The serious things, along with the goofy and foolish things.

All the noncommittal things.

Like a genuine brain would do.


Wednesday, September 19th 2018

Terms and Conditions Exclusively written, edited (when that happens), and maintained by Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh. All Rights Reserved.

Supporting My Work

Donations are greatly appreciated from anyone who enjoys this site.

Funds go towards site maintenance, and would greatly support my work on my upcoming book on ethics.

Click below to donate, or else scan the QR code to provide what you can.

A recent note added September 2nd, 2019, to my LinkedIn page, that might provide some clarity on what the ThoughtStream, and this larger website, is and is not about.


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

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

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

More here...

Friday, May 14th, 2021

Minimum structures extending into space.

What is the minimum amount of material required to build a structure that would be stable, going from the surface into space?

Suppose a requirement is that it must have a minimum life expectancy of 250 years.

Friday, May 14th, 2021

Direct to space transport

Shouldn’t it be a somewhat simple matter to build a large structure that could transport things directly to space?

I’m thinking of a tower, with many tunnels going from the surface directly into space. Maybe objects are thrusted into space using magnetics, like magnetic trains, but hurling things much faster than that.

What is the minimum amount of material that could achieve this with a stable result? (Just the shell first).

Imagine a minimal volcano going directly to space with the minimum amount of material (first). Imagine massive tubes that start horizontally, creating a place to gain speed, transitioning to vertical position, directly to space. Like the magnetic train in China, and proposed magnetic trains for underground transport via tubes. Huge objects can then be hurled directly into space.

Magnetic hurling directly into space at thousands of Kmph?

Monday, May 10th, 2021

“Clinched that debate barely thinking about it, did you?”

For those canned arguments that are mere recollections only, and don’t do what people purport they do.

Monday, May 10th, 2021

Posted yesterday on my FB blog page



Impermanent short thoughts.

Falsified and said more concisely–

nothing at all.

What is your twittertaph?

Monday, May 10th, 2021

More on Determinism.

Videos of robotic mastery of feats that usually are done somewhat poorly by humans supports my view that we are trending towards more clear evidence of predetermination. Here I’m imagining a video I saw recently, that included robots playing bowling and baseball. While we might have difficulty rolling strikes, or hitting a baseball in a certain direction, or hitting it at all if the pitcher is very talented, robots can do this with ease. It’s a scale issue, and for a long time I’ve found it to be obvious, but not easily explicable to others.

Consider, for example, that machines like these could roll dice and flip coins in a way that would reveal that physics is quite predictable, and that the randomness is the insertion of inconsistency and complexity.

There could be some disagreement on the fringes about predetermination in that even with precision, there is uncertainty, and variation. With complexity, more. I think there is a very close relationship between statistical trends, when they are onto something, and are in fact trends, and mathematically definite representations. Complexity appears to me to be the cause of the gap. Simple elegant solutions with a character of near definite finality, as with Newtonian mechanics, show how extremely predictable things are when elements are isolated sufficiently for exact mathematical modeling.

Where things are more complex, we rely on statistical methods. I’m not sure there is a fundamental cleave between statistical representations and exact models, although I don’t think there’s been a complete unification of physics regarding statistical methods and more precise mathematical models. This is related to some of the reading I’ve been doing lately on Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s relativity.

Thursday, May 5th, 2021

Swap your language with a small language.

Suppose you had to swap your current language or languages for another,

that you do not yet know well.

It is a small language with a small vocabulary.

All that is in your mind that is in your current language or languages will be removed.

Which would you choose?


What would you lose in your life?

Thursday, May 5th, 2021

Swap your language with a small language.

Suppose you had to swap your current language or languages for another,

that you do not yet know well.

It is a small language with a small vocabulary.

All that is in your mind that is in your current language or languages will be removed.

Which would you choose?


What would you lose in your life?

Monday, May 3rd, 2021

Abraham lived 900 plus years? And the biologist believes it.

You can’t even make anyone live 900 years by force or by


By what you believe and what you don’t, and what you only


Moon landing. You can’t go back, and show me Neil Armstrong’s footprint as he hopped


I’m going to look.

The moon is right there, and the footsteps stay put.

I’m going to look.

Abraham lived 900 years.

Prove that you can FORCE someone to live

900 years.

Or admit you can’t.

If you can’t then


Admit your science is garbage

Or admit no human lived that long.

130 years is the cap.

So you’re going to admit you can’t science,

or Abraham didn’t live that long,

or better yet,

There was no Abraham.

Pharoah is recorded, better than

ANYONE has ever been recorded.


Extracted from a permatomb.

Nobody permatombs these days.

They don’t have the


Or power.

So what exists in the above that matters additionally?

let us learn logic.

Abraham lived to 900,

and others still can,

or parts of BIOLOGY are debunked.

(hidden premises but that is satisfactory here).

The biologist can do their job, and stop being religious to fill it in.

Judaism is a story

overlaid on animals.

Christianity is a story

overlaid on animals.

(It’s a series).

i.e. Fill in the gaps,

You false mathematicians.

Weak in that you can’t apply it where

it applies.


In maturity modelling, hard stuff comes later,

and easier stuff first.

We went to the Moon.

The moon should be


So go to the moon,


I’m going to look through my telescope to confirm


Footsteps are where the videos show they were.

Because you landed on this side of the moon.


I’m good to learn.

I didn’t see his feet yet.

I didn’t see his footsteps yet.

So when I see them I will



When I meet the 900 year old man,


of the Christian-Judeo-Christian-Muslim

will be established.

In the second case,

I assume it is false. Because

BIOLOGISTS are JEWS and Christians.

AND they


When they are working or not.

Monday, May 3rd, 2021

Suppose you learn logic.

You are what happens when you don’t use it.

But you didn’t learn it.

I’m what happens if you learn in and use it.

But I’m an animal.

I wouldn’t have it at all, without

technology and culture.

Although I’m a determinist so to be more clear:

I could not be other than I am and therefore necessarily had it.

However, I was a baby.

Babies are loaded with information, from the surroundings.

You were loaded with misinformation and illogic and I’m

supposed to respect that?

Plus you didn’t look to be loaded with anything better.

You respect tradition and laziness, and

took the information that was forced on you.

Monday, May 3rd, 2021

Reconsider your baby. Reconsider your LIES.

If you choose to have a child, they will live the majority of their life without you.

Not only will they only be with you part-time as children, at the age of, say 20 years old,

they will depart from you and only see you on short occasions.

For a male, with an average life expectancy of 74 years old, this means 50/74ths of their life will be almost completely without you except for periodic contact.

Prior to that, they are also only with you part-time, since they need

Public Education

to receive their



This means you will create a kid, probably out of desire, and not any plans

Since parents

“learn along the way”

meaning, they will live out the same misery you did

for which you require


Most are unattractive and live out the misery of the unattractive.

Most are not all that intelligent and live out the miseries of the unintelligent,

Including the homeless and the handicapped,

And all those who depend on

Minimum Wage,

if you are fortunate enough to dodge starvation,

by living someplace lead by

Whites or Asians,

or Middle Easterners.

This is an incomplete statement but is not far off.

So to be clear.

You have kids without any justification given your own life.

You don’t spend much time with them in their lives.

You teach them to believe in Hell and that they need



Your religion claims that only a few will be spared.

All face oblivion but a few lucky.

Like those few who were lucky and who were attractive and smart,

Who lived good lives,

Unlike yourself.

Tell me again about your RELIGION

And your justification for creating life

that will be hard and will end with hell.

This is your story not mine, please


While making sense if you can.

You cannot and probably this communication has been terminated.

Because I don’t want any relationship with you.

As soon as you’re honest and truthful

life gets better and

You become truthful.

Wednesday, April 28th, 2021

Proactive, Retroactive, and Along the Way.

Do you do things along the way, or retroactively?

This is a more fundamental concern than you might think.

How should the law be changed given your selection?

Will you be prepared in court? Will your documents be ready in advance, or will you do them later?

Will you pretend documents you submitted were done when you did them, or beforehand?

Friday, April 23th, 2021


Sunday, April 18th, 2021

We are not “one”.

When someone says we are “one”, you can immediately assume they are a fool.

At most, we are a part of the earth.

But that does not mean that things on the earth,

are combined, or identical with each other.

We are not one.

It’s not confusing.

End dumb new-ageism.

Friday, April 16th, 2021

Your Equality Was Founded on Appearances

How does evolution happen with equality?

With any evolution

you have a local improvement

and there is no way to decide

who has or has not evolved

because you’re going by

appearances only.

And no one even looks the same.

When you realize that all our judgements of human sameness

were based on

appearances which vary


Pretended outward behaviors that

also vary.

Original PDF

Monday, March 22nd, 2021

Personal Identification, Naming, and Species Membership

[Proper names have been experimentally written in small caps. Some edits made from the original longhand for clarity.]

We have not come a long way in our methodology of naming our children, and ourselves, as is apparent in having a two name system with excessive repetition where there should be uniqueness, and no name at all where higher family names are required, which should be repetitive since they would be shared amongst very large numbers of people.

There is also an incredible inability to choose new and satisfying names that are unique, and instead, people such as myself have names that are shared with a huge number of other individuals, who, later in life, would prefer to have a special and more individualized name. It makes little sense to have many people in the same room, or in long term relationships, as friends, colleagues, or as acquaintances, with the same designations.

Two aspects of this immature naming convention interest me. The first is the need for systematic uniqueness that would enable improved social system functioning, and the second is the fact that taxonomies of our animal kingdom taken down to the individual level, to the biological signature of choice, which may be DNA, but is probably yet to be determined, would satisfy both the requirements for uniqueness of names and the goal of having a correct representation of the earth with respect to the animal kingdom, down to the individual people we simply refer to as human beings. Since clarity about Earth and its animal objects would be more clearly represented, we would also have clarity about the history of humans and animals, such that an ongoing confusion about divergences and our racial history would come into clearer view. One could not, knowing one’s name, not know ones lineage and relationship with history and position in the biosphere.

Two related issues exist. Firstly, our methods of consistently storing identity information between systems and institutions is in flux and they cannot be synchronized. As a former software architect I can see that this is and should be considered a computing problem, and therefore the solutions to naming can and should be solved using knowledge about mathematics and of computer science; however, since the objective is to represent the earth and not only represent and identify individuals, a second problem must be considered, or planned for, and that problem is this: our taxonomy is not going by our latin/greek tree of life, and even though improvements have since been made in taxonomy, they have not yet become popular such that laypeople could recall it effectively, and certainly have not yet become complete. What did it take to have a complete taxonomy/model of the earth’s animal kingdoms? Since we do not yet have, and may never have, complete knowledge of animal life on earth, and do not have a complete representation at present, and we cannot recover completely earth’s history, we can expect modifications to the system as we learn more.

This means that a permanent commitment to a new naming convention is not wanted or needed, but that we can make it both permanent in approach including any number of human individuals to a date, and a flexibility in design to plan periodic/required updates. Probably you can have a totally unique name that will not change, because you are the object that is not subdivided further. If we change this, and we might, it will mean quite a lot has changed in our views about ourselves, and probably I cannot even say “ourselves” honestly, and at that point this work may be less interesting. However, I do think solutions to problems in the future would still be extensions to this solution, and simply more mathematical and more accurate as to available information about the earth. Going above the individual name you would have that may never change, upper structure in the path name to the root which has the name earth, and other roots, such as our sun, and milky way, and universe, would be expanded as more information is gained and this expansion would correspond to increasing fidelity and resolution of our vision of the universe and its relevant parts.

At maximum fidelity the earth’s representation would be identical to, an exact partial description of the universe and its total history. A sliver, from the beginning of the universe down to the named individual.

In the near future you could even have the name “milky way” in your name if we don’t opt to choose another less figurative designation.

To be continued…

[Written in a single sitting in less than one hour by hand, with fountain pen.]

Original PDF

Original longhand also below.

Sunday, March 21th, 2021

Reality Probability or Reality Feel



It seems to me that Facebook and other media channels would benefit from allowing users to report their perceived reality or unreality of messages received, and instead of only relying upon their own fact checkers, because validation of information is important not only for improving news. More generally we want to understand detection of falsity in any way it presents in our information channels.

If we value education I think we will head in this direction.

I hope it is used to counter false messages in advertising too, and maybe the approach would help show what I’ve long noticed, that advertising is fundamentally at odds with education, the way we do it, and for some reason parents have been OK with the transition from rationality and stability provided by good public education to adulthood in lies and fabrication.

Original longhand below.

Friday, March 19th, 2021


Ever notice that psychologists went wild with “phobias” and “philias”?

I remember learning extra varieties, and not only those taught, in psychology class.

And it’s easy to make up more.

So here’s another invented philia.

You probably have it.


Friday, March 19th, 2021

Homo Sapiens Sapiens Mattanaw

When you realize your species name could end with your name.

Monday, March 15th, 2021

Low Probability Next Thought, or High Probability Next Thought.

Not too long ago I posted on our inability to know what next thought we would have, and the challenge of knowing what to do next, that also, is largely not within our control.

Another interesting topic involves the probabilities involved in your next thoughts and acts of speech.

Everything you think and say that consists of words is a finite list of words joined together. These sentences can be constructed of simplistic words, and simplistic vocabulary, with simple intent, and associations of thought, to the effect that they are quite easy to be predicted.

Some people are cliché people. Saying the same things as the next.

Some people are recollection people. People who hardly think of anything new throughout the day, and simply remember prior thoughts.

Then there are clever people who construct novel sentences regularly but of low complexity, short words size, plain combinations, short total sentence length, and sentence quantity. Intent and total association mighth be of low complexity too.

It is easy to see what type of measures and spectra would exist in relation to this. Some are quite predictable in their thoughts and change little from day to day, and say things that are nearly purely copies of their earlier thoughts or thoughts of other people, and maybe not too complex even in their recollections. In other words, they are easier to store and remember too.

Others, however, are more adept at generating novel sentences, that might not be recollections at all, and may be built from a history of generating longer more sophisticated sentences, with words of longer length, and intention of greater complexity.

This amounts to people who are producing less probable thoughts and language.

This is not restricted to language but is evident in language, and is largely measurable.

It has been stated that a book is simply one giant collection of one arrangement of symbols. If a computer were leveraged to create all combinations of symbols for a certain number of pages, then all books of that length or less would be written by that computer, although they would be hard to identify in the giant set of meaningless books also created. Books that are shorter, comprised of easier language, copied messages, and recollections, would be more easily predicted and reproduced by a computer system, that places emphasis on existing inforamtion including sentences already known, and simple words. But minds that produce works that are less predictable, would certainly have the traits of not using recollections as frequently, or copies of sentences, and phrases that are more usual, and therefore a computer system would have more trouble creating these works, particularly if they are using a weighted system placing emphasis on simpler words and simpler expressions.

One can consider the extent to which one would want to discourse with another kind person, by similarity in the spectra of production of language. We already value those who produce unexpected and meaningful sentences of greater length and vocabulary, than those who obviously have trouble producing thoughts in language of more repetitive and obvious or expected constructions.

A test of this is the fact that you would not enjoy speaking with a person you cuold predict easily from the very beginning meeting them, if they are being open and are expressign themselves the way they would when they are most generative and least predictable. These are people who would instantly bore us because they would fail to surprise us any longer, and therefore we would have fewer learning experiences in their presence. We enjoy spending time with others, however, who are sponteneously generative and are continuously surprising us as though they themselves are sources of new and unexpected information, and are like new experiences in the world on their own.

If someone, in advanced age, becomes more predictable than they were in youth, the same effect would result, in that people would become disinterested in their company, at a speed matching, perhaps, the speed that they become known.

Some people, from this, we can see, are more unknowable than others, because they continue to build, and create, with a level of sophistication that can be far more than others. Our enjoyment of their company may last as long as they are able to remain unknowable, and provide continuous stimulation, and interesting novelties, so long as what we are valuing is communication, and companionship, and not something more, like novelty of experience in the outside world. Although it is possible, to become more interesting in both domains, by expanding the sponteneity and novelty of activities in the world, while at the same time trying one’s best to remain creative and generative as far as one is capable of doing so with one’s mind.

[Finished without edits 5:58 pm, in 20 mins]

Thursday, March 11th, 2021

Turning parts of electronic devices off, and Computers containing numerous separate systems.

[Only minor edits.]

A major limitation on consumer and professional personal computer products is the inability to have more than one start to the computer.

At this point in time, computers have multiple processors, and storage and hardware is inexpensive enough, and small enough, to live on a watch or a phone. Being small and inexpensive, and easy to package, there is no reason to not consider including more of each into the shell of a laptop computer, that could presumably contain multiple phones.

Recently I began thinking more about related topics to this considering the advertised performance of the processors in phones and watches, and other devices, that provide no method for the end user to truly benefit from those additions.

Why would anyone want to have a computer with multiple sets of hardware? I can think of many reasons, but here are a few:

There are many other benefits, but have you ever wondered to yourself, what does this on/off button do, and why can I not turn on and off parts of a device, and not only the whole device?

[Only minor edits].

Sunday, March 7th, 2021

“My idea versus true idea.”

We should get better recognizing

“My idea people”

and should find people who can combine

“I have plenty of ideas”


“I care about true ideas”

When my ideas are incorrect, I adapt them to truth, because the most important thing to me is that my mind is true, and full of real knowledge.

And not urges to power my ideas into reality, whatever they are.

Sunday, March 7th, 2021

Allowed to hate.

For some reason people have come to the conclusion that “hate” is some especially heinous condition of complete lack of any positive emotion, wheras, I’m of the opinion hate is dislike. Sure, for someone it can become a more pervasive thing, and people can end up wanting others to be eliminated, but I think we’re better off allowing certain forms of hatred and frowning on others, so that at some point we can be more discerning, and then the paradox you have above would dissolve because we will be more accurate and detailed.

Sunday, March 7th, 2021

“Money Beginnings”

This year’s name for a startup should be “Money Beginning”. So to sound cool you just talk about how many money beginnings you have going, that you don’t.

So startups either have money beginnings or they don’t. Startups are just businesses being formed. It’s not all that interesting, but there is a pop culture desire to have other ways of saying you are doing businesses that you aren’t doing. But sometimes the attempt to generate interest is real, and to get a real start some funding is necessary. So let’s call it a Money Beginning until we learn that we don’t have anything until we have money to get it going.

Why did the nepotistic business you wanted to create with your friends fail to work. You had no money beginning.

Sunday, March 7th, 2021

Sharing what starts in your head, versus secrecy.

Is it better to solve problems no one can see, without first telling others there is a problem, or is it better to reveal there is a problem, maybe revealing your plans to solve it?

If you solve it and nobody knows why, you may have a cool or luke-warm reception, and low promotion. If you talk about the problem in a way showing you really understand the questions, you may intimate the solution.

We can think this type of thing through or we can rely on advice like:

“Complain with a solution.”


“Keep your plans and good ideas secret.”


“Marketing is necessary for sales success.”

[Unedited from mobile, iPhone 12Max, Kilo Club, Summerlin, Las Vegas, NV]

Sunday, March 7th, 2021

“You should see my little scabbies.”

I’m whispering that to myself and it instantly makes me feel good. You can try it too.

Thursday, March 4th, 2021

Equal to the Disabled

and the Self-evidence of Inequality.

I am allowed to exhibit the symptoms of anyone who has a condition/disability, such that as a result, I am again valued equal to them.

To give just one example. If someone has a parking space that’s very close to a building, because they have trouble walking, I too can have those symptoms of having trouble walking, and therefore, I restore equality, and there can be no discrimination. Thus I can use handicapped parking spaces, because I’m again equal to the handicapped.

The principle of equality is axiomatic in the United States of American from its inception. This means I’m equal to any person who has a disability, and means that I can express any symptoms a disabled person would have, if I choose to, without any loss of value as a person.

Accordingly there is no right to be heard. Because if I wish to be deaf, or attentionally disabled, or “listening disabled”, then I can fail to listen too, and just like any person with the disability, there is no obligation of “listening” to anyone.

This and other paradoxes result in our insistence of “equality morality”. False viewpoints can be shown to be false by a principle of reductio ad absurdum, which is directly related to the formation of paradoxes. The idea here is that we show that our commitments clash in ways that reveal there cannot be consistency. Equality morality was said to be “axiomatic” in our Declaration, but in fact, it results in obvious paradoxes, and is the opposite of an axiom.

It is fascinating, that the opposite appears to be true, that inequality is self-evident and axiomatic. For another example of this, scroll down and view the posting on “One-oneths People”.

Equality depends on having valuations prepared, that when compared, result in an identity in values. Our major issue is that we do not actually compare any values, and wherever we do, inequality is found, and not equality, when the precision is great enough. Inequality is so obvious an extensive when values are taken, that it is self-evident that equality is rare, an confined to comparisons where values are expected to be identical, as in the exchange of currency or comparison of atomic weights.

Additionally, there is no such thing as self-evidence, because for anything that is concluded, there must be something else that must be looked at. Nevertheless, for my purposes here, I use “self-evidence” to mean “obvious” and in that case, inequality is obvious.

Thursday, March 4th, 2021

You’re 1/1ths a Person.

According to the Declaration of Independence, it’s axiomatic (self-evident), that all two people are equal to each other. This means, that we have taken a valuation of all individuals, such that their total value, each taken, amounts to being 1/1th a person.

But it appears very readily, to almost anyone who “keeps it 100”, that keeping it 100 is not the norm, hence that most are not equal with respect to their honesty, and going by that measure, each person would be a fraction of 100, and not 100/100, or 1/1.

This means that we cannot us honesty in our valuation of other people. Because if another person’s keeping it 100 status was really keeping it 70, then they would be 70/100, which would surely bring that person’s valuation to be less than 1/1, also because everyone values honesty in their estimation ofother people. So should we conclude that there is a contradiction here (this is humorous and serious), that instead of 1/1, a person who is only somewhat honest sould have a reduced value, to something maybe only a little less than 1/1.

It is self-evident that people do not value each other equally, so it is confusing that we have committed to a perspective that all people are 1/1th people.

Failing to observe the 1/1th person rule results in a reduction of moral worth in our estimation, for failure to adhere to our perfect equality morality.

Consider that in our history some people were considered 2/5ths people. Now we believe them to be 1/1th people, but that anyone who considered them to be 2/5ths people, are worthy of being erased from history, since presumably, by their moral error, they themselves are reduced from 1/1th people, to

0/1 people.

Who are 0/1 people?

These are the “cancelled” people.

Thursday, March 4th, 2021

How Important is Listening?

[Aside: This was not my question, but my response below is mine]

Since you can be disabled, and totally deaf, I would say, it can have very little importance, depending. Enforcing listening, because of deafness, becomes a kind of social-insensitivity. If anyone were to claim that I had a limitation because I did not listen, I would claim I have as much rights as the deaf. Of course this is not intended to be a complete and thorough answer to the question from all perspectives, but if I can be deaf and listen to nothing, and we value the deaf, and they are “equal”, then I am equal to the deaf, and am valued as much as they are, when I listen and do not listen.

Notice that key premises in he above are axiomatic according the United States Government, from its inception and very first official document, its Declaration of Independence.

Thursday, March 4th, 2021

Homo Sapiens Sapiens

Wise name choice.

Extra redundant.

Mattanaw MattanawTM.

Homo Mattanaw MattanawTM.

“There can only be one”.

Thursday, March 4th, 2021,

First posted on Facebook on February 28th.

The relationship between knowledge and action

What is the relationship between the rate of knowledge accumulation and action? What is optimal when and why?

Thursday, March 4th, 2021,

First posted on Facebook on February 27th

Priveleges and Not Serving

[Only Minor Edits, Typed via Mobile]

With privileges you see that the purpose of life is not serving other people. Self-described degenerates (sin). It’s hard to say if any one of them is saying they believe it’s their purpose, or if they are saying it’s someone else’s. Judging by behavior, it’s nearly nobody’s purpose.

Personal betterment seems a better aim, and that way nobody can weasel their way out.

Furthermore, one need not believe one is a degenerate permanently. That is, you don’t need to be saved from anything.

The goal is partly to have others serve your interests so you can progress further. We call it job creation although it’s socially programmed to provide only modest advancement if any. Some are needed to never advance since merit is supposed to allow others to be better than others. If you never improve, you would never be better than yourself, and therefore anyone like your unchanged self should not advance. That would be “unfair” and so under this system that person remains in a more “highly extracted” state, for the benefit of the persons being served, including anyone above like managers, but most notably the owner.

I have no employees, but interestingly, since I’ve done well, some push to employ, to share, but if I’m to do that, following the model they have in mind, I would create a pyramid extracting value from everyone beneath, growing myself at their benefit and expense, skewed towards my benefit. I would build jobs, but they could never do what I do of course, so I would be in a role that would never be passed to another, and if so there would be one slot, for whoever I prejudicially select, to fulfill my legacy (since others believe in legacy).

From all of this it is clear that the privileged do not find their purpose in “serving others” or “serving the public” and that’s partly because others think they shouldn’t, including everyone who thinks they should hire to share. It’s not at all clear how else they should share, because others want to merit it.

Going further, others desire fame. Fame depends on the limited attention of people being aimed at a fewer number of individuals than exists. The ratio is maybe 100 thousand to 8 billion. The fame aspired to is fame of the United States, for the duration of the famous person’s life if possible, since all is wellest that ends wellest. The best stars die well and die while famous and their image is preserved. This amounts to few to no individuals in the entire earth’s population. This fame involves the requirement, then, that everyone on earth seeking the same fame is prevented from having attention. People consume entertainment, vote, and pay for this fame, which is fundamentally exclusive, and self-promoting, and therefore they promote self-interested advancement of the privileged, who are successful because they believe they serve themselves. In other words, the values match the expectations, which is a necessary condition for good marketing and success.

However, it is admitted, that one who includes the public interest in at least a modicum, creating a palpable benefit people can feel, there will be an even more popular opinion, and the additional attention created will be entertaining and pleasing, but it cannot seem so good as to cause boredom.

Thursday, March 4th, 2021,

First posted on Facebook on February 27th

Dead Totalitarianism and Your Leaders

There is totalitarianism

Then there is

Dead totalitarianism.

If we followed Mussolini, it would be 75 year old dead totalitarianism from historical text.

If we followed, someone from the Middle Ages, well, then it would be from then. Really dead.

But we chose 2000 year old dead. That’s very very dead and limited rulership. They can’t speak or even stay preserved in mummification.

Can we choose better leaders please? The first requirement should be, that existing rulers exist.

Thursday, March 4th, 2021,

First posted on Facebook on February 27th

Cycling vs Walking

Cycling vs Walking

Or wheels vs pendula

Imagine you are told you will receive 1 million USD if you can walk or cycle 2000 miles to a destination determined for you. You are told both are easily walkable or cycleable with very little effort. You can take as long as you want. The only catch is that you can never maintain the bicycle, but if you choose the bicycle, the bicycle must make it to the destination too, and you can never just walk.

There are no catches. When you find out about the destination, you realize it is easy. If you live in a location with different terrain, another starting point is provided that makes it easy. Everything else is assumed to be covered including all costs.

The only requirement is that your feet will do all the walking, or the bicycle will do all the driving.

Which do you choose?


What is the point of this? I’m reconsidering the bicycle as a worthy method of getting around over a combination of walking, public transportation, and driving/Uber, when the goal is to have a minimum number of possessions for ease of movement. The bicycle seems to hard to transport and to maintain.

Side topic:

There may be something more interesting about animals vs machines. Because no animals have wheels and nature has opted for pendula.

When do you choose one or the other and when?

Thursday, March 4th, 2021, *

First posted on Facebook on February 26th

The United States is Multicult

The United States is Multicult.

Not only multicultural.

Thursday, March 4th, 2021,

First posted on Facebook on February 26th

Math Professors and Mathing their Occupations

For all those math professors who never mathed their professions…

More to come on how to fix your jobs.

Thursday, March 4th, 2021,

First posted on Facebook on February 26th

Confirming mathematical answers in professors and math texts.

I enjoy problem solving but I have never enjoyed word problems in mathematical texts, or texts of other disciplines calling on mathematical thinking, because on arrival to the answer, even where the answer turns out correct, but especially when not, I have a feeling that I need to validate that the author’s answer was correct, swapping roles potentially creating errata without incentive, or interest from the often deaf author/instructor; and also to validate that the question was clear enough for a single problem interpretation matching the one generating the answer.

Too often, the question and the answer both were poor, and all I would think about is that, and how to do all of it better, rather than find the characters/symbols creating a psychological match to the unknown person’s mind.

A problem of instantly thinking better than every math instructor you ever had, and knowing that the interesting problem is this problem. Because if solved and socialized, nobody would have to deal with it and all mathematical instruction would be improved for everyone thereby (and therefore generate mathematicians and more math?).

[unedited from Mobile]

Thursday, March 4th, 2021,

First posted on Facebook on February 25th

Not Utilizing Rooms Per Capita for Social Distancing

How many rooms per capita are there in the US/Canada and what does that imply about how we could’ve social distanced at home?

It seems like you sacrificed your own family but not other families. (Interplay admitted, however).

Thursday, March 4th, 2021,

First posted on Facebook on February 25th

Covid Didn’t Affect Birth Rates Substantially

How should COVID affect birth rates if we are all rational about it?

Last year there were 3.75 million births.

Thursday, March 4th, 2021,

First posted on Facebook on February 19th

With enough content you may finally feel content.

A post about experience and maybe

Extending life.

Tuesday, February 16th, 2021

Autocurrect now exists

because errors are expected behavior.

Animal Cruelty via Reptiles

Sunday, February 14th, 2021

I didn’t think about it until today, but it appears reptile ownership is a loophole to commit acts of animal cruelty.

To illustrate, consider the odd case in which a guy was drowning cats in plastic bags and posting videos. Apparently he may have been forced to do this by a dangerous person (oddly enough), but until that was known he was considered especially heinous.

Now consider that the average reptile owner can feed anything they want to their pet. They can feed them chicks, hamsters, mice, guinea pigs, and cats if they wanted to. They could feed them anything as far as I know, and could watch while relishing the events again and again. Because, of course, the reptiles need regular feedings and not feedings in isolation.

So this can be far worse even than the guy who drowns baby cats.

What do you think about this odd loophole. Kill the cats by direct strangulation, or kill them by strangling and crushing them with a boa constrictor?

Or cage them in confinement with them unable to move, and slaughter them, and grind their babies like how we do with chickens? Because we need to eat again and again too, and not just once or twice.

Friday, February 5th, 2021

More on Interpersonal Differences in Individuals and in Aggregate and Elimination of Equality as the Justification of Social Justice.

Full Audio

[Originally posted on Facebook to clarify some statements on this topic for a FB friend]

[FB Friend Name Omitted], ok well I’ll send you the article too since a few sentences won’t really do it. But In the meantime, I would say all traits. Anything two characteristics two people can be measured on is cause to value one person over another with respect to that trait. In the market that’s what we do. If this is true for one trait, taken separately, it’s true when they are present in aggregate (entire races), and when combinations of traits are desirable.

For example, if you will film Black Panther, every white person on earth is of no value for the lead role. This means individuals are ruled out and the entire aggregate of all individuals with that trait, and in that situation they are offered no job and no money, and so are certainly devalued. If devalued then, they might be devalued for any situation in which that presents, meaning more pervasive devaluation occurs. When it comes to intelligence this is plainly true, because our entire labor force and education system selects for this trait.

I’m not sure what trait cannot be valued or devalued meaningfully depending on the contexts.

That’s how we hire. But, when a trait is irrelevant, we understand it is questionable to value differently, all else being equal (although all else is never equal either). What is annoying are bigots trying to justify plain irrelevant selection to satisfy some other desire. We identified some traits we really do not want people to consider for valuing in employment decisions, and we are all familiar with that short list now. Notice the list is short. This means it is legal to discriminate on any other trait. I go beyond this and think all irrelevant traits are irrelevant, but I have no way to enforce this. But all else is allowable discrimination on the basis of unequal traits that may not exist in entire populations. For example I would not hire you if you cannot speak English or cannot speak effectively. This rules out all of Asia from employment for the most part.

Really what I want to get to is a really subtle understanding of justice founded on respect for diversity, although even that requires considerable elaboration and I don’t even like stating it that way, but it shows how diversity can be valued greatly amidst extensive inequality, and I think it can support a more refined and satisfying social justice with the idea of equality largely removed. (equality may be an occasional litmus test of sorts for some systems, but would not be the driver).

I hope this gives you a better idea what I mean, and since I depart from the norm quite a lot of explanation and background is needed, and in the article I do a better job of this I think. I see this as a probably necessary progression because it clarifies everything whereas ideas about equality do not.

Tuesday, February 9th, 2021

“Did I stutter.”


As I continue to collect reasons supporting my position that editing serves an instrumental purpose with a colleciton of strategies that have not been spelled out, and must be sophisticated, and not simple and global, and the same for all modes/mediums, I am finding more and more support of my view, and not less.

The more educated reaction is not to immediately and summarily fault communications due to blemishes.

Consider the experience of speaking to an imbecile who claims to fail to understand a verbal communication, some might angrily say:

“Did I stutter?”

What does “Did I stutter” mean?

It means this: Why are you failing to understand something anyone could easily interpret, or are you pretending to not understand, or are you acting like you can’t understand because of some insignificant lack of clarity?

There is more to it even than this, which is interesting, but the main point is:

“Why can’t you understand this communication?”

This is an interesting example of taking the burden of editing off oneself, and one’s message creation, and placing the burden of correct interpretation, even through mistakes of speech, to the listener.

“Why do you fail to understand” could easily be transfered to the reader.

why can’t you see that this misspelling, or extra comma, is easily passed over by others, who are eager to understand.

Are you pretending to misunderstand, because of a typo?

Do you pretend to misunderstand, because of a typo?

Consider there is an art to defects as well (see below). This means I may provide communications with defects artfully, and volunteer errors, in writing, as in speech, not to diminish the meaning, but potentially to enhance it.

Thursday, February 4th, 2021

More on Equalization Bias

Full Audio

[The following is a comment I added to a Facebook friend’s thread, touching on bigotry]

I think if we go measure by measure of various traits that people have, then certainly we will find that those measures vary, and we will value those traits differentially, meaning that indeed, people are not equal to each other, and that is more of a bias than a reality… but… I think that also supports the idea that people are valuable differentially, and that it’s good to have diversity for that reason, over homogeneity. I’m not too sensitive about thinking someone is better than me in one way or another, and I’m fine being better than others in various ways too. Personally I think there is a cultural hangup on equality, where folks want to find equality where it does not exist, and want to hide interpersonal and cultural differences. I want to see the differences, and I want to be able to value them differently depending. After all, what amazement is there to be had about another culture, if they don’t have something especially valuable and different, by comparison with other things. We are trying to have good things that are different from other cultures, while simultaneously pretending that valuation is independent of these things. We are making comparisons, will continue to do so, and there isn’t anything wrong with it, as long as it is done correctly, and without other especially harmful forms of bias (valuing entire people on the basis of some insignificant trait, for example).

Wednesday, Januray 27th, 2021

The “Garbage-in, Garbage-out” problem and Richard Feynman

Full Audio

There is a major “Garbage-in Garbage out” problem. Even if you are very good at searching for information, you are at a loss, if you don’t have the keywords, and industry/domain specific pieces of information, in which to create good questions, that would prompt others, and machines, to give you right answers. So sometimes, I can google effectively, sometimes I cannot. I can ask anyone in the place of Google, but they oftentimes will have no answer either. Feynman seems to be a person who will save you all the time, and that is massively huge. He will take a question that is meaningless, or unanswerable to almost anyone. Determine what is needed to answer it, translate it, change it, even completely take it out of the picture as the wrong direction, which means “some questions are not good questions” which is what we always knew to be true. He then substitutes those questions with good ones, ones that lead to the most meaningful answers. That’s what I think I’m seeing happening here. An interesting question, is what would be a technical solution to the garbage-in garbage-out question. Given that Google cannot do this, and only select, highly impressive people can, I think Feynman is doing something, that not only nobody can do (or very few), technology is unable to do it as well, and it is honest!

Sunday, January 24st, 2021

More on the Art of Defects

[From a response to a comment received on the related article below, on Facebook. I thought this was worth sharing here as well. This is also unedited.]

In this part of my blog, the entire thread in it, not just the article, it is all considered a mandala of sorts, and part of the idea behind it is that editing is not always necessary or desirable, and that the mind itself is noncommittal, vacillating, and willing to abandon trains of thought for others, and much of what we do in publications is to cover this up, to give the impression that our thoughts themselves are more complete and defect free than they are, and we are embarrassed upon the discovery of small errors. Instead, we can, sometimes, be more like how we are in everyday conversation which has a similar character to our thoughts, in that we interrupt, adapt, vacillate, and err much of the conversation, but in the end we come together sometimes and even have emotional connection and mutual understanding through all the chaos of imperfection, and it’s kinda sad that we don’t use the same approach in written conversation.

Saturday, January 23rd, 2021

An Art of Defects

Full Audio

(This is mostly unedited. And there are reasons for that which I will write about soon to explain why. So expect an error or two).

I continue to write many postings on this ThoughtStream with unconcern for defects, occasional deliberate avoidance of editing, and a feeling of tension between a desire for sharing my mind as it thinks, through my fingers, and another desire, to share something without flaws. But there are always flaws, because even the language is flawed.

Today I was listening to a song that apparently had some deliberate defects. A section didn’t sound right, seemingly on purpose, to create a flaw, as a signature of sorts, or a message to the world “I’m in control of this and I can insert what I like.”

There is an artfulness to defects that goes overlooked. In some ways I have developed this art, but I know I have not summarized it. I think there’s much more to it than is appreciated.

A painting has a signature, that mars the painting itself, for the sake of including handwriting, with a pattern and color mismatching the rest. “I’ve done this.”

Other paintings, more abstract, may have all sorts of deliberate defects. Maybe a painting, nearly perfect, is destroyed as viewers are enjoying it, as I’ve heard was done. Maybe another painting, seemingly consistent, superimposes another painting, of another type, to provide some alternative meaning, or to create a kind of juxtaposition or tension.

There is no way to describe all the ways that “defects” may be added into paintings and other forms of art deliberately, to convey meaning, or to complete the art in a way, that at another level, a meta level, or a meta-meta level (or some other abstract “level”) may reveal is more consistent.

If I leave errors in this ThoughtStream, sometimes it is for a similar reason, although not always. Sometimes, leaving errors, is simply to provide an authentic datum. An edited work is an alteration. But there is another point, that revealing to the reader flaws reveals something about the writer "This is me, and I deliberately overlooked this, so you’d see error, and perhaps judge me for it. But I’m also hoping for that reader, who will notice, that I’ve shared my flaws, to provide more information about myself, rather than to cover it all up.

There is an art to defects. There is a mathematics to it. For myself, I admit it’s not completely explored territory, but it is somewhat contrary to editing, and that’s one reason why I include it here, to further explore the meaning of not editing, but instead sharing. And as I said before, spoken words are not edited, and we consistently overlook defects, to find meaning we are trying to provide each other.

[Written in less than 15 minutes]

Wednesday, January 20th, 2021

(This is mostly unedited. And there are reasons for that which I will write about soon to explain why. So expect an error or two).

Same religion for everyone in a society.

Another interesting issue with our inherited religions is that they are perceived as solutions for everyone in a particular community. Missionaries extend this view to the belief that the same religion is for everyone.

A question that came to mind, while I was young, was whether or not humans colonizing other planets would impose the same religion on other species and if they would send missionaries. I do not believe in this scenario, but I do think if there were sufficient similarity, humans would do the same that they already did between continents, even in scenarios where cultures were quite dissimilar.

The motivating idea for this post, however, was not the above considerations, although is certainly related; that is, that people of differing mental capacities and capabilities should find the same religion satisfactory or pleasing or applicable to their lives.

I have never found religion satisfying and several friends commented that it may not be for me (“too smart to accept”). Interestingly, some advocates of religion will say that some have to have a certain disposition or readiness to accept, making it seem that adherents themselves don’t believe their religion is for everyone, while at the same time, their leaders offer their religion as a single panacea for all or a large portion of human problems.

It seems more obvious to me that diversity of dispositions would be quite great and many simply would prefer alternatives.

That there are not more alternatives is a historical issue, and one of intolerance between people and nations.

I reject religion myself, although I characterize my own philosophy as my religion. It is not my expectation that I could formulate my point of view in a way that would be instrumental or palatable, satisfactory or understandable to all people. Rather, what I hope to achieve, is to provide a way of thinking that is based on factual information, that is truthful to such an extent that it is consistent with a permanent approach to moral thinking; but I do not think my writing would be palatable to everyone. Instead, I think a number of people with additional information, and actually the entire truthful literature of all civilizations should provide the support people need.

It is hard for a single collection of works, or a single work, to support everyone’s needs, which are quite diverse, apart from the diversity of their backgrounds and natural constitutions. Is should be much easier for the literature of the earth to satisfy all the other needs, given there is a way for people to find useful information, that is truthful, reliable, and more relatable to their experience.

[Written in less than 12 minutes with no edits]

Saturday, January 16th, 2020

Coping With Non-holism. A Start. Part I.

(This is completely unedited. And there are reasons for that which I will write about soon to explain why. So expect an error or two).

What would it take to conceive of and understand everything that exists? On reflection on our own experience, considering our fellow animal companions, and the tools and robots that combine them, exploring off-earth locations, and ourselves, we can see quickly that there is no singular tool or sensor we can rely on for complete information, on almost anything. When we want one piece of information about something, we might use our eyes, while another animal might use sound; using equipment, we might rely on a camera, or a thermometer. The starting point for understanding an object is having some way to gather information, and working up from very basic sensors and measuring devices, to computers, to computers combining devices, we find ourselves with ever increasing complex heterogeneous systems. And we must notice that we, too, are complex systems built of subsystems specialized on special tasks, and wherever that involves gathering information about the world using a specific approach, or reflecting using a related approach, we are talking about a component or module, or specialized system, or organ, that is not itself intended to understand the whole of any object whatsoever.

To my mind, at the moment, the only way I would be satisfied that I could completely understand any particular object, like a planet, say Earth, would be to be have a complete copy of that planet in my mind, or be able to conceive of the whole at once without any need to rotate, or change levels of fidelity; but maybe I wouldn’t be quite content with that, as I think about it now, not having the actual thing, relying on a mental simulation or representation, and so instead, I would want to have a copy of the exact thing, and an understanding of replication of the thing, testing the new thing for comparison against the original, and probably an understanding of all natural patterns that act on or influence that thing, which would be invisible to someone, who can say, see only an image of the accurate globe, but not how things behave completely.

These considerations exclude what is going on in the rest of the universe influencing the motion of the object, it’s location (where is it?), and so on and so forth, and so it is clear, that to understand the object entirely, one has to understand more about the system, and how much more is required is unclear. Is one finished when one completely understands the universes, or does one need to know the position of the universes relative to something else, or in the context of something else? It’s my view that still we would not know where we are, even if we understood where we are in relation to the rest of the universe, with seemingly complete information about the universe, if we have no understanding, or open questions about what else there might be. Instead, all we could do is content ourselves, with the seeming completeness and consistency within the system, if it existed in such a way that there is no peering out of it.

What it would mean to have complete knowledge is not the topic of this brief article however, although it is an important point to state “You will not have complete knowledge” in a way that is final, before moving on to how we might cope with that fact. I think this is a topic that can be put to rest.

Another related thought, which will make this clear, involves an idea I had, which I called “Mattanaw’s law”, mocking in part the need to append an egoistic name to each andevery singular discovery, which is hardly an honor, when one has thousands of ideas, for I would not want to be remembered for one idea only, although to be remembered for one idea, for a few hundred years, is better than to be deleted instantly on death, than a short while later.

Mattanaw’s law is simply this. Any unit of storage has to have a configuration that is greater in complexity, or has more potential information, than what it is actually storing. Using this law we can quickly see, that one could not ever acheive even basic self-understanding. The main point, is that one’s brain could not fully understand one’s brain,even in an isolated context not taking into consideration the remainder of the universe. More than this, one’s brain could not understand one’s brain AND the rest of the body, because of course, if the storage cannot completely represent itself, it cannot represent all else related that has nothing to do with the storage. And it may be that the total body includes more potential information than even the brain and mind, simply by the quanity of mass and complexity of the other organ systems.

So on two points it is impossible to have complete and holistic information about ourselves and the world around us, and I believe this is irrefutable, to the extent that we acan move on from this, and begin to discuss coping. It is clear that we all have the difficult issue to deal with of having multiple seemingly different identities, stemming from thinking in different contexts with different emotions, foci of conversation, and so on and so forth. Feeling drawn from one desire, one emotion, and one thought to the next, we never attain that feeling of complete synthesis that we really want that would bring it all together into complete clarity. Instead, it appears we have, and we are fortunate for it, occasional insights and experiences that do put some of the pieces together that we have moments of ecstatic understanding. Even these moments are incomplete, and are transitory, and an understanding of why precedes an approach for dealing with discomforts that result.

We covered why this is necessary, to an extent. I will continue on this point, and then move onto how we can deal with it in the next part.

[Written in 20 minutes with no edits. Started very close to 12:10 pm Hawaii time]

Wednesday, January 13th, 2020

Sawing Bicycles in Two

For a while I’ve been considering purchasing a bicycle that would fold for travel, but have been very annoyed at the price of the bicycles, the non-standard sizing of folding bikes, and the difficulty of purchasing and having them shipped.

Instead of buying a folding bike online, it is much easier, efficient, and inexpensive, to simply buy a bicycle at Target or Walmart, that is more standardized for less than $250.

At least then the bicycle appears similar to a normal bicycle and has parts that can be expected to match parts that are available elsewhere, for replacing tires and brakes and so forth.

But there is the limitation that these bicycles are not easy to transport. I’ve taken a bicycle on a plane, and I concluded it is not worthwhile.

So at this moment, I’m wondering:

"Why don’t I just saw a bike in two pieces and hinge it?


“Why don’t I drill holes in the frame, confirm that I can shove bolts through, and affix braces, and then cut it in half?”

Some might say this is a risky activity, but I think probably

it is easy and nearly risk free.

So I’m going to buy a bike and saw it in half.

Maybe I’ll even saw it into three chunks.

Want to see a bike in three chunks?

Monday, January 11th, 2020

Where would you expect to find a non-pattern?

Patterns of Patterns, and Expectations of Patterns.

Example: Kilauea

A recent interesting occurrence where I’m living is the eruption of Kilauea, the world’s largest active volcano. Below is a video showing the current growth of a pool of lava in a caldera, near a location where lava is spewing out like a fountainhead.

Watching these videos, you can see there are patterns emerging even with simple pooling and cooling of lava, near the surface.

What do you think about the pattern that patterns will emerge such as this?


In the sciences we are apt to notice patterns such as this and then attempt to represent the patterns abstractly with mathematics or statistical models.

If there are analogies between phenomena, then we will be inspired in research to apply what we find in one location to another, with or without some modification.

But what do you think about our expectation to find patterns, and where would you, if there is any place, expect to find a non-pattern?

Monday, January 11th, 2020

Which diversity to continue?

[Aside: This post includes responses to questions about an implied preference of light over darkness, and a point of view that assumes that love is desirable, above all other traits, versus other traits, that we certainly have but don’t think necessary or desirable all of the time. The below perspective assumes that diverse traits were required to get us into the position of dominance as a species that we are now in (not that dominance is desirable, but is speaks to the survivability of those traits), and what to do in the future given these traits. There is some missing conversation, and I am indebted to the promptings of other questioners/users in my group, who I cannot necessarily name here, for not enough familiarity.]

I’m not sure. It’s attractive to want to think “darkness” is more than a metaphor, and I see Ego as magnetic as well, perhaps more than affection. If we look at species like Chimpanzees, we can see that love is not magnetic, except in group subsets, and only temporarily. I think the same is true with humans, even among those who claim to place love at the highest.

I think Humans, true, exhibit different behavior than Chimpanzees, but I do think if we look at anthropology without bias, we would find that there are trends towards enjoying dominance, particularly of strong males. Strength and proof of acquisition seems to be very important to humans and it is important to Chimpanzees too. This is why we are likened to Chimpanzees versus Bonobos– animals that show different, more egalitarian, loving patterns. Yet loving/affectionate patterns exist in Chimpanzees too.

There could be some trajectory for preferring love/affection in evolution, but there is the issue of self-protection from competitors that causes issues, and in any event, the anthropology/zoology of our history should be employed to inductively infer what is next for us, even apart from any genetic analysis.

What is even more troubling for those who might prefer some particular religious viewpoints, over others, is that it may not ever be beneficial to prefer any particular trait over others, including love, if the consequence is deleterious, given certain conditions. So I don’t know is the answer, bec we need to support diversity in order to get all we need collectively. A better question might be “What should that diversity consist of, and can we remove any certain undesirable traits” and in that case, I think we have to support Eugenics again. And that actually is my position, that we need to eventualy plan our species.

Monday, January 11th, 2020

“Love versus Hatred” and other such excessively basic behavioral comparisons.

[Aside: A friend, Iakovos Koukas, respected in HighIQ Societies, posted concerning the preference for love versus egotism, and this was my response. My response in no way was intended to be excessively critical of his intent in his post, which was not supposed to be really detailed and analytical, yet I think it is worthwhile to share here, what I think is a common error about how we “choose” between dispositions and behaviors, in a way that is less scientific, and more received/traditional/inherited than we might think.]

