ThoughtStream^TM

Author

Author: Dr. Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh, Retired

Interdisciplinarian with Immeasurable Intelligence. Lifetime Member of the High Intelligence Community.⁶

Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
Attorney, Pro Se, Litigation, Trial, Depositions, Contracts (E.g. State of Alaska v. Pugh, et. al.)⁴
B.S Psychology, University of Maryland, 4.0, Summa Cum Laude¹
B.S Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland, 3.91, Magna Cum Laude²
B.A. Philosophy, University of Maryland.³
G.E.D, State of Maryland, Montgomery County, 1999.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

Resumé

Professional Resumé

Often edited in the addition of new ThoughtStreams, but all prior ThoughtStreams are permenantly uneditable, in intention but not necessarily in data security or data immunity from tampering. See Editing.

Introduction

The thoughstream is thoughts as they occur in a living autobiography, with freedom of expression.

The ThoughtStream, from its inception, was intended to be an outlet for writing and publishing thoughts of interest as they occurred. Only being able to write and speak thoughts, and not have thoughts appear directly in a typed or written format, one can only quickly write thoughts as they come to mind. A stream of consciousness into writing is not currently possible, and is perhaps not desirable. With my typing skills, I am able to somewhat stream from my thinking though my fingers directly into type without much alteration, and in fact, I resist editing and alteration. Many postings will be found that have small blemishes which I would like to preserve.

This work is well-known in the High Intelligence Community. Thoughts from this page were shared with millions of views. Postings here have been read thousands of times in the High Intelligence Community globally.

If there were a method of streaming thoughts directly into type, I might choose to use that in addition to, but probably not as a substitute for typing. There is a deliberateness in typing, that allows for writing what one would like to say, in a way that is somewhat consistent with how one would like to think; whereas, thinking would have more non-deliberate inclusions which may be blemishes from not writing. Thinking to oneself in a dictation mode may overcome this, but then the same issue exists when one is not in “dictation mode”. Ways of thinking between these deliberate ways of communicating would have blemishes that might confuse, and arguably would only be wanted for evidence about how people really think. I’m not opposed to sharing how my brain functions real-time, and I would be fine with sharing how my thinking is at all moments; but I would also want to be able to separate out deliberate thinking and be clear with the reader what my more committal thoughts are.

The current ThoughtStream is now intended to not only be an outlet for my thoughts in a stream of consciousness sort of way, in which I allow blemishes and freedom of expression, even for things which might be provocative from myself that I don’t really agree with or wouldn’t commit to completely, but a page intended to be my “thinking shares,” as part of my Living Autobiography.

A living autobiography would consist of your thoughts as you live, if it were totally complete. If artefacts from a persons life were used by that person to create an autobiography, it would include writings and photos, which would be laid on a timeline, to show a series of one’s thoughts shown in communications and recordings. Even images are, in a way, part of the thoughts that happened along the way in one’s life. If it were entirely complete, it may be what people mistakenly but wishfully attribute to themselves in an ability to see one’s whole life, even reliving it in one’s last moments (In a flash, some will say, of course inexactly and erroneously). This is what I’m intending to use this page for, to develop my Living Autobiography, at least as it relates to written thoughts I’m wanting to share, since the creation of the page, and onwards until I die.

The Living Autobiography in which these thinking shares are included, contain other categories of shares which also provide written material, videos, images, and so forth, and of course, the entire site is part of this living autobiography. The other pages which relate are in the contents under “living autobiography”, and are:

This page on thinking shares is the most developed on the site. The original ThoughtStream page includes 141,134 words, calculating using unix wordcount (including some html), and over 600 postings and brief articles.

Traditionally assuming 300 words comprises one typed page, this section of the Book and Journal of Mattanaw would be 470 pages.

It will never be changed or edited.

– Mattanaw

November 28^th, 2022, Cairns, Australia.

Torque, Planning, Intelligence, and Unstealable Creativity

Friday, September 1^st, 2023, 12:32pm, Payson, Arizona, USA

Today as I was thinking of inclusions for my next print edition of The Velocity of Significance and Ideation, I recalled that torque could be added, and not only acceleration and velocity, to understanding rates of brain states, relating to significance and ideation.

Sometimes I write lists with checkboxes to prepare changes to material in my book and journal, while earlier I thought “I can simply include lists here with my plans”.

So here I am with an entry to remind myself to write about Torque in this work. Torque, of course, is an analogy from physics, related to both velocity and acceleration, and of course, brain functioning explaining intelligence relates to movements within one’s head. There is strong explanatory power in the use of torque as it relates to the nervous system, I could quickly know.

Plans with ideas such like this have caused me a while back, to want some protectivity, so that ideas would not be “stolen”. About 20 years ago I started to self-reflectively change this until I did not have the need, not really needing to self-protect due to profound generativity, as described in my “The Burden of Having Too Many Ideas” article, that concludes I will always have more, and remember the best ideas I’ve had, so self-protection is not necessary. I also talk about confirmation of ideas if they really appear in the world in useful works of others.

I will include my plans here oftentimes now, when more convenient than writing on paper, because it both illustrates that planning includes creativity, and also that the creativity is great enough that I can have no real worries about others having a way to have them too. There would be some omissions from this but not many.

So I intend to include the concept of torque to convey a better understanding of intelligence in the brains preparations in time to improve accelerations of significant and ideative thought (acceleration of acceleration of them), resulting in increased velocities over time, as one learns. This relates to growth of the brain as one actively alters mind in experience, and as one’s brain changes during sleep. It is of longitudinal life interest in the living-autobiography.

Completed at 12:43 pm. Editing.

Purely Intellectual Morality and Resistance to Application, and Learning

Monday, September 25^rd, 2023, 4:38pm, Rio de Janiero, Brazil

Yesterday, while walking along Copacabana in Rio de Janiero, I began reflecting on the gulf that exists between intellectualized or mental morality, and moral behavior. While thinking about this topic I recalled my earlier studies on morality, about twenty years ago, which included the observation that there is a difference between what one thinks is correct intellectually, while there is a gulf between that idea and behavior. Self-training and education is required in order to, personally, make the transition from having an idea about what a more excellent set of behaviors would be, connecting to a moral view, and actually having those behaviors and acting a certain desired way automatically. While most can tell when they learn something about a self-improvement goal that they have not reached that goal, it appears additionally that many have an idea of morality that they would utilize for judgement of others, even while it should be known to the thinker that that morality is intellectual and is not actually related to a commitment in behavior the thinker has, or a commitment to the behavior that exists in others. Sometimes people will have an idea about what is best concerning behaviors, and expect others to engage in those behaviors too, even before a commitment to personal change has been made, and that person himself/herself simply hasn’t habitualized it to automaticity yet. We see this again and again where there is a contrast between expectations of others, particularly those in media and entertainment, and public officials, while the person with the expectation cannot or does not really behaviorally exhibit what would have been expected. If we dwell on this topic and combine it with other observations from this Book and Journal we would arrive at a more clear and comprehensive idea about what hypocrisy is and was, and the extent to which people are truly hypocritical.

Just before I began thinking of this I was thinking of another topic in which there is a serious flaw, and that is the issue that nobody really understands the laws. While one might think one knows the law, it can be easily demonstrated that one cannot recite usually even a single written law, which as a rule has more detail than one expect. Lawyers also do not memorize the laws but only get a better sense of them and how they fit into the legal system, that they are educated more about. But lawyers are typically specialists and would recognize that they too, don’t know and cannot recite most laws that exist.

This issue extends into morality, but is far worse. In religion people have been judged for their ability to recall scriptural verses. If one is good at recalling and repeating what was written, one is thought, if one is not only relying on memory and is of good intelligence, to likely have a good idea, compared with others, about their religion. However, these could be compared with lawyers who only have some recollection, and like everyone else, memory is really very poor about verse and nobody can well recall all that is written within the religious texts. But morality for the everyday person goes beyond what is written even in religious texts and this is obvious when one looks at what one recalls as far as hearsay rules of society are recalled in short phrases. This means that what would need to be recalled is much greater than just what’s in a religion, and really would include laws additionally because following the laws is thought to be within the required moral conduct of a nation. The phrases from culture have not been recorded like the laws in a way that provides easy reference in libraries, so much is unwritten. The result is not only that people cannot recall what is written, they would disagree about what has not been written that they think should be. The complete normal ethical system that one thinks one belongs to then, is unknown in a worse degree than what was stated above about knowledge of law.

Relating the first paragraph with the next two, we find that much of what we think is morality is a list of intellectual ideas recalled, that poorly represent what it would actually be. People quickly recall and generate more moral ideas themseles, that are thought to be what people should act on. These can be thought of as poor-quality intellectualizations of how one should act and behave. These may or may not correspond with actual behavior, as we’ll see shortly in more detail, and if there is a discrepancy we have the issue that this is a mental morality that is not within behavior sufficiently. This means there are rules in mind that are not followed and would not be followed. Because moral rules are often unwritten, and laws are not recalled, people disagree even about the purely mental rules, and debate if they should ever act on them. It follows from this that much moral thinking and debate is simply a mental exercise that is largely unrelated to behavior, and we can anticipate disagreement rather than agreement about what it means for behavior. It also means people will be chronically calling each other hypocrites because they both cannot agree as to the rules, and clearly see that the rules are not well used and exhibited in real behavior.

When we connect this to education the issue becomes more clear and obvious and in different ways. Teachers often teach mathematics, grammar, and a range of topics that are never applied. I have discovered that mathematicians often do not apply math to their own behavior or their own field, but more than this, the math they teach is often never applied in the world by themselves or their students, even on the topics that relate. People complain because they do not obtain jobs that relate, and so can never use it. Likewise the instructors have been criticized for having jobs that teach, but do not do, what is taught about. The range of what education provides is large, and contains much that is useful, but it goes unused oftentimes, and people admit this and complain about it often. People learn skills they cannot apply, and they learn teachings they cannot get jobs for. They also learn so much, they have few chances to really utilize each thing they learn, which means they will not behave in any way utilizing what has been learned. They may recall sometime what they have learned but they will need to agree that they do not utilize it often. If one considers the full range of all learned in education one will need to agree that due to the size of all that is learned, there will rarely be matching situations in life in which that same knowledge is behaved upon. It follows from this that most of what is learned involves rules that become mental recollections.

