see you are funny.

And you can really just laugh at yourself,

and brush it off,

without even brushing it off.

You laugh it off.

...

That is why I posted before:

[Give me time](#give-me-time-ill-help-put-your-mind-at-ease)

And also why I also posted:

[When you don't know what you're witnessing](#when-you-dont-know-what-youre-witnessing)

Because I didn't understand Maya Angelou,

Until I did later.

I didn't need help from her later works,

but sometimes you need to give others time,

to fully express themselves,

before you can judge.

Because they have good intentions,

even when you can't tell.

And I make that mistake all the time. 

Every single day.

...

She is an artist in her literature.

and in her life,

Just like I am an artist,

in my writing,

and in my philosophy,

and in my religion,

and in my life too.

And you should consider if you can be an artist also.

Because there is 

*NO LIMIT TO HOW MANY ARTISTS THERE CAN BE ON THIS EARTH!* 

And you don't need to feel like you're even good at it,

to get the rewards from it.

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



*Wednesday, July 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:21 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="a-teacher-takes-you-through-all-the-steps">A teacher takes you through all the steps.</a>

...

This is about transparency in creation.

What does that mean?

It means that you, 

as the student,

can see all the steps that a mentor would take,

in creating something masterful.

It means you would have all that you need,

to do exactly what the teacher is able to do,

on your own as well,

if you are able to build the skill,

that the master was able to build.

...

A novel goes through thousands of edits,

and maybe it is time,

to share the edits,

and the source.

And not only the novel.

...

I think of Charles Darwin's [*Origin of the Species*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species).

It has six editions.

The first is cherished, and so is the last, final work.

Both are masterpieces, but are quite different from each other.

So we do have information about how one draft started,

and how it developed.

But it would be much better,

if we could have seen the entire production from his hands,

from beginning to end,

than to merely have his six editions,

and have no idea,

how much work,

went into its creation,

from the time he stared writing,

until the time he put his pen down for good.

...

This would be version control for writing and art,

preserving the entire creative process,

and all of the edits,

in a way that is useful to a student,

or to anyone who wants to discover,

the process from the master archive,

that will come to exist in the future.

...

In a ThoughtStream recorded with perfect time,

like a life video recorded with such detail it could be replayed in slow-motion.

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



*Wednesday, July 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:17 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="a-message-comes-out-of-a-funnel">Thoughts are distillates.</a>

from complex,

shifting clouds of gases,

that I don't see or understand,

until the drops are forming,

or are already formed.

...

Water is more easily perceived when it is liquid,

than when it is a translucent cloud.

And thoughts are more easily perceived once they are assembled,

Into what is actually identified,

as thoughts.

...

And this is why I say that my ideas,

are not my ideas.

...

Yet they are, to an extent.

The extent,

is a margin of flexibility,

that has the purpose of allowing for more ideas to be created.

...

My brain is my brain,

in a legal sense, 

I suppose,

but maybe my ideas are not my ideas.

> [Aside: Still, see my [terms and conditions](terms-conditions.html).]

...

For copyright purposes,

It's hard to say then,

What level of ownership I have over my brain,

given that my new ideas,

depend on other people's thoughts,

that are now represented as neuronal, electrochemical patterns,

within my own brain.

...

And this is why,

we have to wonder if citations,

are supposed to go along with brain structures.

...

In-brain citations.

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


*Wednesday, July 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:37 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="faith-disappears">Faith disappears,</a>

but then it returns again.

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



*Written Wednesday, July 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~Noon AKST</time>

## <a name="enlightenment-has-evolving-meaning">Prayer Overlaps Meditation so You are Part Buddhist.</a>

If you observe closely,

looking at actions themselves,

you will find that

prayer,

meditation,

mindfulness,

self-hypnosis,

and

calm-concentration,

all have much in common,

but this does not mean that learning one method,

means that you learned them all.

So when you see others,

from other cultures

or religions

performing these activities

you can think that they are much like you...

but notice that you are different enough,

from them,

to be missing something that they have,

that you don't,

and the other way around.

So if you know prayer, *do not discount meditation*.

and ask yourself, *"Why is it called prayer and not meditation?"*

and *"What am I lacking!?"*

Try it without concern about trying new things,

because you are a child until your very end.

See [Untruths in the Disciplines](#truths-in-the-disciplines).

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



*Written Wednesday, July 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~Noon AKST</time>

## <a name="enlightenment-has-evolving-meaning">Enlightenment has Evolving Meaning.</a>

Enlightenment is salvation from ignorance. 

Learning is salvation from ignorance.

But the full meaning of enlightenment is still

changing inside of me.

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



*Wednesday, July 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:37 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="faith-disappears-but-then-it-returns-again">Faith disappears,</a>

but then it returns again.

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



*Wednesday, July 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:34 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="to-think-fewer-evils">See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.</a>

To think fewer evils.

...

Of those that remain, 

we can simply let them pass through us,

and let them vanish.

...

If we can really call them evils.

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



*Wednesday, July 3<sup>rd</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:21 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="kind-hearted-amusement-is-its-own-reward">Kind Hearted Amusement is its Own Reward.</a>

I'm not sure where I learned that, but it was useful to me today.

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



*Sunday, June 30<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:26 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="everyone-gets-confused">Everyone gets confused.</a>

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



*Saturday, June 29<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>7:53 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="publishing-plans-and-results-if-there-are-any">Publishing Plans and Results, If There Are Any</a>

I was thinking today, why not discuss some of my plans and share the outcomes later?

Some would simply complete tasks, and then write about the results afterwards.

But I feel it might be interesting to talk about plans, 

and then see what the outcomes are actually like, and write about them later.

...

OK... but why would anyone want to do this?

Well, then you would see loose ends I created for myself.

You would see what gets completed and what does not.

Together, we would get a better view of what procrastination really is.

So this will aid my ongoing series on procrastination.

...

Thus there is another reason to publish something,

before anything has been finished,

or before 

it is what others might think is worthy of publication.

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




*Friday, June 28<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:53 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="its-easy-to-become-envious">Let's look at the learning intervals.</a> 

What you said at 5 years old, is not what you would commit to today.

What you said at 10 years old, is not what you would commit to today.

What you thought one year ago, might embarrass you today.

What you thought one minute ago, was corrected in the subsequent thought.

The minimal learning interval is the transition between one thought,

and the very next. 

> [Aside: We can assume the linear for now]

The ThoughtStream shows that you do not commit to anything you think permanently.

Unless you are against learning.

So we need to be careful about judging someone with finality,

about a thought,

that is only transitory.

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



*Thursday, June 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:24 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="its-easy-to-become-envious">It's easy to become envious,</a>

if you see someone doing the same things you do,

or the same things,

you would like to do.

But think to yourself,

"Would a friend want to do the same things I'm doing right now?"

There is plenty of opportunity even doing the same activities.

So don't get discouraged if you see someone doing something,

you'd like to be doing yourself too.

And don't shift to do something else,

out of a desire to be different or unique.

You are already unique, so do what you want to do,

in your own unique way.

That won't be hard for you,

because you can't be anything but unique.

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




*Friday, June 21<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:39 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-thoughtstream-is-enough">The ThoughtStream is Enough.</a>

Maybe we don't need any other writing but the ThoughtStream.

...

I considered this while I was thinking of responding to a portion of Peter Strawson's article "Freedom and Resentment." I saw some issues in an argument and thought to myself: "Do I really need to hold myself back, and wait to write my book—or should I just go ahead, and start recording these thoughts directly into the ThoughtStream, already ready?" The ThoughtStream, makes it possible, to record these thoughts, without worry about how a more sophisticated journal article would be prepared. In the end, the ideas are what matter. If I were to spend excess time constructing an article, full of perfect references, the idea might never get expressed.

This is not to say that articles are not worthwhile for full presentation of ideas that need serious consideration, and should be a part of a peer reviewing process.

A journal requires quality.

Encyclopedia Brittanica.

The ThoughtStream does not require quality.

But quality can go into the ThoughtStream.

...

There is quality in the existence of the ThoughtStream that contains even lack of quality.

Because it is the evidence of the mind-being-the-mind.

Why do we not say the brain is holy?

The ThoughtStream is holy?

The animal is holy...

This is a ThoughtStream of an animal.

...

Maybe we don't need any other writing but the ThoughtStream.

...

> [Aside: I know this needs qualification, and I would not want to dispose of the arts. I would not want to eliminate alternative modes of communication. On the contrary, I want these to exist. I want new forms to be created. Nevertheless, the ThoughtStream is complete in many respects. Imagine if Twitter were extended to include much more lengthy postings. In that case, everyone could publish more complex writings, like articles, with references, in addition to the short blurbs, and the thoughts, in the end, would be in the catalog of writings, from the one person that produced them. In this sense, everyone can become published, and everyone can have their life recorded, and everyone can own their own content, and share it to a degree.]

...

The ThoughtStream makes impacts without explanations. But sometimes explanations will be added.

At that time or later.

I do not wish to block the creative process.

My thoughts about edits being "blockers" on creativity, and on the importance of sharing ideas in writing, as if it were open conversation (since we allow errors in verbalisms), connects with the views of other creatives, as evidenced by "The Spark", found in  Questlove's book *Creative Quest*. Questlove is extremely interconnected with creatives and is a SME on the creative process. In many ways that chapter touches on this same material I'm adding here.

So if you do not think that you will be able to record an idea in an article,

or in a finished book,

why not simply publish it on a ThoughtStream?

Twitter is not enough for this.

Postings are too short and they may not really be yours.

The journal is a ThoughtStream of sorts.

But the ThoughtStream is open to the world.

It does not matter if we call it the ThoughtStream.

[Zen doesn't care what you call it.](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-ThoughtStream.html#zen-doesnt-care-what-you-call-it)

...

Consider this an open-sourcing of one of my life goals. To produce my writings in such a way that I own them, but that other people can have access to them too, so that all my ideas, that are otherwise very difficult to share, due to expectations about prep time, actually do get shared.

The ThoughtStream will dramatically increase in output,

if I'm allowed my artistic freedom,

and there is freedom from interference.

At the moment, I don't have freedom from interference.

...

I hope everyone else gets to own their own ThoughtStream.

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



*Tuesday, June 18<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:45 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="maturity-models-in-daily-life">Maturity Models in Daily Life.</a> 

In organizations we do roadmapping exercises that, when done correctly, reflect possible transformations along a normal maturization process.

> [Aside: spell checking says that maturization is not correct. But it feels right. It is correct given a natural mastery of English.]

In other words, you don't create a plan without the vision, but you also can't have the vision without the plan, given how things actually normally develop.

In daily life, we miss the vision.

For example, when we cook dinner, we rarely think:

"Hey, I cook the same things again and again, so why not recognize that I could have a recipe book to capture these meals to sell." 

It was common at one time for families to have recipes to share with one another.

Family recipe books were not unusual.

But to take it further. If you cook every night, and you have the ingredients at hand, and you enjoy what you are doing, why not realize that your recipe book could be a menu.

You have your customers with you nightly.

You have the opportunity for immediate feedback.

You can take almost all steps that are possible, within your home kitchen, to create a business. And it's right in front of your eyes.

This is how maturity modeling can work for you in your everyday life.

I had a dream to create a vegan restaurant according to this approach.

Although now, I would probably do a near-vegan, vegetarian restaurant.

In my life I have a kitchen that is very far from normal, so it isn't really possible to create culinary masterpieces.

However, why not take this idea for yourself.

Because even if the dream of creating a restaurant beloved by others doesn't come true,

you will have something to hand your children, and perhaps grandchildren,

that will enable them to feed themselves and remember their family heritage at the same time.

This idea does not only apply to cooking food.

> [Aside: I did not do a complete edit before publishing this. I just picked out obvious errors. Good enough like in conversation.]

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



*Monday, June 17<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:23 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="choosing-a-mentor-who-exists">The first rule for choosing a mentor,</a>

is to choose one who exists.

This leaves two good options.

A living person, or yourself.

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



*Monday, June 17<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:17 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-best-mentors-track-your-life-categories">The Best Mentors,</a>

have a feature in common that somehow goes unrecognized.

They track your life-categories.

As you speak to them,

they'll listen,

but they may not always be concerned about the specifics of what you are saying.

They'll ask you questions that cut across your life.

And as conversations unfold,

they will easily come to find, 

where you are out of balance.

This is where they will give you advice, that you will find useful for self-application.

So you come to value their opinion because they are able to help you see what you're missing.

This is a feature common to all mentors.

It can be an elder, a friend, a priest, a doctor, a psychologist... or anyone else who serves as a mentor in your life.