Russell was asked what his final message might be on video, and in all his sophistication, and vast publications, still chose “Love is wise and hate is foolish” or something similar. I think your view is in keeping with his, and might be a sensible message to the world, knowing that the world cannot read the rest of Russell’s works.

But when one looks at it closely, I think the reality is much more complex than this dichotomy, which is based on linguistic analysis, and not psychological or zoological data gathering. The reality would be more elegant, and I think skewed towards the ego, since we have to convince ourselves of love, but we don’t have to convince ourselves, that acquisition is necessary, or that emulation of others who could achieve such acquisitions is desirable. But at the same time, I don’t accept the ego so much. It’s just old nomenclature for self-preference, and is directly at odds with “Your body is a temple,” and other ideas about beliefs of the paramount importance of the self, which I don’t agree with either– however, I think “My mind is a temple” is better as a heuristic than say “Forget your mind and treat the minds of others as temples.”

Saturday, January 2nd, 2020

Kilauea, Volcanoes, and Earth is Old and Just Nature.

Since Kilauea has erupted again, and I’m posting videos of the before state when I was there recently, I started wondering again about the explanations various religions give about aging of the earth, versus clear indicators that the earth is quite old, with accretions of growth of places like the entire state of Hawaii, which is known to be the result of highly separated, periodic, volcanic activities, that could not build islands except over hundreds of thousands and millions of years.

Sunday, December 27th, 2020

Quantifying Influence and “What to learn next”

Is anyone here aware of any tool that is able to measure the influence of a particular author or the work of an author on the total published documents available in a range of languages?

I recall hearing, not long ago, that a particular author was the most cited, but now I question that information, and think instead it was not based on actual data. Having no available method for surveying all textual information, and having no clear methodology for extracting references when they are not clear citations, or bibliography entries, I don’t think it is even possible currently.

If there isn’t a place to search for all available textual information, I question the ability of any tool to consume such information, and output a result about how often any author was referenced. Anyone who searches in Journals or Legal repositories knows that much information is sectioned off, for the purpose of ensuring profitability.

This question arose as I was wondering which play of Euripides to start my audiobook journey with. I purchased an iWatch and would like to be able to listen to audiobooks while doing all sorts of activities. The question came up though, which everyone faces, about what exactly to read. What is of interest and value? Already knowing I wanted to read Euripides, I still want to be able to determine the relative value of the work, without relying on hearsay, using some quantitative method.

I’m not certain how to separate popular works from works of high value, other than using my own judgement, after reading the documents.

Sunday, December 20th, 2020

“Amen” and other PUNCTUATION marks.

Don’t be confused. “Amen” is the


A poor “∴”

A poor “QED”


A “The end.”

A “You will agree.”

A “I’m in power and you are not.”

“It was said”, or

“it was written.”

Sunday, December 20th, 2020

Has a female ever clogged a toilet?

Tuesday, December 15th, 2020

The consequences of Dough-mastication.

What were the consequences of becoming dough-masticated? I’ve heard that wild animals, placed in a laboratory, soon become docile, and after not many generations, behave quite differently from their wild ancestral counterparts.

What were the consequences of human dough-mastication?

Sunday, December 6th, 2020

How patient are you with your censors?

Do you wait to speak?

Do you fail to say what you want?

One way to have freedom, is to have it.

Sunday, December 6th, 2020

Parental Perversion by Default. A Diatribe.

Baby Pictures.

Wipe your daughter’s butt, wipe your son’s penis, have sex with your husband, wipe your daughter’s vagina, clean it with care, have sex with your wife, pull back your son’s foreskin and swab, and stare at your baby’s eyes, then have sex with your husband, then take pictures, and take more pictures, unwanted pictures, save them on your phone, then on your desktop, you didn’t know security, look at the pornography, look at tinder, look at your wife, look at your daughter, aren’t they alike?

Give birth to the baby, claim it is painful, give birth to another, have it again, have the doctor take a video, get those first awkward photos, save them on the computer, on the phone, intermixed on the camera roll, backed up in the cloud, by your engineers at the software company. Can they see the pictures, you didn’t know security, your phone has baby pictures, and you published them.

Three daughters, two boys, lots of diapers, sex for more babies, I like babies. I like children.

Look at the teenage daughter, wipe the baby, watch your middle child act like mom, isn’t she like mom, sex with mom. Same day, minutes after, connected thoughts sights, eyes, private parts.

I wonder what my older son’s penis looks like now? Is it like daddy’s? How did he grow? Why can’t I have pictures like my, naked, baby pictures again. He doesn’t like his naked baby pictures. Where are those naked baby pictures?

Thoughts of family are near. Private time alone, pornography, my wife, my daughter, my other daughter, my other daughter, fresh in mind, saw nude, try to forget. What visual is appropriate when, by age?

Daughters, friends of daughters, sons, friends of sons, I like the friends. Can we see your friends? Can you have more good looking friends? I still think of your friends. Your friend on the football team—how much does he work out exactly?

Parental Perversion by Default.

[Aside: To be continued…]

Sunday, December 6th, 2020

What kind of rejection do you have?

concerning something that is completely false?

How detailed is your strategy,

about rejecting falsity.

How many times do you reject the same

obviously false ideas?

Tuesday, December 1st, 2020

“I don’t know what thoughts to have”

[Aside: A play on Eminem’s “I don’t know what words to use”, as used against his opponents.]

Thursday, November 26th, 2020

Earth chose another animal.

What other animal is a good candidate for being the best the Earth could produce?

This includes, potentially, future evolutions, including those a human might choose. (We could choose another animal to become the best earthly lineage, if we are truly altruistic).

Thursday, November 26th, 2020

You hid the handicapped

The mentally retarded,

and those too deficient,

to allow for unembarassing conversation.

Well, you were embarassed.

I’m embarassed by you, very likely.

Why have we not also hidden the stupid?

The ones who hid the retarded?

Because they are just too numerous.

But they ought to be hidden to some extent.

Their views and their votes,

are not helpful.

Why were you not hidden?

Thanksgiving, Thursday, November 26th, 2020

Inability to create meaning.

Collectively, our cultures seemed to have recognized their own


to create meaningful lives.

I deny the necessity of answering the question as to

life’s meaning

as misguided,

but I think

on a personal level,

my creativity has allowed me,

to arrive at my own answers,

superior to what the ancients have provided,

and since we have received little more than what the ancients have shared,

with respect to morality,

I have independently eclipsed even current

thought on life’s meaning.

Yet it cannot be expected,

that others would be capable of doing the same,

at least not until,

they admit they are not being creative!

You cannot create meaning and so you become

a Jew.

(Speaking to the Christians, and Jews, rejecting their solution, but not their humanity).

You cannot create meaning, and so you became,

an ancient Buddhist.

The formula applies,

for wherever you did not

have enough time

to create your own answers.

You cannot create meaning and so you

fall back on

what existed,

pretending it is adequate!

And then you give problems to the

new creators in the world!

The one’s who are right and accurate?!

Admit that you were even uncreative,

in your oppositions!

Thursday, November 26th, 2020

Omelettes are just egg tacos.

Today, I realized, after little reflection,

but only after many years, that


are glorified tacos.

Shells of egg,

with delicious ingredients inside.

Into the future, I will replace the egg coating-wrapper,

with other shells,

of Thai, or other Southeast-Asian inspired


Thursday, September 17th, 2020

“Skepticism” is not a strategy.

[Written in a free moment, edits may be forthcoming]

Skepticism, to be clear, has always been extremely important to me. Skepticism, which might be characterized as a willingness to question almost anything that one finds to have some defect, is a key concept within the field of philosophy, and its continual resistance against various forms of objectionable dogma. I consider myself a Philosopher before anything else, and one might say that Philosophy is my Religion, taking religion to have a meaning that does not require any superstition or afterlife. Since skepticism is a concept that is key to philosophy, and I’m by nature a problem finder and solver, it is very important to me, to have the freedom to question any point of view that seems to have errors, regardless of the popularity of related opinions.

Nearly every philosopher that is well known historically has been a skeptic to a degree, although the most famous exemplar is most definitely Socrates, as portrayed by Plato. Skepticism in Philosophy is a tradition is well over 2400 years old.

However, as of late, I’ve become opposed to terms that are thrown about as if they are, in themselves, strategies. Oftentimes, the meanings they are immediately associated with, their denotations/connotations, are mistaken for what might be considered as well-developed methodologies for dealing with various situations that we find ourselves in. I have to admit, I have the feeling that “Skepticism” has a certain vagueness, that leads me to admit, on close inspection, that there is no clear methodology represented by it. Earlier, I made the comment “What is the form of your strategy” which meant “I think your perspective is not well developed and is mostly mental.” Strategies, policies, and procedures, are only such, in my estimation, once they’ve been clearly explicated. Otherwise, we find people say they have strategies when they have none. Very notably, politicians will say this: i.e. “We have a plan…” When one inquires if one can read the plan, one finds that the plan is actually mental, in that it has not been recorded into a tangible format, and actually is quite vague. In my experience, whenever this is the case, one can expect a failure to record the strategy. Because strategies, policies, and procedures, are developed creatively, as they are recorded, and as edits and revisions are made iteratively.

For those who live in the software industry: Can you imagine if someone said they had a complex program in their head, but that they did not yet record it? Naturally, the software architect and engineer, and anyone else involved in software, would recognize that such a program would not be readily recorded without changes, and the usual case is, that it cannot be recorded, because it is vague, incomplete, or would not work.

I can assure you that there is no Philosopher that has a program of Skepticism ready to be written into code, or that they could even describe a complete Skeptical process or approach in a narrative format, in a way that is totally usable in real life, or would be agreed upon by other parties.

One might contend that the entirety of philosophy constitutes, to some extent, a method of skepticism, but I have to confess that I don’t think this is the case, as there is no clearly defined method of skepticism in Philosophy or class of methods that are well known, or agreed upon, by any Philosophers, and in my opinion, most take it to mean something rather obtuse, on close inspection “Question everything”.

Interestingly, this is at the base of Philosophy and Science, and yet it is not really as strategy. It is mostly a readiness to question.

However, I find the trends in Science to be somewhat opposed even to this inclination, even though it is supposed to lie at its root, in that people will try to enforce a supposed scientific authorities viewpoint on everyone, without exception, without listening to interesting or novel dissenting opinions.

A current example is the case of people who are questioning the current policy with respect to COVID-19, which in my estimation, is not a strategy, but a quick ad-hoc reaction to provide some “answer” that would be quickly adopted, without much change to how we were already living. In other words “social distancing” to me, is not a strategy, or is a strategy of the most minimal variety. An incipient strategy, or more precisely “A way to hide from working out a strategy”.

I’m afraid, this must necessarily apply to a massive number of other words that are really poses for strategies and approaches, that are either not well developed, purely mental, or not recorded in a way that anyone can agree upon, or point to it as a common reference.

Genuinely, I have now devalued even “skepticism” which lies at the core of philosophy, for its failure to be a strategy. It is simply propped up to be something more than it is. I will admit that I find it important to use my mind to question whatever I like, and that I will not limit myself and allow myself to be limited by others in what I’m allowed to think about, criticize, or solve. If I find problems in something cherished, that does not mean they are not still problems, because people find something valuable in it. But what I’m doing isn’t really skepticism in my opinion, and I’m not sure, precisely what Skepticism is, strategically.

Let’s put it this way. Many people may consider themselves Skeptics. But few of them have written anything down. For them, it is mental, and probably vague. Others have written it down, over time, throughout history, but none agree on what it is precisely, and none have limited the class of methods that might comprise Skepticism, more completely developed. And finally, Skepticism is probably mathematical, and probably could be developed as far as one would like, for a huge number of situations, perhaps with implications, that certain methods that are found to be desirable mathematically, are not actually skeptical, as originally conceived. I, for example, also reject “Open mindedness”, which is related to Skepticism, because some things are well understood, and it is better to move on, and gain more knowledge, by closing off such avenues of thought. This to my mind, defeats some views of Skepticism. Except they have not been defined as clear strategies…

An interesting problem I don’t think humanity has adequately considered is:

What exactly is a strategy, and what is a minimal strategy, versus a mature and well developed one?

When is a strategy “ready” for certain situations? When is it done?

After determining the above, what status can we say “Skepticism” has? I think at most, we can call it a proto strategy, meaning, it has some insight in mind, and some methodologies attached, but is vague and not clearly defined, however historically important it has become.

Strategies that have these characteristics, to my mind, are “non strategies”, because even the most thoughtless rememberer of the term can pretend to have a method, when all they have is a word with no clue how to use it. That is quite different, than being able to point out an extremely extensively recorded methodology that seems to have some validity with respect to optimization and applicability to real situations.

(Written in approximately 35 minutes)

Saturday, June 6th, 2020

"Woah, he's Scrumpty."

For around six months I've been referring to women I find attractive as "Scrumptys". They are "Scrumptyous".

The word comes from the English, "scrumptious" which is here pronounced "scrumptyous" and is purely about the deliciousness of other human beings. Not in a cannibalistic sense, but in the other sense of the word "delicious". Although "Scrumptious" still pertains to human flesh in a number of ways you are probably very familiar with.

You can make fun and humorous use of this regularly as you think to yourself about how attractive another life form seems to be. It does not need to be used only for human beings, although I constrain myself naturally in my application of the word. The more completely miscellaneoused may have other ways of applying the word, and I would not want to reduce their natural tendencies in any way.

Even better, to improve quality of life here upon the Earth's crust, we can refer even to those we are not attracted to, who remain attractive to us nevertheless, insofar as we are admirers of them. Let me explain.

You are a heterosexual man. You see another very attractive man at the gym. In this case, think to yourself: "Wow, he's a Scrumpty."

Similarly, if you are a heterosexual woman, and you spot a beautiful woman at the mall, you should think of her as a Scrumptyous human being too: "Jessica, check that one out. She's a Scrumpty like you!"

What is the purpose of such an activity?

You can begin to open yourself and everyone else to their true feelings about the attractiveness of others, in such a way that it reveals to everyone that everyone can find anyone else attractive. Even if that doesn't lead to additional levels of perceived sexual attractiveness, or additional arousal.

What does this do? It will make the cognitive aspects of attractiveness more clear. Thus homosexuals will come to seem like heterosexuals, and the overlaps between the two will become more apparent, and greater clarity will be established, about the cognitive levels of sexuality, that are quite separate from, physical gender and chromosomal and organ-related sexuality typing.

I've felt this way since I was a teenager about classification of human sexuality, but only now did I become so fortunate, as to coin the word Scrumpty.

So I'm going to start thinking of good looking Alaskan Men, here in my home towns of Wasilla and Anchorage, as "Scrumptys", and not only the women.

So if I look at you in public, just think to yourself:

"I wonder if Matt thinks I'm a Scrumpty?"

Thursday, May 21st, 2020

Celebrating 4 years in business for myself.

For those who might not know, I was a Software Architect for a while, and later a Consultant in Software Sales for big companies.

More recently I decided to use my expertise more generally, and try to find ways to gain customers who would benefit from my ingenuity, apart from anyone else's branding.

I'm celebrating my 4th year in business. Who would have thought? I'm building something for myself, and it's been long enough now that I can announce it with certainty, that it's been a success. I have my own brand and my own approach to offer. I have the required 3 years of financial reports, and more.

Not many know it takes about 3 years to really establish credibility in business, and now I have another year to add to that.

The longest job I ever had is my work for myself; longer than all the time I spent in High School.

High School felt long didn't it?

Maybe some have had jobs lasting longer than 4 years. But I didn't. I always felt the need to move on, to advance and so on. But now there isn't really any desire to advance, at least not in the same way.

There was some "feast and famine", but mostly feast fortunately! I'm lucky to have amazing customers, especially during Coronavirus and I recognize that. While others were and are facing some adversity, I somehow made a turn around and obtained new business.

Last year was tough for me. So it isn't totally uncalled for to have a reversal of circumstances at this time. Circumstances are good. I'm forced to be at home like everyone else, and forced to focus, rather than spend time out and about.

I wonder how many people are happy to be redirected to focus attention to home life.

"I used to shop, and work at the office, and ignore my family and personal well-being..." and so forth.

I rarely celebrate anything and was thinking at least I should celebrate having a successful operation. 4 years as of May 16th!


I even find myself wondering if this is my last job.

Saturday, May 2nd, 2020

Stuttering, sweaty, awkward, hard, uncomfortable truth and honesty.

That's what I want.

Not this new sham authenticity thing.

I don't want to see a TedEx from someone with perfect makeup, and composure, saying nothing.

"I'm authentic."

I want a leader, spilling his or her or its guts.

[Aside: you can call me "it" and I'm good with that].

Not with fake stories, which happens.

"I was suicidal but I wasn't..."

People will use anything to get attention.

All I want is truth like this:

"I'm not sure I should say this, but it makes me feel relieved."


I don't care how it is delivered.

It can have horrible breaks in sentences, with




and other "defects".

No edits. Real stuff.

As long as it is crazy meaningful, I'm happy.

Even attempts at being crazy meaningful.

Goofy meaningless stuff added is great too...

Just not B.S.


Another thing: "Dr. Authenticity."

"Let me help you with your comfort while still being authentic."

Can you see how that doesn't work, most often?

The moment you make a shift to being super empathetic,

you go into fako "I'm super helpful" mode.

So EQ is related to: Bullshit.

I know because I do that.

When I'm being authentically empathetic,

I'm pretending stuff.

I'm carrying out an act I saw on ER.

I learned it from somewhere!

Saturday, May 2nd, 2020

Anytime anyone chooses a new fashion, they can be considered inauthentic.

"Authenticity" is not what people pretend it is.

It's not that useful.

When I was a baby, I was none of the things I am now, and I got where I am

by playing and



Became a rock star? Well, you were a baby once.

You advertised an image that was palatable...

Became a Christian?

You pretended while you were a kid,

or later most likely.

I've seen it so don't tell me it's not true.

4 year olds talking about Jesus is pretend time.

Sunday school.

When daycare becomes

"pretend you're like Jesus"

becomes you think you're authentic as an adult.

You just stopped changing.

Keep changing like a kid,

keep pretending,

keep trying something new,

and you're inauthentic?

Think of:

Mexican food that never changes,

and never gets good.

and compare with:

Fusion cuisine that is well executed and new.

Chipotle when it first came out.

Let's go eat authentic Chipotle?

It's authentic now

because it hasn't changed!


The most inauthentic thing is to pretend you're authentic.

You don't look like a baby to me.

Saturday, May 2nd, 2020

Can you massage my palms please?

We can eliminate the handshake now, if we all join together and commit.

When I say "join together", I don't mean by making a human chain,

with palms touching.

Friday, April 25th, 2020

I am everything except what you don't want, and more.

Ask me about the "more" part.

Saturday, April 11th, 2020

Did Jesus or Buddha need editors?

Or writers who would,

write more?

I would say yes to both.

Jesus did not speak to all audiences.

Neither did Buddha.

Yet some will claim, they spoke to all audiences,

such that they could be received by any reader.

We can see instantly that this is nonsense.

Clearly this is not true.

Particularly because neither were edited to become entirely


Saturday, April 11th, 2020

Coronavirus Deaths Were Not "Deserved"

It is important to note, that whoever happens to die during this pandemic, apparently wasn't in the "remnant".

I hope this allows us to finally acknowledge that nature will decide who lives and who dies, and that no group is responsible for the deaths of another group, and that no death is a result of any karmic process, involving past mistakes made.

So if you are affected by Coronavirus, directly or indirectly, I hope you are not troubled by anyone's claims that it was due to anything done previously by anyone.

Nature does what it does.

You are not to blame. No one else is to blame.


Why do I post this?

There are still many people who say that people who die, en-masse, deserve it for some reason.

I.e. if you died in WWII, and you were of high quality, you are diminished by some who will insist you "must have done something wrong to deserve it."

Believing that some "deserve it" in such a way that it is built into nature is embarrassing.

Gays didn't do it.

LGBTQ+ people didn't invite it.

People who die are not being punished for "sins".

Karma is ridiculous and needs to die.

The idea that plagues are invoked by groups of people some find "undesirable" is even more foolish.


I really hope that we can get passed this style of thinking.

But I also think that people who have subscribed to this type of thinking in the past,

think hard about what they've done to other people,

who faced their own misfortunes.

Saturday, April 11th, 2020

Coexist is not a strategy, II.

You said on your bumper sticker,

that all the religions can coexist.

Your entire strategy was in one word,

indicating it was not a strategy,

but nevermind that.

For now

Just notice that your COEXIST does not include the afterlife.

If you are a Christian,

the COEXISTENCE is on earth,

and everyone but your "remnant"

will go to hell.

And the other way around for you, from the perspective of the other religions...

So do you understand that COEXIST

has no plan at all for eternity?

In fact, the people who state as much, probably chose an exclusive heaven.

"This heaven is mine."


Then there's this point:

Who cares about coexistence when what matters is eternity?

Life is short.

Eternity is forever.

Isn't it better to die to get into heaven

than to adopt "COEXIST"?


Let's admit that COEXIST is not a strategy.

The truth is naturalism.

The answer is in a new revelation,

that of Mattanaw, for example,

that insists that nature will do

whatever it does...

And coexistence is established by nature,

and not your bumper sticker.

Nature has no provisions for your afterlife.

So a sound strategy,

eliminates any religion placing hopes in an afterlife,

and instead insists that this life is the one worth living,


it can be made worth living.

Saturday, April 11th, 2020

Coronavirus was your religion's fault.

You did not reject the religious leader from your own cult who blamed previous disasters on homosexuality and personal differences.

Perhaps you thought prayers would cure you, and that vaccinations were not necessary.

You can try out your prayers!

Maybe we can scientifically test them for their efficacy?

You were stricken directly with this plague, for which there is no vaccination, to leave you with no escape.

Prayer only is your escape.

The priests of your religion made many mistakes.

Told countless people they were to blame, and that they would rest for eternity in a hellish dimension.

Unfortunately, you will live your single life,

if you chose a fiction,

in the this one dimension,

full of untruth.

A life of untruth.


This post is a lesson in how not to blame people

for what randomly kills.

Nature is in charge,

not your religion.

Unless your religion is naturalistic.

But your religion is not naturalistic,

it is fabulisitic.

Saturday, April 11th, 2020

Mattanaw is a revelation.

Mattanaw is a revelation. He is the image.

He has decided he will not be tested.

His interest primarily is truth.

You can live in your falsity if you choose to.

He hopes you have not adopted the fictional plots of the other religions,

only to make truth

subservient to storytime.

If you have truth then your truth will be celebrated by Him.

If you are in falsity then it will not pass without notice.

Mattanaw denies your religion,

as you deny the religions of your adversaries.

The ones you envision in hell for eternity.

The ones you say you can COEXIST with,

on earth,

but apparently not in HEAVEN.

Mattanaw denies all these things,

and reveals to you that you are an animal living in nature.


Tests concerning the revelation of Mattanaw from others will result in no more than confusions.

Where you place your trust,

is up to you.

Friday, April 10th, 2020

Before he became man, he was trout.

First Mattanaw was a trout,

mostly neuter in appearance.

Only later

did he become a man.

Tuesday, March 31st, 2020

Originally posted on Facebook on Monday, March 30th, 2020

What language is required to permit inferences about how someone feels?

I'm adept at knowing how someone feels in person (or at least considering the actual options), or on the phone. What I'm interested in, is knowing how to infer what someone feels from what they say to you in text format without much other information. When I say infer I actually mean infer logically and based on experience, and whatever math or logic is implied by the combination

Tuesdya, March 31st, 2020

Re-use the alcohol one million times.

Now that the pandemic has altered all life on earth, I've been reluctantly thinking about the uninteresting topic of hygiene.

We're supposed to already have good hygiene, and it's questionable to what extent more hygiene will prevent transmission.

Nevertheless we are expected to have sanitizers at home.

I'm single and am living independently, so there's no one to infect but myself, and if I have it, I probably will have it.

Nevertheless I'm coming up with some ideas.

The store was completely out of sanitizers. Since they were all out, I went to the liquor store and bought some grain alcohol at 151 proof, which has a high enough percentage of alcohol to be an antiviral and antiseptic. First my brother asked if I could send sanitizers to him, but he ended up finding grain alcohol himself, and so I kept what I bought for my own use.

Recently, thinking about this alcohol, I thought "Why couldn't I just pour this in a vessel and use it to disinfect my hands without ever pouring it out? Would this work?"

What are some factors that might make it not work? Here are some that came to mind:

  1. Unless you can get the alcohol off your hands and back into the vessel, it will run out.
  2. It may evaporate gradually (although you can seal it).
  3. You would introduce substances into the alcohol, perhaps changing the overall concentration, of affecting it in other ways.
  4. Gradual deterioration or change of the alcohol due to the air surrounding it, or other chemical reactions.

My inclination though, is to think that you can actually use it any number of times, except for the limitation created by number one above, and maybe the number 4, although I think that's unlikely.

I would expect that the alcohol would stay unchanged for a very long period of time, perhaps indefinitely.After all, you can leave it in a bottle and it will not change. One could circulate the alcohol from the bottle, into a container, and back into a bottle again.

So potentially one could actually just use the same alcohol forever perhaps, especially if it gets filtered and cycled.

Maybe just having it in a vessel is not good enough but I think that would work too.

I intend to test it out, even though I may be unable to measure any results, other than to see how the liquid appears over time.

I will have to wash my hands before using the alcohol, and maybe after as well (if the alcohol gets too dirty looking).

Maybe I can use the same alcohol the rest of my life, as long as I can keep getting the alcohol back into the container (which is unlikely), but with a large enough jug, and an understanding of the rate of loss by evaporation off my hands, maybe I can figure out how much I need, to never have to buy it again.

Tuesday, March 31st, 2020

My grocery list for tomorrow.

I started a grocery list for tomorrow, and the first item turned out to be "Do the dishes."

When you start shopping simply because you don't have the equipment to cook what you do have.

What action creates more options than this one? If I shop I can eat convenient foods. If I clean, I can eat what I have and potentially most of what is in the grocery store too.

So "do the dishes" creates more food options in a sense, than buying food does.

Saturday, March 28th, 2020

"I died and went to heaven!"

Oh you did huh?

So you liked it?

Maybe you ate something and it tasted good.

In that case, you could've said:

"Wow, upon eating this delectable treat, I was suddenly brought to ecstasy because of its pleasant taste."

Probably that is false too.

"I liked it" might be more accurate.

Both are more true than the statement making the analogy to those non-existent places.

Those "heavens" of the various cultures.

Anytime I think, or hear this phrase,

"I died and went to heaven",

I will try to replace it with

"I died, and then I died."

to indicate and remember the extreme absurdity.

There are many phrases to be replaced.

We do not need to use these another thousand years, but can begin replacing them now.

Saturday, March 28th, 2020

Mattanaw is an Animal.

You are an animal.

Thursday, Month 26th, 2020

It's an American Virus. Own it.

It's here. You're American. When you have it it's yours. Might as well call it an American virus. Or your virus.

If I get it, it will be "Mattanaw's Virus"

It's like Kentucky Fried Chicken, but not in Kentucky. It's at your house.

It's at my house.

Matt Fried Chicken.

Other countries have nothing to do with it.

There is no chicken, but there might be virus,

at my house,

when I get the virus,

from someone else's


Saturday, March 21st, 2020

Wield the opportunity for your goals in waiting.

This how you make disasters work for you and not against you.

while others spend their time,

mostly bewildered,

thinking about how their lives have been impacted by the situation.


Do not say what those goals are.


This is what the elite do.

You cannot have the privileges,

of the privileged.


In a sense, they are not even in your time.

You cannot know of the ulterior motives in advance.

Insurance companies have plans that are activated,

when the disasters that they have already thought about,


Do you understand this?

Who else plans in this way?

Are you knowledgeable about those plans?

Or are you only knowledgeable about your plans,

that have been interrupted,

so that you only think about,

what is presented to you,

and what is in front of you?

Saturday, March 21st, 2020

Minor Non-substantive Edits: Thursday, March 26th, 2020

"Be careful what you wish for."

Is not useful.

Like most other phrases of guidance in our culture.

In my experience, it is mostly useful for people who wish to

  1. Sabotage other people's efforts, or
  2. Dissuade folks or diminish their energies in trying to realize their goals, which also is somewhat like sabotage, or
  3. Try to relieve themselves about their inabilities to realize goals.

"Be careful what you wish for" is used to mean:

  1. "You said you wanted X, so I'm going to make sure that X isn't good for you. Didn't you know that X was going to involve me harming you?"
  2. "Don't you know that what you are trying to achieve, isn't worthwhile? Don't follow your goals."
  3. "The cons outweigh the benefits of your wishes."
  4. "I can't reach my goals, but that's OK, because not doing anything results in better outcomes than realizing goals does." (An obvious rationalization).
  5. "Just don't change and things will be better for you." (e.g "I can't change and I don't want you to either", or "I didn't want you to.").

Most often this phrase is simply not used in a useful manner, although there is a useful interpretation. That interpretation is:

"You really should understand what it is you are seeking, and define your goals very carefully, so you're in control as much as you can be regarding the outcome, which can be made very favorable if you do it right."

That is roughly equivalent to:

"Separate worthy goals from those that only appear worthy."

Notice that in practice, people don't use it that way.

In other words, they use it in a mostly useless and harmful way.

Really strong thinkers don't think according to these silly phrases and expressions.

More often, I think, they break them and find something more detailed and precise.

Because "The devil is in the ignorance."

And "The ignorant are more likely than the wise to be the devils."

[Aside: I don't believe in devils...]


Another issue with this phrase:

  1. It's a recommendation about wishes. Who wishes for things? That is incredibly superstitious. Now, to make sense of it, it would be translated to "Be careful what you plan for or work towards." A wish without any action is hardly something to worry about. Because the wish won't happen?... You might as well say: "Be careful what you PRAY for." This statement can only be sensible if it is about how you choose to plan your life. Now, improbable things happen too. But these are not the results of wishes..., but nature.


It can be used as a threat, and as a recommendation, or as a way to make results seem less desirable, or plans less rational.

I think it is rare that people use it as a useful recommendation, from kind and supportive intentions.


This phrase also relates to the common story about Genies, and their granting of 3 wishes.

Of course, most think:

"I'd wish to get as many wishes as I want..."

Well, let's go with tradition and assume you cannot do that.

Instead, you get three wishes.

In the fictional story, of course, each wish does not turn out as desired, or hoped.

This is because the person who did the wishing

"Was not careful what they wished for."

As a rule, the character who has the genie, wishes quickly, without much reflection.

Their wish is comprised of a single sentence.

"I would like to become the richest woman in the world."

And so when it is granted,

everything else was taken as a variable, to manipulate,

and the genie provides a life in which the woman is grotesque, hated, and rich,

and perhaps has no means of spending the money in any favorable way.

So by not being "careful"

we are to think,

she has not gotten what she really desired,

or that she does not know what she really desires to begin with.


I would agree with this interpretation, if wishes were real.

And what I say below applies to prayers too.

Why? Because how careful are your prayers about others?

You want someone to have some gain, but you don't define what that will come along with?

That resembles the foolish and simplistic wish a person might make to a genie.

But moving on.

Let's say I meet a genie. I'm told I will be granted three wishes.

My wish would include a highly complex request, somewhat like a legal contract, covering all bases:

  1. My request would be no less than 100 pages long.
  2. My request would create prohibitions about avenues for negative possible futures.
  3. My request would involve not suddenly appearing in the future, but actually executing all the steps to realization in a real way (otherwise, one would feel one did not merit the results or that everything was magical and reality was false).
  4. I would require for the result to be real according to the correct interpretation of realness (maybe).
  5. I would require that the genie interpret it with my mind for full understanding.

There would be many other considerations. But the key is, I would be careful about how I select my future, and more importantly,

I would be detailed.

Because wisdom is in the details.

Note that if I'm as detailed as the future reality would be, I would get what I want exactly.

Now, since I cannot be that detailed, I can only create some request that included that due dilligence that would most likely result in the reality that corresponds to my request, and not some addition to it.

This way, I would not be surprised, as all the fictional people who make requests from genies are.


Since the story is fictional, it is designed to support an author's erroneous ideas about reality.

it is possible to form a plan that is knowledgeable enough to have a reasonable expectation as to what realization might entail.

Of course it cannot consider everything.

But guess what? Then the issue isn't about the care in the wishing,

but in the impossibility of knowing the future,

and the variation that life would add into the mix.

And in that case, again, it's not about "being careful what to wish for", but

learning how to not be concerned about the results.

So that defeats the idea "Be careful what you wish for" because in that case, all you can do is

plan the best you can. And if it doesn't turn out as expected,

you simply realize "It was not up to me"


Nature was too complex,

and as I think "It was predetermined that I would not plan as well as I could, because

I only have the mind of a man,

and my prior planning was not adequate enough

to lead to having the skills to make this plan good enough."

In other words

"My history and mind made me not have omniscient planning capabilities."


Notice something else about my method.

I said I would want the result to feel real.

Else I would feel like I'm living in a fantasy world.

If you wish to be "The greatest athlete who ever lived"

and your skills were magical, and did not seem to result from any abilities at all,

or any practice,

then you would forever feel like you're living in a video game.

So if you want what you wish,

to connect with your current reality,

it means that goal has to be realizable anyway.

Unless you wish to become someone else.

But notice that if you wish to become someone else,

then you wish to be removed from existence.

That's like if I wished to become a brand new pro athlete.

If I did that, why did I not consider that:

The result would be that I would die and a new athlete would be created who is not me?

Or, somehow my memories are inserted.

Is this something worth wishing for?


So really "Be careful what you wish for" amounts to:

Be selective about who you want to become, and try to take into account all the outcomes, that can be reasonably known in advance.

For everything else, you will just find out,

like everyone else will find out in the course of their complex and unpredictable lives.

And that's another reason why the advice is worthless.

Because it can always be used against you,

because there will always be negatives

that you will not account for,

because that is simply a part of the complexity of life.

So you could have an amazing plan,

execute it,

get what you want,

and want what you get,

but people who wish to tear you down will say that anything that negative that happens to you,

is due to your

Not being careful what you wished for.


And that's why this is not a useful phrase to live your life by.


Friday, March 20th, 2020

Originally posted on Facebook on Friday, March 20th, 2020

Lack of Concern about Overpopulation.

A friend in a social group on Facebook asked about why interest in overpopulation has diminished over the years.

The following was my answer:

I've brought up "overpopulation" many times over the years despite recognizing and sensing that people have developed a distaste for it. My ongoing interest in it, is likely due to exposure to authors from the 1800s and early 1900s who did not yet have the biases that people have today.

That it's a fundamental issue is not really seriously up for debate. People will procreate with no possessions or resources at all, totally destitute, and in complete ignorance; and that is an example of overpopulation on the micro scale. Starving babies that keep coming and so on...

Here's my list. People sense that overpopulation means:

  1. Control over reproductive rights. "Rights" to reproduce.
  2. Potential trend towards use for Genocide.
  3. Ethnocentrism/Elitism since certain populations would be the ones that would be considered overpopulating, in comparison with others.
  4. Urban perspective. Urban people tend to not see the problem (They have a different idea about what a good life consists of in relation to nature, and may see nature as a tool, potentially, to expand an urban lifestyle).
  5. Eugenics is what is in the speakers mind (as has already been mentioned in the thread). But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Eugenics and it is probably necessary to rid of some really bad traits that we continue to pass along. (Some form of Happy Eugenics, for readers who have prejudices about what eugenics entails).
  6. "Spread forth and multiply" is being challenged. Spread forth and multiply is an imperative, whatever the consequences.
  7. Touching on a Taboo, something not PC.A couple other reasons:
  8. Non-issue. Competing scientific conclusions. You mentioned at one point 2 billion was the supposed maximum number. I encountered literature at one point suggesting that 12 billion was a number that we would approach as a limit, but that we would not cross that limit. This led people, including many students, to believe, that population control is a non issue. So I think several years' worth of students seriously disregard population control as something worth pursuing out of bias, and belief that it is a settled topic. (no reason to think it over any further)
  9. Inability to discuss it intelligently (some weird barrier I have not been able to identify. Maybe this is part of what your post is about. It could be cognitive-dissonance due to existing commitments or prior choices, or belief in legacy, etc...).


When debating this topic with people outside this group, I get the feeling that they don't want to discuss it or seem uninterested. Either it's taboo for many, or they haven't given it good consideration. There could be other reasons but I notice people are very poor at discussing this topic. 9 might give some reason for this.

I think this is a very good topic to point out, to reveal that people are often not as serious about solving the world's problems as they claim they are.

I'm still interested in automating work so we can depopulate and live lives of maximum quality, with more clean environments mostly everywhere.

I had a nice stream that I used to play in when I was a kid, and as I grew up, I noticed it go from somewhat clean to completely unusable. It's far too polluted now. So naturally, people are deterred from using it, and from valuing it... but that is only because of their reaction to its current state. If they were exposed to it as I was, they would value it.

It reminds me of the end of the movie Soylent Green with that one gentleman who wanted to die after watching a video on how earth used to be, and how Charlton Heston's character only then realized what he should have been valuing all along.

Thursday, March 19th, 2020

Saying Something Truthful With "We"

is even harder than saying something truthful with "I"

or just saying something truthful...


when someone says "we"

I'm sometimes wondering,

when I'm attentive enough to notice the mistakes

"Who does that "we" consist of?"


"What is the scope?"

^^ that last one involves a tough truth.

You will not be able to say to what extent


really is a


when you make a statement about it.


This is true when people say

"We Americans"

"We Alaskans (or some other state)"

"We Earthlings"

or "We" whatever else.


Because other people are individuals

and there is no way for you to know

to what extent they are aligned with you.


"We" as a family

doesn't even make sense.


Totalitarian and dictatorial relationships,

demand "we"

when there might be very little of that.

Thursday, March 19th, 2019

When you do not receive adequate recognition

you have to make sure to give yourself enough recognition on your own.


If your good deeds and hard works are going unrecognized,

make sure to recognize them yourself at least.


If others never recognize them,

you might need to amp it up a little.


I'm going to keep amping it up.

Thursday, March 19th, 2020

Happy Thoughts, or More Complete Analyses

leading to more frequent and recurring,

Happy Thoughts?


This is the contest between

pretend optimism

and realism.


Realism bears more real fruit.

Optimism bears more perceptual fruit.


Realism has optimism built in.

Even if it might not appear that is the case.


Real fruit or perceptual fruit?

Thursday, March 19th, 2020

Mood of a Conversation and Narrow Mindedness.

Some people seem to have horrors and hard lessons ready at hand for conversation, while others do not.

Horrors I've seen or learned about are easily recalled, and I'm ready to add them whenever the addition is necessary or relevant.

Many others seem to want to "sweep certain topics under the rug", so to speak.

Many want to limit the number of premises that might be considered in an argument, because they do not seem "optimistic" or "happy", even if they are applicable.

Yet certainly any important premises need to be included to be certain the conclusion is a valuable one.

Some might not understand why I might bring into discussion topics like brain trauma, the skinning of live animals, the self-burning and immolation of Buddhists, and the genocides of Auschwitz, and others recorded in the Bible, and elsewhere.

Of course these topics are not pleasant, but pleasantness is often irrelevant.

For a very long time, I have found it really uncomfortable, that others do no recall these things readily whenever they are applicable. Whenever not recalling them, results in the wrong conclusions or decisions.

It is irrational to not include such considerations whenever they are relevant. Even if that would seemingly convert a "positive" conversation to one that feels "negative", to some people, but not all people, in the conversation.

I don't mean to be a downer (I'm not. If I am, it's to a few, temporarily), inserting macabre subjects into conversations where some think they don't belong. The issue is that these subjects do belong, but that others are not willing to hear them, whenever they are brought up.

The mood of the conversation sometimes dictates the social appropriateness of the subjects to be discussed.

If people are more euphemistic, as with political PR, it would indicate that narrow mind is being applied. Because listeners, and questioners, will be limited to what is supposedly the most civil discourse, only allowed to bring up topics that do not diminish a certain civil propriety of the conversation.

"We don't need or want to discuss that right now".

Sometimes the mood of a conversation, it seems, determines, in advance, that an improper conclusion will result; that inferences will be drawn from an incomplete set of premises; that narrow-minded thinking will be preferred to exhaustive, broad and penetrating thought.

Notice that the mood of the conversation does not determine the requirements of proper analysis.

If someone is hired to solve a problem, it will be important that they have all the information, and make all the correct relationships, to find the right solution. It will be their job to make the correct analyses.

Politicians don't seem to communicate like these problems solvers.


Let us consider one example.

One topic that is so often left out of conversation, but so often relevant to it:

Brain Trauma.

Does the reader happen to understand, how many topics this relates to?


"I'll remember you forever" is a false promise.

How many relationships does this impact?

Have you ever watched a video, or saw a photograph, of someone you loved, only to wish you could feel them in person again? The video and the image, are just "dead" artifacts, from a time when someone was alive.

When enough time has passed, the images and videos surprise use, because they include much that we could not recall any longer. "How did I forget so much!?" one might lament, causing one to become sad at having so little recorded.

But at the same time, the recordings are limited:

"I see the video, but I cannot feel (him or her)? I somewhat remember how they feel, and smell, but that is all disappearing! I'm not sure I can really feel it any longer!"

A book that did an excellent job of explaining this topic was C. S. Lewis's "A grief observed."

In that book C.S. Lewis discusses the experience of losing his lover, who was to become his wife. He was a Christian man, so it occurred to him to consider why he did not have faith that he would see her again, among other topics. Grief is unpredictable and highly individual. But one thing I think is universal, is the feeling of loss of memory, and of the ability to relive what was originally lived. That memory is a mere copy, that dies over time.

We all experience memory loss and brain damage, as we die.

When we die, brain damage will be complete.

But some suffer more significant brain damage, and we cannot pretend that it does not impact them the way that it impacts them...

This is not a complete treatment of the importance of Brain Trauma in everyday life.

But I hope it is clear to the reader, that even minor brain trauma, which might be called "everyday brain trauma" effects everyone, and is of mortal and profound significance.


Let's consider another.

That life has serious downs, and that these downs are often random.

"Life is good" is false. It varies. Auschwitz. Slavery. Warfare. "Life is good" is used when people seem to have temporarily disabled the horrible things they know about from their conscious awareness.

It is not disrespectful to make these points. To bring these extremely relevant but saddening points into conversations whenever they offer something conclusive or definitive, or when they bring an analysis to completion, is to be real.

What does it have to do with optimism? It's about being smart and having thorough knowledge.

If someone's life is nothing but torture and pain, it is unfair to conclude, without considering all fact, as if it were a foregone conclusion, that "life is good" is truth.

"Step into my shoes and say life is good" is something that a few billion people might tell you, if you were to listen to them.

Or they might tell you that "life is good" out of a desire to convince themselves too. This is something that happens. This is one reason you cannot trust:

The Optimist.

Because the Optimists include people who are willing to 1) lie in order to seem positive, or 2) try to explain to themselves why life is worth living, despite their experiences.

Realism is the only perspective that may be used to analyze a topic correctly, and it must take into consideration both optimistic and pessimistic mindsets.

Many analyses are incomplete without these considerations. But we keep analysing life as if these things are not relevant. Or we push them from the picture, or from our awareness.

In my life, I've spent much time listening to what people say, without completely expressing my feelings on topics because I thought they would dishearten others, or would bring down moods of conversations.

Too much gravity; too much depth.

From childhood, not only in adulthood.

"Nobody wants to hear this."

Or, conversations would be changed, or disinterest encountered.

People change the subject, when it goes in a direction

they do not like

and that is hardly rational or realistic.

Or honest and truthful.


One more. Let's look at enlightenment and "self-actualization".

So many messages are incomplete, if they do not include conversation about the human brain, and about identity over time. We need to cover the changes we will experience mentally due to trauma, sickness, or other changes in health. We cover up important issues when teaching kids because we will think we will scare them. But the truth is that we will enable them and remove obstacles by teaching them with these relevant facts often in view.

"Is it possible to achieve enlightenment?" Maybe. I think not. But whatever that happens to be, don't you think it is temporary, given the nature of brain tissue?

When you attain enlightenment, or self-actualization, do you not think that means that brain tissue will assume some configuration, without which, you did not achieve it? And if so, do you not see the impermanence, and fragility of this brain tissue?

Thus "salvation" could only be a temporary thing.

The idea that is sold to us, though, is that once you reach "salvation" you are saved. But this makes no sense.

All enlightenment is lost as the relevant brain tissue is lost. All salvation is lost, if the brain is broken or destroyed. No one is "invincible". Salvation, in any form it takes, is not invincible. Nobody is unchanging. Your friend can easily become someone else. You will see this as you age. People some would call saints can easily devolve to horrible people through cancer, or brain tumor, or dementia, or other neural deterioration.


Last one.

Final judgement. Are you good? Well, suppose you have a traumatic brain injury and your personality is changed, for the worse. Which of you gets judged? I don't happen to believe in any "final judgment", but what I would say, is that there is no reason to prefer the "good" version of someone in judgment. The implication of this, is that if you actually change your personality to improve yourself, it does not necessarily mean that "that you" is the one that is worth judgment. But most of us think that if we reach some state somehow it is permanent, or the only one that matters, or the only one worth judgement. We see the same thing with "success." Someone attains success, by getting an amazing job, or having great accomplishments, but then their life takes a different course, and they find themselves destitute or unhealthy. Are they then unsuccessful in total? We know these are absurdities, simply because we are unable to admit the fact that each of these things are transitory, that our brains are altered over time, or that our environments and

"I was born again" includes an understanding of this topic. Whatever change you make, it must be complete. Or else, it is to admit it is impermanent, and that there is no clean break between the horrible you, and the new you.

But it is clear that there is no such thing as being "born again".

How convenient. When you change, you are totally new and fresh? I think you carry with you, much that was you:

Otherwise I would not know who you are right now?


Remembering horrors, and harsh truths, makes one reasonable and realistic.

Allows one to see through poor arguments immediately.

Is often met with resistance, hostility, or even anger.

But I will try not to shy away from bringing sense to nonsensical conversations.

Even if that means

the partial deaths of religions and sources of national pride.

Ever consider that culture,

including religion and national pride,

mostly consists of living brain tissue?

Sunday, March 16th, 2020

The height of "heartlessness" to me is

to deny reality,

and substitute it with another one



Do you not care about the long-term consequences?


Well, probably not the height.

Skinning animals alive is more heartless.

Or could be, depending.

And saying "the height of (fill in the blank)"

is another error that needs to go on my Lists page.

It is the same error as that which invokes



E.g. "The height of stupidity is (fill in the blank)"

Most likely,

what you fill that blank in with will be false.

It won't be the heigtiest of the stupid things.

Plus stupidity has no height,

so it can go in the dumb metaphor section too.

[Aside: Well maybe I shouldn't say "dumb".

How rude of me.

I indicated earlier we should not say that word.

It's worse than calling people "retards".

Instead I should say,

it will go into the

"Metaphors with problematic visuals" section,

that I haven't added yet.

The fact that it is so frequently spoken

does make one forget,

that there is a metaphor in there.

It's baked into that idiom so well,

you might think it isn't in there at all.

It's like saying:

"It's the pinnacle of stupidity"

As though there were a stupidity pyramid,

with this instance of stupid at the very top.

This is different from saying there is a spectrum,

and that this would fall on the far end of the spectrum,

from least to most stupid.

It's adding a hierarchy into the mix.

Not only hierarchy, heights.

Vistas, pyramids, and so on come to mind.

This is not a good visual,

for "stupidity".

Funny enough,

if you were to say

"It was the height of all mountain overlooks."

it would make more sense,

but it would seem redundant and ridiculous.]

OK, long tangent.

Back to the point.

Skinning animals is very heartless.

So is substituting one reality for another.

Truth is usually less heartless in the long term.

"Oh, it was just fine that you skinned the animals alive.

Keep doing that."

Saying that to make a trained animal-skinner,

who skinned many animals alive,

may make the animal skinner feel

better about herself.

But who does it make feel really really bad?

Your distant cousins.

Those little skinned guys.

Glistening and suffering.

Get the idea?

In this case, substituting the reality that animals feel pain

for a reality in which they do not,

is actually more harmful,

in terms of long term consequences,

than single acts of skinning animals alive.

Opt for truth.

[Aside: there is a better strategy than this

but strategy building is not easy.

Also, the animal skinning example is only one.

Going with a false reality is almost always (if not always) going to have

ill long term consequences.

This should be justified mathematically,

or with a truly representative model,

but I'm not in a position to create that at present.

For now I think it is better to state that it does seem to be the case.]

Sunday, March 15th, 2020

"Wakey, Wakey, Morning Earthquakey"

Or something like that.

"Eggs and bakey" ain't Veg.

Time to replace it.

Not everyone eats the same thing


It's not 1940.


I'm going to wake up,

to imaginary earthquakes.

Saturday, March 14th, 2020

When are you irrationalizing?

A point missed in the previous post, is that it is sometimes very hard to tell which you are doing.

Are you rationalizing,

or are you



Just now, I was clouded as to whether or not I was doing one or the other.

It requires powerful introspection,

since one has to track thoughts, motivations and intentions,

and rationalization can happen


in a very short period of time,

while one is not thinking about this topic at all.

It takes one by surprise.

It's like if someone asks you to repeat a sentence you said,


20 sentences ago.

You can't do it,

if you weren't tracking.