Additionally and somehwat unrelatedly, is something I want to share about learning and change. Recently I shared an article The Calendar Solved that offers a solution to the calendar that is permanent. The calendar has gone through a number of changes over many centuries to correct for differences in years, since it is known that the year is not exactly 365 days but has an extra fractional day. We corrected for this using the leap year. But more corrections are needed to finally get it right, and that is what the solution in the article is about. Once one learns this, one has to consider how one behaves. Since it is solved it really implies that all would need to adopt it, since correct. Since the current calendar is functional and there are many investments in this calendar it will take a long time to change, but the change is required, if one wants to be honest about progression of science and learning and education. If I were a teacher of astronomy and geology, or history, I would teach this in my class. But I would be unable to change my behavior about the calendar much regarding existing calendar use, although I have decided to use my own instead. I’m an example of someone changing behavior on the basis of what is learned. Students in the class would likely hear it, understand it, and perhaps remember it, but would be unlikely to be able to behave regarding it. Likewise, even if it became widespread knowledge that this new calendar is the solution, it would take a very long time for others to adopt it and make personal changes, and things like the annual celebration of the New Year would also need to change in simple ways.

Learning something new makes demands on how one should behave. Firstly, once someone has learned it, they have already changed their mind. They may not agree that any behavioral change needs to be made immediately. But they would agree that some changes are needed eventually. This leads to a disparity of knowledge and behavior. But that makes sense because how to behave on it is slightly different at times from learning new facts, which do not seem to call for any specific changes. One person commenting on my new calendar solution said it seemed to her that there was no need to change the existing calendar because it, paraphrasing, “would do the work into the forseeable future”, and I agree with that. However, it was learned by her that it was incorrect. What she was wanting was to simply resume using what existed, because it worked, but not to utilize the learning. Mentally we both agree what is the right calendar (I think she understood), which means we both would agree on what the correct astronomy, geology, and history is to teach about it. By not taking steps to use it in practice, we teach students who cannot use it, but need truth. Also, if we decide to not take steps on our own to revise the calendar and holidays related to the New Year, we are deciding to learn something that we will not use. The result is that there is a resistance to change on the behavior, but a willingness to learn that is somewhat stifled, within one’s mind.

Here we have an example of an inability and resistance to matching up what is our mental rules, even in education which would touch on all learning and knowledge. We have new rules about the calendar that we agree with and cannot follow. We may use it for moral judgement of software companies who continue to use the old calendar, but they cannot yet adopt or change for it. We see the world unchanged as we learned something new that relates to the behavior of everyone.

Education is largely that– knowledge that seems to relate to required changes in behavior of ourselves and others. This means there is a disparity as I said above between what is known and what is expected potentially of others, and oftenties teachers have not utilized what they are teaching. This informs us about the nature of hypocrisy and disparities between learning and action from learning. It also informs us about morality. Learning happens fast, but there is resistance to using it, even though there are expectations generated that make us want others to follow the rules even if they are not utilized broadly.

Connecting this with the observation that people don’t really know the laws or moral rules, and would disagree on moral rules if they were written, and not know most later in attempts to recall, we can see there is a huge disparity on what would be true and what could be carried out in action. What people carry along with them in education and their knowledge of laws and morality is often mostly mental, and disagrees with what others think. And since there is a limitation on application of anything learned that calls for new behavior, it appears that not only are the moral rules and laws are often unknown, or purely mental, they cannot be applied as well as we might think. Moral rules are those we sometimes think must be applied.

[Finished at 5:24 pm, without spell checks or edits, semi-blind typed, unread]

Generalized Human Hierarchy for Ranking and Titling

Sunday, June 26^rd, 2023, 4:36pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Hierarchies used for ranking people in order of importance recur in many human contexts without any apparent awareness of the reword done in each context, what was already done in another. The result is that we have a fimilarity between organizations wherever there is a desire and need to rank and title, but differences in how the ranking and titling is done, and a perception that changes to the way of ranking and titling would require independent effort, and not the use of a ranking and titling standard, competitive with other standards. Not yet understood and unstandardized, organizations unfold in ways that are self-determined, with resulting rank and title systems that have some familiarity to those existing at other organizations but with idiosyncratic differences, resulted from unguided growth by vague emulation.

Recently, I was reflecting on the large number of synonyms that exist for “high leader” roles. This large number of synonyms might lead us to think that our extra vocabulary around names for leaders is inefficient, and also that it is somewhat strange, that one organization would choose one word for a leader role, and not another. Desire for importance seems a motive for avoiding the use of just a single or small number of titles for role, because by having a new title, or one slightly different than the one expected, creates a chance to have special importance.

In choosing how businesses are organized, if one is a founder, one sees that the entire structure of the organization is open for their determination. They can choose what the leadership structure will be, and what to call each of the roles within the leadership. Owners can be given titles or names that are somewhat lofty to create an impression to others that those who are members have some special greatness about them. There is some consistency within business leading to mutual comparison and relative “fitting in” regarding how one chooses these titles. Creating a business is somewhat like creating a government in which an organization will be lead, with knowledge that the organization that’s not in the ownership or immediate leadership will be beneath, and may never be owners or members themselves. These workers or employees are also placed into a hierarchichal strucutre, in which titles for jobs will be created, along with gradations in the jobs relating to room for people to have “advancements” and “promotions”, increasing their relative power and compensation in the organization. There are few organizations in which there is not a feeling of a mostly traditional hieararchy in which people are given titles which function to show their relative importance, compensation, and some summary descriptiveness about the role that they perform. However, businesses do differ significantly in their resulting hierarchy specifically, and this appears to be caused primarily by their being a business functioniing without definite standards.

Militaries, hospitals, businesses, religious organizations, and nations all have systems of ranking that really are quite similar in their function, yet there are still no standards the cross these domains. It appears however that the method of creating and organizing human hierarchies is roughly similar whatever the organization is that has a hierarchy. That they all use hierarchical schemes is also telling regarding the simililarities betweent he organizations. They can know that they need and want hierarchies, but they cannot know how to do it well, and rely on copying what has been seen in other existing hierarchies already observed.

Below are some words used for the title of the highest leader. These words really mean roughly the same thing despite utilization in differing domains.

Pope, President, Leader, General, CEO, Chief, Cardinal, Director, Manager, Sultan, King, Queen, Monarch, Resident, Executive, Judge, Professor, Doctor, Master…

The list is really quite large, and on only a small amount of reflection, it does appear humans have chosen to simply rename the word “leader” over and over. They’ve had different motivations for this, but regardless, a cause is not having a system of taxonomy and structure for organizations. A pope is simply a leader of the church. A cardinal is a leader of a subset of the church. A President, or CEO, or owner, is a leader of a business. A director or manager, is a leader of a subset of the business. An organization with more development may have a CFO, who is a leader of the financial portion of the business. In that domain, there may be an Account Manager, who is a leader of a subset of the business. What is common in this scheme is the hierarchy, and hierarchies within hierarchies. Leaders are simply roles in which some subset of the organization falls underneath them, in certain ways.

What varies greatly also are the sizes of organizations and their level of development of their heirarchical structure. The mililtary would be an example of a very large hierarchy with many titles and gradations between titles. Organizations of one person, when companies are created, have self-designated Presidents and CEOs. This would be an example of a great error, or a symptom of not having a system of forming hierarchies. A President that has no hierarchy underneath may simply be someone pretending to be like a president of another organization that may have a hundred thousand employees, or someone pretending to not be a simple worker. They may be pretending they could ever have a useful or successful business or any structure in their organization. It is just them and they are instantly president! When I created my business, I was instantly President of my own company.

It appears that as people are creating various organizations, or managing organizations that exist that are separate, they continue to be motivated to play with their particular hierarchy, to do new things that would differentiate their organization or people in various ways, and create a different perception in those who are inside and outside the organization. Motivations for making modifications seem to relate to competition. Simply not having a hierarchy that is the same as another may create a differentiation that has many ramifications for the success of the business, including its ability to attract and keep employees, and for marketing to others that their organization has different traits, and has a different offering. Companies will try to argue that their organizations are simply “better to work with”, and that might be relating to reasons including “how the company treats its employees,” or “the quality of its work environment”, or the power of their leadership in their industry. Organizations will strive to make their leaders appear more and not less important than the leadership of competing orgs, even if those competing organizations are larger, offer a better product or service, is more experienced, or is more generally powerful.

Names for members of hierarchies can be used to trick others regarding who is in charge of what and when. An owner of a company can put considerable blame suddenly on a director, when there is business or legal crisis, even though the fault is entirely on the owner. Employees can be given titles like “President” or “CEO” even if they are not owners or have little total control over the business. This gives the impression that certain people who have such titles at large companies are really responsible for whole organizations or are the causes of certain decisions. People may come to believe that they receive the bulk of the pay, and are earning more directly from the margins of earnings atop wages of staff; whereas, in reality, the owner may be unknown and receive these funds more directly, without any contributions at all, or with very periodic decision making only. The President or CEO can be someone who simply redirects attention away from real owners to keep them protected, and also to have a way to direct all blame. It is possible to have an organization blame a President, after an event causes public unrest, with the objective of protecting the real ownership. As owner of my company, I could easily hire a President, who would then be paid fairly well, and would be the apparent leader to others. However, mostly this person would be an employee who is puppeted somewhat in their leadership role. If there was any situation with accusations of mismanagement, I could fire this person and people would believe the issue was taken care of. Meanwhile, I’m unknown, and am still earning a larger amount of money for doing less.

I myself have fallen for the idea that a presented leader must actually be the leader. It is a common illusion. It is hard to know what exactly the title means when it is used. If one is totally ignorant about the financial and founding organization of a large business, and its history, one will not know really if the leader of that organization is the leader of that organization. With research one becomes less ignorant, which may cause some to think “well, people can just research specific organizations to know more” but the work associated with such research is not great enough to overcome the issue that for all organizations unresearched there will be an illusion as to the leadership.

My primary interest for sharing this post relates to the fact that a single word really could be used to designate all leaders, with the addition of a standard for describing, in a more detailed way, what that leader does, and how that leader relates to real hierarchies.