It is possible, however, to do this for yourself.

You can self-mentor, to a degree.

If you do not happen to have a mentor around. Not everyone does.

If you don't, try to keep a list of the most important areas of your life, that should not go untended.

If you are able to track these areas effectively, and make sure you take care of each one carefully, you are likely to do well.

And then for a stretch of time, you might be able to forget to keep track.

But if you come to a moment when you are out of balance again,

it is easy to go back to the list, and start all over again.

My life is out of balance again, and so this is what I'm doing for myself now.

> [Note: I intend to upload the forms I used for doing this, on my page, [rational-times.html](rational-times.html)]

This way you can see how I did it, how much is really possible to keep track of, and have a starting point to do the same for yourself.

Some may say that this is an obvious point.

But if you look around, nobody is doing it.

Particularly those who say it is obvious.

I know, because it is not easy to do, even if you spend quite a bit of time collecting data.

It is time consuming.

This is why I want to help and provide what I created for your benefit.

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



*Monday, June 10<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:01 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="assume-this-blog-is-not-about-you">Assume this blog is not about you.</a>

I perform social commentary. 

If it really does apply to you, so be it.

Like any other piece of art, 

music or otherwise, 

you're free to use what fits, 

and ignore what doesn't.

...

Sometimes, I'm prompted to write by others.

I'm in debt to them for that.

Usually the thoughts are already in mind, waiting for a motive.

A motive received is greatly appreciated.

...

Readers should not be confused by postings feeling coincidental, however.

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



*Monday, June 10<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:45 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="beware-of-the-diagnosers">Beware of the Diagnosers.</a>

This is closely related to the post *[Beware of the Rankers](#beware-of-the-ranker)*.

Examine that closely.

Those who lack talent, again, will find ways to set the standards.

They'll do it by false authority, or by pointing to their motionless certificate, earned with many hoop jumps,

forgetting that there are many authority figures who would disagree with them.

"Don't get a second opinion!"

You don't need to agree with your father. Check other fathers. (Test your position on equality).

> Aside: This is not disrespecting fathers, it is respecting them more.

These rankers by diagnosis achieve their ends pretending to downgrade and classify effectively.

The method doesn't matter to them though. Only the result. 

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



*Wednesday, June 6<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:57 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="saving-face-and-no-sin">Saving face, and No-sin.</a>

I hear people talk of "saving face".

"Saving face" is hardly something I personally aspire to.

I am an animal.

I let things go quickly.

Pangs of embarrassment are brief.

Guilt lasts as long as it should, and no longer.

I try to correct things quickly, when I'm aware of mistakes.

But I expect mistakes, so I do not think much of blame.

I'm a learning creature.

I do not look for revenge, because I want others to get past things as well.

Others are learning creatures.

I reject the concept of "sin".

People do not need to carry guilt forever.

People are animals that will do animal-like things.

According to nature.

...

The ones who are truly horrible have no honest recourse, in my mind, to equalizing people,

by stating that "everyone is a sinner".

That only means: "The good are as bad as I am, and are as bad as I will continue to be."

Why would anyone adopt that, as it so obviously favors the wicked?

The equalizer is that we were all ignorant babies. That's all we need to say about that.

I say equalizer because even babies are unequal with respect to ignorance.

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



*Wednesday, June 6<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:28 PM AKST</time>

*Additions and Minor Edits: Wednesday, June 6<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:40 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="creating-problems-for-others">Creating problems for others.</a>

Is not evidence of your cleverness.

...

It is easy to create problems for other people.

It is not so easy to deal with those problems created.

I avoid creating problems for other people, as far as I can.

I keep to myself.

If you look at others around you, notice the mischievous people.

They will eventually create problems for you,

If you provoke their jealousy or irrational desires for vengeance.

Even the slightest perceived slight,

will justify lengthy and disproportionate retribution from them.

...

See *[Beware of the Rankers](#beware-of-the-ranker)*.

Creating problems for others is just another desperate attempt to rank others, and to magnify a fragile ego.

Feelings are not valid inferences.

Jealousy and envy justifies whatever it can.

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



*Wednesday, June 5<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~6:26 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="zen-doesnt-care-what-you-call-it">Zen doesn't care what you call it.</a>

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




*Wednesday, June 5<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~6:20 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="when-you-dont-know-what-youre-witnessing">When you don't know what you're witnessing.</a>

*"When I saw you working, I felt like I was missing something—I felt like I must be doing something wrong."*

This is a close paraphrase of something a colleague once said to me.

I repeat it because I thought it was kind and honest. I do not intend to criticize this reaction in any way. 

Nowadays, however, I think it's closer to:

*"I don't really understand what he's doing, but I will assume it is foolish."*

or

*"What he's doing looks old-school. It's ridiculous"*

...

Only much later, after discovering the trajectory, there's an "aha" moment, that's more like a rationalization:

*"Oh I always knew you were doing that..."*

Sure you did.

You only get to the end point with the steps it requires to get to that endpoint.

You didn't know any of the steps or the endpoint.

...

Steps in between may not be what you think they are.

And with myself, they seldom are.

People will judge you on your unfinished deeds as if they were finished ones.

Take this ThoughtStream as an example.

The great thing about the ThoughtStream is that all deeds are unfinished.

That's kinda the point.

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



*Saturday, March 16<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:22 PM AKST</time>

*Originally posted: Saturday, October 6<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>~11:45 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="freethinking-is-my-religion-second">Freethinking is My Religion.</a>

Challenge my freethinking, challenge my religion.

Freethinking into writing and expression is my art.

This art is contained in the religion also.

Or the religion in the art.

Forming one legal corporate entity?

*Alas, the limits of a legal perspective.*

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



*Tuesday, June 4<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:25 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="ask-for-the-rainbows">Ask for the Rainbows.</a>

And they will not come to you.

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



<pre><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="memorial-day-web.jpg" src="memorial-day-web.jpg"></pre>

*Monday, May 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:43 PM AKST</time>

*Minor Grammatical Edit. Monday, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:36 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="memorial-day">Memorial Day Thoughts.</a>

Let's honor veterans with the truths due to them.

I've said elsewhere, that

"Remember Forever",

is not genuine.

People will forget just one day later.

And remember the phrase, when the ritual repeats, a year later.

This sounds negative to say.

But think it through, and you will see...

that people who sacrifice themselves in war,

are sacrificed completely.

Our memories are short.

When America is no more,

and we are blended with other nations,

memorials will lose significance.

So let's think hard about it now,

and not plan to remember for eternity.

...

Is this not a more real,

and important message,

than any lie about remembering someone's sacrifice forever?

Death for no reason,

is a part of war.

We need to value veterans enough,

to not lie to people who are thinking of joining the military,

and to encourage their children,

to think hard about the risks,

and to find other opportunities,

like rich people almost always do.

...

I am grateful for my freedom to think and write what I wish on this website,

and speak my mind in public. 

And I understand the cost.

This is why I decided early that I would never serve in the military.

And why I am unwilling to join in on the rituals.

I value the holiday,

and my freedom to think,

how I want to about it.

Thank you Veterans for this freedom.

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



*Monday, May 27<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:42 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="make-work-play">Work is Play.</a>

Do not pretend that this is true.

Make it true.

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



*Saturday, May 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:33 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="you-can-speakdream-whatever-you-want">Speakdream it.</a>

You can sleepdream whatever you want.

You can daydream whatever you want.

You can speakdream whatever you want.

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



*Saturday, May 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:14 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="see-that-the-math-logic-is-in-all-good-things">There is freedom in the ThoughtStream.</a>

There is freedom in the ThoughtStream.

There are few consequences to your thoughts,

in the form of reactions from other people.

According to your nation's laws. 

(I hope. I enjoy this protection immensely.)

You are protected in this.

Likewise, in the U.S., you have First Amendment rights,

or Freedom of Speech.

> (Aside: Nevermind that the right was designated *because* it has not been secured for you. For if it were secured, there would be no speaking of rights, as I've covered elsewhere. This is why we often protest "It is my right!"—the protest concerns not having what was supposedly ensured.)

Let us assume we are protected in this supposed Freedom,

such that we are free,

from having to consider if we have it or not.

So there will be no consequences for your thoughts outside your head,

and not just inside your head,

because the responsibility for reactions,

lies in other people.

And corporations,

cannot discriminate against you,

because of your opinions,

outside of work.

And if they do, 

you have recourse,

because they have not learned, of all the opinions of the rest of their staff,

or openly made public their thoughts,

or used their freedoms,

in the way that you have.

Thus they can learn to be like you.

...

I do not concern myself about the compulsivity of other people.

Or corporations.

Even in threats of violence.

Because they are the worst of all who make such threats.

Organized threats are more disgusting than individual ones.

...

Also you do not need to commit to what you think,

when you know shortly after you might think the opposite.

And so,

people need to learn,

that you might say something, 

but that does not mean that it is final in any way.

You were just thinking aloud.

Like when you think aloud in your head.

And all is tentative,

because in Mattanaw's Philosophy,

and in Philosophy in general,

skepticism requires,

that you form conclusions that might contrast significantly,

with what you thought before,

because that is what learning often is.

*And we are all for learning, right?*

...

You can sleepdream whatever you want.

You can daydream whatever you want.

You can speakdream whatever you want.

Blame your speakdreams on your sleepdreams.

Or sleepdreams on your speakdreams.

Because you don't know the source of your thoughts in either case.

But you do know they are connected to each other.

...

There are times for greater care,

but most times are not those times.

Unless censors, discriminators, and the punitive have their way.

...

Fortunately, Philosophy is my religion.

And so I am protected.

Are you protected?

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



*Saturday, May 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:14 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="see-that-the-math-logic-is-in-all-good-things">See that the math-logic is in all good things.</a>

See that logic is math-logic.

Then your trust will increase.

Your Philosophy will improve.

You'll learn that you don't choose a philosophy.

As if they are mutually exclusive, and you can't have them all intermixed.

Logic permeates everything you do.

See that all your reasoning depends on the logic,

and see all of the errors you've been making,

and all the life-long errors of your parents and ancestors,

and all the errors you will continue to make.

Practice will show you,

even if you don't care for formal logic,

but only the informal logic of language,

that 

truth preserving chains are hard to come by,

and are hard to tease from,

pointed intuitions born of complex experience.

...

"Describe the newborn in a list of just 100 sentences interconnected."

...

"Images are worth a thousand words."

If so than how many words worth are in a video of a million frames? 

If we just go by videos composed of frames.

And not pattern chains.

More still. How many words are in the life of the situation?

...

Sometimes you need quite a lot in your arguments,

So there are limitations even in logic,

Since logic does not use pictures,

or pithy pointers of dense life-capsules.

Logic is ultimately abandoned for this same reason, 

that too much is required for proof, 

of complex things we actually care about, when the scope is as wide as living.

And what we want to show,

requires another media,

like film,

or other artful creation.

Yet it is required nevertheless,

to intuit errors,

and to have the right experience to get a feel for when more complex arguments

really are right.

And to realize,

that even if logic must be abandoned to cover more,

logic is still in the foundation,

and we just simply don't have enough time to use it,

in all cases.

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




*Saturday, May 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:07 PM AKST</time>

*Edited. Saturday, May 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:41 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="brief-insights-and-fallacies">Brief insights and fallacies.</a>

To determine if a fallacy is present in an insight, briefly recorded, one has to be able to correctly translate the insight into the requisite logic, that presents the best argument for that insight.

This is the principle of charity in Philosophy.

Intuition precedes the rigorous proofs of the intuitions.

Naysayers will say: "You committed your own errors. Here... let me show you..."

But then what they show you is not true to the original insight,

for which the logical proofs are forthcoming.

So they show you irrelevances,

and fallacies within mistranslations,

that they attribute to the author, instead of themselves.

Or they pretend there are fallacies to exhibit an understanding of logic, that happens to be false.

Mistranslations are generated to satisfy desires for fallacies to exist.

This is why it is important to wait for works of expression,

to come to completion.

You need the author-orator, since the reader-listeners are in the darkness.

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



*Saturday, May 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:53 PM AKST</time>

*Edited Saturday, May 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:48 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="widson-can-be-taught-and-cannot-be-taught">Wisdom Can Be Taught and Cannot Be Taught.</a>

It depends on the student,

and the teacher.

Logic is a first start. 

It is a branch of Philosophy!

Your trust in math. It should extend to logic too.

The logic is foundational to math. And to argumentation.

Any argument you construct with words will be sound and valid, only if the logic is correct.

This means, in the current organization of topics in College curricula, that you need to get your Philosophy right to get your argumentation right.

