Saturday, December 10th 2022, at 5:57 PM Cairns, Australia Time



The purpose of these notes are to provide clarifications in detail wherever inline qualifications, clarifications, and additions would themselves be confusing, or interfere with presentation of material.

These notes are for the entirety of the book and journal.


  1. Met the criteria of Summa Cum Laude except in total courseload. It was not officially awarded by my GPA and performance is equivalent to Summa Cum Laude at this institution, and was perfect at 4.0.
  2. Magna Cum Laude was awarded, but Summa Cum Laude was again deserved. A single professor botched a grade in the final semester. So again, performance was equivalent to what was needed for a second Summa Cum Laude at this institution. GPA 3.91.
  3. This was a nearly completed degree, excluding only foreign language requirements. All requirements for the Philosophy Degree were otherwise completed. Since Mattanaw completed foreign language requirements in Latin that were not included, he chose not to retake any additional courses in foreign language that were costly and unnecessary. Before his Latin courses, he already completed courses in Spanish repeatedly in middle and high school. The author has also completed Korean studies privately, with a tutor, and spent time in Korea. Currently the author is greatly against any foreign language requirements for any consumer of education who does not want it and will pay for the education, particularly where the education is a duplication of experiences already had once, or a number of times. The university of course would not acknowledge my private Korean studies, and costs of my trip to Korean for immersive usage. Additional learning in Chinese was done for a trip to China, and Arabic for a trip to Egypt. In college there is a strong bias in favor of learning languages that will not be practiced, and are unnecessary for those residing in nations that do not have neighbors who demand such ostentation. They will earn if they force the classes upon students, and also have professors and instructors available to create the appearance of cosmopolitanism in the university (i.e. so it can be marketed that there is a language department and ability to speak with other nations). Language studies are better at the time of sufficient interest, and what is useful is clear at the time there is a need, and it may not require full mastery. Furthermore, extensive travels result in a dabbling with languages, and a propensity to learn what is most effective fast, while ignoring what is ineffective, and doing no maintenance if there is no further need.
  4. I obtained extensive legal training in a more than 3 year civil court case in which I was defendant, protecting my landowner rights to a 80-acre parcel in Anchorage, Alaska. The case was State of Alaska v. Pugh, Mattanaw. In this case I did litigation up through trial, and was in trial as attorney appearing before Superior Court Judge Dani Crosby for more approximately 15 days, 5 days of which were for my own witness examiantion of myself and testimony, and sharing of exhibits. I performed witness examinations of opposition myself and was involved in depositons. I filed many documents during litigation for and in opposition of many motions. Additionally in my career as a contractor/consultant, and before that in sales, and in other work, I became experienced in contracts. I’m also well-disposed for being an attorney, having a strong interest inventory result indicating a match with the legal profession, when I was younger. Details of my work can also be found on my professional resumé.
  5. In the current time of 2023 and recently prior, their is a preferred pronoun for those not wanting to gender select. While I’m heterosexual, I’m supportive of this mission and do not want to gender identify either. “He/she” has some irritations. Inconveniently, however, the language doesn’t have comfortable replacement words. Occasionally I’ll refer to myself as “it”. This is uncomfortable to others including those who share similar objectives but are emotionally narrow. “It” may sound odd, but I’m fine with being an “it”, and being called an “it”. If I’m not an it, then maybe I’m something not actual, and I’m very much resistant to superstition.
  6. I was tested several times with ceiling scores since childhood (meaning I score maximally but can score higher than the IQ tests can measure). There is a confusion among the general population that those with the highest intelligence scores know their true IQ. The highest scoring people hit test ceilings but could score higher, and have immeasurable IQs. Identified as gifted early in youth, and again as an adult. Verifiable lifetime member of Mensa. It is verifiable by looking in the Mensa database, if one is a member, or by viewing my identification card. These cards change over the years and I have more than one lifetime member card. One can also view my certified badge. I am a well-known figure in the High Intelligence Community, with a large readership of my various publications, in the society journals and/or social groups. I have recently been asked to provide an interview response regarding the topic of immeasurable intelligence and the identification of false High IQ individuals. That response will be shared in the High Intelligence community, and again here, to provide additonal substatiation of background. Here I discuss my experiences being intellectually gifted since a small child, into adulthood, and share some useful information for understanding other gifted people, their various experiences, and their relationship to psychometric testing. I am also a trained Psychologist.
