<pre><img class="ui huge center image transition visible" src="fundamental-problems-for-research-and-resolution-mattanaw-1-web.jpg"></pre>

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

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

# Fundamental Problems for Research and Resolution 

</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">Draft</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 © 2024 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 PlaynText, Inc, companies wholly owned by the author, Mattanaw, Mattanaw, (formerly "Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh").

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>

*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) (In Progress)
- Attorney, Pro Se, Litigation, Trial, Depositions, Contracts (E.g. State of Alaska v. Pugh, et. al., Alaska Superior and Supreme Courts)<sup>[4](notes.html#4)</sup>
- B.S. Psychology, University of Maryland, 4.0, Summa Cum Laude<sup>[1](notes.html#1)</sup>
- B.S. Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland, 3.91, Magna Cum Laude<sup>[2](notes.html#2)</sup>
- B.A. Philosophy, University of Maryland.<sup>[3](notes.html#3)</sup>
- G.E.D., State of Maryland, Montgomery County, 1999.
- Lifetime Member of the High Intelligence Community, [Mensa Lifetime Member](open-health-mattanaw.html#mensa-lifetime-membership)

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

CEO PlaynText | CEO PlainText

Contact:

- [cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu](mailto:cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu)
- [christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org](mailto:christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org)
- [mattanaw@mattanaw.org](mailto:mattanaw@mattanaw.org)

Resumé

- [Professional Resumé](resume.pdf)

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

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

- *584 Wanattomians, Sunday, March 8, 2026, Seaford, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia*
- *156 Wanattomians, Epoch 1735975679, Saturday, January 04, 2025 15:27:59, Perth, Australia*
- *Monday, July 25<sup>th</sup>, 2022, at 4:48 PM Alaska Time*

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

- [Edit History](#edit-history)
- [Author](#author)
- [Introduction](#introduction)
- [Fundamental Insolubles](#fundamental-insolubles)
- [Linguistic](#linguistic)
- [Philosophical-Scientific](#philosophical-scientific)
- [Relationship](#relationship)
- [Social](#social)

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

## Introduction

Recently I have considered that in a number of settings we do not have simple lists for working on tasks that would benefit many. For example, in government, there is no backlog of tasks that have been identified that should be prioritized for future politicians and leaders. The result of this lack of backlog and tasks, is that they don't know what to work on next, or can find things to do, unrelated to our needs. This helps them avoid work, because if we don't know what needs to be accomplished, they can get away with doing things unrelated that simply benefit them or allow them to avoid work.

Additionally, since there appears to be a lack of creativity about which problems are worth working on, many fields would benefit from having some pointers about where to spend time and attention. This is known in mathematics as a notable mathematician left a list of important unsolved problems that did end up being fruitful for the development of the field.

Below I have prepared various lists by category on problems that seem very important to be solved. These problems may indicate that other problems are illusory, meaning it may be that people are working on the wrong objectives and tasks. The first list prepared is on social issues which appear to need resolution. The very first social issue and problem being tackled here, is the need to have lists from which to work, rather than no lists at all.

## <a name="fundamental-insolubles">Fundamental Insolubles</a>

- *Fundamental Before*
  - To Expand
- *Fundamental After*
  - To Expand
- *Fundamental Outside*
  - To Expand
- *Fundamental Within*
  - To Expand

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

- *Operationaliztion of All Concepts, and Conceptual Validities To All Concepts*
  - This involves the redoing of regular language to account for operationalization of terms and making sure there are no linguistic illusions resulting from fake or poorly made, organically made, concepts.