It appears to me, that the actual structures of organizations are complex and not cleanly hierarchical, meaning we pretend there is a hierarchy akin to that which the business may “draw up” given its way of assigning titles and relationships among employees.

A hierarchical model may represent a single view into the organization model of the whole which would include much more detail and may not be cleanly hierarchical. But more likely, a published organization chart would have inaccuracies.

A hierarchical model may be one in which to force an organization, and it also may be one to misrepresent one. A complete description of an organization would indicate some striving for a clean hierarchical model, but the actual description may not benefit from hieararchical visualizations of it. Visualizations of the complete description would require probably more sophisticated graphs, that would show what the role of the “envisioned hierarchy” is within the organization apart from an attempt at description.

This relates to my view that people are organizing things in a “straight and rectilinear” way, when oftentimes the more optimal organization would be one that is less tidy and orderly and more akin to structures seen in nature.

Problems that organizations face when leaders are trying to structure them are natural problems. They seem to try to solve these problems with a desire for tidiness that is akin to house cleaning and organization. Tidiness is not a mark of problem solving necessarily, meaning that a tidy organization does not mean it has been optimally organized or that its problems were solved therby. Instead, one is quickly confused into thinking something has been improved or that problems were solved, by tidinesses. A tidy hierarchy is a way to make it appear the organization is tidy, and functioning optimally, but the result may really be an angry staff, but a nice looking diagram.

It does not appear to the author that there would be an inexhaustible number of potential organizational models due to the constraint that humans have for advancement. If not for some basic constraints around organization which are the cause for their becoming hierarchical, there may really be a massive number of possible organization types in which the constraints would move to being human or animal constraints, or successful prolonged grouping and work.

Changing Processes of Morality

Thursday, June 22^nd, 2023, 7:40pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Edits required on process improvements and degradations relating to system behaviors including idividuals and groups, implies that one’s moral system is one that cannot be entirely unchanging. This is and has been an assumption of the author, and is implicit in the edits of his gradually improving system of ethics on the process components. But it also implies that ethics cannot be static and unchanging, and “planned in advance”, and debunks religion, and it’s commitment to ancient and unchanging dogma, wherever that dogma is not taken to be literary history, and is considered to influence behaviors of individuals and groups. It’s age would be akin to if I created my moral system in my youth, then followed it without any addition or alternation the remainder of my life; civilization being young, created a sketch process and demanded it to remain largely unchanging. Yet civilization is wanting of changes. The processes of a young person or young civilization on moral behavior is not inclusive enough of learning either; indeed, the goals of the author here are to expend and improve the process to be increasingly inclusive of new relevant knowledge and information, and it doesn’t appear there would be final terminus of the process. If the author was to create a final process, and make it into dogma and scripture, subsequent moral practitioners would be required to do the same; however, this is not at all in keeping with the goals of the author. Improvements to the process are part of moral learning and creativity, and moral self-modification and improvement. I am a changing persona and my moral learnings would conform to a changing process of behavior, even if merely descriptive and not one that guides future behavior. The implication is a more scientific view of my life is included in this, for allowing for changing descriptions of my life related to actual behavior, while also recognizing processes and rational behavioral plans and real target habits exist that are also changing as I learn. This includes all planning behavior, which also falls within the total description of me. This book includes my living-autobiography.

A strategy for creating a taste for your bag

Thursday, June 22^nd, 2023, 6:02pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

An issue with improving habits around nutrition is periodic triggers to eating, that associate with unwanted foods and drink. For example, a gas station that one frequents may be a trigger for sweets and drinks, or alcohol. A bar that one has enjoyed frequently, becomes a trigger once it is nearby, resulting in desire to sit down for drinks. Shopping at a grocery store, has aisles that may attract if one has been down them, having candies, snacks, already-prepared food of poor quality, etc… The list of possible triggers to eating in a way that is recognized to be contrary to one’s nutritional goals is huge, and in my history has been an obstacle to progress. Historically, I used a strategy that is not the focus of the present post, but I’ll mention it in passing. That strategy is to recognize all triggers, and find alternate paths away from the triggers even if it means going to new locations that one ordinarily doesn’t go, and additionally, to focus on visual plannin in advance, about what paths will be taken and what will be eaten that’s better, that’s substituting positively for what is wanted to be avoided. The reason for this is that it appears to be easier to make alternative plans that are better and attractive and follow through on them than to simply combat the various triggers in one’s environment. My earlier thought was that driving home from work was a cause for desire for satisfying certain food and drink cravings, since I was in a weakened cognitive state from working all day, and that the triggers caused decision events in which I was less equipped to think rationally to choose options that were not as desirable, the nutritious options, or no options to control spending. Also, choosing a positive alternative route home that had none of the triggers only involved one commitment, of redirecting my path when I left work, in a context without the triggers nearby. It was then easier, to drive the alternative path that had no triggers, and sometimes, one will find, the alternative path results in having no decisions arise at all concerning cravings, and one simply makes it home without issue. It is a simpler way to alleviate the burden of repeated decisions required when triggers to cravings would be numerous, creating numerous decisions, following one’s normal pathways.

This writing concerns, however, a new option that only recently came to mind, approximately 17-20 years after having started the above method. It appears they could be used together to improved results. This new idea is to transfer interest in things in the environment as providers of food and drinks, to one’s own bag. This is simple enough, and some have done this, simply by being prepared with already prepared foods, snacks, and drinks. I’ve done the same. What is different about this idea, however, is the addition of an attempt, using the psychological methods of reinforcement and conditioning, to make the bag itself, which can be a purse, backpack, or other bag always had nearby, an object of desire or trigger of desire for food and drink. Additionally, combined in this same process, is the creation of a search habit, for food when it is wanted on recognition of a sensation, to immediately go into the bag for the item. The result is that the bag itself causes a desire for food, but if the desire also comes from a sensation of feeling famished or thirsty, the bag is still the object of the food search. Either way the bag becomes the source of the food. Repeated satisfaction in the food and drinks contained then reinforces positively the process, making it more desirable to repeat again and again, making it a habit. Once a durable habit, one can stop thinking about how it was originally formed and simply enjoy its repetition, until a time in which another habit competes with it for behavior—at that time a return to retraining the habit with the same process is required.

There is a cyclical need to retrain habits once they begin to be subsituted by other candidate habits that may be less desirable. If more desirable, one simply learns the new habit and replaces the old one permanently.

The assumption in the above method is that foods and drinks placed in the bag will be those that are known to be of good nutritional quality. It may be desirable to choose options, that are satisfactory even with some degree of overeating and drinking, because, if the bag becomes a source of desire, one may repeatedly want food or drink at a greater frequency. This may be a limitation since having no food at all or no drink, for some, may encourage eating nothing or waiting a prolonged period, but this would not be the same type of person as that mentioned above, who is succumbing to triggers for buying poor quality food and drink at various businesses. But if all in the bag is not too calorific, this may not be an issue. My typical strategy additionally is to eat only late at night. The time in which I would be wanting food nowadays would be when I’m famished and haven’t eaten for a very long time. At these times I would prefer to have my bag available as the object of my eating desire, or my area to search once I notice I’m hungry on other sensations.

My preferred drink for my bag is water. I’ve noticed that water is also, of course, a substitute for food, and will be practicing utilizing it in advance of using the bag for any food contained. Foods that will go into the bag are to be decided, but may include, somewhat eccentrically, my more recent preferences: oats, really inexpensive nuts, like peanuts or sunflower seeds, and fruit. I have not decided proportions, but since I tend to overeat peanuts or sunflowers seeds, I would carry less of those particular foods. I may make simple additions and modifications to make it sufficiently attractive to make the bag really potentially a possible object of desire itself. However, these foods are certainly somewhat low calorie, of good quality, vegan, and their choice is consistent with my moral goals and objectives.

The method to be developed further, which will be here written, is precisely how the bags attractiveness is to be increased using principles of psychology. Already having done similarly in the past, as indicated in my personal form, I am confident it will be simple to succeed in conditioning my interest in the bag. There are a number of ways it can be achieved, and in practice I will see what works, and record that process here. Here are initial ideas on how I may begin:

Associate my bag with dinner.
- I eat once a day, when I eat, it will come from the bag. This assures that everyday already, I’m using the bag to obtain my food. This will create feedback loops on the dinner, relating to the bag, with positive association of the result of the meal, of feeling satisfied and comfortable. Since a person can store food anyplace for dinner, or stage it anyplace temporarily, food that is had for dinner, can come from the bag everytime. This may not be as easy for others having differing diets, of foods that are perishable or odd to carry, like meats and eggs, but is easy for most of what is in the grocery store, including produce. The food I’m eating is also simple, which is consistent with other goals I have around minimizing costs and making the food more basic, for training in camping (notice the listed foods above are suitable for camping). It is easy to make, then, the bag a place to store the food for when you will eat it, forcing one to have repeated positive results, at the time of eating from the bag.
Carry the bag everywhere.
- This is the easier portion for me, since I already cary bag everywhere. This process is tailored to my needs, but a similar process could be used, to utilize a purse or other bag that is expected to always be nearby. I have three bags that I use. My primary bag is a small backpack that is intended to carry water for fitness, but it has a large compartment that can easily also store food. Since it already contains water it is a good candidate for this method. I also carry a larger backpack, when I’m travelling around or hiking. This would become the new bag serving the same purpose when the smaller bag cannot be carried. I also have a handbag (coach purse used as a briefcase), that could also be used to carry a good quantity of high quality foods and a water bottle (the cause of my knowing the purse is an option is that I carry one!).
Make a positive event of its use, and planning.
- When the bag is utilized, or when I think about the bag, I will try to think of the enjoyment I will have with it, satisfying my goals around nutrition, and enjoying the taste of the food and water whenever I have it. Visualization of the positiveity of its use is done when it is not used but recollected. If food comes to mind from a sensation, I will try to relate it to positive interests in the bag. The foods in the bag, I will remind myself, are delicious and satisfying. Having them will consistently result in good satisfaction, and feeling of accomplishment. When I’m actually eating, I enjoy what I’m eating, and enjoy that it came from the bag. When I think about plans to eat, I will imagine them positively. Thus I am reinforcing the use and planned use of the bag, simply by thinking positively about what it does for me.
Pretend the bag has the tast and satisfaction of the food.
- Here is a mind trick in which I will attempt to make the bag taste like cool ater, creating thirst-quenching satisfaction, and to make it taste like my foods, at the time that I’m wanting more, after having already been satisfied by some of it.