When someone thinks you are rationalizing,

this means,

you might not know if you are rationalizing or not.

"Mattanaw, you seem to be irrationalizing..."

The inclination is to say no,

but what about in the gray area...?

What about when you were not attending to your thoughts,

THAT closely.

Before I said there were two kinds of rationalizing.

Let's just stop with that.

Let's rename



except when,

we know we are making it actually rational.

We might not always know.


I'm sad to say,

I think this is paradoxical within our introspection.

I'm not sure we can ever perfectly know,

when we are doing one or the other,

when we are not tracking.

Usually, we are not tracking.

If your powers of introspection, memory about your mental states, and what you say, and your emotions are weak,

you may seldom know.


When are you irrationalizing?

Saturday, March 14th, 2020

Two Ways to Rationalize

The first way, thought negatively upon, rightly so, is:

"I take something that is incorrect, and nonsensical, and fallacious, and fallaciously make it appear as if it were rational."

Goals of this method: to cover up. To disguise. To manipulate. To make your goals seem reasonable, or worthwhile, or rational, when they are actually irrational, founded in error, based on desires or emotions, or otherwise unjustifiable.

More can be said about this because it shows up in many forms, but for now I think this is adequate.

We know about rationalizing mistakes, and bad habits, and errors, etc...


But there is another kind of rationalization.

It's when you make a mistake, think an incorrect thought, or detect an irrationality in yourself, and find a way to correct it, modify it, or otherwise fix it to be actually in keeping with rationality.

Some people are more inclined to this form of rationalization than the other.

People should be educated to move from the first kind to the second kind.

Because the second kind results in


While the first kind results in,


"Rationalization" is a sad misnomer, in the first case.

There is taking something and making it appear rational, and then there is starting from something and making something new that is rational.


In both cases, one has some idea of what rationality is actually like.

One is concerned with the appearance,

and the other is concerned with the reality.

Be concerned with the reality.

Remember that there are two ways to rationalize.

Saturday, March 14th, 2020

Excitement Trumps Rationality.

This is partly why warfare is recurring.

If Coronavirus were an attack, we would be "awoken from our slumbers" to something more entertaining, in a similar way.

Involving, like death and stuff.

And not just shopping,

hoping for more time off work,

like it's a snow day.

But more like hoping,

to see some carnage,

including friends and family,

and community,

like it's the Zombie Apocalypse.

[Aside: Ever wonder why people like the idea of a Zombie Apocalypse?

many would welcome it.]

The conferences got cancelled.

The excitement didn't.

"Bring on the


Where are the people who are coughing blood,

who aren't me?"

Surprisingly, most are not actually fearful of death.

"If I get coronavirus, I do.

If I get killed having a good time in combat—

sure I'll take that too."

Just look at how eager kids were,

to enlist for World War II.

Military use of children in World War II

It's sad.

We put medals on the stupid.

They may be deserving, nevertheless.

Parents were like

"Sure, go to the trenches.

Jimmy's a good boy."

Many Americans were quite excited to kill some Japs and Nazis.

When they weren't too busy,

killing black people.

(Most were not busy killing black people, I know.

But hey, many were.)

Don't agree?

Have you watched any Quentin Tarantino movies lately?

Django Unchained?

Inglorious Basterds?

These movies did make some sense, right?

Did you like killing those Nazis vicariously,

when watching those movies?


"Son, I can't go to war,

I'm too valuable to die,

but you,

you son,

go kill some for both of us,

I'll be keeping the tally."


That killing excitement was not limited to young people, though.

Elders have maybe a greater blood lust.

They are bored.

"I have no sensation in my legs."

[Aside: Why would the elders be excited, you ask?

Oh. They aren't any smarter.

This is why the young, wait for the elderly

to die so truth can win over

lies and falsity.

there are exceptions.

Exceptions help you

rationalize to honor whoever it is,

you think deserves honor.

"Oh, they didn't have the blood lust,

and joy of deathly entertainment."

"Except they did watch hangings back then,

with picnic baskets."]

Usually, adults imitate youths.

Fashion is not old, it is new.

And the target of fashion are young people.

"I'll wear those jeans."

"Yes, I'll watch that teen movie. Sounds great."

"TikTok is cool,

how do I advertise,

awkwardly on TikTok?"

"I'm not sure what I'm doing here right now."

said that old guy

and old lady

on TikTok.


But when it comes to politics and war, youths imitate adults:

"How can I go kill me some Japs?"


"Sand Niggers."

Don't pretend it didn't happen.

I don't know of any little kids,

running around saying "Sand Nigger."


or just

"How can we buy all the Clorox from the store

without any need whatsoever."

To combat an invisible "enemy".

"Dang, how do I use this Clorox,

to disinfect everything?"

No one is scared.

They are excited like it's Black Friday.

"My money,

it's for this."

"I'll be the last to die,

and I'll buy it all. No need

for anyone else to live."

At a store today, a cashier said

"Everyone seems to be in a good mood today."

I agreed.

It is to be expected.

People are usually happy,

when someone is killed in a traffic accident on the highway too.

When will this aspect of human nature vanish?

Good question.

Why did you just ask it?

You didn't,

I did.

Nobody asks these questions.

Maybe this sad tendency,

will be engineered out of us.

Either by biological engineering,

or teaching.

[Aside: Teaching is a form of engineering]

Maybe those most inclined,

to enjoy this stuff,

don't procreate.

I'm not sure.

Weirdos abound.

"They know not what they do."

"I never said Sand Nigger."


I recently visited the Walmart in Wasilla.

Not one case of the Coronavirus has been reported in Alaska.

At all.

And the strategy Alaska has taken on,

like everywhere else,

(Yup your state is dumb too.)

has been to buy all the supplies,

and not distribute them evenly.

A better way to put it is:

America has no strategy.

It's all excitement.

"America is the greatest of all nations."

This great planless nation.

With massive resources dedicated,

to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (more than 1 trillion USD).

Yet there is no process plan,

for a disaster scenario.

[Aside: Would you like me to work on this. For this effort, I will only charge,

1 billion dollars.

Selling point: The hoard couldn't do it for 1 trillion.

Yes, I know there are good people in these orgs.

Disaster scenario planning is lacking, and that's just truth.

But also it's "I'm HHS but i have no way to

disseminate this information.

The emergency broadcast system has not yet been

activated for this virus.

Why not activate, and share the plan?

Because there is no plan]

Excitement about possible death,

in the community.

"When can death finally arrive?

I need this."

"Oh, it won't actually be me."

People don't believe that accidents

apply to them.

Everyone else dies.

"I have communion with a diety I read about,

everyone else will die,

because of the (name a supposedly evil group)."

"Ooops I'm infected.

I take it back that I was a chosen one.

Instead, I'm chosen,

but in a different way.

I'm on my way to heaven,

now that the diety,

wanted me to have the virus,

but I'm not evil,

he wants me to have it because

I'm good."

My life has been boring so far,

bring on the death.

Friday, March 13th, 2020

You just wanted to say that thought you had.

Most people don't understand arguments,

as found in the discipline of logic.

They don't know what an "argument" is.

This can be easily demonstrated.

[Aside: they think an argument, is a confrontation of sorts.

It is, but there is another, vastly more important

meaning of the same word.]

Argument as defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Some may be thrown off by the fact that this definition is in an encyclopedia of Philosophy. But, that's because they would also unlikely expect that Logic is a branch of Philosophy. If you were to study logic in school, it would be in the Philosophy department. Other logics are found in other departments, but core logic, as part of the extension of linguistics, is still in the department of Philosophy (i.e. Symbolic Logic, Systems of Deduction, and other Formal Logics). So the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an appropriate source on Logic.

Argumentation Theory on WikipediaWikipedia recognizes the interdisciplinary nature of logic, since of course, logical argumentation applies to any discipline relying on language whatsoever. But notice, that this article, is still heavy on contributions from philosophers.

Argument, on Wikipedia Also heavy on contributions from Philosophy.

The most influential treatment in History has been that provided by Aristotle, since his logic was dominant until the time of Gottlob Frege, an early founder of modern logic, whose works appeared in the late 1800s. Aristotle's work was dominant for two millennia until it was improved upon and corrected. His work is still taught in the beginnings of many courses on Symbolic Logic.

[Aside: Aristotle was not Christian and he predated Christianity.

Yet his logic dominated and is largely accurate. He contributed the

Syllogisic Logic. Christians attempted to fuse his work with theirs.

A primary objective of Thomas Acquinas was to fuse the rationality

of Aristotelianism with his religion (Catholicism), in order to provide a more firm basis for Christianity.

This is the typical account.

Mattanaw likes to emphasize that Christianity is not as logical as Philosophy,

and there is no dogma in Philosophy, where you are free to

question anything.

Christianity would depend on Philosophy to have any logic at all.

The same is true with all of the other disciplines. Science included.

Aristotle was probably more logical than you are.

Most would be unable to read Aristotle because he is more intelligent

than they are.

The character Jesus did not write anything,

and it is not clear that he was logical,

since his authors did not

fictionalize his character to deploy much structured reasoning.]


There is a serious consequence to this.

It's that people have no idea what conclusiveness regarding a topic consists of.

They don't know when the logic of an argument,

has lead to the answers,

however tentative they might be.

Instead, they just think,

that their thought on the topic,

is in some way

"The most important thought"

that deserves the most attention,

or in the least, consideration.

When they hear the thoughts of others,

they do not appraise for the logical quality of their thoughts,

or the degree of completeness of their analyses.

"Sure, you wrote a program that simulates the

situation completely,

including outcomes,

and it even optimizes decision making...

but you haven't heard my thought on it."


This can be used strategically in politics.

Although I have never witnessed this approach myself.

This is the approach of:

Taking people's thoughts on a topic, fitting those thoughts into a total situational analyses, and showing back to the public, how their thoughts actually fit into the scheme of things.

Most would be satisfied that they have been acknowledged.

Many would be disappointed, that their thought was not the conclusive thought,

that determined the right perspective.

But at least they would likely see that that is the case, by:

A) by being shown the complexity of the total situation, and

B) by seeing that their thought was placed properly in the situation, even though their part was small.


Some few would expect actually anticipate this result,

and may be totally happy about the outcome,

because they build on their own thoughts, such that they frequently see how their analyses improve, and how their earlier thoughts were of lesser quality than their later thoughts.


All this assumes, however,

that the total situational analysis

turns out to be

done by someone who is skilled enough to do it really well.

Or some group,

skilled enough to complete the project truthfully.


In the end,

the argument will be logical.

The analysis complexity will suit

the complexity of the real problem.

People will see that there is a match between the problem,

and the analyses.


People's political thoughts,

are really just thoughts.

"This is what seems important to me in this issue."

and not anything conclusive.

Some will have more conclusive thoughts,

but it will be those who have conducted such an analysis,

or see the complexity.

these people are not often found.

And either way,

a full analyses,

conducted by one individual or

any number required,

would match closely,

with the person who did happen to have a complex enough

mental representation.


Everyone else just needs their view,

to enter into the total analyses somehow.

Friday, March 13th, 2020

"I do not like the messenger

and so I disregarded the truth."

Friday, March 13th, 2020

And that's the final thought. Amen.

When someone says,

"And that's the bottom line."



when they are finished talking,

you can trust they are probably uttering something false.

When you hear it,

you actually have reason

to extend the conversation





In fact,

trust the desire

to say something else,


"Ahem, how did you logically arrive at the conclusion


what you said was the conclusion?"


Some conclusiveness warranting termination of thought,


and additional analysis,

and information gathering,

has been assumed.

"Sir, can you tell me,

when the science is finished,

on this topic?"


"Ma'am, can you tell me,

when I'm allowed to think about this one again?"


"Ma'am, can you explain to me,

in detail,

under what circumstances,

I can finalize the conversation,

such that you will suspend thought

on a topic

like or unlike this one


^^ No one will have an answer to that last one.


If you say these things,

forgive yourself.

Promptly self-correct.

Correct yourself when you notice the error,

if you notice it later,

and not immediately.

Practice until you notice it when it

hasn't departed your head yet,

through your mouth.

Then at some point, you will not have to self-correct.

You just won't say it.

Then you won't think it.


Your thought may have been equivalent to:

"This was the most important consideration, to my mind."


"This matters most."

These are fair translations,

for some, but not all

instances of

"That's the bottom line."

But it's still an error,

even on these more favorable,

less socially demanding

tyrannical interpretations.

But notice that's the mistake of


described earlier,

in the ThoughtStream,

"This is the bestest idea in this whole conversation."

It could be true,

but it's not the bestest idea in all conversations.

So it might not feel so final,

When McGenius the 3rd steps into the conversation,

and reveals to you,

like a revelation,

how mistaken you were.

[Aside: McGenius the 3rd could be a woman, by the way.

It's not a flattering name for a woman.

Just like the word "genius" apparently.]


"This is the final thought on this topic."


Wednesday, March 11th, 2020

Instant Motivation, Part One.

Look through a bunch of old ugly pictures of yourself.

Just worked for me.

Sunday, March 8th, 2020

Bird Kiting

I was going to go to the Iditarod "re-start",

[Aside: The official start, versus the ceremonial start in Anchorage],

but missed it.

I only live about 15 miles away, so

I really should have made it.


So today, I was thinking

"Dog sleds aren't that cool anyway",

compared to the newest thing out there:

Bird kiting.

I conceived of it,

but I suspect it already existed.

Because if it didn't exist,

a more perfect world would include it.

But this world is the perfect world.

Therefore it existed.

[Aside: see the ontological argument for the

existence of things that don't exist.]


So how does bird kiting work?

You have a flock of bald eagles,

or geese,

or other trained birds.

They are tethered to a hang-glider like aircraft.

It's much like a dog sled race,

but it utilizes bird power,

instead of doggy power.


Small helium balloons assist the lift

of the hang glider,

so the birds can still feel

free like

a bird

should feel.


It takes some time to train the geese,

or the bald eagles,

or any other bird,

you find suitable.

Pigeons may work, but I'm not sure that's been attempted,

or if any of this has been attempted.

I haven't searched it on google or YouTube


But I'm sure you can do it,

if you put your mind to it.

Because you can do


you put your mind to.


Saturday, March 7th, 2020

Sometimes broken software, is better than working software.

What I will tell you

is that most cannot tell you a large list of the reasons why.

There are more reasons than I am aware of,

but I'm certainly more aware than most.

I know this from experience.

[Aside: This has no relationship at all to deploying code for clients, which must work.

I'm not super fond of disclaimers and qualifications, but in my working life I strive for error free products.]

Why would I assume I'm more aware of this than others?

Because most of the software industry is confirmably biased,

in favor of "Perfect code".

So much so,

that few have taken the time,

to see why and when,

broken, incomplete, or partially operable code can be better.


This post is not about why.

Saturday, March 7th, 2020

"Practice makes, whatever practice makes."

is the new version of

"Practice makes perfect."

And it's actually true.

Friday, March 6th, 2020

Naming your other selves.

I'm fine with having a single identifier, for reasons of

"I have only one body,"

but I'm exploring the idea,

of having more than one name, for all

my clearly discernible personalities.

To be most authentic,

maybe it is not enough,

to use the name "Mattanaw".

Maybe I need,

three or four other names.

Eight or nine?

I'm not sure yet.


This way,

you can ask me specifically,

which persona you want to talk to.

Do you want country Matt?

Or do you want,

Intellectual Matt?

You cannot have, all of them at once.

Did you notice,

you can't have all of your selves,

at once.

Even for yourself,

if you wanted to?

Friday, March 6th, 2020

Minor Edits: Friday, March 7th, 2020

Have a mentor for the right reasons.

A friend recently posted on Facebook about the fact that many people choose a mentor, so that they will be able to relinquish thinking.

"This person, will save me from thought."

Well, not in these words exactly. But close.

And I agree. It's sad.

It's one of the reasonss behind the existence of cults.

And cultiness. You know about cultiness right?

But I think mentors are important too (he does also I'm sure).

Here's was my reaction: many respects I agree. But I make one important addition; an exception, if you will: a well chosen mentor produces a concrete example of what you could potentially become yourself.

Consider this. In athletics, people think it impossible to achieve certain feats until they've seen it done by another person. Thus a heroic athlete who did the impossible is quickly emulated, and surpassed by those who choose him/her as a mentor. If not a mentor, we can say that someone has created a goal that has now become realizable in the concrete. This is a kind of leadership even if it may not provide durable guidance in all the varieties of ways a person may provide it.

People avoid trying certain things, because of dangers, risks, and seeming impossibilities. Examples of people who seemingly defy these constraints are very helpful, and may not be lesser than the person who strives to overcome those same constraints.

I wrote about this before.

You should look for role models who seem to have similar traits to you,

to see what is possible, given your characteristics.

You shouldn't choose just one role model!

Maybe you don't need to consider them role models at all.

Instead they are realistic examples of what is possible for you, if you are more like them, and less like someone else.

People do this naturally to a degree, I think.

Just have a mentor for the right reasons.

The goal is not to pass the responsibility of thinking onto the mentor.

Otherwise you are simply choosing a leader to follow.


That can be OK too, but that is for another post.

Wednesday, March 4th, 2020

Deciding When to Retain Knowledge.

I've been advising large corporations on their technological strategies for a long time now.

One thing that I find shocking, is the lack of appreciation for:

"You should decide X, because you will then have more critical knowledge, that you can apply."

Knowledge retention at large corporations is a massive problem.

"What does that have to do with me?" you might be thinking.

Well if large companies can't retain knowledge,

what makes you think your information is being retained,


that you would ever find a strategy for retaining your knowledge?

This website is largely for this purpose, although what I communicate, quite often, is goofy, or odd, or apparently unimportant or even frivolous.

But I think most, would want to retain, even their twitter pages? Right?

But saving critical information that is useful is more than just being able to save twitter data.

Companies know this, because they are already aware of the importance of talent. If the brains of their talent leave their organization, much can be lost.

I'm not overly fond of naming significant names. But we can think about Steve Jobs and the impact of his exit from Apple. And the impact of his return to Apple!

Apple aside, companies continue to struggle with retaining knowledge and it's not always possible to retain a key employee.

Knowledge loss happens in four vital ways, as I see it at present, without too much oversimplification:

[Aside: There are more ways to organize this information. There may be more or less categories based on how you choose to split it up, and it's partly arbitrary. I'm not fond of enumeration in this way, like "12 steps to life" etc... It conceals arbitrariness and appeals to people's fondness for particular round numbers, or familiar measures.]

  1. People are lost. The HR view that people are replaceable results in permanent loss of critical knowledge.
  2. Documents are lost. There is an inability to retain that knowledge, even if the knowledge was recorded somehow.
  3. Knowledge Transfer limitations create loss. There is an inability, to get that information from one person, or one document, into another person. This is due to: 1) People simply cannot use information the same way. KT doesn't transform one person into another. The total knowledge of one person, with the additional key information, constitutes the information. 2) There is not enough time and interest, often, to absorb what has been recorded (documentation often goes completely unused).
  4. Application Knowledge is lost. Finally, even if people were retained long enough for KT, and documents were created, and people were educated, there would be failure to apply. And this is connected, again, to talent, in 1.

From this it should be apparent that knowledge retention is related to talent retention.

But people don't go much further than this. We can still strategized effectively upon this information.

Long before getting to this point, however, companies seem to be lost, and give up.

They don't even get to the point of admitting:

"I'm OK with losing this vital knowledge."

The people, and the knowledge are both lost.

People seem not to even notice, somehow.

It is my job, oftentimes to determine what knowledge needs to be retained and when.

And how.

It is not an easy job, but it is a fun one.

It may seem like it is easy to solve any of these problems, but each and every issue is so complex, that I've devoted a huge portion of my personal time to solve them (although, I tackle these issues mostly indirectly).

There is no universal solution to this problem at present.

In different companies, the issue is cost and budget related.

It is too costly to retain all information, forever, while still making it available and searchable.

Nevertheless, I've been working on this for a long time to produce approaches that can be used in specific situations and at different companies, and aspire to have something more generally applicable.

Not only for companies, but for everyone.

This goal relates to this entire site, the technology underlying it, it's storage, and my personal archive, included here: Inky fibers.

Matt, why did you call this article "Inky fibers"?.

If you think about records, historically, they amount to ink on paper, or papyrus, primarily.

We have tablets too, but right now, our best way of retaining wisdom, is on paper,

and not in digital formats (not yet, perhaps).

Sunday, March 1st, 2020

"Priby Proboscis"

What do you think that is?

If you think you know, take a guess and mail me.


Sunday, March 1st, 2020

"You've been Musked"

Elon musk should wait 20 years,

and then tell everyone they've been musked.

It doesn't sound good.

It's memorable.

"You've been musked."

Sunday, March 1st, 2019

Fatty Pigeon Ranch

What should I name my ranch? I'm still partial to "Fatty Pigeon Ranch."

There are no pigeons in Alaska. And it's not a proper ranch, but nevertheless. What do you think of the name? I will pretend that the moose are captive. They are free but they don't care how lesser mortals, humans, are misinformed about them. I will gossip adversely against the moose.

[Aside: I'm prepared to hear unfavorable reactions]


Sunday, March 1st, 2020

9/11 War Advocates

were reactionary zealots.

They were everywhere throughout America.

As dumb as dumb can be.

I witnessed it with my own eyes.

Intelligent skeptics,

recoiled at the fervor

of complete imbeciles,

paying no critical thought to the information provided.

Ready to react.

Ready to push the red button.

To kill anything and anyone,

the President recommended.

How accurate are our

Presidential addresses?

I accept little,

at face value.

And when I do,

I'm a bit disappointed about

not knowing any better.



you should be taught more about,

how foolish the post-9/11 reaction was.

I'm a Millenial too BTW.

I'll speak for my kind.

[Aside: I don't actually agree with generation categories.

They are dumb and unscientific. Not much more to say about it.]

"I'm ready to kill, just point me in the right direction.

I'll trust you concerning,

what "right" is."



didn't steer anything.


In retrospect,

I think many know this is true.

But few knew it was true,

as it was happening.

I promise you,

that this is a correct posting.

The correct account,

was that people became stupid,

in their anger.

Many in their pretend anger.

War is entertaining.


On September 11th

this post might be considered to be

bad taste.

that's also due to mistakes.

But for this time of year,

it is just fine.

When 9/11 approaches,

I'll consider,

if reposting is appropriate or not.

After all,

this was written about 9/11

but not on


Sunday, March 1st, 2020

Jesus would be killed again.

And you would chuck a stone along with everyone else.

Or would fail to step in,

to prevent the killing,

even if there were an opening

for you to step in to prevent it.


The lynch mob,

was filled with people,

just like you.






Christians think they would be tipped off,

to who the modern day Jesus would be.



Ever think that the message

from before

would not be the newest message,

given it was only

a preparatory step,



with errors.

Since it was transmitted,

by stone-chuckers?

Church of stone-chuckers?


I don't believe in Jesus, BTW.

But I do believe in,

knowledge-based revelations.


[Aside: going by probabilities here. You're probably not the guy depicted below.

I know I am! If you are, then I congratulate you.

It means you are willing to have stones chucked at you too.]

Sunday, March 1th, 2020

Old Cars are, Oddly Comforting

Shows recalling the late 70s and 80s seem to be pretty popular online.

The show "Stranger Things" seems to have created a trend,

if one did not already exist before that show began.

I'm seeing older cars.

They have an odd attractiveness.

Fresh and new but old on screen.

Keys and locks.

Knobs and functions.

Not too much going on.

You get in and drive.


I'm wondering when

there might be a

new trend concerning

recoil from technology:

"I do not want a screen."


Old cars didn't have any screens.

And neither did anyone,

sitting in them.

Sunday, March 1st, 2020

Parents and Mentors Remove Obstacles (And Other Stuff).

A couple years ago, I attended a conference with the Congress on the Future of Engineering Software (COFES), in Phoenix, Arizona. Many prominent figures in engineering, software, and academia were present: Attendance List.

I was fortunate enough to be seated next to Mr. Stephen Tsai, a very interesting and influential figure from Stanford University, and an Intern. I wish I knew her name, but I do not recall it and don't have a clear way to find out who it was, without looking excessively eager to find out. There were other participants, but I can't recall their names either.

Anyway, at the table we began talking about mentorship.

And I suddenly had an insight.

Mentoring needs to be about removing obstacles primarily.

Not about teaching, and trying to make an impression using authoritative words and quotations.

We already know people are self-guided.

They learn, when they are interested. They are interested when information is relevant and connects with experience.

What is more relevant,

than obstacles to present and future interests?

I was talking about this with the Intern, while others were listening in.

Feedback seemed to indicate, that all were in agreement.

There was an interesting level of agreement on this topic.

Some unpalpable "This speaks to me, this is right."

There was energy.

But then the conference meal started and some presentations began.

But I'll always remember that this seemed to be a conclusion,

worth investigating further.


Ageism is a problem.

Pyramids are a problem.

Elders want to protect their positions,

and block growth.

Removing obstacles to growth, and idea realization,

also means removing obstacles,

to incentives,

and funding, and elevated roles.


How many managers, volunteer to be replaced?


Some occlusion to advancement is necessary of course.

There are not enough spots at the tops of pyramids,

for all talent underneath.


But think about it.

If we are to live in a real meritocracy,

then wouldn't it end up being situated,

such that we would agree with the obstacles?

They are not artificial,

or subjective,

but are just?

What of the social justice,

of the corporate pyramid?


This is another post indicating that equality is not real.

We want to remove obstacles,

for talent to show itself to the maximum,

and allow us to rationally select.

We do not rationally select.

And we have conflicting ideas, about equality,

and advancement.


But maybe the biggest issue of all,

is conservative values,

about how people are entitled to their positions.

Or are entitled to career growth.


I wrote a related post before, called;

Obstructing Corporate Turnover

The idea in this post,

is that once you are in an organization,

you think you are entitled to stay, or to advance.

But in a meritocratic system,

there would be a continual rational shuffling.

Sometimes, the very youngest, would shoot straight to the top.

That this so rarely happens,

is an indicator that there is a problem.

I am just at this moment,

realizing it should happen frequently.

For consider the quality of talent that must exist,

in a company of 100,000

with an executive leadership of fewer than 25?


Which executive, is ready to be replaced,

by the genius intern?

I'm not fond of the word genius

but it works here.

That really intelligent intern,

is going to quit,

or be pushed out,

for being too talented.

Do you realize that?

The Inappropriately Exluded

Thursday, February 27th, 2020

What is the value of coronavirus news, per capita?

Say I watch the news, and I don't change the channel immediately after the weather,

when it says something about Coronavirus?

The weather seems to have a clear value.

it impacts my decisions.

But I'm not clear on the value of Coronavirus news.

I could be mistaken, but here's my guess.

I can ignore it completely, and never talk about it, never listen to conversation about it,

and pretend it does not exist,

to my benefit

rather than to my


What do you think?


Other than that, I'm curious now.

What is the value in USD of any particular piece of news,

to a person who can choose to ignore it

or actively listen and participate in it?

I feel like the core value,

is not saving oneself from coronavirus,

but in the entertainment value of gossiping about it.

In that case,

Coronavirus only needs to seem important.

In that case the news is creating value by exaggerating...

Anyway, the point has been made.

I don't think I'm at any risk of contracting this virus.

If I do, then,

"Hey everyone,

I contracted Coronavirus."

Gossip value still obtained.

Thursday, February 27th, 2020

Pretend to be Responsible, so You Can Pretend to be Special.

Consider something horrible in the world that people pretend to want to alleviate.

Starvation in other countries for example.

You might feel responsible for that, but I assure you, you probably are not.

If you are responsible, then you are probably a killer of sorts.

Maybe you live there and you are diverting food to other people for your benefit.

In that case you are responsible, but you are certainly not special. At least not in a sense that you can feel good about. You might consider that you should feel bad, about being responsible for that.

Maybe you are especially horrible, but you're not good.

Now, let us assume you are not responsible for the starvation carnage around the world.

Then in that case, you can feel great about yourself, if you do something that actually impacts the problem to a degree.

You weren't responsible, and yet you wanted to do something.

That's really rare.

"I just want to help them, and I know that we are not actually responsible."

Notice that usually what people say is:

"I wanted to help because we are responsible for it..."

Then they guilt you into providing money, and insist that there is some minimum that you should provide.

And they'll even help you believe you are responsible somehow.


Usually the goal for a person doing this

is only to feel and act responsible,

without ever doing anything.

"How does that work Mattanaw?"

Here's how.

Suppose you feel responsible for starvation.

Other's will not feel responsible.

You will talk to them, and probably try to convince them, that everyone is responsible, if you feel strongly about it.

I've been there.

Many will disagree.

Suddenly you are motivated by their disagreement,

because you have political adversary of sorts.

You have someone to overcome.

You are convinced now, that you have a special mission.

You need to convince them they are responsible too.

But what is funny,

is you might come to believe that only they are responsible really.

Because even though you are doing nothing,

by convincing them they are responsible,

somehow you are helping starving people who still have no food.

You are convincing others they have a right for food,

and that makes you feel like

they'll get food.

[Aside: Rights don't get anyone anything. If they have it, then the have it.].


Now, what is funny is that people who are of this mindset,

become less insterested once everyone is of the same opinion.

If you convince everyone to fix starvation,

you are no longer the starvation warrior. Everyone is.

You're not special. But you'll remind everyone,

that you were an early proponent.

Now that is valuable! If starvation was eliminated by your efforts.

But being an early proponent of something that doesn't happen,

might indicate that you are enlightened, and ineffective.

Oops, you focused on feeling enlightened.


I see this in the actions of Vegan people myself.

Although they are quite right in insisting that everyone is responsible, who eats meat.

They are actually right.

Consumerism has an impact.

But like the people who pretend to be responsible,

the Vegans want to feel unique.

"The few of us are fixing this problem, and I am getting attention."

Notice the attention requires, for the problem to exist!!

"I get my meaning from the fact that you eat meat."

Personally, as a long time Vegan,

I'm excited for when it will become a non-issue, and everyone is Vegan.

Then maybe the word "vegan" falls out of favor,

because everyone is that.

Or there are synthetic meat products that do not harm animals,

although they may actually be farmed from real animal tissues.

I will happily call myself a vegan,

even though everyone else is a vegan too.

Although like everyone else,

I'll probably look for a new problem,

to make myself feel more special again,

for being unique.

See how that works?

It doesn't end.


I'll try not to feel special,

until someone who is a meat eater,

insists they always were on the side of the animal rights advocates.

You weren't.

Like the people who were on the side of slavery,

you were on the side of animal cruelty.

But I won't derive my importance from the existence of a problem either.

When the problem is over, I'll only invoke

"Special Vegan Mattanaw"

to counter the



It is fairly sad that this is the reality.

When people notice that there is a worldwide problem,

that they are not responsible for,

they pretend to take responsibility,


  1. they do nothing to alleviate the problem, and
  2. they derive attention by setting themselves apart, and
  3. they create guilt by making other people feel responsible.


We need to be watchful for this type of person.


They aren't actually doing anything,

but learning about something they don't like,

and taking a position on the topic.

It's shocking how common that is.

Don't you hate homelessness?

I do to.

It's sad.

And what else?

Nothing else. It will continue and you'll just talk.


One more example.

This example is better.

You can feel important, by pretending you are responsible for "Sin" in the world.

Then you can pretend that you are responsible for saving people from "Hell".

However, you are not actually responsible for these things.

neither exists...

They are not distant like starvation.

They don't exist at all!

Since neither exists, and neither can be fixed (you can't fix a problem that doesn't exist),

then you are pretending.

And you are taking actions that don't result in anything.

And you make yourself special, because only you,

or some designated few (a "remnant") can fix it.

So you've done exactly what I've mentioned above.

You've self-designated yourself as important.

You pretended that you were responsible so that you could pretend that you are special.


Another totally different approach that you can follow is:

  1. Acknowledge that you are not responsible.
  2. Acknowledge that other people are not either, and that they therefore don't have to do anything to fix it, even if you think you should, because you are interested.
  3. Choose a problem that exists, that you can work on. [It needs to exist.]
  4. Actually do something to solve the problem.

Again, saving people from "Hell" is not actually doing anything.


The crazy thing is that people who don't think much about "Hell" or "Sin"

will become angry with this sort of thing.

But they never do anything about it ever!

They just get annoyed, when they hear someone say, it doesn't exist!


Don't be like these people.

  1. You are unique, and so you are special in a sense.
  2. You should actually do things instead of pretending to do them.
  3. You are not responsible for much that is wrong in the world.
  4. Other people are not responsible either, largely.
  5. Personal value doesn't depend on "making the world a better place."

If you accept these things, suddenly you might feel just fine how you are.

Then you won't feel like you need to pretend to be responsible for what you're not responsible for.

But you can still choose something you're interested in,

and focus on making improvements,

so that you make real changes in the world, that you can feel good about.

Make sure that change you choose exists,

and isn't "Saving people from Sin or Hell."

Thursday, February 27th, 2020

Mattanaw's Academic Papers

To date, I have not been publishing my academic papers.

I have many papers that are awaiting publication, which were produced either as a graduate student,

or articles that were originally intended to become books,

or submissions to other peer-reviewed academic journal.

Here is a first publication of many to come.

This one may not be of great interest, unless someone has concerns

about managing sales teams with sales technologists,

in large software companies (Like Microsoft, Apple, or others).

On this website: Executive Proposal to Correct Salesperson to Technologist Ratios

On Executive Proposal to Correct Salesperson to Technologist Ratios

Many more papers on diverse topics of more general interest will be published soon.

Tuesday, February 25th, 2019

Typod Forevr. When the Editor Who Can, Chooses Not To.

So today, I looked at my post from yesterday night.

There are some grammatical problems, and typos.

Mostly typos.

I can distinguish "its" from "it's".

Obviously, I know "an" is not "and".

Yet I decided to leave it there for eternity.

Or for however long it can be there.


Some readers believe,

their reactions to typos, justifies

summary inferences about the writer.

But we know that is fallacious,

so I won't even go there.

Waste of time.


But here's what I will say.

I probably typed 10,000 words yesterday before writing that post.

For my course at Harvard University;

for a book I'm writing in another class led by a Georgetown Professor;

for some writing relating to my legal case that I'm self representing myself on;

regarding a large tract of land I procured in my occupation,

leading companies with my


And programming (i.e. the code runs);

and chats with a couple beautifully smart friends I talk with regularly.

Now, ask me if I care at all,

if I mistype "it's" and it comes out "its".

My multiple degrees and certs are still over there beside me.

I promise you "Edit everything to perfection"

is not a strategy.

"I don't know a better rule than this"

is really what that person should say.

It's seriously the dictum of an imbecile,

with very little understanding of the subtleties,

of quality advice.

Fine, for the grade student,

"Try to correct it so you actually know how ultimately."

Kinda makes sense.

But guess what, already you made my point in that.

Your twitter message,

is not a billboard on Times Square.

And meaning and productivity,

come first. Not second.

Make a ton of sense in bad grammar and be productive,

and let other people make no sense in perfect grammar and let them be unproductive.

They're always going to be scared of people,

who will judge them,

like they judge everyone else.

This post is not only about grammar,

can you tell?

If I spoke that last post out loud with lisps and errors,

you would probably receive the message.

And I already published it.

What did you publish yesterday,

grammar critic?

Look at my typos

and understand I'm ok with them being typos


Monday, February 24th, 2020

When big data, is just data.

There are some limitations on how much data, can be stored in anyone's repository.

However, in marketing,

we see the obvious advancement,

of pulling records together on individuals,

about how they are using software,

across channels and across devices.

So when will these massive data sets

be made available to everyone?

You have our data,

when can you provide it back

to us?


There's a problem.

When the data set gets large enough,

it becomes infeasible to provide an interface

to all that data.

It becomes especially impossible,

to provide the data.

Because a user will not be able to afford,

the storage hardware.

This problem could become permanently


If we wait too long to solve it.


Here is a concern about privacy again.

I don't have rights to your data.

You don't have rights to mine.

But why do we care?

Why are we willing to give a company

access to all of the data without

accepting anything in return?

By pitting you against me,

and me against you,

in our unwillingness for each other,

to know each other completely,

we allow them to have everything.

The conjunction of data of all people.

While we get,

some tiny subset of the whole.

If I permit you to see me,

and you permit me to see you,

we have a right to all of the data...

well, we can make the case for obtaining such a right.

Or, in my way of saying it,

we'll have a way for obtaining it...

(You can cut out the word "right" entirely).


Think about it.

Do you know how software companies

can control information?

They can say:

My software holds it an it is costly.

My software processes it and its costly.

We would have to write software to provide access,

and that's costly.

And... we are in business, to have

Intellectual Property,

based what we learn from

our software.

And you are our experiment.




When I took Psychology courses at the University of Maryland,

we covered the process for conducting a study,

which involved getting approval,

as to the Ethics.

It is not easy. It is complex.

But guess what?

In software,

You are a study and you don't even know it.


What subset of data can be made available to everyone,

and what subset remains proprietary,

and how is the distinction justified?

This is a fundamental decision that needs to be

openly decided.


Oddly enough, I don't really see much

democratization of data happening,

given Democracy.


I am perpetually saddened,

by how silly America is,

in its pretense of having things,

it doesn't have.


How can I have

My data lake?

Monday, February 24th, 2020

Called the coperator, and they did not coperate

Yesterday night I called the coperator,

because of breaking and entering.

Ever arrive at home to find the door wide open?

Hey, ummm...

I didn't open this door

and leave it open like this?

Second time it happened.

So I called the dispatcher lady.

She was nice.

Nobody came out.

No police report comes to a useful end here in Alaska,

from my experience.

Maybe I have to get shot first,

for anything to happen quickly or efficiently.

Monday, February 24th, 2020

Originally Commented on Facebook, in Response to Rio Zak, on Sunday, February 23rd, 2020

The Cure to Fatty Clogs of Death.

Recently a friend on Facebook, Rio Zak, posted an article about how extra protein may encourage plaques to build up on blood vessels. At least as may be indicated by a study on mice. I added a comment to challenge, not her, but the article shared, at least with respect to its guiding motivation, which can perhaps be surmised.

The article she shared is this one: High-protein diets boost artery-clogging plaque, mouse study shows.

Fatty clogs result in strokes, heart attacks, and various other conditions that probably account for the majority of premature deaths in the Western World.

"Premature" in the sense that an alternative lifestyle would easily increase life-span to, or beyond, whatever the average happens to be for a region.

Here is my opinion on this topic:

"I find this to be unlikely if the diet is both vegan and high in protein, because as usual, the study's design is for the normal population, and not those who are not consuming a high fat, diet, with saturated fats and cholesterol.

"Plaque contains a mix of fat, cholesterol, calcium deposits and dead cells."

So the easiest solution is to not eat anything that would result in a plaque to begin with, like Bill Clinton ended up doing.

Using myself as an example, I don't eat any cholesterol, and eat only some saturated fat, which I would be better off not doing, because I bought a tub of coconut oil and am feeling too cheap to throw it away (and I should).

You can see my blood tests results here indicating low cholesterol levels, low VLDL, HDL, etc...:

Open Health

So even if I eat a high protein diet (and I eat a very high protein diet now for bodybuilding), I will probably not end up with much plaque.

Now if I decided I was not going to be vegan any longer, and I ate a combination of a high protein diet, with high cholesterol, maybe I would have more to worry about, by adding more protein. This is the kind of thing that makes me think that such studies are misguided though.

It seems that researchers are really concerned about how to not change the typical diet that's rich in fat and cholesterol."

In other words, the desire to avoid the conclusion that the vegan diet is beneficial (or a near vegan, near vegetarian diet, which is what I advocate), results in studies that have a poor design.

What's the other cure for my problems since I cannot make the changes, the doctor should be recommending?

This attitude ends up controlling the imaginations of scientists in their considerations about what studies should be conducted.

When I die, it will probably not be due to fatty clogs.

I can't control for all variables but this is a great one to control for.

As people already know in theory,

but not in practice.

"Check yourself before you wreck yourself."

Monday, February 24th, 2020

My Political Tendency Test

Last time, if I recall correctly, it was directly in the center, except shifted 1/2 units to the right.

This time, it shifted down 4 blocks.

Test here.

The difference appears to be due to changes in perspective influenced by courses on economics, but I can't quite tell.

I'm highly averse to answering questions like these, because I see correct, or representative answers, as going one way or the other, depending on how the question is extended. In other words, it depends on the meaning of the question, while the meaning is not actually provided for.

I think that people are mostly mistaken, if they think that the questions mean what they think they mean, except in a few cases.

A better test would be one that is more detailed, where fewer readers are able to understand the questions, for increased specificity and less generality.

Fun test!

It is more fun because of the ambiguities of course, but that does make it less accurate.

I don't usually even like to participate with these things,

but hey, every once in a while,

It's OK to play.

And let yourself be classified

and stigmatized permanently maybe.

Sunday, February 23rd, 2020

I'm empathetic, and that's why you're going to manage your own emotions.

People who think that they are "empaths" reveal how little they understand,

about empathy,

in their insistence,

that empathy entails,

taking on the role of managing emotions,

from the other,

to the self.

For all people.


Someone who has done that for long enough,

gets sick of it,

[Aside "Did you get sick of it yet?" is an excellent question,

to separate beginners and pretenders from experts.]

and learns that

an empathetic person,

who is not ready to sacrifice

their own emotions


who also

understands some functions of each emotion

may not perform the acts

that are anticipated,

by those who think they know what an

empathetic person acts like.


An empathetic person,

is not necessarily a woman,

being permanently,

soft and yogic.


So get used to the idea,

of the empathetic person,

who cares about you,

but does not care about

becoming a slave

of your emotional volatility.


This is the empath

who cares about himself/herself/itself

the same

if not

more than others.

Sunday, February 23rd, 2020

When "Never give up" is not the answer.

As a Determinist, I think whether someone gives up or not, is predetermined.

"Giving up" is given a negative connotation in America, but that is lamentable.

There are triumphs that have resulted from perseverance in one direction.

But the are triumphs that have resulted, from changing course too.

"Never give up" and "Learn something new" are both recommended.

What do I choose and when?

On LinkedIn I encountered a post, sharing a video from Deshauna Barber.

You can find the original video here:

She experienced triumph after many failed attempts to win Miss USA.

Finally she won. Who does not feel glad she won, after watching a video such as this one?

As usual, I disagree with the message, however, although not entirely.

I think a more subtle, and more useful message can be delivered, using this same experience.

"Giving up" is wise.

Mathematically, giving up is a frequently recurring, and important decision that one has to make, and can make well, in many different circumstances.

As you age, you will need to give things up.

Giving up is not incompatible with perseverance.

Maybe what she is hoping to instill in people is that they should have perseverance about things that are really possible to them.

However, in the world, there is competition, and if everyone were to follow this message, it is not clear that perseverance would result in the same result.

Because in competition, one has to have something different from the others to succeed.

She may have won because she had more perseverance than the others, but it is hard to imagine, that her speech is about teaching her competition to have as much perseverance as she had, if not more.

Here is my comment from LinkedIn regarding this.

It may appear negative, but I assure you, it is not.

"Never give up" is not the best message coming out of this though. The message is to "not give up when there is a reasonable expectation of success" where the results expected are better than alternatives. Because she would not have won any of her pageants if she was not already close, and there were many who tried and had no chance at all. In that case, the experience alone may justify the work, but the phrase "Never give up" is far too simplistic, and sometimes "cutting losses" and "trying something new" and "doing something different" and "experiencing more in life" is as good and as positive an answer as "try it again."


You can tell that her message is incorrect, because it is the accepted and traditional message.

The correct answer is mathematical.

It is also a strategic message, that not everyone can use.

If everyone were to use it, then it wouldn't be a heartwarming message.

It would simply have a more cutthroat result, due to greater competition.

And there would not be an increase in the number of people who can win.

Sunday, February 17th, 2020

Dying Speech of an Old Philosopher

Dying Speech of an Old Philosopher

I strove with none, for none was worth my strife:

   Nature I loved, and, next to Nature, Art:

I warmed both hands before the fire of Life;

    It sinks; and I am ready to depart.

‐ Walter Savage Landor, 1775-1864

This fairly old piece of text,

is oddly consistent with the point of view of this website.

Sunday, February 16th, 2020

Let's Change Marketing Together.

It will make whoever does the changes,


for a bit but then it will just be normal.

If it catches on.


Amazon sent me a message,

saying "We've found a suggestion for you"

with some product information for something I searched for myself.

I think it was in my mailbox.


The problem with this is that the Marketing/Advertisement

is lying to me.

This is why in a previous posting, I said "There is no wisdom in the marketing."

This is hyperbolic.

Marketers are people who can have wisdom.

But the ads, and the propaganda, is designed to

Manipulate us, with lies, fabrications, false directives about what's in our best interest.

It's contrary to education.

Education is for wisdom.

We have to educate people to be wise enough to avoid marketing,

and to see through ads.

Some are not smart enough to do this,

even with education.

Everyone has trouble doing it all the time,

because of limited energy,

since stimulus in our environments cannot be controlled,

and we cannot always direct our logical minds,

to anything that might catch our attention,

or our subconsciousness.

This is why I said that there is no wisdom in the marketing.

Of all things we aim to achieve,

with Wisdom,

is to see through what Marketing is trying to gain

from us.

Marketing does not care,

what it might do to you,

to get what it wants.


Do you want to educate your children,

well enough to see through this marketing,

and attain wisdom?


To be able to see through the marketing,

enables one to see through,

lies, false authority, and almost any other manipulation tactic you can think of!


The Amazon ad could have said:

Our system saw that you were reviewing this product,

and Amazon would like you to consider purchasing it again.


It is still something I do not wish to see,

which is a violation. Because I prefer to buy,

when I'm looking.

I didn't ask Amazon to consume my attention,

when I paid for that Prime membership.

There are too many things to opt out of,

to ensure, that I don't see that ad,

when I'm on someone else's website.


I'm afraid,

people don't care about their kids,

as much as they think and say they do.

Saturday, February 15th, 2020

Minor Edit Concerning Oxygen Freezing/Boiling Point. Sunday, February 16th, 2020

Creating an oxygen rich living environment.

One current interest of mine is exploring how exactly we can improve the oxygen concentration in our living atmosphere.

How can we increase the amount of oxygen available to us in our homes, or in our cars, or other contained environments?

After doing some cursory research, I have stumbled upon a few options.

The first option would be to go to a doctor and either pretend to have a medical condition, or reveal a medical condition, such that you will get medical treatment using specialty devices, that allow you to obtain oxygen and administer oxygen to yourself.

I don't want to do that at all.

So on to option two.

For option two, I'm considering visiting a supplier of oxygen who sells tanks for various purposes. For example, it appears that you can buy pure oxygen for burning with torches used for welding (the oxygen would allow for a hotter burn than would be possible in the normal concentrations found in the atmosphere). Not having hardly any experience welding, and no certification, I will discover soon whether or not I'm allowed to purchase it. I'm thinking it might be a controlled material.

If it is not a controlled material, or is not cost prohibitive, I will buy a large tank of it, and along with that tank, purchase a gas level detector that can read out, in the least, the amount of oxygen present in the immediate environment to at least a tenth of a decimal place. This way, I can open up the oxygen tank valve to a certain degree, and test how much the percentage of oxygen present in the environment will increase, and to what degree it will fluctuate. With some experience, I can then find a way to control the environment such that air transfer is understood, and the amount of oxygen lost over time, to become closer to the amount on average present in the atmosphere can be determined, and how long it takes for that transition to occur.Finally, I can then gauge the costs associated with it and see to what extent it is realistic to continue to take this approach.

A third option that I considered, is the use of household plants.

The use of household plants appears to be completely debunked as a viable method of producing oxygen in the home to an appreciable degree. From what I have read, it appears that the amount of oxygen produced, and CO2 absorbed, are determined by plant respiration and photosynthesis, in very predictable way. The amount of oxygen produced, depends on the growth of the plants in the home, and in conjunction with the chemical reaction formula for photosynthesis measurement of the growth of the plant, can be used to estimate the contribution of oxygen the plants will make to the local atmosphere. It appears that the plants would need to grow almost a pound a day to make any contribution whatsoever, and this would require having a small jungle within a living space, and even in that case, it may not be as impactful as one might hope. So I ruled this out as an option, preferring instead, to simply buy the gas from those who are able to separate it and bottle it.

The final option, option four, is to separate the gas from the atmosphere myself.

After some review of the process on YouTube, it appears that whatever approach you use, you will end up with a small industrial multi-phasic refinery of sorts. Two methodologies are used from what I see. The first employs playing with temperatures of the gaseous mixtures to ultimately vapor or liquid distill the mixture until ultimately oxygen is separated, because for each element, there is a different boiling point and freezing point that can be used to separate them out. This process is not simplistic and it requires liquification and/or freezing of each of the gasses of the atmosphere, with temperatures at play as low as −182.96 Celsius, which is the boiling point of Oxygen. It is lower for Argon and Nitrogen, and this is how they can be separated from one another at low temperatures. Overall, I don't see this as being feasible, unless I were to opt to spend very large amounts of money one 1) creating a laboratory, or 2) buying the tools that amount to a small refinery.

