Intech Concepts 8
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)
The process to defeat me... 3 April 2001
Consider all those in the past who thought their political battle was so important that they could not afford to lose it. At least half of them lost, and in most cases, all of them. Tough times, huh?
So maybe you can afford to totally lose one or more of your political battles, and the next generation will get along quite fine with the problems they create for themselves, sort of like your generation and what you consider to be problems.
So therefore you have identified a superlative opportunity to advance your knowledge so far beyond your opponent he will not catch up.
Select a political battle of yours, to intentionally lose, even your most cherished one, since there are many available to fight, not unlike all the ones already fought, and more being created while you are reading this.
But attempt to lose your battle in this manner. Go to your enemy. With all sincerity, all the knowledge you currently hold, and the best thinking you can create, tell your enemy the step-by-step process to actually defeat you, for his unequivocal victory. Tell him every related secret you ever thought you held. Reveal to him 100% of your resources and your process, and give him the entire list of your supporters and allies. Inform him that you will continue to oppose him with your best efforts, but that you will convey to him further knowledge if you learn any new process or data, so that he holds every advantage to defeat you.
Notice that no political organization leader can even comprehend the concept. Yet notice the brilliance of the process.
Next notice that you would grossly embarrass yourself with your dismal lack of knowledge, and that your opponent already knows precisely what process you are using all the time, with what resources, since that is all he is using, and you are both embarrassments to any genuine strategist. Notice that none of what you tell him is of any genuine use to him for anything other than his creating more problems for himself. Notice that you cannot even figure out how to defeat yourself, and won't know what to say to describe how he can defeat you.
As an aside for perspective, having been privy to routine executive sessions of what is termed one of the most powerful political organizations in Washington DC, among others, if its members sat in on a couple of those secret Board and committee meetings discussing secret strategy and resource information, they would quit en masse, totally embarrassed by the childishness, uselessness and abject ignorance of their self-glorified leaders who must hide much of what they say because it is valueless as their best reasoning, as well as a waste of organizational assets on those openly known idiot-drills defined as secret strategy. The controlling contradiction of secret meetings and secret strategy, a part of the puzzle, is discussed elsewhere. It is a primary source of organizations defeating themselves in any battle.
It is an aside to note that there are no intelligent strategists fighting any battles of any nature, by definition. If they are intelligent, they already won. Look closer and you will notice that intellectually absent strategists, often military and political chaps, won many battles by their opponent merely exercising more of their own intellectual absence, while the victors quickly praised themselves among equally gullible followers.
But now, having told your enemy every item of data your mind had available, and deriving nothing in return, for his advantage in the battle, how could you then win the battle with your best efforts? The suggestion was not to give-up, but to tell your opponent how he could defeat you.
Would you not have to think beyond where you previously thought, and beyond where your opponent can think with all the battle data available to him? Is that not where you would have to think anyway just to win the battle, and farther to sustain the victory? Would you think that far if you held no incentive? Is not incentive imperative to achieve a goal? On what lack of knowledge by your opponent would you rely if his easily discovering it would defeat you? What secret later revealed would not re-create the battle if the battle was won by something so paltry as a secret, and so flawed it must be held secret? Would you suggest to your followers that you could not think that far, and thus suggest that you rely on unthinking followers from whom you must keep secrets, and thus reveal that you are a leader of ignorant people, thus of no greater value, and thus easily defeated by a new opponent? Is it not easy to think, a process you can do in the comfort of anywhere? Is thinking not the accepted task of a leader? If the leader stopped thinking before he devised the victory, is he not a fool person reliant on following followers also not thinking.
Would you support a leader who could not carry out the task of thinking?
It is perspective to interject that the sustainable resolution to any contradiction, including victory in political or shooting battles with an opponent, can be achieved by reasoning alone. The victories of foolish people are achieved by their opponents defeating themselves despite the foolishness of the people they fight, rather than devised by their opponent, and are not sustainable.
For further perspective, pick any war, and remove 100% of the opposition to the attacker, leaving the attacker to be victorious to his greatest achievable extent. Consider what would have happened if no military were to have opposed Adolph Hitler. Do not be hasty in your conclusion, and you will enjoy great humor in recognizing the compounding, inherently self-defeating flaws of the original attack. Who defeated the Soviet Union, the British Empire and countless like them?
If you cannot out-reason your opponent, he has already won, and you are just squandering your mind on a fool's illusion. The human is predicated on its mind.
But now apply the concept to court judges, for its greater utility to you. Remember, this is the same concept as telling your opponent everything. Court judges are merely the least intelligent lawyers, if intelligence can be measured below zero. A pitiable lot. The court judge, as originally designed under the concept of written law, holds no power and thus has no power to lose. There is no possible threat to a court judge within its original concept. Only increasing public respect, to include that from every convicted criminal, is all she can earn if she were a genuine court judge. Except where only the action of the defendant is at question, the judge's conceptual job is to merely find the applicable written law that the two opposing lawyers or opposing entities were too incompetent to find in the law library. The judge is just a secretary or librarian, since we are under the rule of written law, not the rule of judges. And the easy job of flipping through the law books, shepardizing the related laws to find the applicable law, is easily described to anyone.
Since the judge makes no decision above or in contradiction to the written law, and the existence of the law represents the highest reasoning of humans (hold your laughter a moment), judges could even walk among prisoners in prison, also convicts who served their full sentence and were in the public, without fear, and the judges would be respected. So why do most judges carry guns, fear everyone, refuse to answer news media questions, and live inside an amusingly miniscule social cocoon stagnating their intellectual experiences that they laughably think is the whole world? What process created such an abyss in the contradicting results of being a court judge these days? The answer is definitive, but like the valid reason to write the above accurate statement about the law and high reasoning, ludicrous without its reasoning expressed, it is beyond the achievable scope of this section, lacking your definitive questions. But answer that question, and question each answer until you reach the question that goes in the opposite direction of your first answer. If you do, you will keep asking questions regardless of any words on a web site.
Therein, the judge would tell the accuser and defendant everything the judge was going to do in the process, in detail leaving no unanswered question, and do nothing beyond what he said. Therein the judge would answer every question of the defendant, to verify that no question was left unanswered, and then answer the unasked questions recognized from contradiction-resolutions of previous cases, as even a first day judge would have easily learned from common record. The judge would tell the defendant how to defeat anything the judge did that was not an action of the exact words of the prevailing law that the judge could show the defendant as binding every human in the realm, including that binding the judge to that duty.
Therein, at any contradiction created by the independent mind of the defendant, beyond the judge's best efforts to find the law resolving the contradiction, remember that phrase, and without recourse in the use of force against no force from a defendant peacefully introducing contradictions by use of words, the judge would be left with no possible tool of court process, and only the prevailing tool of the human mind, his reasoning challenged by the defendant's reasoning created under genuine incentive, and thus the advancement of their knowledge on public record to advance all people's knowledge for their subsequent decisions related to the issue at question in court. Again brevity herein precludes explaining the resolution of the above contradiction created by the nebulous efforts of the judge.
Because the genuine criminal, inherently a dullard, or he would have figured out a more pleasant way to enjoy life and earn a better wage, seeks to out-wit other humans, the criminal's reasoning is the definitive measure of the reasoning-ability of court judge's, as well as of police. If you can't out-think inherently dim-wit criminals in court, and if you rely on police guns for brains, you are a court judge. Because government personnel, including the government's judges, have been selected from the poor sad victims of power who genuinely and sincerely believe they can force their will on other humans, with the raw power of government edict backed by police guns, the controlling tool of human reasoning acquired two strikes against it upon representation by government. But that leaves you two strikes up on them for what you can herein learn of them.
It is an aside to mention that the reasoning process, the prevailing process of the human mind, is that which precludes innocent people from going to prison. That no US court judge comprehends the process, explains why about half the massive prison population in the US, is comprised of people who damaged no one. There is no sustainable reasoning for them to be crowding our expensive prisons, instead of out in society as the productive citizens they were. They are in prison only by the ignorance of court judges imposing inherently flawed power because they are clueless of the concept of reasoning and its definitive place in law. The victims are concurrently ignorant of the process to out-think the use of power, as is every lawyer.
Consider the highest representation of reasoning in government, that of court process designed as the arena where no expedient holds any weight over methodical reasoning process. Watch the judges. Simply take notes and write the series of manifested contradictions in nearly every court case, demonstrating that the judges are either embarrassingly ignorant, or holding the raw power of functionally secret laws up their sleeves. Because the latter creates a contradiction, one must be foolish to utilize it, which therein pretty much brackets every judge. They could not otherwise institutionally prevail for more than a couple years. Institutional dishonesty cannot exist among individual minds, without an institutional structure. There can be no grand conspiracy among all the judges to rule by personal edict above the law, and every judge support each other, and ignore the glaring threat to each judge's family, by rival judges inherent to every institution. Their mind is functioning on written laws, by institutional imperative, but just not laws you know about, otherwise openly published, verifiable and available to everyone. The judges function on contradicted laws, leaving the judges to use power defined by selecting which law will be referenced for a decision. Rather than resolve contradictions brought to court for resolving, judges so obviously compound them that every commonly intelligent observer of court process simply shakes their head over how society could produce such unwise people for judge jobs. Void of reasoning ability long not taught in any US law school, US lawyers, prosecutors and judges cannot formally function for more than two minutes without creating glaring contradictions to fundamental reasoning, more embarrassing than the illogical reasoning displayed by genuine criminals, dullards that they are. The impositions of those contradictions are dependent upon functionally secret, unrevealed laws, backed by the guns of unquestioning police, granting power to judges who inherently use flawlessly addicting power instead of tedious reasoning, destroying their mind's incentive to think, and creating the contradictions. Said laws are easily discovered utilizing intellectual technology, but that is not the issue of this section.
