<img class="ui huge center image transition visible" data-src="ThoughtStreams-web.jpg" src="ThoughtStreams-web.jpg">

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

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

# Initial Thoughts for The ThoughtStream<sup>TM</sup>

</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.ii</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 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>
	
The serious things, along with the goofy and foolish things.

*All the noncommittal things.*

Like a genuine brain would do.

&#8208; MATTANAW

*Wednesday, September 19<sup>th</sup> 2018*,&nbsp;<time>12:20 PM AKST</time><!-- RationalTimes posts -->

[Terms and Conditions](terms-conditions.txt) Exclusively written, edited (when that happens), and maintained by Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh. All Rights Reserved.

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


*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 & Chief Scientist, 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)

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

<br /><a href=thoughtstream.html>ThoughtStream Home</a><br />

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.

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


*[Edit: November, 28<sup>th</sup>, 2022. This is a note on what the thoughtstream was about originally. It did not explain everything that it was but provided brief clarification.] A recent note added September 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2019, to my [LinkedIn page](http://www.linkedin.com/in/mattanaw), that might provide some clarity on what the ThoughtStream, and this larger website, is and is not about.*

> ThoughtStream

> A self-published, ongoing, artistic work of philosophy, ethics, and religion. A fluid work that defies complete encapsulation and summary description.

> This work is not intended to be a portfolio of my technological expertise, as much as it is a work of artistic expression and a gradual accumulation of thoughts to support an independently created system of philosophy and religion.

> Therefore this work should not be used to gauge my skills in technology, but can be used as a measure of my productivity and ongoing commitment to long term projects and to critical thinking and reasoning, and writing. 

> [More here...](https://www.linkedin.com/in/mattanaw/)