The second approach seems to be more modern, but less precise in the separation (recall that vapor distillation of water uses a similar process and results in pure water, at about 99.99% or better [and assumption with no research]). This other process uses small porous minerals called zeolytes as filters of the mixture of gases that can bond with argon or nitrogen. It may be used in a multi-phased system that also has some distillation process, but from one system I was examining on YouTube that is for sale, it uses these zeolytes multiple times, to gain an ever increasing level of Oxygen purity, kindof like a multi-phased water treatment system. Just like with a filter based water treatment system, purity probably does not approach vapor distilled, at least for rudimentary systems. This zeolytic system appears to produce Oxygen purity of 99.5% or better. But again, this process is very expensive, and there is no way to construct, by myself, a system that uses Zeolytes. It seems more feasible to create a system that separates based on temperature alone, than to purchase zeolytes and incorporate them into such a system.

So at this moment, it appears I will take the easy way out, and purchase oxygen tanks, and procure a oxygen sensor.

I have not been researching this long (about an hour), so if anyone has any interest in this topic, or experience improving the oxygen concentration of a local atmosphere (at home or in a lab), please let me know via email.

BTW, I am aware that Oxygen is an explosive material, and highly flammable. Nevertheless, it is in the air, so I will have it one way or another.

Thursday, February 13th, 2020

Can you see the root?

To what extent to you think you see the root?

Not the envelope.

The root.

Thursday, February 13th, 2020

Our emotional dance with reality.

Reading this over, I'm like "Man, don't be so glum." Oddly enough, this is not actually glum. This may shed some insight on my personality. I really like reality, in its alternative perspectival emotionalities. Or something like that.

There is this emotional dance we have, with reality.


The light did not understand the darkness

And the darkness did not understand the light

such that the greater realization was not forthcoming for either.

Thursday, February 13th, 2020

If I do it, or I don't do it, is already determined.

Over time,

you get a feel for this.


Destiny, predetermination, "Inshallah", God willing, etc...

These are in alignment in many ways.

I don't suppose the extra entity.


Now let us realize, that the simpler

point of view

is the one that experiences it

without adding anything.


Coexist is not a strategy.

I think a good strategy,

is one that merges,

and subtracts.

We'll come together on this point.


Propaganda and marketing

steer you to the purchase.

The existence of the device,

steers you to the device.

A single example.

Wednesday, February 12th, 2020

"Hey! I thought we were fwinds!"

This is way more fun to say than you might expect.

I'm thinking it and not saying it right now.

I'll say it later, OK?

There is nothing profound about this post at all.

Maybe if I reflect on it, I'll find something.

Sunday, February 9th, 2020

See you later, potential friend.

Whenever I used to meet someone new,

I would expect something to develop from it.

I suspect some others thought that was a weird

thing about me.

If they didn't recognize that intent,

maybe instead

they were more

just trained to be ready to forget someone

after an interaction.

I was never that way before.

But slowly I'm becoming

this other kind of person.

We just met,

and that's that I guess.


I have many friends,

on social media,

whom I only met once or twice.

But I remember.

I remember you.


It's impossible to get to know everyone well,

or follow up with everyone

you ever meet.

So maybe there is a lesson that took me a long time to learn.


Every person I met was a new relationship in progress.

"How do I build on this conversation?"

"What can I say I will improve in myself based on this chat?"

"How can I show someone I valued them

and what they said enough

that I made a personal change?"


When I meet someone new now,

I mostly think it is over

after that first casual interaction.

Saturday, February 8th, 2020

Sleeping as much as I need to.

Recently, I decided I was going to sleep as much as I felt I needed to. I've been sleeping way more than I expected, and I feel great.

I don't at all feel like I'm oversleeping. Rather, I feel like I'm sleeping as much as I should.

12 hours or so per day. It is bizarre. But I've been seeing gains in muscle growth, and psychologically I feel very well rested.

Since very young I needed a ton of sleep. It varies day to day. But I don't at all subscribe to the idea that individuals, each and every one of them, require 8 hours per day. I certainly need 10 hours or more on average.

Monday, February 3rd, 2020

You and everyone you know as a public notary.

Save the time. Need a notary?

Find the person with a face.

I want to become a notary.

I want the stamp.

You want the stamp too.

I know you do.

Mostly everyone can have the stamp.

There should be a holiday,

called "Public Notary Day"

where everyone signs up to become




There should be more notaries than voters.


I'm being serious.

This is something that could actually change America.

Everything legal gets easier.

Be the strange you want to see in the world.

In this case the strange,

involves becoming a public notary.

Friday, January 31st, 2019

A current interest in logic and mathematics.

Below are some comments, made to a friend, indicating some current interests in logic an mathematics, that may be of interest to others (slightly edited from my comments in our convo):

"In Mathematics, I've been thinking of the significance of the Sheffer stroke, and Russell's approach vs Gödel's, in the context of the continued rise of computers, AI, machine learning, and so on. I really do wonder if something is amiss regarding people's assumptions about Gödel's conclusions. Intuitively something is amiss. Natural logic vs. Mathematics.

In a state of nature, you do not first Math a problem to an answer, but you will natural logic a problem to an answer (although intuition precedes both)."

This would be a worthwhile topic to consider for a thesis in mathematics, logic, philosophy, or in a host of other disciplines.

There are unsettled issues contained in this.

Friday, Janurary 31st, 2020

Process diagram your way to the mathematical answers.

Even your mathematical solutions,

arise because of some process,

that could be captured,

in a process diagram.

After the fact,

or before.

I am thinking of profound mathematical solutions,

just as much as I'm thinking of

everyday mathematical solutions.


Thanks to Roddy Young of Tokoroa, New Zealand,

for catalyzing my insight.

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

The Software is Botched.

While I'm enjoying myself, working for, and running my own company, I decided it's time to look for new opportunities.

In that search, I've discovered just how terrible the job search truly is.

Using tools like LinkedIn, show how horrible integrations between product really are.

"You're a major software company, and you don't know how to parse data?"

Is what I think to myself.

You can't parse the JSON and the XML.

The String.


I want to help you.

But your integration,

won't let me submit

my application to you effectively.

And you are the software company!

LinkedIn passed me off to your site,

that doesn't work.

And now you cannot see my

extensive history,

because there's no way,

I'm spending 8 hours applying to your company,

after many years,

constructing a flawless resume

that already does the job.

You want me to submit my resume,

then fill in hundreds of form fields,

and my resume already has all the data in it.

Data duplication?

LinkedIn Duplication.

You need me badly,

and it is short work.

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

Can you ever really tell, if you need more,

or less,

when you are thinking

"less is more"?


It is not about more or less.

It is not about simplicity.

It is about optimization, given certain




Can you ever really tell if you need more?

Thursday, January 23rd 2020

Typo Edited: Friday, January 24th 2020

Ever notice that the "best" option for a decision

is simply the idea you have,

that seems to be preferable to others you are aware of?

Are you aware of them all?

Another thing. There is no "all options".

"All options have been considered" is false,

for every decision.

What you have,

and what we all have in joint decisions,

is what we have imagined thus far,

and can recall.

And the best option,

is only the one,

that your limited imagination,

has produced,

by the time the decision has been made.


The best decision,

was merely that idea that you had,

that you

and possibly others,

wanted the most.

THJA23RD, 2020



Decrypt Here

Put message into Ciphertext field.

Password: Yergonnadecryptit

Wednesday, January 22nd, 23rd 2020

"Lord, Liar or Lunatic", ith-chotomies, and complexity calling for math.

There is a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", that says that we are to ask ourselves, if one particular prophet is the Lord, is a Liar, or is a Lunatic.

The error here is one of a false trichotomy of sorts.

It's a salesman's tactic, used to channel people, like cattle, through one door, and then through one of three other doors.

What about, when something is just fiction?

Or an admixture of fact and fiction, with many tangles?


[Aside: Pronounced: "Tangle eeeee bus es". It's not a real word.]


Many are aware of the phrase "false dichotomies". Dividing something into two when that division is illusory.

The way that that illusion can play out depends on many factors.

This is a false trichotomy.

But there is no limit to the types of labyrinths you can send cattle into.

OR people.

There are false ith-chotomies.

Or just massive multi-level trees on trees on trees of ith-chotomies.

Many branches and dendrites on three or more dimensions.

The spatially limited won't often go there.


So whenever you hear someone say "false dichotomy",

think to yourself

"This could be much more complex than that,

and a mathematical representation is probably much

better suited for the job.'


I'm no professional mathematician, in the sense

that all I do is math,

but I imagine,

this is the pain in the mind of the Mathematician,

who knows that almost every problem encountered,

is far more complicated,

than ordinary language permits,

them to discuss,

or other people to understand.


Yes I care about you,

Person Mathematician.

"Person" is an honorific here.

Pr. Mathematician.


Did this bring some relief, to you?


Relief for one person,

is not relief for the other.


So the work must be finished,

for each person to get the relief,

they need from the master work.

Friday, January 17th, 2020

"Fight for your rights!"

So that you can have them?

And what if you don't fight?



my opinion is that rights

are not preferable

to having something secure.


Instead of a right to food,

and shelter,

I'd rather have food and shelter.

Fighting is not easy,

when malnourished.


If I could forgo having


and choose to


have the same things

that rights say I have

I would choose to have them,

and not NOT have them.

Wouldn't you?


We tell people in poor countries,

they have human rights,

and so on.

What do you think they care about?

What you say they have,

or their immanent starvation?


Got rights?

Or do you have to

do something

to secure whatever it is you need?

In that case,

Why not just say,

You can play the game,

and pay the money,

and provide the effort,

and maybe

you'll have what you're

hoping for,

that you don't actually have secured

until you have it secured.


What's the difference between,

fighting for something you need,

and fighting for your rights?

Fighting for what you need,

is less confusing,

because there is no middle thing

called rights to mentally deal with.


The most important thing is

"To what extent does this system

secure what I need

mostly effortlessly."

Thursday, January 16th, 2020

If you are not deep, you are, well

superficial probably.


There is a gradient though.

Do the superficial,

want to hear more

about the gradient?

No they don't.

"What's a gradient?"

Thursday, January 16th, 2020

Mixed origins of culture, and the "You have no idea where it came from."

As you go through your day,

thinking your thoughts,

and doing your deeds,


that every single thing,

involves culture...

and most of these,

cultural things,

have a history,

to which you are completely ignorant.

Yet you accept it.

The culture has mixed origins,

of good,

and less than good,

of American,

and less than American.

[Aside: Since "America is the greatest".

What are the next thousand places, that will be the greatest,

since America is not forever?

Eons of America?]

How do the origins,

of every aspect of your day,

get justified?

Do they go unjustified?

Trust me,

your day goes unjustified,

and so do you.

So do I.

This is why the reformation is needed.

You accepted Karma.

Remember that.

Just because the idea was there.

You heard of it,

and then you accepted it.

"You have no idea where it came from."

Compare with:

"I know the history of everything."

What is the fractional knowledge,

of your history?

Can we quantify this?

We should quantify the ignorance

of our history.

Thursday, January 16th, 2020

Karma is not in your religion.

Good news though,

Karma isn't real.

Karma isn't a strategy.

It is an idea devoid of depth.

It isn't even desirable.

[Aside: more on this point later].

The guilty think that Karma is real,

more than the innocent.


Let's think it over together.


If you did something wrong when you were young,

you are watchful.

You feel guilty.

When the same happens to you later,

you think:

"I deserved this."

But what you forgot,

is that whatever you did,

others also do,

and so you simply became the victim,

of a common indiscretion.


If you were angry,

and someone becomes angry with you,

was it Karma?

No. People get angry.

If you stole,

and someone steals from you,

was it Karma?

No. People steal.

If you killed,

then someone killed a loved one of your own,

was that Karma?

No. People kill each other.


If you move into the Ghetto,

you can expect MORE Karma,

for your same past?

This is nonsense.

You will experience more violence,

and crime,

because you relocated,

to a high crime area...


The innocent don't perceive Karma as readily.


They will be harmed,

far far more,

than any harm they created.

Especially if they live in poverty.


If you were raped as a child,

what was that Karma for?

You didn't even live enough life,

for Karma.

Will good suddenly be thrust upon you?

If you are poor,

you might starve to death,

soon afterwards.


There is no Karma.

"What goes around comes around",

arises in the mind of the person,

exposed to a sentence repeatedly.

It springs to my mind.

But I cancel it out.

Because it is foolish.


There is no connection

between past events,

and causally disconnected

events occurring later.

If you lied when you were six,

and someone lies to you as an adult,

there is no relationship.


If bad things happen to you as an adult,

late in life,

it is not because you are being punished.

It is because these things happen.


Those who died in Hiroshima,

and Nagasaki,

minding their own business,


not out of Karma,

but because of a war.


"Shit happens"

is a much better way to look at things.


What of those who want Justice?

Who wants Karma?

Karma is not Justice?


Think I'm wrong?

Explain to me in detail what Justice is.

When you fail,

then recognize you don't know how Karma

can be just.


After that failure,

tell me what the strategy of Karma is,

in detail.

Show how it is more just,

than the Justice system,

and that it actually does the work,

Karma says it does.

How much time is required?


When you fail,

then tell me why we have a justice system.


After all this,

it should be seen,

that the Justice System,

was created because,

there is no Karma whatsoever.


Karma is not Christian.

Karma is not Muslim.

Karma is not Jewish.

Karma has made its way into American culture.

Like most other things in American culture,

people have no clue about the origin.

Sunday, January 12th, 2020

Your maturation will happen inevitably.

If you live.

So just grow

and be satisfied with yourself.

[Aside: This is a post for the oldest of the old people

and everyone who's not that old yet.]

Originally posted in HighIQWorld on Facebook, Sunday, January 10th, 2020

Edited and posted here on Sunday, January 12th, 2020

Procrastinating? You are on more than one cycle of activity and inactivity.

[Aside: this was in response to a question from an administrator and friend who asked: "Do you ever suffer from burnout? What helps you deal with it effectively?"]

I am on a cycle. Sometimes I have periods that are less active, and confuse them for burnout, for depression, etc... But as soon as I have a responsibility, or a calling, a down period can be immediately stopped, and high activity can commence.

Sometimes, I just need to resume exercise, or get out of the darkness of winter, etc...

I found that as I accepted my cycle, I became more productive and realistic. Downtime is fine.

After exercise, you must recover.

Humanity operates on an economic cycle as well.

I deal with it, to a large degree, by waiting for whatever that next impetus to action happens to be. I can't make it happen necessarily. It is just triggered. With acceptance, we can wait, and find that trigger, or let something from outside us be the trigger, once it arrives. It will arrive.

We do not question that we must sleep to recover, and do not judge our active lives on the basis of our periods of motionless, paralyzed, prolonged daily episodes of sleep.

We should not be surprised that we have more than one cycle happening in our lives.

The way that I've come to deal with it, is to not give up on activities simply because downtime happened.

If you resume where you left off, and maximize your productivity when you have energy, you will build on what you were doing before. You will find new ways to make use of what you were doing before. And, you will find that while you were having downtime, or a time of burnout, you were learning about yourself and were slowly changing. You were really like a moth in a cocoon.

You still want to find the motivation to become active again.

But as long as you build on who you were before, you're growing.

Thursday, January 9th, 2020

Scientists achieve warm goals through cold logic.

If you reject logic, as being too cold,

[Aside: It is neither warm nor cold]

you end up with warm people,

not necessarily accomplishing anything.

Thursday, January 9th, 2020

Empathy and Grounds for Rejecting It.

[Edit: This is not a post against having empathy. I'm strongly in favor of being an empathetic person. This is an analytical post meant for providing elucidation about empathy, especially since it can be abused by others.]

A friend on Facebook asked a group a question regarding this, and I included the thoughts below as a comment.

I thought it would be worthwhile to share here as well (with some minor modifications), in case anyone happens to find it useful:

Some thoughts.

  1. Empathy is not easily disentangled from other states you might witness in another person, since mental states are complex and admit of admixtures, and
  2. people transition over time in and out of various mixed states.

Example issue. Would you consider this scenario one that reflects empathy or not?: "I'm warm and empathetic, while I'm simultaneously planning something contrary to your interests, and later today, I will recall interactions with you, in another mood and state of mind, that does not include empathy."

Questions: Which empathetic states, correlate with which outcomes? Are empathetic states frequently the controlling factors, or are admixtures of states happening over time the more important consideration? (Let's measure the state along different aspects, along with other elements of the person's behavior and personality, and then judge the value of their empathy and to what extent we should respond to it or reject "it" [socially or conceptually])

I would certainly reject someone's empathy if it doesn't really factor into outcomes with them. A person can be empathetic in the moment and then later switch into an unempathetic state (due to stress, drug use, personality disorder, or other factors), and take action against you.

I would reject the concept of "empathy" if it can't be operationalized given the entanglement with other mental states over time (Is it really entangled, or are we just artificially grouping states together, and is there really an "it" or are we creating a false unity). I'm inclined to think that "empathy" is something admitting of distinctions, but that we are not advanced enough to make or use such distinctions effectively. Instead we just feel it out, and 'reject' it when it feels like it makes sense to reject it.

Everyone rejects empathy in practice from time to time, when it is perceived that empathy has less force in an interaction than it appears to have, as when someone is being manipulated.

Potential summary thoughts:

Empathy is complex, even though it appears we can find people in whom it is totally absent, and those who have it in greater supply. So in the human being it is both discrete (you have it or you don't), and admits of degrees and characteristics of expression when it is present.

Empathy cannot be easily teased out from other states, all the time. This is why it is really risky to claim that someone does not have any empathy. They might not exhibit it the way you expect, or might turn it off, or might express other traits and mental states more obviously than the empathy they are also experiencing.

People who are skilled socially have intuitions supporting their decisions about how and to what extent someone's empathetic behavior should be considered in responses to their behavior, and when empathy does or does not work as a useful concept in a given situation.

That not everyone who is socially skilled does this in the same way tells us about the complexities involved.


This post is simultaneously logical and warm.

Saturday, January 4th, 2020

We Are Empty Space Now?

Ever wonder, if what is valuable in life

is variable, and temporary, AND relative?

That there is NO justification for reproduction?

Because there is no justification for existence?

And so, we just live,



because of nature?

Animals reproduce, because of

desire to have sex,

and not out of any aim,

or any plans...

It reminds me,

of what happens,

without education.

Education the children away!?

First educate until families are controlled,

then are small,


don't exist.


Nature may decide,

against life,

just as it has,

about the darkness of space,

where there is no life.

Look at the stars,

and behold,

the lifelessness of it all?

We have confirmed the lifelessness,

with all our searches,

that resulted,

in finding nothing at all,

like ourselves,

much less,

anything of great biological interest.

The darkness of space is common.

Earth is not.

Earth is the exception and not the norm?

"The exception to the rule..."

is used to establish the rule.

In this case,

the rule then,

is emptiness.

Earth, too

was mostly emptiness,

until our sliver of time.

Or is it still emptiness,

and we have not recognized that fact


We are empty space?


This is a positive post.

Saturday, January 4th, 2019

USA: The Extractive International Customer

The United States,


will become an IP Pirate.

With all its money and resources,

it will find itself,

intellectually disadvantaged.

"How can I become a customer, that can maximally extract ideas?"


And it will be unsustainable.

The alternative is force.

And conflict is still about resources.

Saturday, January 4th, 2019

Your eyeball is always slightly downward, or upward, compared to the other.

That's how I know...

Monday, January 4th, 2020

Honor Veterans with the truth.

Below is a post from earlier this year,

that became relevant again.

Original here

Among the biggest contradictions I can think of in American culture,

is that we honor veterans for their sacrifices,

but have trouble supporting them when they return injured,

[Aside: Why is this there a need to donate to support veterans who have been maimed? Obviously they aren't being cared for effectively.]

and then we use their heroism,

for recruiting purposes?...

and to convince people it is worthwhile,

to be deployed overseas,

to risk becoming killed,

or risk being permanently altered?

Honor them with the truth.

Memorial Day Thoughts.

Let's honor veterans with the truths due to them.

I've said elsewhere, that

"Remember Forever",

is not genuine.

People will forget just one day later.

And remember the phrase, when the ritual repeats, a year later.

This sounds negative to say.

But think it through, and you will see...

that people who sacrifice themselves in war,

are sacrificed completely.

Our memories are short.

When America is no more,

and we are blended with other nations,

memorials will lose significance.

So let's think hard about it now,

and not plan to remember for eternity.


Is this not a more real,

and important message,

than any lie about remembering someone's sacrifice forever?

Death for no reason,

is a part of war.

We need to value veterans enough,

to not lie to people who are thinking of joining the military,

and to encourage their children,

to think hard about the risks,

and to find other opportunities,

like rich people almost always do.


I am grateful for my freedom to think and write what I wish on this website,

and speak my mind in public.

And I understand the cost.

This is why I decided early that I would never serve in the military.

And why I am unwilling to join in on the rituals.

I value the holiday,

and my freedom to think,

how I want to about it.

Thank you Veterans for this freedom.

Thursday, January 2nd, 2019

It wasn't brilliant.

Life is still beautiful in many ways,

even if you refrain from exclaiming


after experiencing anything you like,

or pretend to like.



life doesn't change much,

when you stop speaking.

Your culture convinces you,

that you need to use these superlatives,

all the time,

to have any enthusiasm at all,

especially as you get older.

Old people are constantly admiring,


because they have less feeling

to begin with.

Thus everything becomes "brilliant"

when very little seems


any longer.

Kids have enthusiasm,

without any need

to rely on these words,

or any words at all,



Old people,

are frequently guided by

their own act....

This was a positive post.

Can you tell me why?

Can you then tell me why,

you could also see it as a negative post?

Then can you tell me why,

it was neither?

You will learn to think how I think,

using this exercise.

You cannot simply choose,

it to be a negative post,

based on your reaction to it.

Or a positive one,

if you like it.

Thursday, January 2nd, 2019

Survivable enough.

If one is honest:

"Perfectly adapted"


"Well adapted"






Our traits are such that we have the ability

to survive,

for a short time.

We are not "perfectly" adapted for anything.


Use the "eye" as an example,

of something perfectly adapted,

and ask yourself,

why it doesn't last longer,

and why there is room for improvement,

and why we have the ability

and desire

to compare

between specimens

of the same species

and differing species,

if already,

we can trust that each

is "perfectly" adapted?

So much for perfection here.

For now we will merely add it to the list,

of concepts that we can mostly eliminate.


New Year's Eve, Tuesday, December 31st, 2019

What's the size of your clan?

"Strength in Numbers"

Stupidity outnumbers...

What's the size of your clan?

New Year's Eve, Tuesday, December 31st, 2019

Say nothing

and you'll still hear back from others

what your views are



People have no idea

what a good inference

consists of.

They don't even know

when they are making inferences

or when they should be

making inferences.


And most will never know.


Tuesday, December 24th, 2019

Yer that word.

Thursday, December 19th, 2019

Cause-Effect is not Thought-to-Inference

Thursday, December 19th, 2019

Having the thoughts of others vs. Truth

"Fake News"

Can we start,

by fact-checking

rumors and gossip?

Reduce or control our

pro-social learning

for the sake of


Pro-social learning

is due to a long evolution,

of trust for other people's

thoughts and conclusions.

We know,


that we are credulous by nature,

and are more adapted,

to believe false stories,

than to disbelieve them.


makes us faster at learning

what other people think,

but less able,

to learn what is true.

I'm in favor of filtering and reducing

this propensity,

because it is necessary

for having truth,

over having the thoughts of others.

Thursday, December 19th, 2019

I agree that is a quote.

"To each his own."


I agree

that is a quote.

Sunday, December 8th, 2019

Quotes that are really old, Part I.

Sometimes I am shocked just how old certain quotes are. I once encountered a quote in Plutarch (from the second century AD), that had a modern feel, that Plutarch said was at least another thousand years old (or something to that same effect). I do not recall this quote off hand.

Just today I encountered a quote I use regularly, mainly to amuse myself:

"Birds of a feather flock together."

I found this quote in Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric, written roughly 2300 years ago. (Henderson, p. 127, 2000).

He used it as if it were as well-known as it is today, indicating it could be much much older.

Not only is it interesting that it is old,

but that many,

particularly Christians,

might be surprised to find our culture has descended from

Greeks and other cultures,

and from Philosophers,

like Aristotle,

and not merely those sources they would assume

or expect.

Cultures overlap significantly.

Not only in their current expression,

but in their sources.

Henderson, J (2000). Aristotle: Art of Rhetoric. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Sunday, December 8th, 2019

Non-substantive edits on Thursday, December 19th, 2019

"I don't like what you said therefore I can do anything I want to you." Part II.

Previously I stated the fact that people tend to think that their feelings

amount to rough equivalents

for valid inferences.

If you do X, I feel Y, and I react R, given Y.

I do not concern myself if my feelings or my reactions to my feelings,

involve a valid chain of inferences

from X.


This is not a logical progression,

and we end up with:

"I don't like what you said and therefore I can do anything I want to you."

Just a moment ago,

as I was reading Aristotle's

Art of Rhetoric,

I stumbled upon a proverb he quoted,

that said

"Evil doing only needs an excuse." (Henderson, p. 135, 2000).

That such a phrase is over 2300 years old,

to me verifies my position,

but from an alternative perspective.

Some are on the precipice of committing evil acts,

and only wait

for something they can use

as a catalyst.

That catalyst can be something as simple as,

a verbal slight...

or less than that,

something said,

that can be taken the wrong way,

or twisted to be something

publicly offense worthy.

Feelings are not inferences.

So unfortunately,

all it takes to become a victim,

is to first say something, such that a feeling

is aroused in another

that is mistaken for a valid inference

from that statement

and then used as a mere excuse

for some greater and disproportionate reaction.


The causal chain is as follows:

Statement made >

Feeling aroused >

Feeling mistaken for an inference >

Amplified retaliation planned or performed >

excuse and retaliation is rationalized

(The use of the feeble excuse is excused).


Mistakes made are threefold:

  1. A feeling aroused is simply not an inference from what caused it.
  2. Retaliation planned or performed is disproportionate and may not be required at all.
  3. Retaliation is due inability to cope with the feeling, not due to logic.



Henderson, J (2000). Aristotle: Art of Rhetoric. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Saturday, November 30th, 2019

Fasting Undefined.

If you eat one meal a day, for 30 minutes, does this mean you fast 98% of the time?

For a long while I was fasting 98% of the time then.

I find the "fasting" concept pretty absurd. It's just not eating for a little bit, and no one has defined what segment of time creates "fasting".

Saturday, November 30th, 2019

Fact People.

When I was young, I was a typical "know it all".

Facts were plentiful.

I was very curious and wanted to express what I knew,

when I knew something.

It is one way that people,

indicate to other people,

that they are smart.

But now I realize this is actually

a mistaken way to appraise someone,

and fools capitalize on it,

by spitting out supposed facts.

And then later,

fools try to measure people,

by their ability to spit out facts,

but the problem is,

every person on earth has access to what

they think are facts.

So it amounts to

How much you talk,

and say what is

traditionally accepted

as a truth.

So all you have to do,

is remember things that seem like

facts to everyone else.

This is what the mansplainers do.


There are very smart people with powerful memories,

and in a sense,

this is a mark of the intelligent person,

but everyone can remember facts,

and most can talk fast.


But now I see,

from tons of experience,

that fact spitting,

is just remembering.

It isn't thinking at all.

So now, what I value,

is the strategic thinker.

The person with many tools,

that apply to any question

that might crop up.

The person who has gotten



and realizes,

that almost everything is complex,

and that

very often,

the "facts"

that others have

simply are not facts.

They are truthy thoughts,

with many errors built in.

And when this is not the case,

and H20 is water,

there is a feeling that

everyone knows that,

or that one can look it up,

like a Chemist does,

when it is not


(They remember more than this obviously, but I find it humorous for the moment.)

[Aside: Smart people offload facts to books, and value knowing how to find facts. To give you an example, I used to own many books. I am fond of libraries. The reason I really liked books, especially books I was exposed to or have read, wasn't that I memorized everything contained, but that they were extensions of my mind, such that I could access the information again if necessary. It is nicer to be able to instantly recall certain facts, but the mind is not limitless. So we have to choose what is worth remembering, and what is worth accessing via our fingertips, from knowing where to look.]


What we end up with in the end,

are rankers.

Everyday people,


as Fact People.

Testing people,

for facts,

without understanding,

how much more complex it really is,

to test someone

for what they know,

and what they can do.


The effect is that leaders posture

by holding a stack of books.

Bill Gates currently.

I held the stack of books,

and I can tell you,

it is largely B.S.

A stack of books,

does not mean you remember the facts contained,

or that you really read them,

or that it is worth your time

to read them.


Effective people,

know how to form a problem first,

find what they need,

problem solve with an assortment of tools,

and offload unimportant facts

even when curiosity creates a desire

for those facts.

This does not mean they do not also read for leisure,

but it means,

they know the difference.

Other people don't know the difference.

And guess what.

Gates knows the difference.

But he will market himself,

as the guy who holds the stack of books,

because you might not

know the difference.

He understands

"Fact People".

But he is a thinking person.

Saturday, November 30th, 2019

"Equality is Real"

What about preferences?

"I'll take anyone as my

next husband."


People can't figure it out.

They especially cannot figure it out,

in America.

Saturday, November 30th, 2019

Cultures with Mansplaining Built in.

Some cultures are undeniably Patriarchical.

More so than others.

We're supposed to think cultures are equal.

We know that they are not.

How do we know?

Because we want to move our own cultures,

to have certain strengths,

that already exist in other cultures,

or we want to push all cultures,

to the next level.

And we wish to move as far as possible,

from primitive humanity,

where their systems,

were founded on ignorance.


As I sit here,

I think to myself,

about how mansplaining is built into

certain cultures,

such that woman have to forever sit,

in deference to older guys.

Think of Asian cultures,

for example.

Mom is beneath her eldest son,

by default.

This is not perfectly accurate,

but there is a structure in place,

that I will not explain here.



must have preferences,

between various cultures.

If they do not,

I wonder if they are

biased by

that false teaching of


Friday, November 29th, 2019

Public Opinion is Not a Process

What things,

that do not have processes,

are really worthwhile?


This is a good question to ponder.

It is a bit vague, but to a good effect.


Natural processes and their outcomes have to be compared with

artificial processes and their outcomes,

and linked together to make something worthwhile.

Public Opinion straight to Judgment would certainly fail to be

a worthwhile process.

It is a "knee-jerk" reaction.

[Aside: Notice how we forgot the word "reflex"]

I imagine completely ignorant public stonings, by reflex, for example.

"The women were yelling,

and so we killed the man."

Friday, November 19th, 2019

Unremember the Word

I'm told there are things I should not say.

I understand what these things are, which means that

  1. I would understand them if someone said them to me.
  2. I know something.
  3. It is stored in my brain.

Now let us consider,

that for anything that we have stored in our brain,

enabling us to say we know something,

such that we would understand it when someone says it to us,

means there is always a chance,

That I would think of it...

And if I would think of it,

on occasion,


[Aside: probably I would think of it eventually, and maybe not at the best time.]

I might speak of it...

or say it...


For these reasons we should permit,

lapses in political correctness,

from almost anyone,

so long as they would not commit,


to the negative aspect of what it is,

we are wanting people to not think.

[Aside: There are dangers in even wanting this unless there is a really good process for doing it. "Public Opinion" is not a process.]


There is an odd thing here,

that to really eliminate usage,

we have to unlearn it.

The proof,

is that we try to keep children,

from learning curse words,

because of course,

what goes in,

comes back out again.


Our elders,

can be expected to say things,

we would not necessarily like,

because they have them stored.


Fault people for their storage?

This is faulting people for knowledge.

There is no unlearning.

Fault people for not unlearning?


A weird thing about this,

is that it is lost to history,

if it is unremembered.

Because even to read history,

if it were written about,

means to learn it again.

(And therefore it is no longer unremembered then).


These and other uncomfortable truths,

indicate that we are quite lost,

when we are so harsh in our judgements of

what people say,

apart from,

the content and meaning they

would commit to.

Friday, November 29th, 2019

Hey Troll!

When you were thinking about me yesterday,

I wasn't thinking about you...

Now I'll wait for your to repeat this back to me.

Friday, November 29th, 2019

The Uninitiated Don't Know.

The uninitiated don't know

what it takes to be prepared enough

for initiation.

Thanksgiving Thursday, November 28th, 2019

The Winter Holiday Season May be Simply for Tolerating the Winter.

Consider that we have a very prolonged sense of holiday,

and winter festivities,

crossing over months of cold.

If we did not have any holidays at this time,

how would we feel.

Consider also, that Christmas,

Yule, Thanksgiving,

and so forth,

are holidays for those living in

colder climates, and not warmer ones.

Further consider,

that much of the celebration,

involves celebrating surpluses,

of work from earlier months.

Meaning we are to be happy,

for having enough "extras"

to live through the winter,

without much effort,

and with enough,

to fatten ourselves easily.

We stay warm with our fires,

we eat more than necessary,

and the holiday cuisine,

is comfort food,

and items we would hardly want to eat,

in the summer time,

or in a desert environment.


It is my opinion,

that it is highly likely,

that we would have a winter holiday,

no matter what our cultural heritage was,

and no matter what our religious commitments might be,

if we have to endure,

a long winter,

where we reside.


For this reason,

I think,

Christians and others,

claimed Christmas.

We do know,

that Christmas was claimed.

It has nothing to do with any birth date

on record.

It has to do,

with the onset of winter,

when it was already cold,

and there were months of cold remaining.

December 25th,

is not far off from,

December 21st.

I think it is good timing,

for such festivities.


I'm not a Christian,

(and I'm part Christian too

although that's best explained

at another time),

but I do like the fall and winter holidays.

Thanksgiving Thursday, November 28th, 2019

Relief comes soon after you get real.

Whatever other cure you're seeking,


isn't real right?


"I don't want truth."


"So what are you defending exactly?"


"What makes me feel good...

and I'm prepared to threaten your


to keep it."

(Let's not pretend this is uncommon).

Thanksgiving Thursday, November 28th, 2019

Head Start Means Started from Behind

Some might think this sounds rude to say.

But let me tell you,

permanently disadvantaged people

are convinced later,

by tricky people,

wanting to preserve their own merits,

that really

the disadvantaged people received all they needed,

because in fact, they got a "head start".

We open ourselves up to these games,

by not being totally honest with ourselves.


The euphemism can be flipped,

to be used against you,

and not used,

simply to prevent you from being stigmatized.


So it is much better to

get real,

and say that Head Start,

is well,

something different.

I'm not sure what is best to call it.

But it is certainly there,

for those who have limitations.


Why not address the limitations,

at the core.

It's because of parental issues,

economic issues,

and lack of inheritance.

"I inherited no possessions,

no wealth,

no knowledge,

and parents who are

of lower quality,

or parents,

who are not there at all."

Thanksgiving Thursday, November 28th, 2019

If we were to give up on inheritance.

We would be able to stop pretending,

That rich children,

somehow merited

their head start.

We know what a head start is,

and we don't.

We name a program,

for giving kids a better chance,


to cover up,

the fact that they are starting,

from behind,

and will likely remain behind,

even with the additional education.


The way it works currently,


rich children get old enough,

to rely on memory loss,

to recreate their history,

such that only those accomplishments,

coming after High School or College,

when they are totally alone,


"My parents did nothing for me."

"Nothing at all depended on my parents, grandparents or family."


"I remember everything I did,

in a way that is disconnected,

from everything I received."


One of the reasons we want to leave money for our children,

is because we think

they will NOT succeed without it.


"All families are equal"

so why not leave fortunes,

to children from other families?


Before I focused on how,

we don't believe in equality,

because we are unable to trust in the

interchangeability of adults,

in our guidance.

But we can switch the direction.

If all children are equal,

(which is closer to truth, although still false),

then why not,

leave your money to someone,

who is not your child.


Because if all people are equal,

why not give them equal access,

to inheritance?

Thursday, November 28th, 2019

Single people get made fun of

for masturbation.

But people in relationships,

masturbate too,

so it's really confusing,

how people can be so stupid.

Nobody is satisfied...

Thursday, November 28th, 2019

First there was the gesture.

Then there was the grunt...

the attempts at speech.

Then the words,

Then the short sentences.

And we didn't get much further than that.

Thursday, November 28th, 2019

Who are all these people who are having internal struggles against doing "evil"?

Are they the Christians, and others,

who say that you'll

"live longer"

if you don't openly say things

that disagree with their views?

Thursday, November 28th, 2019

In the beginning, there was the wordss.


Thursday, November 28th, 2019

Nothing is as demonic as two thirds?

Get real.

Wednesday, November 27th, 2019

When lying for a higher purpose

is what it usually is:

Lying for a lower purpose.

Lying for your purpose.

Wednesday, November 20th, 2019

"Grateful" often means "I don't plan on doing anything".

I don't mean it never makes sense to feel grateful.

It means we should recognize,

when being grateful means

"I'm rationalizing feeling good about something I don't intend to ever improve."


I'm not fond of examples, because they are plentiful.

Nevertheless to give one example,

The meat-eater,

eats over the carcass of a Thanksgiving turkey,

saying how grateful they are,

for the turkey,

but in deed they don't care at all

where it came from,

how it died,

or how it lived,

and they never plan to care,


This is the kind of "grateful" I find abhorrent.

Because it conceals apathy,

and if it were pointed out,

hate for better ways would emerge.

So what is more likely,

is that this is a ritual,

like burning a sacrifice,

than any actual instance of being,

truly grateful.

It is unreflective,

and automatic,

tradition keeping.



I do think at the dinner table,

with the turkey at the centerpiece,

there is plenty to feel grateful for,

like family,

health, and friendship.

But notice this is mostly,

acknowledgement of what one has,

and not what one plans to do.

And sometimes,

what one decidedly plans to avoid doing.

"I am thankful for this kill,

and this alone makes it OK,

and satisfies the requirements,

for continuing to take animals."

People think this,

because they care about animals,


but also plan,

to change nothing,

even when options become available...

Petroglyphs from Chaco Canyon National Historical Park, New Mexico. Taken on my cross country trip in August 2019.

Wednesday, November 20th, 2019

Signatures, handwriting, and hand-markings.

I've been receiving letters of recommendation from colleagues, partners and clients over the last week. There is something special about seeing someone's signature in their own handwriting. I wonder to myself, how may people, worry about showing their handwriting to others. It would make very little difference to me what the signatures look like. What makes the difference is that it came directly from someone's hands. This is not just nostalgia for a time when people did things without computers, although some nostalgia is intermixed too.

A friend on Facebook was posting petroglyphs recently. The petroglyphs were not remarkably beautiful. In fact, they looked the same as many petroglyphs over the globe tend to look.

Signatures and petroglyphs both evoke the "someone with a hand like mine touched this differently" feeling. It says "this other person is real" in a sense.

Is this an unnamed feeling in English?


I don't think this feeling means, we ought to return to petroglyphs.

Or even cursive.

Because I should recognize that the writing itself bears the mark of the mind of the person who wrote it too, more significantly than the markings.

Perhaps this is where I should notice, that there is more sentimentality in the experience, than I first recognized.

Tuesday, November 19th, 2019

Fault the Earth for what it does to itself,

through us?

Or fault us,

for what the Earth does to itself?

Monday, November 18th, 2019

You don't reject what doesn't exist.

I'll explain this one briefly.

Imagine someone offers you a gift.

They hold out their hands, and tell you they are giving you a box, wrapped up with a bow on it.

But they are just holding out their hands, and there is nothing there.

Are you rejecting the gift, if you cannot receive it?

Is there even a gift?

If you say you don't want "it",

you still are not rejecting the gift,

because there is no corresponding object satisfying the sentence.


Let's put it another way.

A child presents you with their imaginary friend.

They tell you that their imaginary friend needs a job from you.

(You don't need anything).

The child gives you an imaginary resume and job application too.

Do you reject the job application,

or do you simply understand that there isn't one?


Why did I use a child for the above scenario?

When I'm presented with an imaginary friend,

of adults,

I usually get the feeling,

that they are children in a way.

And I don't need anything,

yet they tell me I do,

and they give me an ancient text,

that is a resume of sorts,

that I don't really feel,

matches the format of a real resume,

that would include facts,

about living,

existing people.

And if they can't make sense,

how much does it really matter,

for me to make sense for them?

Monday, November 18th, 2019

"When to think, and when to remember?"

That is the question.



Like Shakespeare,

or Hamlet...

I took my enjoyment of my question too far,

and I just committed an error of false oneness and singularity.


Monday, November 18th, 2019

"If it permanently ain't broke, don't fix it."

This is a variation of the old quote.

"Matt... why are you fixing that quote that ain't broke?"

Everything is changing.

That which is not broken will soon lose function.

But that which is not broken, might be broken,

by various changes.

"Problem solutions".


The quote simply is untenable.

The reason is there is always a game-theoretic


for choosing to maintain something,

or to not maintain something,

with many possible ways of doing the maintaining,

and many possible outcomes to compare,

for any given scenario.

Meaning, the choice isn't to simply leave things as they are

by default.

What about replacement?

So really, what you should do,

is list the options,

consider the energy you need to put into the solution,

compare solutions,

compare risks,

then make a choice.

Sometimes that choice is to fix something,

that will soon be broken.


Very few proverbs such as this,

suffer from no serious defects.

This proverb,

has sent millions into the land,

of not thinking.

They just remember,

when they use this quote.

Friday, November 15th, 2019

Minor readability edit, Thursday, November 28th, 2019

Using AI and Machine Learning to verify what works of religion are fictional.

We should be able to feed

AI/Machine learning systems

with known fictional stories,

and known real stories,

in order to train them,

to begin to identify,

which other stories appear to be

true or false,

or how "truthy" or


they appear to be.

(Since entire books are not either true or false,

but admit of degrees of truth or falsity,

and quantity of truths and untruths to be found.)


Why do I know this?

We already do it with more complex things,

first of all.

Second of all,

if we do really long expansions

of my Lists,

that were designed to allow us to instantly

cast aside obvious falsities from our lives,

we would find that these


occur frequently in works of fiction,

but less frequently,

in works of truth,

in total,

and on average.

By determining, the degree to which,

these fictions,

figure into the story,

we should be able to flag certain works,

as being suspect.


In the future,

we can go beyond this simple method,

and we will start to get a clearer picture,

of which stories approximate those

that seem to have high veracity,

to those with low veracity.

Low veracity works,

I expect,

will be like the religious cosmologies,

other stories of mythology,

prognostications and prophesies of religion,

and obvious fictions written

without any intention,

that the works would be taken

for literal truth,

that are more for entertainment.


More importantly,

we already know,

which stories are both

important and

would fail this kind of test.

Some of us,

just won't admit it,

until AI tells us,

we were wrong to pretend.

Wednesday, November 13th, 2019

Can I get a "Yeah right."?

Wednesday, November 13th, 2019

Minor Edit, Friday, November 15th, 2019

Just Saying "Smartness"

Use of the word "retarded" is considered rude.

At one time it was just fine, when it was fitting.

We were fine with calling a handicapped person who is less intelligent,


which meant roughly,

less intelligent,

but was more specific than that.

But we do not like its use now,

because the way we use it attacks people,

for things they cannot change,

and thus it would cause long lasting

harm to make fun of them this way.

But I find our distaste for using "retard" to contradict,

our readiness to use "stupid".

Not only when it is apt,

and therefore,

involves an unchangeable aspect of a person,

but also,

because we'll use it when a person

certainly is not stupid.

We're ready to call everyone stupid.

to the effect,

that smart people wonder

about themselves unnecessarily.

This is how we previously used "retard".

All we are doing now

is substituting a term,

that should be nearly as offensive.

It's only because

"retarded" brings to mind the handicapped

that we feel the way we do about it.

But how do you feel about calling someone

who is really slow "stupid" really?

Someone who is also really kind,

and peaceful, for example.

I would argue,

that "stupid" is far more harmful,

because a very large portion of the population,

is not incredibly smart,

and depending on who you are,

many other people could be called stupid,

by comparison.


some handicapped people would really

need to be trained

to even understand what retard

actually means,

and therefore,

cannot be offended,

without your help.

And if they are not offended,

then what is the problem?

Then it is more about

parents and caretakers

and not the handicapped people.


I am not arguing,

that we should return to use

"retarded" again.


We struggle with this,

but really the solution is simple in this case.

When we say someone is retarded, or stupid, or slow,

we merely mean they have a level of smartness,

that is lower than some arbitrary reference point.

Meaning, we compare people,

when we say "stupid"

to either average people,

or to really smart people.

Either way, it is arbitrary.

I would argue,

that we should compare ourselves with the next

smartest animal instead.

Let us admit that Chimpanzees are very smart animals,

but their smartness is lower than our own.

Almost all people

are smarter in the ways we think about

when we say "smart",

than Chimpanzees.

[Aside: Not everyone.. but that is OK. But also notice, Chimpanzees are smarter than us in some ways, just not the ways we normally recognize as smarts (IQ for example).]


this means that,

everyone is smart.

Now if you are average,

why don't you recognize

how smart you are compared to all

dead matter in the universe?

The next smartest animal,

is nowhere near as smart as you.

Most smarter people, are really probably smarter than you,

in a lot of ways,

but not necessarily all ways

although some very smart people,

may be smarter than you in nearly

all ways.

That doesn't mean,

you don't have strengths they aren't lacking.

[Aside: Although we shouldn't strain to hard to equalize people, since some people simply are very magnificent examples of people].


Now, what is the point?

We don't call anyone "stupid".

We don't call anyone "retarded".

We don't call anyone "moron".

We have to be

more specific

from now on.

It is OK to speak about someone's


of smartness on a scale,

when that is relevant.

Even if that is awkward,

or harshly truthful.

Sometimes that is necessary.

But this doesn't

devalue anyone completely.


But notice,

that if you do this,

you are becoming a "ranker"

in that you think you can

mark where someone falls on a scale,

without doing any measurements,

and it is possible that others

can abuse this,

as I've said earlier in

the ThoughtStream

Beware of the Rankers

And if you try to do this,

you are still summing up

someone's mind completely,

so it is an over-generalization

as well.


How do we correct that?

My thought is,

start thinking in terms of a scale,

from smart to very smart,

[Aside: Not "smartest". That will cause problems. See EstEst]

or from lower in smartness to higher in smartness,

It will be hard to make that change.

Everyone else will have to work on changing it

also for it to be really successful.

I still stay "stupid",

and there is a post here in the ThoughtStream that uses the word also.

[Aside: Although the point I'm making there, is not lost by using this unfortunate term. (See The Lady Who Cried Ad Hominem)


But after this stage, we can get better.

Even if everyone else fails to improve,

it might be worthwhile to take the steps independently,


Why not get even more specific:

"You don't seem to be doing X correctly."

"After watching you, I think maybe, you don't have an aptitude for this."

"You could have done that in a smarter way."

"Your IQ test indicated you are high on smartness in visual tasks, but is lower on verbal tasks"


So in the end,

what we end up doing,

is moving from using very short sentences like:

"You are stupid"

that claims way too much about a person,

to longer sentences,

that say less about someone,

but are more specific,

more truthful,

and more kind.

Monday, November 11th, 2019

Be Authentic, but that's Unbecoming.

"That's unbecoming of a gentleman."

"That's unbecoming of a rapper."

If you're an elite figure, you're expected to display certain traits,

have certain interests,

engage in certain behaviors,

to the exclusion,

of many other behaviors.

You end up,

ignoring various things you like,

diverse activities you might want to do,

to achieve an image of sorts.

This to me is not authenticity.

It's not complete inauthenticity either though.

You have to make choices.

Authenticity on a scale?

Authenticity does not matter so much?


Pretty much everyone you can find,

will have diverse interests,

that cross outside of what is prescribed,

by some definition,

or expectation,

of authenticity.

I think the eclectic personality,

is too hard for people to sum up,

with the effect that,

inauthenticity is assumed,

when someone has too many interests,

or too many personas.


I'm inclined to think,

that a complete expression of self,

in all guises,

is closer to high authenticity,

on a spectrum,

than any attempt,

to fit into some specific image.

But I hesitate though,

because it's authentic,

to want to give up aspects of self,

to become something new,

that is maybe

something less eclectic.

And so I find myself,

questioning the value of

the idea of authenticity.


An inauthentic person,

is sometimes merely a beginner.

"That person is fake."

Maybe that person,

is trying to be like you,

and therefore is more like you,

than you think.


Even the rapper,

started out a kid,

who somehow started acting like

a rapper.

If placed in Saudi Arabia,

that kid would start acting,

Saudi Arabian.


People can be authentic,

and be

seemingly something completely different

at different times.


Anyone could take violin lessons,

in their free time.

How would you be

during your violin lessons?

Monday, November 11th, 2019

Your Heart is a Blood-pumping Organ.

In my lists page,

I discussed an issue with metaphors.

Metaphors are when you say figuratively,

that one thing is another.

Similes by contrast,

are when you say that one thing

is like another.

I claimed that the identification,

of one thing with another,

using metaphors,

causes confusion.

Here is an example.

What does it mean,

to say you have


I find it highly likely,

that if we trace the etymology,

of various words like heart,

used for things other than

blood-pumping organs,

we will locate metaphors,

that resulted in confusions.

After the original confusions,

people who are

beguiled by the beauty of the

works of literature,

making such comparisons,

people begin to say,

for example,


instead of,



"heart" means all sorts of things,

that are quite confusing,


people will symbolically use

the symbol

representing the blood-pumping organ,

that also represents


Good dictionaries,

like the Oxford English Dictionary,

that I have ready at hand,

determine the meanings of words,

by usage,

and trace the history,

back to examples of popular works,

of authors,

who used words in the ways,

indicated in the definitions.