Again, the judges and prosecutors hold no logical or legal obligation to answer unasked questions, and therefore have an excuse, if one ignores the controlling obligation created by the source of their pay. Their self-starved minds therefore sincerely and intractably believe their formally entrenched excuses. It is only insight to mention that those contradictions are inherent to the use of power, and have thus been written into law to defend power above reasoning. But no contradiction can be eliminated by creating another contradiction. Only the judges fooled themselves, not any common-sense humans. The human mind cannot escape the process of logic, effectively reintroduced if you learn how, because the human mind is a logic device.
But notice what you can therefore learn. Never facing any challenge to their mind's reasoning ability, and now wholly dependent upon the excuses of functionally secret law backed by the guns of police, for nearly a century after law schools stopped teaching law, and teach only process, the institution of US court judges inherently sank their minds to the nadir of human intellectual ability, in the same cesspool with their colleague lawyers separated only by having not yet sufficiently contributed to a political party, for a judge job appointment.
Use it or lose it. A street person's mind makes more independent decisions requiring reasoning, in a day, than a court judge makes in a month. Repeatedly following an ego-driven script creating consistent contradictions in defiance of reasoning, the description of the use of power, judges trained their mind to routinely defy reasoning that common people recognize, within and beyond the court. The results are glaring to the public, and judges trained their mind to not recognize why they live in an openly ridiculed cocoon praised only inside the cocoon.
The human brain is hard-wired for the logic process, but the mind must learn what it utilizes for conscious decisions, and there is no yet known upper limit to that ability when simply practiced more effectively, since your mind is thinking anyway and you keep suggesting that contradictions should be resolved. However, there are describable limits at the lower end of learning, such as an inability to out-wit a dim-wit criminal, in court, created by dependence on functionally hidden law excuses backed by guns and prisons.
When you cannot even tell your opponent the law, that is, the rules of the game you are imposing on him, and therefore impose your will under power of police guns, you have sunk past the point of no intellectual return. Your reasoning ability is in full atrophy mode, and amusing entertainment to anyone who easily retained their reasoning ability.
No US court judge will learn from the above, for a reason discussed elsewhere. But you can learn, and utilize the knowledge. Tell your opponent what you know, all of it. Do not fear that he may therefore no longer be your opponent, and may assist your efforts, and what you may therefore learn.
Defense of the judge... 13 April 2001
Inherent to every system of power wielded above reasoning, the victims of power, those sorry chaps who wield it, routinely expose their contradictions.
Every contradiction must be, and can easily be resolved, if you wish to make a subsequently accurate decision.
Court judges have commonly displayed their ignorance of the law, routinely ascribed to court record. If it did not happen, there would be no reason for the appellate courts. The judges are only human, and holding power, they hold no genuine incentive to think. Because the validity of written law above the rule of personalities is dependent upon the flawless application of law, and because court judges are routinely too ignorant and too lazy to ascertain the accurately applicable law among the countless laws they sloppily apply with raw power, the judges have had to devise the defense for their actions, for fear of subsequent review. Rather than easily resolve the original contradiction by merely questioning their way to the resolution, they used their raw power to apply another contradiction to obscure the original contradiction, compounding the contradictions and resulting damages, as is the inherent result of utilizing power rather than reasoning. Of course they reserve the fabricated defense of their actions for their own exclusive use, not available to mere citizens, creating yet another contradiction as applied contradictions inherently do, by another amusing process entrenching the rule of personalities with judge jobs, above the rule of written law, among those too lazy to discover its controlling contradiction.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially if a person is wielding the law as a weapon to damage a person. But because US court judges, like lawyers, are trained to be ignorant and intellectually lazy, they created a formal excuse for themselves, and merely called it the law.
Therein, they have openly ascribed to court record, that it is impossible for judges, and thus lawyers and all other humans, to know all the laws, to the verified extent that the judges grant only themselves an excuse for routinely applying the wrong law, to convict harmless people whom the police, prosecutors or judges hold in contempt, for common and petty prejudices.
One must be astute to recognize key words and phrases herein, to understand the isolation of the contradiction, beyond the scope of this section. One can be astute by merely asking questions, writing them, and writing the answers, and questioning them.
Notice the controlling concept. No one, and therefore no citizens, can possibly know all the laws, formally acknowledged by the courts, on record, and verified by the actions of the judges, but the citizens are required to obey the laws.
The citizens cannot possibly know all the laws, but they are required to obey all the laws, and thus required to know all the laws.
Now, read that again for a very useful reason.
They cannot possibly know all the laws, but they are required to know all the laws to obey all the laws.
The people are required to obey what they cannot know.
The contradiction is absolute.
Now, what is your mind's reasoning ability?
Which prevails, the impossibility or the requirement?
Which is created by the design of the human mind, and which is created from the design?
Which can be changed by humans?
Why did the judges fabricate a law to excuse their ignorance of the law?
Can the rule of law exist above the rule of personalities if laws can be created to excuse the unlawful actions of those who create the laws?
Now therefore, since you have a tool of immutable knowledge in your answers, what is your next question to learn how to socially manifest the correction of that for which there is no equivocation within every human mind in the society, including court judges?
It is available.
You can easily learn all the laws applicable to all your actions, but no lawyer, judge, lawmaker or such titled sort can do so. You can answer the questions. They cannot. You can prove that with this section.
It is just a puzzle... 14 Apr 2001
It is just a puzzle of knowledge, albeit the most brilliantly designed puzzle available to the human mind. And any mind can learn it, by design. Absolute simplicity is its disguise, the best possible disguise for a logic device (brain) that began the quest for knowledge by asking the first question of simplicity.
If you are interested in solving human-caused problems, and you do not stop what you are doing to first learn each part of the related puzzle, you will not solve human-caused problems. Lacking even one part of the puzzle, you have nothing. You may still become wealthy, famous, important, respected by the equally confused, and many other such amusing illusions, but you will not solve human-caused problems without first learning each part of the puzzle then utilizing them to resolve each identified contradiction. You can easily acquire all manner and volumes of titles and institutional positions, become the institutionally recognized expert for even experts, become the leader of great nations and prestigious institutions, surround yourself with equally unquestioning news journalists and their cameramen, but your legacy therein will be the same problems you used as the rhetorical scam to weasel your way into your titles and positions, and you will be forgotten soon enough.
If what the previous government and institution leaders said was true, why do we have the same social problems they said they knew how to resolve if they acquired the power of their institutional titles and positions?
Consider an instructive example. What school teaches a person how to be president of the United States? There is none, for lack of knowledgeable instructors. If a previous president were to start such a school, based on his credentials, he would openly state that the school would teach what he did, as what not to do, by imperative of the social problems left in place by what he did, or he would be laughed out of the country by every common-sense person, albeit held in great esteem by equally ignorant people with prestigious titles and news journalist jobs. Now therefore note the only avenue for a new president to learn how to be the president. He would publicly ask the question, how can a person function as a genuine president, and answer the question, flawlessly, with a verifiable answer. He would create his own school for himself. Easily notice that no president has ever asked the question, for fear of the answer and the questions of that answer. Yet anyone else can ask the question, answer it, question the answers, and continue patiently doing so until one arrives at the answer for which every question has been asked and successfully answered. Would you want any less intellectually capable person leading your nation or organization? You will not acquire such a person for an organization leader, despite the ease and exponential efficiency of the process. You can identify the proof by simply asking the related questions. You are therefore on your own with the capability of your own mind, which is more useful to you than all the organization, institution and government leaders in the world who will inherently never use their mind to ask and answer effective questions. Use it.
The question would be slightly different if we discussed the Supreme Court judges of any nation. In the United States said judges are the least impressive of the human phenomenon, lawyers, self-inflicted victims of the most thoroughly contradicted concept humans can devise, who are then demonstrated to be mired in the phlegm at the bottom of that barrel by their being selected for their loyalty to political parties which have so thoroughly failed society that this nation, laughably called the land of the free, incarcerates more of its citizens in prison than any other nation. But while a president and such institution leaders function on the raw power of majority rule, and could not identify the concept of reasoning even if you handed them a dictionary, the supreme court judges commonly stumble into the concept of reasoning because they have not yet figured out a process to totally eliminate it from the language of law. Therein, with no supreme court judge schools to teach people how to be supreme court judges, how can a person learn how to perform as a genuine supreme court judge? The answer is evident to those knowledgeable of the concept of law. One engages in the process of reasoning, that is, asking and answering questions. However, no court judge, supreme, superior, or inferior, will ever ask the questions that can lead to the knowledge of how to be a genuine judge. It is only an aside to note that every law school teaches its students how to evade effective questions, thus teaching their mind to stagnate itself. But the judges bump around within the concept of reasoning because it is inseparable from the controlling form of law, the concept of which other institution leaders remain oblivious. Judges use law and what they call reasoning only as weapons to attack or defend others, and never use law or reasoning to learn how to be a genuine judge. Thus wielding weapons instead of reasoning, they leave themselves as useless to the advancement of society as do other institution leaders, and more ludicrous for the height of their ego-based pedestal. Pity them. They trained their mind to evade reasoning. But do not pity them for very long. Use your time to use your mind to easily advance far beyond them.