This may not be a complete strategy, however, in my experience it appears this will work effectively. The association of my bag with a single dinner, means that every meal I have will include the bag without any exceptions. If I eat, the bag is involved. This is facilitated by my normally only having one meal, but enables eating on other occasions, for having the food in the bag. Also, since I predictably eat dinner, and dinner recurs, involving my bag ensures training. It means the bag will be involved and will be part of the goal of conditioning it to become attractive on its own. The usage at dinner creates sufficient repeated use.

Carrying the bag everywhere ensures the presence of the bag at other times I may be wanting to eat or drink, on sudden sensation, or to combat possible purchases at locations involving triggers (this happens despite the usual of eating one meal a day). This creats not only sufficient repeat use, it makes sure it is always present. Being always present, it is available as the primary source for satisfying thirst and hunger. If the bag itself does become tasty, then it is more likely that it will be a first searching point for food/drink. This point then ensures, sufficient repeated use for training, and sufficient usage to ensure the success of the objective to be able to use it anytime food or drink is wanted, and not only at dinner.

The first two points pertain to frequency of use and spatial presence of the bag, and routine usage at dinner creating good conditioning opportunities. Additional conditioning is performed by the last two points, which involve emphasizing repeated positive thinking about the bag in relation to the food/drink, search, and finally to make the bag itself a target of hunger. If a psychological study were performed, it would not include conditions so desirable as these, for frequency and opportunity of conditioning, and availability of subjects. What is missing somewhat is isolation of certain relevant conditions, which is needed for confirming causality, but it does appear that one will see clearly that the process has caused the results once it is successful. It could be that one could suddenly have the successful outcome for other reasons, but those would be noticed along the way also, and it is not thought that there would not be additional learning along the way. However, what is interesting, is that despite having no isolation, and a single subject, the causality will appear to be well known on post analysis. Being able to identify the causality is not only about the experimental design, but the mind analysing. Some, unable to identify for themselves good steps to arrive at an objective, may do things along the way to cloud what has occurred. Meaning some, for not having as good quality of minds, or as good quality in planning, may become confused as to how the success has finally resulted. I can admit, to an extent, this appears pervasive regarding weight loss, and there have been instances of my own weight loss in which the central causes resulting in success involved in my behavior may have been unknown. Nowadays this would not be the case for me, but historically it was, and for many wanting to lose weight, it is possible to have success and be unclear as to why it finally worked, and cannot be perpetuated or repeated easily later.

The final result of this effort to make the bag tasty and an immediately thought of place to search for food, is to make the bag related to the only two starting ways in which one seeks food or drink: 1) one thinks of a food of interest and targets it directly, or 2) one becomes aware of a want for food and finds a place to obtain it or search for an option. The result of this process is that the bag is tasty itself and contains tasty options, immediately thought of and present to mind from habit of eating it. Additionally, all searching and shopping is eliminated. One simply has a search habit of going directly into the bag if there is any strong want of food immediately, and of course, at mealtime, when it regularly happens anyway.

What is missing from this process is that the bag cannot contain all food that one will need. One can imagine that if all shopping has been eliminated, the bag is filled with all the food one needs all of one’s life. Which is a humorous way of looking at what is wanted to be achieved, to have a tasty bag in which all food wanted and needed is already in it, and additionally, it never runs out.

Of course it runs out, however, so one has to shop or procure food. Water procurement is easy in that one really emphasizes always having it and does not tolerate waiting to refill. Refilling with water is a priority and it is filled often.

Regarding food, the objective is to refill it daily at a minimum, from a source that is detached from periods of high appetite or craving. Appetite and craving is managed entirely by the bag, which means there need to be times of shopping without a feeling of need to reload the bag. This connects with other advice I’ve used for myself around shopping when not hungry. Shopping when not hungry allows one to purchase more rationally, and to get foods that one does not simply want immediately. Food shopping happens when there is no strong food desire, and fills the bag, and creates a surplus (if needed) that itsef can be used to refill the bag. This is equivalent to filling a kitchen with suitable foods which then are transferred to the bag.

[Written in one hour and 14 minutes, without edits or spell check, finished at 7:16pm]

Demographics You Don’t Have that are You]

Wednesday, June 21^st, 2023, 7:50pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

There are numerous social issues that are pretended to be solved, or are somehow perpetually out of attention, and awareness, that have serious pervasive consequences.

Here is a list of the things you do that you did not supply demographic data regarding:

You drank while you were pregnant.
You smoked while you were pregnant.
Your baby has unknown developmental deficiencies since you didn’t really follow any health plan, and drank and smoked, and substanced.
STD checks aren’t between all sex encounters.
- Maybe you did one STD check, probably none, and yet you had sex how many times? Your spouse cheated.
The condom slipped off and your privates rubbed together outside of the condom.
- You have no sex plan.
Right after drinking you drive, and you don’t know your blood alcohol percentage.
Your spouse cheated, you don’t know, and you didn’t have them use protection or STD testing, between all sex encounters.

What are the causes of tiny heads?

But you solved the afterlife.

Which other demographics matter? What is your religion and did you drink when you got pregnant?

You can’t know if your spouse has STDS but you pretend you can know for dating?

There are areas in which as a group there is a pretense that there is a solution, but there is apparently none.

Do you even care about STDs?

You Should Have Thousands of STD Test Results

To what extent have you aggregated your STD test results, monogamous or not?

You should have thousands of test results by now.

Sexually transmitted disease testing and prevention seems to dumb our population. It is pretended that anything reasonable is done at all by anyone really.

In response to saying something like this, I would anticipate “societal protection” responses, that support rationalization:

“I use condoms each and every time I’m with my partner” as though genetalia don’t rub together, and as if that were actually honest.

“My cheating husband has no STD tests at all, and never used a condom.”

This problem is not solved. Not only is it not solved, it is as if nothing has started for finding a solution.

Adding Philosophical Discourse to the High Intelligence Community

Sunday, June 18^th, 2023, 4:54pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

[Written without edits, and spell checks, in a single sitting, as part of an ongoing study on editing, and the value of certain forms of edits, and editing processes]

Since the departing of William M. Fightmaster, there appears to be a dearth or scarcity of truly philosophical conversation of good quality in certain High Intelligence groups in which he formerly participated. After he died, there was, over a period of time, a noticeable decrease in postings of the same quality and character, which seem to have been primarily created or contributed by him. His many postings were more academic in nature, and where characteristic of philosophers who were academics, and his were sharings that seemed more directed to creating awareness of philosophical topics, shared in a way consistent with what perhaps may be shared by other Professors of Philosophy, coming from philosophy departments in university institutions.

He was sharing openly with our groups topics to discuss with material references from good sources, and also background information and summaries of readings from earlier philosophers, so readers were aware of some background and direction for future explorations and investigations. As a student of Pychology and Philosophy, like him, I am able, and have been able, to verify the authenticity of his shares. He was sharing good quality philosophy that was real and consistent with what is presented by other philosophers who are current, and still professors at various institutions. His citations were accurate, and his descriptions of the thoughts of others seemed accurate to existing trusted readings, providing corroborating primary or secondary source materials, which would justify his postings.

He wasn’t incredibly opinionated regarding his materials and invited open conversation and lively discussion. Threads in which he was included, and those he created, were a source of good intellectual conversation which seemed to enrich the high intelligence community. Now that he is not around, after some number of years, his contribution to the quality of discussion is more obvious, and now there appears to be a clear difference in the quality of conversation and contributions. I think people in our groups are ready for high quality discussion, but the starting points for their development seem to have been reduced without his frequent contributions.

I first joined the High Intelligence Community after years of studying philosophy and psychology independently, mostly keeping all conversations and thoughts about philosophy to myself. Even while at the University of Maryland in the Philosophy Department, I was more often wanting to think alone than with others, because the controversial nature of philosophy lead to a style of conversation that did not seem to promote growth or mutual development. Instead, conversations flagged after focusing on specific topics presented by instructors, and seemed more about quandries and puzzles that did not appear to have good direction for self-improvement. Many who are exposed to philosophy and some parts of psychology and the sciences that are more theoretical, or less obviously connected with everyday self-improvement, probably felt the same way as I did. Having perhaps less interest for independent study, Philosophy and certain theoretical topics may have seemed ‘pointless’ will less real-life reasons to think the topic worth considering further. However, Prof. Fightmaster invited conversation in a way that was unusually consistent with the objectives of real philosophers who really are able to make connections between the subject matter and real life. He had many admirers and friends and it appears it was because he offered significantly improved mutually collaborative conversations that show the real value of philosophy and topics he was interested in. He provided real academic avenues for people who may not see the value of philosophy and theoretical topics, in a context in which people really were wanting to have that kind of conversation, and he appears to have won much admiration and friendships as a result.

He and I quickly gravitated to discuss with mutual interest and recognition of understanding of the importance of Philosophy and mutual understanding of what it requires concerning logic and skepticism. Finding him to be reputable, I spent much time communicating nearly exclusively on threads that included contributions of his as well. Seeing each other as being akin in various ways we developed a personal relationship and friendship which extended into in-person visits and conversations outside of the social groups like Mensa. I was a guest in his home a number of times, and once attended a party including others who were caring about his friendship and involvement in the comunities, at a time when his health conditions were deteriorating and it was becoming clear that probably he would eventually succumb to terminal illness. He passed away not long after, and is now noticeably absent from discussions all over the intelligence community’s discussion forums.