Logic could be separated from Philosophy, but they are historically intertwined for good reason.

Back to topic: Logic and Math are nearly one and the same. 

Logic is more foundational to everyday purposes however.

You can place the same trust and faith you have for math in Philosophy, since in Philosophy, logic is paramount. 

Although 

this must be combined with healthy skepticism. 

Logic leads one to skepticism 

since truth is so hard to come by, 

and people are credulous by nature.

> (Aside: Recall the faith you put in human equality, through trust of math. That math wasn't even there. Put faith in math-logic, if the math-logic is actually there, and it is sound. Do the same with other acts of faith. Confirm that what you have faith in is present first.)

...

Devotion to longer sentences is another path to truth.

Short sentences are incomplete pointers.

Tools of importance, but tools lacking nevertheless.

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



*Saturday, May 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:46 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="lights-from-profound-minds">Lights from profound minds.</a>

A new, intelligent message in the making was produced. It was a revelation sent into the world, from a mind. But none of the people understood it. So they thwarted it with censorship, and ensured it would never be completed, and that they would never receive it.

They kill the trees that would bear the greatest fruit.

The darkness was not overcome.

Light and darkness are poor metaphors.

Because everyone can separate light from darkness.

But they are unable to discern truth.

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



*Saturday, May 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:33 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-darkness-was-not-overcome">The light shines in to the darkness, but the darkness was not overcome.</a>

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




*Sunday, March 19<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~2:35 PM AKST</time>

*Minor Grammatical Edit. Saturday, May 25<sup>th</sup>, 2019*,&nbsp;<time>~1:30 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="gaps-in-language-and-missing-or-impossible-analogies">Is it Really an Analogy?</a>

A friend recently posted an interesting analogy puzzle on Facebook, for which the answer was uncertain, because of a gap in the English language. 

This is not unusual. It is very common for us to search for a word that is an antonym of another more familiar word, because we want to apply the same concept, in a converse situation. Whenever there seems to be a word missing for an occasion, an analogy could be formed, such that there would not be a word providing the answer in the language.

Consider this example:

Idyllic:Utopia::Hellish:<fill-in>

What is the answer?

In my days tutoring, I had a High School student ask me:

What is the opposite of a Utopia?

I asked this same question myself, after reading some of More's Utopia, and reflecting on George Orwell's 1984, and came to the answer after some pause, as is quite characteristic for me, of "Dystopia." 

> (Aside: I have an excellent memory but have to fight against similar words to which I'm more primed to respond with, or otherwise have better availability. Everyone experiences tip of the tongue, but this appears to be a quirk that I'm not sure I've observed in anyone I met previously. I'm certain others experience the same but have not encountered anyone who experienced it in quite the same way. Because after some time elapses, the word and quite a bit else becomes completely and rapidly accessible. A large chunk of memory simply isn't available when first prompted at times. I mention this because it will become relevant in other posts.)

Answer:

Idyllic:Utopia::Hellish:Dystopia

In this case there is an answer. But what if the word "Dystopia" did not exist?

In that case, it is my view, that there probably is not an answer to the analogy, unless one can coin a word that truly fulfills the analogy correctly. By this I mean that it is a true analogy, without ambiguity, such that there is at least one denotation that clearly parallels the denotation of the other (meaning a complete dictionary would have a numbered entry for each word), and not a partial match among denotations, or a partial match among connotations. A word could also be borrowed from another language, which is essentially the same as a coinage, so I don't see the two as essentially different, since the goal is simply to fill a gap in native language another word that fulfills some criterion of comparison. 

However, there are unusual cases where the logic of the words themselves allows for no parallel at all. Such that a word borrowed from another language, or a coinage, does not establish an analogy, because the conditions of successful analogy cannot be established in the way hoped for. 

This relates to the Analogy that my friend posted. I will not repeat that analogy here for the moment, without his permission, but only mention that it is interesting and involved a probable structural asymmetry, meaning no analogy could be formed, at least in the way indicated, in what could be expressed about our feelings of past events, versus what we imagine about the future.

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



*Friday, May 17<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:02 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="natural-patterns-that-repeat-are-expected-to-repeat-again">Natural Patterns that Repeat, are Expected to Repeat.</a>

History does not actually repeat. 

When the earth becomes a cold ball of ice floating through space, 

we cannot expect that it will be generated afresh,

to proceed exactly as before.

...

The logic that intends to use this phrase,

involving the idea that we can somehow stop history's patterns by learning about history,

is committing the Monte-Carlo fallacy.

That which has been repeated many times, is expected to not be repeated next time?

Because someone read an inaccurate textbook?

...

If not the Monte Carlo fallacy,

then the error is in a misjudgment of the powers of individuals.

For how could an individual, be expected to counter historical patterns that have always been repeated,

to not repeat,

such that future generations would not use the same phrasing themselves?

Some things change. But the phrase is too short to encompass that.

...

Not one situtation, at a complex level involving people, understood completely, happened twice.

Unless the entire universe is being repeated, which might be the case.

Patterns are repeating, however.

Math before is useful after.

We're told that some patterns have been repeating all through history.

> (Which ones exactly? Putting that aside for now.)

Then we're told, that we need to understand history, because history repeats.

But it's been happening for all of history.

Inductively it will happen again.

An individual's learning of history has not been inductively proven to prevent natural patterns from repeating.

"History Repeats Itself" may just include, people saying "History Repeats Iself" to no avail?

There are no specific goals in this phrase.

It is not as meaningful as people hope.

In fact its meaning is against hope.

Irrational hopes at least.

Because we are included in history's patterns.

...

Polio is a pattern that repeated,

for different people,

who had different histories.

It was combated, and does not repeat quite the same way,

in the same numbers.

However, the source of the change,

was not an understanding of history.

but biology.

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



*Sunday, April 21<sup>st</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:34 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-ThoughtStream-is-technical-and-not">The ThoughtStream is Technical and Not.</a>

Trains of thought are preferred over logical symbolism and mathematical transformations.

The logical thinker, arrives at answers, and has intuitions about answers, in the trains of thought and not in the formality that is later derived.

Here the reader should feel confident that the author can provide such logical chains, according to the laws of deductive logic (and other logics) as determined to be practicable.

Articles will contain the technical developments, of what is first mentioned here in the ThoughtStream.

It appears I just said that this is not technical. But all that the mind arrives at on the basis of previous technical experience is as technical as the original, more meticulous, working experiences.

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



*Friday, April 19<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:38 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="real-feelings">Real Feelings.</a>

People don't have consistent feelings about other people.

So-called "real feelings".

Real feelings are just the chain of feelings in the ThoughtStream.

As-is. The mind being the mind.

So do not search to find your real feelings about someone or something. Search for detailed representations of each to communicate well. And allow the feelings and representations to clash in time.

Form artful visions of the feeling with meticulous detail and splendor.

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




*Saturday, March 30<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:23 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="tabula-rasa-pseudo-math">Tabula Rasa Pseudo-math. Escaping the Founders' Many Errors.</a>

The founders made many mistakes.

But they cannot be faulted for using the psychological perspectives of their age. 

They made advancements through their interim advancements.

The errors and the advancements are part of the same tooling, for the desired outcomes.

...

This is the logic of an ancient psychological viewpoint:

* We are all born human > 
* We start knowing almost nothing >
* We are like blank slates >
* Blank slates resemble each other like factory products >
* Tablets have the same potential for inscription >
* If we are all blank slates, we have this in common >
* Therefore, we are born equal. >
* Therefore, we are equal. >
* Therefore this, therefore that.

Then *we take it to be* self-evident, forgetting there is no math here.

Euclid would not approve. He made few errors and is far more ancient.

There are axioms, and then there are, ahem... *assumptions*.

Ignorance makes its way into the scrolls easily.

Think not? Show me the controls.

*Or write your thoughts on scrolls, and see how quickly you add falsities!*

The logician knows the difficulty of uttering chains of truths.

...

Why don't we just say: "We were all babies." and be done with it?

We all knew very close to *nothing*.

We were nearly equal in our *ignorance*, although we were never equal on almost any other measure. Probably not regarding ignorance either, but close enough...

We are the result of cellular replications. Sperm and egg.

Here we have truth, and we can still use our knowledge of genetics and diversity, without feeling the urge to cover that up.

This is the great escape.

From the error of the founding father (I'm thinking of one gentleman in particluar).

And a historical document, hastily written? 

Sacred inky fibers?

Time for new fibers.

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




*Saturday, March 30<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:22 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="my-questions-are-disallowed">My questions are disallowed.</a>

My questions were, and still are disallowed.

When all your questions are taken as challenges, you don't get answers.

You scare people.

What happens when all your questions are about things people don't know?

Poverty of stimulus.

...

Teachers: you don't need to know everything!

Revealing what you don't know provides critical information. 

You'll say that asking for help is a strength.

What about the strength of "I don't know. Here's how you might find out..."

That is the role of the mentor. Removing obstacles.

Not creating obstacles out of fear of being discovered to be ignorant.

We were all babies.

We are all still babies.

Remove obstacles for those who will find the answers. 

The curious children searching.

*Who else is searching? Don't thwart the searchers!*

All the searchers have left is their searching, 

because they know everything else they need! Or want to know.

People are allowed their interests too.

...

Hard-question kids are left feeling completely uneducated.

The educated uneducated.

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



<pre><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="beware-of-the-ranker-web.jpg" src="beware-of-the-ranker-web.jpg"></pre>

*Saturday, March 16<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:50 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="beware-of-the-ranker">Beware of the Rankers.</a>

People who are subpar, or self-conscious about their talents or skillsets,

who are also obsessed, or narcissistic, may attempt to find control by becoming a Ranker.

They put themselves in charge of the scale, in order to manipulate it according to their insecurities.

"If I can control the rank, maybe then I can be happy."

They'll contain you and attempt to place you low on a spectrum, and then will socialize your weaknesses to their advantage. 

Correct representation is not important to them.

They just use some rationalized "method".

"Contain and place! Contain and place!" -- their inner voices chant.

"If I cannot be the best, at least I can control the perceptions about who is best."

"And somehow, liken myself to those who are the most skilled,

or pretend that I have *risen above* them thereby."

...

Once you control the rank, you can rank yourself however you want. It's a *basic* trick.

Nobel prizes have the name "Nobel" on them.

A related scheme...

It's a dubious/spurious process, but somehow that is lost on these personalities.

Obsession and envy justifies whatever it can.

...

Mattanaw is not fond of the ranker.

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



*Wednesday, March 13<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:04 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="for-any-reason-or-no-reason">"We can fire you, or deny you services, at any time, for any reason, or no reason."</a>

What does it mean to act for no reason?

This stratagem is for avoiding disclosure of discriminatory practices only.

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



<pre><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="unlocking-our-journals-web.jpg" src="unlocking-our-journals-web.jpg"></pre>

*Wednesday, March 13<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>5:45 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="unlocking-our-journals">Unlocking our Journals.</a>

Freethinking precedes free expression.

Free expression precedes free thought.

There's a cycle. A Relationship.

Increasing one increases the other.

Decreasing one decreases the other.

Resulting in either joys or sorrows.

Familiar contents or discontents of civilization. 

Depending on which tendency predominates and for whom.

...

We need to be able to sing to ourselves. 

We need to be able to build on our journals.

No topic is too taboo for the diary.

Fear of writing it down, and fear of self-speaking, 

is from fear of being discovered or overheard.

Even regarding our personal thoughts.

If we cannot speak to ourselves how we like, we are likely to stagnate. We get stuck!

Journals had locks.

Self-songs were encoded.

But both are necessary for self-improvement.

And why not improve each other in the process?

...

Censorship sets the limits not only for what we will say openly,

but what we will write down in our private moments.

...

But what if we all unlocked our journals?

If everyone's journals were open, there would be little interest in reading to discover shameful facts.

Slander becomes more challenging.

All would become familiar.

We could learn from each other's experiences openly.

Find advice that is relevant to us? Rather than search to no avail?

Self-help exists largely because of lack of openness.

...

*Privacy does not protect us the way we assumed it has.*

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



*Wednesday, March 13<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:07 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="novelities-in-my-errors">There are novelties in my "errors".</a>

Not all errors are errors.

Errors here are expected or planned for in advance.

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



*Thursday, March 7<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:01 PM EST</time>

## <a name="behavior-and-my-face">Behavior and My Face.</a>

I use the manners, of

respected peoples, miscellany.

The nerve to act, as any people, 

*Any!*

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




*Thursday, March 7<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:28 PM EST</time>

## <a name="revisiting-simple-terms">Looking up simple terms.</a>

Connotatively, I think I know the meaning,

but let's see the denotation once more. 