  7. Unlike my other credentials that are backed easily with my transcripts, school identification cards, printed degrees and such, all of which are or will be openly available in this Book and Journal, like in my [Open Health and Identity] chaper, my doctorate and designation as Esquire, and Honorable Dr. Mattanaw, require more explanation. It is my creation of a school of thought, after several decades of productions, culminating a post-graduate system of learning, originating from my own efforts and publications, making myself an originator of a school-system, which justifies my being first doctor. A separate article, entitled Generals, Presidents, Chiefs, and Hierarchies, includes writings on the origins of institutions and the creation of certifying bodies, starting with an individual or few individuals, who are consummate. Being provably consummate, and having contributions that are appropriate for a school formation, and body of certification, in a unique field of knowledge otherwise lacking, I have created the equivalent of a starting university, or college. I am the intial faculty and president of this university, and initial professor. I have offered a program in which Certification can be obtained for initial students. A level of mastery in my studies is unequalled and does not exist in other professors who may wish to claim mastery in the same discipline; furthermore, other universities, who would offer such a set of studies, would do so by creating an independent certification program, and curriculum, with new professors not as masterful, in a department of learning. Being interdisciplinarian, this is not really acceptable for my program, and my program includes all disciplines which might relate in any significant or meaningful way to my curriculum offered. Origination of programs has been left out of the development of independent acamedicians, with some meaningful grounds relating to wanting to keep programs credible. Non-credible programs could be created on imitating someone like myself; it is known to the author that other programs not backed with sufficient publications or life history would not be wanting. However certain theological schools and schools do exist offering doctorates without having an honesty regarding what is tought and presented. There are doctorates from teachers who are charlatans! Consider, what someone from a Theological Seminary, would think of a religious school offering doctorates, that is of a religion that they have rejected, like of Islam or other. This author, having adequate background, experience, publications, and creations to support a new school of thought, need not worry as much about creating a new institution as founder and doctor. Any doctorates awareded in my school, if I were to offer doctorates, would be one’s falling after the creation of the organization, somewhat initially making students falling under the hierarchy of thought, like in schools, that merely startup, create programs, curriculum, and award initial doctorates, to students who are initially underneath them and their teachings. Significant preparation is required for such a school, and initially, the starting state of those organizations is very simple. Arguably, this initial structure created by the author is greater than what most schools have historically created, and being historical, their knowledge would be less and out of date. There is some need to reject, somewhat, the titles of older professors who do not have current knowledge. Additionally, there are alternative ways to achieve doctorates from my understanding, which vary from country to country. I once learned from another that one may become a doctor with sufficient contributions of academic articles to peer reviewed journals, which would equate the productions of an independent person with the works of academic faculty members. The idea is if you are contributing thought in a similar way to what professors do with their starting dissertations, and later with their articles they add to the existing academic journals, then one has joined sufficiently in the effort to create knowledge in a common way. Similarly, there are avenues for becoming an attorney without going to law school, attaining the title Juirs Doctor, or J.D. This is an attainment I also already arguably have achieved, being an acting attorney for the last five years, and in contract law earlier. I also have what may be said an equivalency to a Doctor of Law degree already in my undertakings; however, there is a more formal alternative way already created, which includes doing legal research, and work for 3 years in a real law-firm. I’ve already greatly exceeded this requirement. I will say more of this in the near future, but with the amount of evidence I have regarding my history and productions, it is certainly unarguable that I’ve attained the requisite background, in a number of separate fields to have exceeded professor status. I am now a founder of a school of thought. Not only this, the Book and Journal of Mattanaw is about truth primarily. It is not dealing in education that would teach false thoughts, or defraud participants. Dr. Martain Luther King is an example of someone who has attained Professorship after writing A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman, a dissertation that is certainly mostly false, if not of good quality, despite being Theological. Following Dr. King, there are many other false doctors of theology, who are priest-doctors who certainly do not have real teachings to provide in the core area of their expertise. Doctors of religion certainly have dubious beginnings and backgrounds, unlike doctorates in honest subjects, like those of the sciences or those producing lawyers. There is a need, to debunk certain false doctorates that exist, even if the structures or institutions that award them, have imitated or have similarities to, other