I think there is a need in the High IQ community to introduce topic matter and a familiar style of collaborative discourse that he was providing, and that I found stimulating and congenial to my own intersts. He provided somethign to the community that I was intensely wanting, and appreciative of upon finding it. I don’t think he is the only person to be able to stimulate with new and intersting conversations on topics of theoretical interest that are foundational, and supportive to minds that are wanting better complexity and solution. But to contribute in the way he did would require substantial efforts and time; being a retiree, he was able to spend more time than others in posting to the group and sharing comments. Others however, I think could provide excellent contributions, perahps if certain suggestions are observed which would relate to his contributions, and would relate also to what is simply done in academia. It’s the sharing of topics of real interest, and invitation of a quality of communication that exists in academic publications. He would provide numerous background sources to back up sharings he made, which would create seriousness and reality to the discussion, and provide material that readers who are unfamiliar need, to be brought into the conversations. Here in our groups we have scientists and philosophers, and business people, who ceratinly could delve more deeply into interests they have that are foundational or “cutting edge” with sufficient personal background and research to supply information with some basic preparations and citations, creating collaborative high quality discussion. Folks may not be able to spend as much time developing the conversations but periodically, I think it would be a great contribution, if some could sometimes contribute in a similar capacity.

In my many sharings over recent years, I have taken an alternative course of sharing edgy philosophical topics embedded in my own reflections or remarks, in a way that assumes that others could recognize the significance or philosophical directions, thinking it could perhaps stimulate interesting conversation, and sometimes it did, but I think not with the same results as what Mr. Fightmaster would produce, by sepaking to tohers as a teacher would. Here I believe I will transition my own writings to be more in keeping with useful conversations I’ve had with Fightmaster in a more academic and invitational format, that may help benefit in the ways that I was mentioning others could do similarly, in their own areas of interest. In other words, as I write this I’m forming plans for how I contribute to the high intelligence community, in ways that are more similar to what I’ve done somewhat, with Mr. Fightmaster, somewhat following his lead, in earlier conversations. For me this is a return to a more academic style of communication, with recognition and appreciation for what Mr. Fightmaster has done for our community, and I’m also inviting others perhaps to be more ready to share in a more academic style, to have longer more worthy conversations, than some that are created that detract perhaps from the value of the community.

Of course people want to socialize, so I’m not thinking that socialization should end in favor of more difficult sharings and conversations that require some background reading, research or career development. Instead I’m thinking it would be great for an increased quality of contribution of the other type so that there isn’t an unbalance felt, and that there might be a real feeling of interest and cultivation of mind in the various communities.

It would be noted, probably, by other folks who have been in the communities many decades, that there are times in which there would be really good quality contributions, and other times, in which there appears to be less. I’m feeling from what I’ve seen over the past few years that perhaps quality has diminished from the period of a few years earlier. Then again, it depends on where one goes for conversation, and who it is with. Mr. Fightaster leaving may have simply left a noticable decrease of a certain kind of conversation I myself enjoy, but I have to also say, that with his departing it does make it appear that the groups have diminished somewhat in the availability in what I’m wanting for myself and found gladly on first arrival.

I was focusing this on philosophy because typically philosophy involves conversation on topics of intense interest for being on the edge of intellectual exploration. It touches and includes various fields, as long as they are foundational or are on the edge of mental and learning adventures. Others, doing similar things, in technology and the sciences, and engineering, are working on “cutting-edge” ideas, and foundational or novel areas of cultural development. I am including these others in the above remarks and am wanting to hear more from them what they can share about what is of interest in their own minds, for mutual conversational development and enrichment of the community.

In other words it would be nice to hear the more advanced academic developments of folks who have much to share even if they don’t have much time, in a way that is “teacher like”, providing some background information and ways to learn, in a way exhibited us already by folks like Prof. Fightmaster, Ph.D, Psy.D. The way he was sharing is what is of interest and not that he was an advanced acedemician. He was inviting others into conversation in ways that was collaborative without expectation of PhDs or advancement in a university setting, making it possible for others to interat in a similar way without having had that background. It was a feeling of having a familiar university level conversation with wider participation made possible. It’s not to be forgotten that people are able to contribute in the same ways without having the same backgrouns, and of course we are in a group with a very diverse participation. Furthermore, it is not clear who will have important and unexpected contributions.

A characteristic of these conversations was respectful and interested communication, and expectation of collaboration, and much less that is rude, reactionary, or quickly written with an objective of thwarting the conversation, or its value. Conversations have still been inviting of diversity of opinion and debate, but the debate was of a type more characteristic of kind and civil conversation, which is celebrated within Philosophy, where it is possible to be skeptical of all sorts of thoughts, and supportive of ideas that are unconventional, or often rejected.

[Completed, blind-typing, without reading or editing, or spell check, as part of my ongoing study on editing]

Status on the Current Project Regarding Homelessness and Wealthy Camping

Saturday, June 17^th, 2023, 4:39pm, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

In earlier writings I’ve discussed an ongoing project I’m working on connecting the topics of homelessness and wealthy camping, with the goal of resolving related issues. Efforts to dates have resulted in some insights of significance, requiring some additional testing and validation, including:

Compliants. Complaints, including anonymous complaints, even for issues unrelated to the behavior of a camper or homeless person, may be a primary cause for being unable to enact solutions. “We simply don’t want someone here that often, or sleeping, or camping, or looking like a traveler, or looking like a possible homeless person. I don’t want to see that here, knowing I have to pay for where I live, and cannot travel around myself, or because I simply want to control real estate around me and not merely what I myself own.”
Finding a place to sleep. Homelessness and rapid travel of wealthy individuals includes a related problem of finding, spatially, a place to sleep near to the location where sleep is desired. If one does not feel an urge to rest or get sleep, or if businesses near are open and there are inexpensive things to do out, there isn’t a very strong need for being anywhere near a bed one is allowed to use. However, if one really does want to sleep, and one is not near a location where sleeping is acceptable, suddenly one needs to potentially have travel arrangements, energy, and reservations, or a suitable place to camp, that is a good distance from one’s current position. Wealthy travelers, campers, and homeless people would all face these issues over and over without good resolution.
Inability to define the problems due to complexity. People have been unable to articulate what the problems of homelessness really are, and what is to be solved, versus retained, about homeless life and wealthy camping. If people want to be tourists or backpackers exploring the world, clearly there is an urge to retain parts of the experience of homelessness, since travelers spending little are going to be livingin a way that is somewhat closer to the homeless people, and they will be facing problem solving situations that resemble those problems already faced by homeless people. Also, homeless people themselves may want to live frugally and cheaply, and without making payments often in the market to ensure they live easily within what is possible to them given their resources. Homeless people want to live without annoyance from others, just like anyone else, and want to live cheaply and freely, on less resources. An implication is that they don’t want homes. Instead, they want to be left alone and want to live well without as much expenditure, particularly in the form of rents. If one can remove rent payments one can live well as long as there aren’t complaints and special security risks. However, it appears law enforcement creates some of those risks rather than working to resolve them. They are working for someone else to put the homeless in jail potentially or to purge them, and are not working to protect them and ensure they are comfortable. These and other issues indicate that homeless people may want to be homeless, which means that the problems they want solved are not problems that end homelessness but problems that relate to living like a camper. “I want to be homeless and the issues around homelessness are not those that others coming up with solutions would say they are. People who are not homeless or are not travelers are unable to articulate what the problems are but are somehow the people offering solutions, and of course, their solutions have not been able to survive given other social arrangements and pressures which may be for making homeless living difficult.”

It’s been important to me to arrive at key occlusions that exist that have prevented others from being more successful than they have been in any projects for solving homelessness. It is interesting that in all the time in which solutions have been attempted or proposed, for various homelessness related issues, there has not been a need to introduce causes to keep homelessness. In other words, it appears it has been solved to keep homelessness, and that solution already exists and is living in the world. Complaints and controls around the market for sleeping, including requirements to have a suitable bed at a hotel or in a residence, appear to be key incredients in this issue. Also the role of law enforcement is extremely important, because they are the ones responding to complaints, and are effectively the existing solution for preventing wealthy camping and homeless living. Where one is allowed to sleep, is also related to the controls that exist with law enforcement, particularly if one thinks that it is dangerous at night, and one must be on property that one pays for or owns already, meaning there are transit, market and property requirement that all connect to ways to involke police. Those who are more adept at complaining and getting police favor would be those most able to ensure that issues around homelessness still exist. A person who is having difficulties related to homelessness are experiencing those difficulties partly because of who would complain to police. In locations where there is more money and power, homeless people and travelers can be complained about much more quickly even if their behavior is not related to anything causing complaint. One can simply dislike wealthy campers and homeless people, and use one’s power with law enforcement to ensure that they have irritating police encounters that could lead to arrest, and inability to continue their pursuit of healthy wealthy camping and homeless living.

Currently I’m focused on what the life of people consists of when they decide they do not want to be in the rent market. Rent makes up a significant portion of one’s living budget, but few really consider that they could remove renting and owning homes from their expenditures. There are claims in the United States and elsewhere about rights to choose lifestyle and certainly that includes ability to choose how one spends money on sleep arrangements. If sleep is the primary need one has identified for being a consumer of homes and apartments, and hotels, then one may want to continue to rent and purchase accommodations. However, if one has decided that what the market offers is not good enough, is too expensive, or is otherwise only something to have occasionally, and not all the time, then one has the freedom, some might think, to spend money otherwise. With funds made available due to a decision to no longer rent, one has had a substantial income increase, even if one is living on savings. Suddenly, one may have another $15,000 a year to spend on other things, which may enable being able to survive well on existing resources. One may not spend much on other things apart from rent, if one is living frugally. Living frugally is arguablly, extremely limited, given this huge cost increase in expenditure if one chooses to live in a residence. Keeping those funds to use otherwise is an intelligent choice, and so one may want to not have a home and live more as a traveler or camper, than spend those funds. Even if one is wealthy, one is supposed to have the option of where to spend extra funds, since as a consumer, one can have any position one likes regarding making purchases in the market. On may refrain from renting simply to choose how one will retain, manage, and spend wealth. Even if that wealth is very great. We have some exmaples of wealthy people, like Warren Buffet, who pride themselves for living in regular homes. I once read a book, “The Millionaire Next Door” which explains that the demographics of wealth reveal that wealthy people are not really ostentatious on average, and instead choose to spend their money on more basic homes than one would expect. This means the wealthiest, most well planned families regarding finances, are choosing to spend a certain way that supports keeping that wealth and ensuring habits are good for preserving and increasing wealth. One does not need to have several million dollars, or billions of dollars, to follow their leads. Actually, these people are often advising others on how to attain the same situations for themselves. Their recommendations are often to do the same, or spend even less for not having enough yet, to have even a modest home. Some have stories, of before they were wealthy, explaining that they did what they needed to, to live in a car, live with other roomates, or live in homelessness temporarily, in order to make sacrifices to gain wealth later. They tell their humble starts to their success stories. This implies, that for many people who did become wealthy, they would advocate very frugal living, making big drops in their budgets for paying rents, or any rent at all, and further, they live in success still living in modest conditions. This means they advocate to never be wasteful regarding resources and instead to live as cheaply as one can, even making what they call, again, sacrifices in rent, to eventually get to the point of having substantial resources, still in an inexpensive home.