Carry a pen and paper, or your laptop or palm pilot. Ask yourself questions, any questions. Write them, and the answers. Practice questions and answers. Do that well, and you will eventually recognize all the parts of the simple puzzle. If you are too lazy, too busy, or not interested, suggest that intellectual exercise to your children. They can therein methodically learn what no titled person can ever learn, the knowledge sought by all people. And they will share with you what they learned, perhaps when you need it.
What government is... 15 Apr 2001
Government, like most other organizations, is nothing more than a group of common humans otherwise just like you and I, who have thoroughly fooled themselves into believing that they can successfully make decisions for other humans. They can read these words, and in defense their mind will formulate all manner of arrangements of words to dodge these words with rhetorical illusions commonly referenced as excuses. Common among those excuses is that someone will fill the government positions anyway, so it just as well be them, to defend themselves from their fear of other humans who might be so unthinking as to attempt to make decisions for other human adults. If someone is going to train themselves to be ignorant, what sort of person would do so for fear of someone else otherwise doing so? Did you answer the question? Go back and answer the question. Because of a concept discussed elsewhere, for the rest of their life their mind will genuinely believe the ludicrous concept that they, common humans who routinely make mistakes in their personal decisions, can successfully make decisions for all the variables constituting all other individual human minds functioning within an organized context such as a society or other organization.
Pity them, they have made their mind a prisoner of manifest ignorance, and cannot escape. They cannot advance their knowledge beyond the most ancient and original mental flaw, the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals. You may observe their actions, laugh robustly at the comedy of the damages they create, endure those damages, learn what to therefore never do, and advance your knowledge. Observe and question their actions in sufficient detail, and you can advance your knowledge to that of how to correct their every contradiction, if you wish.
There are many related descriptions, commonly using the words, ego and power. The craving to make decisions for other people, and to force those inherently flawed decisions on other people, is a concept common to the human mind. Every part of that part of the puzzle is identifiable. Its each contradiction is resolvable. The comedy of the contradiction in sum is superlative. But you can only recognize it, to enjoy the laughter, if you make yourself more knowledgeable, and not make yourself ignorant by convincing yourself that you can successfully make decisions for other diverse human minds utilizing data the extent of which you cannot possibly hold.
It is of course inherent that you cannot make a decision for another person without accepting the full responsibility for each inherent error, to include the errors inherently created by your decision impacting another human's diverse actions you could not possibly know to incorporate in the data for your decision. Of course no government or organization leader will ever accept the responsibility for the massive damages routinely caused by their embarrassing decisions applied to vastly more variables that the leaders can even conceive. The results of the contradictions surround you, and are that which unthinking sorts, whose ego drives them to government and organization leadership jobs, claim as the reason they are in their positions to correct. So why are the contradictions never resolved, and why do institution leaders flee questions such as this? There is a definitive answer that can prevail against all questions and promptly resolve the contradictions. Which would you rather hold, a government / organization leadership job, of the verifiable answer? Of what value is your mind, the value of the answers to all contradictions, or the value of a pocket full of dollars and an ego title? Upon answering that question, for what goal will you use your mind? Notice that government and organizational people will not answer the question, or any other substantive question, and thus make decisions without the related data, as is so obvious, much to your amusement.
Notice how many people sell the value of their mind so cheaply. Your option is to not do so, and instead continue to ask questions, the hard ones. And answer them. Write your answers. For what will you suggest that your children sell the value of their mind?
Now, imagine what would happen if a victim of government employment lost track of his ego just long enough for the thought of this section to enter his or her mind.
You can identify the results of such an imagination. Such a person might discover the knowledge creating the laughter sought by all people. It is worth more than all of the greatest government titles in the world. The prompt resolution of existing contradictions would be a paltry use of the knowledge, if there were incentive to do so.
The big question... 1 May 2001
You do not have to answer the big question that no one can yet answer. You need only answer a thousand little questions that everyone can answer, and keep track of the answers, and arrange them in the proper order, to thus construct the answer to the big question which is made of those particular thousand small questions. For that big question, no one has yet done that work, by definition, despite its ease. Can you build a house without working on many small, boring, tedious items? Of what concepts are all houses constructed? What is the value of the answer to a large question, and therefore what work must you apply? Can you build the house you prefer, without knowledge of diverse materials and techniques? After having arranged and answered the thousand little questions, you can prove the answer in sum, by manifesting it in the manner revealed by the questions you answered, such as the house. Yes, the identification of the small questions, and the order they are arranged is something you must learn by the same process of asking questions, just as the house builder learns to wire the house before finishing the walls, but it is that simple. Many millions of people all over the world easily learned how to build houses and larger buildings, despite their size and complexity. Large questions are only arrangements of small questions.
The identified actions of your opponent creates many of those small questions, useful in your construction. Upon constructing the answer to the large question, the verifiable answers to the small questions, often supporting your opponent's therein isolated reactions, defeat him each time he attempts a reaction without his having learned its relationship to the other answers. He will not have worked as hard as you, with as many questions, or he would have already defeated you or learned the accuracy of your position.
Your predecessors did not discover the process to resolve complex contradictions created by humans, simply because they lacked the patience to ask all the small, boring, tedious, non-ego feeding questions. Precisely what mental process results in the construction of poor quality houses, and precisely what mental process results in good quality houses? Why are complex social problems not yet resolved? Amusingly, for lack of patience, your predecessors consumed their entire life blaming everyone else for not complying with the wrong answer to the big question, when your predecessors could have learned the process to find the correct answer, in a week or so. More amusingly, the flaw in their otherwise right answer is often so small, a mere substitution of similar words would have promptly achieved their goal. They simply wanted the easy but therefore inherently inaccurate answer to the big question, quite like yourself and your institution leaders, rather than tediously answer the little questions, and properly arrange them to reveal and prove the correct answer in sum.
Why their mind did that to them is found in the answers to a separate set of tedious questions. Without that answer in sum, your mind will do the same thing to you, by its design. If, because you put question B in front of question A, for failure to question the proper order because you were distracted by the questions themselves, B therefore controls A, negating the actual utility of A, when in fact A controls B through Z, all your subsequent questions are of no utility. At each inherently existent, subsequent contradiction, you will reference the answer to B, compounding the resulting contradictions, creating your increasing frustrations, when the correct reference to A would resolve all the contradictions. One of the controlling questions is the order of the questions. It is half of that part of the puzzle. And it is learned the same way as the other parts, by asking questions and keeping track of them by writing them for later reference upon question of subsequent contradictions.
Notice how often house builders and everyone else tell people about the importance of the foundation. Precisely why are people still actively emphasizing what everyone should have easily learned? Is it not because there is a perpetual temptation to be hasty and thus careless with what is not in sight, by design of the human mind? What therein indicated parts of the puzzle comprise the foundation for the knowledge you are utilizing for goals or problems? Notice that you did not answer that question. What questions will you ask before you construct even the remainder of the foundation? Simply a week or so learning how to ask controlling questions can preclude the frustration of lifetimes still being foolishly endured by those around you.
Philosophy and knowledge... 2 May 2001
Consider the description of a concept, presented in detail.
In reaction to the description, one person calls the description, philosophy, and another person calls the same description, knowledge.
Same description. Two reference words.
Which of the two people would you hire to achieve any goal?
Which word would you use to reference the concepts herein?
You train your mind by the words you use.
It is not what any institution suggests... 3 May 2001
That the solution to every human-caused problem or contradiction exists, readily available for humans to effect, is inherent to humans having caused the problem.
The process to solve such complex problems is remarkably efficient, requiring only a few days to learn, and not much more time to effect the solutions, regardless of any opposition or the magnitude of the problem.
There is no shortcut to the knowledge, and no brief introduction that can identify it in your mind. If there were, your predecessors would have already discovered it, utilized it, taught it to you, and left you with no social use for it, for lack unresolved institutional problems. You would then use the knowledge to more efficiently resolve contradictions not caused by humans, such as those commonly referenced by the science chaps.
The knowledge is not identified by any common reference other than intellectual technology. It is not politics, law, power, organization, philosophy, psychology, money, education, religion, diplomacy, influence, negotiation or any other single concept. It is not a combination of a few such concepts.
It is the controlling concept of each concept for which you have a word to reference, in sum. It involves synthesis of otherwise common but diverse knowledge beyond what each institution's leaders think is involved with the problem or goal creating their institution. That sentence is worth reading again.
It is just knowledge. It cannot hurt you. But knowledge is more feared than any other concept known to humans. Those who institutionally purport to advance knowledge, hold the same fear, by design of the human mind, or they would have discovered the readily available knowledge to solve the problems of their frustration, negating the need for their institution.
Every problem is solved with more knowledge than is held by those who seek to solve it. They simply need more knowledge, not money, power, followers, laws, lawyers, organization, and such concepts. Knowledge is created by asking and answering questions, effective questions.
It can only be learned by those who are genuinely curious about new knowledge, with genuine incentive to solve any problem, an inordinately small number of people, and not those institutionally purporting to be solving said problems.
Between yourself, and any current institution leaders who sincerely believe they are solving or preaching the solution of what the test of time proves they are not solving and do not know the solution, who will invest the time to learn new knowledge for what the test of time proves can only be achieved by new knowledge? Well, is that you, or your institution leader? What do your institution leaders already prove?