Fully see what the word stood for.

While there, revisit the phonetic alphabet.

Know what a pretender thinks they know yet.

To speak it as a speaker could,

If not a woodchuck chucking wood.

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




*Wednesday, March 6<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:43 AM PST</time>

## <a name="premature-judgments-for-artworks-incomplete">The judgments are premature.</a>

For artworks incomplete.

Whole pictures are puzzles finished.

This is a puzzle, with 

many years required for completion.

...

I started with the jabby rectangular corners. 

But they weren't really jabby-stabby,

as much as they were

jabby-wabby.

...

The illuminating center is planned for completion.

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



*Wednesday, March 6<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:31 AM PST</time>

## <a name="selective-innovations">Selective Innovations.</a>

Consumers are more at ease in adopting new, seemingly everyday technologies, than they are at adopting new  moral perspectives.

And it is easy to make changes, as a free spirit.

We are free-spirited as consumers already.

It won't be much longer, however, before people see, that moral perspectives are as variable as technologies.

They are akin to one another.

...

How do you see the potential of your human processes?

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



*Tuesday, March 5<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:31 PM PST</time>

## <a name="mattanaw-is-races">Mattanaw is Races.</a>

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



*Tuesday, March 5<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:11 PM PST</time>

## <a name="mattanaw-is-races">Mattanaw is Races.</a>

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



*Sunday, February 24<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:55 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="ai-to-create-and-detect-false-images-and-videos">AI to Create Fake Videos Versus AI to Detect Fake Videos.</a>

Fundamentally, which side has the advantage? AI with the ability to create false images and videos, or AI to detect false videos and images?

This competition will come to pass.

Humans are much better at faking than detecting, when enough resources are available. 

At least, this is what I'm inclined to think.

For this reason I suspect faking it might be easier than detecting it.

In an ultimate way.

...

What does this mean about detecting whether or not our reality is a simulation?

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


*Sunday, February 24<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>8:13 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="censorship-is-talking-too">Censorship is Talking Too.</a>

"Free speech" is limited of course.

What we actually have is:

*Limited speech.*

...

A lesson in accuracy.

Still, this sentence is too short.

...

Let's briefly consider our

Limited Speech.

One way we are limited is by censors who are allowed to speak, because they have the same "freedoms" themselves.

Oftentimes, the censors, in anger, promote violence, ostracism, and other acts of cruelty.

"I don't like what she says, therefore, I can do whatever I want to her."

They want to silence others.

Not by open debate or argumentation with freely flowing words.

They prefer *censorship words.*

They'll promote censorship *killing*, if they are allowed to run wild.

If not killing through murder, they'll choose *killing by character assassination.*

And they might get the final word, the way things are currently organized.

This goes overlooked somehow.

If we insist on true free speech, then we are limiting censorship-related speech somehow.

It is not clear how we should do that.

Surely, the censors calling for violence or retribution are the ones who err.

...

"I don't like what he says, therefore, I can do whatever I want to him."

This is quite different than:

"I don't like what he says, and these are the reasons why, for your consideration..."

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



*Sunday, February 24<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>7:15 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="it-is-important-to-me-to-talk-about-what-gets-avoided">It is important to me to talk about what gets avoided.</a>

In an efficient way. Not some circuitous way, with layers of euphemism.

Why are you avoiding certain conversations, censors?...

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



*Friday, February 22<sup>nd</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>6:08 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="math-is-not-democratic-enough">Math is not democratic enough.</a>

Let us change mathematics such that "equalities" are generated and evaluated democratically?

With no math at all?

...

This has *already* been achieved, and it needs to be reversed.

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



*Wednesday, February 20<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:47 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-thoughtstream-is-terse">The ThoughtStream is Terse.</a>

Gaps in thought, left for the reader to see.

Chasms-as-is. 

Leap! Or makeshift an overpass!

A preceding thought *is* related to the next.

How do I know? Because I *can* fill the gaps. 

With effort. Works long underway.

...

Like-minded thinkers who see alike say, "I can guess your next thought..." 

"Already I see the gorge *and* both sides."

These readers have few anxieties about what is encountered here.

*They can agree or disagree specifically.*

...

Another case: 

"I see it quickly now that I received your help!"

For cases where help is given, mostly in conversation.

It depends on the mind, and the differential topical experience and preparation.

It DEPENDS on: 

**The extent to which a mind analogizes another mind!**

...

For others, some critical gaps cannot be traversed with any amount of preparation.

Do I need to explain this!? *I don't want to explain!!*

An unfortunate topic. The realest of inequalities.

People do not care to admit this, but it is the case nevertheless. 

It is not difficult to see, and yet it is *difficult* to see.

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



*Sunday, February 17<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:06 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="you-do-not-edit-your-speech">You do not edit your speech.</a>

And sometimes, writing is just a substitute for oral communication.

A principle I follow, often misunderstood, almost always underappreciated, is that it is often more efficient to share an idea before perfectly communicating it.

Hr's som typos I can fx later, if I ever care to.

I hope you get to the idea, in the same way that you can, listening to someone speak aloud. 

We are poor at detecting grammatical errors in normal speech anyhow. 

The transition from ears to eyes has interesting consequences.

Just write and get that feedback loop. For the idea and for the writing. Because you don't need to edit what you will abandon anyways.

The writing can have mistakes. Just like with speaking.

You do not edit your speech.

Critics of your writing don't edit their speech either. They are abandoning sentences midway constantly. 

If someone continually fails to understand you, for not speaking aloud in perfectly grammatical sentences, you would probably wish to stop speaking to them. 

They may even be pretending to care about what you say, out of their special interest in correcting people.

...

The best communication, is when minds "click." 

Mindfully linked, lost in thought. Not distracted by a desire to correct.

People who are knit-picking get what they want in the *final* edit. That happens later.

The easiest edits.

Again, no one corrects grammar in oral communication.

...

This principle is not to be applied in all situations. There is a range.

There are times to take editing quite seriously in advance of releasing. But this is not a post about that.

This is a post about why that other approach is not a universally justifiable methodology.


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



*Sunday, February 17<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:10 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="impartiality-is-prior-to-equality">Impartiality is Prior to Equality.</a>

Equality is not impartiality.

Impartiality says, "we haven't taken any measurements to be able to make this comparison", and so is prior even to an assumption of equality. 

To claim equality, is to be partial to the conclusion that values that have been taken, are actually equal to one another, in the area of interest. Thus, it is as partial as inequality, which is arrived at, by the very same process of taking measurements and making comparisons.

Inequality has the edge though, since values, at high precision, would not be expected to line up. Even in the creation of high-precision machinery, flaws and inconsistencies cannot be removed. Thus, we can assume there is at least some level of inequality for almost all comparisons of non-elemental things. I will give examples of things that can be considered equal, and how, in an upcoming article. Equal things are never complex objects considered in total, to be sure. The examples I provide exhibit the stark contrast, between what might be equal, and comparisons between people. Social justice is intended to be *improved* with a return to looking at details that reveal inequalities, and the true extent of similarities. 

Scientists are supposed to be impartial. That *does not mean they are supposed to assume equalities exist*, without taking measurements. They are in the business of measuring, collecting data, and then forming judgments. The assumption of equality is a completely incorrect approach to mathematics.

Scientists are supposed to think "I will refrain from making a claim as to the values until I've actually done the work."

"Eyeballing" it is OK, from time to time, but it is subject to error. It tends to favor identification of differences, and some degree of similarity, but not strict equality.

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



*Saturday, February 16<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:39 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="arrogantly-eternal-or-eternally-arrogant">Arrogantly Eternal or Eternally Arrogant.</a>

No milestone is a foreverstone.

Education in reverse is just an aneurism away!

Do not be confused! The neurosurgeon knows how to cancel your beliefs!

Or to preserve them, from premature liquefaction.

...

Oh, poor brain. You are so undervalued.

People think they do not change as you change.

They think they can persist without you.

...

Brain. I am personifying you right now, and that feels wrong.

But you personify me too.

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



*Saturday, February 16<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:00 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="national-narcissism">National Narcissism.</a>

Nationalism is like narcissism, but for an entire country.

It may be just as hard to eradicate.

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



*Saturday, February 16<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:57 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="breeds-imagination-time">Familiarity breeds imagination time.</a>

"Familiarity breeds contempt."

Seems close to the truth.

First you are liked. Then, people "meh" at you.

You've become human meh.

...

But what does familiarity through false information breed?

Imagination Time.

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



<pre><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="can-you-see-the-spectra-1-web.jpg" src="can-you-see-the-spectra-1-web.jpg"></pre>

*Thursday, February 14<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:13 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="do-you-ignore-the-language-spectra">Do you ignore the language spectra?</a>

Languages range from those in their infancy, to those in high maturity.

High maturity in a language, is connected with available knowledge, and the ease of generating new knowledge.

This is related to concept complexity, and total language vocabulary.

A language can range from a couple thousand words, to millions, as might be the case, in the Personlanguage.

In the beginnings of people geographically interspersed, in isolation, multiple languages were created, with just a few words. 

The range is from animal proto-language to what we have today, and later, into the Personlanguage.

There is no equality amongst languages.

In a field of complex objects, there are differences to be seen, by anyone with high-resolution understanding, atop any sameness that might exist, that would also be seen, though such an understanding.

And so languages are greatly unequal despite similarities. The trick is *to atually look* and not resort to equalization bias, in a pretense of understanding.

By acting as though things are equal, one pretends that one has actually made an observation of what is to be compared.

Do you know what seeing the spectra implies?

It implies seeing humanity along a maturity progression, with poorer language stimulation initially, and better language maturity later on.

The different languages we observe today, are at different stages of language maturation.

> **Clarification 1.** I received one valuable comment that value comparisons of languages depends on the criteria of the person or people making the comparisons. To this, I offered the following answer:

> *We are in agreement as to equality being criteria based, and it's funny that you put it that way, because I have an article in preparation that goes into depth along that same train of thought. People tend to say that two things are equal with no criteria at all, and fail to make any comparison at all. Whatever criteria are used, values must be determined, a comparison has to be made, and sameness of value identified. All else is a form of cultural bias. A cultural bias that oddly enough, results in an inability to look closely. There is this "I refuse to compare languages" according to valuations, stemming from a pretense that "they are equally valued", without any valuation having taken place.*

> *...you are engaging in what I hope to engage in-- finding those ways that they might be compared in useful ways, leading to valuations. And they should lead to valuations. From these valuations we can seek to make instrumentality comparisons.*

> *This answer relates to another posting I made on [impartiality versus equality](#impartiality-is-prior-to-equality).*

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



*Wednesday, February 13<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>7:52 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="i-dont-know-personlanguage">I Don't Know Personlanguage.</a>

Hear my lamentations.

In advance of the occurrence.

Of the Personlanguage.

To know any other language is a disadvantage.

Authors strive for a market.

Learners strive for the medium, best suited to get maximum information.

The stimulus.

Today English is *the best* in this respect. There are no challengers. Some are close, but we know... you, in the you sense of 'you' know too... 

Together we can admit it. We are in close company.

We value all languages, but still...

The universal translator device is forthcoming. Personlanguage is forthcoming too. 

I am sad, for I do not write in Personlanguage.

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



*Wednesday, February 13<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:48 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="my-yous-are-for-you-and-for-me">My *"you"s* are for you, and for me.</a>

These writings are built off of years of self-application.

Kinda. Sometimes. It is the ThoughtStream.

I call myself 'you' also.

That being said, when I say 'you' here it is mostly for the you variant of 'you'.

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




*Sunday, February 10<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:04 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="emotions-are-important-enough-to-own">Emotions are important enough to own.</a>

Emotions are important.

Important enough to own?

To self-manage?,

Instead of expecting others to manage them for you? 

"What you said makes me feel angry..."

...

Do you watch over your reactions? Do you blame others for your affects?

Emotional reactions are not self-justifying. 

They do not justify just any response. 

Or request for response.

...

Fake emotions are not emotions; else are an odd species derived.

People react differently to the same. 

So do not exaggerate the importance of your feelings.

Remember the value of your vote. Your "2 cents" for your opinion. Maybe even less for your emotion.

*You should pay others for your affects.*

...

Maybe emotions are important enough to not confuse them for something else. 

Like not confusing them for logic?

Maybe they can guide you to the right logic, that takes consideration for your emotions.

But do not become confused, about what your emotions permit.

Logically; behaviorally.

...

Emotions *are* important...

So master them? Distinguish them? Have awareness of them? Take responsibility for them?!

Understand what they permit you to do?