It is important I think to think more about why they would advise sacrifices, and why they could even be sacrifices. Living inexpensively, in a vehicle, or in a camping scenario, or at someone else’s home temporarily, or with family, or in an RV or tiny home, etc… clearly may include some discomforts. But why advise that type of living? Also, why advise that type of living, to celebrate a living hardly better later, once wealth has been gotten?

Here is where I can offer some expertise as a wealthy traveler and camper, and someone exploring what it means to live closer to homelessness in a huge variety of living conditions. This includes years living in hotel rooms. That sounds irrelevant, but it is not: it involves choosing how and where one wants to live, and there are sacrifices, including strangenesses around relationships requiring “permanent physical addresses” and “mailing addresses”. Even if one is wealthy, and traveling hotel to hotel, suddenly there is pressure to stay in one place, to have a mailing address and physical address. But as a consumer of the rental market, I can choose anything I want to spend my money on, including totally homeless life in hotels. I’ve lived this way for years.

I’ve also lived trying to camp, stay in hostels, stay in AirBnBs and more short termarranged housing. I own a large plot of land in Alaska where I’ve lived for long periods in an RV, totally off grid, with no water and no septic. This type of living also requires making what some would call sacrifices relating to entertainment, transit around havin wifi/cellular, and strangenesses around rules with addresses, since my property is a vacant parcel, and they don’t allow mailing boxes near the home, if there isn’t a permanent dwelling. This creates a good amount of complexity for managing life, particularly if one is maintaining a business and is actively working.

But there are rich people who were advocating worse living conditions. Living temporarily in vehicles like cars, or living more like a homeless person, simply finding places to sleep. Many stories from famous people tell about doing this for long periods to create habits and savings to make steps towards wealth and work success. Some tell stories of risking everything including all funds and taking on credit card debt on risky business ventures, with the result of sleepinging in cars, or sleeping in offices for long periods. Anyone living in the United States knows probably there are too many stories like this, not a shortage of examples.

People will use stories of their temporary homeless life, or frugality in residence, to create credibility on their success story. Meaning some will lie.

There really are too many stories like this in American Popular culture. Wealthy people want and need to prove they did it all on their own and in order to explain it, will tell their stories about how they had nothing in the beginning, and how having nothing was really important for teaching lessons required for finally becoming rich.

But why are we advocating these sacrifices, what are these sacrifices, who are they for, and what risks do they create? Firstly, it seems that to preserve merit in having a good success that one has made for oneself, everyone needs some story about having nothing. So everyone is told that to do it on their own they need to have started basically with nothing at all. To prove it, one needs street credibility, which includes stories like living with danger in one’s life, or living without a place to go and maybe nothing to eat. For everyone else, who hasn’t started totally from nothing, one is still getting advice from rich people like Warren Buffet, or those who lived in cars, who say that making big frugal changes to lifestyle results in sucess. So now one is told to live in vehicles, camp temporarily, live in offices (like living at your employers place?), sleeping where one can, taking uncomfortable offers from friends an family to have cheap temporary places to stay. All of these things create social risks (now your friend later reminds you of how poor you were and how you didn’t get success on your own), security risks, and risks of looking like one is doing something wrong. So now you’re living in your car, or on the street, and you are a problem and you are not someone to be cared for. How can this type of life be suggested by people who are successful later, if the risks are this great?

People don’t really consider living this way, and really do not consider themselves free about their rent arrangements, beecause they understand it is risky to try to live one one’s own according to suggestions like these.

But the risks are not really well understood such that they could be listed by people. People don’t really know what the risks are well, and cannot explain them, if they have not perhaps attempted living that way, or have not been exposed to information from those who know. When I was young, I just vaguely knew I would not want to not have a home or a place for mysel. I didn’t seriously consider that choosing not to spend money that way was really an option. That one does not think to budget out rent is an interesting tell, because it shows that people are really not as free as they might imagine, given that option can never come into their thought at all. Instead they automatically know they need to spend on rent, and do not take it out of their budgeting.

But the rich people still advocate starting out in a way that is extremely frugal, with risks maybe not totally remembered or recollected. One reason why, may be, that they noticed that they really did have that option. They really did budget in a way to take out rents. They did something unusual and they know it. Later in life, they forget the risks and discomforts. Also, they somehow survived without serious outcomes, while others, certainly, end up uncomfortable, or really do have consequences realted to law enforcement that make it seem much more impossible an option.

“I tried to live as a homeless person to improve my life but instead was criminalized and accused of miscellanous unsolved petty crimes, or worse, something serious.”

Homelessness is a tell that one does not have a lawyer. This means one will not succeed very likely, if one is suddenly targeted by police.

. “I was just sleeping in my car in a parking lot, but suddenly I was arrested for criminal trespass, and accused of theft. Now I think it unwise to try to live without rent.”

A famous person may have gotten through possible predicaments without serious risk. I’ve slept in cars, travel vans, RVs, and have been approached by police on many occasions. All were unwanted and unnecessary. I’ve gotten through it without issue, but I’m also white, intelligent, I have good self-presentation, and am less likely to be targeted more thoroughly or in a more severe way, by police. If I was black, or hispanic, there may be someone with my likeness out there, already accused of a serious crime. Now, there is risk of a visual match. Since trespassed, why not accuse them of other serious crimes that happened at night?

Famous people may have forgotten risks is the point here. But they tell the stories because they did:

Actually save tons of money by living this way,
Recognize that doing so created the savings possibility,
Not get seriously jeopardized, but do still recognize that it was something hard to do,
That it seems necessary, if one is to learn to be totally frugal.
- There is a message “You will not be able to save with that rental cost existing, at all, in your budget, if you don’t have resources.” Particularly, if you have little and you are going to need extra to make business purchases and investments.

Who has ever started a business and wanted to pay their rent, and rent for an office? I temporarily did this and it felt like an incredible, and somewhat depressing, waste of funds. What is advised is to have no rent at all! What one feels when one has an office is “Why am I not at home in my home office,” and if one can do much of the work without an office, and one already dislikes rent, then one doesn’t want any of it, particularly given the costs. Real estate for a new lawyer’s basic office might be more than their own rent at home. So a starting lawyer could make a foolish move of having 1,500 in rent and 2,000 in office payments. Interestingly, those people who made business success stories, living without rent, would have had other real-estate concerns and issues related to their business, and would advise to minimize those costs too. For example, when you start a business, it needs an address, you ned bank accounts with addresses associated. So one may not be following the rules either when starting the businesses. One may be breaking a good number of rules to make the sacrifices possible to begin with.

“What was you mailing address on your driver’s license, when you were living in your car?”

If you advised concerning the American success story from having nothing to being rich then you would be aware, that this may include having an incorrect driver’s license, and mismatching information on all records requiring ID and address.

Then, the postal service handling mail has rules around post office boxes, correct addressing, and so on, meaning that one may need to break rules to get mail, while one does not have a home, temporarily living in a vehicle, or in someone else’s home, or in a hotel, or in a tent.

It is really strange, that advocates would think it both necessary, for learning and saving, and also a sacrifice, despite being part of a global American dream. How can all these examples of success stories from nothing exist, and continue to be advocated, while maintaining beliefs that there is good opportunity in America?

“It is required to suffer and have risks for any life improvement if one is starting with few resources, and it’s good.”

Not only is it “good” it’s been a “dream”, a “real possibility”, drawing people from other countries to follow similar advice, with good expecations, and not expectations of dangrous risks including criminalization and permanent poverty.

[More to come]

If the news isn’t interesting, others likely became less interesting

Friday, June 16^th, 2023, 4:30pm, ASU, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Or, using the news to, in advance of socialization, know if socialization is worthwhile.

In the earlier posting below, it was discussed that people tend to think they are conveying their personal value when they discuss current issues on the news, which may relate to politics or religion. If some major event or movement exists and is in the news, people will think they can convey their own value by talking about their position and thoughts on what the news has shared. Notice they do not discuss, or seldom focus attention on, issued considered closed or settled, or old, or out of memorty. People really do focus on what has been presented to them recently on the news and media.

Now, suppose nothing of interest is going on in the news. Suppose there are no major events, and no major movements. What is presented on the news may appear more mundane, less interesting or catastrophic, and perhaps less related to personal worth, that is expressed in shared thoughts in conversation. Now, having less of interest to talk about, and less that is perceived valable, there will be less that appears to connect what they wish to talk about with the larger world around them. They may become more interesting on communicating about what is nearer to them, or what is more of personal social interest.

In order to have something to think about, to convey self worth, it appears there is a complete reliance on news and media sources to have something current, that appears larger than their own social context. Otherwise what people will discuss and talk about would be spatially local, and appear basic, and more like small town talk.

It may be possible to use the news and media as a way to recognize what people could talk about, to keep themselves interesting to others. Maybe people are not conveying their own value as much as they are keeping themselves interesting, they think, to have attention.If one can observe the news, and media, and roughly guess at the probable thoughts probable minds will be having, one can then avoid having any conversations with people who would only say what is expected.

People who would oppose such a view, would not have a reasonable argument, since having expected conversations with others is not anything anyone really advocates. If too known, too repetitive, and too expected, a person will look for other sources of stimulation and interest. They do not owe interest from poor sources of information that’s too predictable or repetitive. But interestingly, it does appear to be a common thing in etiquette, for people to think they are deserving of being heard, regardless of who it is they want to take attention from. However, behavior and other recommendations clash with this perception of rudeness, in trying to manage attention.