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

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

- [Author](#author)
- [Edit History](#edit-history)
- [Introduction](#introduction)
  - [The Idea of Lobbing in Business and Intelligence](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#the-idea-of-lobbing-in-business-and-intelligence)
  - [Naturalistic Description of Attention](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#naturalistic-description-of-attention)
  - [Thinking of me as a very old person is appropriate](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#thinking-of-me-as-a-very-old-person-is-appropriate)
  - [It is possible to share everything](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#it-is-possible-to-share-everything)
  - [Proving determinism with an approach of self-neural inspection in conjuction with introspection](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#proving-determinism-with-an-approach-of-self-neural-inspection-in-conjuction-with-introspection)
  - [Planned completion of key workflow related functionality](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#planned-completion-of-key-workflow-related-functionality)
  - [Planned update to publishing method of underlying software](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#planned-update-to-publishing-method-of-underlying-software)
  - [Regret, and You Can't Even Want the Right Things](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#regret-and-you-cant-even-want-the-right-things)
  - [Repetition of Example Uses of the My Moral-Attentional Processes](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#repetition-of-example-uses-of-the-my-moral-attentional-processes)
  - [When what you are is not what you want](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#when-what-you-are-is-not-what-you-want)
  - [Interview from Scott Douglas Jacobsen of Insight Journal](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#interview-from-scott-douglas-jacobsen-of-insight-journal)
  - [arecentexaminationofothecalendaryear](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#arecentexaminationofothecalendaryear)
  - [My Introduction to Mensa Sweden!](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#my-introduction-to-mensa-sweden)
  - [Radioactive Data Storage, Radio Communication, and Increased Capacity](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#radioactive-data-storage-radio-communication-and-increased-capacity)
  - [The End of Randomness, Randomness in Uncertainty, and Cryptography](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#the-end-of-randomness-randoness-in-uncertainty-and-cryptography)
  - [Purely Intellectual Morality and Resistance to Application, and Learning](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#purely-intellectual-morality-and-resistance-to-application-and-learning)
  - [Torque, Planning, Intelligence, and Unstealable Creativity](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#torque-intelligence-planning-and-unstealable-creativity)
  - [Changing Processes of Morality](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#changing-processes-of-morality)
  - [A strategy for creating a taste for your bag](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#a-strategy-for-creating-a-taste-for-your-bag)
  - [You Should Have Thousands of STD Test Results](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#you-should-have-thousands-of-std-test-results)
  - [Demographics You Don't Have that are You](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#demographics-you-dont-have-that-are-you)
  - [Adding Philosophical Discourse to the High Intelligence Community](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#adding-philosophical-discourse-to-the-High-Intelligence Community)
  - [Status on the Current Project Regarding Homelessness and Wealthy Camping](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#status-on-the-current-project-regarding-homelessness-and-wealthy-camping)
  - [If the news isn't interesting, others likely became less interesting](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#if-the-news-isnt-interesting-others-likely-became-less-interesting)
  - [Inability to Intuit that Significance Precedes Persuasive Language](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#inability-to-intuit-that-significance-precedes-persuasive-language)
  - [The Life Categories, Language, and Brain](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#the-life-categories-language-and-brain)
  - [The Intelligent Who Cannot Find Real Games to Enjoy](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#the-intelligent-who-cannot-find-real-games-to-enjoy)
  - [Cannibalism and Wartime Disrespect](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#cannibalism-and-wartime-disrespect)
  - [I didn't invent your privacy](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#i-didnt-invent-your-privacy)
  - [People didn't solve conversation](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#people-didnt-solve-conversation)
  - [Some comments in Mensa to someone claiming special knowledge on "real creativity"](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#some-comments-in-mensa-to-someone-claiming-special-knowledge-on-real-creativity)
  - [Can you unpriest a monk, or is a monk alone a priest?](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#can-you-unpriest-a-monk-or-is-a-monk-alone-a-priest)
  - [A Pathway to Recovering Brain Material Related to Memories](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#a-pathway-to-recovering-brain-material-related-to-memories)
  - [When can you sell a photograph?](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#when-can-you-sell-a-photograph)
  - [Revising the Parenting Plan as Providing Reason to Live](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#revising-the-parenting-plan-as-providing-reason-to-live)
  - [Modeling Skepticism](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#modeling-skepticism)
  - [Updating Theorizing](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#updating-theorizing)
  - [A comment in the HighIQ community regarding claims that certain rarities are really not so rare](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#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](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#if-we-dont-ever-do-it-we-are-patterned-away-from-it)
  - [Explorations in Greater Freedom](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#explorations-in-greater-freedom)
  - [My History of Writings in the High Intelligence Community](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#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](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#a-mathematical-proof-like-demonstration-of-preference-of-youth-to-age-in-aesthetics-from-sexual-preferences-and-cultural-example)
  - [Making good encyclopedias available offline](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#making-good-encyclopedias-available-offline)
  - [Mattanaw says you need not join moments of somebody else’s silence](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#mattanaw-says-you-need-not-join-moments-of-somebody-elses-silence)
  - [Plans for the Evening](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#plans-for-the-evening)
  - [Suffixes and Prefixes, and Interfixes that didn’t Dictionary](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#suffixed-and-prefixes-and-interfixes-that-didnt-dictionary)
  - [Mocking Shit Faux-Jargon like “Boomer”](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#mocking-shit-faux-jargon-like-boomer)
  - [Redoing strange grammatical constuctions, like variations on 'lay'](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#redoing-strange-grammatical-constructions-like-variations-on-lay)
  - [Firsts of the Author and "Firsting" Behavior](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#first-of-the-author-and-firsting-behavior)
  - [New reading of Schopenhauer](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#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?](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#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](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#knowing-if-and-when-processing-is-parallel)
  - [Upcoming Thoughtstreams: Self-Created Textiles on an Animal-Creativity Spectrum...](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#upcoming-thoughtstreams-self-created-textiles)
  - [Pretending one is not Procrastinating, and Unchangeable Occlusions](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#pretending-one-is-not-procrastinating-and-unchangeable-occlusions)
  - [Practentice](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#practentice)
  - [Automatic Weight Loss and General Life Excellences](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#automatic-weight-loss-and-general-life-excellences)
  - [Book and Journal of Mattanaw as Uncharacteristic of the Views of Others](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#book-and-journal-of-mattanaw-as-uncharacteristic-of-the-views-of-others)
  - [Ends and life-cycles](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#ends-and-lifecycles)
  - [Pattern-history of Your Tissues](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#pattern-history-of-your-tissues)
  - [Thinking of Salt as a Drug and Not a Mineral Nutrient](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#thinking-of-salt-as-a-drug-and-not-a-mineral-nutrient)
  - [Nearly Free Air Insulation in Clothing](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#air-insulation-in-clothing)
  - [Quick Remark on What Some Call Lateral Thinking](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#quick-remark-on-what-some-call-lateral-thinking)
  - [Development on Homelessness Solutioning and Example of My Attentional Management Process](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#development-on-homelessness-solutioning-and-example-of-my-attentional-management-process)
  - [Comment and response to "Cyclical Euphemization Process and Anticipated Word Expiry"](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#commant-and-response-to-cyclical-euphemization-process-and-anticipated-word-expiry)
  - [Cyclical Euphemization Process and Anticipated Word Expiry](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#cyclical-euphemization-process-and-anticipated-word-expiry)
  - [Familiarity with Self is Not a Clarified Representation](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#familiarity-with-self-is-not-a-clarified-representation)
  - [Combining Widely Separate Situations and the Brain's Reactions to That](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#combining-widely-separate-situations-and-the-brains-reactions-to-that)
  - [Upcoming initial postings](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#upcoming-initial-postings)
  - [Cohesive Visions, Plans, and Post-Editing](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#cohesive-visions-plans-and-post-editing)
  - [Paper and Energy](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#paper-and-energy)
  - [Notes on Objectivity in Symbolic Ritualization for More Probable Recollection](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#notes-objectivity-in-symbolic-ritualization-for-more-probable-recollection)
  - [Sharing of Tasks and Plans](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#sharing-of-tasks-and-plans)
  - [I'm not that into relationships.](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#im-not-that-into-relationships)
  - [Solving *your* problems by calling each other Brother or Sister.](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#solving-your-problems-by-calling-each-other-brother-or-sister)
  - [Making the morning and evening routine mnemonic connect with the memory journey methodology](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#making-the-morning-and-evening-routine-mnemonic-connect-with-the-memory-journey-methodology)
  - [Foolishness of the Common Trust in Voting.](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream#foolishness-of-the-common-trust-in-voting)
- [Prior ThoughtStream. August 15<sup>th</sup> 2018, through  November, 17<sup>th</sup>, 2022](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html)
  - [Communion with Cactuses](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#communion-with-cactuses)
  - [Cheap Camera Eyeballs and Your Citizenship](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#cheap-camera-eyeballs-and-your-citizenship)
  - [Doing without cell phones again.](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#doing-without-cell-phones-again)
  - [Holidays control how you reflect and think, and remember](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#holidays-control-how-you-reflect-and-think-and-remember)
  - [911 Remembrance slightly off schedule](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#911-remembrance-slightly-off-schedule)
  - [Technological shifts and generations](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#technological-shifts-and-generations)