*Understand what they permit you to infer*.

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



*Sunday, February 3<sup>rd</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>4:52 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="time-for-the-regular">Time for the Regular.</a>

The more varied your interests, and the more numerous your commitments to developing them, the less time you have for the regular.

Socializing isn't a talent. It's regular. Lazy people find every excuse to socialize and to be regular.

And so of course, those who do not partake as frequently are thought to be different. 

Not for their time management though! 

Non-participation is a complex thing, with many causes.

One of them is that participation doesn't build anything.

Because participartion is in part to avoid building anything.

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




*Sunday, February 3<sup>rd</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>3:18 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="display-the-people">Display the People.</a>

I'm sorry, I'll act like a Black-Korean-Vietnamese-Caucasoid-American-Grandma-Teenager-Kiwi-Hawaiian-Canadian-Geeky-Jock-Latino if I like? 

When I like, all blended together.

Fruits-of-the-looms.

A Foreigner of sorts, *because* I embrace the blend. The cosmopolitan internationalist.

Global citizens. Learned and travelled. 

A slurry people.

"King Slather". 

(A nickname I was given recently by a colleague I respect; a name that I took a liking to. Embrace the meaningless).

"Get slathery!"

I absorbed my friends and I'll be like all of them anytime I want, in the ways I want.

This is real respect. Even if it is not acknowledged as such.

Mattanaw absorbeth; becometh.

Behemoth?

Next week I will absorb a Finnish woman, if I befriend one.

"King Slather."

Authenticity displayed by not being "one."

There is no authenticity in "oneness". 

*"I will struggle to be like this all the time for the sake of authenticity."*

Keeping it real by seemingly being unreal.

Not holding selves back? Like a child adult. 

Mattanaw displays all the people in the parts he likes.

And speaks of himself in the third person, while in the introspective. Hovering disembodied-like. Viewing the selves as objects from outside. Authentically numerous.

Mattanaws?

Mattanaw is just fine. 

This multi-being is in a time-capsule that can be named.

I could call it a "body" but I have to keep it 100. 

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



*Sunday, February 3<sup>rd</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:51 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="truths-in-the-disciplines">Untruths of the Disciplines.</a>

All Disciplines contain truths. 

Otherwise there would be no discipline to practice, to master, such that reinforcing feedback is repeatedly felt.

Perhaps I am over-general regarding my credence of intsrumentality to all disciplines—but Disciplines should be expected to have at least some disciplines that have some use. And something to practice. 

The key is to be able to identify what is true within. And, what is untrue.

Slough off the untruths, or at least see their roles. "Why does this untruth remain? What does it do?"

How else do we compare activities? Are we not allowed to compare the disciplines of the Disciplines?

Truth is eclectic.

In thought, action, and commitment.

Where are the Gnostic Buddha Atheists?

I am not this, and more than this, and the list is not worthwhile to type out. It would be long, and not *specific* enough to paint the right picture. 

Pagination estimation in the thousands.

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



*Saturday, February 2<sup>nd</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:01 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="intralanguage-whorfianism-buddha-nature">Conceptlessness and the Buddha Nature.</a>

Some are more free than others in their concept and category commitments.

This relates to perspective switching. More advanced people, seem to be ready to change to, or create perspectives spontaneously.

Less committal folks. ThoughtStream-like beings. Friends-of-mine-in-advance. Critical thinkers. Some well traveled. Some cultural dabblers and polyglots.

Attuned to the nature of things and less stuck to our contingent categorizations of them. 

Tendencies to high vocabulary. Or visions uncaptured by sentences. "I see something."

To do this is to be closer to the thoughts from which all languages spring.

Mystics sometimes. But they need to break from mysticism.

Mystical non-mystics.

There's more than one way to become this way.

We can see it in people's readiness to make intralanguage translations.

Inter and intra-language Whorfian-Sapirs. 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)

Abode of the Buddha-nature.  

"Enlightenment" is not. For another time.

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




*Friday, February 1<sup>st</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:12 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="turbulence-as-a-human-control-feature">Planes, with Turbulence as a Human Control Feature.</a>

Turbulence is real. Except when it isn't.

The plane, can generate false turbulence when necessary.

"I need a break. Turbulence time."

*[Remember the allowances of the ThoughtStream.]*

...

What do the actuaries say of turbulence?

The risk is in revealing there is very low risk.

The control feature is important.

Turbulence is more of a risk to your bladder than anything else.

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




*Friday, February 1<sup>st</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:29 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="pay-homage-to-animal-grandma">Homage to Animal Grandma.</a>

You would do well to pay homage to your animal grandmas! You ingrate!

*You pretended our grandmas didn't even exist!*


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



*Friday, February 1<sup>st</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>12:06 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="goal-of-getting-straight-as">The goal of getting "straight-As" is not economical.</a>

It is comical.

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



*Tuesday, January 29<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:34 PM HST</time>

## <a name="determinism-in-the-procrastination">Determinism in the Procrastination.</a>

You! You block of marble!

Granite immovable!

You are not free!

Your motivations are invisible to you. Mine are too.

My motives are deep in my brain, and are subject to brain damage.

I cannot see their sources, or control their influences.

These motives-of-motives-of-motives-neurochemical.

Together, we can only hack. Use tricks.

Indirectly to get at our basic drives.

Freedom in the tricks?

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




*Tuesday, January 29<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:22 PM HST</time>

## <a name="controls-against-indoctrination">Controls Against Indoctrination.</a>

As much as we try to "remember" historical horrors (we only have glimpses of documentaries on holidays), we do little to prevent indoctrination. 

When "remembering" is not actually *remembering*. 

Very few people witnessed the events of the holidays. Those people have memories.

We look to witnesses, and empathize (if we can). That much is true. 

We mostly indoctrinate people into sharing an approved perspective during the holidays instead. 

"Make sure to groupthink today."

"'Tis the season to refrain from iconoclasm."

"Refrain from idolatry." 

(To the philosopher, those who say they avoid idolatry are the idolaters).

*"Today, suspend your thinking and follow the rituals."*

Where are the controls against indoctrination? 

It is a difficult topic.

Children are the property of their parents.

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




*Tuesday, January 29<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>2:11 PM HST</time>

## <a name="founding-fathers-and-great-grandma-australopithecine">Founding Fathers, and Great Grandma Australophithecus.</a>

The DNA websites tracing our ancestry do not go back very far—but they could take us all back to Great Grandma Australopithecus and beyond, whatever our religious cosmologies happen to be.

It is important to remember there are many cosmologies.

"And we respect diversity so they are all true and equally valuable."

So, let us talk about Great Grandma Australopithecus.

We can even call her "Eve" if we want to, but she's ugly... 

Hetero men: you would not want to mate with her, even in her prime. Even if you were fooled into thinking she's not your great grandma.

I wish to speak of grandmas, but let's get back to the fathers. 

...

The after-life expectancy of the founding fathers has expired.

Death-after-death.

Names linger. 

Even if the old texts aren't read. We can sound out the words.

Primary-source documents that historians do not understand, for lack of context. 

Although they'll pretend. 

"Smarties at the parties."

Replace gaps with imagination!

Distract with dates.

I do not completely devalue the historian.

...

Historians: there is a lack of the TS clearance and many mental documents unrecorded. 

Were your authors privy to the Queen's secret plans and activities?

George Washington's?

No one can breath life into founder people, and they are now unreachable, and maybe they would be as repulsive as your least favorite politicians in character, appearance, and sound-of-voice.

Imagine your most racist relative. Make sure it's a father.

Resurrected, they would need a while to adapt and to form new opinions.

I'm not sure what people think they are doing when they act as though they know what this and that person would do today. 

"Moses would frown on Fox News."

You make ignorant assumptions about what living people would do under various conditions, so how much more ridiculous are your assumptions about the views of *YOUR* resurrected "founding fathers"?

I see lineages instead.

You didn't even take the step to resurrect them—to let them see the world afresh!

What would the dead do in this alien context?

What would Great Grandma Australopithecus do? 

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




*Tuesday, January 29<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>1:49 PM HST</time>

## <a name="uniqueness-analogies-and-absurdums">Uniqueness, Analogies, and Absurdums.</a>

Does your sentence, or paragraph of advice, extend, in full detail, all the way to the situational phenomenon itself, or only part of the way?

...

As a rule, advisory quotes are shortened, for the reading pleasure of those with limited attention, and for the people who thought them with limited thinking. So they extend only part of the way to the phenomena. Stunted trees.

The advice-recipient is expected to see the rest for themselves. They are expected to fix the problems...

Find your situational analogies, to apply this, at the right time. The right place.

Or get it wrong, like the usual user of quotes. 

"I have this quote but I use it at the wrong times, and I have no idea that I do that..." (Because it doesn't have the detail to extend down into situations such that they can be correctly identified).

...

What happens when you see with high-resolution understanding instead?

Let's see with this rule—one I have not seen written:

The more specific a description is, the harder it is to find an analogy. Because the analogy has to have the form and structure, in the detail required, of the source pattern. And if you are detailed, it will have less generality.

Thus many pieces of advice, and quotations, are more general than they are supposed to be, due to human laziness.

"Thou shalt not lie."

Please can you give more detail than this!?

Don't be a lazy quote generator.

Thou shalt not lie, when exactly...? 

This is an *OBVIOUS* problem, and the quote is worthless.

When your representation of the situation itself, reaches the ultimate level of specificity, it mirrors the uniqueness contained, revealing the truth in that situation, that it does not have in common with any other. 

So there is a stopping point, *to allow, at least **ONE** analogy*. If you represent a situation fully, there are no analogies.

When the detail you provide for a situation is great enough, you see there has never been another equivalent situation. If you leave out details, analogies emerge. 

History does not repeat. It only repeats for those who employ low resolution understanding. For others, it does not repeat, but there is a pattern of importance worth seeing, that does not extend down all the way into the phenomenon, or without such detail, that no other can be found that does match the pattern.

Equivalent resolution is required for an analogy to be found.

The stupid can find analogies for anything and everything, by simplifying it, such that there are few details.

This is what we do, when we claim two things are the same, for belonging to the same category, at the highest level.

Here's your "all people are equal." 

"They are humans, yes. Thank you for that. Now lets talk about details."

...

False equivalence of situations are created by low resolution analogy generation. Sometimes this is useful. Other times, it is an avoidance of detail, for the preservation of equivalence, to preserve some objective or perspective.

False equivalence bias. Equality bias. Low resolution preference bias. 

...

Counterfactuals are easier to find the more shallow the situational representation. Why? Here's this detail that is just a little deeper than your analogy, that is a relevant difference. 

Conversely, the deeper the representation, in the advice, the less able we are to find counterexamples, to matching situations. Part because it requires more thinking, however. And part, because there are simply less counterexamples.

...

Another way to think of this. Ask yourself:

Does my analogy have enough detail, to remain an analogy, for these situations, without creating too much ease of generating counterfactuals?

...

Or:

What is the pattern match, and would a deeper more meticulous pattern, reveal that really there are fewer instances of interest, such that my advice is defeated?

...

Avoid: 

"I see this thing everywhere because I have not seen it in enough detail."

...

This is a posting about using longer sentences instead of shorter ones. Paragraphs if necessary. Pages and books. Encyclopedias. 

Or at least knowing, what the *pagination would be* for the idea under consideration, and the "fudge-factor".

...

The fewer the details, the simpler the reductio ad absurdum.

All situational analogies are subject to the reductio.

This requires a bit more explanation but the ThoughtStream is for incomplete thoughts as well as complete ones.

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



*Wednesday, January 23<sup>rd</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:20 AM HST</time>

## <a name="iterative-less-is-more">Iterative less is more, for the sake of more, that is still less.</a>

Less is more until it is realized that more information would be better.

In that case, produce more, but no more, than what would be better as less.

For when more is more than less is more.

Usually the more-less-more is better, attention permitting.

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



*Wednesday, January 23<sup>rd</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:48 AM HST</time>

## <a name="disruptive-change-agent">"Disruptive Change Agent".</a>

It was a catchphrase. Placed on resumés. Without reference to any specific change or disruption.

In politics, we end up with "change agents" in direct opposition to one another.

Stupid tyrant? Natural born leader for demise?

Again, the solution lies in longer sentences and paragraphs, providing the right specificity. More context, more writing, and more reading. 

Change agent for HR: **address this**:

*"I cannot read the long resumé. I chuck it in the trash."*

*"I prefer less information I could potentially use, than to have more!"*

Long, well-considered and accurate descriptions, over no descriptions. When information matters. 