Would you offer another minute of your time, or dollar of your money to any institution leader, including, of course, any government leader, who fails or refuses to learn new knowledge while the test of time proves that new knowledge is the only access to the solutions for problems?
It is just a biological process... 6 May 2001
It is just a biological process in the human brain. That's all it is.
You can learn it. Anyone can learn it.
It takes less than a couple weeks to learn. And it is worth more than all the college degrees, powerful titles, governments, their armies and horses combined.
It cannot possibly be a fault of the other guy. There are too many other guys in the world who suggest that you are at fault on too many of your issues, like your suggestion of them. In fact, there are many people who variously oppose all or nearly all of your espousals. Are you that thoroughly wrong, or are that many people all over the world wrong, you among them to everyone else? Which brain is correct for what, without flaw? Which conclusion is accurate for the existent data?
Both the issues and the persons are variables. Your reactions to countless espousals of countless other people are the same as theirs to yours, again identifying your issues and yourself as the variables to other people.
If it were the data, then any particular issue would verifiably define a superior intelligence, above those who do not do as that issue dictates. If it were some category of humans, a category of humans would verifiably define a superior intelligence, above those who do not do as that category says. When you find a group of people who agree with you on an issue, introduce each next issue and count the departures from your group. Add certain verified data you did not prior hold, and even you will depart the group. It cannot be the issues or the people. The proof therein is unequivocal.
It is therefore the human brain's biological process used to synthesize data.
The controlling concept is not the data.
The controlling concept is the mind's process for any data.
You can learn that process inherent to the design of the human brain.
And if you do, you may use the knowledge of that process to promptly resolve your every frustration, leaving your current goals too easily achieved, regardless of opposition because you would know the controlling process at play in their mind, and thus design your process to match their mind's perceptions.
The reason you will refuse to learn that process, the most valuable knowledge available to humans, otherwise easily learned by simply asking and answering questions, and instead live the rest of your life blaming the other guy and being frustrated by his inability or refusal to understand what you say he should learn, is categorically identified in the referenced process, much to the howling laughter of the observers.
Laugh yourself to tears over the unmatched humor. Besides all the other institution leaders who express such intense craving to achieve their institutionally heralded goals, even the neurology scientists who consistently scoff at the suggestion that any mere human without the great credentials of prestigious neurology scientists of superior intelligence, could have possibly discovered knowledge their institution has claimed at its exclusive turf. They cannot comprehend that it is just a biological process of the human brain, available for any mind to recognize, by design.
Ya'll may inquire now if you wish to learn that process. It is just knowledge, that for which the human brain was invented.
Who is your enemy... 7 May 2001
If you cannot distinguish your enemy from your friend, are you wise to engage in a battle?
Are you involved in any political battles?
Laugh robustly over the fact that the conservatives are so enraged by this example that they do not recognize in it that which can be used to defeat the liberals because they cannot verifiably identify their enemies and friends. Notice that the liberals are as equally confused.
Who is the enemy of Americans?
If I were to call or email those nasty Chinese communist government officials in Beijing, and inform them that I live in Fairbanks Alaska, and ask if they care if I were to smoke pot, carry a concealed gun without a permit, or walk on National Park Service public property, without a required Park Service permit; they would respond that they do not care because I damage no one with those actions and I live in a free country.
But if I asked those great American capitalist government officials in Washington DC, the same question; they would tell me that they would arrest and imprison me if I dared to do those things.
Who is the enemy of Americans?
From the above data, the answer is unequivocal.
Of course you recognize that the conservatives, their intellectually absent colleagues in government and their institutional ilk would immediately be sputtering and spewing all manner of words to illuminate the obvious contradictions introduced by the example which remains entirely valid for the finite set of data it presents. The US government chaps and their ilk would be incensed at the proof that they are the enemy of the American people, and that those nasty commies are not.
The reason the government and institutional chaps throughout the political and social spectrum cannot identify their enemies and friends, and therefore are amusingly ignorant chaps consistently defeating themselves in their perpetual majority-rule battles, much to the howling laughter of observers, is that their mind literally cannot answer any specific question by synthesizing the illuminated data. Their mind cannot analyze, arrange and learn a useful tool of knowledge, otherwise available to anyone who simply answers any question. Said new tool of knowledge could be used to therefore identify the next contradiction from the next item of data from among that sputtered and spewed by the aforementioned chaps, to therefore resolve that contradiction with what is therefore another tool of knowledge, and so forth, until a fully accountable conclusion methodically exhausts all the available data to therefore be sustainable against any use of lesser data, to include the data of how the conclusion is manifested.
The people who are consistently unable to achieve their goals or solve their problems, such as 100% of the government and other institutional chaps, simply do not know how to create the building blocks for the structure they are attempting to build. They pile data on top of data, without ever synthesizing or arranging it to discover those parts which contain flaws that automatically block access to the goal if the flaws are left in place.
Because the process to manifest a verifiably accurate conclusion inherently begins after said conclusion is verified, and is identified in the same manner, the poor chaps who cannot even identify their friends and enemies in any battle, never even get close to said process. Because they are incessantly attempting a majority rule concept of power, among X% of the people who are their unidentified enemies, the problem therein created for the observer is that of being able to breathe while uncontrollably laughing to tears.
To identify your friends and enemies, as a rudimentary exercise in the learning process, you must be able to ask the questions that disallow any successful deceit, by design. You train your mind by the words you use. If you evade asking and answering questions, you will never learn that level of the art which achieves your goals.
One reason the conservatives, liberals and their government ilk consistently evade and flee the above question of who constitutes the enemy of Americans, is that the resulting series of questions unequivocally proves that the only enemy of Americans as a nation, is the Washington DC government chaps. Fearing their inability to escape the initial proof, they fear the useful knowledge they would learn. They cannot comprehend that the Chinese government chaps are not any ally of the Americans, or the Chinese, but are the learning vehicle for the proof of the nature of the poor sad chaps in Washington DC, just as the same question comparing the Washington DC chaps with the Beijing chaps would prove the corollary to the Chinese people. They cannot even comprehend the meaning of the words in this paragraph.
The Washington DC chaps are not your enemy. You are your only enemy. The Washington DC chaps are the enemy of Americans as the entity represented by their chosen leaders. You represent yourself as an individual. Your leaders represent you as the institutional entity of which you are a part. You will claim the difference between yourself as an individual, and the American public. Therefore the two different entities hold two different enemies, if you have not yet learned how to defeat your only enemy. Until you learn that, your enemies are legion, and you will be fighting them your entire life.
It is too easy to learn how to actually defeat your enemy. It is only knowledge, that for which your mind was invented.
The designed ratio of waste to productivity... 8 May 2001
The following is a useful model. It is an aside to note that the use of intellectual technology can identify which conceptual models, or which parts of them, are at play.
Each human was born with an individual mind, as capable as each of the others, by design of the human brain, or some of those who by circumstance got a good education and good job, may yet discover they have an inferior design of brain.
In their own decisions for their own life, we recognize that any individual's particular decisions are successful X% of the time, and mistakes Y% of the time. Those are about 50% each.
Now what occurs when people with government jobs, inherently making mistakes Y% of the time like everyone else, force those mistakes on everyone else under process of law, regulation and other forms of force? Would you suggest that people with government jobs don't make mistakes? Why was the Vietnam war fought, and at what cost? Already enduring the Y% of your own mistakes, did you really want to forever endure 2Y% of mistakes?
With that indicator, consider that no person ever forces his decisions on himself, by definition. They are his decisions, arrived at by the logic process of his mind. No force can be involved. And the results are about 50-50, success and mistake. Force is not part of the design of the human mind. An analysis of the use of force, as a concept, identifies the use of force as flawed 100% of the time. The smallest flaw ultimately dooms everything for which it is utilized.
Therefore, consider the possibility that every use of any form of force, ultimately negates the value of the time of the person using the force. Further, the time of the person so forced is concurrently wasted for a concept that will ultimately collapse. Further, by design of the human mind, the forced person inherently retaliates by any form, against the force itself which may therefore affect anyone other than the person originating the force. The time spent retaliating is of no value to the advancement of that person or society. Further, the time of the persons dealing with the results of the retaliation is therefore a waste.
So for a complete cycle of the use of force, four times the original time wasted on the use of force, is wasted.
In contrast, when no force is used, about 50% of the resulting actions are productive for the human phenomenon.
Therein, after a 4 to 1 ratio of wasted time for any individual's use of force, with only a 50% chance of success without such mistakes, that constitutes an 8 to 1 ratio of waste to productivity when force is used instead of reasoning.
And yet the human phenomenon advances, albeit at a glacial pace.
That indicates the least of the potential in utilizing intellectual technology instead of force. The actual case is far more because the use of intellectual technology creates an exponential advancement of the resulting knowledge, for reasoning discussed elsewhere.
The amusing part, is that the model is accurate in concept, and an understatement in manifestation.
You see big things... 10 May 2001
You see proverbial big things, because they are shown to you, to impress you.
And you train your mind to see only them, because you strive to create proverbial big things to impress other people.
Within them are the obscure little flaws their designers left in place. The smallest flaw left in place will destroy the greatest of anything. If you learned those flaws, you could use the knowledge to defeat those attempting to impress you, often your opponents.
Notice that your institution leaders will consistently refuse to learn new knowledge. They are busy making more big things to impress people, or they would not be institution leaders. Nor can they comprehend the meaning of those obscure little flaws with which they saturate what they make. They literally cannot identify vast arenas of contradictions within systems, or even what a contradiction means.