  - [Amateur vs. Professional, Work vs. Leisure](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#amateur-vs-professional-work-vs-leisure)
  - [Ridding of the generation concept for current and future population groupings](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ridding-of-the-generation-concept-for-current-and-future-population-groupings)
  - [My response in a conversation on reverse engineering meaning unicode sensors and sensors](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-response-in-a-conversation-on-reverse-engineering-meaning-unicode-sensors-and-sensors)
  - [Challenging Claims of Ignorance](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#challenging-claims-of-ignorance)
  - [Since your heads are separate you can’t see that mutually you’re nonsense](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#since-your-heads-are-separate-you-cant-see-that-mutually-youre-nonsense)
  - [Pat yourself on the back into the afterlife](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#pat-yourself-on-the-back-into-the-afterlife)
  - [The Assumption that Human Life Needs to Continue](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-assumption-that-human-life-needs-to-continue)
  - [How beautiful are paper stacks?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#how-beautiful-are-paper-stacks)
  - [James Dean and Identifying Good Acting](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#james-dean-and-identifying-good-acting)
  - [Nonaesthetics of Books and Aggregates of Paper<](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#nonaesthetics-of-books-and-aggregates-of-paper)
  - [Textiles that are never the same.](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#textiles-that-are-never-the-same)
  - [Finding the relationships between manipulation and leadership](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#finding-the-relationships-between-manipulation-and-leadership)
  - [Higher Order Attention, Notes](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#higher-order-attention-notes)
  - [Exploring Distance to Town in Provisioning of the Camping Traveler and the Homeless](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#exploring-distance-to-town-in-provisioning-of-the-camping-traveler-and-the-homeless)
  - [Factors in basic travel and homeless life provisioning, continued](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#factors-in-basic-travel-and-homeless-life-provisioning-continued.)
  - [Factors in basic travel and homeless life provisioning](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#factors-in-basic-travel-and-homeless-life-provisioning.)
  - [Finding places to sleep as a hobo or traveler](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#finding-places-to-sleep-as-a-hobo-or-traveler)
  - [You Lived in Dogsgrace](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-lived-in-dogsgrace)
  - [Are you infurriated?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#are-you-infurriated)
  - [LGBTQMATTANAWIRN+](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#lgbtqmattanawirn)
  - [Has anyone created a science of facial manipulation?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#has-anyone-created-a-science-of-facial-manipulation)
  - [Welcome to the Dogolocaust](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#welcome-to-the-dogolocaust)
  - [You’re Infuryier, You Furrier!](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#youre-infuryier-you-furrier)
  - [I don’t recall wanting to forget, or blot out](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-dont-recall-wanting-to-forget-or-blot-out)
  - [Harnessing Lack of Death-fear in Children](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#harnessing-lack-of-death-fear-in-children)
  - [Permanence of Placement in Gifted Schools](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#permanence-of-placement-in-gifted-schools)
  - [Who’s checking on Vietnam?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#whos-checking-on-vietnam)
  - [Salvationstony](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#salvationstony)
  - [Deathtiny](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#deathtiny)
  - [You pretended harder with your love on dogs](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#for-dog-lovers-christians-and-equalitarians)
  - [You are disallowed in public](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-are-disallowed-in-public)
  - [Suboptimal Sun](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#suboptimal-sun)
  - [Positive Health Event and Planned Time Away from Social Media](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#positive-health-event-and-planned-time-away-from-social-media)
  - [Ordering and Paying at the Outset at Restaurants](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ordering-and-paying-at-the-outset-at-restaurants)
  - [Who’s checking on Niger?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#whos-checking-on-niger)
  - [Unthinking Hearts that Save](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#unthinking-hearts-that-save)
  - [When is being a “guest” over?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-is-being-a-guest-over)
  - [How transitional is your mind?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#how-transitional-is-your-mind)
  - [A Brief Summary View of Positive Psychology](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#a-brief-summary-view-of-positive-psychology)
  - [Humancan, Add or Mod the Solution, or Related Problem Statement](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#humancan-add-or-mod-the-solution-or-related-problem-statement)
  - [Attending to your own mind versus having your head pointed by others](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#attending-to-your-own-mind-versus-having-your-head-pointed-by-others)
  - [I’m still an elitist](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#im-still-an-elitist)
  - [You’re not a scientist](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#youre-not-a-scientist)
  - [Hardware Supply as Scientific Supply for the Learning Population](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#hardware-supply-as-scientific-supply-for-the-learning-population)
  - [Responding When Stopped by Police](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#responding-when-stopped-by-police)
  - [Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Your Religion Didn’t Fix Your Habits](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#fetal-alcohol-syndrome-your-religion-didnt-fix-your-habits)
  - [Modern on your technology but not on your Moral Technology, or](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#modern-on-your-technology-but-not-on-your-moral-technology-or)
  - [Adding Detail to Nature](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#adding-detail-to-nature)
  - [More detailed than nature](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#more-detailed-than-nature)
  - [Social Snippet, No Need to Respond](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#social-snippet-no-need-to-respond)
  - [Calculating temperature with digital photographs](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#calculating-temperature-with-digital-photographs)
  - [Insectivory and Earthworm-eating as Early Market-forcing Regulations](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#insectivory-and-earthworm-eating-as-early-market-forcing-regulations)
  - [Did anyone check on Uruguay?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#did-anyone-check-on-uruguay)
  - [When is a nation a property of a thing](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-is-a-nation-a-property-of-a-thing)
  - [Metals with Nationalities?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#metals-with-nationalities)
  - [What can you disable in your mind?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-can-you-disable-in-your-mind)
  - [People who have interests that are not worthwhile](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#people-who-have-interests-that-are-not-worthwhile)
  - [“Survival of the Fittest”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#survival-of-the-fittest)
  - [Jobs as Internment Camps Where people can concentrate](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#jobs-as-internment-camps-where-people-can-concentrate)
  - [Life is Easy, Contrary to Your Worldview](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#life-is-easy-contrary-to-your-worldview)
  - [Homosexuality creates a survival advantage because you actually like yourself](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#homosexuality-creates-a-survival-advantage-because-you-actually-like-yourself)
  - [Were you creative?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#were-you-creative)
  - [You depended on everyone else for your morality](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-depended-on-everyone-else-for-your-morality)
  - [Wanting to die “as is”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#wanting-to-die-as-is)
  - [Death and Your Mind Right Now](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#death-and-your-mind-right-now)
  - [Justify your sex, and Discover Your Lack of Moral Sophistication](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#justify-your-sex-and-discover-your-lack-of-moral-sophistication)
  - [Avoiding “Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How” for all things](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-dont-know-who-me-am-but-i-know-some-who-me-were)
  - [Final Thoughts, Fear of Death, and Death Plans](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#final-thoughts-fear-of-death-and-death-plans)
  - [“I didn’t realize Mattanaw was a diety, until moments before I died”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-didnt-realize-mattanaw-was-a-diety-until-moments-before-i-died)
  - [Losing fear of death, because your life is TV](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#losing-fear-of-death-because-your-life-is-tv)
  - [Social Snippet, The Error Hunting of those Who Don’t Understand](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#social-snippet-the-error-hunting-of-those-who-dont-understand)
  - [How Universal is Personal History Alteration?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#how-universal-is-personal-history-alteration)
  - [Earlier and Later than Your Religion](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#earlier-and-later-than-your-religion)
  - [Pretending Equality in Advance, and Truthfulness of Halves of a Dichotomized Species, in the Animal Kingdom.](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#pretending-equality-in-advance-and-truthfulness-of-halves-of-a-dichotomized-species-in-the-animal-kingdom)
  - [High Culture, versus Low People](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#high-culture-versus-low-people)
  - [Sentences about yourself, if honest](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sentences-about-yourself-if-honest Sentences about yourself, if honest)
  - [Solidified in ceremony](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#solidified-in-ceremony)
  - [An Intolerable thing about Marriage](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#an-intolerable-thing-about-marriage)
  - [Philosophical Questions, Not Very Puzzling](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#philosophical-questions-not-very-puzzling)
  - [Special sentences are a rarity](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#special-sentences-are-a-rarity)
  - [Social Snippet, No Analysis, Assumes Complete](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#social-snippet-no-analysis-assumes-complete)
  - [Social Snippet, Confined Criticism](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#social-snippet-confined-criticism)
  - [Grouping and ungrouping frequencies?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#grouping-and-ungrouping-frequencies)
  - [significance-of-mind-and-the-plausibility-of-the-conception-of-will-to-power-in-nietzsche](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#significance-of-mind-and-the-plausibility-of-the-conception-of-will-to-power-in-nietzsche)
  - [Social Snippet, Sharing Thoughts](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#social-snippet-sharing-thoughts)
  - [Social Snippet, Say Trolling](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#social-snippet-say-trolling)
  - [The Significance of Ideas and Creativity](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-significance-of-ideas-and-creativity)
  - [All Local Examples as Metaphors for the Universe](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#all-local-examples-as-metaphors-for-the-universe)
  - [Efficacy of Wishes and Prayers](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#efficacy-of-wishes-and-prayers)
  - [Wishing Wells for Morons that Were Everyone](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#wishing-wells-for-morons-that-were-everyone)
  - [Paste Dictionary](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#paste-dictionary)
  - [Keep splaining, agesplainer](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#keep-splaining-agesplainer)