The OED is a trusted

authority in such matters.

I consider it to be a certainty,

that such words will be found,

in the OED,

within initial metaphorical uses,

at least in secondary definitions,

and those created later,

and these uses

resulted in the confusions

that now exist.

And now we have


that have nothing to do at all

with hearts.

And we have a symbol,

that confounds the two.



how inseparable do they seem?

Love and heart.

Perseverance and heart.

Perseverance and love?

These concepts,

have very little to do

with each other.

Why not,

Perseverance and Brain? Heart and Brain? Love and Brain?

Another source of the error

is old folk-biology.

Because even the literature,

gets its inspiration,

from someplace.


As I said in my Lists page,

I do not want to constrain literature,

but rather,

I want people to be aware,

that this is how confusions are created,

so that people,

become good at detecting,


that go unrecognized,

in heart symbols,

to take one example.

Monday, November 11th, 2019

Not having a better way to say it.

Much of what we say,

is insufficient, inaccurate, or false.

Take "perfect"

for example.

When we use this word,

we are not being accurate.

It is insufficient, and usually false.

Why do we continue to say it?


because we are imperfect,

at being accurate.

But also because we

do not have anything better to say,

at the time we are motivated to say it.

Perfection is relative.

Not only is it relative,

it is criteria based,

when it is accurate.

There are other issues with the word,

besides this.

The most important objection though,

is that we don't really know,

what we are saying,

when we are saying it.

When someone says:

"That work of art is perfect."

Ask them:

"According to what criteria?"

And you will find,

they simply mean,

"I like it a lot."


We need to find,

a way to express our experiences,

such that,

we are not chronically



One such way,

is to stick to descriptions.

"I like this moment because... x, y, z."

To this you might object:

"But there is not enough time to get it right."

At that moment,

I'll point you to this thoughtstream.


how I care little for editing,

unless I find it important enough,

to do it later?


I recognize,

that we cannot commit to saying,

everything exactly right,

the first time,

in the moment.

And it is possible,

that we will never have enough time.


we have work to do,

to improve our language skills

to stop lying to ourselves.


Because people think

Perfection is real.

And not merely,

a shortcut,

when there is not enough time

to be detailed.


At this moment,

I kindof like

*"I am not inclined to change anything

in this moment."*

Wednesday, November 6th, 2019

"Life is Empty"


Some would say


Finally I

achieved emptiness."


I don't think

"Life is Empty"

to myself.

Sometimes I wish a friend

or family member were present,

and in a sense,

they are not there,

when they are not there,

but I don't think

"Oh no, my life is empty!"

This is a logical error.

One: Think of what emptiness really is.

You always have plenty of resources around you.

Two: You are attributing something to your entire life.

Nothing but life can be attributed to your entire life.

Once you think about it that way,

you can see that what is meant,

is something simpler:

"Don't you want these things,

I have in mind?"


Then you get to the point.

People say it when they think

you don't want certain particular things.

You don't want family.

OK, so your life is lacking family.

That is not emptiness.


This is how our language leads

us into error.


I hear others say it.

I had a friend or two,

say it to me once.

He thought that if I did not have children,

suddenly I would find myself,

living an empty existence.

I still think that

is unhelpful and somewhat meaningless.


That point of view,

might be more convincing,

to people who experience,

some kind of dread,

for not having someone,

and some things,

to distract them from


It may be that those,

who are afraid to be alone,

are more likely to

feel this way.

I enjoy being alone.

Not always,

but most of the time,

I'm just fine.

When I'm less than happy,

it's not due to


That is,

it's not due to

not having what you want,

for yourself.


In fact,

sometimes I chase after

a sort of mental emptiness.

The serenity of it.

"I want to think nothing at all now."

Some Buddhists would agree.


done a certain way,

brings you to a kind of emptiness.

[Aside: Not emptiness itself. I think even Buddhists are making this error. Because they are not being specific enough, and psychologists would probably be more quick to explain that what you are doing is not so mysterious as Buddhists would like to think, with their posturing and marketing. It's kind-of amusing to think about how Buddhists posture. Yoga right?]

that is also,

clarity and contentment.

I think that people who

fill their lives,

with other people


and trinkets,

might benefit from

learning about

not needing or


any of these things,

quite so much.

"Give away all your possessions, now!" Right?

Not only were you told,


to give everything away,

you're told,

you need to do it now.


What do we call

addiction to the presence

of other people?

What do we call

withdrawal symptoms,

from the lack of their presence?

Sexual addiction is one form

of this issue.

but I don't think,

it is the only form.

Do we call it emptiness?

Or should we say

"You just don't know how

to be by yourself,

because you've been around

others often,

or you simply really want

people to be around.

It's your drug.


makes you feel a certain way.

Not everyone,

is into,

or more importantly,


to your drug."

Remember that things

in your environment,

unlock drugs,

in your brain.

When these things are not present

any longer

neither are those


At least,

not in those proportions,

or combinations,

at the same times,

and places.

So when you experience,

"Empty nest"

you suddenly sit at home,

and that cocktail of


in your brain,

just is not the same

as it once was.

You also suddenly,

are thinking incomplete thoughts

about them.

You cannot recreate them

in your mind.

They are more real

than your memories

of them can ever be.

And there's no way,

to get that back,


they are back.


So learn to be alone?

And enjoy that?

Because then,

people can come and go,

as you would expect,

over decades of your life,

and these people,

will be just fine,

either way.

They might not need you.


They won't tell others,

that the others will lead empty lives,

if the others don't choose the same lives,

they themselves want.

But maybe that's what you do.


Consider the solitary adventurer.

What solitary figures,

can you think of,

who had full lives,

[Aside: It is not clear what a full life entails either.

That would depend on the person and their desires.

If they want adventure, and many experiences

in travel, then sure, they can fill their time with that.]

who seemed to want to be

alone all the time?

You are just like them,

in that you are alone,

in a sense,

whether you think so,

or not.

You just might not,

want to call attention to


But isn't it weird,

that some people

want more and more of that!

They seem to be those,

who really like,

the outdoors.


The point of this is not to say,

you shouldn't fill your environment

with things and people.

That's your choice,

and you could make other choices too,

if you wanted.

Just don't make it seem like,

if others do not choose what you


that their life

is worthless somehow.

[Aside: I don't even agree with my use of worthless

here, but this is fine for now.]

Wednesday, November 6th, 2019

That Centenarian who slanders their way into heaven.

Everyone knows,

that centenarian right?


By centenarian,

I just mean that older individual,

who still doesn't know any better.


But I guess it is the ThoughtStream.

Tuesday, November 5th, 2019

"Hello there", from the car.

Have you ever thought about the limitations,

around the visibility

of an engagement or wedding ring?

You are attractive.

You are spotted from within your car.

But you are in a committed relationship.

How are you going to make that clear

to that person in the other car?

Are you going to,

stick your hand out of the window,

and point to the ring on your finger?

Or are you,

going to say

"Hey there" back


Or are you going,

to wink,

and flaunt wildly.

"If you've got it

flaunt it?"


I think you're going to say

"hey there"


without doing anything,

but continuing,

to look good,

for your window-shopping



An invention idea,

that is incredibly easy,

is simply to have a kind of "wedding ring"

added to one or both of the mirrors.

or someplace else,

it doesn't really matter,

as long as it is visible,

and nice enough,

to justify the purchase.

It should be luxurious.

Like an actual wedding ring.

"Look I'm taken,

by someone,

who can like,

afford me."


Mirrors on the car,

are like big ears.

I'm thinking of one SUV I had before.

Why not put a big earring on

one or both them.

It's cool OK?,

and I'm not going to make it,

so it's a free idea,

for you to work on.


Look at what it would do.

You do realize,

it would actually have an


Much more of an impact,

than any other thing,

stuck to your car right now.

Monday, November 4th, 2019

Edit Tuesday, November 5th, 2019

Honesty is not extreme.

If the post below seems extreme, consider this.

"Honesty is the best policy."

already accepted.

"Be true to yourself."

already accepted.

"Your body is a temple."

already accepted.

"Purify your mind."

already accepted.

ad infinitum.


Ad infinitum,

what I said below is supported.


Think about it,

if you were already completely honest

with yourself

about everything

wouldn't you

already be immune

to hearing truths

that you've

already heard—

to the point

that you've been



I know it is hard

to hear certain messages

from certain people,

but even that

is practiced

with complete self-honesty,

if you assume,

different faces and voices.

Because if you are

sensitive to an audience's perspective,

it is because

you've created a fictional account

for them,

such that you are shocked,

when they do not go by that account.


Give yourself a true account of yourself


give everyone else,

that same account.


I'm still working on the issue,

that many seem

to get their facts wrong.

I cannot anticipate

everything anyone might

say about me,

that is a lie.

Although I do not often lie to myself,

and try to think through all the variations

of lies I might encounter,

I am still taken aback by what I hear,

because I cannot anticipate everything,

other people might say.


I'm becoming immune to this

variation too,

since the messages

tend to carry,

the same unnecessary

emotions and attitudes.

But still,

I have not encountered,

the super weirdo,







The one from television,

that exists out there,



when you are unaware,

so you never know,

if you should be aware,

or not.


There is only so much,

one can prepare oneself for.


Back to the main topic.

It should be clear,

that there is nothing extreme,

in being honest.

Honesty creates resilience.

Your brutal honesty,


kinda where I live.

And it's a nice place.

Monday, November 4th, 2019

I'm immune.

Mostly immune.

to "brutal" truths.

They are not brutal.


the brutality is relative.

This means,

you see it as brutal,

because of you.

That's what relative

means in part.

It depends on

your level of preparation,

of yourself,

with honesty.

I'm honest with myself,

so what do you think,

you can come at me



I already did that,

and it didn't feel brutal,

when I did it.

There are benefits

in the preparation.


If you "fairy tale" your world

you will be very fragile.


With truth,

you won't even want

fairy tales.

You won't want anything

containing lies.

Monday, November 4th, 2019

Uncage your animal, you animal.


Exalt your animal-self.


[Aside: In a productive way. I'm not telling you, to completely debase yourself. Let's get that misinterpretation, out of the way. Although, some forms of "debasing" yourself, are not actually debasing yourself. You'll have to decide on that.]

Monday, November 4th, 2019

"I'm not a masochist, but hey, falsepath me anyway."

Falsepaths are horrible.

You'd think only the masochist would submit.

But mostly everyone submits.

Monday, November 4th, 2019

Getting real in the debate team.

Are you on the debate team?

How real do you get?

The more real you are,

the less capable anyone is,

of defeating your argument.

Or you lose,

really fast.


Is this debate team




"Devil's advocate"


Aren't you supposed to argue,

for positions given to you,

in advance?

Wedneday, November 4th, 2019

Minor fix. Thursday, November 4th, 2019

Saw it coming.

Ever see a fighter,

supposedly "cheap shot" an opponent,

and wonder to yourself,

"Did he know to hit first,

because of that look,

on the other person's face,

and slight motion

in their frame?"


"I saw it coming,

and I chose to win from the start."


Why do I bring this up?

In real life,

people play the appearances game.

They do everything they can,

to injure others,

and either you are required to do the same,

or you can take,

an alternative,

more open and powerful approach.

This puts you at risk,


even though you might be using

less force than your opponent.


So we think,

the first to strike,

is the one who loses,

because we perceive the

force to be excessive.

Even though it was,


by comparison,

to the accumulation,

of small slights,

and so on.



as in the case of the fighter above,

the action was to

prevent the very same from happening,

to himself.


I will continue to stick to my position,

of letting small things go,

not such that they are forgiven,

but such that they will pile up,

in the pile over there,

mostly out of mind,

but on record,

if the type of person,

deserves such a record.

Then I will hit hard,

and will have no concerns,

whatsoever about it.

Because whatever it is they are doing,

is not something I would do to them.

Although that type of person,

keeps false records too.


"The meek, passive-aggressive person, shall inherit the earth."

and that earth

would not be worth living in.


Do you know a person,

who cannot get through a single conversation,

without stabbing you somehow?


I'm drama averse.

Wednesday, November 4th, 2019

Vetting the "remnant".

I haven't vetted you yet.

Have you been vetted?


Don't be confused,

there was no admission process,

and you self-designated,

if you think you're,

in the remnant.

Sunday, November 3rd, 2019

Originally Posted in HighIQ World on Facebook, October 7th, 2018

Obstructing Corporate Turnover

Imagine you are a Managing Director of a corporation. You have been on the job for two years. You feel you are doing a good job but you have no objective criteria really to provide ultimate justification of your continued employment. To what extent are you entitled to defend your role in a company that is not yours?


Facebook group located here: HighIQ World.

Sunday, November 3rd, 2019

Edited: Monday, November 4rd, 2019

The views of your ancestors.

They were variable.


Christmas approaches.

Celebrate someone else's culture,

on your holiday,

per the usual.

Much time elapsed between biblical times,

[Aside: We say biblical times, but there was only one place that was biblical. We really mean super ancient Jerusalem and areas nearby.]

and current times,

and many ancestors,

came and went,

who were not Christian.

Yet you forgot them,

and discounted their views.

Probably by

never thinking about them.

You do not know their views actually.

Because they did not record them.

You have the views,

of the conquerors.

Your mind was conquered.


This is where

the yet to be conquered,

[Aside: I'm thinking of the native peoples across the globe]

have an advantage,

of being able to compare.

And they don't necessarily,

want the Christmas of your conquerors,

and the mismatching climate,

and calendar.

And what is interesting,

is you are seeking to

conquer them too.

If not by active "conquering"




A more ancient substitution?

"Native people,

your ideas are current to you.

But here,

have this

2,000 year old,

Middle Eastern

falsepath instead."


The desire to

force Natives to substitute,

is in part,

because they think,

the Native ideas,

are falsepaths.

Let's be real,



Let's not substitute falsepaths for falsepaths.


My descent is


I'm a mut,

like you.

Mattanaw is races.

But I can tell you,

I do not decend directly from

ancient Jews.

In part,


But Christmas,

was by way of warfare,

that finally resulted

in my family.

My family seems to have

no idea,

or any concern at least,

that this was the case.

"Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer"

Ya know?


We haven't had



conversation yet.

Sunday, November 3rd, 2019

Edited Monday, November 4th, 2019

Do you have the patience and open mind to receive a new Revelation?

Or are you impatient,

in your dismissal of truth?


have to meet your expectations?

You know in advance,

what the Revelations will


to you?

This is not open mindedness.



may take time

to be conveyed,

and would they not be expected

to alter your criteria?

The whole point is that

you could not come to the truth yourself.

It had to be revealed to you.

This is not supernatural


But it is Revelation.

I capitalized

the 'R' just now.

Powerful education,

is Revelation.


It is hard to admit,

you did not know things here

in advance.

So hard,

that after you learn

things here

I would expect

you to pretend you knew it all along.



is worse than 2nd grade.

Sunday, November 3rd, 2019

It's brutal because you weren't honest with yourself.


You'd be prepared.

Sunday, November 3rd, 2019

Edited Monday, November 4th, 2019

The Whole World is Stuck Here.

There are few exceptions.

You're not one of them most likely.


See the post below.

Don't be confused.

I mean to say that probably,

you are stuck here.

I do have hopes

for you.


In religion,

there is the idea,

that the world is wrong,

and that the cult

you are guilted to pay for

and belong to

is right.

The self-designated


is an example of this.

"I just joined a small church,

and now I'm

a survivor."

Nevermind that "remnants"

disagree with each other,

and have the easiest admission

process possible.

It is easier to become

a chosen person,

than it is to enter

a private Highschool.

You just show up,

and self-designate.


you pretend your "knowledge"

is secret,

and privately act as though,

everyone is an enemy.


you claim,

that everyone shares the same religion as you.

This is the gimmick,

of the religious cult.


If they took it seriously,

they would openly declare,

that they are the few,

while everyone else is the many.


That only a few,

really know quite a lot,

is certainly true,

with respect to knowledge,


So when I state that the world,

is stuck in obvious falsities,

I am saying you probably are too.

These are facts.

This is why we value education.

All of humanity,

for thousands of years,

until recently,

did not have information.

And so the elite of today,

in knowledge,

are the elite for all of history too.


I will say it to anyone I meet,

when I have nothing to go by,

as far as what they might know.

But I will acknowledge,

that they might be very

honest and knowledgable too,

and that I simply don't have enough

information yet.

But I will not claim to be in the remnant,

and then act as though,

the remnant doesn't exist,

in the open,

or first that nobody but my




is in it,

and later,

that the clique,

includes everyone.


"Do you not know what a team is?"


Let us consider that obvious falsities,

do exist.

They do,


Who is the keeper,

of obvious falsities?

They get shared,


and preserved,

by the bulk of humanity?

I can tell you though,

I do not believe in any



people do.

How are these ghosties preserved?

[Aside: "ghosties" is my placeholder for everything that is obviously foolish]

It is undeniable,

that people are,


and communicating,

and believing,

obvious falsities,

else they would have been lost

to history.


You read about it,

in amusement.


So yes,

most of the world,

is stuck in that position.

They have some truths,

that is clear,

else they could not,

sew clothing together.

But they also,

are the carriers of the infection,

that is easily cured.



and I forgot to mention,

that institutions,

and organizations,

are the keepers of the obvious falsities.

Propaganda is a technique they use.

Bullying and manipulation too.

It would be very difficult,

for individuals,

to preserve ghosties across nations,

if not for organized



Public education,

strives to not be this.

While public education,

is day care

in disguise,

it does have one of the most

valuable missions,

that has ever existed.

Of teaching what is true,

and only what is true.

This is why,

they have rightfully censored,



You are more likely to get falsepathed,

at home,

or outside of school.


Remedial education,

for institutions?

"Institution of Ghosties,

hear about,

how there aren't any."


Another alternative,

already taken:

Shelter them,

from taxes?


My religion is philosophy.

I'm excited to build my

new tax shelter.

I will not guilt anyone

into donating.

I am already,

living mostly


But hey,

cash me.

Sunday, November 3th, 2019

Edit Monday, November 4th, 2019

Advice Dynamics.

"When X happens, I do Y."

That isn't very effective actually.

Because you are implying,

you do the same thing Y,

under any circumstance X,

but X is too variable,

to call for Y,

every time.


In other words,

X and Y are not variables,

but are placeholders,

according to the ordinary understanding.

But to work they need to be variables.

Otherwise Y does not apply to X, which will change.

or X does not call for


What does X call for?

Is a

super interesting question.


Situations don't call for anything it seems.

We just create



This variability,

that calls for


leads to our common feeling,

that advice is amiss.


the person who knows the situation,

has to select from the advice

in the heap.


You alone can decide what applies.

There's often no time or capability to explain X,

to tradition.

Tradition won't respond.

But a thinking person,

might unthinkingly respond,

with something canned

in tradition.


Traditional morality,

has not accounted for this.

This is why morality,

is a heap.

And not an organized


for applying answers,

to real situations.

It's a matching game

of sorts,

with few rules,

and no way to know,

when it is being done correctly.

We just look at our outcomes,

and think,

it turned out OK

this time.


There are too many situations.

To simplify,

people pretended,

variation did not exist,

or did not matter,

or was not enough variation,

to justify,

sufficient variation of response.

"My advice is universal".

Even the best of the philosophers,

fell into this kind of trap.

"I found the supreme principle of morality..."

This guy,

couldn't figure out,

how to apply the principle

he made up.

He did seem to be,

very honest however.


When things don't go well

and people are not helpful

and tradition harms

instead of helping

people tend to think:

"Don't judge me unless you've walked in my shoes."

"Don't cast the first stone."

And variants,

that all mean,

it is hard to understand all the situations,

that can occur.



has not taken any "Hippocratic Oath."

It's just a dead and lifeless,

information pile.

The life

of tradition

is in people,

who cough up advice,

committing the mistake of the availability heuristic.

We think the first thing that comes to mind,

is the answer.


Listen to advice from your parents.

They are the keepers of tradition,

and they are available,

so they are the easiest to test

this truth on.

When they judge,

and provide advice,

how frequently is it

the very first thing

they think of

when they react

is the advice they give you.

They trust their reactions.

But reactions are variable.

So who's reaction do you trust?

Your parents or someone else's?

You are better to trust,

those who take multiple reactions into consideration,

and think things through carefully,

or those,

who have trustworthy intuitions.


If you look at how advice is given,

one piece of advice is expected to apply,

to situations that are not analogous,

to those that prompted the

creation the advice.

We rarely,

inquire into advice creation events.


They are gone?

What is the significance?

We cannot find analogies to them!!


Advice is created,


and attains memorability,

and is recorded.

This is how disorganized heaps are created.

Where were the morality architects?

It's a cluster,

from all sorts of individuals,

in the culture.


A toolkit is not provided,

that would satisfy variable conditions.

Usually it's some canned phrase,

taken directly from tradition,

as a mostly thoughtless reaction.

If only we could measure the thoughts,

in the reactions.

[Aside: For now we ignore that there is nearly always an opposing piece of advice from tradition]

Did you weigh the options,

or know the options,

in your reaction?


to the regular?

Or intuited,

through the problem,

to the solution?

Can you see the difference?

Some will intuit to the anger.

Straight to the anger.


But if you take X and Y to be variables truly,

where X is a situational input,

and Y is a tool,

within a set of tools,

what you find,

is that you do not really do some static Y,

when some X occurs,

but you use different tools,



or in combination,

over time.

This means that,

if you encounter similar situations,

minor differences,

will still call for,

different reactions.

We have trouble,

speaking in terms of,

dynamic time-related combinations and alternations.


This is truly another problem.

If you accept that X is a variable,


that your situation changes,

then your tool is supposed to vary,

over time.

This is clear,

in athletics,

where improvement,

demands changes in activities.

The situation does not remain the same,

but differs only slightly,

but significantly,

and so the advice,

about what to do,


Notice that tradition,

does not have this

understanding of dynamics

in situations and solutions.


Let's take it further.

I was talking about how advice givers

change too.

Different people are different inputs into this.


the advice I would give 5 years ago,

would not be the same

as the advice I would give today.


It's really is largely a pile of advice.

The advice givers,

are snatching from the same pile.

And they don't


the same way,

as each other.


Variability in the access of "morality"

exists too.

I mentioned this,

with the availability heuristic.

That is instant memory access,

of moral understanding,

that had no method,

other than first recall.


Advice givers are

a variable.

The advice giver heap.

How do you choose from this heap?

First adult you see in front of you?

The most proximal?

I never met a child,

who sought advice,

by specialization.

Parent know-it-all


With no knowledge.

Or training,

or certification.

"How did you become a parent?"

"Well first,

we copulated like animals..."


don't seek advice,


from specialists,

to fill their gaps.

They fill their gaps,

with another

less than justifiable


Sunday, November 3th, 2019

The ThoughtStream is also a Punching Bag.


Some advise,

that when you need to "vent",

to avoid hurting other people,

or yourself,

you should

take it out on a punching bag,

or scream into a pillow,

or release your energy in some other,

socially acceptable way.

Be violent,

in a non-harmful way

for example.


This is often called



Before doing any of those things


you can try thinking honestly to yourself

and "vent"

in a journal.

You can try to think things through,

until they no longer frustrate you.

This is another method,

you can mix into

your cathartic medicine.


These are all tools.

Use whichever happens to be handy,

at the moment,

and use more than one option in alternation,

or combination,

over time.


You should at least

try it out.

You might discover,

you are a natural




or yodeller,

or something.

The most obvious form of


is any kind of

energy releasing



Uncage your




Sunday, November 3rd, 2019

Most are stuck here.

See more here.

Sunday, November 3rd, 2019

Ignoring What is Definitely False.

See more here.

Saturday, November 2nd, 2019

Busy Bee.

Do bees,

busy collecting pollen,

seem concerned,

about how organized their pollen collecting is?

About how they look,

covered with sticky,

yellow dust?

It clings to their legs nicely,

but in caked-chunks,

not at all beautiful,

on close inspection.

Be a busy bee?

I think I'm like a busy bee,

to an extent.

At least I can use this,

to praise myself,

in my incomplete efforts,

at building something,

that seems to be within me,

to complete.


I expect my final product

to have the regularity,

of a honey-bee hexacomb.

But like the bee,

I'll work on it,

and perhaps die,

from a hand-smacking,

before finishing.

In the meantime,

I'll just work at it.

Saturday, November 2nd, 2019

Tension between preservation and letting go.

The hoarder knows this tension well.

Civilization is a hoarder.

We want to archive.

But we have never been successful at creating any real permanence.

Change destroys relevance.

History becomes disinteresting.

From the personal level,

to the everything level.

I am thinking about how to record something permanently meaningful.

I am not fond of pyramids,

because they seem foolish for the effort.

But I keep thinking,

messages have to be inscribed in permanent physical things,

that withstand weathering.

But weathering always wins.

Great plains.

Appalachian range.

Pyramid dust.


Perfect clocks.

Permanent archives.

Permanent utility.


unsolvable problems?


Perhaps we would benefit,

from the proofs,

that these are insoluble.

Math would undermine

these plans,

that perhaps,

need undermining,

because from the start we cling to any solution,


and maybe,

the Buddhists have it right.


Another reason why I say,

my website is a mandala.

Life is a temporary mandala?

Saturday, November 2nd, 2019

My website is a mandala.

I would not destroy it immediately as some Buddhists would.

But I expect it to fade into nothingness,




Pyramids carry messages no one is concerned to understand.

Friday, November 1st, 2019

What? Solution-problem it?

Friday, November 1st, 2019

Laundry and Time.

Ever go to fold your laundry,

and think to yourself,

"All of these clothes I like, are already old?"

Textiles don't last.

These underwear.

I need them to last forever,


Friday, November 1st, 2019

Edited: Monday, November 4th, 2019

"It's a blessing and a curse."

You mean,

It has pros and cons?

That's what this means.


What difference does it make which you think

and use?


"blessings" and "curses"

are prohibited,

or are flagged,

by our list.

The first one makes you think:

  1. That you are important.
  2. That you are actually "blessed" in a supernatural way. It's fine to think you have advantages to be grateful for. But it is another thing to think, you have received supernatural preference.
  3. That you are cursed. This doesn't really help at all.


"Pros and cons" works for many things,

over and above

"blessings and curses".

It is just a better tool.


But let me fill you in on something.

Analysing using pluses and minuses

is also a basic way of looking at it.


You can tell this is true,

while you are doing it.



if you think in terms of

blessing and a curses,

you are either,

falling into a cultural trap

[Aside: I fell into it this morning.]

or you are possibly superstitious

and maybe unaware of more

sophisticated ways of thinking,

that bring you closer to truth.

pros and cons,

is one more sophisticated way of looking at it,

that is hardly sophisticated.


Later we'll get to a higher level,

but for now,

let's leave the lowest level.


Thursday, October 31st, 2019

Heartwarming Somethings, One.

A cat with only one half of a leg,

learns to run again.

Wednesday, October 30th, 2019

"I don't have a favorite."

I knew I did not have a favorite color,

since I was first asked

what my favorite color was,

as a small child.

"Pick pink,

or blue,



I chose pink and I was



Maybe you had the same experience also?


Favorite color? Among which options?

2, 3, 8, or 400?

My favorite,

on what?

My favorite color of bagel,

is beige-ish.


it is not blue.

Green is even worse.

Moldy green-blue fuzz.


Favorite food?

I don't have a favorite.

You don't either.


Favorite _____________?

I didn't try enough of the ____________ yet,

to both select a favorite,

[Aside: because compelled]

and to realize,

I couldn't have one.


What would you like to be your final meal

prison inmate?

"Can I choose,

on the day of the meal


Better yet,

can we push it back,

a few years.

Wednesday, October 30th, 2019

Be 90 now.

Many older people say they regret that

they cared so much about what other people thought,

throughout their lives.

Nobody takes this advice. It's interesting.


I choose to be 90 about 5 years ago.

And if anyone gives me a hard time,

I'll point out,

I'm following the advice,

of their elders.


I look really good,

for ninety.

Wednesday, October 30th, 2019

You're Woke so You're a Determinist Now.

You're woke?

I said I'd revisit this in a decade,

but I need to revisit it now.

You're woke,

so that means,

you're a Determinist.


For now,

that is the most important awakening,

I can think of.

Wednesday, October 30th, 2019

Aligning Yourself with Probability

Hope and Improbability.

You should know where I'm going to go with this one.

Instead of aligning yourself with hope,

shouldn't you just align yourself with,



Recall the hopes,

of wartime losers.


Once committed to some probable outcome,

that's within your power,

or not,

you should attach your hope,

to your commitment,

in some way,


Tuesday, October 29th, 2019

Movie Ideas for People Who Can Make Movies, One.

When is a robot with AI truly human-like?

When is it "alive", in the sense that humans are alive?

This is not a new question. It has been covered in science fiction,

probably innumerable times.

Star Trek.

Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey.

And others.

Let's take this idea one step further.

Humans created useful human-like robots.

They are improved and refined, until the life of the robots,

seems more desirable,

than human life itself.

The means of copying human brains,

into digital brains is completed.

Suddenly there are thousands of robots,

supposedly having human minds.

They behave and act exactly like humans.

They seem more advanced, more secure,

and more immortal than humans.

But nobody is quite sure,

if they are actually alive,

or if they are merely simulating human lives,

in incredibly complex ways.


Time progresses,

the new form of life seems so much more desirable,

than human life,

that most have made the switch.

only a small number of humans exist.

They have to make the decision,

to end humanity,

at the risk,

that the new life form,

isn't life at all.

Perhaps guaranteeing,

that there will never be any other form of life,

ever again in the universe.


Or else,

the decision is made,

because humans,

were automata,

with no more significance than the robots,

all along.

It's just life,



taking its next step,

through us.


Add some drama and all that,

and I think this is a good movie plot.

Tuesday, October 29th, 2019

Remember Cryogenics?

How many bodies are frozen for no reason at all?

What percentage are recoverable?

[Aside: I assume zero percent.]

Resurrection of frozen bodies,

doesn't even seem possible.

Tuesday, October 29th, 2019

Ignorance is Bliss?

The future of the person who says so,

is to cry out:

"Why didn't I know!?"


Knowledge is power.

Power is bliss.

The power to not be ignorant is



This is false too but I had a point to make.


This is why I said let the elite tell you,

what elite privileges are.

Because ignorance,





The ignorant might tell you it is.

From the slums.

It's self-talk though.

They want to believe that the nothing they have,

is what is truly desirable.

This is understandable.


Why not make the best out of what you don't have?

Tuesday, October 29th, 2019

Let R.I.P R.I.P

There isn't anyone to rest.

There's a lot to learn, trust me.

Monday, October 28th, 2019

Nice job at the gym. I see you accomplished veins.


"Nice job at the gym. I see you accomplished _____________."

Fill that in with something awkward.

It has to be true though.

Monday, October 28th, 2019

Focus on yourself because you like you, right?

OK, so you don't like me because I'm _______________________?

It's easy then,

you prefer someone more like you.

You are just like you.


wouldn't it make your life easier,

to focus on yourself?

Like I do already?


Or is that something you're unable to do for some reason?

Monday, October 28th, 2019

"Dr. Lunch", Part One.


Mattanaw, as Dr. Lunch

Some Other Guy, as the Patient


[Enters the patient, who quietly waits in the examination room, after the nurse performs some initial checkup tasks. He is not in a hurry, but he is getting slightly irritated about the wait time.

Dr. Lunch then enters. He is apathetic, but makes the appearance of being interested in his new patient. He looks like he has someplace to go.

Lunch box. There is an old-school lunch box in the corner of the room, clearly in view.

It's a classy antique lunch box.]


Dr. Lunch:

Well Hello there!

The nurse told me you were having some trouble with acid-reflux.

I'm sorry to hear about that.

We'll get you fixed up.

I understand you are a new patient.


Yes, that's correct.

Dr. Lunch:

Well, nice to meet you for the first time.

New patients are my favorite.


My name is "Dr. Lunch".


"Dr. Lunch?"

[There is an awkward pause]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to...


[Patient is interrupted]

Dr. Lunch:

Oh, don't even think of it.

It's exactly like it sounds.


L. u. n. c. h.

Like the meal.

I LOVE my name.

It's memorable.

You remember it already.



I think you're right.

Dr. Lunch:

I am!


Well let's get to it.

One thing.

It's 11:40 already.


We're almost out of time.



Out of time?

We just started.

Out of time for what?

Dr. Lunch:

Noon approaches,


I always have someplace I have to be

at noon.

I think you can understand that,




I mean, I'm serious about my acid-reflux,

and I have a lot of questions.

At noon I'm usually at work,

around that time,

and I do,

have something to do,


at noon.

Almost always at noon.

That's why I chose this time.

I usually have a break,

around this time.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself...

[Does a partial face-palm]

Dr. Lunch

Me too, me too.

So I think we can agree,

we both have something to do,

at noon.


So here we go.

I promise we will get through



To be continued...

Sunday, October 27th, 2019

Do you ever wish you could sing like a woman and a man?

If you are a man,

I know there are songs,

that you wish you could sing along to,

with that lady voice.

Sunday, October 27th, 2019

When Your Negative is My Positive.

I'm afraid your negative,

appears to be my positive.

And I don't think of things in terms of positive and negative anyway.

So can I suggest we start

by talking about


Which is positive,

whichever way,

you look at it,


Now can you understand?

Sunday, October 27th, 2019

You cannot make any inferences from the ThoughtStream to my behavior in the workplace.

Sunday, October 27th, 2019

As a heuristic device, I don't listen to anyone.

I take their input, when attention calls for it.

People who I've clearly listened to--

you should feel proud.


What I do with input received is up to me completely.

~Friday, October 27th, 2019

Logic teachers have the responsibility

first and foremost,

that children and adults leaving their classes,

are able to separate the most obvious falsities in our culture,

from our culture's truths.


Isn't it the goal...

that the students,

who will be life-long logic users,

will be able to sort out truths?


Why not make it easier,

and help them

instantly cancel out

obviously false things.


Then we can rely on them

and aid them

in the hard work finding

the trickier falsities that exist,

that would take a while to find,

and not require them,

to find all of the falsities,

including those that are the very easiest to detect,

but are pervasive and numerous,

and are encountered,

nearly randomly,

over many years,

and not all at once.


If I taught logic,

I would from the start,

point out the set of all words,

that we can trust,

will falsify sentences,

and then will introduce,

the more difficult concepts,

that are taught in logic,

as logic.

Aside: I returned to actually start this here.


I'm not sure logicians,

understand what it is they are really

trying to teach,

or do?


we would not have so many

Introductory logic texts,

that vary mostly in syntactical preferences,

than in anything useful.

I feel they are

trying to show,

they understand logic,

but not what it's



I suggest that courses in logic,

should become standard in elementary school,

because first of all,

it is easy,

and second of all,

children should be able to start sorting out,

truth from falsity,

while they are young,

and not only when they are old.

How sad is it

that people have to sort it all out

on their own.

And this way,

kids can identify,

if their parents are at all logical,

and determine,

if they are to be trusted.

It is weird to me,

that parents don't realize,

that other parents,

are harmful to their own children.

This is a primary issue with society.



If I were orphaned,

I'd want parents.

But not just any parents!!!

Some homes,

are dungeons.

Are you not aware,

of cults

and psychopaths?

Choose a mental disorder,

and someone's parents

has that.

Get it?


A core problem in life is

"Who can I trust?"

Some learn while very young,

they could not trust,

those they were told they should rely on.

So why not teach them,

from the very first,

to trust themselves,

as long as they can,

trust in logic,

and clear thinking.


This is much better than,

"You might have nothing at all

to trust."

The very best,

of what can trusted,

can be made available,

to anyone and everyone.

It is logic,

and clear thinking.


I need to say more about this topic


Friday, October 25th, 2019

Sanest, not a Sadist.

See the list below.

Add 666 to it.

Completely meaningless.

"Friday the 13th?"

Numerology. The number 7.


Completely meaningless.

But fun,

as long as you know

it is for fun.


Let's talk about 13.

There are still buildings today,

that have no 13th floor.

This was only because of superstition.

People wouldn't buy property on the 13th floor.

So they would simply go from the 12th,

to the 14th floor.

So people would buy property on the 14th floor instead.

But that was just the 13th floor renamed.


Think about how common,

this superstition had to have been,

to have built buildings,

without 13th floors?

Elevators had to have 12th and 14th floor buttons.

Mailboxes had to skip numbers with 13.


Superstition is embarrassing.

It's costly.

See the list below.

Not only have we been unable to create logic classes,

that were logical enough,

to teach what in our culture is really false,

but we tolerate,

in public education,

the continuation of these ridiculous ideas.


Part of my religion,

which is philosophy,

is anti-superstition.


Superstitious people aren't completely sane.


creates sane people.

Thursday, October 24th, 2019

Nunavut is real.

Thursday, October 24th, 2019

Every logic course in history was incomplete.


It failed to make the list mentioned below.

How can a logic class come to completion,

without including the list of all terms,

that falsify nearly any sentence,

they would be a part of?

Thursday, October 24th, 2019

Minor Edit, Wednesday, October 30th, 2019

Challenge III. Find words that don't appear in true statements.

These are mostly useless, superstitious words.

Well, they are useful in a literary sense.

We can make interesting films and novels using them.

But usually we fail to make sense at all,

when we use them,

in real life.


The word "conjure" came to mind today.

It's funny. I was having a good time with it.

On reflection, I don't think it has ever been used in a true sentence.

This might be hyperbole,

but it is close to the truth nevertheless.

Unless you say something like:

"They thought they could conjure dead relatives, but it turns out, there is no way to conjure anything."

But this is true,


it is basically making the point I'm making,



For challenge three,

I suggest we find words

that never appear in true statements,

unless the sentence is like the one above,

negating its reality in some way.




This is something that just never happens.

It never happened either.

You can have more faith in me stating this,

than in whatever else,

anyone might tell you about it.


If I insist that Benjamin Franklin needs to be resurrected,

to get his opinion on gun control,

I'm not being serious.

I'm joking about how resurrection is as impossible,

as getting Benjamin Franklin's opinion on the topic.


More examples:

None of these things refer to anything,

so we can expect,

that these terms are more useful in a literary sense,

for our amusement,

for persuasion and marketing,

and so forth,

than for conveying truths.


If someone claims you are a devil for example,

they aren't making a true statement.

You shouldn't be offended.

You should laugh.

"X is a Devil" is always false.

"X has been resurrected" is always false.

"X was conjured by Beelzebub" is always false.

"I was visited by a Ghost at night" is always false.

"The spirit of Great Grandma is watching me" is always false.

[Aside: You don't believe that anyways in practice, otherwise Tinder would not be something you would have a login for.]

"Benjamin Franklin thinks X" (where X is a topic of current events), is always false.

"Bill and Jane are Equal" (Where both are complex objects taken in total) is always false.


At this point you should see how this can be made useful.

You can completely ignore what anyone says about anything and everything,

taking these things seriously.

Take a look at my notes on imagination and filtration.

On Attention.

Our attention is very valuable.

We want to use our minds for true things,

or fun and amusing things,

and not superstitious things.


To an extent we can use a list such as this,

as a guide,

to determine just how much we should interact with someone else.

"This person believes in 600 things on the list of 2000 ridiculous

sentence-falsifying terms?"

That's a scary person.


Is that your parent?

If that's your parent,

remember you are free to believe whatever you find true,

and deny whatever you think is false.

Your mind is free.

You don't belong to your parents.

Your country is unable to ensure that you are educated

by parents


believe true things.

But since we insist

that parents do guide correctly,

you can think of them as being interchangeable.

You can substitute the teachings,

of your friend's parents,

for your own.

If you prefer.

It is not fair that they had parents

who knew things,

when your parents didn't.


Ask your logic teacher,

to provide you the more complete list,

and learn,

they don't have one.


I'll add a list here.

Let's make a list together.

Wednesday, October 23rd, 2019

Risks of not knowing your rights, and not really having rights.

I've said before that I don't really believe in rights,

but in something more valuable than rights.

I'm more concerned that,

whatever it is that is desired is actually secured.

That you actually have what is supposedly established,

through such a right.

through such a right

But rights don't work hard for you.

In fact they do nothing but exist in writing,

until someone takes action regarding them.


One example I've given before involves providing access to water.

Suppose there is a right to water.

In Flint Michigan, it would be unclear what that right actually means.

Water has to be provided by technology and work.

So I would prefer a system that provides water access,

to any right to access.

Because on the one hand, the work was actually done,

on the other hand,

nothing might ever get done.

There is a big difference between having an infrastructure for something,

and having nothing,

but words indicating,

that something should be provided,

given enough money and resources,

to mobilize people to actually

start to create that same technology?

By basic human processes,

involving the legal system,

and lawyers and so forth?

If there was already a system to deliver water,

there is no need for any right to water,

except maybe

as a last resort.

"Rights as a last resort"

is not how people usually think about it,

but it is much closer to the truth.

And many do not ever get what they supposedly,

have rights to.


If you don't think that this is the case,

consider the legal system,

where you are told, that you will be taken advantage of,

if you don't know what your rights are.

This means,

not only that your rights are not secured for you,

that you can only secure your rights yourself.


you are at a disadvantage,

if you cannot afford legal counsel.

Through this we can see that,

if you are poor,

are unintelligent,

have any disadvantages whatsoever relating to

not understanding the law,

or the legal process,

or having funds to obtain counsel,

you are at risk,

of not having your rights secured for you.

So this is why I am correct,

when I say that rights,

do not actually obtain anything for you.

It is much better to have something,

than to have rights.

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2019

"Esquired and Exchequered, Bro."

Mixing older English,




Plus done that,

to an extent.

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2019

On what cycle should I consume your recommended ingredients?

Everyone is familiar with meal advice.

You should eat more (fill-in-the-blank).

What always seems to be missing, is the cycle you should eat such foods.

Daily cycle?

Tomatoes 3 times a day, once a day, once every two days?...

Once a month?

What is the recommendation actually?

It seems to me,

that if you recommend consuming a particular food,

you are saying there is some minimal amount you should eat routinely.

As with vitamins.

With vitamins, we can basically

have a tablet once a day.

But with food recommendations, we cannot do that,

and since so many types of food are

"good for us"

it is hard to know what our meals should really look like,

across days,

into weeks and months,

and years.

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2019

You've been miscellaneoused.

Let us move to the next stage,

in the LGBTQIA+ movement,

and get miscellaneoused together,

to become completely all-inclusive.


I feel miscellaneoused already.

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2019

"I did exactly what my parents told me to do".

So, you're telling me...

I should do what your parents told you to do?

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2019

Don't be a sock blocker!

"Don't be a sock blocker, Mom."

Sunday, October 20th, 2019

Edited Monday, November 11th, 2019

Legacy in the eternity?

Eternity is a long time.

We know this, but

we don't know it in practice,

or in planning.

How long is a legacy supposed to last?

A legacy of a few years does not

seem to be something of great value.

This is why I do not concern myself with having a legacy.

By this I do not mean to say

that I don't think my work

is of importance.


I mean to point out,

that no deceased human is known after 200 years,

except in name.



A rare few will read and

understand the mind,

of an eminent person,

through their writing.

But that is only if they wrote something.

People who I know,

who are concerned with legacies,

do not write,

and seem more concerned,

with some sort of

sexual conquest.

Which is why


I prefer to write,

and if I want anyone at all to have any understanding

of my mind,

I need to first of all,

write it down.

There's much to be said.

This is why I think

"getting it out into the world unedited"

is so important.

To me that is vastly superior,

than having nothing written at all,

only to trust others,

who have no idea what you would write,

to tell a story,

that ends up being theirs and not yours,

no matter who they happen to be,

and how close the relationship.


In ten thousand years, no one will have time,

or any interest,

in reading anything I write.

No one can tell my story,

but myself,

and the audience dwindles,

as millennia pass by.

Could you ask your great grandchild,

100 generations from now,

in a will,

to read my memoirs?


What is the lifespan of a will?

How long,

can we expect

someone to honor a time-capsule?

This is why there are pyramids,

and everyone,

already knows what was inside of those.


really ancient




Which leaves only one legacy of interest:

How can I make my mark upon the destiny of the world itself?

Everyone does this easily.

This is where the Pharoahs actually had an impact.

Although we know next to nothing about them,

and we chose their legacies for them!


But even if we consider changing the world

something of great importance to pursue,

we have the troublesome issue,

that everything appears to be predetermined.

So even what you do,

is what you will do.


For these reasons I do not concern myself with

having a legacy,

but work anyway.

And this is why,

I have a planned extinction event,

for my lineage,

when I die,

there will be nobody else,

to claim they came from me.

Biologically at least.

If your child,

wants to claim they came from me,


that is fine.

But I don't think,

that will result in an eternal legacy.

My extinction is immanent.


Life is easier,

without the demands of

planning for a legacy.

There are just too many people to pay for,

and too many people

to manipulate.

That's not "Mattanaw".

Then there's the problem

of who they will become,

regardless of my efforts,

to educate them,

according to my visions.

While I would think the right DNA would pass to my offspring,

there is little evidence,

that DNA,

will create the children,

I imagine,

when I'm using my imagination.

They always become,

something utterly different.

Better than expected,

or something different than expected,

but never,

what was expected.

Wanting a legacy,

creates high expectations.

All my children have to be recyclers,

if not saints.

Never will there be,


with a legacy greater

than my own,

or one opposite to my own.

How do you plan to

outdo your parent's legacies?


you are not merely,

ensuring their legacy continues,

without any concern for your own,


Then this conversation,

would only be about,

our ancestor's legacies,

and never our own.


Suppose I decided

instead I would have a legacy,


I had 10 children,

each of whom had 10 children,

whom had 10 children more.

After 3 generations,

they would not know each other,

there would be so many.

And if I had the


to create a legacy,

upon all these families,

my legacy,

would be one they might wish to escape,

or one to overcome,

or emulate,

but not merely maintain.

[Aside: Nobody of worth ever simply looks upon the achievement of their ancestors as something to simply remain unchanged].

I say this while keeping in mind,

that children and grandchildren,

do love and admire their grandparents,

and remember them


But I do not know who my great-great-great grandparents were,

would probably rarely think of them if I did,

and 10,000 years from now,

maybe everyone on earth,

will be related to my grandparents,

in some way.

Nobody truly looks to the origin of the species,

for inspiration,

great-grandma australopithecus.

She has no legacy whatsoever,

and everything depended on her!

[Aside: and she does not mind it. The dead are not concerned about legacies.]


Since the desire to leave a legacy,

involves a desire to control,

people who don't even exist yet,

who will somehow selflessly create the

selfish vision of

some guy at the top,

of a self-created "success pyramid",

I find it mostly disgusting and


[Aside: Women seem less concerned about legacies and more concerned about familial well-being. I greatly prefer that perspective].

Never have I heard some guy talk of leaving a legacy,

without feeling some disgust concerning his motives.

At the same time, of course, I understand their desire to create a family,

which is not the same thing,

as trying to create a legacy.


I will remember my parents and grandparents fondly,

but they will certainly not have

eternal legacies.


After this clear and


destruction of


in the eternity,

I will turn my attention to


Since the root of so many of our issues with social justice,

involves how and where we start our lives.

I think we need to consider,

what role,

handing down money from parent to child,

really should have,

if we are to claim that there is any

sort of equality that makes sense.

There must be a better strategy,

to ensure a more just distribution,

of life starting-points.


Parents cannot choose their children,

but children cannot choose their parents either.

If parents have no resources,

we cannot pretend,

that disadvantages will be corrected,

by changes with public education and affirmative action.

They have to go home,

to be with their ignorant parents,

and whatever home and neighborhood,

they are unlucky enough,

to find themselves in.

It's about cash and resources.

People who inherit,



not exactly deserving in any

meaningful way.


Of course,

making everyone start from a position

of health and well being,

and plentiful resources,

will not equalize our DNA,

and it shouldn't,

because we need strength in diversity.

But what it will do is


meritocracy something that's not just



Elimination of

inheritance might not be the answer.

Some diversity might be beneficial here too,

but I would prefer,

no inheritance to inheritance,

given the forced decision,

because the idea of a lasting

legacy is nonsense.


Have you ever questioned

your motive of having a legacy?

Where did you even,

get such an idea,

if you had one?

Saturday, October 19th, 2019

Minor Edit, Sunday, October 20th, 2019

Inspired by Women.

When I imagine myself running,

I imagine that I'm a woman doing it.

When I imagine myself squatting with weights,

I imagine that I'm a woman doing it.

When I imagine myself playing basketball,

I image that I'm a man doing it.


Even when I'm doing so-called

"Manly things",

I'm sometimes imagining,

that I'm a woman doing it,

and not a man.


I only recently realized,

my preference to use women as role models,

for things ordinarily

dominated by men.

I've chosen them,

from TV and from real life.

Friday, October 18th, 2019

Complain with a solutionss.


Friday, October 18th, 2019

Disruptors are already out.

Not long ago, there was the idea of a

"Disruptive Change Agent".

It seems that people now think,

that this type of figure is too negative.

"You're just too negative" == "I don't like to think"

So the phrase has to change to:

"Positive Disruptive Change Agent"

which is an oxymoron.

It is self-contradictory.


What you really need is the Disruptive Change Agent,

just like people already thought.

But this person has to have a realistic vision,

with some form of agreeable progress in mind.


You need the pattern detector.

The issue finder.

The critial thinker problem solvers.

Those who,

first of all,

can find flaws...

And second of all,

are able to resolve some of those flaws.

But the key is flaw finding.