If they were to read these words, those leaders would remain clueless. They trained their mind to sincerely believe that the details of their institutional process are not important. At reading those words, the leaders would object, and mention what their mind perceives as important details, which would leave any thinking person laughing at how a human brain designed to recognize infinitesimally small concepts, could train its process to block neural access to such vast arenas of obvious parts in a larger puzzle.
If you cannot possibly know all the volumes and volumes of laws you must obey and thus must know, as often stated in record of law, while those poor sad victims of government employment at every level are cranking out yet more laws every day, and concurrently imprisoning yet more people who violated many counts of layered laws despite their having damaged no one, precisely where is the controlling contradiction, and what could you do with that knowledge?
Your answer is in error, yet the verifiable answer is remarkably obvious only upon asking the series of questions to separate an intriguing detail of law. Not one lawyer, judge, lawmaker or think tank chap can identify the correct answer.
The phenomenon is created by dodging identifiable categories of seemingly unimportant questions, that inherently expand with the mental comfort of not having to think. The difficulty of relearning what years of institutionally induced ego-gratification has erased will simply not be overcome by an institution leader.
Suggest to a government lawyer, judge, police, lawmaker or such sorts, that any of them go before open public record and state the truth that you so easily recognize: "We must immediately stop making laws. There are too many for even government people to know. Thus we cannot demand that the citizens know them, and thus cannot demand obedience to that which cannot be known." Notice that the government chaps cannot recognize the controlling contradiction of even vast arenas of the most obvious details. No government sort will state the obvious, and tomorrow you will be required to abide by more laws you cannot possibly know, while more people are put in prison as only the most dramatic damage of the countless other damages of too many unknowable laws.
If you seek to resolve a contradiction, you are on your own, alone with your mind. Use it. No institution leader will ever resolve a contradiction for you. The proof is manifest. Every minute or dime spent on an institution leader is both a waste and the proof that your mind is of no greater value to you.
They have just not yet learned... 11 May 2001
Of your opponents, is it not true that they have just not yet learned?
Does your answer not identify whether your position is correct? If your position is not correct, is it not inherently doomed by design of the human mind's reaction to any contradiction?
Now therefore having ascertained that your position is correct, are you not left only with designing the most efficient process to educate your opponent? Does that and your currently ineffective efforts not mean that you need only educate yourself with new knowledge relating to the process of most efficiently educating your opponent?
Would you not be foolish to use any form of force that caused your opponent to ignore any issue-related knowledge and instead retaliate against the form of force?
Now therefore how would you find the source of new knowledge that you did not yet know? Do you not seek new knowledge by asking questions? Who is asking the questions that you do not answer, and the questions you did not think of asking?
Imagine reading the world news each day, readily identifying each contradiction, and each resolution achievable and sustainable with a non-forced based process, and laughing robustly at each item others find frustrating simply because they have not yet learned the process otherwise readily effecting their solutions.
Are these humans the best show on the rock, or what?
We agree, so the problem is solved... 7 Jun 2001
Consider a typical sort of political statement commonly used to defend a concept, routinely offered by unthinking people, such as many environmentalists for this example.
We can't have people just running around in our national wilderness areas doing whatever they want, because they will destroy the place.
Who is, we? And what is the controlling contradiction?
1,000 people can easily be assembled or contacted, who will therefore constitute a legitimate, we. More if you prefer. They can be non-environmentalists who object to the original statement, and say we can have people running around in the national wilderness areas doing whatever they want, and that they do not wish to do any harm while doing so, such as watching the wildlife and scenery, doing wholesome physical exercise, and such activities that clearly do not destroy the place. The original statement is therefore rendered without merit. It holds no more legitimacy than its displayed contradiction.
In contrast, 1,000 other people can as easily be assembled, constituting a legitimate, we, who will agree with the original statement that we can't have people running around in the national wilderness areas doing whatever they want.
But then they create a contradiction. Without the use of the word, we, or some equivalent, the position is void of merit, by definition. If one's words do not carry their meaning, the described concept holds no merit, and another set of words must be selected, inherently describing another concept with words that retain their meaning. Upon asking the second group of 1,000 people if they want to destroy the place, the we, quickly becomes, they, the other guy. Those 1,000 people will say that they do not wish to harm the wilderness, thus leaving their reasoning void of merit, but they routinely attempt to create merit by saying that other people will harm the wilderness.
But when one points to the 1,000 opponents of their position, legitimately identified as those other people by their being opponents of the position, one finds identical people who do not wish to harm the wilderness, thus again voiding the merit of the environmentalist's reasoning. If the people who will harm the wilderness are only a rhetorical illusion, the concept holds no merit.
The patient and reasoning person will assist the routinely unthinking environmentalist to find the words that describe his actual intent, such as find the specifically proven type person who will verifiably damage the wilderness with a specifically proven type action.
Two phenomena become evident. First, the environmentalist, having no patience or reasoning ability, will leave the discussion in anger before any reasoning person can start the process to identify the actual contradiction to thus identify the actual resolution. Environmentalists and such institutional minds, by definition of their association with their institution, have trained their mind to evade the reasoning process that preludes any need to be associated with an institution which creates the institutional substitute for individual reasoning. Second, if you were successful in such a discussion, you would identify a rational case to create laws prohibiting a certain very few human actions that actually damage wilderness resources, impartial to what individual names are attached to, we. Therein, concurrent with an understanding of what law is and how it works, knowledge known to very few people, and to no lawyers, police, judges, legislators or other government chaps, you could actually resolve each identified contradiction. But therein, you would eliminate the excuse for the existence of the environmentalist institution and its highly paid infrastructure of people who stagnated their otherwise vastly greater value, by perpetuating rather than resolving contradictions.
You are therefore left alone to identify the related reasoning process, without the convenience of a thinking opponent. Do so. You can therefore learn far more than your opponent, but only if you can question your conclusions as severely as a thinking opponent.
From the above you should therefore recognize that if you cannot resolve each line-item contradiction with a line-item resolution, using words that retain their original meaning, you will not solve any significant problems.
Resolving line-item contradictions with line-item resolutions is precisely what an aircraft engineer does, among other professions. The results in the aircraft industry are noticeable. Very small unresolved contradictions in aircraft design have routinely resulted in aircraft unexpectedly becoming groundcraft. Useful for your knowledge derived from this section is the detailed knowledge of how many decades of common aircraft design failures occurred before the aircraft institution belatedly produced consistently reliable aircraft with only rare design failures. The simple and accurate description of resolving line-item contradictions with line-item resolutions, to the full extent of the whole concept, with emphasis on, full extent, for just one concept, airplanes, required many people many decades to get reasonably close to a reasonable standard for the device.
Engineers, some of them as arrogant and institutionally flawed as lawyers, might scoff at the emphasis on the above description, and suggest that resolving each line-item contradiction with a line-item resolution, is nothing special, and is the common basis of design engineering. And they are correct. Yet besides their assigned task requiring so many decades and so many engineers for each sector of their institution, to achieve most of the original intent, simply watch an engineer attempt to solve common daily problems not involving a tangible design. They routinely make the same dumb mistakes as everyone else. They cannot achieve what they purportedly trained their mind to achieve, when the slightest variable, often not noticed because of ego among other considerations, is applied.
So what is therein identified in the design of the human mind?
Answer the question. Then use that answer as a line-item resolution to that line-item contradiction.
When you do so, you can move on to the next line-item. If you fail, usually for lack of patience, that line-item will continue to negate the value of 100% of your problem-solving efforts, by design.
Why do you think politicians and other government sorts throughout history never solve the problems they say they will solve because their predecessors failed to solve them? Do not answer with an answer that holds a contradiction in the inaccurate use of words. Answer with an answer that can prevail against every question of intensely thinking people. That answer exists and is available. It is inordinately valuable, if you learn the accurate use of words.
You can bolt the wing on an airplane onto the fuselage, with a temporary bolt good enough for take-off and smooth flight. Turbulence is another line-item, such as what your opponent will do when he sees that your first design seems to work. Ask the questions of your design, that you have not yet thought of. If you cannot find assistance in that regard, just ask a lot of questions, and you may therefore identify the aforementioned.
Training time... 25 June 2001
The total number of minutes per day, and days per year, that you talk and think about a particular arena of knowledge, will train your mind to advance your knowledge within that arena. You train your mind by the words you use, and the actions you exercise. Would you not be wise to choose that arena carefully, first asking more questions than you have asked so far?
You are of course amused by the teenage farm boy whose mind genuinely believes he knows about the city because he watches TV with all its city shows. He is still a teenager, without more years of life experience, and he is not within the city full of people talking and acting among actual city things. The same is of course true about the city boy who goes camping in the woods and thinks he knows about the woods. The same is true for the politician in government who thinks he knows about the people in society, or the, fill-in-the-blank, who genuinely believes he knows about, fill-in-the-blank. List an example for every concept that exists, and you will only have the data for one question of one concept in the puzzle, but imperative.
You will not derive the substance of this section because you are not within the subculture that discusses and lives the diversity of human experiences, every day for years, because the subculture does not exist, even among anthropologists and other institutions who genuinely think they know about human diversity from their institutionally rutted, rhetorical illusions of diversity. The substance of this section can be learned only from first learning other parts of the puzzle, but this section may indicate knowledge, that you need to learn parts of the other parts of the puzzle. Therein notice the nature of the knowledge that can resolve complex contradictions.