  - [Pretend Strategies and Algorithms that are Christian](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#pretend-strategies-and-algorithms-that-are-christian)
  - [Making Death Plans so It Becomes a Rational Choice](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#making-death-plans-so-it-becomes-a-rational-choice)
  - [Social Snippet, Say Again](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#social-snippet-say-again)
  - [Social Snippets](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#social-snippets)
  - [Explanations on this Work in Conversation Format](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#explanations-on-this-work-in-conversation-format)
  - [“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right)
  - [Being Vegan at Kaladi Brothers Jewel Lake, Anchorage](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#being-vegan-at-kaladi-brothers-jewel-lake-anchorage)
  - [When you loved your own post, did you “Love you but not like you?”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-you-loved-your-own-post-did-you-love-you-but-not-like-you)
  - [Did you ever feel weird for loving your own post?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#did-you-ever-feel-weird-for-loving-your-own-post)
  - [Have you ever had a moment lost, because you were focused on a defect?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#have-you-ever-had-a-moment-lost-because-you-were-focused-on-a-defect)
  - [Could it be that Ebonics is just English?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#could-it-be-that-ebonics-is-just-english)
  - [When You are Saved by Complete Iefficacy of Prayer](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-you-are-saved-by-complete-iefficacy-of-prayer)
  - [Enabling the Dalai Llama](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#enabling-the-dalai-llama)
  - [The Presence of Children](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-presence-of-children)
  - [The time it takes to get off of religion will relate to](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-time-it-takes-to-get-off-of-religion-will-relate-to)
  - [Ending religion in the western world should be easy](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ending-religion-in-the-western-world-should-be-easy)
  - [Ability to answer direct questions and religion](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ability-to-answer-direct-questions-and-religion)
  - [The Friend Lists of Christians](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-friend-lists-of-christians)
  - [Would it be worth discarding religion if it secured “love”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#would-it-be-worth-discarding-religion-if-it-secured-love)
  - [We use our toys to indicate our civilization and not ourselves](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-is-the-facial-expression-that-corresponds-to-love-and-how-long-does-it-last)
  - [Announcing the Mattanaw Certification Program](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#announcing-the-mattanaw-certification-program)
  - [Cageism](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#cageism)
  - [My wants don’t change much](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-wants-dont-change-much)
  - [My wants don’t change much](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-wants-dont-change-much)
  - [Pretending you’re backed by science, and “Recollection People”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#pretending-youre-backed-by-science-and-recollection-people)
  - [Races as Early Speciation, and Penis Size](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#races-as-early-speciation-and-penis-size)
  - [You didn’t make your bias, so your opinion is recollection](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-didnt-make-your-bias-so-your-opinion-is-recollection)
  - [Biases arise](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#biases-arise)
  - [Bringing topics to rest with papers, via incentives](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#bringing-topics-to-rest-with-papers-via-incentives)
  - [Pseudo Chirality](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#pseudo-chirality)
  - [Radio Towers, Premade and Fabricated](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#radio-towers-premade-and-fabricated)
  - [Loosen the coupling between yourself and history](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#loosen-the-coupling-between-yourself-and-history)
  - [Good Bartenders](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#good-bartenders)
  - [End of Chess: Victory to White](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#end-of-chess-victory-to-white)
  - [The “Soul” is as primitive as you can get, you Animist!](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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.](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#omission-reveals-suicide-is-the-norm-unless-you-dont-make-any-decision-at-all)
  - [Think of a verb as a stored procedure](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#think-of-a-verb-as-a-stored-procedure)
  - [Minimum structures extending into space](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#minimum-structures-extending-into-space)
  - [Direct to space transport](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#direct-to-space-transport)
  - [“Clinched that debate barely thinking about it, did you?”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#clinched-that-debate-barely-thinking-about-it-did-you)
  - [Tombstones](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#tombstones)
  - [More on Determinism](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#more-on-determinism)
  - [Swap your language with a small language](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#swap-your-language-with-a-small-language)
  - [Abraham lived 900 plus years? And the biologist believes it](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#abraham-lived-900-plus-years)
  - [Suppose you learn logic](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#suppose-you-learn-logic)
  - [Reconsider your baby. Reconsider your LIES](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#reconsider-your-baby.-reconsider-your-lies.)
  - [Proactive, Retroactive, and Along the Way](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#proactive-retroactive-and-along-the-way)
  - [TO SEARCH, TO BE EXPOSED TO IT RANDOMLY, OR TO KNOW WHERE IT IS](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#to-search-to-be-exposed-to-it-randomly-or-to-know-where-it-is)
  - [We are not “one”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#we-are-not-one)
  - [Your Equality Was Founded on Appearances](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#your-equality-was-founded-on-appearances)
  - [Personal Identification, Naming, and Species Membership](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#personal-identification-naming-and-species-membership)
  - [Reality Probability or Reality Feel](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#reality-probability-or-reality-feel)
  - [Cumpleañosiphilia](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#cumpleañosiphilia)
  - [Homo Sapiens Sapiens Mattanaw](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#homo-sapiens-sapiens-mattanaw)
  - [Low Probability Next Thought, or High Probability Next Thought](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#low-probability-next-thought-or-high-probability-next-thought)
  - [Turning parts of electronic devices off, and Computers containing numerous separate systems.](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#turning-parts-of-electronic-devices-off-and-computers-containing-numerous-separate-systems)
  - [“My idea versus true idea.”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-idea-versus-true-idea)
  - [Allowed to hate](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#allowed-to-hate)
  - [“Money Beginnings”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#money-beginnings)
  - [Sharing what starts in your head, versus secrecy](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sharing-what-starts-in-your-head-versus-secrecy)
  - [“You should see my little scabbies.”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-should-see-my-little-scabbies)
  - [Equal to the Disabled](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#equal-to-the-disabled)
  - [You’re 1/1ths a Person](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#youre-one-oneths-a-person)
  - [How Important is Listening?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#how-important-is-listening)
  - [Homo Sapiens Sapiens](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#homo-sapiens-sapiens)
  - [The relationship between knowledge and action](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-relationship-between-knowledge-and-action)
  - [Priveleges and Not Serving](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#priveleges-and-not-serving)
  - [Dead Totalitarianism and Your Leaders](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#dead-totalitarianism-and-your-leaders)
  - [Cycling vs Walking](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#cycling-vs-walking)
  - [The United States is Multicult](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-united-states-is-multicult)
  - [Math Professors and Mathing their Occupations](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#math-professors-and-mathing-their-occupations)
  - [Confirming mathematical answers in professors and math texts](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#confirming-mathematical-answers-in-professors-and-math-texts)
  - [Not Utilizing Rooms Per Capita for Social Distancing](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#not-utilizing-rooms-per-capita-for-social-distancing)
  - [Covid Didn’t Affect Birth Rates Substantially](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#covid-didnt-affect-birth-rates-substantially)
  - [With enough content you may finally feel content](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#with-enough-content-you-may-finally-feel-content)
  - [Autocurrect now exists](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#autocurrect-now-exists)
  - [Animal Cruelty via Reptiles](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#animal-cruelty-via-reptiles)
  - [More on Interpersonal Differences in Individuals and in Aggregate and Elimination of Equality as the Justification of Social Justice.](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#more-on-interpersonal-differences-in-individuals-and-in-aggregate-and-elimination-of-equality-as-the-justification-of-social-justice)
  - [“Did I stutter.”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#did-i-stutter)
  - [More on Equalization Bias](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#more-on-equalization-bias)
  - [The “Garbage-in, Garbage-out” problem and Richard Feynman](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-garbage-in-garbage-out-problem-and-richard-feynman)
  - [More on the Art of Defects](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#more-on-the-art-of-defects)
  - [An Art of Defects](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#an-art-of-defects)
  - [Same religion for everyone in a society](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#same-religion-for-everyone-in-a-society)
  - [Coping With Non-holism. A Start. Part I](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#coping-with-non-holism-a-start-part-i)
  - [Sawing Bicycles in Two](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sawing-bicycles-in-two)
  - [Where would you expect to find a non-pattern?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#where-would-you-expect-to-find-a-non-pattern)
  - [Which diversity to continue?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#which-diversity-to-continue)
  - [“Love versus Hatred” and other such excessively basic behavioral comparisons](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#love-versus-hatred-and-other-such-excessively-basic-behavioral-comparisons)
  - [Kilauea, Volcanoes, and Earth is Old and Just Nature](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#kilauea-volcanoes-earth-is-old-and-just-nature)
  - [Quantifying Influence and “What to learn next](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#quantifying-influence-and-what-to-learn-next)
  - [“Amen” and other PUNCTUATION marks](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#amen-and-other-punctuation-marks.)
  - [Has a female ever clogged a toilet?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#has-a-female-ever-clogged-a-toilet)
  - [The consequences of Dough-mastication](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-consequences-of-dough-mastication)
  - [How patient are you with your censors?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#how-patient-are-you-with-your-censors)
  - [Parental Perversion by Default. A Diatribe](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#parental-perversion-by-default-a-diatribe)
  - [What kind of rejection do you have?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-kind-of-rejection-do-you-have)