## <a name="philosophical-scientific">Philosophical-Scientific</a>

- *One and the Many*
  - The problem of the one and the many is an ancient problem that has not been totally resolved to anyone's complete satisfaction. This problem concerns the nature of objects, their relations, and their parts, and interest in this question involves other questions such as "Is the universe a whole or is it merely composed of parts?", and "What does a name or word really represent that's real?". The second of these questions is related to this problem because there are ambiguities about whether larger composite objects are "things" that have unity and reality apart from the constituent parts, and this creates confusions related to language and naming. "Do I name the apparent larger composite thing, or do I simply name the parts? If I find it useful to name the larger thing, does it matter that the parts outlive it, and that it comes to an end? How do we account for the fact that it undergoes change, which are explained by the parts but changes the whole? Mathematically, do I assign a one to the whole, or do I focus on numbering the parts, modeling on the basis of the parts without regard for naming the whole? Notice that naming a whole does not model the whole, it just refers to it and is a pointer?" Here I am adding in my own instinctive understanding for related problems and questions and not only those that have been contributed historically by other philosophers. The problem of the one and the many affects almost everything that one can think about, because it involves fundamental mathematics and linguistics. If our understanding of this problem were altered at a popular level, culture would be dramatically changed, and how we speak would be different.
- *Is/Ought*
  - The is/ought problem was articulated by the Philosopher David Hume in his work "A Treatise of Human Nature", and concerns the issue of transitioning logically from facts to inferences about what shoudl or should not be. Hume has written that he holds the view that there is no way to transition logically from how things are, to what one should do. I do not happen to agree with him on this point, and have a resolution to offer that will appear eventually in the text [Inferring to Moral Conclusions](#inferring-to-moral-conclusions). In this text, it will be shown a process for analyzing how things are such that one can determine what one should do, in a way that is not definitive with great specificity about acts that are to be performed, but those that are preferable or optimal in various ways. I will not give away the answer to that here, where I am merely sharing the problem that many philosophers have not resolved. Hume has really identified a serious issue to be solved. If one looks at the current state of the world, people are quick to make claims about how one should act, what one should do, how things should be, how lives should be lived, and all these conclusions are supposed to inferred from various truths and facts, but one finds that people do not know in what way! This means they have no foundation for these concluslions, although some of the conclusions they would come up with, would include some good qualities. But they are not final, and they do not identify right acts! Only optional acts! An implication is that disagreement between people with radically different viewpoints cannot be settled, and since identification of what one ought to do is about what how one would proceed morally, it happens to mean that there is an unsolved indeterminacy, for all humankind, stretching back to the beginning of time, about what morality really recommends. Additionally, people hold that cultures are equal, which would imply that there is no way to determine which of any alternative recommendation from different cultures is the one that ought to be followed, which means that people are in a limbo of believing both that morality is definitive *and* that it is relative. That is a contradiction. This problem then is one that is a severe cultural affliction and it happens to tell us something somewhat negative about the state of the world that we live in today, and the state of the world of humans living since humans have come to exist.
- *Beginnings and Ends in Inanimate Nature*
  - Is it justifiable to say there has been a beginning and an end to something, when a celestial object stops rotating? Conservation of motion, and other conservations, indicate that there is a non-terminus, and this non-termination may cause us to think that the stopping of a rotation was not an end to anything so significant as we might think. This relates to the existence of the object too. If the object is absorbed into another object, or has been spewn from an object, in what sense has it begun, and ended, when it would simply be the end of a process potentially, involving that body that spewed it and later consumed it.
- *Object Existence Or Non-Existence*
  - Sometimes an aggregate mass will separate from another aggregate mass in space, due to conditions that create separation. Does this separation justify the thought that there are two new bodies? Like with cell division, if an inanimate body is cleaved, are there two? Suppose those two were never recombined, are they always until they are changed, two things? But then, was the first ever one? Because we simply have not had its history, to know that it has been earlier combined with another aggregate. This question would relate to the entire solar system, and galaxies too, since what each body is, is simply an aggregate cleaved from other aggregates, or aggregates formed from other smaller aggregates.

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

- *Naming of Relationships*
  - Philosophers since antiquity, and other thinkers, again have tried to define and redefine what concepts like "friendship", "family", "mother", "father, and so on mean and entail. I believe this work resolves this issue in a number of locations, pointing out that relationships are better described, and that relationship "types" as traditionally handed down don't exist as we received them, that they are failing tests of conceptual validity from the sciences, and that they seem to have the ulterior motive of conveying morality and etiquette. For example, the concept of a "father" is not well functioning, and cultures each think that there is a slightly different meaning, each inclusive of other assumptions about what morally the categories mean; however, obviously, in the sciences, and in philosophy and logic, what would be wanted is *what a father is*, and not what rules are embedded culturally and arbitrarily in a word. In one culture, a "father" might not exist, since the sexual encounter may only be thought to produce a "mother-child" interraction, but none at all from a father. Fatherhood then is, sexual contribution related, but the ethical and moral ideas from culture are not expecting a long term relationship, that would have any of the wide variety of possible prejudiced expressions post copulation. In another culture, "father" might mean something related to sex and genetic contribution, but after that, only a short period of support to a mother. Zoologically, these behaviors are used to describe animal populations and their sexual behaviors. The "father" of one kind of animal differs from a father of another kind of animal, and likewise in some animal species, it is common for a father to help the mother for a period, but in some the father then has no role. Human populations vary in this like animal populations and different animal species. Then finally, there is the "fatherhood" that is like a bondage to the child, in which the father owns the child forever. The concept of "father" was given as an example, but all the relationships have similar issues. This relates more fundamentally to the operationalization of all linguistic concepts, versus words and definitions as we have them.

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

- *Backlog for politicians.* This problem is of not having a clear set of items to work on in government. While there is much that is argued about, from topic to topic, there exists no list which indicates what work really needs to be done by a new leader, or by government, which can be openly examined and prioritized by the public.
- *Lawyer Presence vs. Non-Presence.* This issue relates to relationships with law enforcement. What would change in interactions with Law Enforcement if a very good lawyer or set of lawyers were always present for every interaction?
- *Ejection of Trespassers.* If someone is breaking into your home, or property, or is trespassing on your land, what actions may you legally take to eject them? What does 'ejection' mean and what are the legal consequences of various common acts of ejection? Is one in danger by ejecting a trespasser or someone breaking and entering, by simply ejecting them? It appears there is a serious issue unresolved in being able to repel dangerous or unwanted individuals from self, on one's property.

*Draft, more soon*