Now therefore consider the pitiable victims of government employment, as I once was, much to my amusement. Therein consider the same victims who consider themselves to be government officials, not mere employees, oblivious to meanings of the words they use. An official is an employee of the institution. What is the arena of their talk and actions for what portion of their days and years, compared to those outside government? Write your answer.
What can the government chaps conveniently do that you and I cannot so do?
Who pays every person in government, and what happens to those people who pay if they think the product is not worth the money and therefore refuse to pay?
If you put a gaggle of middle-men between your benevolent service to the people, and your source of money, such as the tax collector, his armed police, prosecutors, judges, jailers and lot, have you separated your so called service from the use of force which reveals your service as an imposition? What is the absolute demarcation between a service and the use of force? Can a flaw be hidden from sight to prevent its ultimate consequences? It requires only a few questions to identify the consistent illusion among government people who genuinely believe that because their middle-men seize the tax money, and the other officials write the laws and regulations, they do not use force for their benevolent services to the people. They are that void of reasoning ability. What is the ultimate product of any use of force? In contrast, what is your reaction to the reasoning you recognize to be completely valid?
Those answers illuminate only one part of the part of the puzzle herein discussed, and imperative for your knowledge if you wish to achieve any sustainable goal. What is the fundamental premise of government as it exists, rather than as government could function without that premise? What concept fundamentally enforces the law, greed and ego of government personnel? Is it not force? Is the force not that of guns in the hands of police and military, or batons and martial arts training in the hands of Japanese police, and such manifestations of force, concurrent with the so called authority to attack in the name of functionally unaccountable government rather than the reasoning of an accountable individual, concurrent with extreme threats of overwhelming force if you dare to defend yourself? What individual is accountable in relation to criminal law and practical process, for the actions of an individual? What individual is accountable in relation to criminal law and practical process, for the actions of government? What morass of middle-men can be used to practically dilute guilt so that process insulates individuals in government from accountability for their actions?
Consider that the minds of government personnel are predicated on the human design, the same as everyone else, void of any mechanism for force. The mind is a device designed for reasoning alone. Unlike many people outside government, why are government personnel completely incapable of comprehending a government functioning on reasoning rather than the force of guns, bombs, sticks and muscle? How much time do government personnel spend talking and acting within a concept wholly dependent upon the use of force and separated from functional accountability? What did they therefore train their mind to understand, and concurrently not understand for lack of additional time? What caused the teenage farm boy who watches TV to genuinely believe he understood what was represented by the TV illusions, and therefore what did he not learn for lack of additional time?
Where and how can a human mind genuinely learn the substance of the immutable concept that force is fundamentally flawed and can achieve no sustainable goal? Where and how can a human mind learn that its greatest achievable goals are wholly dependent upon reasoning alone, the controlling concept of the design of the human mind? Take the time to answer those questions. Can my mind force your mind to think and thus do as I decree, void of reasoning your mind recognizes above force, without your mind therefore devising the process that will ultimately defeat my mechanism of force, because my reasoning is inherently flawed because I needed to use force? Your easy answer?
How will you use your answer? Did you wish to create that which is sustainable, or that which defeats itself and illuminates your inability to think enough to solve the problems you create? With whom will you define your mind's ability by supporting them as a leader? Do they use force? Does the use of force create or solve problems? Can I force you to solve your problems the way I say will solve your problems? Does reasoning create or solve problems? On what is your mind predicated?
Now, what could you learn in what amount of time if you first learned more about the concept of time?
There is nothing you can do using the process of government personnel, like all criminals who seek to impose their will by force, that does not defeat itself and train your mind to be as ignorant as government personnel trained themselves to be. If, unlike government personnel, you have even the slightest inkling of the value of your mind, do whatever it takes to stay outside government and other power-based institutions, out in the real world of humans and the utility of the design of their mind, to thus advance your knowledge beyond the immutably fatal flaw of the use of force. Money, ego and social status are more effectively earned with the honest hard work of using your mind for reasoning, rather than any form of force, and even then of no value compared to what you will learn from practicing reasoning.
If you are in government, or any power-based institution (based on money, numbers of members or advocates, guns, votes, etcetera), get out. Your mind is worth infinitely more than its any possible use within a power-based institution.
Laugh robustly at the think-tank chaps and citizen organization leaders who try to garner numbers of people advocating their position, and cannot comprehend that the force acquired by numbers of followers does not constitute reasoning. They remain clueless of how to utilize reasoning, or they would not have joined an institution or organization. Reasoning stands on its own merits, and can expeditiously change the world, with the knowledge of how to utilize it. Reasoning does not need anything more than a single mind, and certainly no organizations led by ego-damaged children with high-sounding credentials.
But if you wish to undertake an ultimate challenge, to learn and exercise reasoning within government or a power-based institution, and thus become the most respected person in the realm and in history, you may inquire. Your childish and useless ego is the least of what you must surrender, just to inquire.
Start today, or your time will be spent training your mind within what continues to fail, as the test of time reveals. Is that not so?
Training process... 26 June 2001
The human mind is such by its circuitry design, that if you practice the manifestation of Concept A under the rhetorical disguise of Concept B, usually involving corollary disguises, the mind will manifest Concept A above Concept B or any of its corollaries no matter how desperately you then need Concept B when the rhetorical disguises fail a real-world test. The mind will literally not know how to create Concept B, regardless of the concept's otherwise simplicity. Your mind will do what you train it to do, and cannot do what you train it to not do, until you exercise the arduous and time-consuming training for the other task.
If you successfully tell the people that you are producing fine jewelry while you are actually just smoking cigars in the back room, you will not be able to produce fine jewelry when the people belatedly demand to see your fine jewelry.
For only one classic example, why do you think that the massive debt of all the government agencies in the US, vastly more than the government lies describe, exists after all the politicians incessantly referenced their fiscal responsibility? Well? What concept manifests itself in the real world after what other concept is consistently referenced in rhetoric? Why do you think that the "tax cuts" end up funneling more money to government, out of the pockets of the people who work to produce value in money?
The originators and followers of unquestioned rhetoric will focus on their mind's rhetorical fabrications, then manifest what they instead practiced to manifest, then be confused by the contradiction, then resort to more rhetorical fabrications to attempt to resolve the contradiction just as they did to create the original contradiction, therein and thereafter transitioning to the process of practicing rhetorical fabrications which can never again connect to a sustainable manifestation outside said unsustainable fabrications.
Like a computer, your mind does precisely what you train it to do, and it holds no mechanism to lie its way into new knowledge, just as it holds no mechanism to force another mind.
So what would you like to achieve? It is too easy, regardless of the opposition. You need only first learn the design of your mind, something your opposition will never take the time to learn, for an intriguing reason within the design of the human mind and the meaning of the word, opposition.
Dishonesty and Stupidity... 30 June 2001
Ignorance, is the lack of knowledge. Notice your mind's reaction against being referenced as ignorant, yet we are all overwhelmingly ignorant by definition of our obviously not knowing the vast bulk of knowledge available among even humans, yet alone available in the universe. There is just too much knowledge for any one person to know. Why is the medical doctor not also the auto mechanic, the computer programmer, and the geologist of a distant planet in another galaxy? Physically answer the question or your mind will not create that receptor site to build more useful knowledge offered below.
Notice that while common folk will readily acknowledge their ignorance of many things, chaps with ego-based titles, such as organization and political leaders, most noticeably react against suggestions of their ignorance. Their title created their mind's blockage of a data point recognition necessary for more useful knowledge. What occurs in the mind's process when the description, "react against", is expressed? The mind alters its perceptions to defend against words that describe a concept otherwise useful for analysis if not defended against.
Tell a cop that he does not know the law that he is enforcing, and watch what happens, yet a few questions reveal that cops are more ignorant of the law than the vast majority of society, most noticeably the laws they enforce. If cops were taught the law, they would promptly quit their job and get an honest job. The law needs no guns for enforcement. In fact the use of guns is mutually exclusive to enforcement of genuine law. Even fewer questions reveal that cops are legal geniuses compared to lawyers. Lawyers are the single most contradicted concept in human society. There is nothing more ignorant, and dishonest than lawyers, by verifiable definition sustainable against every lawyer's questions. What cop or lawyer will analyze those concepts rather than react against the reference to their own position, while each agree with the description of the other?
Now that you are therefore comfortable with being referenced as ignorant of knowledge another person purports to understand, and upon being referenced as ignorant, seek to learn the knowledge so that you will understand it and thus no longer be ignorant, we can discuss a far more useful concept dependent upon said understanding.
Stupidity is described in the dictionary, with a definition that leaves one asking, why. The writers of dictionaries are people just like everyone else. They define words with other words, and move on to the next word. Why is the stupid person, given to unintelligent decisions or acts, lacking intelligence or reason, of that condition? The answer is, he simply did not ask the questions that would extract him from his condition. His ignorance is identified as stupidity because he is at such a level of ignorance he simply does not know enough or care enough to ask questions to extract himself from his therefore inordinate ignorance.
Notice that titled persons rhetorically tap-dance away from questions that illuminate otherwise resolvable flaws or contradictions in their title and its institution. They simply do not answer the questions that are asked. They willfully perpetuate their ignorance identified by the questions they obviously prior failed to ask and answer. Ask any politician, bureaucrat, lawyer, judge, police or organization leader any effective questions of their institutional contradictions, and watch the 100% predictable reaction.