  - [“I don’t know what thoughts to have”](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-dont-know-what-thoughts-to-have)
  - [Earth chose another animal](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#earth-chose-another-animal)
  - [You hid the handicapped](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-hid-the-handicapped)
  - [Inability to create meaning](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#inability-to-create-meaning)
  - [Omelettes are just egg tacos](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#omelettes-are-just-egg-tacos)
  - [“Skepticism” is not a strategy](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#skepticism-is-not-a-strategy)
  - ["Woah, he's Scrumpty."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#woah-hes-scrumpty)
  - [Celebrating 4 years in business for myself](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#celebrating-4-years-in-business-for-myself)
  - [Stuttering, sweaty, awkward, hard, uncomfortable truth and honesty](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#stuttering-sweaty-awkward-hard-uncomfortable-truth-and-honesty)
  - [Anytime anyone chooses a new fashion, they can be considered inauthentic](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#anytime-anyone-chooses-a-new-fashion)
  - [Can you massage my palms please?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#can-you-massage-my-palms-please)
  - [I am everything except what you don't want, and more](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-am-everything-except-what-you-dont-want-and-more)
  - [Did Jesus or Buddha need editors?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#did-jesus-or-buddha-need-editors)
  - [Coronavirus Deaths Were Not "Deserved"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#coronavirus-deaths-were-not-deserved)
  - [Coexist is not a strategy, II](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#coexist-is-not-a-strategy-ii)
  - [Coronavirus was your religion's fault](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#coronavirus-was-your-religions-fault)
  - [Mattanaw is a revelation](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#mattanaw-is-a-revelation)
  - [Before he became man, he was trout](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#before-he-became-man-he-was-trout)
  - [What language is required to permit inferences about how someone feels?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-language-is-required-to-permit-inferences-about-how-someone-feels)
  - [Re-use the alcohol one million times](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#reuse-the-alcohol-one-million-times)
  - [My grocery list for tomorrow](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-grocery-list-for-tomorrow)
  - ["I died and went to heaven!"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-died-and-went-to-heaven)
  - [Mattanaw is an Animal](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#mattanaw-is-an-animal-three)
  - [It's an American Virus. Own it](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#its-an-american-virus-own-it)
  - [Wield the opportunity for your goals in waiting](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#wield-the-opportunity-for-your-goals-in-waiting)
  - ["Be careful what you wish for."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#be-careful-what-you-wish-for)
  - [Lack of Concern about Overpopulation](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#lack-of-concern-about-overpopulation)
  - [Saying Something Truthful With "We"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#saying-something-truthful-with-we)
  - [When you do not receive adequate recognition](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-you-do-not-receive-adequate-recognition)
  - [Happy Thoughts, or More Complete Analyses](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#happy-thoughts-or-more-complete)
  - [Mood of a Conversation and Narrow Mindedness](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#mood-of-a-conversation-and-narrow-mindedness)
  - [The height of "heartlessness" to me is](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-height-of-heartlessness-to-me-is)
  - ["Wakey, Wakey, Morning Earthquakey"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#wakey-wakey-morning-earthquakey)
  - [When are you irrationalizing?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-are-you-irrationalizing)
  - [Two Ways to Rationalize](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#two-ways-to-rationalize)
  - [Excitement Trumps Rationality](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#excitement-trumps-rationality)
  - [You just wanted to say that thought you had](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-just-wanted-to-say-that-thought-you-had)
  - ["I do not like the messenger](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-did-not-like-the-messenger)
  - [And that's the final thought. Amen](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#and-thats-the-final-thought-amen)
  - [Instant Motivation, Part One](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#instant-motivation-part-one)
  - [Bird Kiting](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#bird-kiting)
  - [Sometimes broken software, is better than working software](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sometimes-broken-software-is-better-than-working-software.)
  - ["Practice makes, whatever practice makes."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#practice-makes-whatever-practice-makes)
  - [Naming your other selves](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#naming-your-other-selves)
  - [Have a mentor for the right reasons](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#have-a-mentor-for-the-right-reasons)
  - [Deciding When to Retain Knowledge](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#deciding-when-to-retain-knowledge)
  - ["Priby Proboscis"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#priby-proboscus)
  - ["You've been Musked"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#youve-been-musked)
  - [Fatty Pigeon Ranch](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#fatty-pigeon-ranch)
  - [9/11 War Advocates](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#911-war-advocates)
  - [Jesus would be killed again](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#jesus-would-be-killed-again)
  - [Old Cars are, Oddly Comforting](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#old-cars-are-oddly-comforting)
  - [Parents and Mentors Remove Obstacles (And Other Stuff)](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#parents-and-mentors-remove-obstacles-and-other-stuff)
  - [What is the value of coronavirus news, per capita?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-is-the-value-of-coronavirus-news-per-capita)
  - [Pretend to be Responsible, so You Can Pretend to be Special](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#pretend-to-be-responsible-so-you-can-pretend-to-be-special)
  - [Mattanaw's Academic Papers](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#mattanaws-academic-papers)
  - [Typod Forevr. When the Editor Who Can, Chooses Not To](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-the-editor-who-can-chooses-not-to)
  - [When big data, is just data](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-big-data-is-just-data)
  - [Called the coperator, and they did not coperate](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#called-the-coperator-and-they-did-not-coperate)
  - [The Cure to Fatty Clogs of Death](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-cure-to-fatty-clogs-of-death)
  - [My Political Tendency Test](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-political-tendency-test)
  - [I'm empathetic, and that's why you're going to manage your own emotions](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#im-empathetic-and-thats-why-youre-going-to-manage-your-own-emotions)
  - [When "Never give up" is not the answer](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-never-give-up-is-not-the-answer)
  - [Dying Speech of an Old Philosopher](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#dying-speech-of-an-old-philosopher)
  - [Let's Change Marketing Together](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#lets-change-marketing-together)
  - [Creating an oxygen rich living environment](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#creating-an-oxygen-rich-living-environment)
  - [Can you see the root?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#can-you-see-the-root)
  - [Our emotional dance with reality](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#our-emotional-dance-with-reality)
  - [If I do it, or I don't do it, is already determined](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#if-i-do-it-or-i-dont-do-it-is-already-determined)
  - ["Hey! I thought we were fwinds!"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#hey-i-thought-we-were-fwinds)
  - [See you later, potential friend](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#see-you-later-potential-friend)
  - [Sleeping as much as I need to](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sleeping-as-much-as-I-need-to)
  - [You and everyone you know as a public notary](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-and-everyone-you-know-as-a-public-notary)
  - [A current interest in logic and mathematics](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#a-current-issue-in-logic-and-mathematics)
  - [Process diagram your way to the mathematical answers](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#process-diagram-your-way-to-mathematical-answers)
  - [The Software is Botched](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-software-is-botched)
  - [Can you ever really tell, if you need more,](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#can-you-ever-really-tell-if-you-need-more)
  - [Ever notice that the "best" option for a decision](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ever-notice-that-the-best-option-for-a-decision)
  - [Yergonnadecryptit](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#yergonnadecryptit)
  - [I<sup>th</sup> Cotomies](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ith-chotomies)
  - ["Fight for your rights!"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#fight-for-your-rights)
  - [If you are not deep, you are, well](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#if-you-are-not-deep)
  - [Mixed origins of culture, and the "You have no idea where it came from."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#mixed-origins-of-the-culture)
  - [Karma is not in your religion](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#karma-is-not-in-your-religion)
  - [Your maturation will happen inevitably](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#your-maturation-will-happen-inevitably)
  - [Procrastinating? You are on more than one cycle of activity and inactivity](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#procrastinating-you-are-on-more-than-one-cycle-of-activity-and-inactivity)
  - [Scientists achieve warm goals through cold logic](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#scientists-achieve-warm-goals-through-cold-logic)
  - [Empathy and Grounds for Rejecting It](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#empathy-and-grounds-for-rejecting-it)
  - [We Are Empty Space Now?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#we-are-empty-space-now)
  - [USA: The Extractive International Customer](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#usa-the-extractive-international-customer)
  - [Your eyeball is always slightly downward, or upward, compared to the other](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#your-eyeball-is-always-slightly-downward-or-upward-compared-to-the-other)
  - [Honor Veterans with the truth](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#honor-veterans-with-the-truth)
  - [It wasn't brilliant](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#it-wasnt-brilliant)
  - [Survivable enough](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#survivable-enough)
  - [What's the size of your clan?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#whats-the-size-of-your-clan)
  - [Say nothing](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#say-nothing)
  - [Yer that word](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#yer-that-word)
  - [Cause-Effect is not Thought-to-Inference](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#cause-effect-is-not-thought-to-inference)
  - [Having the thoughts of others vs. Truth](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#having-the-thoughts-of-thers-vs-truth)
  - [I agree that is a quote](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-agree-that-is-a-quote)
  - [Quotes that are really old, Part I](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#quotes-that-are-really-old-one)
  - ["I don't like what you said therefore I can do anything I want to you." Part II."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-dont-like-what-you-said-therefore-i-can-do-anything-i-want-to-you-part-ii)