Everyone together is responsible for finding the solutions,

to all the problems this type of person would find.

There is not enough time to

"Complain with a solution"

Or to make it more accurate

with superpluralification

"Complain with a solutionss"


"Complain with a solution"

is a phrase used by the ignorant.


some people do

just complain,

without the ability to find real flaws that need fixing,

or solutions.

Friday, October 18th, 2019

Sleep on it twice.

"I think I'll sleep on that."

"Right now and maybe tonight too."

Thursday, October 17th, 2019

Elite Privileges

Let the elite tell you, what the elite privileges are.

After all, the elite has had the privilege,

of misleading you,

about what those privileges actually are.

And it takes a lifetime to understand them,

once you've "gotten" them.

[Aside: There is a sense in which they cannot be received.]


In other words.

The underprivileged cannot claim to be expert,

on what the privileges actually are.

And so I will add additional items to the ThoughtStream,

to help you understand,

what privileges really are,

from the perspective of someone who has them.

And I'm not going to feel concerned,

about what the underprivileged say,

is wrong in my experience.

That is one of the privileges too...


I have some privileges, but not all of them.


[Aside: this post is entirely about making people, including the underprivileged, understand what they should really be seeking.]

I typed this out,

with one contact lens missing.

I have the blurriest vision right now.

But it looks good to publish.

So here it goes!

Trust me—

you don't even need to see,

to publish.

Thursday, October 17th, 2019

Plural plurals

When it's not enough to merely use the plural form of a word.

And when you need to make fun of,

the norm of using the singular,

in some common expression that is ridiculous.

Thursday, October 17th, 2019

There has to be a reasons.


Yes, you read that right.

"A reasons".


It happened for a reasons.

Many reasons.

Plurals are more accurate.

And are less comforting,

at first...


[Someone asks]

What's the reason for your behavior?

[You respond]

You mean reasonss?

With an extra 's'



("There's not enough time to explain it all to you because it's life...")

Thursday, October 17th, 2019

How to get out of caring about waste.

The best way to reduce waste, is to not have children.

I haven't had any children.

And this means, I do not need to be concerned about waste at all.

I've done my part.

Let's compare by the tonnage.

[Aside: I've been the person who would cut down dramatically on waste, and was a re-user, sorter, recycler, hypermiler, bike commuter, etc... I would carry utensils, a re-usable towel, re-usable bags, and so on around with me, so I would not use disposable materials in fast food places, and so I could avoid avoid buying plastic bags at checkout lines. I lived in a studio apartment for a long time partly for this reason. If you cut down on waste well, you make yourself an oddball (not that I'm against being the strange you want to see in the world).

What does this mean?

You are socially expected to do a poor job at it, and have plenty of children, who are as bad as you are at it, but probably worse. They don't really know how to do any of the things you've learned to do, and nobody re-uses diapers...].

This will make the world a better place,

because we will stop doing pointless activities,

pretending that we are making change somehow.

And some pretend,

that this is the good they are doing in the world,

and it's all that they are doing!

Thursday, October 17th, 2019

What medium does your strategy take?

Perhaps this makes it more clear, what I said before.

I question the extent to which anyone actually has a strategy,

when they say they have one.

"Can you show me your strategy?"


As kids grow up, they learn ways to handle situations

such that we might say they have strategies,

to avoid having their lies detected,

avoid getting in trouble with elders,

and so on...

We can all recall,

having strategies,

for such things.

And we know they would be able to tell us what their strategies are,

if they were asked,

in a consequence-free environment.

Most likely.

This information could then be translated into some medium,

such that a tangible strategy comes into existence.


It's a little different for adults, who claim to have


loftier strategies.


This isn't merely about communication.

A strategy that is just in someone's mind is dubious,

and is more likely to be a cluster of thoughts,

not really a strategy at all,

and certainly probably not strategies.

When things are complex,

strategies don't tend to exist.


Personally, I intend to record my strategies,

such that I can say I have them.


Adults seem to not know when they have a strategy,

and when they don't.

Or at least,

they confuse learned behavioral strategies,

they can no longer communicate,

or identify,

for strategies,

that can be used.

Because if you cannot communicate a strategy,

how do you know,

that you are using one,

when you are supposedly using it?



Is it on paper?

Is it in the computer as a process diagram?

Did you write a program for it?

Did you write a narrative about it?


Or is it just a glob of brain tissue,

somewhere in a head?

I will bet it's just brain tissue,

scattered without much unity,

somewhere in a head.

In business, sometimes it isn't even in the head

of the manager,

claiming to have the strategy.


What medium does your strategy take?

Tuesday, October 15th, 2019

What form does your strategy take?

Think about that carefully,

then consider if you really have a strategy or not.


"What is the form of your non-strategy?"

Tuesday, October 15th, 2019

Perfection is not a thing.

Tuesday, October 15th, 2019

Where did this thought come from ultimately?

It is too simplistic to think the thought just came from you.

If that is what you think,

then you have a lot to learn.


Trace it backwards.

It came from brain tissue,


by cultural experiences.

The brain itself,

was DNA,

and food enabled.

Generations enabled.


What language did you think it in?

Where did that language come from?

How did you come to be able to hear,

sounds intelligently?


Where did this thought come from?

And is it really yours?

Or a better question:

In what ways is it yours?


What is yours and what isn't,

is culturally defined.

It has no fundamental foundation/basis that you can discover.

You can only define how you would like it to be.

Tuesday, October 15th, 2019

Freedom in Politics. Being Independently Minded as an Independent.

One way to extend your freedom,

and freedom of mind,

in the political domain,

would be to register as an independent.


Have you considered how your single choice of affiliation has determined your opinions?


If you register as an independent,

or as "unaffiliated",

or with whatever equivalent happens to exist,

where you live,

remember that this does not entail

any commitment

to candidates classifying themselves the same way.



you can be as open minded,

as perhaps you pretend to be.

By actually being independently minded.


A test of open mindedness,

is how independently minded you happen to be.

[Aside: This does not mean you ought not commit to some of the same things others commit to. The extent that you should commit to anything and everything other people commit to is questionable. I.e. commitments to everything espoused by large institutions, like the church. Where people are actually, in fact, more independent minded than they are willing to admit, and perhaps not as independently minded or outspoken as they ought to be.]


I challenge the view that the United States is not collectivist,

since it is a matter of degree,

and what is more collectivist,

than a two-party system?

Only a one-party system.

Saturday, October 12th, 2019


That's right.


And you said you would never EstEst again.

Saturday, October 12th, 2019

That Political Candidate Placed in Front of You.

Where did you come from political candidate?

You sprang from nowhere.

From the millions.

And you don't seem all that good at what you do.

Saturday, October 12th, 2019

"Every little bit counts" when you are on a false path too.

But "counts" isn't really what you're concerned about,


is it?

Monday, October 7th, 2019

Time Versus Logic.

When both really matter at the same time, and nobody understands logic.

Consider the legal system. Trial cases for example.


Logic on the Witness Stand.

[After being asked a question]

"I'm not sure what you can infer from what I just said."

"Do you know what you can infer from what I just said?"

Can you show me the logical structure of the argument so we can record it,

and return to it later after we actually confirm it!?


Working off of another person's prior argument.

"What is the set of satisfiable sentences taking my propositions as an input?"


Questions after presentation-sauce.

"How did you arrive at soundness in your argument leading up to your question,

because I'm not sure,

I should work with unsound premises,

because that may be incriminating."


Yes or Nos, when nobody knows.

I'm not sure how to answer your question,

"Yes" or "No"


"Yes" and "No"

don't map to the same situational model in your mind,

as it does in mine.

Please help me with the logic?


[Speaking to Jurors]

Did you understand the logic of the argument?

Can you demonstrate that knowledge?

Juror: "I cannot".

Judge: "You've been dismissed."

[Aside: I have no idea if they can be dismissed like this, but itseems like they should be, right?]


And the undermining has been completed.


[That's not really a QED, but notice how QEDs aren't quite QEDs, unless it has taken a really long time to get to.]


This is all usable BTW.

Monday, October 7th, 2019

You programmed me!

But, you programmed me to program you to program me to program you,

without knowing,

that's what you did.

And I keep better track of the recursions,

And it doesn't matter who started first.


Yes, this is childish.

But you programmed me first, remember?


There is a real context for this,

oddly enough.


"I let you program you."

Sunday, October 6th, 2019

"How do you handle ambiguity?"

Is a common interview question,

although I never heard it myself in an interview.

It's used to gauge a person's comfort working in an environment where not everything can be

made orderly,

due to excess complexity,

lack of time,

or some other reason.

It's a question about coping,

and getting through ambiguous circumstances,

and not about really "handling" it.

I find it to be an attempt to rule out problem solvers...

When I encounter ambiguity, I try to fix it...

if that turns out to be possible.

Is this not what one wants from an employee,

to find solutions to business problems,

of all kinds whenever that is possible?


The reason I think it is an attempt to rule out problem solvers,

is because the people who thrive in ambiguity,

are those who try to take advantage of it,

for sneaky purposes,

and not those who try to correct it,

else there would be less ambiguity,

handed down to the new candidate.


Or I try to see,

using my intuition,

what matters in the cloud of the unimportant,

if truly there is no time,

to fix anything,

and only decisions are necessary.


The oddest thing,

is that people who ask this question,

will expect the candidate,

once hired,

to control future events and circumstances,

to creates success.

And if they fail to do so,

they might be "fired",

[Aside: their employment contract might end].

but in almost all cases,

even the near-term future of the business,

is ambiguous.


"Clever interviewer... how do you handle the ambiguity of

Q2 2020 since it's currently only Q3 2019?

Or how about Q4 2020?

Do you want to know my

5-year plan for growing your business?"


The stockholders,

are interested in how you handle that ambiguity,

by NOT trying to control it.

Sunday, October 6th, 2019

If hindsight was 2020

We would know how to distribute blame correctly.

Sunday, October 6th, 2019

"That's what he said"

Friday, October 4th, 2019

Infinite Recursion Continued...

Historically people have found infinite recursion to be somehow offensive to reason. But my opinion, is that recursion is useful as far as it is useful, for describing whatever it happens to describe.

I have no issue thinking that I have some endless number of mothers in my heritage, but at some point, it fails to be descriptive to say I had a mother, way back in time.

But we can't take this to mean that we can arbitrarily choose a date where our first mother came into existence.

It means that whatever happened to be my first mother, wasn't very clearly a mother in the way that we think of our more immediate parent.


It could be, that the reason for disliking infinite recursion relates to an intuition about instrumentality, or to an intuition that no exemplar has been found, apart from, perhaps, natural processes themselves (since we cannot identify a beginning or end to everything).

Instrumentality of the explanation will be questionable wherever there is no explanation...

And therefore we cannot say that infinite recursion does not apply,

or that there is, again, some arbitrary starting point that we think we can identify.


Failure to perceive that an instance of recursion would be instrumental is not the same as identifying where the recursion should happen to start or end.

Infinite recursion of everything could be preferable for reasons that we would understand, if we came to understand the reasons.

Infinite recursion continued...

Thursday, October 4th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on October 17th, 2018

Infinite Recursion is Fine, and Freedom

Infinite recursion is just fine with me. It is a matter of instrumentality. Freedom depends on it, kindof. Maybe even a heightened, more useless recursive conception of freedom as well. I enjoy that some other people enjoy that others disagree with them politically. Maybe someone can enjoy that I have that enjoyment. Maybe someone else can enjoy that I enjoy that. Woah, that's super permissive and tolerant, and inactively distant. Maybe I can vaguely enjoy their enjoyment. It goes on and on, and it becomes more useless as it gets more abstract, but we can make a contest of it. Whoever can make the least useful abstraction wins in the "I believe in freedom the most" war.

Friday, October 4th, 2019

6 Degrees of Correlation or Causation.

I thought this was an interesting article: Six Degrees of Separation Between Any Two Data Sets.

It seems to be a decent blog with an author who consistently creates interesting things. I recommend signing up.

You'll probably learn about some emerging technologies that are worth understanding.

I enjoyed the observation at the end, placed in context:

"In some way, one could say that anything is related to everything, by a short path. Or that anything is caused by everything"

As I spend time at home in Anchorage, out in public, I notice the impact that people around me have, and this makes me wonder the extent to which everything causes everything else, since the interaction of each person with me, would then, be connected with the interaction of every person on earth.

How many of my neural connections have been influenced by how many neural connections of some person taken at random, from any point on the network?

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook in HighIQWorld on January 26th, 2018

When does one decide to get a flu vax? Before it doesn't work or after?

[Aside: There is humor in this, and some degree of truth. I haven't worked out the degree of truth, and you haven't either!]

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on September 26th, 2017

Determinism is a Comfort

Determinism is a comfort. People will see soon enough, soon enough... It's going to get really weird in the near future.

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on May 20th, 2018

We need to challenge and push each other to higher levels. Volunteer to be offended!

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on July 13th, 2018

The un-newsification of the news seems to be nearly complete. Boycott time?

[Aside: I was thinking mostly about national news, not local news.]

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on September 13th, 2018

What if you didn’t actually “believe” anything, that you did’t instinctively act on?

I once believed in a “magnetic hill.” I found later, to my astonishment, that it was an illusion. An obvious one! Did I believe it? Yes. Why? I acted on the internalization unreflectively. But there is a lot that I consider that I would never act on without pause.

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019

Lose Weight to See Your Body.

This sounds obvious but it is not as obvious as you might expect. If you are naturally skinny you might take it completely for granted!

One aspect of weight loss that is easily overlooked, but is very important, is that a person cannot actually see easily correctable and important physical asymmetries, imperfections, and errors in form, until a sufficient amount of body fat is lost.

I lost weight several times. The most I ever lost was 100 pounds, when I dropped from 270 pounds to about 165.

I've gone through the experience of having mostly a dull view of my musculature and my movements, to having an increasingly clear view as I dropped pounds.

To give just one example of many: until I'm at about 180 pounds, I cannot tell if my legs are of equal size.

Only now, after reaching that weight, am I able to see I need significant work on my left inner quadricep to make it equal to my right.

I experienced atrophy to this muscle because of arthroscropic knee surgery, but I forgot about it, or at least I failed to notice it, until I lost enough weight to actually see the problem.

It's almost like the experience of shaving, only to reveal that there was some acne or other imperfections hidden by the hair.

Why is this a problem? A physical therapist would tell you that if you don't correct it, it will affect other parts of your body as you age, making the problem more and more severe.

Perhaps more severe than this asymmetry, is the difference between my two pectoral muscles, created by an injury to my left tricep when I was a teenager. Failing to strengthen my left tricep led to excess use of my left pectoral muscle when doing chest exercises. Now my left pectoral is much larger than my right, my right tricep is much larger than my left, and I have considerable difficulty creating the right shoulder positions when doing a whole variety of exercises working my shoulders, chest, and my upper back.

This becomes increasingly obvious as weight is lost, but when we are heavier, it is concealed by extra body fat.

So obesity creates more risks than we would normally think about. It's not just about heart health. It's about being able to even have visibility about what is going on directly underneath our skin. Being thinner allows for being able to have a better estimate about what is going on with musculature, the skeletal system, and anything else that might be concealed that is easily overlooked.


Similarly, when I was heavier, it was harder to notice improper form.

If you are thin, like a dancer, any irregularities of movement would be readily apparent.

Somehow we are better able to notice movements in thin, graceful appendages and bodies, which makes dancers so attractive to begin with when they have mastered their artform.

More total movement is apparent when viewing thin dancers than dancers who are heavy.

I think this is because a line covering a path between one location and another, creates a long visible distance. There is greater white-space in the movement from one position to the next, making the total distance of movement seem longer. When heavier, an arm that is fatter would cover more area in space, and when it changes position, there would be less apparent whitespace.

So graceful dancers achieve their beauty of movement by apparently covering more background as they change positions.

How does this relate to form.

Well, you see more clearly errors when you are thin. So thin dancers, in a way, have to be even more exacting to achieve a flawless performance. Likewise, if you are thin you will notice when you are doing something incorrectly more easily.

At the far extreme, we can imagine someone who is, say 1000 pounds dancing or training. From this, we can see the truth of the points made above. They would nearly completely cover space behind them and therefore would have very little negative space showing if they were to dance. They would be unable to see little if any of their musculature, or their skeleton. Would they be able to tell if their shoulder blades were out of position while performing an upright row? How about if their arm movements were parallel? Or if their chest muscles were contracting equally during the downward motion?

As I was saying before, I have difficulty positioning my shoulders. This is becoming much more obvious as I lose weight, and only now am I motivated to take careful steps to correct it.

I could probably have stated all of the above in much fewer words.

Nevertheless, writing is not only about being succinct, but about communicating a way of thinking natural to the writer.

I give greater access to my mind by not taking too much care to get it exactly right, like in real conversation.

I hope this is appreciated.

I do see the flip side, but the benefit of giving my mind this way, without too much editing,

is that you do actually get closer to my mind.

And not a posture.

[Written in approximately 32 minutes.]

Tuesday, October 1st, 2019

Minor Edits, Tuesday, October 2st, 2019

Saving as Investing.

It is a horrible mistake for people to be convinced,

that if they do not invest,

that they will not end up well off when they get older.

This is because investing is hard.

It involves knowledge and discipline that takes time to acquire.

And some think:

"Well I guess I won't save because I don't know how to invest"

That is a horrible mistake.

First save,

then you will have money to invest!!!

Then only invest,

if you can invest wisely.

Otherwise, you are gambling.

If I could go back in time to when I was 10 years old,

I would get a job of some kind,

and I would save 2/3 of everything I earned,

with the promise that I would never use it.


Eventually, I would start spending more,

but only a little more,

as my pay increased.

If you work out the numbers,

you will be extremely well off,

by the time you have money to invest,

without fail.

Of course, something can always happen to reverse it,

but that won't be because of anything in your control.


It appears that for almost all young people,

this advice is impossible to follow,

because of the temptations of spending.


Sure, you only live once.

I would tell myself

live like this is your last day.

I wore a ring that said this.

But then I corrected myself, to remember:

"But it is also probably your first day."

My wedding ring had this meaning, and I wore it on the other hand.

To remind myself,

that I had a lot of life remaining most likely,

and others to care for.


There is another perspective,

I would offer to older people,

who did not follow this advice,

but for the time being,

I would advise older people,

to advise younger people,

to take this advice seriously,

and realize it is not about understanding,

it is about self-control.


smarter children,

do a better job taking care of their parents,

than children who will make some of the same mistakes,

as their parents.


There is more to say for this but I will wait for another time.

Except I will say:

Saving is investing in your future self.

Don't limit your future self,

unless you have a very good reason to do so.

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on October 17th, 2018

Optimism as a Buzkill

Pessimism isn't always negative. It is quite fun. I'm in a pessimistic mood and it is hilarious. Optimism, not so much right now. Optimism is a buzzkill.

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on December 16th, 2018

Effort in Education, and Work

When I was a kid, I had no idea how much effort was needed to get an A. I would either overdo it, or do nothing at all. Today, I put in just a little effort, and I am surprised about the feedback I get from my instructors. I got a "Wow" reaction from my professor on a recent paper, and was told I "definitely think like an empirical economist." It made my day, since I did not expect it at all. This was from a highly respectable professor. I thought I was going to get a "C" for sure. It always turns out better than I expect. I think back to childhood and wonder why I cared so much, and why I would prefer an F over imagined harsh judgment. I became embarrassed way too easily.

Today it seems there are many paths to success. Some would be shocked to learn that I dropped out of High School, obtained my G.E.D., and took the longer path. It took a while but I finally made it work for me. Earlier, when I was in High School, there were fewer chances (I appreciate the many opportunities we have these days with all sorts of novel education pathways). At that time, there seemed to be great emphasis on straight 'A's. Perhaps it is the same now, and I'm disconnected, but it is unnecessary. If I had a kid, I would emphasize speed in education and living life well, over straight As. "Aim at a low A or B and just get it done".

In the workforce, all I see are mediocre productions. Yet people retain their dignity, respect, and their paychecks without much worry or concern. No one is going after them for sloppy work. Put in your time, and show some gray hairs, and you will get promoted. Job-hop your way into higher salaries, if you're not aging fast enough. Getting praised for "straight A" type behavior in the workforce is rare. It will backfire actually. No one wants to work that hard, and they don't want to see you working that hard either. They are ready to give you the equivalent of "A" marks for "D" work, as long as you show up and do it.

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on January 31st, 2018

Would you join a company called "Success Pyramid?"

Which business couldn't also be called success pyramid? (Now added)

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on April 4th, 2018

A quality I value highly now: time to realization of incorrectness.

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on April 5th, 2018

Learning is Real, So Equality Isn't

Learning is real. So you can trust that equality isn't. Otherwise, you would be equal to your former self.

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on April 13th, 2018

Determinism and the Swayed Vote

A whole mass of people revealed their dependence upon information presented to them as if they were passive players in the vote. They are active participants, true, but what they revealed is that they can easily be strategically guided one way or another on the basis of manipulated information and its presentation. This implies that the manipulators have insight into how they think, their patterns. Decision making is just active rule governed bio intelligence applied to problem solving. The idea is that if all the information is controlled and if people are well enough understood, then their voting behavior in a sense isn't up to them, and is actually predictable. It is becoming more and more predictable as the information is fine tuned. This supports the idea that complexity is the only obstacle to predictability. Probability is just what we use in the absence of information. Micro-scale quantum indeterminacy cannot help in this ether.

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on May 6th, 2018

A Field for Taboo Elimination?

There should be a new field of study, with the specific purpose and goal of eliminating taboos.

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on May 11th, 2018

Agreement is just a partial analogy

Edited and Re-posted Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on May 16th, 2018

Dodging Undesirable Tongues

One's language mastery and availability of resources are intimately related. No one is going to waste their time on learning aboriginal languages. Obviously there is a spectrum, so there are other languages worth avoiding too. Some are more fortunate in their luck in avoiding unworthy tongues. If not by birth, they avoid it by opportunity. If an opportunity presents, pouring effort into that opportunity is necessary. If the opportunity was at birth, pouring all effort into that opportunity that others take for granted is still probably the best choice! In other words, maybe you should chase that degree in physics in Chinese, if you are Mongolian or Chinese, and skip learning Mongolian. If you speak English, maybe you should stop watching TV and learn some more English.

[Aside: this post is about the value of being in a society with a large language, versus a society that has a very small language. There is cultural value in small languages. I do not deny this. But if one has the opportunity to skip over all the time it takes to master a small language, or a foreign language one will seldom use, to a low level of mastery, with no real goal or objective in mind, then one should take that opportunity to skip it.

We talk about white privilege. Or privilege of the elite. These privileges include the ability to ignore and overlook other languages, because the language they learned is already the one everyone considers to be the most valuable.

So the reality is that they are able to save time, which is considered all valuable to the most affluent people, while everyone else needs to struggle to change languages from one that is less desirable to one that is more desirable. Or to pretend to be a member of the same culture as the white privileged culture, and not the unprivileged cultures.]

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on June 5th, 2018

"Fitting In"

"Fitting in," appears to be, in large part, "mutually shared socially-contextualized pretense." The goal to exhibit the shared narrative on required inauthenticities.

This appears to be more important than having actual commonalities.

People who are concerned with authenticity seem to be really concerned with enforcing or spreading standards of authenticity. But the result would just be more attempts at "fitting in."

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on December 3rd, 2018

Pre-meditation for Defense

Pre-meditation for defense with a gun, has no power compared with pre-mediation to do harm with a gun.

Furthermore, pre-meditation to perform defense with a gun, is very time consuming, and very costly (I can go into great detail about why), and is rewarded largely with delusions.

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Originally posted on Facebook on January 14th, 2019

"Resolutions that Happen"

Monday, September 30th, 2019

Degrees of Attachment to Present Thoughts

"I'm inclined to think so this moment, but I don't want to give any finality to that..."

Is a proper response to almost any inquiry about your views.

There is no need to commit to any particular point of view,

in a sentence,

simply because someone asked you a question.


I have varying degrees of attachment to my responses to people.

No one gets special permission,

to my final thoughts.


I give myself the freedom,

to have better

more thoughtful thoughts


Am I not expected to have better thoughts tomorrow than today?


Don't cave into other people's expectation

that you should commit to every word you utter to them.

Sunday, September 29th, 2019

Knowing someone's plans doesn't mean you inherited their gifts.

Another method of the ranker.

Sunday, September 29th, 2019

My Dad Knows Better Than Your Dad.

My Dad knows better than your Dad,

about some things.

Your Dad knows better than my Dad,

about others.

And there are billions of Dads outside the United States.


Maybe I would do better,

by only listening

to the best of them!


Dad is average,

or slightly above average,

or less.

~50% are less.

I'm talking about knowledge,

don't let your mind wander,

like mine does.


But then there's love and stuff like that too,

so I wouldn't take it too far.


Above when I said "Dad",

I could have said "Mom",

especially because,

Mom says more than Dad does.


(Aside: I think abstractly. I'm not at all thinking of my own parents.

Even if I was though...

I have to admit that other parents are pretty smart and cool too].

Sunday, September 29th, 2019

Elders Tend to Lie, When the Topic is of Great Importance.

This is one reason why taboos exist.

Let's begin looking into taboos here on the ThoughtStream.

Taboos do not come about only because of shame or embarrassment.

There are other reasons, why subjects end up


from free communication,

and are actively censored—

suppressing valuable knowledge.

Maybe a useful

first taboo to talk about,

would be

"Why parents lie and why they cannot agree."


"Why your friends parents are more trustworthy,

than yours are."

Here are a few reasons that come to mind,

why elders lie:


So if a child says,

"I'm afraid to die. What happens when I die?"

You can expect the parent,

instead of saying,

I don't know,

will pretend,

not only to be unfearful,

but to actually know,

the unknowable.


And remember,

Since we are all equal,

Or so our elder's tell us,

we can ask someone else's parent this question,

and we should trust what they say,

as much as our what our own parents would say.

Even if they have a different religion.

After all,

they would encourage,

other kids,

to listen to their own parents.

Why would they do this,

if they didn't have good things to teach also.


Think back to when you were a kid,

if you are not now a kid.

What would your friend do,

but listen to their parents,

and not yours?



I think the best choice,

is to listen to people who know,

and not people who don't,

and it makes no difference,

who that is.

For some,


it might be better to disregard,

much of what their parents say.

Why do I think this.

Parents utterly despise,

what other parents think.

We can learn about this by watching the news,

on politics and religion,

and it is not easy to find,

ignorant people,

who happened to have children.


This is a fundamental problem with education.

Children do not get to choose who their parents are.

Sunday, September 29th, 2019

How I Inhibited My Fear of Death.

I am not afraid of death,

although that was not always true.

There were some stages to get through before I arrived at my answer.

The first step I can recall is getting over my fear of darkness.

This might seem unrelated, but it is not.

So I will discuss getting over this fear first,

after moving on to talk more specifically about fear of death.


I write this with some reservations,

because people might claim that I have no experience with this.

Of course, who could have experience with it,

without having died, and never returned.

But this is actually not a good objection.

The reason is that what people are trying to get over,

is not fear of death itself,

but a fear they experience,

while they are still living,

imagining something,

that they consider to be related to death,

but as I will share later,

there is no resemblance.

Consider this point,

did you die,

and afterwards confirm,

that what you were fearing,

had any relationship with death at all?


I can't guarantee my approach will work for you,

and I also can't guarantee that it will work for me,

for my entire life,

because as my brain deteriorates,

I will lose what I know,

and I will lose my discipline,

to the extent,

that I will be a very different person potentially,

than I am now,

much as would happen,

if I suffered a personality altering aneurism,

or if I had severe brain damage.

But for the most part,

we are able to retain what we've learned,

up until death,

although many very old people disappear from our view,

so we cannot say to what extent,

they lose who they were before.


Either way, we do not refrain from teaching each other,

for fear that what was taught,

will be lost,

but in this case,

the interesting thing is we die once,

potentially when we are old and did in fact lose all we learned.

This is why any arguments about what someone does on their deathbed,

as having any value for determining,

what their actual belief system really was,

is simply false.

Doctors and soldiers well acquainted with death,

will testify,

that it is the persons state of mind,

at the time of death,

and the conditions,

that will determine the result.

If grandma has Alzheimer's,

she might not be able to use,

what she knew before,

not even if what she knew,

was Christian.


However, what I have to discuss here,

is not really how to prevent fear at the time of death,

although I suspect this will help.

The point of this,

is to have no fear of death,

as long as you are living,

with hopes that the discipline will allow you to

remain unfearful,

when you die,

if you are in a similar disposition,


to how you are now.

But how much better would it be,

if you surpass what is mentioned here?

Because I have no claim to having the greatest level

of training on this topic.

I'm self-trained and can only state

what my experiences happen to be.


So I suspect that what I say here,

will help many who choose to give my approach

a real chance.

Why not give it a chance, right?

Is it not important?

I hope people will take seriously what I have to say about it.

How many people do you know,

who claim to have knowledge on this topic?

Who would your mentor be?

If not for someone who first claims to have something to offer.

Judge for yourself.

Who knows,

maybe others will emerge,

who are also not afraid.

It's not all about religion.

So you can open your mind to hear suggestions.


Some have simple and practical answers to these,

supposedly weighty topics.

Weighty for those who are scared!

Maybe easy for those who are not!


I hope others open up and explain how they got over it,

but only if they really did.

I really did.

And if this helps you,

Then that is your confirmation,

that I was right.

But it is not confirmation,

that it's the only way.

This is what the excessively religious will tell you.

Selling you solutions,

only they can provide?

I won't make this claim.


When I was a kid I was afraid of the dark.

Upon returning to my bed,

after using the bathroom in the middle of the night,

I would jump from a distance,

so something underneath the bed,

would not be able to reach and grab me,

and pull me underneath,

before I could get on top.

It was irrational.

Maybe I would be eaten? Who knows?

[Aside: For some funny reason I didn't think it would come out from under the bed while I was sleeping and get me anyway].

I was also afraid of the closet, and other dark spaces,

usually because I thought something was inside.

Somehow by becoming dark,

something dangerous would suddenly emerge from inside,

or be transported inside.

Which of course, makes no sense,

especially indoors.


Like other kids I just thought there might be something inside.

But there never was anything inside.


I have a suspicion that many adults never completely got over their fear of darkness.

I have strong reasons to think this, but I won't discuss that here.

Because that would include telling information about friends and family,

who don't necessarily want to share that fear.

There is no reason to be embarrassed if that is true.

I'm talking about really getting over the fear of darkness,

such that you can roam around in the dark,

at night, without a care.


Although I remember being afraid of the dark inside my house,

I cannot remember a time when I was afraid

to be outside in the woods,

in the darkness.

I probably was.

But since I got over this fear specifically,

to cure my fear of darkness,

all I can recall is not being fearful of it.

I was still a kid when I conquered this fear.

And later I built upon my experience with this.


How did I achieve do it?

One day,

I imagined myself in the woods,

both during the daylight and during the night time.

If you think about it,

the change from light to darkness does not change anything in the woods.

The trees don't change,

and the space is all the same.

Nothing moves from where it was before,

which is why in the morning,

when it is light again,

everything is as it was.

The only difference is that animals that might startle you during the day,

might be asleep at night,

if they are diurnal (meaning animals that are awake only during the day).

Other animals might come out,

but where I grew up,

they were all non-threatening.

These were the nocturnal animals.

I was a diurnal animal pretending and imagining myself to be nocturnal.

In a way,

humans cross over.

After thinking of things this way,

it changed my perspective quickly.

A switch was flipped,

and now,

and forever,

I'm not afraid of the dark.

The trick is to find this mental switch.

First you imagine that everything is the same,

at night,

as during the day...

but then you have to test it with action.

You have to walk around at home in the dark.

You have to go outside in the woods in the dark,

(as long as there is nothing dangerous where you live in the dark.

It is not wise to roam around in the dark if there are bears,

or other dangerous animals present,

unless you're trained or experienced enough for that of course).

If I wake up at night, and have to use the bathroom,

I can walk without any light at all,

even in an unfamiliar place,

like a hotel room.

Nothing changed except the light.

I also played outside in the dark in the woods,

as a kid,

without any flashlight and was not scared.

Here, where I live now, in Alaska, I would not be scared to do the same.

But, I would be scared of being eaten by bears.

And this is very different, however, from being scared of the dark.

Being scared of the dark, in itself, is not a reasonable fear.

But being scared of what you can reasonably expect to be dangerous,

in the dark,


It's more about what is actually present, and what isn't.

Darkness doesn't make scary things

spring into existence.


In some places we should be more scared to be out in the day,

than during the dark.


Well for one,

we are told,

people are more dangerous,

and they are plentiful during the day.

We go and find them to spend time with them!

Even strangers.

But at night,

we are scared of empty space?


Try out walking all around your home,

at night,

with no light at all.

You don't need it.

It might just prepare you for understanding partially or completely blind people as well.

And you get a good sense of orientation and movement in the dark too.

You don't need very much light.

Some facts will help you do this easily.

One thing that I learned,

that is related to this,

is that peripheral vision is good at night,

but straight vision is not.

This is because your retina contains "cone" receptors

primarily in areas that are used

when you look straight at something.

You have really good perception of color and detail,

when you look straight at something,

but a more poor sense of color in your peripheral vision.

During the day, this works just fine.

Your vision is designed for this!

But the problem is, you have less "rod" receptors

which help you see things good in black-and-white

and in low light,

when you look straight.

But you have many rod receptors helping your peripheral vision.

So at night, I walk around,

focusing on what I see more towards the corners of my eyes,

and try not to look straight ahead.

If you test this, you'll see

that when you look straight ahead at night,

it will be almost completely black,

but around the sides of your vision,

you will see light.

But conditions have to be dark enough.

And during the day I do the reverse,

which is what we normally do.

By doing this, you can become much less fearful of the dark,

and you can come to understand blind people,

and prepare yourself for having poorer vision,

when you get older.

Again, notice the point,

that when you get old,

you will not be like how you are now.

You need to be prepared for this.

So just because you get over your fear of death,

does not mean that you will not be fearful,

when you die.

When you get really old,

there is a chance you will lose some of your senses.


I will resume this soon and talk about the next steps.

I am not going to edit this now,

just in case,

I die and the information is never conveyed.

Friday, September 27th, 2019


If it wasn't entirely apparent,

there is a method in the post below,

To combat our tendency to use false sentences,

using words like most, greatest, best, and so on.

They are usually wrong.

We can see it by simply adding another "-est".





Poorestest. Richestest.

I'm trying to use this to train myself to become more accurate,

and it is slowly working.

Do it every single time and you'll see how frequently it makes you truthful.

It's fun.


We can use it to combat lies of all types we were raised on.

What is the greatest hometown?

Your hometown is the greatestest of course!


And we can use it to counter clearly ridiculous movements.

When you're told you're the most special, consider that you're only

the mostestest special.

"America is the greatestest country."

The Guiness Book of World's Records can be converted to

The Guiness Book of World's Greatestest

(they have no idea).

Unless it's something clearly confirmable, like the height of the tallest building.

Smartestest Man or Woman in the world.


We can use it to break false advertisements.

We can use it to reveal flaws in nationalistic movements.

It counters propaganda effectively.

To counter the propaganda of white supremacists,

from within and from without,

we might insist they say that whites are

the greatestest race, and not merely the greatest.


We'll have to practice together to stop making this mistake.

Wednesday, September 25th, 2019

You are the mostest special person in the whole world.

Wednesday, September 25th, 2019

History is not very actionable.

If we are honest with ourselves,

how much

does the typical person really know

about history?

How actionable is,

whatever it is,

they think they know?


Some might know history well enough

to use it,

but it is hard to know,

who that is!

And if they are involved in politics at all!

I met a few people

well acquainted with history,

who seem to live in imagination,

having very poor judgment as to practical matters,

who are also too religious,


and unscientific,

to be trusted to make policy decisions,

for other people.

Example: "Is it worthwhile to create a museum for creationism?"

The historian of tall tales,

would tell you "Yes it is!"

and millions will be spent,

on artistic exhibits,

that are only artistic,

because they are not historical.

Or they are artistic lessons,

on errors humans tend to make.


In my opinion,

a sign of a poor leader,

is too much talk about history.

Because more often than not,

they are using it to posture,

more than they would use it,

and certainly more than they could use it,

for successful planning and decision making.

Whenever I hear talk about history,

from a politician,

or anyone really,

I find issues of relevance,

that are not obvious to the person who is relying,

on that history,

to deceive,

perhaps unwittingly,

the people they are trying to persuade.

They enjoy telling the stories,

of things they did not experience,

just like they like telling stories of what they did experience,

for gratification of their impulse,

simply to tell the stories again.

We all know people who do this.

And we are allowed to like them for it too.


And of the best historians,

who are the best,

at making correct analogies,

with the innumerable causal relationships,

or weak correlations, to make things worse,

between what has happened,

and what is happening.

And what are the methods required,

to do it so well,

that they can forecast with it,

from positions of leadership,

dependent first on placement,

by voter judgments,

certainly not equipped,

with the same profound decision making machinery?


Whatever it is that leaders are doing,

when they are performing well,

it probably isn't as dependent on history,

as people think.

By history, I'm not thinking of personal history.

Although personal histories are also questionable,

because people don't seem to remember their own lives all that well.


I say all of this,

completely admitting,

that I'm a student of history,

and still find that knowledge useful,

probably because it has made me understand,

what people do to each other.


And I also say all this,

while laughing to myself,

because there is fun to be had in scepticism.

I was close to writing,

a promise to include solutions to some of these problems,

or descriptions as to what is best in what currently exists,

but to be as truthful as possible,

I'm trying to avoid such promises and commitments,

although I hope I'm able to actually do something of the sort at some point in the near future.


Much of this is for my own amusement,

(this post in particular),

and I'm sure other people will enjoy some of this too,

if they are at all like myself.


We all deserve to enjoy,

and find,

people who are like us.

And not only find people who are merely positive,

for the sake of fulfilling,

the social requirements of the age.



for one,

find truth more inspirational.

You Wanted this Guy

Sunday, September 22nd, 2019

Edited Wednesday, September 25th, 2019

Finding Change Levers by Creating Public Systems Models

One way to be sure one does not spend too much time dreaming about how to create social change would be to have public systems models available that identify where changes are actually possible, and how much effort is required to make the changes.

Which organizations should provide transparent systems models, and which should have secret models, or some combination of the two, is not something I will discuss yet. Instead, let's consider what would happen if clear systems models for public systems and other organizations that are expected to be transparent, actually come into existence.

What is clear is that such systems models are not available for public consumption currently. At least not systems model diagrams that provide most of what is needed in an easy to understand medium. One would have to do considerable research to understand a typical organization, and it would be nearly impossible to discover where transparencies exist, and where they do not. Systems model diagrams would provide most of what is needed for quick comprehension. This would certainly be beneficial and would provide a standardized way for understanding and interacting with organizations.

What would creating public systems models achieve?

Firstly, it would convert activists and politicians who are somewhat aimless in their work, following dead-end pathways, to people who have clear goals connected with the reality of the systems they are working with.

Even high level politicians don't have the resources to fully understand their own organizations. And this is apparent when listening to them speak on television.

One thing I have noticed, is that people fail to recognize just how ambiguous the systems they are working with are, for lack of understanding, and for lack of insider knowledge.

Or for lack of "insider knowledge" knowledge.


Lack of knowledge about how organizations work, relates to consumer reactions to business policies and procedures, making Twitter and other comment-based feedback systems places where little more than attitudes are conveyed. We would not turn to Twitter for a good understanding of organizations and their change levers (including policy change levers). In other words, Twitter is much like a voting box. It is likely to contain information about peoples likes and dislikes, but not so much knowledge about proper operation of a complex organizational system.

Secondly, in connection with the first, voters, activists and leaders would have actionable knowledge about political systems, for having knowledge about the systems themselves. Furthermore, they would have an understanding of what it takes to change the systems themselves, since levers identified wouldn't simply be those that permit working from the inside of an institution or organization out, but also working from the outside in, from the top down, and whatever other ways that might actually make envisioned changes possible. Or realistic!

What does this also do? This would make it so that people don't waste their time in politics, or on political issues, when they could be doing something they understand more fully. Some things that would bring themselves tangible rewards, like money. Otherwise, they would not only be working on something they do not understand, they would be clogging the system up, because processes would have to be in place to please them, that would create inefficiencies in the systems that could be designed for better aims. Consumers need to be satisfied in ways that make sense to their experience and the exchange they are making with the businesses; but it is not good for organizations to have to spend time countering activists who are completely ignorant about how their business works, or how any organization in general would work.

Thirdly, we would then have folks who could vote and analyze policies appropriately, because they fully understand the systems in which they are civically participating. This means it is possible for people to change from a mere attitude communicator, or voter, to a person who is actually educated enough to influence policy by adding new and relevant information.

Would you want to spend your time trying to change an organization in a way that is costly for society and would never actually succeed?

As things are now, we have to do things that won't succeed in order to get the knowledge about organizations required, to ultimately succeed, but that is a symptom of the problem of not having the knowledge required about organizations to find the right buttons to push to make the changes happen.


These are ideas stemming from a course I took at Harvard University, in their Extension Program, on Systems Thinking. Ideas like these are used in business school, so that leaders will have a better understanding on how to steer and transform their organizations. So there is nothing in this idea that is not already well supported in higher education and academia.

[Aside: To a large extent, you do not need the Harvard course if you understand what I just wrote above. Instead, you can search books on Systems Thinking, and Systems Modeling, and Learning Organizations, and you will find texts that will guide you in exactly the same ways that Harvard students are being guided. If you are a leader, or someone who wants to understand organizations and their change potential more completely, then I would suggest reading these books. And if you are interested enough, you may want to take courses as well.

Either way, I hope that organizations have folks you understand this well enough to make the systems models and to publish them so people can understand how organizations really be influenced.]

One last comment. I think it is important to be totally truthful in publications about these systems, including showing ways they could potentially be overthrown by force and by civil disobedience. As I said above, even if fundamental change is necessary, there should be ways that that can be done, and that needs to be depicted or made clear, even if it is something that is uncomfortable or something that people would not wish to discuss (How else would we be able to connect systems and institutions with history, which included periodic warfare and social uprisings to make change? If we are open and candid about this, we might be more imaginative in the future, even if we have no knowledge about history. Because if we are honest, how much does anyone really know about history?).

Sunday, September 22nd, 2019

Alternative Grading Methodologies.

Competition on a national level for entry into the university system creates constraints around what exactly can change in grading methodology within public schools.

This is unfortunate since it is clear that alternative systems would be preferable, but the potential for making changes, due to lack of clear "levers of change", are unavailable (Where are the switches you can flip to actually influence it?). It would be desirable to understand the education system and how such changes could be made or made possible. Without the right levers, any work to make changes in the education system could be pointless. The levers have to be identified one way or another. (See the above comment for more on this idea).

So... what is the alternative grading methodology I have in mind?

While taking tests, in high school and in college, I sometimes wondered:

"I just learned from this test, and the errors I made. So why is my grade not now higher, for having increased my understanding to what was expected."

Once I spent time trying to come up with an alternative system, but I don't believe I have that document any longer to share it here.

But today, my main thought is that education should not be about containing subjects into quarters and semesters, and years, with final grades at the end, but rather, a system of working kids through subjects by repeatedly testing and re-testing them for proficiency, allowing them to learn from previous mistakes on tests, to repeat mistakes until competency is met.

Because what is the point other than to gain competency quickly? The goal is not to get an "A" at the very end of the year after taking a test, but potentially, to master a subject in any amount of time it takes to master that subject, and then to move on. For some a course that might take two years and for others it might take two weeks. It would also allow people to identify weaknesses and to abandon certain topics entirely, to take courses where their strengths lie instead, and to maximize those areas where they are strong while they are still young. Why should they have to wait until after their education is finished to learn what they are truly good at?

A system such as this would:

I think this is a good system for making the changes that are possible to get to even better systems that allow for merging disciplines together into "problem first" systems of learning, where children guide themselves to mastery in areas that they are interested in.

Such a self-guided system could result in children driving forward innovation, because even young children are capable of finding problems that have no solutions, or finding for themselves solutions that might already exist (it makes no difference if it was already found or not--what matters is the problem solving. Finding a solution to a problem that already has a solution does not make it less innovative, because it is as innovative, or nearly as innovative, as the process undertaking the first time). By doing this, children unearth the process that is required to do real things in the world, by encountering obstacles.

The teacher then is a remover of obstacles, rather than someone who is supposed to know everything already.

I first mentioned this idea to an intern and a fellow attendee at the COFES event in Phoenix in 2018 (Congress on the Future of Software Engineering), and received good feedback. I think we all want mentors who will show us the way to realize our own goals, and if we receive this, it is incredibly meaningful and is something we do not forget.

I have a few teachers in mind who were maybe life-saving, and will always remember what they did for me, and they were closer to this way of doing things, although the system did not allow them to fully teach according to this style (and they may not agree that this is the best approach anyhow).

Tuesday, September 17th, 2019

Our civilization is cultures.

Much like how an individual is races.


Monday, Labor Day, September 2nd, 2019

Minor Edits

Activists of Inequality.

Activists of inequality for the improvement of justice will come into existence.

Out of the activists for equality who finally come to plateau,

in their usefulness.

Activists of the future will find that they will have to maintain their historical success,

by giving up on some successful ideologies of the past.

The thing that is consistent between generations of activists,

is activism.

Ideologies that have come to characterize the success of America,

have gained this success,

by advancing,

and defining itself,

against itself.

This was an incremental advancement,

not a permanent one.

Thus we can expect,

or hope,

that America will have success

against itself


Redefining what is important.

And so the America of some folks' children and grandchildren,

will become better,

and likely unlike,

what we think of it today.

Monday, Labor Day, September 2nd, 2019

Challenge Two: Find texts that don't make the mistakes of challenge one.

See again the earlier challenge: Challenge One: Say "Best" or "Worst", only when it results in a true statement.

Consider the full implications of the failure that ultimately results from this challenge.

Consider the near permanence of this problem, of creating true statements, since the deficiencies are built into the way we use our language. The issue involves collective psychology and culture as a whole. It's not only about trying to make corrections here and there.

The change required is not only to change the way we use our language in speech,

which is hard enough,

but in thought itself!

Because how did you arrive at false sentences, without first thinking them?

And how did you arrive at them as a destination of your thinking?

People struggle to make statements,

that suffer from these defects.

They aren't only the ones we first think of.

It isn't just falsity along the way, it is falsity all the way, or most of the way,

until the end of the path!

Where you judged it true enough to say it,

or write it.

Or publish it?


"Publish it"... that is interesting.

What works exist that have not made these errors?

If there are works that did not make these errors, what does that tell us about the minds that created them?

How would we judge already written works that suffer from these defects?

And which texts suffer from them the most?

The most ancient texts— how would they fare?

How far were they from understanding logic?

This brings us to challenge two:

Challenge Two

Find a text of at least 200 pages that does not commit the errors listed in challenge one.

And remember we were only considering two logically risky words.

Once we get to a more full treatment of logic, that most readers will be able to understand clearly, we'll find,

that everything is defective.

And then you might be more forgiving,

of errors you find,

here in the ThoughtStream,

and in your own ThoughtStream,

and you'll see the importance of logic,

and creating true and meaningful statements,

and arguments,

over editing punctuation.


I am bringing us slowly to a more important point, that is both moral,

and mortal.

It is worth the journey.

[Written in 31 minutes.]

Monday, Labor Day, September 2nd, 2019

More where that came from.

Don't enjoy a post? More where that came from.

Really like a post? More where that came from.

A post, or an act, or a thought...



Since it's not your vision you can expect to find things you like and don't like.

If your likes actually involve looking.

And if you are able to avoid taking positions against wholes,

without statistics.

Or wholes that aren't whole yet.

Or will ever be whole,

or complete.

Is a person ever complete?

A person,

scattering thoughts and actions with nothing to,

bring it all together,

except the animal.


So I'll put up with a variety of judgments of my scatterings.

There's more where that came from.

Wednesday, August 28th, 2019

Minor Fixes at 11:03, 11:12, 11:28 PM AKST

Is the urge to finish things the result of the escalation of commitment bias?

"Cut your losses" is a common expression, but it seems to be less popular than "Complete what you started".

"Cut your losses" seems to be the better phrase of the two, because at least it implies that one can make the decision,

to stop something,

if it no longer makes sense to continue any longer.

"Complete what you started", is not the opposite of the first phrase.

"Complete what you started if it still makes sense to complete it." would be closer.

"Retain your gains."


I enjoy the heap of expressions we have in our culture,

because there are so many problems with it.

Which item in the heap do we grab when?

Why does it seem that for any one piece of advice, there is an opposite piece of advice for the same situation?

There is no rule book about which principle to follow at any given time.

People who are biased towards completing things will grab the one about completing things.

Those who are biased against continuing projects that look like money pits will choose the other.

But what is clear to me, is that it is foolish to follow either of these pieces of advice.

Instead it is better to replace it with the idea that if something is amiss, it is worth re-evaluating with


and not just remembering,

so long as re-evaluating with thinking itself, wouldn't be too costly.

This alone should show that it is really tricky to know whether or not it is worth completing something once one has already started.

How many times in a project/plan, should the project/plan itself be re-evaluated in this way? And when?

"Stick to the plan" includes the same defective thinking.

If it were easy to know the answer, then wouldn't we find that there are few failures?