To verify stupidity over mere ignorance, identify persons with the obvious, self-recognized incentive to extract themselves from their ignorance, who defy their own incentive, to thus willfully remain ignorant of what they openly claim to need to know. That is stupidity. Would you not agree? They identify a direct and openly imperative need to learn an arena of knowledge obviously required for their actions, and they refuse to ask or answer the questions to learn that knowledge. Why do congressmen write laws that are overturned by the Supreme Court when they both take the same oath to uphold the same simple constitution written in plain English? Hold that recognition for a few paragraphs.
Why do they do that? The verifiable answer sustainable against all questions. Hold that question for a few paragraphs.
Notice that people react against being referenced as stupid, and thus they do not seek the verification and thus knowledge of the concept.
Dishonesty is also hastily defined by the dictionary chaps, but recognized as displaying a lack of truth, honesty or trustworthiness, a disposition to defraud or deceive. Therein is a person's willful act to state what is not true or fact, what does not exist as described. If it does not exist, what words can make it exist without something more than those words? The answer is, no words, since words merely describe phenomena more than just themselves, to include the word, word. Without the spoken, written, signed or imagined word, it does not exist. The adjectives, such as, written, verify its existence. The words describe what defines them, concepts that your mind recognizes. Their definitions are the tools of knowledge which can be used for a task, which they cannot achieve if not used for what they are defined to mean.
Dishonesty is verified by asking related questions that expose a contradiction that is willfully created. If a person says that the money is in the bank, one need only ask the bank manager to show you the money. If a person he says he will produce the goods, one can wait for the time the goods are due, or ask the questions to identify his ability and incentive to produce the goods. A dishonest person creates a contradiction that can be identified by further questioning. Hold that knowledge.
Since the results of dishonesty are ultimately exposed and the contradiction is untenable, why would a person be dishonest? Hold that question.
Notice that people react against being referenced as dishonest, and thus they do not seek the verification and thus knowledge of the concept.
For stupidity and dishonesty, one need only ask a series of questions to identify their existence in any particular regard. How long does it take to devise the questions to resolve any contradiction, and what is the value of that time?
For utility of the above, now notice that at their more fundamental level, stupidity and dishonesty represent the same concept with the same results. They merely identify the creation of a contradiction which must therefore ultimately be resolved. Would you not have to be stupid to be dishonest, since the results are ultimately untenable? Notice that the process to create contradictions is merely a phenomenon existent within the design of human minds. Remove the name of the involved person, and reference the process as an obviously existent, obviously verified design of the human mind capable of creating contradictions by failing to first ask enough questions that would usefully resolve the ultimate contradictions before they are manifested.
It is just a concept of knowledge for your useful analysis. It carries no reason to react against it. It is a design feature of the human mind, yours, mine and everyone else's.
Are you so superior to humans that your mind will think of all the questions to resolve every contradiction before you manifest it? No!
Are your actions which often create contradictions therefore identifiable to other persons as stupidity or dishonesty, depending upon their knowledge-base? Yes!
Can you set out to successfully ask every identifiable question to resolve any particular contradiction before it is manifested? Yes!
Precisely what knowledge would your mind need to achieve such a goal?
Therefore, after already having learned to not react against the other person's identification of your ignorance, you need not react against the other person's expressed identification of your stupidity or dishonesty. You may instead ask the questions that the other person used to identify your stupidity or dishonesty, to verify it and thus learn how to correct it, or discover the other person's missing questions to identify his related ignorance, to correct it. You can do that as a therefore wise person who therefore is not concerned with useless conclusions such as ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty, and instead concerned with the related reasoning, that is, the questions and answers, which can lead you to the sustainable correction of the identified contradictions. You will not be able to do that for the contradictions created by the other guy's mind until you can do that for every contradiction created by your own mind, and thus learn how to do that for the other guy regardless of his reactions creating contradictions you will then recognize how to resolve without his mind's escape.
I would suggest that I can't believe how stupid I was to believe what my idiot superiors told me while I worked for the government, and how dishonest I was to repeat those lies to my subordinates, neither of which could have been mere ignorance because I held the title and its benefits, and claimed the intelligence to know the difference, defining overt incentive to learn that of which I spoke, but I would be dishonest to suggest that disbelief. I can indeed believe how stupid, dishonest and ignorant we humans so commonly are, for our abject laziness to simply ask the questions our mind foolishly fears by its amusing design.
Ask the uncomfortable questions that resolve the contradictions that frustrate you. They will not be your first questions. And they are worth more than all the knowledge you currently hold. They are exponentially productive for your goals.
Professional journalism standards... 4 July 2001
Culture, as a word and the concept it represents, like other words and their concepts, is much the same as described by journalism in this section. Keep that in mind.
The poor sad self-confused chap on a radio talk show said that a referenced example of journalism was not up to professional journalism standards. He was criticizing a journalist for misrepresenting an issue.
It never occurred to the talk show chap to question the words he used. For the same reason found in your unresolved contradictions, he assumed that professional journalism standards are what the title implies they should be, rather than what the manifestation is, quite as people refer to cultures, creating a contradiction. Then the radio talk show chap could not figure out how to resolve the contradiction he created. He thought that the journalist should resolve the contradiction that only the talk show chap created. Can you resolve the contradictions I create in my mind, without first resolving the contradictions you create in your mind?
Consider that Jane Doe is a journalist. If she functioned as Jane Doe, she would be the individual mentioned in the following. But she functions as a journalist because she therefore acquires advantages over Jane Doe the individual, and she is completely oblivious to the cost of those advantages. Her mind cannot comprehend the concept of a cost in that regard. She considers being a journalist as an advantage, a benefit, and cannot comprehend any cost of that benefit.
A journalist holds the title of journalist. The title manifests certain related advantages, but therefore a flawlessly equal measure of disadvantages, by design, and no journalist can identify the disadvantages, or they would never have accepted or used the title that separated them from their original position, the original, unlimited reasoning-utility of the human mind without an attempted advantage that diverts attention and time from reasoning-utility, and costs the full value of the benefit.
If you need to start a fire, and know how to do so by rubbing two sticks together, then some one gives you matches, and you use them until you forget how to rub two sticks together, without ever asking the questions to learn how to make the matches, fill in the conclusion of this sentence, and use the knowledge. Did you want to retain the original reasoning-utility of the human mind's design, or did you want an artificial advantage that gave you a benefit without your learning the actual cost of the benefit? How many of you know how to actually make matches, or make the fuel in a bic lighter? Precisely what other controlling concepts do you not know, even about your arena of expertise, upon which you have become institutionally dependent? What do you think you know about law, or money, upon which you have made yourself dependent? Remember that question.
The institution of titled people, like the institution of journalism with its people who are titled, journalists, cannot allow its victims, that is, the people within the institution, to discover the controlling contradiction of the institution, or the people would abandon the institution because it inherently has no value above their original, individual reasoning ability, and it comes with great institutional costs, inherent to the institution's social advantages, acquired for that absence of genuine value. What value can you achieve above the value of your mind's reasoning-ability? Answer the question. The institutional mind cannot discover the questions that would identify the institution's controlling contradictions. This becomes most amusing for institutions seemingly predicated on asking questions, such as journalists, lawyers, think tank sorts, school teachers, etcetera.
What are the standards of professional journalism, as manifested? Simply examine the products of journalists. Consider news journalists as a classic form of the institution, but the other forms conform.
Journalists write about things and people. In the process they commonly talk to people to ask them questions to discover the material to write. Except for those identified as writing fiction, journalists incessantly and adamantly claim they write the truth, and believe what they say without questioning themselves.
Now notice the details. If an individual, as an individual, creates a news event about something, a journalist will ask that individual many questions, and often even denigrate him for being some mere individual doing something that is elsewhere done by the proper institutions of titled experts. But if an institutionally titled person creates a news event, the journalist will ask fewer questions, and quote more unquestioned statements of the titled person, because the journalist will assume conclusions implied by the title. Journalists are fooled by titles, far more consistently than are most individuals, in part because journalists hold a title that they use to train their mind to believe that they know more about journalism than any mere individual who is not a journalist by title. Journalists assume that titled people do not lie or err as much as untitled individuals. They do not question the contradiction between the line-item process of acquiring titles, and the assumptions implied by the titles, or they would question precisely how they got their own title and its void of advancing their original reasoning ability. If you question rather than agree with the title-granters, you will not receive the title, especially in institutions of so called learning, yet questioning is the process the human mind uses to learn.
A classic case of the phenomenon is found with government titles. Journalists will routinely quote as truth, without question, with the implied credibility of the journalist and his institution, the statements of government officials. The institution of journalists, which is the most powerful institution among humans, does not effectively question the institution of government, another powerful institution. Journalists automatically assume that if the individual got a government job, he cannot possibly lie or be incorrect in his statements. Of course journalists would vehemently object to that last sentence, but after they exhaust themselves objecting, look again at their product, and notice the identical comparison between what government liars and journalists say, and what they do, by proof of resulting record.
One of the many classic proofs of the case is to easily get the original, copy ready news releases issued by the myriad of government agencies whose so called spokespersons are previous professional journalists, now working for government, that is, now government propaganda artists. Do you question your boss, or do as he says, if you wish to keep your job? Do government bosses use their power of office to reveal their abuses and corruption, or hide them? Is there any power that does not corrupt? The professional copy ready government news releases contain the questions and answers, asked and answered by the government propaganda artist, approved by the boss, that the news wire services and network news companies then parrot verbatim with the implication that the news company journalists asked the questions in the government-written news article. Simply compare the original government news releases with the newspapers and network news. The network news companies in the US therefore acquire many millions of dollars worth of professional journalism, that is, professional lying, paid by the taxpayer. If you were a corporate executive, would you turn-down millions of dollars of free labor?