  - [Fasting Undefined](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#fasting-undefined)
  - [Fact People](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#fact-people)
  - ["Equality is Real"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#equality-is-real-what-about-preferences)
  - [Cultures with Mansplaining Built in](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#cultures-with-mansplaining-built-in)
  - [Public Opinion is Not a Process](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#public-opinion-is-not-a-process)
  - [Unremember the Word](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#unremember-the-word)
  - [Hey Troll!](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#hey-troll-i-wasnt-thinking-about-you)
  - [The Uninitiated Don't Know](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-uninitiated-dont-know)
  - [The Winter Holiday Season May be Simply for Tolerating the Winter](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-winter-holiday-season-may-be-simply-for-tolerating-the-winter)
  - [Relief comes soon after you get real](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#relief-comes-soon-after-you-get-real)
  - [Head Start Means Started from Behind](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#head-start-means-started-from-behind)
  - [If we were to give up on inheritance](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#if-we-were-to-give-up-on-inheritance)
  - [Single people get made fun of](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#single-people-get-made-fun-of-for-masturbation)
  - [First there was the gesture](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#first-there-was-the-gesture)
  - [Who are all these people who are having internal struggles against doing "evil"?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#who-are-all-the-people-struggling-with-evil-inclinations)
  - [In the beginning, there was the wordss](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#in-the-beginning-there-was-the-words)
  - [Nothing is as demonic as two thirds?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#nothing-is-as-demonic-as-two-thirds)
  - [When lying for a higher purpose](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-lying-for-a-higher-purpose)
  - ["Grateful" often means "I don't plan on doing anything"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#grateful-often-means-I-dont-plan-on-doing-anything)
  - [Signatures, handwriting, and hand-markings](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#signatures-handwriting-and-hand-markings)
  - [Fault the Earth for what it does to itself,](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#fault-the-earth-for-what-it-does-to-itself)
  - [You don't reject what doesn't exist](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-dont-reject-what-doesnt-exist)
  - ["When to think, and when to remember?"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-to-think-and-when-to-remember)
  - ["If it permanently ain't broke, don't fix it."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#if-it-permanently-aint-broke-dont-fix-it)
  - [Using AI and Machine Learning to verify what works of religion are fictional](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#using-ai-and-machine-learning-to-verify-what-works-of-religion-are-fictional)
  - [Can I get a "Yeah right."?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#can-i-get-a-yeah-right)
  - [Just Saying "Smartness"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#just-saying-smartness)
  - [Be Authentic, but that's Unbecoming](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#be-authentic-but-thats-unbecoming)
  - [Your Heart is a Blood-pumping Organ](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#your-heart-is-a-blood-pumping-organ)
  - [Not having a better way to say it](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#not-having-a-better-way-to-say-it)
  - ["Life is Empty"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#life-is-empty)
  - [That Centenarian who slanders their way into heaven](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#that-centenarian-who-slanders-their-way-into-heaven)
  - ["Hello there", from the car](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#hello-there-from-the-car)
  - [Honesty is not extreme](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#honesty-is-not-extreme)
  - [I'm immune](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#im-immune)
  - [Uncage your animal, you animal](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#uncage-your-animal-you-animal)
  - ["I'm not a masochist, but hey, falsepath me anyway."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#im-not-a-masochist-but-hey-falsepath-me-anyway)
  - [Getting real in the debate team](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#getting-real-in-the-debate-team)
  - [Saw it coming](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#saw-it-coming)
  - [Vetting the "remnant"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#vetting-the-remnant)
  - [Obstructing Corporate Turnover](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#obstructing-corporate-turnover)
  - [The views of your ancestors](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-views-of-your-ancestors)
  - [Do you have the patience and open mind to receive a new Revelation?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#do-you-have-the-patience-and-open-mind-to-receive-a-new-revelation)
  - [It's brutal because you weren't honest with yourself](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#its-brutal-because-you-werent-honest-with-yourself)
  - [The Whole World is Stuck Here](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-whole-world-is-ok)
  - [Advice Dynamics](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#advice-dynamics)
  - [The ThoughtStream is also a Punching Bag](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-thoughtstream-is-also-a-punching-bag)
  - [Most are stuck here](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#most-are-stuck-here)
  - [Ignoring What is Definitely False](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ignoring-what-is-definitely-false)
  - [Busy Bee](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#busy-bee)
  - [Tension between preservation and letting go](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#tension-between-preservation-and-letting-go)
  - [My website is a mandala](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-website-is-a-mandala)
  - [What? Solution-problem it?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#solution-problem-it)
  - [Laundry and Time](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#laundry-and-time)
  - ["It's a blessing and a curse."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#its-a-blessing-and-a-curse)
  - [Heartwarming Somethings, One](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#heartwarming-somethings-one)
  - ["I don't have a favorite."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-dont-have-a-favorite)
  - [Be 90 now](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#be-90-now)
  - [You're Woke so You're a Determinist Now](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#youre-woke-so-youre-a-determinist-now)
  - [Aligning Yourself with Probability](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#aligning-yourself-with-probability)
  - [Movie Ideas for People Who Can Make Movies, One](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#movie-ideas-for-people-who-can-make-movies-one)
  - [Remember Cryogenics?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#remember-cryogenics)
  - [Ignorance is Bliss?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ignorance-is-bliss)
  - [Let R.I.P R.I.P](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#let-rip-rip)
  - [Nice job at the gym. I see you accomplished veins](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#nice-job-at-the-gym-I-see-you-accomplished-veins)
  - [Focus on yourself because you like you, right?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#focus-on-yourself-because-you-like-you-right)
  - ["Dr. Lunch", Part One](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#dr-lunch-part-one)
  - [Do you ever wish you could sing like a woman and a man?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#do-you-ever-wish-you-could-sing-like-a-woman-and-a-man)
  - [When Your Negative is My Positive](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-your-negative-is-my-positive)
  - [As a heuristic device, I don't listen to anyone](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#as-a-heuristic-device-i-dont-listen-to-anyone)
  - [Logic teachers have the responsibility](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#logic-teachers-have-the-responsibility)
  - [Sanest, not a Sadist](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sanest-not-a-sadist)
  - [Nunavut is real](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#nunavut-is-real)
  - [Every logic course in history was incomplete](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#every-logic-course-in-history-was-incomplete)
  - [Challenge III. Find words that don't appear in true statements](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#challenge-three-find-words-that-dont-appear-in-true-sentences)
  - [Risks of not knowing your rights, and not really having rights](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#risks-of-not-knowing-your-rights)
  - ["Esquired and Exchequered, Bro."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#esquired-and-exchequered-bro)
  - [On what cycle should I consume your recommended ingredients?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#on-what-cycle-should-I-consume-your-recommended-ingredients)
  - [You've been miscellaneoused](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#youve-been-miscellaneoused)
  - ["I did exactly what my parents told me to do"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-did-exactly-what-my-parents-told-me-to-do)
  - [Don't be a sock blocker!](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#dont-be-a-sock-blocker)
  - [Legacy in the eternity?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#legacy-in-the-eternity)
  - [Inspired by Women](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#inspired-by-women)
  - [Complain with a solutionss](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#complain-with-a-solutionss)
  - [Disruptors are already out](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#disruptors-are-already-out)
  - [Sleep on it twice](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sleep-on-it-twice)
  - [Elite Privileges](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#elite-privileges)
  - [Plural plurals](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#plural-plurals)
  - [There has to be a reasons](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#there-has-to-be-a-reasons)
  - [How to get out of caring about waste](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#how-to-get-out-of-caring-about-waste)
  - [What medium does your strategy take?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-medium-does-your-strategy-take)
  - [What form does your strategy take?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-form-does-your-strategy-take)
  - [Perfection is not a thing](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#perfection-is-not-a-thing)
  - [Where did this thought come from ultimately?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#where-did-this-thought-come-from-ultimately)
  - [Freedom in Politics. Being Independently Minded as an Independent](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#freedom-in-politics-being-independently-minded-as-an-independent)
  - [EstEst](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#estest)
  - [That Political Candidate Placed in Front of You](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-political-candidate-placed-in-front-of-you)
  - ["Every little bit counts" when you are on a false path too](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#every-little-bit-counts)
  - [Time Versus Logic](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#time-versus-logic)
  - [You programmed me!](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-programmed-me)
  - ["How do you handle ambiguity?"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#how-do-you-handle-ambiguity)
  - [If hindsight was 2020](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#if-hindsight-was-2020-we-would-know-how-to-distribute-blame-correctly)
  - ["That's what he said"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#thats-what-he-said)
  - [Infinite Recursion Continued..](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#infinite-recursion-continued)
  - [Infinite Recursion is Fine, and Freedom](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#infinite-recursion-is-fine-and-freedom)
  - [6 Degrees of Correlation or Causation](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#six-degrees-of-correlation-or-cuasation)
  - [When does one decide to get a flu vax? Before it doesn't work or after?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#get-the-flu-vax-before-it-doesnt-work-or-after)