*Can you tell when information matters?*


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





*Monday, January 14<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>9:21 PM HST</time>

## <a name="resolutions-that-happen">ResolutionsThatHappen.</a>

(Trademark it. You can have it. First come, first serve. If only I could give 'em all away.).

2018, Mattanaw's year of critical completion.

2019, Mattanaw's Great Acceleration.

Tell me when you feel it.

Don't hate. Let's love.

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




*Sunday, January 13<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:18 PM HST</time>

## <a name="few-are-woke">Few are "Woke".</a>

Think you're woke?

*Woke about what?*

Let's revisit this in a decade.

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




*Sunday, January 13<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>10:02 PM HST</time>

## <a name="details-in-the-diversity">Details in the Diversity.</a>

A celebration of diversity is incompatible with a schematic insistence on equality.

Higher education, and maturity, over a lifetime, reveal to us that diversity is a proper assumption, atop any sameness that might exist, in a field of complex objects. Detailed examinations of complex objects reveal varieties needing to be accounted for.

Diversity is a time-honoured assumption that is factual. Equality is not. As a tool for civil rights marketing, catalyzing all-important changes, it was a huge success. But that success never made "equality" in the general and vague sense any sort of fact. 

The social justice we should be aiming for, is in the appreciation of details and diversity, not in equality.

Because today, people use equality as a replacement for observation and thought.

To look closely is to find relevant differences. This is what we know of meticulousness. High-resolution understanding.

Equality is easily "found" by ignoring details.

A more socially just world, would require a more complex understanding of justice, which would depend on an appreciation for details, not an exclusion of details to preserve *assumptions* about equality.

*Wisdom is in the details.* *Diversity is in the details.* 

Equality is no-place to be found, and was a temporary marketing position on the way to a future of refined social justice, relating to more sophisticated ideas about fairness, and the fitness of things. To improve on what we have, we need to be willing to look at details again, and give up on the concept of equality, that was only there to facilitate change historically. It has been useful but in the present day we need to transition to something more intelligent.

We need to look at people and see their similarities and their differences.

A celebration of diversity is incompatible with a schematic insistence on equality.

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




*Sunday, January 13<sup>th</sup> 2019*,&nbsp;<time>11:13 AM HST</time>

## <a name="dinner-breakfast">Care to join me for dinner-breakfast?</a> 

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




*Wednesday, January 9<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>8:15 PM HST</time>

## <a name="who-makes-this-music">Who makes this music?</a>

When I listen to classical music, I'm reminded of moments in my youth, feeling alone in my true interests. 

"Who makes this music today?"

...

I've never seen a live performance. Never a skilled demonstration, up-close.

I'm glad to have been exposed. Since exposed, I know that I need to return. There is something additional to return to.

Many lack this love, and instead feel distaste, where there could've been taste.

*Where there should've been taste?*

...

These are not questions people ask.

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




*Friday, December 28<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>2:14 PM HST</time>

## <a name="i-shall-not-repeat">I shall not repeat.</a>

When you meet someone who gets irritated about repeating himself for you to hear, or to understand, notice how impatient he seems.

If there is any disparity between you and him, favorable to you, consider the following exercise, for dealing with such people.

Depart from your norm of speaking short sentences that are designed for people like him to understand; and shift to a more rapid mode of speech akin to your natural thoughts, with your more sophisticated vocabulary, with fewer logical transitions, and a complete resistance to interjections and distractions. Include that tight focus you have that nevertheless allows for oblique meanderings and lateralizations, that you then pull back into the original topic.

Then ask him detailed questions.

Then castigate him? Potentially. For his inability to follow, inability to remember, inability to pay attention, inability to visualize, inability to build on the conversation, *inability to understand the full potential of relevance*. Inability to have a conversation with you.

You know, all those things *everyone* is failing to do in conversation all the time. 

"I'm sorry, I was not paying attention, because I was relating my life, and these new ideas, to all you were saying until now... In other words, I was respecting your mind."

That much is probably not necessary, but if his politeness does not return, it is a real option to consider.

The toolkit of the educator is large and it does include this.

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



*Monday, December 24<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>2:29 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="indoctrinate-the-same">Indoctrinate the same you want to see in the world.</a>

*This advice* is well understood, and well followed.

The indoctrination itself has been indoctrinated.

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





*Saturday, December 22<sup>nd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>5:02 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="vicarious-living">*VICARIOUSLIVING.*</a> 

*FEELINGUNFULFILLEDFROMINTERESTSUNDEVELOPED* 

*FRETNOTYOURFRIENDWILLDEVELOPTHEMUTMOST*

*TOHIGHPERFECTIONIFYOUHELP*

*ASYOUPERFECTWHATYOUCAN*

*YOUWILLSEEYOURSELFINHIM*

*AWEANDADMIRATIONCANBERENEWEDINYOU*

*IFYOUAREWITHOUTJEALOUSYANDCOMPETITION*

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




*Saturday, December 22<sup>nd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>3:43 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="infer-me-from-this-message">Infer me from this message.</a>

Can you infer the man, from the blurb?

Like fashioning him from a single rib? A metatarsal?

"I don't like this blurb!" ⊃ Whatever I feel like concluding.

Emotions are odd in their extrapolations.

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




*Friday, December 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>7:18 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="equality-in-the-unevaluated">Equality in the Unevaluated?</a>

To confirm that two things are equal, in some particular way, first you determine the values. 

You take the measurements! 

Yes... you take the measurements...

*Then, **after** you determine the values, and you have **numbers**...* 
...

to a certain level of precision...

you *compare* the *values*, and *if* they are the same, then you can say they are equal, *in that respect*, for *that level of precision.*

To say two things are equal, without having followed this process, is to make an obvious error.

(People in Democracies often forget all of the steps.)

Sometimes we know the values will differ just using our senses. A man is 7 feet tall; his wife is 5. Unless our precision of measure is to the nearest ten feet (like we are comparing from space), we say they are unequal with respect to height.

But when two people are nearly the same height, we have to look more closely. High precision usually reveals inequality for complex things. 

This is why we humans opt for *no precision at all*, when comparing humans. If we do compare.

A ridiculous error, precision aside, is to have no objects to compare... 

*We do that! In our rational **ratiocinations?**...*

Ask your math teacher about equality in class, and she will know the answer.

Ask her in politics, and she will forget she's a math teacher.

...

Is there math in *your* equality?

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




*Thursday, December 20<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>7:34 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="happy-whateversauce">Happy Whateversauce, and Merry Christmas too.</a>

Happy whatever your holiday happens to be, even if it isn't until next year!

(Or the year after, or three years later, or something astronomical...)

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



*Tuesday, December 18<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>11:11 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="end-the-christmas-of=your-conquerors">Enjoy the Christmas of Your Conquerors.</a>

Ye non-Europeans.

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



*Monday, December 17<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>3:50 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="political-non-affiliation">Political Non-affiliation.</a>

How do you stand on the topics for which you have no knowledge?

Which team do you belong to for the sport you have not played or seen?

Before you get confused, understand that you do not really know many political topics well. They are numerous. For every topic, there are different subject matter experts to call upon, with differing opinions.

I take my politics issue by issue, as I take my knowledge topic by topic. I know where my ignorance lies. I know my level of research. I know when to stay uninvolved, and mind my own business.

I recently described my political affiliation to an inquirer like this:

> *I consider everything topic by topic, issue by issue, policy by policy, according to what makes sense to solve problems, and understand situations. Thus I have no affiliation and am in agreement with one or the other [liberal or conservative], or both, or any other person or group, or none at all, on any issue. I prefer to ignore the existence of parties while I think about which solutions are sensible.*

After determining what is sensible, I'm comfortable with any blend and combination of agreement or disagreement with any subsets of the constellation of human thoughts, however they happen to be arranged in time and space, within individuals and amongst humanity.

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




*Wednesday, December 12<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:27 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="your-life-is-a-compulsion">Your life is a compulsion.</a>

If you look closely, you'll find that deliberation is rare.

This becomes a point of difficulty when we discuss morality. 

Or a point of difficulty listening to other people discuss morality. That subject where everyone believes they are an expert, but really no one is an expert.

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




*Monday, December 10<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:05 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="when-advice-becomes-biological">When advice becomes biological.</a>

When advice is used, and transformed, into the discipline of behavior, and is fruitful, consistently, what remains of the original advice taken?

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




*Saturday, December 8<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>4:45 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="be-the-strange-you-want-to-see-in-the-world">Be the strange you want to see in the world!</a>

Becoming the change implies becoming the strange.

Will you join me in becoming strange?

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




*Wednesday, December 5<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:09 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="quotes-contradicting-other-quotes">Your quote is contradicted by these other quotes...</a>

It is not a useful methodology and there is no authority contained.

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



*Wednesday, November 28<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:29 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-god-nation">Your religion said to serve only one master.</a> 

So you recombined your nationalism with your religion and pretended they were the same.

And scoped your religion to your xenophobia!

Containing it within your preferred territorial boundaries!

...

Then you overlooked the international totalitarian corporate form?

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




*Monday, November 26<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>10:13 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="me-dont-knowt-good">"If me can't say't simple, me don't know't good."</a>

Maybe you should read Einstein's original technical papers to understand what he meant.

Can you tell if his technical papers are "simple" or not?

Or, can you say how you could tell?

Because people don't know what this advice means.

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




*Monday, November 26<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>10:06 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="my-philosophy-is-good">"Good" doesn't fit naturally into my vocabulary.</a>

But I see what <em>you</em> meanish by it.

In the vagueness of the shared values.

...

When I see you identify it,

It seems you know how to confirm the unconfirmable.

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



*Monday, November 26<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:59 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="who-ive-been-yesterdays">How I appear today,</a>

Is a terrible indicator about who I've been yesterdays.

Wear the suit on Fridays, be a different person to others on Fridays.

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



*Monday, November 26<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:57 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="not-superficial-enough">Assumptions are superficial.</a>

How are you on your tendency to make assumptions?

I can tell you all about not being superficial.

Whatever your impression of me happens to be.

And about not being superficial enough to be liked by you in your superficial assumptions of my superficiality.

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



<pre><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="allthetimeliness-web.jpg" src="allthetimeliness-web.jpg"></pre>

*Thursday, November 22<sup>nd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>1:34 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="all-the-timeliness">Allthetimeliness.</a>

"When are you nice?"

Not "Are you nice?"

...

Can you see yourself and others as they cross time? Faces change.

Faces flow.

Frequency, <em>not constancy</em>.

Timeliness. <strong>Not allthetimeliness</strong>.

The wrong question asks for constancy. And gets a response.

"Nice" is unclear. Kindness at the right rates, at the right times?

I want to see all the traits, not only "niceness".

...

Try to change your language and find that it is hard!

"Is he nice? Is she nice?", they will ask.

You won't want to answer. You'll want to delay with thinking. "When, Why, How..." you calculate.

Details take time.

Toil at improvements for years, and you <em>will</em> find yourself in truths,

At the expense that others will have trouble listening to you.


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




*Thursday, November 8<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>7:52 PM Eastern</time>

## <a name="what-do-you-need-to-be-undermined">What do you need to be undermined?</a>

I'm your person. I'm your man.

I will not undermine truth.

*Because it cannot be undermined?*

The philosopher cannot undermine it, and so decides, tentatively, that it might be truth.

"This... this is fine for now..."

I will not undermine what's solid. Visions pure.

But I will undermine anything else with ease.

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




*Thursday, November 8<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:35 PM Eastern</time>

## <a name="needless-voting-for-the-needless">Needless voting for the needless.</a>

"Wait, voter turnout relates to voter [consumer] needs? How could that be?"

Well, movements tend to end after people get what they want.

There is an activism lifecycle.

Voter activity is just one example.

Elections are interesting to me because of people's cognitive biases about them.

There is a false sense of effectiveness. And a missing sense that voting itself creates political inactivity.

**"I have voted, and now I am done."**

If voter turnout is low, it's often because the issues and candidates simply don't have a draw.

Like bad entertainment.

"All elections should have the same turnout."? Ridiculous!

I stop shopping once my desires are satisfied. "Black Friday" sales don't move me.

"Cyber Monday."

I have a shopping lifecycle. It differs depending on the product [think "issue"]. I only buy a car when it turns out I need one.

Voting exists for when you need voting.

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



*Wednesday, November 7<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>5:04 PM Eastern</time>

## <a name="buy-whatever">Buy Whatever.</a>

Encourage everyone to vote?

Analogy: Tell people to consume indiscriminately?

Withholding is obviously an option. "It's not an option." you say? (Future generations will turn their backs to you).

I'm not going to constrain my strategy for the traditionalist imitator. The one without any strategy!