Because projects would be completed successfully or else they would be abandoned at the right time.

From this we can see that no principle is really all that useful for guiding us in complex decisions of this sort, and that we are better off, having an alternative way to make decisions under uncertainty, that involves the actual weighing of options. And tracking of options.

But most are not studying game theory, and there is no clear way to put this into practice at present.

And we are even further away from admitting that pieces in the heap,

are ready to be thrown into the fire,

and replaced with something new,

because no one is tracking the heap,

or potential replacements,

and even if replacements were known,

how would they be taught to replace what's in the heap?

Since the way that we learn what's in the heap,

is by punctuated accidents of experience, over large portions of our lifetimes.


And so we go with the judgment of experience,

with the next problem,

that experience differs,

in what it thinks should be done under almost any circumstances.


And this is another reason why I love philosophy. In philosophy we are permitted to question received notions, and from the above, it should be clear, that received blurbs are not so useful as we might think, and that instead, there are better approaches that are more eclectic and are less biased, that include reasoning and not just recollection.

Tuesday, August 27th, 2019

Increased Justice and Understanding What Justice Actually Is.

A mostly optimal process for arriving at a just solution model to implement for correcting a particular set of related social problems, shared openly and transparently, would be one that would be mostly agreeable to any citizen who analyses it independently, if they are equipped to fully understand and appreciate the process, and the social justice criteria used to judge it. As time goes on, and as justice is improved, our ability to analyse the systems for unfairness, and other issues, would create a larger and larger burden on individuals in terms of their mental capabilities, talents, level of education, and ability to understand and use tools for the purposes—tools that themselves could be flawed.

Therefore increased justice creates the issue of a greater inability to analyse the system for injustices, even when it is done well.

When it is done well, the level of detail is so great, that it will be hard to understand why it is done well, and where the errors are.

Thus we may end up giving up understanding exactly what justice is as we get far along in the process. One thing can be certain, it is simplicity in the idea of "equality" that has kept it around so far. Once we get to an improved sense of justice, based on real situations and real human and animal diversity, we will find ourself wanting to get more and more detailed, to the point where not everyone will be able to analyse the system or understand exactly why it is just or unjust, unless we are willing to start engineering humans, each and every one, to be able to comprehend what justice evolves to be.

In our state of simplicity now, have you noticed, that no one can pinpoint what is actually fair in any given situation?

This is because we have not yet taken the leap to see people in all their diversity and situations in all their detail, to see what is optimal in terms of human well-being and satisfaction, that itself also has not been determined clearly in terms of criteria connecting to individual differences.

[Written in approximately 15 minutes]

Tuesday, August 27th, 2019

Which party does a business decision belong to?

I asked an old friend this recently when I was explaining my perspective regarding the 2-party system in the United States.

I think it is a clear and succinct way to show that situations are not better understood through any kind of party system.

Party systems do not facilitate understanding of problem situations and their solution models.

If you were to vote for a business decision as an employee of a company, would you search for truth through a party system?

Or would you do what you actually do--

simply look for an answer that makes sense to you,

by examining the problem situation,

and then look at the recommended solution to compare?

While at work we do not think about how a party would influence our decisions.

And this should indicate, how ridiculous the party system really is, because if it were to be added, it would not do anything to improve the answer or the outcome.


A good system model for a problem situation and a good solution model or policy would have nothing to do with voter party commitments, and would not be better understood by dividing the topic into a pre-existing team framework, where the teams are opposed by default.

Furthermore, it is hard to say how bite-sized chunks of information from the media, from already opposed viewpoints, would be of any benefit to the U.S. or any other nations worldwide.

Such models probably do not even exist, and even if they did, people would not look at them before deciding how to vote. Because the parties already decide for folks how to vote, and who to vote for (not solutions to problems, but people, who never show clearly any models or policy solutions themselves!).

Then couples vote jointly, forgetting that they would vote differently if remarried, and then their children are expected to vote like their parents and not someone else's parents.

Monday, August 26th, 2019

All Quotes Must Include My Errors

I updated my terms and conditions to include the following:

"Quotes must include all errors and may not include "[sic]" or any other indicator that there is an error in the text that might require editing."

If there is an error, it has to remain an error in your text too.

In fact, there is at least one editorial/proofreading error below in "What is Trivial?".

And it will remain in there FOREVER.

Friday, August 24th, 2019

What is Trivial?

I find that one great difference between people who are highly intelligent and who are not, involves the appreciation for what is not trivial in apparently mundane things.

Fools will seldom find anything of interest in things that are seemingly well understood in our everyday experiences.

"Aha! There is something new in this supposedly familiar thing. Something went undetected! And it affects many other things... I find this worthy of investigation."

This is a common experience of the scientist or the intelligent person who finds a new pattern.

When we learn as children, we depend on curiosity and surprise. New things surprise us, and we pay attention. We focus on these new things, until we understand them well enough that nothing in them surprises us any longer. Later it is almost as if we never learned it anything new to begin with, and we move on to other more interesting, surprising things.

There comes a point, in adulthood, when we take most of our everyday experience for granted, such that nothing really seems surprising any longer, and we need to search harder for novelties and curiosities, in order to recreate the youthful experience of surprise, and to continue learning.

Very smart children are hard to satisfy, because they so quickly get everything they need from almost every experience they have.


Now, what I want to focus on for the moment, is the significance of this period of high familiarity.

Some people will get stuck in this high familiarity, and cast aside anything that seems to have been previously considered, as unworthy of reconsideration.

But people who are especially insightful, observant, or intelligent, will continue to find surprising things even among what is superficially trivial and mundane, and this creates an obstacle to communication, with people who are unwilling, or are unable, to get past the feeling that they already understand the topic well enough to give up the idea that they are already an expert concerning it.

My personal interest is moral philosophy. Unfortunately for me, everyone thinks they are so well acquainted with morality and ethics, that they have nothing else to learn about it; that there can be no authority other than the authorities they have accepted; that there is nothing new to learn in basic human interactions. I've known this for a while, but I'm so intensely interested in the topic that I will not give it up as my primary area of interest. Because morality addresses topics that are ever present to everyone all the time, and so, there is great difficulty in convincing adults, who are not already familiar with a philosophical treatment of topics, that there is anything new to discover, or that there is anything that cannot be put aside as already well covered, in some familiar source, like the Bible or other respected and probably ancient text. At the same time, since it is a topic that affects everyone, it is one that is very important, because if a new discovery is found, it can be expected to change a very large amount of what we think we already knew about the topic, and ultimately, if the observation is correct, it should result in a change of behavior for large populations of people.

So I'm interested in it because of the potential impact, and this make it worthwhile to study, even if people think they actually already understand the topic well enough that they don't need to consider my findings.

And this is another point. Ancient texts are respected in this domain, because the topic is so mundane, that there is a belief, that it was already well enough treated 2,000 years ago, that we cannot make observations, or discover new facts, that would completely disrupt our current paradigm of thought on the topic, which would require an overhaul of our ancient thinking.

I'm reminded of heliocentrism and its impact upon its discovery. And the risks that came along with the study of Astronomy, since people thought that was already well understood, and it was built into a moral framework that was thought to be at risk if there were any changes.

At the moment, I'm not sure there is a way around this.

Why? It seems that an appreciation for learning depends on built-in surprise capabilities. One has to be able to detect something that is surprising in order to be able to feel surprised, and therefore curious enough about it, to learn from the experience.

Also, it is hard know for sure when we've analyzed something thoroughly enough to know if some other topic will not have general relationships with the well examined topic, such that the seemingly well examined topic would not need reconsideration. Like mathematics, logic, and human equality, for example (people think it is well understood that people are equal and are unwilling to receive new information on this topic that would create a need for some serious overhaul in moral and political thinking). The reconsideration could require a new way of looking at the topic, implying another psychology, that is an evolution from the previous way of looking at it. And it is hard to know if such a new perspective would resemble the previous perspective in ways that we would expect.

I'm sure someone will say they can summarize topic more briefly, but I assure you, they were not interested in summarizing it, until they read what I wrote here. So I'm not to concerned about receiving that sort of criticism concerning the ThoughtStream, since it's another attempt, to cast something aside, as something already completely familiar. You should not be dissuaded by such criticisms, when you find something of interest, in something another person thinks is already well understood, because there isn't a good reason to let the other thwart your interests and curiosities.

[Written in 47 minutes]

Friday, August 23rd, 2019

Mattanaw Acts Alone on the ThoughtStream.

Friday, August 23rd, 2019

Minor Edit: Saturday, August 24th, 2019

Origin of the Thoughts.

The origin of the thoughts,

is with labor determined,

to be from the writer,

based on previous works.

This is one reason why I provide previous works.

Why I am concerned about continuity.

Not only for transparency in creation and history,

but in the ease of establishing authenticity.

Thus copyright is not so difficult to establish as people think.

But it could become difficult.

If we do not counter AI in the preservation of history.

Since AI can recreate history,

to create a false continuity.

Friday, August 23rd, 2019

When Will Genesis Ever End, Really?

Genesis hasn't finished yet.


What if nature didn't actually unfold slowly?

It happened quickly. It happens quickly.

What will come is of importance.


A trillion years from now.

We are in the primordial slime,

from which real life emerges.

Our lives amount to a micro-step.

A pico-step.

A to-be-forgotten step!

An animal taking an INITIAL evolutionary step!

Still in Genesis!

Forever in Genesis?


Only a subset of us are needed for it to happen.

For genesis to move forward.

The rest are superfluous?


The entire bible is chapter one of the new "Genesis".

If it even needs to be written!

Do we need a text concerning the transformations,

of slime!?

How long might this "Genesis" take?

Can you say?

No you cannot. Because these are questions you have not considered?

These are questions you cannot answer.

This is why Philosophy is to be preferred over religion.

When does genesis ever end?

[To be continued...]

Wednesday, August 7th, 2019

Employment Relationships are Not Romances.

I'm not sure if "fired" is a legal term, and I don't see any reason for power-play break-up drama.

On one side or the other.

Saturday, August 3rd, 2019

Edited: Saturday, August 27th, 2019

Minor Fixes: September, 2nd, 2019

Challenge One: Say "Best" or "Worst", only when it results in a true statement.

"Best" and "Worst" are logically risky words,

because they so predictably result in sentences that are either

Once these words are heard or spoken,

it is safe to assume the resulting sentence is going to be false,

especially when the number of objects for comparison are large.

Very often the comparison is large—especially when we are comparing people, or things connected to social life (foods that are best or worst, least or most healthy, etc..).

Words that frequently create false sentences.

  1. Best
  2. Worst
  3. Always
  4. Never
  5. Everyone
  6. No one

The "-est" words:

  1. Stupidest
  2. Smartest
  3. Strongest
  4. Weakest
  5. and so on...

A complete list of words having similar underlying logical structures would be very large, but the reader should be able to easily find examples in the course of everyday conversation, to find other issues with creating truthful sentences.

The Challenge:

Pay attention to when you use the words "best" and "worst" and try to see if from now on, you can consistently use these words (or skip using them) to make sentences that are completely true, and not false.

See how long it takes for you to have success,

and while doing so,

count precisely how often these words spring to mind,

creating sentences that are definitely false.

As you have success, you'll begin to see, just how serious the problem is,

since it goes unchecked on television,

in most forms of entertainment,

and advertisement,

and pervades Western English culture, and cultures with similar tendencies.

This will lead you to observe, as I have, that it is very difficult to create truthful utterances—and we are only looking at just two risky words in this challenge!


Difficulties to Expect

Here are some issues making it difficult to have success with a seemingly easy task like this one:

  1. Habit and Automaticity
    • You will keep wanting to automatically use these words to create false sentences.
  2. Frequency
    • It will happen so often, in so many different types of situations, it will be hard to correct issues each and every time.
  3. Peer pressure
    • It is easy to be re-taught to do it the wrong way, because of how often it is used incorrectly in our environment. Friends, family, colleagues, and other people we talk with daily will not be trying to make the corrections you will be trying to make... [Consider the full implications of that, and consider the near permanence of this problem, since it is built into the way we use our language. The change required is actually to change the way we use our language in speech and in thought itself! Because how did you arrive at false sentences, without first thinking them? How did you arrive at them as a destination? It wasn't just falsity along the way, it was falsity at the end of the path!]. They may not see the problem at all. People will use these words and then expect you to accept their false statements as truths, and you will find yourself complying with their expectations, by not openly disagreeing with them. Otherwise you will be correcting people too frequently, you'll find.
  4. Unpredictability
    • Practice opportunities occur at unexpected times and places, often after mistakes have already been made, or when one is not in the right state of mind to avoid old habits.
  5. No training
    • There is no training program that currently exists to teach people to avoid creating false statements. Thus learning depends on remembering to practice as issues arise, and this is not an easy thing to do!
  6. Pervasiveness
    • If you are successful in changing your way of thinking, you will find, over time, if you are not careful, that typical usage in the larger culture, through entertainment and normal socialization, will cause your improvements will be eroded, so that your thinking and your speech will come to resemble what it was before you started. I currently find myself in this predicament, for lack of maintenance over a several years. So not only is it challenging update ones linguistic tendencies to avoid saying things that are false, it is hard to maintain improvements, after they are painstakingly practiced to mastery. Trust me, you will be practicing alone, and once you are done practicing, others around you will not understand that you've made improvements. Instead, they will try to drag you back down to where you were before.

When one really sees how many aspects of our language and culture contribute to forming incorrect sentences, one realizes just how hard it is to be entirely truthful.

In short: even when you know what the problems are, it is very difficult to change yourself, so that you can consistently avoid even simple logical errors.

We will continue to see reasons here in the ThoughtStream and elsewhere in my writings.

Key Problems

There are many similar words to those listed above, that have the same effect, and this relates to key problems, that I did not mention already above.

In short, these issues relate to incorrect generalizations, or incorrect results or summaries about incomplete data (or errors about assuming that data even exists). It is tempting to think that only one or two errors are involved in this type of mistake, but there are many ways that this type of falsity arises.


On the plus side, once we are aware of risky words like those above, we can quickly infer that the statements are incorrect when these words are used. Although we do need to actually look and not simply guess that the sentences are false.

On the negative side, these words cloud our judgement and fill our thinking with falsities, that are hard to remove.

A fundamental issue with Western Culture involves the desire to rank everyone and everything on a hierarchy.

We are very quick to say that someone or something is the best, or worst, highest or lowest, greatest or least, without realizing that almost anytime we make such a claim, we are actually saying something false.

Also notice, that this tendency, points to the human assumption about inequality between things and people. The fact that we so quickly think of things as best and worst, greatest and least, and so on, shows that we are very quick to dispose of any assumption that there is equality in a group. It speaks to our desire to get away from equalities in a panoply of ways, and to our desire to celebrate people and things that are quite distant from what would result in an equal measure with most other things. We are continually seeking to be amazed by things that are maximally unequal to what is most common or normal in groups of things.

Sunday, July 21st, 2019

Record a commitment.

To see,

that you really would not want to commit to it after all.

Friday, July 5th, 2019

A wave can be an oath too.

Thursday, July 4th, 2019

Minor Edit, Thursday, July 5th, 2019

"You are funny".

I saw part of an interview with Maya Angelou once.

She said "You are funny".

It was directed to everyone.

But the way she said it was confusing to me though.

It didn't really fit into the conversation naturally.

She had a special message to share.

After detecting something was different in her meaning,

or after detecting another interesting perspective,

she probably also intended,

it left a bug in my mind that had to be resolved.

There was some gap that needed to be filled because I couldn't understand it fully.

[Aside: See The ThoughtStream is Terse. This explains that she could fill a gap that I could not fill until later.]

Later, I filled the gap.

Maybe not with exactly what she had in mind, but something close.

Or at least I arrived at the alternative meaning I detected.

"You are funny".

to me also meant:

"Everyone is a joke".

("You are a joke" directed at every person on earth).

I don't think she was only trying to say that every person had a sense of humor.

I think she was trying to say everyone can be ludicrous or amusing....

I took being called ridiculous, or absurd, or imperfect, in in the kindest possible way.

Because we take ourselves too seriously.

The moment we let go,

we allow ourselves to see that "everyone can make fun of everything else in the world",

including all people in it too.

No matter how perfect you think you are,

you are self conscious,

until you see that others will always detect funny things about you.

So her meaning, is a blunt one,

delivered in a hidden way,

that once discovered,

can change your life for the better forever.


Some might say that is all obvious.

But let me tell you something:

I haven't learned it yet.

Not completely.

It takes a lot to let go of the fact that certain imperfections you have,

or actions you've taken,

are going to allow people to make fun of you forever.

And that is OK.

But how long will it take to figure out how to feel OK about that?

A very long time.

Famous people and politicians might not ever get over it themselves.

But there is tremendous relief in what she said,

if it gets used for self-help.

Because it becomes funny to you too,


when you start to see,

that you are funny in the ways that other people see you are funny.

And you can really just laugh at yourself,

and brush it off,

without even brushing it off.

You laugh it off.


That is why I posted before:

Give me time

And also why I also posted:

When you don't know what you're witnessing

Because I didn't understand Maya Angelou,

Until I did later.

I didn't need help from her later works,

but sometimes you need to give others time,

to fully express themselves,

before you can judge.

Because they have good intentions,

even when you can't tell.

And I make that mistake all the time.

Every single day.


She is an artist in her literature.

and in her life,

Just like I am an artist,

in my writing,

and in my philosophy,

and in my religion,

and in my life too.

And you should consider if you can be an artist also.

Because there is


And you don't need to feel like you're even good at it,

to get the rewards from it.

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2019

A teacher takes you through all the steps.


This is about transparency in creation.

What does that mean?

It means that you,

as the student,

can see all the steps that a mentor would take,

in creating something masterful.

It means you would have all that you need,

to do exactly what the teacher is able to do,

on your own as well,

if you are able to build the skill,

that the master was able to build.


A novel goes through thousands of edits,

and maybe it is time,

to share the edits,

and the source.

And not only the novel.


I think of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species.

It has six editions.

The first is cherished, and so is the last, final work.

Both are masterpieces, but are quite different from each other.

So we do have information about how one draft started,

and how it developed.

But it would be much better,

if we could have seen the entire production from his hands,

from beginning to end,

than to merely have his six editions,

and have no idea,

how much work,

went into its creation,

from the time he stared writing,

until the time he put his pen down for good.


This would be version control for writing and art,

preserving the entire creative process,

and all of the edits,

in a way that is useful to a student,

or to anyone who wants to discover,

the process from the master archive,

that will come to exist in the future.


In a ThoughtStream recorded with perfect time,

like a life video recorded with such detail it could be replayed in slow-motion.

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2019

Thoughts are distillates.

from complex,

shifting clouds of gases,

that I don't see or understand,

until the drops are forming,

or are already formed.


Water is more easily perceived when it is liquid,

than when it is a translucent cloud.

And thoughts are more easily perceived once they are assembled,

Into what is actually identified,

as thoughts.


And this is why I say that my ideas,

are not my ideas.


Yet they are, to an extent.

The extent,

is a margin of flexibility,

that has the purpose of allowing for more ideas to be created.


My brain is my brain,

in a legal sense,

I suppose,

but maybe my ideas are not my ideas.

[Aside: Still, see my terms and conditions.]


For copyright purposes,

It's hard to say then,

What level of ownership I have over my brain,

given that my new ideas,

depend on other people's thoughts,

that are now represented as neuronal, electrochemical patterns,

within my own brain.


And this is why,

we have to wonder if citations,

are supposed to go along with brain structures.


In-brain citations.

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2019

Faith disappears,

but then it returns again.

Written Wednesday, July 3rd, 2019

Prayer Overlaps Meditation so You are Part Buddhist.

If you observe closely,

looking at actions themselves,

you will find that







all have much in common,

but this does not mean that learning one method,

means that you learned them all.

So when you see others,

from other cultures

or religions

performing these activities

you can think that they are much like you...

but notice that you are different enough,

from them,

to be missing something that they have,

that you don't,

and the other way around.

So if you know prayer, do not discount meditation.

and ask yourself, "Why is it called prayer and not meditation?"

and "What am I lacking!?"

Try it without concern about trying new things,

because you are a child until your very end.

See Untruths in the Disciplines.

Written Wednesday, July 3rd, 2019

Enlightenment has Evolving Meaning.

Enlightenment is salvation from ignorance.

Learning is salvation from ignorance.

But the full meaning of enlightenment is still

changing inside of me.

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2019

Faith disappears,

but then it returns again.

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2019

See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.

To think fewer evils.


Of those that remain,

we can simply let them pass through us,

and let them vanish.


If we can really call them evils.

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2019

Kind Hearted Amusement is its Own Reward.

I'm not sure where I learned that, but it was useful to me today.

Sunday, June 30th, 2019

Everyone gets confused.

Saturday, June 29th, 2019

Publishing Plans and Results, If There Are Any

I was thinking today, why not discuss some of my plans and share the outcomes later?

Some would simply complete tasks, and then write about the results afterwards.

But I feel it might be interesting to talk about plans,

and then see what the outcomes are actually like, and write about them later.


OK... but why would anyone want to do this?

Well, then you would see loose ends I created for myself.

You would see what gets completed and what does not.

Together, we would get a better view of what procrastination really is.

So this will aid my ongoing series on procrastination.


Thus there is another reason to publish something,

before anything has been finished,

or before

it is what others might think is worthy of publication.

Friday, June 28th, 2019

Let's look at the learning intervals.

What you said at 5 years old, is not what you would commit to today.

What you said at 10 years old, is not what you would commit to today.

What you thought one year ago, might embarrass you today.

What you thought one minute ago, was corrected in the subsequent thought.

The minimal learning interval is the transition between one thought,

and the very next.

[Aside: We can assume the linear for now]

The ThoughtStream shows that you do not commit to anything you think permanently.

Unless you are against learning.

So we need to be careful about judging someone with finality,

about a thought,

that is only transitory.

Thursday, June 27th, 2019

It's easy to become envious,

if you see someone doing the same things you do,

or the same things,

you would like to do.

But think to yourself,

"Would a friend want to do the same things I'm doing right now?"

There is plenty of opportunity even doing the same activities.

So don't get discouraged if you see someone doing something,

you'd like to be doing yourself too.

And don't shift to do something else,

out of a desire to be different or unique.

You are already unique, so do what you want to do,

in your own unique way.

That won't be hard for you,

because you can't be anything but unique.

Friday, June 21st, 2019

The ThoughtStream is Enough.

Maybe we don't need any other writing but the ThoughtStream.


I considered this while I was thinking of responding to a portion of Peter Strawson's article "Freedom and Resentment." I saw some issues in an argument and thought to myself: "Do I really need to hold myself back, and wait to write my book—or should I just go ahead, and start recording these thoughts directly into the ThoughtStream, already ready?" The ThoughtStream, makes it possible, to record these thoughts, without worry about how a more sophisticated journal article would be prepared. In the end, the ideas are what matter. If I were to spend excess time constructing an article, full of perfect references, the idea might never get expressed.

This is not to say that articles are not worthwhile for full presentation of ideas that need serious consideration, and should be a part of a peer reviewing process.

A journal requires quality.

Encyclopedia Brittanica.

The ThoughtStream does not require quality.

But quality can go into the ThoughtStream.


There is quality in the existence of the ThoughtStream that contains even lack of quality.

Because it is the evidence of the mind-being-the-mind.

Why do we not say the brain is holy?

The ThoughtStream is holy?

The animal is holy...

This is a ThoughtStream of an animal.


Maybe we don't need any other writing but the ThoughtStream.


[Aside: I know this needs qualification, and I would not want to dispose of the arts. I would not want to eliminate alternative modes of communication. On the contrary, I want these to exist. I want new forms to be created. Nevertheless, the ThoughtStream is complete in many respects. Imagine if Twitter were extended to include much more lengthy postings. In that case, everyone could publish more complex writings, like articles, with references, in addition to the short blurbs, and the thoughts, in the end, would be in the catalog of writings, from the one person that produced them. In this sense, everyone can become published, and everyone can have their life recorded, and everyone can own their own content, and share it to a degree.]


The ThoughtStream makes impacts without explanations. But sometimes explanations will be added.

At that time or later.

I do not wish to block the creative process.

My thoughts about edits being "blockers" on creativity, and on the importance of sharing ideas in writing, as if it were open conversation (since we allow errors in verbalisms), connects with the views of other creatives, as evidenced by "The Spark", found in Questlove's book Creative Quest. Questlove is extremely interconnected with creatives and is a SME on the creative process. In many ways that chapter touches on this same material I'm adding here.

So if you do not think that you will be able to record an idea in an article,

or in a finished book,

why not simply publish it on a ThoughtStream?

Twitter is not enough for this.

Postings are too short and they may not really be yours.

The journal is a ThoughtStream of sorts.

But the ThoughtStream is open to the world.

It does not matter if we call it the ThoughtStream.

Zen doesn't care what you call it.


Consider this an open-sourcing of one of my life goals. To produce my writings in such a way that I own them, but that other people can have access to them too, so that all my ideas, that are otherwise very difficult to share, due to expectations about prep time, actually do get shared.

The ThoughtStream will dramatically increase in output,

if I'm allowed my artistic freedom,

and there is freedom from interference.

At the moment, I don't have freedom from interference.


I hope everyone else gets to own their own ThoughtStream.

Tuesday, June 18th, 2019

Maturity Models in Daily Life.

In organizations we do roadmapping exercises that, when done correctly, reflect possible transformations along a normal maturization process.

[Aside: spell checking says that maturization is not correct. But it feels right. It is correct given a natural mastery of English.]

In other words, you don't create a plan without the vision, but you also can't have the vision without the plan, given how things actually normally develop.

In daily life, we miss the vision.

For example, when we cook dinner, we rarely think:

"Hey, I cook the same things again and again, so why not recognize that I could have a recipe book to capture these meals to sell."

It was common at one time for families to have recipes to share with one another.

Family recipe books were not unusual.

But to take it further. If you cook every night, and you have the ingredients at hand, and you enjoy what you are doing, why not realize that your recipe book could be a menu.

You have your customers with you nightly.

You have the opportunity for immediate feedback.

You can take almost all steps that are possible, within your home kitchen, to create a business. And it's right in front of your eyes.

This is how maturity modeling can work for you in your everyday life.

I had a dream to create a vegan restaurant according to this approach.

Although now, I would probably do a near-vegan, vegetarian restaurant.

In my life I have a kitchen that is very far from normal, so it isn't really possible to create culinary masterpieces.

However, why not take this idea for yourself.

Because even if the dream of creating a restaurant beloved by others doesn't come true,

you will have something to hand your children, and perhaps grandchildren,

that will enable them to feed themselves and remember their family heritage at the same time.

This idea does not only apply to cooking food.

[Aside: I did not do a complete edit before publishing this. I just picked out obvious errors. Good enough like in conversation.]

Monday, June 17th, 2019

The first rule for choosing a mentor,

is to choose one who exists.

This leaves two good options.

A living person, or yourself.

Monday, June 17th, 2019

The Best Mentors,

have a feature in common that somehow goes unrecognized.

They track your life-categories.

As you speak to them,

they'll listen,

but they may not always be concerned about the specifics of what you are saying.

They'll ask you questions that cut across your life.

And as conversations unfold,

they will easily come to find,

where you are out of balance.

This is where they will give you advice, that you will find useful for self-application.

So you come to value their opinion because they are able to help you see what you're missing.

This is a feature common to all mentors.

It can be an elder, a friend, a priest, a doctor, a psychologist... or anyone else who serves as a mentor in your life.

It is possible, however, to do this for yourself.

You can self-mentor, to a degree.

If you do not happen to have a mentor around. Not everyone does.

If you don't, try to keep a list of the most important areas of your life, that should not go untended.

If you are able to track these areas effectively, and make sure you take care of each one carefully, you are likely to do well.

And then for a stretch of time, you might be able to forget to keep track.

But if you come to a moment when you are out of balance again,

it is easy to go back to the list, and start all over again.

My life is out of balance again, and so this is what I'm doing for myself now.

[Note: I intend to upload the forms I used for doing this, on my page, rational-times.html]

This way you can see how I did it, how much is really possible to keep track of, and have a starting point to do the same for yourself.

Some may say that this is an obvious point.

But if you look around, nobody is doing it.

Particularly those who say it is obvious.

I know, because it is not easy to do, even if you spend quite a bit of time collecting data.

It is time consuming.

This is why I want to help and provide what I created for your benefit.

Monday, June 10th, 2019

Assume this blog is not about you.

I perform social commentary.

If it really does apply to you, so be it.

Like any other piece of art,

music or otherwise,

you're free to use what fits,

and ignore what doesn't.


Sometimes, I'm prompted to write by others.

I'm in debt to them for that.

Usually the thoughts are already in mind, waiting for a motive.

A motive received is greatly appreciated.


Readers should not be confused by postings feeling coincidental, however.

Monday, June 10th, 2019

Beware of the Diagnosers.

This is closely related to the post Beware of the Rankers.

Examine that closely.

Those who lack talent, again, will find ways to set the standards.

They'll do it by false authority, or by pointing to their motionless certificate, earned with many hoop jumps,

forgetting that there are many authority figures who would disagree with them.

"Don't get a second opinion!"

You don't need to agree with your father. Check other fathers. (Test your position on equality).

Aside: This is not disrespecting fathers, it is respecting them more.

These rankers by diagnosis achieve their ends pretending to downgrade and classify effectively.

The method doesn't matter to them though. Only the result.

Wednesday, June 6th, 2019

Saving face, and No-sin.

I hear people talk of "saving face".

"Saving face" is hardly something I personally aspire to.

I am an animal.

I let things go quickly.

Pangs of embarrassment are brief.

Guilt lasts as long as it should, and no longer.

I try to correct things quickly, when I'm aware of mistakes.

But I expect mistakes, so I do not think much of blame.

I'm a learning creature.

I do not look for revenge, because I want others to get past things as well.

Others are learning creatures.

I reject the concept of "sin".

People do not need to carry guilt forever.

People are animals that will do animal-like things.

According to nature.


The ones who are truly horrible have no honest recourse, in my mind, to equalizing people,

by stating that "everyone is a sinner".

That only means: "The good are as bad as I am, and are as bad as I will continue to be."

Why would anyone adopt that, as it so obviously favors the wicked?

The equalizer is that we were all ignorant babies. That's all we need to say about that.

I say equalizer because even babies are unequal with respect to ignorance.

Wednesday, June 6th, 2019

Additions and Minor Edits: Wednesday, June 6th, 2019

Creating problems for others.

Is not evidence of your cleverness.


It is easy to create problems for other people.

It is not so easy to deal with those problems created.

I avoid creating problems for other people, as far as I can.

I keep to myself.

If you look at others around you, notice the mischievous people.

They will eventually create problems for you,

If you provoke their jealousy or irrational desires for vengeance.

Even the slightest perceived slight,

will justify lengthy and disproportionate retribution from them.


See Beware of the Rankers.

Creating problems for others is just another desperate attempt to rank others, and to magnify a fragile ego.

Feelings are not valid inferences.

Jealousy and envy justifies whatever it can.

Wednesday, June 5th, 2019

Zen doesn't care what you call it.

Wednesday, June 5th, 2019

When you don't know what you're witnessing.

"When I saw you working, I felt like I was missing something—I felt like I must be doing something wrong."

This is a close paraphrase of something a colleague once said to me.

I repeat it because I thought it was kind and honest. I do not intend to criticize this reaction in any way.

Nowadays, however, I think it's closer to:

"I don't really understand what he's doing, but I will assume it is foolish."


"What he's doing looks old-school. It's ridiculous"


Only much later, after discovering the trajectory, there's an "aha" moment, that's more like a rationalization:

"Oh I always knew you were doing that..."

Sure you did.

You only get to the end point with the steps it requires to get to that endpoint.

You didn't know any of the steps or the endpoint.


Steps in between may not be what you think they are.

And with myself, they seldom are.

People will judge you on your unfinished deeds as if they were finished ones.

Take this ThoughtStream as an example.

The great thing about the ThoughtStream is that all deeds are unfinished.

That's kinda the point.

Saturday, March 16th, 2019

Originally posted: Saturday, October 6th 2018

Freethinking is My Religion.

Challenge my freethinking, challenge my religion.

Freethinking into writing and expression is my art.

This art is contained in the religion also.

Or the religion in the art.

Forming one legal corporate entity?

Alas, the limits of a legal perspective.

Tuesday, June 4th, 2019

Ask for the Rainbows.

And they will not come to you.

Monday, May 27th, 2019

Minor Grammatical Edit. Monday, May 31st, 2019

Memorial Day Thoughts.

Let's honor veterans with the truths due to them.

I've said elsewhere, that

"Remember Forever",

is not genuine.

People will forget just one day later.

And remember the phrase, when the ritual repeats, a year later.

This sounds negative to say.

But think it through, and you will see...

that people who sacrifice themselves in war,

are sacrificed completely.

Our memories are short.

When America is no more,

and we are blended with other nations,

memorials will lose significance.

So let's think hard about it now,

and not plan to remember for eternity.


Is this not a more real,

and important message,

than any lie about remembering someone's sacrifice forever?

Death for no reason,

is a part of war.

We need to value veterans enough,

to not lie to people who are thinking of joining the military,

and to encourage their children,

to think hard about the risks,

and to find other opportunities,

like rich people almost always do.


I am grateful for my freedom to think and write what I wish on this website,

and speak my mind in public.

And I understand the cost.

This is why I decided early that I would never serve in the military.

And why I am unwilling to join in on the rituals.

I value the holiday,

and my freedom to think,

how I want to about it.

Thank you Veterans for this freedom.

Monday, May 27th, 2019

Work is Play.

Do not pretend that this is true.

Make it true.

Saturday, May 25th, 2019

Speakdream it.

You can sleepdream whatever you want.

You can daydream whatever you want.

You can speakdream whatever you want.

Saturday, May 25th, 2019

There is freedom in the ThoughtStream.

There is freedom in the ThoughtStream.

There are few consequences to your thoughts,

in the form of reactions from other people.

According to your nation's laws.

(I hope. I enjoy this protection immensely.)

You are protected in this.

Likewise, in the U.S., you have First Amendment rights,

or Freedom of Speech.

(Aside: Nevermind that the right was designated because it has not been secured for you. For if it were secured, there would be no speaking of rights, as I've covered elsewhere. This is why we often protest "It is my right!"—the protest concerns not having what was supposedly ensured.)

Let us assume we are protected in this supposed Freedom,

such that we are free,

from having to consider if we have it or not.

So there will be no consequences for your thoughts outside your head,

and not just inside your head,

because the responsibility for reactions,

lies in other people.

And corporations,

cannot discriminate against you,

because of your opinions,

outside of work.

And if they do,

you have recourse,

because they have not learned, of all the opinions of the rest of their staff,

or openly made public their thoughts,

or used their freedoms,

in the way that you have.

Thus they can learn to be like you.


I do not concern myself about the compulsivity of other people.

Or corporations.

Even in threats of violence.

Because they are the worst of all who make such threats.

Organized threats are more disgusting than individual ones.


Also you do not need to commit to what you think,

when you know shortly after you might think the opposite.

And so,

people need to learn,

that you might say something,

but that does not mean that it is final in any way.

You were just thinking aloud.

Like when you think aloud in your head.

And all is tentative,

because in Mattanaw's Philosophy,

and in Philosophy in general,

skepticism requires,

that you form conclusions that might contrast significantly,

with what you thought before,

because that is what learning often is.

And we are all for learning, right?


You can sleepdream whatever you want.

You can daydream whatever you want.

You can speakdream whatever you want.

Blame your speakdreams on your sleepdreams.

Or sleepdreams on your speakdreams.

Because you don't know the source of your thoughts in either case.

But you do know they are connected to each other.


There are times for greater care,

but most times are not those times.

Unless censors, discriminators, and the punitive have their way.


Fortunately, Philosophy is my religion.

And so I am protected.

Are you protected?

Saturday, May 25th, 2019

See that the math-logic is in all good things.

See that logic is math-logic.

Then your trust will increase.

Your Philosophy will improve.

You'll learn that you don't choose a philosophy.

As if they are mutually exclusive, and you can't have them all intermixed.

Logic permeates everything you do.

See that all your reasoning depends on the logic,

and see all of the errors you've been making,

and all the life-long errors of your parents and ancestors,

and all the errors you will continue to make.

Practice will show you,

even if you don't care for formal logic,

but only the informal logic of language,


truth preserving chains are hard to come by,

and are hard to tease from,

pointed intuitions born of complex experience.


"Describe the newborn in a list of just 100 sentences interconnected."


"Images are worth a thousand words."

If so than how many words worth are in a video of a million frames?

If we just go by videos composed of frames.

And not pattern chains.

More still. How many words are in the life of the situation?


Sometimes you need quite a lot in your arguments,

So there are limitations even in logic,

Since logic does not use pictures,

or pithy pointers of dense life-capsules.

Logic is ultimately abandoned for this same reason,

that too much is required for proof,

of complex things we actually care about, when the scope is as wide as living.

And what we want to show,

requires another media,

like film,

or other artful creation.

Yet it is required nevertheless,

to intuit errors,

and to have the right experience to get a feel for when more complex arguments

really are right.

And to realize,

that even if logic must be abandoned to cover more,

logic is still in the foundation,

and we just simply don't have enough time to use it,

in all cases.

Saturday, May 25th, 2019

Edited. Saturday, May 25th, 2019

Brief insights and fallacies.

To determine if a fallacy is present in an insight, briefly recorded, one has to be able to correctly translate the insight into the requisite logic, that presents the best argument for that insight.

This is the principle of charity in Philosophy.

Intuition precedes the rigorous proofs of the intuitions.

Naysayers will say: "You committed your own errors. Here... let me show you..."

But then what they show you is not true to the original insight,

for which the logical proofs are forthcoming.

So they show you irrelevances,

and fallacies within mistranslations,

that they attribute to the author, instead of themselves.

Or they pretend there are fallacies to exhibit an understanding of logic, that happens to be false.

Mistranslations are generated to satisfy desires for fallacies to exist.

This is why it is important to wait for works of expression,

to come to completion.

You need the author-orator, since the reader-listeners are in the darkness.

Saturday, May 25th, 2019

Edited Saturday, May 25th, 2019

Wisdom Can Be Taught and Cannot Be Taught.

It depends on the student,

and the teacher.

Logic is a first start.

It is a branch of Philosophy!

Your trust in math. It should extend to logic too.

The logic is foundational to math. And to argumentation.

Any argument you construct with words will be sound and valid, only if the logic is correct.

This means, in the current organization of topics in College curricula, that you need to get your Philosophy right to get your argumentation right.

Logic could be separated from Philosophy, but they are historically intertwined for good reason.

Back to topic: Logic and Math are nearly one and the same.

Logic is more foundational to everyday purposes however.

You can place the same trust and faith you have for math in Philosophy, since in Philosophy, logic is paramount.


this must be combined with healthy skepticism.

Logic leads one to skepticism

since truth is so hard to come by,

and people are credulous by nature.

(Aside: Recall the faith you put in human equality, through trust of math. That math wasn't even there. Put faith in math-logic, if the math-logic is actually there, and it is sound. Do the same with other acts of faith. Confirm that what you have faith in is present first.)


Devotion to longer sentences is another path to truth.

Short sentences are incomplete pointers.

Tools of importance, but tools lacking nevertheless.

Saturday, May 25th, 2019

Lights from profound minds.

A new, intelligent message in the making was produced. It was a revelation sent into the world, from a mind. But none of the people understood it. So they thwarted it with censorship, and ensured it would never be completed, and that they would never receive it.

They kill the trees that would bear the greatest fruit.

The darkness was not overcome.

Light and darkness are poor metaphors.

Because everyone can separate light from darkness.

But they are unable to discern truth.

Saturday, May 25th, 2019

The light shines in to the darkness, but the darkness was not overcome.

Sunday, March 19th, 2019

Minor Grammatical Edit. Saturday, May 25th, 2019

Is it Really an Analogy?

A friend recently posted an interesting analogy puzzle on Facebook, for which the answer was uncertain, because of a gap in the English language.

This is not unusual. It is very common for us to search for a word that is an antonym of another more familiar word, because we want to apply the same concept, in a converse situation. Whenever there seems to be a word missing for an occasion, an analogy could be formed, such that there would not be a word providing the answer in the language.

Consider this example:


What is the answer?

In my days tutoring, I had a High School student ask me:

What is the opposite of a Utopia?

I asked this same question myself, after reading some of More's Utopia, and reflecting on George Orwell's 1984, and came to the answer after some pause, as is quite characteristic for me, of "Dystopia."

(Aside: I have an excellent memory but have to fight against similar words to which I'm more primed to respond with, or otherwise have better availability. Everyone experiences tip of the tongue, but this appears to be a quirk that I'm not sure I've observed in anyone I met previously. I'm certain others experience the same but have not encountered anyone who experienced it in quite the same way. Because after some time elapses, the word and quite a bit else becomes completely and rapidly accessible. A large chunk of memory simply isn't available when first prompted at times. I mention this because it will become relevant in other posts.)



In this case there is an answer. But what if the word "Dystopia" did not exist?

In that case, it is my view, that there probably is not an answer to the analogy, unless one can coin a word that truly fulfills the analogy correctly. By this I mean that it is a true analogy, without ambiguity, such that there is at least one denotation that clearly parallels the denotation of the other (meaning a complete dictionary would have a numbered entry for each word), and not a partial match among denotations, or a partial match among connotations. A word could also be borrowed from another language, which is essentially the same as a coinage, so I don't see the two as essentially different, since the goal is simply to fill a gap in native language another word that fulfills some criterion of comparison.

However, there are unusual cases where the logic of the words themselves allows for no parallel at all. Such that a word borrowed from another language, or a coinage, does not establish an analogy, because the conditions of successful analogy cannot be established in the way hoped for.

This relates to the Analogy that my friend posted. I will not repeat that analogy here for the moment, without his permission, but only mention that it is interesting and involved a probable structural asymmetry, meaning no analogy could be formed, at least in the way indicated, in what could be expressed about our feelings of past events, versus what we imagine about the future.

Friday, May 17th 2019

Natural Patterns that Repeat, are Expected to Repeat.

History does not actually repeat.

When the earth becomes a cold ball of ice floating through space,

we cannot expect that it will be generated afresh,

to proceed exactly as before.


The logic that intends to use this phrase,

involving the idea that we can somehow stop history's patterns by learning about history,

is committing the Monte-Carlo fallacy.

That which has been repeated many times, is expected to not be repeated next time?

Because someone read an inaccurate textbook?


If not the Monte Carlo fallacy,

then the error is in a misjudgment of the powers of individuals.

For how could an individual, be expected to counter historical patterns that have always been repeated,

to not repeat,

such that future generations would not use the same phrasing themselves?

Some things change. But the phrase is too short to encompass that.


Not one situtation, at a complex level involving people, understood completely, happened twice.

Unless the entire universe is being repeated, which might be the case.

Patterns are repeating, however.

Math before is useful after.

We're told that some patterns have been repeating all through history.

(Which ones exactly? Putting that aside for now.)

Then we're told, that we need to understand history, because history repeats.

But it's been happening for all of history.

Inductively it will happen again.

An individual's learning of history has not been inductively proven to prevent natural patterns from repeating.

"History Repeats Itself" may just include, people saying "History Repeats Iself" to no avail?

There are no specific goals in this phrase.

It is not as meaningful as people hope.

In fact its meaning is against hope.

Irrational hopes at least.

Because we are included in history's patterns.


Polio is a pattern that repeated,

for different people,

who had different histories.

It was combated, and does not repeat quite the same way,

in the same numbers.

However, the source of the change,

was not an understanding of history.

but biology.

Sunday, April 21st 2019

The ThoughtStream is Technical and Not.

Trains of thought are preferred over logical symbolism and mathematical transformations.

The logical thinker, arrives at answers, and has intuitions about answers, in the trains of thought and not in the formality that is later derived.

Here the reader should feel confident that the author can provide such logical chains, according to the laws of deductive logic (and other logics) as determined to be practicable.

Articles will contain the technical developments, of what is first mentioned here in the ThoughtStream.

It appears I just said that this is not technical. But all that the mind arrives at on the basis of previous technical experience is as technical as the original, more meticulous, working experiences.

Friday, April 19th 2019

Real Feelings.

People don't have consistent feelings about other people.

So-called "real feelings".

Real feelings are just the chain of feelings in the ThoughtStream.

As-is. The mind being the mind.

So do not search to find your real feelings about someone or something. Search for detailed representations of each to communicate well. And allow the feelings and representations to clash in time.

Form artful visions of the feeling with meticulous detail and splendor.

Saturday, March 30th 2019

Tabula Rasa Pseudo-math. Escaping the Founders' Many Errors.

The founders made many mistakes.

But they cannot be faulted for using the psychological perspectives of their age.

They made advancements through their interim advancements.

The errors and the advancements are part of the same tooling, for the desired outcomes.


This is the logic of an ancient psychological viewpoint:

Then we take it to be self-evident, forgetting there is no math here.

Euclid would not approve. He made few errors and is far more ancient.

There are axioms, and then there are, ahem... assumptions.

Ignorance makes its way into the scrolls easily.

Think not? Show me the controls.

Or write your thoughts on scrolls, and see how quickly you add falsities!

The logician knows the difficulty of uttering chains of truths.


Why don't we just say: "We were all babies." and be done with it?

We all knew very close to nothing.

We were nearly equal in our ignorance, although we were never equal on almost any other measure. Probably not regarding ignorance either, but close enough...

We are the result of cellular replications. Sperm and egg.

Here we have truth, and we can still use our knowledge of genetics and diversity, without feeling the urge to cover that up.

This is the great escape.

From the error of the founding father (I'm thinking of one gentleman in particluar).

And a historical document, hastily written?

Sacred inky fibers?

Time for new fibers.

Saturday, March 30th 2019

My questions are disallowed.

My questions were, and still are disallowed.

When all your questions are taken as challenges, you don't get answers.

You scare people.

What happens when all your questions are about things people don't know?

Poverty of stimulus.


Teachers: you don't need to know everything!

Revealing what you don't know provides critical information.

You'll say that asking for help is a strength.

What about the strength of "I don't know. Here's how you might find out..."

That is the role of the mentor. Removing obstacles.

Not creating obstacles out of fear of being discovered to be ignorant.

We were all babies.

We are all still babies.

Remove obstacles for those who will find the answers.

The curious children searching.

Who else is searching? Don't thwart the searchers!

All the searchers have left is their searching,

because they know everything else they need! Or want to know.

People are allowed their interests too.


Hard-question kids are left feeling completely uneducated.

The educated uneducated.

Saturday, March 16th 2019

Beware of the Rankers.

People who are subpar, or self-conscious about their talents or skillsets,

who are also obsessed, or narcissistic, may attempt to find control by becoming a Ranker.

They put themselves in charge of the scale, in order to manipulate it according to their insecurities.

"If I can control the rank, maybe then I can be happy."

They'll contain you and attempt to place you low on a spectrum, and then will socialize your weaknesses to their advantage.

Correct representation is not important to them.

They just use some rationalized "method".

"Contain and place! Contain and place!" -- their inner voices chant.

"If I cannot be the best, at least I can control the perceptions about who is best."

"And somehow, liken myself to those who are the most skilled,

or pretend that I have risen above them thereby."


Once you control the rank, you can rank yourself however you want. It's a basic trick.

Nobel prizes have the name "Nobel" on them.

A related scheme...

It's a dubious/spurious process, but somehow that is lost on these personalities.

Obsession and envy justifies whatever it can.


Mattanaw is not fond of the ranker.

Wednesday, March 13th 2019

"We can fire you, or deny you services, at any time, for any reason, or no reason."

What does it mean to act for no reason?

This stratagem is for avoiding disclosure of discriminatory practices only.

Wednesday, March 13th 2019

Unlocking our Journals.

Freethinking precedes free expression.

Free expression precedes free thought.

There's a cycle. A Relationship.

Increasing one increases the other.

Decreasing one decreases the other.

Resulting in either joys or sorrows.

Familiar contents or discontents of civilization.

Depending on which tendency predominates and for whom.


We need to be able to sing to ourselves.

We need to be able to build on our journals.

No topic is too taboo for the diary.

Fear of writing it down, and fear of self-speaking,

is from fear of being discovered or overheard.

Even regarding our personal thoughts.

If we cannot speak to ourselves how we like, we are likely to stagnate. We get stuck!

Journals had locks.

Self-songs were encoded.

But both are necessary for self-improvement.

And why not improve each other in the process?


Censorship sets the limits not only for what we will say openly,

but what we will write down in our private moments.


But what if we all unlocked our journals?

If everyone's journals were open, there would be little interest in reading to discover shameful facts.

Slander becomes more challenging.

All would become familiar.

We could learn from each other's experiences openly.

Find advice that is relevant to us? Rather than search to no avail?

Self-help exists largely because of lack of openness.


Privacy does not protect us the way we assumed it has.

Wednesday, March 13th 2019

There are novelties in my "errors".

Not all errors are errors.

Errors here are expected or planned for in advance.

Thursday, March 7th 2019

Behavior and My Face.

I use the manners, of

respected peoples, miscellany.

The nerve to act, as any people,


Thursday, March 7th 2019

Looking up simple terms.

Connotatively, I think I know the meaning,

but let's see the denotation once more.

Fully see what the word stood for.

While there, revisit the phonetic alphabet.

Know what a pretender thinks they know yet.