institutions that are more honest. The publications here are open and honest, and substantiate what is taught, in a way that greatly exceeds what any individual professor can achieve, and argualy has, achieved; even with the support of colleges and universities, or other kinds of schools that provide them brand-backing. Finally, doctors who are practicing at various universities are aware of their limitations of their abilites to creatively produce articles that they feel justify their continued professorships. Some Ph.ds are unable to often produce writings that go into publications. I do not suffer from this limitation in my creativity, being provably highly productive in the ways required, and in an ongoing way. Secondly, none or few have been able to create publication platorms to expand upon publications enabling a much greater rate of sharing. This means in pubication I certainly exceed most professors. But Professors don’t usually have immesaurable intelligence. I provably have immeasurable intelligence and am a known lifetime member of the high intelligence community, like Mensa. Being a professor in a university, I would be limited; whereas, creating my own school, I am not. Having commensurate mind to someone with multiple and not only one doctorate, and exceeding even those with multiple doctorates in intelligence (very likely but others may also have immeasurable intelligence too, infrequently however). One might ask, if one would prefer a somewhat unintelligent professor to receive learning, from one who has maximum intelligence, has proved in life experience utilization and creation in an interdisciplinary way, and can connect all the teachings with “why one wants to be a student to begin with”. In other words, the system of doctorate creation does not create teachers who make you feel you are learning what you need to know given your own life and interests, which may be eclectic; and the professor may not be smart, and at worst may be foolish, out-of-date, or stupid. It would be a mistake to think that all doctors are smart teachers. All who have been at school have witnessed poor teachers, despite their certifications. In numerous ways I can fully justify my own founding of a school with my background and active intelligent thinking, whereas, many doctorates need to be defended indefinitely. Like an old medical doctor who has never learned, and badly needs to retire, for the safety of their patients, who have much better options. So in a way, I am an option to substitute well, where these doctors of various kinds, have ongoing limitations which make them unsuitable for doing the jobs they are professing to do well. It must be noticed further, that the phrase “profess” is one that includes a meaning variant which is “falsely teaching”. That this idea would arise and become common in language is an indication that people are skeptical about what professors have to say; this is because some really do not have minds and knowledge which justify being teachers, and some become liars who are out of date in learning, but add bigotry into their teaching and profession, as their former knowledge whithers away. Malpractice lawsuits for doctors, and lawsuits against lawyers can strip them of their titles, despite their work. Why this is reasonable to others is baffling to me, since I think their degrees should be respected whatever their chance career outcomes are, or their later behavior is. But that we can see an ongoing need for them to exhibit excellence, which goes along with continuing to market their doctorate is required, shows that we think there is more needed for one to stay a doctor or lawyer, than just get an original doctorate. This give me additional support and reason, for my own creations, which do not suffer such a defect in mind and personality, ongoing. The greater thinkers of history, who have create schools of their own, which later in some cases became large institutions, continue to be respected, although what they would award to themselves is something greater than being a doctor, but being more, creating schools entirely, and being the original professors or doctors, or minds, which are suitable for creating new professors, and well-trained students.
  8. If, in an ostensible system, there are characteristics of structural antiquity, meaning the antiquity is a pervasive trait, and of arbitrariness, organic development, and stagnation with pretended authority and completeness, implying false timelessness, then it is a system that really requires replacement. It certainly would not be a timeless system, and perhaps is not a system at all, but a cobbling together of organic growths, and traditions somewhat unreflectively continued. A replacement system would be one that does not firstly have these same characteristics in the same degree. Instead, there would be a feeling of less arbitrariness, and more naturalism in the description and usage. It would have characteristics of systematic rather than asystematic organic development. Having less arbitrariness, more naturalism, and better systematic development would begin to make it appear more like an incipient scientific treatment bringing the subject closer to truth and realism. Using this contrast one can quickly identify perspectives, methods, approaches, purported systems, and the like, that will be discarded. Since the author is highly creative and adept at creating alternative approaches, the author typically eschews quickly what is rejected in favor of using a creation that is of better quality, already closer to truth and realism. Occasionally eschewed methods were found to be entirely unnecessary, without any deliberate replacement. Whatever the status of replacement or non-replacement, it is known using this heuristic immediately that a better candidate systems can be envisioned, and later created, definitely supplanting the prior pseudo-system.