What was Adolph Hitler able to do to the German society with a news system wherein he controlled all the questions that he answered for public news? Read the question carefully, and answer the question that is asked. What would you be able to do with any public issue under your responsibility, if you controlled the questions of your related actions, presented to the public? If you were doing something subject to public question, what would be the nature of the questions you would create and present, versus what an independent mind would create and present? If a bank robber, caught at the door fleeing the bank with a bag of money, then being questioned in court, could create the only questions allowed to be asked in court, it would be child's play for him to prove that he had only innocently withdrawn his savings or had taken out a legitimate loan, and was merely in a hurry to do great public good with that money, thus guilty of no crime. Describe the substance of the concept of independent questioning.
As an aside, if you wished to learn new knowledge, would you not seek the most ruthless, independent questioning, and answer the questions, to identify any possible contradiction? Would you use new knowledge if it contained a contradiction? Would you get on an airplane if you were told that the designer left a flaw in place? Precisely how can a person effectively question their own mind to advance their knowledge beyond what their mind holds? There is an answer, but this paragraph is only an aside, as a data point for your consideration of this section.
What has the US Government been able to do to the American society with a news system wherein the government has effectively controlled, through the functionally joined institutions of journalism and government, about ninety six percent of the questions and answers parroted to the public through the network news journalists, as the daily filler news about government activities? Write a definitive answer to that question, so you will have a tool of knowledge you can then make more useful from the below data.
Oh, while the so called radical right, left, top, bottom and center organizations, who decry the network news and journalists, produce somewhat more valuable questions, they remain as clueless of how to ask effective questions, and because they are also journalists, do not question themselves. They are where the wiser person gets his daily news, if he reads the full spectrum rather than any sector of it, and asks the questions each such organization would flee. But the resulting knowledge of usefulness comes from the questions one asks themselves, not from what the organizations print and ask.
What are the professional standards of journalists, by verified, line-item description, as they exist within reality, versus what journalists have mouthed to fool other institutional minds? Answer the question, and thereafter train your mind to never refer to a concept as it is not, or you will train yourself to be ignorant and thus confused by your inability to resolve further contradictions, as is the case with journalists, government chaps and other institutional minds.
Now, recognize that the issue is not that of journalists. Journalists can parrot lies all day, as usual, and only be identifying the professional standards of journalism recognized by anyone able to ask basic grade school level questions. What is the affect upon you? Apply two other data points for just one example, again, just an example. What is money, and how does it work? You cannot accurately answer that question from your existing data base, especially if you are Alan Greenspan, despite your objection, but herein is an indicator. A foolish person borrows money, a costly action, for anything other than a definitive project that will make more money than the interest on the borrowed money, or for an emergency which cannot otherwise be survived. A money system cannot be sustained if borrowing exceeds those parameters, either as the borrower or lender, because foolish sorts cannot achieve sustainable goals. Are you foolish, and is your nation that of foolish people? Consider that the United States of America, as a nation, and therefore its citizens, are many trillions of dollars in debt beyond what the functionally unquestioned government sorts admit. That money must be paid back from the hard or boring work by the taxpayers, that which creates value in money, or the value of your money will evaporate as fast as it did with the German Mark after WWII, and you would be plunged into genuine misery, without escape. Much of your tax money right now goes to pay the interest on government debt. That interest is merely tribute paid to the historically astonishing lifestyles of the kings of the central banking system, the corporate federal reserve bank, and their extended families, who loaned you your own money (newly printed money) that was stolen from you by an act of Congress (via DemocanRepublicrats) adopted just after midnight the night before a Christmas recess, in a magnificent scam. Hard working people who must sacrifice basic needs of themselves and their family, including education which advances themselves and society, and thus not finding the otherwise available cure to the cancer in the offspring of the central banksters, etcetera, are paying tribute in the form of taxation for government debt service, to pay for the most decadent and wasteful lifestyles humans have created, among the central bankster families, as just the tip of the proverbial iceberg of greater detriments to society. When curious individuals routinely learn about the money system in the United States, they often become quite angry with government, and even hate their government with a seething passion, while wiser people laugh robustly. In all of human history, there has never been a more superlative theft of money, more than has ever been stolen. No nation of people has ever been so flawlessly proven as abjectly ignorant of what their money is and what it does, without defense in reasoning, as the United States of America, by the midnight-effected scam of lending them their own money for the lifestyle of federal reserve bank kings. The federal reserve banksters are to be inordinately admired for their brilliantly planned and executed fraud, which of course will inherently collapse at a disastrous cost to themselves, their families and everyone in the nation, which they would have never agreed to if the federal banksters did not represent a zenith of human ignorance. Remarkably ignorant folks can pull-off the greatest theft in human history, as the federal reserve banksters prove among the monumentally gullible Americans, but no human can sustain any contradiction. Did you want money, or knowledge? What did you want for your children, to verify your answer? On what is the human mind predicated? For how many worthless pieces of printed paper did the amusing federal reserve banksters trade the value of their mind, and that of their children?
The greatest frauds in human history, who will therefore have effected the greatest social misery in human history, will be universally recognized as the central bank families of the United States. There is no escape. They cannot repay the debt they incurred, and they are making it worse every day, by design of their pyramid scam. And they are becoming progressively more murderous in their doomed defense of their untenable scam. Every human-created contradiction inherently compounds itself until it collapses everything it created. The children of the US central banksters, and the RepublicratDemocans who danced to their strings, will hold their ancestors in as great of contempt as will the world. And observers will laugh robustly.
Therefore, notice the question that no American journalist has ever effectively asked any government official, and will never do so: Precisely what profit-making project or what dire emergency created and is perpetuating the massive borrowing and debt payments of the federal, state and local governments?
And that is an easy question compared to the questions a journalist would wisely ask of journalists.
That is only an example, and a minor one, but instructive. If you do not ask the right questions, you will not find the answers you seek. The previous sentence cannot be emphasized enough. You will forever be confused and be foolishly blaming everything on the other guy, thus with no hope of resolving the contradictions you identify, until your own mind discovers the correct questions.
Consider a favorite question of mine, that can cause you to be summarily jailed if you effectively ask it and are subsequently ever caught in a US National Park. If the profit-raking mountaineering guide concession permit holders in National Parks can hire whomever they wish for actual guides on the mountains, why can't the actual guides get those same permits so they can work for themselves instead of a government protected profit-raker? No journalist will effectively ask that or countless other questions that reveal United States Government officials and employees to be more corrupt, and thus more ignorant, than any other government has ever achieved, categorically verifiable against your every question.
The more valuable and useful questions relate to how to effectively ask questions, and those can only be illuminated with your mind's questions efficiently asked with a person who already learned the answers by asking the questions, or inefficiently asked through a large volume of questions you must actually ask and answer, writing the answers, questioning them, and keeping track of the answers not contradicting any other answer.
Use the words that describe reality if you wish to achieve a goal dependent upon reality, because you train your mind by the words you use. The professional standards of American journalists are in verifiable fact the zenith of ignorance of the skill of asking questions. The standard of professional journalism in the United States is identified as professional lying resulting from parroting unquestioned falsehoods as truth. Words in themselves cannot change manifestations. Either the words must be changed to describe the manifestations, or the manifestations much change to match the meanings of the words. One or the other. If you speak of journalists, think and speak of professional liars, that which they prove they are. To identify a contradiction created and unresolved by a professional journalist, is to identify the standards of professional journalism. To defy the concept, is to create a contradiction that blocks your mind's access to the resolution of the contradiction. It is only you who will confuse your mind with your creation of contradictions. Observers merely laugh. The person who creates no contradictions, can achieve whatever he wishes, if he holds incentive to do so. It is easy to create no contradictions, if you learn how to effectively question yourself.
Professional journalists could promptly manifest the standards they rhetorically prefer, simply by questioning the institution of journalism to identify and resolve each institutional contradiction. But that sentence causes observers to laugh robustly, because no journalist knows what questions to ask, or how to ask them, because they are the proverbial fire maker who was given the free matches he never learned how to make, a free benefit in a title for which he did not learn its contradiction, and thus forgot how to make fire by rubbing two sticks together. Journalists and cognitive scientists are clueless of how the human mind creates and retains knowledge, for a reason found within the design of the human mind, an arena of knowledge learned and retained among the observers who asked questions about their observations, and questioned their answers.
Of course any one journalist can resolve his institutional contradiction simply by divorcing himself from his institution at every identification of his work. He can state that he is a writer, but not a journalist because journalists are fundamentally dishonest. To prove his position, he can then ask: How can honest journalists exist while dishonest politicians continue to exist? It is only instructive to note that if enough writers so distinguished themselves to credibly claim personal integrity, journalists would recognize the incentive to question and resolve their institutional contradictions in sum, but that will not occur, by design of institutions.
Foolish sorts derive their knowledge from American journalists, and the zenith of those gullible chaps become journalists. This is not so because I say so, or even from the above words, but is so from the knowledge you can derive from effectively questioning journalists. Try questioning journalists about their institution, and watch how quickly they become incensed and flee the questioning if you discover an effective question.
Then ask a person to describe their culture. And laugh robustly. Odd lot these humans, but of inordinate entertainment, by design, wouldn't you agree?
End of Intech Concepts 8
IntechConcepts 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1