It appears possible to simply periodically observe the news and media in order to estimate the relative unvalue of the thoughts of others. However, if the news becomes of better quality, it is not clear that the thoughts of others outside the news would become any more valuable, given the news is more sophisticated than they are.

“If the news were more sophisticated than most of the audience, and more informative, they audience would not be able to copy it into their conversations, or have reasonable positions.”

This seems to provide additional information, regarding why regular people seem so perpetually unuseful as sources of information and quality of conversation. Even if the information sources get better, until it exceeds their sophistication, they won’t be elevated. It would make it obvious that instead of listening to others, the news is adequate on its own.

But if the news is of poor quality, then thoughts and reflections on what is conveyed may appear to exceed what the news has provided, making it seem as though regular people are more valuable, but that is only an illusion created by having simpleton-news.

The relationship between the news and demands of others to be heard suddenly, about what was on the news, by listeners, is a strange topic. It clashes with what is taught in education: one should direct one’s thought and attention to learning from valuable and trusted sources of information, not everyone. People in academics would likely greatly enjoy people in their environment in which they can have conversations about what may be more valuable, versus regular people from the public who decide to rely, contrary to what is taught in education, on the news and what is given in the media. And each other! The respect wanted to the process of listening to people reacting from the news, because it is democratic, is simply contrary to what all have been taught.

More basic pieces of information supporting the view that higher moral behavior, and better ethics, requires a method for managing attention, in a way that is more consistent with what is taught in higher education, and what is more consistent with rational selection and habit building.

“Choose your friends wisely”

indicates a non-democratic viewpoint that most accept. Expanded upon it’s:

“Direct your attention to what is worthy, excluding all else.”

Of course, any attention to something, completely excludes all else that could be attended to.

One ought not choose plain friends, who react to low news and stimulation, with a probable mind, that is probably low quality. Going further to attention to all, and not just people, one wants to have a smart family, and not a randomly generated family! One wants to reach intelligent books, and not nonsensical misinformation. One wants to have a nice environment, maybe one more heavenly, to use an analogy that the low people use.

Nice things to have, hear, and see, and smell, etc… Not people reiterating the news, in a canned fixed-patternlike way.

You interacted and shared the news according to a fixed pattern, known-inferior?

Inability of Others to Contribute Useful Thoughts

Friday, June 16^th, 2023, 3:45pm, ASU, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Just moments ago I was reflecting more on what it is other people can really contribute that is valuable to me conversationally, or informatively.

Earlier I mentioned that most people have highly probable thinking, as opposed to those who are more intelligent, and are not too into common sources of stimulation (socialized probable thoughts), who have less probable thoughts, more likely to be separable from common social thinking. These people are less worthwhile as targets of conversation, or as worth attending to when they try to force their presence or messages on your attention.

Oftentimes when someone thinks they have something valuable to offer, or complain concerning, it has these two aspects:

It does not include private information.

Their value would not exist in their privacy, and perhaps their privacy counters their value.

It often includes what has been on the news.

The information did not come from their mind. Rather, they watched TV, took in some highly probable thinking, and reacted to it.

People do have a tendency to relate important thoughts to religion and politics, or current events in the news. They obtain their sense of their own importance by their support or non-support of various religious or current event issues, which are put in front of them. These are probable pieces of information they did not create. But more importantly, they are unable to create topics of interest. They depend on these topics to have a reaction to them that somehow creates value, they think, relating somehow to themselves.

In democratic nations, by reacting and supporting or opposing a view, or happening, one thinks one has automatically become valuable, because there is a supposed inclusiveness in the democratic system, which is thought necessary to keep it going. However, this is a very unreflective way of arriving at self importance, and anyone can do it! Even those with probable thoughts, or copies of thinking from the news and media.

This also relates to the view that young people really do not have valuable thoughts to hear. Around end of high school, and early college years, young people begin to think the way to show their value is to participate in common disagreements that are current to their time period. Their thoughts are considered something worthwhile in that it shows they are getting involved, and are doing something adult-like, consistent with the ways that government and entertainment function, according to some unspoken words about timeliness. This is why they talk about LGBTQ+ism and gay rights so often.

However, adults also instantly discard their thoughts oftentimes, seeing their activism as naive and well, practice at becoming an adult. There is something bizarre and foolish appearing about young people zealously supporting something they learned recently on the news.

What could these activist kids have to offer to politics, if they did not find something from the news to react to? Would they be creating things anew, afresh, to share with us, including new improbable thoughts, and improbable solutions? Or, is it more likely that these kids, like the adults that think their activism is cute, really just repetitively choose topics from the news, and pick some side that seems to exist, to team regarding it, and talk over it or gesticulate openly, with zeal sometimes at rallies, using probable thoughts, conversation and sentences, that can be known in advance?

Let us imagine an approach to understanding whether or not any regular people will have something of value to offer, or not. One can first think, well, what has been on the news? Also, what are the repetitive supposedly important common religious views, and their possible relationships to news events? Ok, now what are the ways that people team and oppose each other? Knowing these things, one can fairly predict, without extreme accuracy, but good accuracy, the kinds of things people will say. “I think gays should be allowed to be married,” and “I think women should be able to have equal pay,” and that “student loans should go down, and debts forgiven.” What of this is of value really, to me? What can they say or do that would convey from them to me, something of a useful exchange, particularly given that, someone like myself would have something interesting and new to contribute, and not something merely a routine “unsolved problem”?

I was walking by a guy at Arizona State University today, and he tried to get my attention for something not worthwhile, and not well communicated, and I thought to myself:

“What could he really do for me, LGBTQ+ me?”

Now I’m required to disclaim that I’m not against something one might cherish concerning current events in LGBTQ+ welfare. But instead, I’m going to say “One cannot infer what I think from this…””

But back to this thought “What are you going to do, NEWS me?”

This really does appear a reasonable approach to handling information from others particularly when the person who approaches, or is wanting of information spreading, is someone who does not appear to have anything obviously valuable to offer, from a fair sizing up of their face and body, an clothing. What does anyone share that is new, interesting, improbable, or valuable in relation to educating others. If one just reflects: “This person is a private person who really cannot share without believing they risk their own life, and when they do share, is in a common news-fed way, relating to instant antagonisms between teams… Going on probability, their minds will be probable. I can safely ignore.”

Going on probability the minds will be probable, really does allow one to unlisten to all that people might say, knowing in advance that really, people are disenfranchised and have nothing to offer.

They actually go further than having probable thoughts and probable minds, but join in a system of voting and politics that is channeled and controlled. They “joined in” on a news system and information sharing social process that makes their minds more probable, thoughts less interesting, more in control.

If I decided, as a media organization owner (I’m not that), I could simply raise a new topic of supposed political importance, and watch people become self-important. I could predict and watch how they would team. Their superficial thoughts, and wild anger act activist rallies that might result.

If I created an issue around marriage, I could predict in advance most that could be said about the topic, that would be unvaluable, that would be common too. Their preferences can be seemingly known in advance, because what they would probably think, with probable thoughts, that’s political and religious, would be what they think raises their own value. Raising their own value with their words and actions, they are communicating, they may not realize, their supposed preferences.

I don’t believe their behaviors would indicate they have the same preferences, particularly considering what they keep private, but I would be expected to believe them, when they are talking in a context that is supposed to be showing their value.

There is an attentional process that is reasonable here, that could be added to the relationshp management part of life, fitting into the attentional management process I’ve written concerning. It is that you can expect that people will try, when they want to convey their value, something that seemes canned and related to the news. For that no listening is required.

Just now I noticed a thought of interest. If people are canned, they need to know the ways in which they appear object-like and not humanlike in their behaviors. If they are more object-like, they may dislike their own self-objectification. They may come to recognize that their behavior is a simpleton-pattern, self-objectifying and predictable. It is much better for me to oppose that politically and one method of opposing is by not listening to them.

Recalling additionally, that one only hears what is near, or what has temporary access, there is no rudeness in not listening to what has merely presented itself, while all else, that has not been presented, has gone unheard. One can simply not hear along with all else that exists that is not heard. This had to be written because there are people that think that anyone who is present needs to be heard. This does not work well when the thinker considering listening has value, but those around have little to offer. That one person, and important listener, who many want to listen to him/her, has many more situations in which they really need to decide not to listen. Whereas the people who want to speak, who people don’t want to tell anything to, can believe that all need to hear, for having no instances of people who want them to hear something.

More on this topic later, but a tentative supporting confirmation exists above in refraining from listening to people who are effects of news.

Inability to Intuit that Significance Precedes Persuasive Language

Thursday, June 8^th, 2023, 12:49am, Santa Ana, California, USA

Today, just now as I was reflecting on the posting below, The Life Categories, Language, and Brain, I came I think to a solution to the issue of communicating new significant thoughts, or ideas, to people who are unable, apparently for reasons of having a differently organized mind with respect to language, including words and relations, and knowledge. There is an excessive expectation in thinkers, including myself, who have many significant ideas, to speak and write in a way that is accessible and persuasive to others. The ideas had, which are significant, already involve language immediately available to thinker. If a person is strong at communication and verbal thinking, then already that thinker, will use language alone, independtly, to self-explain, summarize, and develop upon the same thought. Communicating alone, there is no special need, to go any further on persuasion; believeing the thoughts already important, the thinker is persuaded by the idea’s meaning and interrelationships with other knowledge, and relationship to life and the environment, so there is no audience requiring any pressure to accept some learning. Persuasion is a kind of pressure applied, to get others to want or succumb to a messageor learning. Oftentimes, people do not want to hear new ideas, or accept them, or understand them. Oftentimes they cannot understand the messages. This is due, partially for having different brains with verbal mappings, (Ref further into The Life Categories, Language, and Brain) and relationships. So when a thinker, who already understands and can communicate an idea already understood, and already understood to be significant, tries to speak with others, they either don’t understand, or resist somehow, and we think that plain or simple language and persuasiveness will overcome this, and make them able to think what the thinker does. There really is a want, for the thinker to have an audience who can reiterate with understanding a confirmation of what was communicated. They want to hear that others are understanding and see the significance.