  - [Determinism is a Comfort](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#determinism-is-a-comfort)
  - [We need to challenge and push each other to higher levels. Volunteer to be offended!](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#volunteer-to-be-offended)
  - [The un-newsification of the news seems to be nearly complete. Boycott time?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-un-newsification-of-the-news-seems-nearly-complete)
  - [What if you didn't actually "believe" anything, that you didn't instinctively act on?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-if-you-didnt-believe-anything-you-didnt-instinctively-act-on)
  - [Lose Weight to See Your Body](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#lose-weight-to-see-your-body)
  - [Saving as Investing](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#saving-as-investing)
  - [Optimism as a Buzkill](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#optimism-as-a-buzkill)
  - [Effort in Education, and Work](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#effort-in-education-and-work)
  - [Would you join a company called "Success Pyramid?"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#joining-success-pyramid)
  - [A quality I value highly now: time to realization of incorrectness](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#time-to-realization-of-incorrectness)
  - [Learning is Real, So Equality Isn't](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#learning-is-real-so-equality-isnt)
  - [Determinism and the Swayed Vote](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#determinism-and-the-swayed-vote)
  - [A Field for Taboo Elimination?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#a-field-for-taboo-elimination)
  - [Agreement is just a partial analogy](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#agreement-is-a-partial-analogy)
  - [Dodging Undesirable Tongues](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#dodging-undesirable-tongues)
  - ["Fitting In"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#fitting-in)
  - [Pre-meditation for Defense](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#premeditation-for-defense)
  - ["Resolutions that Happen"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#resolutions-that-happen-repost)
  - [Degrees of Attachment to Present Thoughts](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#degrees-of-attachment-to-present-thoughts)
  - [Knowing someone's plans doesn't mean you inherited their gifts](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#knowing-someones-plans-doesnt-mean-you-inherited-their-gifts)
  - [My Dad Knows Better Than Your Dad](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-dad-knows-better-than-your-dad)
  - [Elders Tend to Lie, When the Topic is of Great Importance](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#elders-tend-to-lie-when-the-topic-is-of-the-greatest-importance)
  - [How I Inhibited My Fear of Death](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#how-i-inhibited-my-fear-of-death)
  - [EstEst](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#estest)
  - [You are the mostest special person in the whole world](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-are-the-mostest-special-person-in-the-world)
  - [History is not very actionable](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#history-is-not-very-actionable)
  - [Finding Change Levers by Creating Public Systems Models](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#finding-change-levers-by-creating-public-systems-models)
  - [Alternative Grading Methodologies](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#alternative-grading-methodologies)
  - [Our civilization is cultures](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#our-civilization-is-cultures)
  - [Activists of Inequality](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#activists-of-inequality)
  - [Challenge Two: Find texts that don't make the mistakes of challenge one](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#challenge-two-finding-texts-that-dont-make-the-mistakes-of-challenge-one)
  - [More where that came from](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#more-where-that-came-from)
  - [Is the urge to finish things the result of the escalation of commitment bias?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#is-the-urge-to-finish-things-the-result-of-the-escalation-of-commitment-bias)
  - [Increased Justice and Understanding What Justice Actually Is](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#increased-justice-and-understanding-what-justice-actually-is)
  - [Which party does a business decision belong to?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-party-does-a-business-decision-belong-to)
  - [All Quotes Must Include My Errors](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#all-quotes-must-include-my-errors)
  - [What is Trivial?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-is-trivial)
  - [Mattanaw Acts Alone on the ThoughtStream](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#mattanaw-acts-alone-on-the-thoughtstream)
  - [Origin of the Thoughts](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#origin-of-the-thoughts)
  - [When Will Genesis Ever End, Really?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-will-genesis-ever-end-really)
  - [Employment Relationships are Not Romances](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#employment-relationships-are-not-romances)
  - [Challenge One: Say "Best" or "Worst", only when it results in a true statement](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#challenge-one-avoiding-logically-risky-words)
  - [Record a commitment](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#record-a-commitment)
  - [A wave can be an oath too](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#a-wave-can-be-an-oath-too)
  - ["You are funny"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-are-funny)
  - [A teacher takes you through all the steps](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#a-teacher-takes-you-through-all-the-steps)
  - [Thoughts are distillates](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#a-message-comes-out-of-a-funnel)
  - [Faith disappears,](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#faith-disappears)
  - [Prayer Overlaps Meditation so You are Part Buddhist](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#enlightenment-has-evolving-meaning)
  - [Enlightenment has Evolving Meaning](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#enlightenment-has-evolving-meaning)
  - [Faith disappears,](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#faith-disappears-but-then-it-returns-again)
  - [See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#to-think-fewer-evils)
  - [Kind Hearted Amusement is its Own Reward](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#kind-hearted-amusement-is-its-own-reward)
  - [Everyone gets confused](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#everyone-gets-confused)
  - [Publishing Plans and Results, If There Are Any](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#publishing-plans-and-results-if-there-are-any)
  - [Let's look at the learning intervals](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#its-easy-to-become-envious)
  - [It's easy to become envious,](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#its-easy-to-become-envious)
  - [The ThoughtStream is Enough](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-thoughtstream-is-enough)
  - [Maturity Models in Daily Life](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#maturity-models-in-daily-life)
  - [The first rule for choosing a mentor,](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#choosing-a-mentor-who-exists)
  - [The Best Mentors,](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-best-mentors-track-your-life-categories)
  - [Assume this blog is not about you](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#assume-this-blog-is-not-about-you)
  - [Beware of the Diagnosers](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#beware-of-the-diagnosers)
  - [Saving face, and No-sin](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#saving-face-and-no-sin)
  - [Creating problems for others](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#creating-problems-for-others)
  - [Zen doesn't care what you call it](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#zen-doesnt-care-what-you-call-it)
  - [When you don't know what you're witnessing](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-you-dont-know-what-youre-witnessing)
  - [Freethinking is My Religion](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#freethinking-is-my-religion-second)
  - [Ask for the Rainbows](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ask-for-the-rainbows)
  - [Memorial Day Thoughts](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#memorial-day)
  - [Work is Play](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#make-work-play)
  - [Speakdream it](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-can-speakdream-whatever-you-want)
  - [There is freedom in the ThoughtStream](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#see-that-the-math-logic-is-in-all-good-things)
  - [See that the math-logic is in all good things](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#see-that-the-math-logic-is-in-all-good-things)
  - [Brief insights and fallacies](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#brief-insights-and-fallacies)
  - [Wisdom Can Be Taught and Cannot Be Taught](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#widson-can-be-taught-and-cannot-be-taught)
  - [Lights from profound minds](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#lights-from-profound-minds)
  - [The light shines in to the darkness, but the darkness was not overcome](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-darkness-was-not-overcome)
  - [Is it Really an Analogy?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#gaps-in-language-and-missing-or-impossible-analogies)
  - [Natural Patterns that Repeat, are Expected to Repeat](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#natural-patterns-that-repeat-are-expected-to-repeat-again)
  - [The ThoughtStream is Technical and Not](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-ThoughtStream-is-technical-and-not)
  - [Real Feelings](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#real-feelings)
  - [Tabula Rasa Pseudo-math. Escaping the Founders' Many Errors](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#tabula-rasa-pseudo-math)
  - [My questions are disallowed](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-questions-are-disallowed)
  - [Beware of the Rankers](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#beware-of-the-ranker)
  - ["We can fire you, or deny you services, at any time, for any reason, or no reason."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#for-any-reason-or-no-reason)
  - [Unlocking our Journals](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#unlocking-our-journals)
  - [There are novelties in my "errors"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#novelities-in-my-errors)
  - [Behavior and My Face](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#behavior-and-my-face)
  - [Looking up simple terms](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#revisiting-simple-terms)
  - [The judgments are premature](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#premature-judgments-for-artworks-incomplete)
  - [Selective Innovations](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#selective-innovations)
  - [Mattanaw is Races](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#mattanaw-is-races)
  - [Mattanaw is Races](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#mattanaw-is-races)
  - [AI to Create Fake Videos Versus AI to Detect Fake Videos](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ai-to-create-and-detect-false-images-and-videos)
  - [Censorship is Talking Too](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#censorship-is-talking-too)
  - [It is important to me to talk about what gets avoided](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#it-is-important-to-me-to-talk-about-what-gets-avoided)
  - [Math is not democratic enough](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#math-is-not-democratic-enough)
  - [The ThoughtStream is Terse](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-thoughtstream-is-terse)
  - [You do not edit your speech](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-do-not-edit-your-speech)
  - [Impartiality is Prior to Equality](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#impartiality-is-prior-to-equality)
  - [Arrogantly Eternal or Eternally Arrogant](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#arrogantly-eternal-or-eternally-arrogant)
  - [National Narcissism](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#national-narcissism)
  - [Familiarity breeds imagination time](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#breeds-imagination-time)