  9. I am an advocate of equivalency doctorates achieved in the publication process to prove commensurate quality of novel dissertativeness, and this is a self-appellation on the basis of such equivalencies. The equivalency is easily provable, particularly if one compares the productions of the Book and Journal with existing Ph.D dissertations that have been written. It is a simple task to find various dissertations and academic articles that do not compare well to the quality of my various writings. There are examples in history of authors who did not go through the normal academic procedure of arriving at a Ph.D but instead achieved notoriety via publications into the same journals that Ph.Ds also write. An example is the writing of Saul Kripke which greatly changed the field of philosophical logic. Once someone independently makes novel contributions to a field of knowledge, and that contribution is considered to be important, it becomes necessary reading for students in the same field to attain Ph.D to begin with, meaning that Ph.D candidates need to rely on non-Ph.D. contributors who already provided new ideas and writings to the field. There are other non-traditional pathways that are extremely dubious but are still mainstream. This includes the awarding of honorary doctorates to non-deserving parties that have simply excelled in various careers or in entertainment. Many of these awards are simply for achieving prominencce in a field, for achieving great popularity, or for other career related advancements. I happen to have culminated my career and have substantial writings to demonstrate equivalency, whereas many of these folks who have been given honorary doctorates have no writings that are commensurate with any Ph.D dissertation. Honorary doctorates demonstrate that this pathway of equivalency is already accepted although is ill-conceived. Furthermore, some Ph.D programs in various disciplines are simpler than others, and some are quite dubious like those awarded by non-accredited institutions or religious organizations. Some have produced very poor dissertations and were nevertheless awarded doctorates, and some on topics that could be demonstrated to provide false information. Much more will be said about this in a future book of mine, a dissertation about dissertations. It is important to realize that the Ph.D process, as explained by many Ph.D candidates, can be an overly lengthy, needlessly torturous, and financially risky process. Some Ph.D students never attain their doctorates despite spending very large sums of money to academic institutions. Whether or not deserved, it illustrates the riskiness of the process and the fact that those who do not have these resources would be prevented from attaining a doctorate without having some other process for gaining an equivalency doctorate. This includes impoverished people globally, so this is a moral issue and not simply a topic of personal interest. If someone is able to achieve a commensurate contribution to culture it should be possible to attain a doctorate in other ways. Similarly, highly gifted people like myself may not really want to pursue the Ph.D, not because it is not worthwhile, but because too few would be awarded, and at the end of the process one is considered a specialist for one’s field. Instead, it needs to be possible to quickly and easily achieve a number of doctorates without over-expenditure if one’s mind is able to fully accomplish commensurate contributions again and again. The culture greatly decreases any individual’s ability to become a generalist building wisdom from a large number of fields at a high level. Additionally, academic institutions have taken control of the process, without acknowledging that earlier experts in various fields historically from ancient times did not have Ph.Ds at all, and we have people like Aristotle, Plato, and others, honored for their amazing contributions, to be used in the academic community at a lower level to achieve doctorates. The process was simply owned by the academic community. It is a largely illusory result to obtain a doctorate. This and other topics are discussed in this book, which is specifically about the giftedness, and much more will be discussed later, because it is an important topic. For now, the purpose of this note is to inform the reader that this is a self-appellation with substantial justification by an activist who does have adequate background provably. I transparently inform regarding this self-application so readers are entirely aware of this status, and that there is no desire whatsoever to defraud, swindle, or otherwise persuade others on false background to obtain anything from anyone. My expertise provided rests not on any claims regarding any award of a doctorate from an academic institution, but on other academics pursued, which are already listed, and consummate status and experience in my field in the software industry and in business. Of course, additionally, I utilize my provably immeasurable intelligence to provide additional substantiation of my expertise for my writings. Nevertheless, I do have commensurate experience for doctorates in a number of fields and not just one. Areas where I would already have commensurate doctorates are in the fields of Philosophy, Psychology, Computer Science, Business, and Management. I will soon have equivalency in Mathematics. Future equivalencies may exist in the fields of History, Anthropology, Nutrition/Biology, Linguistics, Sociology, Law, and others as the equivalencies are obtained. I was a litigator and trial attorney in the State of Alaska for five years and approached the Bar, an achievement JDs have not had by the time they have graduated from Law School. Even at the time those equivalencies are obtained I will still need to communicate that for each and every doctorate the designation of Doctor would be a self-appellation as an activist, until the time that such an equivalency is formally recognized, using a pathway that supports others and not only myself. One might wonder how so many doctorates would be possible, but it’s important to mention that there are many people who are deserving of a number of doctorates, and in the Intelligence Community there are some people who have Ph.Ds, M.Ds, and Legal Doctorates. My experience as a trial attorney would in the State of Washington already constitute an equivalency to a JD, being able to practice law, and in that state a pathway already has been opened to all to become professional attorneys. The exceptionally and profoundly gifted really are able to master a large range of disciplines, otherwise who would the exceptionally and profoundly gifted be, and how would you separate them from others? Not having a pathway to many degrees even falsely makes it possible for those who do well in a single field to claim “genius” status, whereas that status is specifically for those who are in the highest ranges of intelligence and are especially productive in an interdisciplinary way like Leondaro Da Vinci or Goethe. Much more about this is discussed in the main text.