To speak it as a speaker could,

If not a woodchuck chucking wood.

Wednesday, March 6th 2019

The judgments are premature.

For artworks incomplete.

Whole pictures are puzzles finished.

This is a puzzle, with

many years required for completion.


I started with the jabby rectangular corners.

But they weren't really jabby-stabby,

as much as they were



The illuminating center is planned for completion.

Wednesday, March 6th 2019

Selective Innovations.

Consumers are more at ease in adopting new, seemingly everyday technologies, than they are at adopting new moral perspectives.

And it is easy to make changes, as a free spirit.

We are free-spirited as consumers already.

It won't be much longer, however, before people see, that moral perspectives are as variable as technologies.

They are akin to one another.


How do you see the potential of your human processes?

Tuesday, March 5th 2019

Mattanaw is Races.

Tuesday, March 5th 2019

Mattanaw is Races.

Sunday, February 24th 2019

AI to Create Fake Videos Versus AI to Detect Fake Videos.

Fundamentally, which side has the advantage? AI with the ability to create false images and videos, or AI to detect false videos and images?

This competition will come to pass.

Humans are much better at faking than detecting, when enough resources are available.

At least, this is what I'm inclined to think.

For this reason I suspect faking it might be easier than detecting it.

In an ultimate way.


What does this mean about detecting whether or not our reality is a simulation?

Sunday, February 24th 2019

Censorship is Talking Too.

"Free speech" is limited of course.

What we actually have is:

Limited speech.


A lesson in accuracy.

Still, this sentence is too short.


Let's briefly consider our

Limited Speech.

One way we are limited is by censors who are allowed to speak, because they have the same "freedoms" themselves.

Oftentimes, the censors, in anger, promote violence, ostracism, and other acts of cruelty.

"I don't like what she says, therefore, I can do whatever I want to her."

They want to silence others.

Not by open debate or argumentation with freely flowing words.

They prefer censorship words.

They'll promote censorship killing, if they are allowed to run wild.

If not killing through murder, they'll choose killing by character assassination.

And they might get the final word, the way things are currently organized.

This goes overlooked somehow.

If we insist on true free speech, then we are limiting censorship-related speech somehow.

It is not clear how we should do that.

Surely, the censors calling for violence or retribution are the ones who err.


"I don't like what he says, therefore, I can do whatever I want to him."

This is quite different than:

"I don't like what he says, and these are the reasons why, for your consideration..."

Sunday, February 24th 2019

It is important to me to talk about what gets avoided.

In an efficient way. Not some circuitous way, with layers of euphemism.

Why are you avoiding certain conversations, censors?...

Friday, February 22nd 2019

Math is not democratic enough.

Let us change mathematics such that "equalities" are generated and evaluated democratically?

With no math at all?


This has already been achieved, and it needs to be reversed.

Wednesday, February 20th 2019

The ThoughtStream is Terse.

Gaps in thought, left for the reader to see.


Leap! Or makeshift an overpass!

A preceding thought is related to the next.

How do I know? Because I can fill the gaps.

With effort. Works long underway.


Like-minded thinkers who see alike say, "I can guess your next thought..."

"Already I see the gorge and both sides."

These readers have few anxieties about what is encountered here.

They can agree or disagree specifically.


Another case:

"I see it quickly now that I received your help!"

For cases where help is given, mostly in conversation.

It depends on the mind, and the differential topical experience and preparation.


The extent to which a mind analogizes another mind!


For others, some critical gaps cannot be traversed with any amount of preparation.

Do I need to explain this!? I don't want to explain!!

An unfortunate topic. The realest of inequalities.

People do not care to admit this, but it is the case nevertheless.

It is not difficult to see, and yet it is difficult to see.

Sunday, February 17th 2019

You do not edit your speech.

And sometimes, writing is just a substitute for oral communication.

A principle I follow, often misunderstood, almost always underappreciated, is that it is often more efficient to share an idea before perfectly communicating it.

Hr's som typos I can fx later, if I ever care to.

I hope you get to the idea, in the same way that you can, listening to someone speak aloud.

We are poor at detecting grammatical errors in normal speech anyhow.

The transition from ears to eyes has interesting consequences.

Just write and get that feedback loop. For the idea and for the writing. Because you don't need to edit what you will abandon anyways.

The writing can have mistakes. Just like with speaking.

You do not edit your speech.

Critics of your writing don't edit their speech either. They are abandoning sentences midway constantly.

If someone continually fails to understand you, for not speaking aloud in perfectly grammatical sentences, you would probably wish to stop speaking to them.

They may even be pretending to care about what you say, out of their special interest in correcting people.


The best communication, is when minds "click."

Mindfully linked, lost in thought. Not distracted by a desire to correct.

People who are knit-picking get what they want in the final edit. That happens later.

The easiest edits.

Again, no one corrects grammar in oral communication.


This principle is not to be applied in all situations. There is a range.

There are times to take editing quite seriously in advance of releasing. But this is not a post about that.

This is a post about why that other approach is not a universally justifiable methodology.

Sunday, February 17th 2019

Impartiality is Prior to Equality.

Equality is not impartiality.

Impartiality says, "we haven't taken any measurements to be able to make this comparison", and so is prior even to an assumption of equality.

To claim equality, is to be partial to the conclusion that values that have been taken, are actually equal to one another, in the area of interest. Thus, it is as partial as inequality, which is arrived at, by the very same process of taking measurements and making comparisons.

Inequality has the edge though, since values, at high precision, would not be expected to line up. Even in the creation of high-precision machinery, flaws and inconsistencies cannot be removed. Thus, we can assume there is at least some level of inequality for almost all comparisons of non-elemental things. I will give examples of things that can be considered equal, and how, in an upcoming article. Equal things are never complex objects considered in total, to be sure. The examples I provide exhibit the stark contrast, between what might be equal, and comparisons between people. Social justice is intended to be improved with a return to looking at details that reveal inequalities, and the true extent of similarities.

Scientists are supposed to be impartial. That does not mean they are supposed to assume equalities exist, without taking measurements. They are in the business of measuring, collecting data, and then forming judgments. The assumption of equality is a completely incorrect approach to mathematics.

Scientists are supposed to think "I will refrain from making a claim as to the values until I've actually done the work."

"Eyeballing" it is OK, from time to time, but it is subject to error. It tends to favor identification of differences, and some degree of similarity, but not strict equality.

Saturday, February 16th 2019

Arrogantly Eternal or Eternally Arrogant.

No milestone is a foreverstone.

Education in reverse is just an aneurism away!

Do not be confused! The neurosurgeon knows how to cancel your beliefs!

Or to preserve them, from premature liquefaction.


Oh, poor brain. You are so undervalued.

People think they do not change as you change.

They think they can persist without you.


Brain. I am personifying you right now, and that feels wrong.

But you personify me too.

Saturday, February 16th 2019

National Narcissism.

Nationalism is like narcissism, but for an entire country.

It may be just as hard to eradicate.

Saturday, February 16th 2019

Familiarity breeds imagination time.

"Familiarity breeds contempt."

Seems close to the truth.

First you are liked. Then, people "meh" at you.

You've become human meh.


But what does familiarity through false information breed?

Imagination Time.

Thursday, February 14th 2019

Do you ignore the language spectra?

Languages range from those in their infancy, to those in high maturity.

High maturity in a language, is connected with available knowledge, and the ease of generating new knowledge.

This is related to concept complexity, and total language vocabulary.

A language can range from a couple thousand words, to millions, as might be the case, in the Personlanguage.

In the beginnings of people geographically interspersed, in isolation, multiple languages were created, with just a few words.

The range is from animal proto-language to what we have today, and later, into the Personlanguage.

There is no equality amongst languages.

In a field of complex objects, there are differences to be seen, by anyone with high-resolution understanding, atop any sameness that might exist, that would also be seen, though such an understanding.

And so languages are greatly unequal despite similarities. The trick is to atually look and not resort to equalization bias, in a pretense of understanding.

By acting as though things are equal, one pretends that one has actually made an observation of what is to be compared.

Do you know what seeing the spectra implies?

It implies seeing humanity along a maturity progression, with poorer language stimulation initially, and better language maturity later on.

The different languages we observe today, are at different stages of language maturation.

Clarification 1. I received one valuable comment that value comparisons of languages depends on the criteria of the person or people making the comparisons. To this, I offered the following answer:

We are in agreement as to equality being criteria based, and it's funny that you put it that way, because I have an article in preparation that goes into depth along that same train of thought. People tend to say that two things are equal with no criteria at all, and fail to make any comparison at all. Whatever criteria are used, values must be determined, a comparison has to be made, and sameness of value identified. All else is a form of cultural bias. A cultural bias that oddly enough, results in an inability to look closely. There is this "I refuse to compare languages" according to valuations, stemming from a pretense that "they are equally valued", without any valuation having taken place. are engaging in what I hope to engage in-- finding those ways that they might be compared in useful ways, leading to valuations. And they should lead to valuations. From these valuations we can seek to make instrumentality comparisons.

This answer relates to another posting I made on impartiality versus equality.

Wednesday, February 13th 2019

I Don't Know Personlanguage.

Hear my lamentations.

In advance of the occurrence.

Of the Personlanguage.

To know any other language is a disadvantage.

Authors strive for a market.

Learners strive for the medium, best suited to get maximum information.

The stimulus.

Today English is the best in this respect. There are no challengers. Some are close, but we know... you, in the you sense of 'you' know too...

Together we can admit it. We are in close company.

We value all languages, but still...

The universal translator device is forthcoming. Personlanguage is forthcoming too.

I am sad, for I do not write in Personlanguage.

Wednesday, February 13th 2019

My "you"s are for you, and for me.

These writings are built off of years of self-application.

Kinda. Sometimes. It is the ThoughtStream.

I call myself 'you' also.

That being said, when I say 'you' here it is mostly for the you variant of 'you'.

Sunday, February 10th 2019

Emotions are important enough to own.

Emotions are important.

Important enough to own?

To self-manage?,

Instead of expecting others to manage them for you?

"What you said makes me feel angry..."


Do you watch over your reactions? Do you blame others for your affects?

Emotional reactions are not self-justifying.

They do not justify just any response.

Or request for response.


Fake emotions are not emotions; else are an odd species derived.

People react differently to the same.

So do not exaggerate the importance of your feelings.

Remember the value of your vote. Your "2 cents" for your opinion. Maybe even less for your emotion.

You should pay others for your affects.


Maybe emotions are important enough to not confuse them for something else.

Like not confusing them for logic?

Maybe they can guide you to the right logic, that takes consideration for your emotions.

But do not become confused, about what your emotions permit.

Logically; behaviorally.


Emotions are important...

So master them? Distinguish them? Have awareness of them? Take responsibility for them?!

Understand what they permit you to do?

Understand what they permit you to infer.

Sunday, February 3rd 2019

Time for the Regular.

The more varied your interests, and the more numerous your commitments to developing them, the less time you have for the regular.

Socializing isn't a talent. It's regular. Lazy people find every excuse to socialize and to be regular.

And so of course, those who do not partake as frequently are thought to be different.

Not for their time management though!

Non-participation is a complex thing, with many causes.

One of them is that participation doesn't build anything.

Because participartion is in part to avoid building anything.

Sunday, February 3rd 2019

Display the People.

I'm sorry, I'll act like a Black-Korean-Vietnamese-Caucasoid-American-Grandma-Teenager-Kiwi-Hawaiian-Canadian-Geeky-Jock-Latino if I like?

When I like, all blended together.


A Foreigner of sorts, because I embrace the blend. The cosmopolitan internationalist.

Global citizens. Learned and travelled.

A slurry people.

"King Slather".

(A nickname I was given recently by a colleague I respect; a name that I took a liking to. Embrace the meaningless).

"Get slathery!"

I absorbed my friends and I'll be like all of them anytime I want, in the ways I want.

This is real respect. Even if it is not acknowledged as such.

Mattanaw absorbeth; becometh.


Next week I will absorb a Finnish woman, if I befriend one.

"King Slather."

Authenticity displayed by not being "one."

There is no authenticity in "oneness".

"I will struggle to be like this all the time for the sake of authenticity."

Keeping it real by seemingly being unreal.

Not holding selves back? Like a child adult.

Mattanaw displays all the people in the parts he likes.

And speaks of himself in the third person, while in the introspective. Hovering disembodied-like. Viewing the selves as objects from outside. Authentically numerous.


Mattanaw is just fine.

This multi-being is in a time-capsule that can be named.

I could call it a "body" but I have to keep it 100.

Sunday, February 3rd 2019

Untruths of the Disciplines.

All Disciplines contain truths.

Otherwise there would be no discipline to practice, to master, such that reinforcing feedback is repeatedly felt.

Perhaps I am over-general regarding my credence of intsrumentality to all disciplines—but Disciplines should be expected to have at least some disciplines that have some use. And something to practice.

The key is to be able to identify what is true within. And, what is untrue.

Slough off the untruths, or at least see their roles. "Why does this untruth remain? What does it do?"

How else do we compare activities? Are we not allowed to compare the disciplines of the Disciplines?

Truth is eclectic.

In thought, action, and commitment.

Where are the Gnostic Buddha Atheists?

I am not this, and more than this, and the list is not worthwhile to type out. It would be long, and not specific enough to paint the right picture.

Pagination estimation in the thousands.

Saturday, February 2nd 2019

Conceptlessness and the Buddha Nature.

Some are more free than others in their concept and category commitments.

This relates to perspective switching. More advanced people, seem to be ready to change to, or create perspectives spontaneously.

Less committal folks. ThoughtStream-like beings. Friends-of-mine-in-advance. Critical thinkers. Some well traveled. Some cultural dabblers and polyglots.

Attuned to the nature of things and less stuck to our contingent categorizations of them.

Tendencies to high vocabulary. Or visions uncaptured by sentences. "I see something."

To do this is to be closer to the thoughts from which all languages spring.

Mystics sometimes. But they need to break from mysticism.

Mystical non-mystics.

There's more than one way to become this way.

We can see it in people's readiness to make intralanguage translations.

Inter and intra-language Whorfian-Sapirs.

Abode of the Buddha-nature.

"Enlightenment" is not. For another time.

Friday, February 1st 2019

Planes, with Turbulence as a Human Control Feature.

Turbulence is real. Except when it isn't.

The plane, can generate false turbulence when necessary.

"I need a break. Turbulence time."

[Remember the allowances of the ThoughtStream.]


What do the actuaries say of turbulence?

The risk is in revealing there is very low risk.

The control feature is important.

Turbulence is more of a risk to your bladder than anything else.

Friday, February 1st 2019

Homage to Animal Grandma.

You would do well to pay homage to your animal grandmas! You ingrate!

You pretended our grandmas didn't even exist!

Friday, February 1st 2019

The goal of getting "straight-As" is not economical.

It is comical.

Tuesday, January 29th 2019

Determinism in the Procrastination.

You! You block of marble!

Granite immovable!

You are not free!

Your motivations are invisible to you. Mine are too.

My motives are deep in my brain, and are subject to brain damage.

I cannot see their sources, or control their influences.

These motives-of-motives-of-motives-neurochemical.

Together, we can only hack. Use tricks.

Indirectly to get at our basic drives.

Freedom in the tricks?

Tuesday, January 29th 2019

Controls Against Indoctrination.

As much as we try to "remember" historical horrors (we only have glimpses of documentaries on holidays), we do little to prevent indoctrination.

When "remembering" is not actually remembering.

Very few people witnessed the events of the holidays. Those people have memories.

We look to witnesses, and empathize (if we can). That much is true.

We mostly indoctrinate people into sharing an approved perspective during the holidays instead.

"Make sure to groupthink today."

"'Tis the season to refrain from iconoclasm."

"Refrain from idolatry."

(To the philosopher, those who say they avoid idolatry are the idolaters).

"Today, suspend your thinking and follow the rituals."

Where are the controls against indoctrination?

It is a difficult topic.

Children are the property of their parents.

Tuesday, January 29th 2019

Founding Fathers, and Great Grandma Australophithecus.

The DNA websites tracing our ancestry do not go back very far—but they could take us all back to Great Grandma Australopithecus and beyond, whatever our religious cosmologies happen to be.

It is important to remember there are many cosmologies.

"And we respect diversity so they are all true and equally valuable."

So, let us talk about Great Grandma Australopithecus.

We can even call her "Eve" if we want to, but she's ugly...

Hetero men: you would not want to mate with her, even in her prime. Even if you were fooled into thinking she's not your great grandma.

I wish to speak of grandmas, but let's get back to the fathers.


The after-life expectancy of the founding fathers has expired.


Names linger.

Even if the old texts aren't read. We can sound out the words.

Primary-source documents that historians do not understand, for lack of context.

Although they'll pretend.

"Smarties at the parties."

Replace gaps with imagination!

Distract with dates.

I do not completely devalue the historian.


Historians: there is a lack of the TS clearance and many mental documents unrecorded.

Were your authors privy to the Queen's secret plans and activities?

George Washington's?

No one can breath life into founder people, and they are now unreachable, and maybe they would be as repulsive as your least favorite politicians in character, appearance, and sound-of-voice.

Imagine your most racist relative. Make sure it's a father.

Resurrected, they would need a while to adapt and to form new opinions.

I'm not sure what people think they are doing when they act as though they know what this and that person would do today.

"Moses would frown on Fox News."

You make ignorant assumptions about what living people would do under various conditions, so how much more ridiculous are your assumptions about the views of YOUR resurrected "founding fathers"?

I see lineages instead.

You didn't even take the step to resurrect them—to let them see the world afresh!

What would the dead do in this alien context?

What would Great Grandma Australopithecus do?

Tuesday, January 29th 2019

Uniqueness, Analogies, and Absurdums.

Does your sentence, or paragraph of advice, extend, in full detail, all the way to the situational phenomenon itself, or only part of the way?


As a rule, advisory quotes are shortened, for the reading pleasure of those with limited attention, and for the people who thought them with limited thinking. So they extend only part of the way to the phenomena. Stunted trees.

The advice-recipient is expected to see the rest for themselves. They are expected to fix the problems...

Find your situational analogies, to apply this, at the right time. The right place.

Or get it wrong, like the usual user of quotes.

"I have this quote but I use it at the wrong times, and I have no idea that I do that..." (Because it doesn't have the detail to extend down into situations such that they can be correctly identified).


What happens when you see with high-resolution understanding instead?

Let's see with this rule—one I have not seen written:

The more specific a description is, the harder it is to find an analogy. Because the analogy has to have the form and structure, in the detail required, of the source pattern. And if you are detailed, it will have less generality.

Thus many pieces of advice, and quotations, are more general than they are supposed to be, due to human laziness.

"Thou shalt not lie."

Please can you give more detail than this!?

Don't be a lazy quote generator.

Thou shalt not lie, when exactly...?

This is an OBVIOUS problem, and the quote is worthless.

When your representation of the situation itself, reaches the ultimate level of specificity, it mirrors the uniqueness contained, revealing the truth in that situation, that it does not have in common with any other.

So there is a stopping point, to allow, at least ONE analogy. If you represent a situation fully, there are no analogies.

When the detail you provide for a situation is great enough, you see there has never been another equivalent situation. If you leave out details, analogies emerge.

History does not repeat. It only repeats for those who employ low resolution understanding. For others, it does not repeat, but there is a pattern of importance worth seeing, that does not extend down all the way into the phenomenon, or without such detail, that no other can be found that does match the pattern.

Equivalent resolution is required for an analogy to be found.

The stupid can find analogies for anything and everything, by simplifying it, such that there are few details.

This is what we do, when we claim two things are the same, for belonging to the same category, at the highest level.

Here's your "all people are equal."

"They are humans, yes. Thank you for that. Now lets talk about details."


False equivalence of situations are created by low resolution analogy generation. Sometimes this is useful. Other times, it is an avoidance of detail, for the preservation of equivalence, to preserve some objective or perspective.

False equivalence bias. Equality bias. Low resolution preference bias.


Counterfactuals are easier to find the more shallow the situational representation. Why? Here's this detail that is just a little deeper than your analogy, that is a relevant difference.

Conversely, the deeper the representation, in the advice, the less able we are to find counterexamples, to matching situations. Part because it requires more thinking, however. And part, because there are simply less counterexamples.


Another way to think of this. Ask yourself:

Does my analogy have enough detail, to remain an analogy, for these situations, without creating too much ease of generating counterfactuals?



What is the pattern match, and would a deeper more meticulous pattern, reveal that really there are fewer instances of interest, such that my advice is defeated?



"I see this thing everywhere because I have not seen it in enough detail."


This is a posting about using longer sentences instead of shorter ones. Paragraphs if necessary. Pages and books. Encyclopedias.

Or at least knowing, what the pagination would be for the idea under consideration, and the "fudge-factor".


The fewer the details, the simpler the reductio ad absurdum.

All situational analogies are subject to the reductio.

This requires a bit more explanation but the ThoughtStream is for incomplete thoughts as well as complete ones.

Wednesday, January 23rd 2019

Iterative less is more, for the sake of more, that is still less.

Less is more until it is realized that more information would be better.

In that case, produce more, but no more, than what would be better as less.

For when more is more than less is more.

Usually the more-less-more is better, attention permitting.

Wednesday, January 23rd 2019

"Disruptive Change Agent".

It was a catchphrase. Placed on resumés. Without reference to any specific change or disruption.

In politics, we end up with "change agents" in direct opposition to one another.

Stupid tyrant? Natural born leader for demise?

Again, the solution lies in longer sentences and paragraphs, providing the right specificity. More context, more writing, and more reading.

Change agent for HR: address this:

"I cannot read the long resumé. I chuck it in the trash."

"I prefer less information I could potentially use, than to have more!"

Long, well-considered and accurate descriptions, over no descriptions. When information matters.

Can you tell when information matters?

Monday, January 14th 2019


(Trademark it. You can have it. First come, first serve. If only I could give 'em all away.).

2018, Mattanaw's year of critical completion.

2019, Mattanaw's Great Acceleration.

Tell me when you feel it.

Don't hate. Let's love.

Sunday, January 13th 2019

Few are "Woke".

Think you're woke?

Woke about what?

Let's revisit this in a decade.

Sunday, January 13th 2019

Details in the Diversity.

A celebration of diversity is incompatible with a schematic insistence on equality.

Higher education, and maturity, over a lifetime, reveal to us that diversity is a proper assumption, atop any sameness that might exist, in a field of complex objects. Detailed examinations of complex objects reveal varieties needing to be accounted for.

Diversity is a time-honoured assumption that is factual. Equality is not. As a tool for civil rights marketing, catalyzing all-important changes, it was a huge success. But that success never made "equality" in the general and vague sense any sort of fact.

The social justice we should be aiming for, is in the appreciation of details and diversity, not in equality.

Because today, people use equality as a replacement for observation and thought.

To look closely is to find relevant differences. This is what we know of meticulousness. High-resolution understanding.

Equality is easily "found" by ignoring details.

A more socially just world, would require a more complex understanding of justice, which would depend on an appreciation for details, not an exclusion of details to preserve assumptions about equality.

Wisdom is in the details. Diversity is in the details.

Equality is no-place to be found, and was a temporary marketing position on the way to a future of refined social justice, relating to more sophisticated ideas about fairness, and the fitness of things. To improve on what we have, we need to be willing to look at details again, and give up on the concept of equality, that was only there to facilitate change historically. It has been useful but in the present day we need to transition to something more intelligent.

We need to look at people and see their similarities and their differences.

A celebration of diversity is incompatible with a schematic insistence on equality.

Sunday, January 13th 2019

Care to join me for dinner-breakfast?

Wednesday, January 9th 2018

Who makes this music?

When I listen to classical music, I'm reminded of moments in my youth, feeling alone in my true interests.

"Who makes this music today?"


I've never seen a live performance. Never a skilled demonstration, up-close.

I'm glad to have been exposed. Since exposed, I know that I need to return. There is something additional to return to.

Many lack this love, and instead feel distaste, where there could've been taste.

Where there should've been taste?


These are not questions people ask.

Friday, December 28th 2018

I shall not repeat.

When you meet someone who gets irritated about repeating himself for you to hear, or to understand, notice how impatient he seems.

If there is any disparity between you and him, favorable to you, consider the following exercise, for dealing with such people.

Depart from your norm of speaking short sentences that are designed for people like him to understand; and shift to a more rapid mode of speech akin to your natural thoughts, with your more sophisticated vocabulary, with fewer logical transitions, and a complete resistance to interjections and distractions. Include that tight focus you have that nevertheless allows for oblique meanderings and lateralizations, that you then pull back into the original topic.

Then ask him detailed questions.

Then castigate him? Potentially. For his inability to follow, inability to remember, inability to pay attention, inability to visualize, inability to build on the conversation, inability to understand the full potential of relevance. Inability to have a conversation with you.

You know, all those things everyone is failing to do in conversation all the time.

"I'm sorry, I was not paying attention, because I was relating my life, and these new ideas, to all you were saying until now... In other words, I was respecting your mind."

That much is probably not necessary, but if his politeness does not return, it is a real option to consider.

The toolkit of the educator is large and it does include this.

Monday, December 24th 2018

Indoctrinate the same you want to see in the world.

This advice is well understood, and well followed.

The indoctrination itself has been indoctrinated.

Saturday, December 22nd 2018









Saturday, December 22nd 2018

Infer me from this message.

Can you infer the man, from the blurb?

Like fashioning him from a single rib? A metatarsal?

"I don't like this blurb!" ⊃ Whatever I feel like concluding.

Emotions are odd in their extrapolations.

Friday, December 21st 2018

Equality in the Unevaluated?

To confirm that two things are equal, in some particular way, first you determine the values.

You take the measurements!

Yes... you take the measurements...

Then, after you determine the values, and you have numbers......

to a certain level of precision...

you compare the values, and if they are the same, then you can say they are equal, in that respect, for that level of precision.

To say two things are equal, without having followed this process, is to make an obvious error.

(People in Democracies often forget all of the steps.)

Sometimes we know the values will differ just using our senses. A man is 7 feet tall; his wife is 5. Unless our precision of measure is to the nearest ten feet (like we are comparing from space), we say they are unequal with respect to height.

But when two people are nearly the same height, we have to look more closely. High precision usually reveals inequality for complex things.

This is why we humans opt for no precision at all, when comparing humans. If we do compare.

A ridiculous error, precision aside, is to have no objects to compare...

We do that! In our rational ratiocinations?...

Ask your math teacher about equality in class, and she will know the answer.

Ask her in politics, and she will forget she's a math teacher.


Is there math in your equality?

Thursday, December 20th 2018

Happy Whateversauce, and Merry Christmas too.

Happy whatever your holiday happens to be, even if it isn't until next year!

(Or the year after, or three years later, or something astronomical...)

Tuesday, December 18th 2018

Enjoy the Christmas of Your Conquerors.

Ye non-Europeans.

Monday, December 17th 2018

Political Non-affiliation.

How do you stand on the topics for which you have no knowledge?

Which team do you belong to for the sport you have not played or seen?

Before you get confused, understand that you do not really know many political topics well. They are numerous. For every topic, there are different subject matter experts to call upon, with differing opinions.

I take my politics issue by issue, as I take my knowledge topic by topic. I know where my ignorance lies. I know my level of research. I know when to stay uninvolved, and mind my own business.

I recently described my political affiliation to an inquirer like this:

I consider everything topic by topic, issue by issue, policy by policy, according to what makes sense to solve problems, and understand situations. Thus I have no affiliation and am in agreement with one or the other [liberal or conservative], or both, or any other person or group, or none at all, on any issue. I prefer to ignore the existence of parties while I think about which solutions are sensible.

After determining what is sensible, I'm comfortable with any blend and combination of agreement or disagreement with any subsets of the constellation of human thoughts, however they happen to be arranged in time and space, within individuals and amongst humanity.

Wednesday, December 12th 2018

Your life is a compulsion.

If you look closely, you'll find that deliberation is rare.

This becomes a point of difficulty when we discuss morality.

Or a point of difficulty listening to other people discuss morality. That subject where everyone believes they are an expert, but really no one is an expert.

Monday, December 10th 2018

When advice becomes biological.

When advice is used, and transformed, into the discipline of behavior, and is fruitful, consistently, what remains of the original advice taken?

Saturday, December 8th 2018

Be the strange you want to see in the world!

Becoming the change implies becoming the strange.

Will you join me in becoming strange?

Wednesday, December 5th 2018

Your quote is contradicted by these other quotes...

It is not a useful methodology and there is no authority contained.

Wednesday, November 28th 2018

Your religion said to serve only one master.

So you recombined your nationalism with your religion and pretended they were the same.

And scoped your religion to your xenophobia!

Containing it within your preferred territorial boundaries!


Then you overlooked the international totalitarian corporate form?

Monday, November 26th 2018

"If me can't say't simple, me don't know't good."

Maybe you should read Einstein's original technical papers to understand what he meant.

Can you tell if his technical papers are "simple" or not?

Or, can you say how you could tell?

Because people don't know what this advice means.

Monday, November 26th 2018

"Good" doesn't fit naturally into my vocabulary.

But I see what you meanish by it.

In the vagueness of the shared values.


When I see you identify it,

It seems you know how to confirm the unconfirmable.

Monday, November 26th 2018

How I appear today,

Is a terrible indicator about who I've been yesterdays.

Wear the suit on Fridays, be a different person to others on Fridays.

Monday, November 26th 2018

Assumptions are superficial.

How are you on your tendency to make assumptions?

I can tell you all about not being superficial.

Whatever your impression of me happens to be.

And about not being superficial enough to be liked by you in your superficial assumptions of my superficiality.

Thursday, November 22nd 2018


"When are you nice?"

Not "Are you nice?"


Can you see yourself and others as they cross time? Faces change.

Faces flow.

Frequency, not constancy.

Timeliness. Not allthetimeliness.

The wrong question asks for constancy. And gets a response.

"Nice" is unclear. Kindness at the right rates, at the right times?

I want to see all the traits, not only "niceness".


Try to change your language and find that it is hard!

"Is he nice? Is she nice?", they will ask.

You won't want to answer. You'll want to delay with thinking. "When, Why, How..." you calculate.

Details take time.

Toil at improvements for years, and you will find yourself in truths,

At the expense that others will have trouble listening to you.

Thursday, November 8th 2018

What do you need to be undermined?

I'm your person. I'm your man.

I will not undermine truth.

Because it cannot be undermined?

The philosopher cannot undermine it, and so decides, tentatively, that it might be truth.

"This... this is fine for now..."

I will not undermine what's solid. Visions pure.

But I will undermine anything else with ease.

Thursday, November 8th 2018

Needless voting for the needless.

"Wait, voter turnout relates to voter [consumer] needs? How could that be?"

Well, movements tend to end after people get what they want.

There is an activism lifecycle.

Voter activity is just one example.

Elections are interesting to me because of people's cognitive biases about them.

There is a false sense of effectiveness. And a missing sense that voting itself creates political inactivity.

"I have voted, and now I am done."

If voter turnout is low, it's often because the issues and candidates simply don't have a draw.

Like bad entertainment.

"All elections should have the same turnout."? Ridiculous!

I stop shopping once my desires are satisfied. "Black Friday" sales don't move me.

"Cyber Monday."

I have a shopping lifecycle. It differs depending on the product [think "issue"]. I only buy a car when it turns out I need one.

Voting exists for when you need voting.

Wednesday, November 7th 2018

Buy Whatever.

Encourage everyone to vote?

Analogy: Tell people to consume indiscriminately?

Withholding is obviously an option. "It's not an option." you say? (Future generations will turn their backs to you).

I'm not going to constrain my strategy for the traditionalist imitator. The one without any strategy!

Do you not understand consumer ethics? Do you ask people to just consume indiscriminately? Buy whatever?

There are times to consume. You can vote as a consumer by not buying anything at all.

Consumerism can be thought of as having an improved voting process.

Not a government dictated and indoctrinated one.

Vote without ignorance for the right candidate or you are the sludge!

Can you tell when there's no reasoning in the marketing?

Thursday, November 3rd 2018

Wisdom in the Heap.

Bits of wisdom are still just in the heap of advice.

Think through the consequences and choose what will be instrumental to you.

Then do not blame the source.

The source cannot know you.

Thursday, November 3rd 2018

The News is a Mess.

Is there a better way to describe it? I think not.

Scroll through the channels and see.

It's not really in dispute. It's not orderly. The disorder is not due to the chaos of events.

There is no focus. Just reactions (to what?) and attempts to get reactions.

The audience does not vote on this!

Invent the content when you don't have any.

The content will suit the plans that are not communicated.

Share the news behind the news?

Thursday, November 1st 2018

Give me time.

I will help put your mind at ease.

Thursday, November 1st 2018

Unedited Beauty.

My ThoughtStream is botched.

But so is yours.

If we could enshrine the thoughts from the source, they would remain eternally unedited.

Beautiful still.

Human still? Soon there will be fewer marks of humanity.

Maybe the little errors make it more beautiful?

Marks of the craftsperson.

The Free Artisan!

Because the brain is not a journal article.

See the mind naked, being the mind!

Thursday, November 1st 2018

The ThoughtStream has few expectations.

Like a real ThoughtStream a human would have.

Think a thought and then think its opposite. Then think other clashing thoughts, absurdities, and whatever else.

There's a time for commitment and there's a time for exploration.

Wednesday, October 31st 2018, 

We had few books.

How many pages are in the Encyclopedia Brittænica?

How many pages are on the Internet?

Some people call for one book?

Return to where we started? Ascend the luddite pyramid? Luddites have no pyramids.

Wikipedia in Sanskrit? Concept-limit by choice?

Condense all the knowledge!? A glossary over dictionaries!? Learn by asking around, if the questions aren't forgotten first?

Beads of water on glasses nearly empty?

Compress the knowledge into a single blog post, written in Gaelic? In Twi?

Rife with personalized advertisements?

Blogs without ads. "Where are all my ads? This can't be of value!"

Entertained by the plague.

Or we can just bring the text. Lots of text. I'll just bring the text.

Wednesday, October 31st 2018, 

Ignorance has few details.

How detailed is your ignorance?

How detailed is your knowledge?

Care to compare?

Evolution of the brain is from near nothingness to extreme detail.

But we are trying to imitate the next-to-nothingness?

Wednesday, October 31st 2018

What's a Vegan?

Oh, you're going to tell me?

How about I tell you what a vegan is!

Or better yet, I'll tell you who a vegan is allowed to be.

Vegans—it is more flexible, so feel relieved.

This is not only about Veganism.

Tuesday, October 30th 2018

Profundity is Unwanted.

And then it is wanted again.

Tuesday, October 30th 2018

Prophesy the Offended.

Speak to your audience? Can you know them all individually? Point them out to me, or to yourself.

Name your auditors!? It's easiest if you don't have any!

The goal is to have a large audience? One that is unknown, and counter your message.

Minds ready to learn are mixed with the sensitive.

Safety is in not speaking. So speak like the nonspeaking?

Or using meaningless talk, and culturally approved sentences.

Again saying nothing, or what people already know.

Knowing the entire audience is like trying to read human books from covers alone. Reading them better than if they were really written?

And if you write:

Should you expect not to offend saying anything profound?

Offense is partly a measure of successful communication.

Tuesday, October 30th 2018

Fathom the Unfathomable.

A fathom is a measure of depth (

Something that is unfathomable, is too deep to be measured with fathoming or something.

What is most important relates vast oceans together.

Oceans have bottoms, why not take a look from time to time?

Drink the whole thing? Gulp it quickly?

How can we compare and interrelate ocean bottoms if not for the explorers of multiple oceans?

Tuesday, October 30th 2018

I will use more words.

When you said what you could say simply, did you stop speaking?

What about for the translation?

Same-language clarifications. Other-language otherlanguageifications.

Choose the microfiche stacks.

Tuesday, October 30th 2018

The Earth shall be inherited by the Earth.

And people will see that it was good.

Friday, October 12th 2018

Man created the binary in god and then judged it in binary.

Sunday, October 7th 2018

Wait for It.

Incomplete artworks provoke incomplete judgments.

Saturday, October 6th 2018

Freethinking is My Religion.

Challenge my freethinking, challenge my religion.

Freethinking into writing and expression is my art.

This art is contained in the religion also.

Or the religion in the art.

Forming one legal corporate entity?

Alas, the limits of a legal perspective.

Friday, October 5th 2018

Share the Thoughts.

Sharing everything you think will prompt the emergence of all the censors around you.

Trust me, everyone is a censor. Ostensible free speech advocates. Afraid to speak.

Self-censors fearing censors.

Kill the inner self-censor?

If we all did it, we would reveal the data.

Friday, October 5th 2018

Utterances do Not Reveal Essences.

If you can't see that, ask the statistician for help.

And when the statistician is unavailable (like always), try to not act like the average person.

Who is ready to judge based on single instances he/she can't even understand?

Friday, October 5th 2018

You Wanted this Guy.

"Be this guy" is the usual caption for this image.

Is this the guy you really wanted?

I'm often this guy, and I'll test you to see if you're in the crowd. Since this is the guy you want, you'll accept that. More than that, it will satisfy your desire for that guy.

You want the philosopher.

Whether or not you're in the crowd is topical.

"Mattanaw at church" could equally be the caption here.

"Mattanaw at the corporate conference" too.

"Mattanaw at the political rally" as well.


The freethinker is not typically a popular figure... anywhere.

Saturday, September 30th 2018

A Lesson in Creating Specific Sentences.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"

Palatable, eh? Try this:

"Love thy repeat rapist, recidivist serial killer, sociopathic/psychopathic neighbor as thyself."

Maybe you should know something about your neighbor before giving your love?

[personal aside: Before letting him trespass where you live anytime he likes?]

Are people not smarter than this, in their dating strategies?

Is it not easy to find people who do not deserve love? Surely someone will read this, who is undeserving.

"Disappear yonder you undeserving undeservables!"

All that's needed is more detail. It only seems reasonable because it's not about anyone. Be meticulous, or simply be Stupid.

Forget the dictums about nobody.


"Only dummies don't like the details!"


Saturday, September 30th 2018

Completion is Immanent.

I'm nearing the completion of a project that has taken me more than two years without pay, working entirely alone. Usually a team of 20 or more would be required for such an effort.

Big teams block the efforts of key contributors, but that is a controversial topic. I'll leave that aside for now.

I can't complain. It will be a considerable investment in my company, and the product will be up for resale soon enough, if I do not keep it for myself! Aha!

It feels amazing. Better than happiness. Will to power. Nietzsche was in the right!

Happiness was bundled within, you see!

The U.S. Government would pay millions of dollars for such a result! This I know!

Or pay millions of dollars, with no result at all!

Saturday, September 29th 2018

What if You Didn't Believe?

What if you didn’t actually “believe” anything, that you didn’t instinctively act on?

I once believed in a “magnetic hill.” I found later, to my astonishment, that it was an illusion. An obvious one! Did I believe it? Yes. Why? I acted on the internalization unreflectively. But there is a lot that I consider that I would never act on without pause.

Originally on Facebook: Thursday, September 13th 2018, 3:19 PM AKST

Wednesday, September 26th 2018

Creative Generativity as Coping.

"So that it won't just be in my head."

"So that others—


So that somebody can know me."

Creativity can be coping with the effects of perpetual internal transformation.

The "I've become too different!!"

Wednesday, September 26th 2018

I See the Diagrams.

Ever had that moment when you're working on a diagram, and you simultaneously see that 7 or 8 more diagrams are needed, and you know basically how they look, but not completely. They are calling for you to create them in all their detail and clarity, but the one you already started will take another hour to complete?

Wednesday, September 26th 2018


Shifts of mind so frequent.

Enter the something-elsiness.

Wednesday, September 26th 2018

Punctuated Agilibria.

Plans are tentative thoughts. Subject to improvement.

The acts and the feedbacks bring about new plans with better results.

This depends on both the actors and the feedbackers (some might also be the actors).

All is well, until the contract is remembered.

"Was that in the SOW?"

There is agile and then there is LEGAL. And FINANCIAL.

Where does your agile process fall apart?

There can only be punctuated agilibria.

Monday, September 24th 2018

Sawse of the Awesome.



You either like it or you don't just know it's sawse-uh-da-awesome.



You either like it or you don't just know it's sawse-uh-da-awesome.

[Chorus repeats ad infinitum and ad nauseum]

A Mattanaw original. "Hip-Hop Masterpieces by Matt". Watch for it.

Sunday, September 23rd 2018

Feelings are not valid inferences.

Friday, September 21st 2018

Spouses Who Vote Together,

Show the problems with elections together.

And might be fish together too.

Friday, September 21st 2018

A few minutes in the life of a creative soul.

Who has no idea what his soul is supposed to be.

Friday, September 21st 2018

Qualify it to death. Qualify it to life.

The logician knows the difficulty of uttering truths.

A sequence of connected truth-preserving truths is more difficult still.

Most statements require qualification. But just how much is not usually appreciated.

Friday, September 21st 2018

The "philosopher" who only remembers is the historian-mnemologist.

You can substitute "philosopher" with any specialization that is supposed to actively create.

Be the craftsman and the antiquarian too!

Friday, September 21st 2018

The editor god only edits.

Friday, September 21st 2018

The roads to salvation terminate at the corpses of dead liars.

Friday, September 21st 2018

Euphemize yourself mindless!

Go ahead. Euphemize yourself mindless.

Ye proponents (opponents) of free speech!

Choose what to say, but say it unclearly!

Friday, September 21st 2018

Is your life the flux?


Inside of THAT, know your normalcy!!

Friday, September 21nd 2018

Freedom is in my art.

Is it in your art?

Maybe so. I do not discount that improbability.

Friday, September 21nd 2018

Confirm the Mannequin.

Who was the model for this mannequin? Can you tell?

No. Not unless you knew the process by which the mannequin was designed and formed.

[I assume you don't work for the Mannequin CompanyTM, creator of depicted mannequin.]

Can you tell if it was made in an alien's image?

Yes, you can tell. No, it wasn't. It looks like some genericized woman (and somewhat like a bald chimpanzee), and not something you've NEVER seen before...


[Can you make the right inferences from this?]

Friday, September 21st 2018

There is no anger in my anger!

Understanding requires the improved introspective apparatus!

There is no learning this!

Friday, September 21st 2018

Would YOU have thought? Is it possible for YOU?

Theoretically, practically, and DETERMINISTICALLY "NO"!...

Put this message on repeat!

And replay it when you forget!

Friday, September 21st 2018

Witch Hunts Were Run by Unselfbeknownst Witches.

For the smell of the sacrifice in part!

Friday, September 21nd 2018

Mentors Waiting for Their Mentors.

Thursday, September 20th 2018

Citation Gossip Soup.

There are no citations in my knowledge.

Unless it is NOT my working knowledge!

Tuesday, September 18th 2018

Have the War Mind, yet be peaceful too.

Tuesday, September 18th 2018

Skepticism is Not Celebrating Foundational Knowledge Too Early.

Skepticism is about deferring the final celebration concerning foundational knowledge indefinitely.

Yes, there should be celebrations (if you do anything to merit them). However, there can be no final celebration. Death will take you before those festivities.

Don't be the dogmatist, celebrating the same first "victory" too early, again and again.

Friday, September 14th 2018

The Lady Who Cried "Ad Hominem".

There was once a lady who continually complained about ad hominems,

To get protection from the logically deficient, who could nevertheless recall names of common fallacies.

And only the names...

She cried it out loudly in public debates defensively! Concealing her inability to form valid inferences.

Or to study logic...

She perturbed those who could understand all the reasoning!

Those willing to apply labels truthfully, once inductively justified.

Those who understood the meaning and proper application of the word "Stupid."

But they were too few!

So she got to stay at the meetings. And she attended all of them!

And nothing ever got better.


Also published on Quora here:

Wednesday, September 12th 2018

Producing "One Small Step For Man".

A fake moon landing was necessary to control perceptions of supremacy during the cold war. The United States, well behind the Soviet Union, who had public success with Sputnik and other programs, had no time to catch up in aerospace. Instead, to buy time, and to fain dominance, they relied on Hollywood and their superior entertainment capabilities to stage the moon landing. It was a great success, and even now layman are unable to prove definitively, from the footage itself, that the footage is fake.

Today, moon landings are not performed, because of the difficulty and low value of such missions. What is of value is doing all that is possible to achieve world dominance. This is the reason space programs have not been able to catch up with the heights that the entertainment industry has attained, and have not been fully extricated from military operations.

The creation of a false moon landing remains one of the most successful military operations in the history of the United States.

Tuesday, September 11th 2018

Genesis, the Revised Version.

In the beginning, there was the ooze.

Later than that, there was something different.

No more details necessary.


Tuesday, September 11th 2018

Disagree to Agree.

What's with "Let's agree to disagree"?

Invent agreements to please other people? All the wrong people?

"Why don't we just agree that you are a weakling because you need that?"

[Not "you" the reader, but the other weaker "you", asking someone to agree to nothing, for ego preservation.]

I like this better:

"Stay focused on realizing that we don't agree—and think about why that is, and how you can become a different person."

Sunday, September 9th 2018

Detecting Rigged Designs.

Yesterday I had a run-in with a Coinstar machine. After the experience, I feel convinced the machine is designed to systematically extract more than the agreed upon percentage advertised at the beginning of the transaction.

Why do I think so? I'll elaborate in a full article later, but for now, I will simply point out that the UX design of the terminal and the process flow logically implies it.

The physical design of the machine itself, and the timing of the interactions with the user seem to favor Coinstar for receiving more (in my experience far more) than they indicate at the outset.

Then an old question occurred to me: are casino software games and slot machines rigged? How would one know? What effort is required for a consumer to discover it, versus the effort in the design to conceal it? Certainly, there are ways to know but mathematically, the design could make any efforts at discovering it too difficult or costly.

I think Coinstar machines are more obvious than casino machines, but the same questions are raised.

See my related questions on Quora, if you happen to have some real knowledge and experience with this topic.

Saturday, September 8th 2018

Americans Competing Secretly.

"Don't compete with others. Compete with yourself!" Self-help for the jealous.

Instead of re-framing it in terms of something else, it is still about competition.

An American Bias.

I don't compete with myself, and I don't compete with you.

Competing with me secretly? I'm deciding not to talk to you secretly.

Saturday, September 8th 2018

Don't Have a Baby I Mean Have A Baby.

Mother to daughter at 18: "Don't get pregnant!"

[thinking: "We'll be miserable."]

Mother to daughter at 22: "Pregnant yet?"

[thinking: "Share in my misery."]

Friday, September 7th 2018

Stuck on Proper Nouns.

I've been accused many times of using excessively archaic terminology.

By the those with small vocabularies...

Small neural networks...

To them I reply:

Cast aside the archaic Proper Nouns interspersed in your void!

Remove those minds and places built from archaic vocabularies!

Then I will reconsider my vocab!

Friday, September 7th 2018

Edited: Saturday, September 8th 2018, 2:57 PM AKST

Trademark the Impossible!TM

Can you find the rationales? Can you find the purposes?

Tuesday, September 4th 2018

Can you fanchild me?

I really hope somone creates an alternative social media—for the bizarre—where people can fanchild each other instead of "connecting" or "friending".

Tuesday, September 4th 2018

Diversify the goals.

If you have many goals you are working on in parallel, slowly but surely, it is much more difficult to be disappointed with a poor outcome for any single goal.

Diversify. Math and economics exist in the world of goals too. Think of goals as investments.

Just remember there are people with no goals, or only one that they put all their effort into. They fail and then have nothing else in progress. Don't be that person if you are able to dream more than one dream.

Some need the focus of just having one or two goals, due to position in life, or because the goal is foundational (nadir of Maslow's hierarchy). If you need to quit smoking, you may need to just focus on that.

The advice of having many parallel goals may be for those who already have a foundation, or those who are especially energetic, creative, or generative.

Monday, September 3rd 2018

Wisdom is in the details.

Monday, September 3rd 2018

"Never go full architect."

My partner said this to me after a grueling session of discussions with a new client.

Well, it was grueling for the client.

I admit it—I brought the gruel to the gruelfest.

On occasion I do go "full architect". There are negative and positive consequences. The positive outweighs the negative so I'll take them both, and will continue to go "full architect" whenever the situation calls for it.

Monday, August 27th 2018

See the relationship!

If you are conflicted about the status of a relationship you have with another person, it is helpful to forget about traditional categories (friend, husband, girlfriend, father, etc..). Disconnect the emotions from the words. These categories can cloud our vision from time to time, setting us up for disappointment, via excess idealism and naiveté. Build a detailed picture of the relationship as characteristics of objects and their specific connections to one another. See the relationship for what it is. Think of all the parts of the relationship, so you're not hyperfocused on just one or two parts.

Suddenly common questions about whether someone is a "friend" or an "acquaintance" or a "frenemy" vanish. There are just people and relationships, and there are usually mixed characteristics. Let your friend dislike you from time to time. See the reality and lose the cultural idealism, and sometimes you'll find that your hopes, expectations, and emotions are tied to words, and not to realities.

Wednesday, August 15th 2018

Information asymmetry in relationships.

What is optimal? What is acceptable? What is tolerable? How important is just this one highly complex factor!?

Highly complex factor? In the singular? It is probably not one factor.

I'm lead astray from the start by my language. Still I cannot escape committing the fallacy (fallacies) of oneness or unity! But at least I can see it early enough now, and readjust.

Wednesday, August 15th 2018

Pile of Advice.


I can't use all the advice.

Behold, the pile of advice!