  - [Do you ignore the language spectra?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#do-you-ignore-the-language-spectra)
  - [I Don't Know Personlanguage](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-dont-know-personlanguage)
  - [My "You"s are for you, and for me.](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-yous-are-for-you-and-for-me)
  - [Emotions are important enough to own](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#emotions-are-important-enough-to-own)
  - [Time for the Regular](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#time-for-the-regular)
  - [Display the People](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#display-the-people)
  - [Untruths of the Disciplines](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#truths-in-the-disciplines)
  - [Conceptlessness and the Buddha Nature](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#intralanguage-whorfianism-buddha-nature)
  - [Planes, with Turbulence as a Human Control Feature](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#turbulence-as-a-human-control-feature)
  - [Homage to Animal Grandma](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#pay-homage-to-animal-grandma)
  - [The goal of getting "straight-As" is not economical](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#goal-of-getting-straight-as)
  - [Determinism in the Procrastination](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#determinism-in-the-procrastination)
  - [Controls Against Indoctrination](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#controls-against-indoctrination)
  - [Founding Fathers, and Great Grandma Australophithecus](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#founding-fathers-and-great-grandma-australopithecine)
  - [Uniqueness, Analogies, and Absurdums](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#uniqueness-analogies-and-absurdums)
  - [Iterative less is more, for the sake of more, that is still less](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#iterative-less-is-more)
  - ["Disruptive Change Agent"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#disruptive-change-agent)
  - [ResolutionsThatHappen](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#resolutions-that-happen)
  - [Few are "Woke"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#few-are-woke)
  - [Details in the Diversity](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#details-in-the-diversity)
  - [Care to join me for dinner-breakfast?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#dinner-breakfast)
  - [Who makes this music?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#who-makes-this-music)
  - [I shall not repeat](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-shall-not-repeat)
  - [Indoctrinate the same you want to see in the world](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#indoctrinate-the-same)
  - [VICARIOUSLIVING](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#vicarious-living)
  - [Infer me from this message](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#infer-me-from-this-message)
  - [Equality in the Unevaluated?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#equality-in-the-unevaluated)
  - [Happy Whateversauce, and Merry Christmas too](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#happy-whateversauce)
  - [Enjoy the Christmas of Your Conquerors](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#end-the-christmas-of=your-conquerors)
  - [Political Non-affiliation](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#political-non-affiliation)
  - [Your life is a compulsion](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#your-life-is-a-compulsion)
  - [When advice becomes biological](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#when-advice-becomes-biological)
  - [Be the strange you want to see in the world!](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#be-the-strange-you-want-to-see-in-the-world)
  - [Your quote is contradicted by these other quotes..](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#quotes-contradicting-other-quotes)
  - [Your religion said to serve only one master](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-god-nation)
  - ["If me can't say't simple, me don't know't good."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#me-dont-knowt-good)
  - ["Good" doesn't fit naturally into my vocabulary](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-philosophy-is-good)
  - [How I appear today,](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#who-ive-been-yesterdays)
  - [Assumptions are superficial](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#not-superficial-enough)
  - [Allthetimeliness](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#all-the-timeliness)
  - [What do you need to be undermined?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-do-you-need-to-be-undermined)
  - [Needless voting for the needless](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#needless-voting-for-the-needless)
  - [Buy Whatever](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#buy-whatever)
  - [Wisdom in the Heap](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#wisdom-in-the-heap)
  - [The News is a Mess](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-news-is-a-mess)
  - [Give me time](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#give-me-time-ill-help-put-your-mind-at-ease)
  - [Unedited Beauty](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#unedited-beauty)
  - [The ThoughtStream has few expectations](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-ThoughtStream-has-few-expectations)
  - [We had few books](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#we-had-few-books)
  - [Ignorance has few details](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#ignorance-has-few-details)
  - [What's a Vegan?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#whats-a-vegan)
  - [Profundity is Unwanted](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#profundity-unwanted)
  - [Prophesy the Offended](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#prophesy-the-offended)
  - [Fathom the Unfathomable](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#fathoming-the-unfathomable)
  - [I will use more words](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-will-use-more-words)
  - [The Earth shall be inherited by the Earth](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-earth-will-be-inherited-by-the-earth)
  - [Man created the binary in god and then judged it in binary](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#god-said-it-was-binary)
  - [Wait for It](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#incomplete-artworks)
  - [Freethinking is My Religion](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#freethinking-is-my-religion)
  - [Share the Thoughts](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#share-your-thoughts)
  - [Utterances do Not Reveal Essences](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#utterances-do-not-reveal-essenses)
  - [You Wanted this Guy](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#you-wanted-this-guy)
  - [A Lesson in Creating Specific Sentences](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#a-lesson-in-creating-specific-sentences)
  - [Completion is Immanent](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#nearing-completion-government-waste)
  - [What if You Didn't Believe?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#what-if-you-didnt-believe)
  - [Creative Generativity as Coping](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#creative-generativity-is-coping)
  - [I See the Diagrams](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#i-see-the-diagrams)
  - [Somethingelsiness](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#something-elsiness)
  - [Punctuated Agilibria](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#punctuated-agilibria)
  - [Sawse of the Awesome](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sawse-of-the-awesome)
  - [Feelings are not valid inferences](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#feelings-are-not-valid-inferences)
  - [Spouses Who Vote Together](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#spouses-who-vote-together-betray-elections-together-and-are-also-fish)
  - [A few minutes in the life of a creative soul](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#a-few-minutes-in-the-life-of-a-creative-soul)
  - [Qualify it to death. Qualify it to life](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#there-is-no-end-to-the-qualification-the-logician-knows-the-difficulty-of-truth)
  - [The "philosopher" who only remembers is the historian-mnemologist](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-philosopher-who-only-remembers-is-a-historian)
  - [The editor god only edits](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-editor-god-only-edits)
  - [The roads to salvation terminate at the corpses of dead liars](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-road-to-salvation-is-through-the-dead-liar)
  - [Euphemize yourself mindless!](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#euphemize-yourself-mindless)
  - [Is your life the flux?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#is-your-life-the-flux)
  - [Freedom is in my art](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#freedom-is-in-my-art)
  - [Confirm the Mannequin](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#confirm-the-mannequin)
  - [There is no anger in my anger](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#there-is-no-anger-in-my-anger)
  - [Would you have thought? Is it possible for YOU?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#would-you-have-thought-is-it-possible-to-you)
  - [Witch Hunts Were Run by Unselfbeknownst Witches](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#witchunts-run-by-unselfbeknownst-withches)
  - [Mentors Waiting for Their Mentors](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#mentors-waiting-on-mentors)
  - [Citation Gossip Soup](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#citation-gossip-soup-there-are-no-citations-in-my-knowledge)
  - [Have the War Mind, yet be peaceful too](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#have-the-war-mind-and-yet-be-peaceful)
  - [Skepticism is Not Celebrating Foundational Knowledge Too Early](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#skepticism-is-not-celebrating-too-early)
  - [The Lady Who Cried "Ad Hominem"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#the-lady-who-cried-ad-hominem)
  - [Producing "One Small Step For Man"](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#producing-one-small-step-for-man)
  - [Genesis, the Revised Version](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#genesis-the-revised-version)
  - [Disagree to Agree](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#disagree-to-agree)
  - [Detecting Rigged Designs](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#detecting-rigged-designs)
  - [Americans Competing Secretly](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#americans-competing-secretly)
  - [Don't Have a Baby I Mean Have A Baby](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#dont-have-a-baby-i-mean-have-a-baby)
  - [Stuck on Proper Nouns](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#stuck-on-proper-nouns)
  - [Can you fanchild me?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#bizarre-social-media-can-you-fanchild-me)
  - [Diversify the goals](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#diversify-the-goals)
  - [Wisdom is in the details](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#wisdom-is-in-the-details)
  - ["Never go full architect."](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#never-go-full-architect)
  - [See the relationship!](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#see-the-relationship)
  - [Information asymmetry in relationships](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#information-asymmetry-in-relationships)
  - [Pile of Advice](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#pile-of-advice)

<!-- ThoughtStream posts -->

<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/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#communion-with-cactuses](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#cheap-camera-eyeballs-and-your-citizenship](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#doing-without-cell-phones-again](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#holidays-control-how-you-reflect-and-think-and-remember](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#911-remembrance-slighly-off-schedule](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#my-response-in-a-conversation-on-reverse-engineering-meaning-unicode-sensors-and-sensors](http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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?](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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](christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#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)