*Do you not understand consumer ethics? Do you ask people to just consume indiscriminately? Buy whatever?*

There are times to consume. You can vote as a consumer by not buying anything at all.

Consumerism can be thought of as having an improved voting process.

Not a government *dictated* and *indoctrinated* one.

Vote without ignorance for the right candidate or you are the sludge!

Can you tell when there's no reasoning in the marketing?

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




*Thursday, November 3<sup>rd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>3:15 PM Eastern</time>

## <a name="wisdom-in-the-heap">Wisdom in the Heap.</a>

Bits of wisdom are still just in the heap of advice.

Think through the consequences and choose what will be instrumental to you.

Then do not blame the source.

*The source cannot know you.*

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




*Thursday, November 3<sup>rd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>3:15 PM Eastern</time>

## <a name="the-news-is-a-mess">The News is a Mess.</a>

Is there a better way to describe it? I think not.

Scroll through the channels and see.

It's not really in dispute. It's not orderly. The disorder is not due to the chaos of events.

There is no focus. Just reactions (to what?) and attempts to get reactions.

The audience does not vote on this!

Invent the content when you don't have any.

The content will suit the plans that are not communicated.

*Share the news behind the news?*

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




*Thursday, November 1<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>11:19 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="give-me-time-ill-help-put-your-mind-at-ease">Give me time.</a>

I will help put your mind at ease.

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




*Thursday, November 1<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>11:10 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="unedited-beauty">Unedited Beauty.</a>

My ThoughtStream is botched.

But so is yours.

If we could enshrine the thoughts from the source, they would remain eternally unedited.

Beautiful still.

Human still? Soon there will be fewer marks of humanity.

*Maybe the little errors make it more beautiful?*

Marks of the craftsperson.

*The Free Artisan!*

Because the brain is not a journal article.

See the mind naked, being the mind!

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




*Thursday, November 1<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:32 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-ThoughtStream-has-few-expectations">The ThoughtStream has few expectations.</a>

Like a real ThoughtStream a human would have.

Think a thought and then think its opposite. Then think other clashing thoughts, absurdities, and whatever else.

There's a time for commitment and there's a time for exploration.


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



*Wednesday, October 31<sup>st</sup> 2018,*&nbsp;<time>7:41 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="we-had-few-books">We had few books.</a>

How many pages are in the Encyclopedia Brittænica?

How many pages are on the Internet?

Some people call for one book?

Return to where we started? *Ascend* the luddite pyramid? Luddites have no pyramids.

Wikipedia in Sanskrit? Concept-limit by choice?

Condense all the knowledge!? A glossary over dictionaries!? Learn by asking around, if the questions aren't forgotten first?

Beads of water on glasses nearly empty?

Compress the knowledge into a single blog post, written in [Gaelic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics)? In [Twi](https://tw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)?

Rife with personalized advertisements?

Blogs without ads. "Where are all my ads? This can't be of value!"

Entertained by the plague.

Or we can just bring the text. *Lots of text.* I'll just bring the text.

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




*Wednesday, October 31<sup>st</sup> 2018,*&nbsp;<time>~7:30 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="ignorance-has-few-details">Ignorance has few details.</a>

How detailed is your ignorance?

How detailed is your knowledge?

Care to compare?

Evolution of the brain is from near nothingness to extreme detail.

But we are trying to imitate the next-to-nothingness?

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




*Wednesday, October 31<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>~7:15 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="whats-a-vegan">What's a Vegan?</a>

Oh, you're going to tell me?

How about *I* tell *you* what a vegan is!

Or better yet, I'll tell you who a vegan is *allowed to be.*

Vegans—it is more flexible, so feel relieved.

This is not only about Veganism.

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




*Tuesday, October 30<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:31 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="profundity-unwanted">Profundity is Unwanted.</a>

And then it is wanted again.

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




*Tuesday, October 30<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>~12:28 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="prophesy-the-offended">Prophesy the Offended.</a>

Speak to your audience? Can you know them all individually? Point them out to me, or to yourself.

Name your auditors!? It's easiest if you don't have any!

The goal is to have a *large audience?* One that is unknown, and counter your message.

Minds ready to learn are mixed with the sensitive.

Safety is in not speaking. So speak like the nonspeaking?

Or using meaningless talk, and culturally approved sentences.

Again saying nothing, or what people already know.

Knowing the entire audience is like trying to read human books from covers alone. Reading them better than if they were really written?

And if you write:

Should you expect not to offend saying anything profound?

Offense is partly a measure of successful communication.

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




*Tuesday, October 30<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:20 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="fathoming-the-unfathomable">Fathom the Unfathomable.</a>

A fathom is a measure of depth ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathom)).

Something that is unfathomable, is too deep to be measured with fathoming or something.

What is most important relates vast oceans together.

Oceans have bottoms, why not take a look from time to time?

Drink the whole thing? Gulp it quickly?

How can we compare and interrelate ocean bottoms if not for the explorers of multiple oceans?

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




*Tuesday, October 30<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:14 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="i-will-use-more-words">I will use more words.</a>

When you said what you could say simply, did you stop speaking?

What about for the translation?

Same-language clarifications. Other-language otherlanguageifications.

Choose the microfiche stacks.

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




*Tuesday, October 30<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:08 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-earth-will-be-inherited-by-the-earth">The Earth shall be inherited by the Earth.</a>

And people will see that it was good.

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




*Friday, October 12<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:42 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="god-said-it-was-binary">Man created the binary in god and then judged it in binary.</a>

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




*Sunday, October 7<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>~2:34 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="incomplete-artworks">Wait for It.</a>

Incomplete artworks provoke incomplete judgments.

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




*Saturday, October 6<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>~11:45 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="freethinking-is-my-religion">Freethinking is My Religion.</a>

Challenge my freethinking, challenge my religion.

Freethinking into writing and expression is my art.

This art is contained in the religion also.

Or the religion in the art.

Forming one legal corporate entity?

*Alas, the limits of a legal perspective.*

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




*Friday, October 5<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>~11:45 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="share-your-thoughts">Share the Thoughts.</a>

Sharing everything you think will prompt the emergence of all the censors around you.

Trust me, everyone is a censor. Ostensible free speech advocates. Afraid to speak.

Self-censors fearing censors.

Kill the inner self-censor?

If we all did it, we would reveal the data.

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




*Friday, October 5<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>~11:45 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="utterances-do-not-reveal-essenses">Utterances do Not Reveal Essences.</a>

If you can't see that, ask the statistician for help.

And when the statistician is unavailable (like always), try to not act like the average person.

Who is ready to judge based on single instances he/she can't even understand?

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




<p><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="lone-detractor-from-nazis-historical-web.jpg" src="lone-detractor-from-nazis-historical-web.jpg"></p>

*Friday, October 5<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:15 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="you-wanted-this-guy">You Wanted this Guy.</a>

"Be this guy" is the usual caption for this image.

Is this the guy you really wanted?

I'm often this guy, and I'll test you to see if you're in the crowd. Since this is the guy you want, you'll accept that. More than that, it will satisfy your desire for that guy.

You want the philosopher.

Whether or not *you're* in the crowd is topical.

"Mattanaw at church" could equally be the caption here.

"Mattanaw at the corporate conference" too.

"Mattanaw at the political rally" as well.

...

The freethinker is not typically a popular figure... anywhere.

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




*Saturday, September 30<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>8:34 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="a-lesson-in-creating-specific-sentences">A Lesson in Creating Specific Sentences.</a>

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"

Palatable, eh? *Try this:*

"Love thy repeat rapist, recidivist serial killer, sociopathic/psychopathic neighbor as thyself."

Maybe you should know something about your neighbor before giving your love?

*[personal aside: Before letting him trespass where you live anytime he likes?]*

Are people not smarter than this, in their dating strategies?

Is it not easy to find people who do not deserve love? Surely someone will read this, who is undeserving.

"Disappear yonder you undeserving undeservables!"

All that's needed is more detail. It only seems reasonable because it's not about anyone. Be meticulous, or simply be *Stupid.*

Forget the dictums about nobody.

Remember:

"Only dummies don't like the details!"

<pre>-</pre> MATTANAW

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




*Saturday, September 30<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>7:37 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="nearing-completion-government-waste">Completion is Immanent.</a>

I'm nearing the completion of a project that has taken me more than two years without pay, working entirely alone. Usually a team of 20 or more would be required for such an effort.

Big teams *block* the efforts of key contributors, but that is a controversial topic. I'll leave that aside for now.

I can't complain. It will be a considerable investment in my company, and the product will be up for resale soon enough, if I do not keep it for myself! Aha!

It feels amazing. Better than happiness. Will to power. Nietzsche was in the right!

Happiness was bundled within, you see!

The U.S. Government would pay millions of dollars for such a result! This *I know!*

Or pay millions of dollars, with no result at all!

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



*Saturday, September 29<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>2:11 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="what-if-you-didnt-believe">What if You Didn't Believe?</a>

What if you didn’t actually “believe” anything, that you didn’t instinctively act on?

I once believed in a “magnetic hill.” I found later, to my astonishment, that it was an illusion. An obvious one! Did I believe it? Yes. Why? I acted on the internalization unreflectively. But there is a lot that I consider that I would never act on without pause.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_Hill_(Moncton)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_Hill_(Moncton))


*Originally on Facebook: Thursday, September 13th 2018*,  3:19 PM AKST

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




*Wednesday, September 26<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:51 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="creative-generativity-is-coping">Creative Generativity as Coping.</a>

"So that it won't just be in my head."

"So that others—

No.

So that *somebody* can know me."

Creativity can be coping with the effects of perpetual internal transformation.

The *"I've become too different!!"*

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




*Wednesday, September 26<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:35 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="i-see-the-diagrams">I See the Diagrams.</a>

Ever had that moment when you're working on a diagram, and you simultaneously see that 7 or 8 more diagrams are needed, and you know basically how they look, but not completely. They are calling for you to create them in all their detail and clarity, but the one you already started will take another hour to complete?

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




*Wednesday, September 26<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>8:50 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="something-elsiness">Somethingelsiness.</a>

Shifts of mind so frequent.

Enter the something-elsiness.

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




*Wednesday, September 26<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>8:19 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="punctuated-agilibria">Punctuated Agilibria.</a>

Plans are tentative thoughts. Subject to improvement.

The acts and the feedbacks bring about new plans with better results.

This depends on both the actors and the feedbackers (some might also be the actors).

All is well, until the contract is remembered.

"Was that in the SOW?"

There is agile and then there is *LEGAL*. And *FINANCIAL.*

Where does your agile process fall apart?

*There can only be punctuated agilibria.*

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




*Monday, September 24<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:49 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="sawse-of-the-awesome">Sawse of the Awesome.</a>

sawse-uh-da-awesome.

sawse-uh-da-awesome.

You either like it or you don't just know it's sawse-uh-da-awesome.

sawse-uh-da-awesome.

sawse-uh-da-awesome.

You either like it or you don't just know it's sawse-uh-da-awesome.

*[Chorus repeats ad infinitum and ad nauseum]*

A Mattanaw original. *"Hip-Hop Masterpieces by Matt". Watch for it.*

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




*Sunday, September 23<sup>rd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>10:00 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="feelings-are-not-valid-inferences">Feelings are not valid inferences.</a>

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




<p><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="spouses-who-are-fish-together-web.jpg" src="spouses-who-are-fish-together-web.jpg"></p>

*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:16 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="spouses-who-vote-together-betray-elections-together-and-are-also-fish">Spouses Who Vote Together,</a>

Show the problems with elections together.

And might be fish together too.

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




*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:52 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="a-few-minutes-in-the-life-of-a-creative-soul">A few minutes in the life of a creative soul.</a>

Who has no idea what his soul is supposed to be.

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




*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:50 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="there-is-no-end-to-the-qualification-the-logician-knows-the-difficulty-of-truth">Qualify it to death. Qualify it to life.</a>

The logician knows the difficulty of uttering truths.

A sequence of connected truth-preserving truths is more difficult still.

Most statements require qualification. But just how much is not usually appreciated.

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




*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:34 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-philosopher-who-only-remembers-is-a-historian">The "philosopher" who only remembers is the historian-mnemologist.</a>

You can substitute "philosopher" with any specialization that is supposed to actively create.

Be the craftsman and the antiquarian too!

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




*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:17 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-editor-god-only-edits">The editor god only edits.</a>

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




<p><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="thirsty-salvation-camel-web.png" src="thirsty-salvation-camel-web.png"></p>

*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:12 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-road-to-salvation-is-through-the-dead-liar">The roads to salvation terminate at the corpses of dead liars.</a>

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




*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:10 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="euphemize-yourself-mindless">Euphemize yourself mindless!</a>

Go ahead. Euphemize yourself mindless.

Ye proponents (opponents) of free speech!

Choose what to say, but say it unclearly!

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



*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>8:18 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="is-your-life-the-flux">Is your life the flux?</a>

Or is it the *REPETITION*? OR The *CONSTANT*!?

Inside of <strong>*THAT*</strong>, know **your** normalcy!!

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




*Friday, September 21<sup>nd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>8:17 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="freedom-is-in-my-art">Freedom is in my art.</a>

Is it in *your* art?

Maybe so. I do not discount that improbability.

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




<p><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="confirm-the-mannequin-web.jpg" src="confirm-the-mannequin-web.jpg"></p>

*Friday, September 21<sup>nd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>8:13 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="confirm-the-mannequin">Confirm the Mannequin.</a>

Who was the model for this mannequin? Can you tell?

No. Not unless you knew the process by which the mannequin was designed and formed.

[I assume you don't work for the Mannequin Company<sup>TM</sup>, creator of depicted mannequin.]

Can you tell if it was made in an alien's image?

Yes, you can tell. No, it wasn't. It looks like some genericized woman (and somewhat like a bald chimpanzee), and not something you've *NEVER* seen before...

..................

[Can you make the right inferences from *this*?]

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



*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>7:56 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="there-is-no-anger-in-my-anger">There is no anger in *my* anger!</a>

Understanding requires the *improved* introspective apparatus!

There is no learning <strong>*this*</strong>!

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



*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>7:52 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="would-you-have-thought-is-it-possible-to-you">Would *YOU* have thought? Is it possible for *YOU*?</a>

Theoretically, practically, and <strong>*DETERMINISTICALLY*</strong> "NO"!...

Put this message on repeat!

And replay it when you forget!

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




*Friday, September 21<sup>st</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>7:51 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="witchunts-run-by-unselfbeknownst-withches">Witch Hunts Were Run by Unselfbeknownst Witches.</a>

For the smell of the sacrifice in part!

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




<p><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="mentors-waiting-on-mentors-web.jpg" src="mentors-waiting-on-mentors-web.jpg"></p>

*Friday, September 21<sup>nd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>2:28 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="mentors-waiting-on-mentors">Mentors Waiting for Their Mentors.</a>

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




<p><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="citation-gossip-soup-web.jpg" src="citation-gossip-soup-web.jpg"></p>

*Thursday, September 20<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>11:42 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="citation-gossip-soup-there-are-no-citations-in-my-knowledge">Citation Gossip Soup.</a>

There are no citations in my knowledge.

Unless it is *NOT* my <strong>*working*</strong> knowledge!

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




*Tuesday, September 18<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>4:58 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="have-the-war-mind-and-yet-be-peaceful">Have the War Mind, yet be peaceful too.</a>

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




<p><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="celebrating-baby-web.jpg" src="celebrating-baby-web.jpg"></p>

*Tuesday, September 18<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>4:00 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="skepticism-is-not-celebrating-too-early">Skepticism is Not Celebrating Foundational Knowledge Too Early.</a>

Skepticism is about deferring the final celebration concerning foundational knowledge indefinitely.

Yes, there *should* be celebrations (if you do anything to merit them). However, there can be no final celebration. Death will take you before those festivities.

Don't be the dogmatist, celebrating the same first "victory" too early, again and again.

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




<p><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="the-lady-who-cried-ad-hominem-web.png" src="the-lady-who-cried-ad-hominem-web.png"></p>

*Friday, September 14<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>9:35 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="the-lady-who-cried-ad-hominem">The Lady Who Cried "Ad Hominem".</a>

There was once a lady who continually complained about ad hominems,

To get protection from the logically deficient, who could nevertheless recall names of common fallacies.

*And only the names...*

She cried it out loudly in public debates defensively! Concealing her inability to form valid inferences.

Or to study logic...

She perturbed those who could understand *all the reasoning!*

Those willing to apply labels truthfully, once inductively justified.

Those who understood the meaning and proper application of the word "Stupid."

But they were too few!

So she got to stay at the meetings. And she attended *all of them!*

And nothing ever got better.

FIN.

Also published on Quora here: [https://mattanaw.quora.com/](https://mattanaw.quora.com/)

[https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1041079215397908481](https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1041079215397908481)

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




<p><img  class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="sputnik-web.jpg" src="sputnik-web.jpg"></p>

*Wednesday, September 12<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>10:04 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="producing-one-small-step-for-man">Producing "One Small Step For Man".</a>

A fake moon landing was necessary to control perceptions of supremacy during the cold war. The United States, well behind the Soviet Union, who had public success with Sputnik and other programs, had no time to catch up in aerospace. Instead, to buy time, and to fain dominance, they relied on Hollywood and their superior entertainment capabilities to stage the moon landing. It was a great success, and even now layman are unable to prove definitively, from the footage itself, that the footage is fake.

Today, moon landings are not performed, because of the difficulty and low value of such missions. What is of value is doing all that is possible to achieve world dominance. This is the reason space programs have not been able to catch up with the heights that the entertainment industry has attained, and have not been fully extricated from military operations.

The creation of a false moon landing remains one of the most successful military operations in the history of the United States.

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




*Tuesday, September 11<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>7:44 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="genesis-the-revised-version">Genesis, the Revised Version.</a>

In the beginning, there was the ooze.

Later than that, there was something different.

No more details necessary.

Q.E.D

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




*Tuesday, September 11<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>6:18 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="disagree-to-agree">Disagree to Agree.</a>

What's with "Let's agree to disagree"?

Invent agreements to please other people? All the *wrong* people?

"Why don't we just agree that you are a weakling because *you need that?*"

[Not "you" the reader, but the other weaker "you", asking someone to agree to nothing, for ego preservation.]

I like this better:

"Stay focused on realizing that we don't agree—and think about why that is, and how you can become a different person."

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




*Sunday, September 9<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>4:05 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="detecting-rigged-designs">Detecting Rigged Designs.</a>

Yesterday I had a run-in with a Coinstar machine. After the experience, I feel convinced the machine is designed to systematically extract more than the agreed upon percentage advertised at the beginning of the transaction.

Why do I think so? I'll elaborate in a full article later, but for now, I will simply point out that the UX design of the terminal and the process flow logically implies it.

The physical design of the machine itself, and the timing of the interactions with the user seem to favor Coinstar for receiving more (in my experience far more) than they indicate at the outset.

Then an old question occurred to me: are casino software games and slot machines rigged? How would one know? *What effort is required for a consumer to discover it, versus the effort in the design to conceal it?* Certainly, there are ways to know but mathematically, the design could make any efforts at discovering it too difficult or costly.

I think Coinstar machines are more obvious than casino machines, but the same questions are raised.

See my related questions on Quora, if you happen to have some real knowledge and experience with this topic.

[https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-confirm-if-a-casino-slot-machine-is-rigged-in-its-design](https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-confirm-if-a-casino-slot-machine-is-rigged-in-its-design)

[https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Did-Coinstar-design-their-machines-to-take-more-than-the-percentage-they-ask-for](https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Did-Coinstar-design-their-machines-to-take-more-than-the-percentage-they-ask-for)

[https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1038944233372217344](https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1038944233372217344)

[https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6444719643906105344/](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6444719643906105344/)

[https://www.facebook.com/mattanawblog/posts/288977291567875](https://www.facebook.com/mattanawblog/posts/288977291567875)


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



*Saturday, September 8<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>4:08 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="americans-competing-secretly">Americans Competing Secretly.</a>

"Don't compete with others. Compete with yourself!" Self-help for the jealous.

Instead of re-framing it in terms of something else, it is still about competition.

An American Bias.

I don't compete with myself, and I don't compete with you.

Competing with me secretly? I'm deciding not to talk to you secretly.

[https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6444353849103835136/](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6444353849103835136/)

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


*Saturday, September 8<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>3:18 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="dont-have-a-baby-i-mean-have-a-baby">Don't Have a Baby I Mean Have A Baby.</a>

Mother to daughter at 18: "Don't get pregnant!"

[thinking: "We'll be miserable."]

Mother to daughter at 22: "Pregnant yet?"

[thinking: "Share in my misery."]

[https://www.facebook.com/mattanawblog/posts/507051999760402](https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1041079215397908481)

[https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1038570523050078208](https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1041079215397908481)

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




*Friday, September 7<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>11:26 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="stuck-on-proper-nouns">Stuck on Proper Nouns.</a>

I've been accused many times of using excessively archaic terminology.

By the those with small vocabularies...

Small neural networks...

To them I reply:

Cast aside the archaic Proper Nouns interspersed in your void!

Remove those minds and places **built from** archaic vocabularies!

*Then I will reconsider my vocab!*

[https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/10381477111727882253](https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/10381477111727882253)

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



*Friday, September 7<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>10:46 PM AKST</time>

Edited: Saturday, September 8th 2018,  2:57 PM AKST

## <a name="trade-mark-the-impossible">Trademark the Impossible!<sup>TM</sup></a>

Can you find the rationales? Can you find the purposes?

[https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1038139942973710336](https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1038139942973710336)


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



*Tuesday, September 4<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>11:04 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="bizarre-social-media-can-you-fanchild-me">Can you fanchild me?</a>

I really hope somone creates an alternative social media—for the bizarre—where people can fanchild each other instead of "connecting" or "friending".

[https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1037389315649753090](https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1037389315649753090)


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




*Tuesday, September 4<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>10:18 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="diversify-the-goals">Diversify the goals.</a>

If you have many goals you are working on in parallel, slowly but surely, it is much more difficult to be disappointed with a poor outcome for any single goal.

Diversify. Math and economics exist in the world of goals too. Think of goals as investments.

Just remember there are people with no goals, or only one that they put all their effort into. They fail and then have nothing else in progress. Don't be that person if you are able to dream more than one dream.

Some need the focus of just having one or two goals, due to position in life, or because the goal is foundational (nadir of Maslow's hierarchy). If you need to quit smoking, you may need to just focus on that.

The advice of having many parallel goals may be for those who already have a foundation, or those who are especially energetic, creative, or generative.

[https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1037429048643862538](https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1037429048643862538)


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




*Monday, September 3<sup>rd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>1:28 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="wisdom-is-in-the-details">Wisdom is in the details.</a>

[https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1036727147929395200](https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1036727147929395200)

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



*Monday, September 3<sup>rd</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>1:00 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="never-go-full-architect">"Never go full architect."</a>

My partner said this to me after a grueling session of discussions with a new client.

Well, it was grueling for the client.

I admit it—I brought the gruel to the gruelfest.

On occasion I do go "full architect". There are negative and positive consequences. The positive outweighs the negative so I'll take them both, and will continue to go "full architect" whenever the situation calls for it.

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




*Monday, August 27<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>7:25 AM AKST</time>

## <a name="see-the-relationship">See the relationship!</a>

If you are conflicted about the status of a relationship you have with another person, it is helpful to forget about traditional categories (friend, husband, girlfriend, father, etc..). Disconnect the emotions from the words. These categories can cloud our vision from time to time, setting us up for disappointment, via excess idealism and naiveté. Build a detailed picture of the relationship as characteristics of objects and their specific connections to one another. See the relationship for what it is. Think of all the parts of the relationship, so you're not hyperfocused on just one or two parts.

Suddenly common questions about whether someone is a "friend" or an "acquaintance" or a "frenemy" vanish. There are just people and relationships, and there are usually mixed characteristics. Let your friend dislike you from time to time. See the reality and lose the cultural idealism, and sometimes you'll find that your hopes, expectations, and emotions are tied to words, and not to realities.

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



*Wednesday, August 15<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>2:02 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="information-asymmetry-in-relationships">Information asymmetry in relationships.</a>

What is optimal? What is acceptable? What is tolerable? How important is just this one highly complex factor!?

Highly complex factor? In the singular? It is probably not one factor.

I'm lead astray from the start by my language. Still I cannot escape committing the fallacy (fallacies) of oneness or unity! But at least I can see it early enough now, and readjust.

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



*Wednesday, August 15<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>8:08 PM AKST</time>

## <a name="pile-of-advice">Pile of Advice.</a>

Advice?

I can't use all the advice.

Behold, the pile of advice!

[https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1037094921109483520](https://twitter.com/mattanaw/status/1037094921109483520)

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


## <a name="appendix">Appendix</a>

## <a name="glossary">Glossary</a>

To Add

## <a name="references">References</a>

To Add

<!-- The matching div has the numbering-start class -->
</div>