This a solution to stay aware of this, for someone like myself, because there isn’t a great reason to expect myself to change how I speak, for others who either won’t understand or won’t be persuaded. The idea that simple language is required, is missing that that an audience will really not resist what is heard once understood, or that they can understand. Furthermore, the thinkers like myself, believe already that the thoughts do include plain language, which explains the irritation had, when others expect other words and other ways to express. Sometimes they want examples crafted for them, or special illustrations. If the knowledge is missing in someone to quickly recognize the significance, then what is needed is more knowledge, and not plain language or illustrations. How they get the knowledge is something of interest. Certainly if they can arrive at a similar enough language organization of brain, they will have a better chance at understanding, like anyone who ends up actually understanding already. But how do they arrive at that? By learning new vocabulary, and getting prepared with new teachings and relationships, etc… This resembles trying to teach someone something new, to get them to a greater sophistication, to finally arrive at the more significant thoughts. This takes time. That it takes time, already debunks the idea that the significant thoughts should have another kind of simple land persuasive expression, for immediate understanding. The duration of time required to arrive at thoughts was ignored and is actually necessary. Instead what was substituted was “you need to think more simple and do certain steps, before I can understand or accept”, but this was only a false path set by the audience.

The requirement that a thinker have simple or plain language, and be more persuasive, is a false-path misdirection, of those who may not be able to understand, and may not have a short pathway to understanding something important.

These people will also say, “it isn’t important” without understanding. They’ll say “if you can’t it simply, you don’t know it.” This last example, is plainly a way out for some audience members who know they are not smart. A thinker who arrives at a mathematical treatment of a topic, that in mathematics is said to be “elegant”, has arrived at a great level of simplicity in complexity, that an audience will never understand. This means they have not lacked simplicity at all. They have not had a way to persuade, or provide knowledge, to people who could not have had enough time to learn the information, or people who never could learn the information. The requirement set up for these thinkers, is a requirement of instant communication. But for significant thoughts, this is not possible.

This creates an issue for people, like myself, who have highly important significant thoughts often, using language already felt to be simple, in communicating with others. I think now, reflecting on this, that the reality, a reality resisted, is that people cannot understand and cannot be communicated with, regarding highly important thoughts. There is a want to share share, and give to others but they cannot receive it. Not only that, they don’t want it. The proof that they don’t want it, is the false expectation of instant persuasion simple words without new knowledge, is for making the thinker have more work to do, for no achievable goal. It is often also a way, to make the thinker believe, that their thoughts are not actually understood by the thinker.

Again, a thinker who has really already had a significant idea or thought:

Knows what they thought, and identified it as important.
Has the words required to have to begin with, to arrive at it.
Can speak about it using the words they have.
Words had already, include all of the simple words.
If the thinker continues thinking about the same idea already understood, they will re-use their own vocabulary.
To have the idea, new words are not required, because that would imply new words are required for learning thoughts, already learned. Since learned, and known, the vocabulary was sufficient already. Nothing additional is needed.
A significant idea, is one with many associations.
An idea with many associations, has many words related, including simple words.
A thinker who is good at communicating alone, and is highly verbal, will be able to use those words, already known to be associated, to contiue thinking about, summarizing, and expressing the idea, independently.

A thinker has all of this already. Simplicity and many ways to say the same, including ways to say what is important about it. Why they like the idea. Why they think it important. Why their minds led to that point, of having the idea with the words they learned already.

The have all this

AND they want to give it to others.

For free oftentimes!

People in the audience are not “loving” if they are not understanding the causes of not being ablel to receive it, and are ready to call it nothing, by saying that the thinker doesn’t even understand their own thoughts. “If it’s not simple, then the thinker doesn’t understand it” is really disgusting and repulsive. It’s ungrateful and anti a willingness to share. Consider the best things are:

Significant.

The Life Categories, Language, and Brain.

Tuesday, June 6^th, 2023, 5:34am, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

At the time that I first created the life-categories that were intended to provide a mechanism for staying aware of the various parts of life requiring attention, it became clear that there were many different categories that could be chosen alternatively. The primary focus of selecting those categories, were related to my specific purposes and my interests, and what I thought to be important areas of my life to manage and collect information regarding. I spent time over a period of two years using and revising these categories.

After a long period of discontinuing active development of my personal form, I returned recently to work on the life categories in the development of this Book and Journal. I have altered the priority of each of the categories to suit my recent needs. However, I did not much alter the actual categories used. This was due to my recognizing that they really were adequate as they were, provided complete coverage of my life, and could be modified at any time depending on my later needs or goals.

Another early observation relating to the categories of life is that people with different interests and backgrounds, and people wanting to choose categories using differing languages, would choose other words, and not the words I was using. Part of the plan of these categories was to allow for modification, and anyone who wanted use the system, modify it, or create systems of their own, would want to use their own words, as long as additionally they had adequate coverage to encompass all that was important to them in their own lives.

The key criteria of the life categories is maximum coverage with an easy to manage sized list of categories in which to focus attention on parts without forgetting any for too long a period of time. Additional information on this approach can be found on the section about the personal form itself. Our purpose here differs somewhat from a development on the life-categories themselves, and is more about the importance of resisting excess structuring and restructuring of them. They are modifiable, of course, as I said, but one need not dwell excessively on organization, once it is known that comprehensiveness is attained, and the requisite attention is achieved, by usage of each of the categories. Some may experience a desire to represent life in a way that is extremely accurate by revising and re-revising this list of life categories, which is a kind of taxonomy of a person’s life, as it relates to categories of interest and behavior. It may not be immediately recognized, by systems of taxonomy, like the taxonomy of the earth’s animal kingdom, can be organized and reorganized many times, and is incomplete and not complete. The current nomenclature for annimals surely does not adequately represent the structure of the history of animal life and the ancestry and relatedness of the different organizms whose names appear in the lists of extant animals. In different languages outside English and Greek/Latin, there are other languages, like Chinesse, which could be used to name the animals differently, and alternatively represent their ancestry and relations, according to different assumptions about how life on Earth evolved. Within the taxonomy of primates, including humans and their ancestors, there would be differing opinions about the lineage, and the meaning of various fossils that have been proposed to have latin names, with partly guessed positions and ages in the history of the human lineage. Even the human portion of the taxonomy, Chinese and other language speakers would likely greatly disagree with the current usage in English/Latin/Greek, and probably the name “Homo Sapiens Sapiens”, which redundantly includes the word “wise” twice, for our subspecies, would not be accepted.

Working on my life categories, and thinking about larger issues about how to choose names and arrange them according to life-structure, I have recognized that the objective to perfectly describe using relationships of words seems an incorrect approach. If we look far into the distant future, it can probably be seen that even if we diversly created taxonomical systems to represent the history of earth’s animals, we would not find a final taxonomy that represents it in the way we want, in all the ways we want. Here we might say the representation of the animal kingdom as we have it is somewhat like representation of the earth’s globe in different map forms. Without an exacting knowledge of Earth’s history, we do not have a globe; by that I mean, we have to rely on maps that are not precise like an image of the Earth from outside, including all the spatial information desired. Being able to image the earth well, we have good globes that provide the full information we are wanting. When we can’t use a globe, however, like map making in history, when maps were made with incomplete views, different types of maps that had differing levels of descriptive truth were created to fit needs. But these were greatly inferior to a spherical globe based on space-imagery. As an analogy, we can see that we do not have detailed history of the Earth. It is really lost and appears to be something we can only reconstruct somewhat poorly. Since that is the case, we cannot have a taxonomy that will be a final one, and instead have to rely on a “partial map” to continue the analogy, of the structure of animal life. Since all maps of this life would be partial maps, Chinese Maps, English Maps, and maps from any other group creating it, would be unable to come to a desired exactness that is final. Moreover, being maps and not globes, different versions would be needed to depict different things desired, for not being able to show all that is desired at one time, in the right way. Maps look different in how they appear as partial maps because they cannot be spherical. Being not spherical, they have to make concessions in what they show and how. There are many ways to depict a sphere as a rectangle, or other geometric figure. Using other geometric figures, one loses sphericity. Cartographers, the map makers, have known that to create correct distances, representations of areas, and correct directions, require different partial maps with different geometric properties. We’ve seen the defects in maps, when we view a globe and see that Antarctica is smaller in appearance, than on the Merkator projection map, which shows Antarctica as the largest of all the continents. This map is one used in flattened form on Google Maps (if not a very similar projection), and that used as an instructional poster in classrooms. If one were to use language alone, entirely, to describe the world, without a globe, one would be even more limited in how to describe it. In times before we had a globe, if we tried to write in words what was in the partial maps, we would have something in language alone that is of perhaps less quality still than what is in the already limited maps. Notice that our system of taxonomy for representing animal life does not include a globe with a video of how life evolved from the beginning. So what we are doing with our taxonomy of animal life is using language to describe what we have only very incompletely known in visual and historical data.

Language is an important cause as to this limitation on our ability to represent, and accurately describe, parts of the world and our own lives. Focusing more on the topic of our lives, recalling our lives are still natural phenomena in the world, with more or less complete potential data, that we simply are unable to capture, we can see that again, we can use language to represent ourselves only incompletely. We have a similar issue of trying to use simple words to “correctly” represent the structure of our behavior and interests, and parts of life requiring our attention. One person would not choose the same words as I have when I started my own life-categories. Someone from another language, would think that some words are more central than others for classifying nearly the same things, but this too would have effects on how to organize things further, or more fully describe life, when details are sought, and interrelationships are considered. The categories of life are not distinct. For example, while I’m focused on the category of fitness, I’m often aware of other categories like nutrition, which includes cooking, and health. One could combine them all into a single category creatively if one wanted to. However, I kept them separate because of how I choose to organize my own behavior and attention. Similarly, one could use more than 15 categories or less. It is optional how many categories one might use for organizing and desribing one’s own life or the lives of others.

However, there are other interesting things worth considering here aside from this admission about some arbitrariness of choice of category arrangement, and of admitting that options appear to be necessary for others to find the categories useful for their own ethical interests. This relates to the observations above that there seems to be no way to choose, in any case, if numerous options are created, to decide what “finally” represents life most accurately, or most usefully. Usefulness is a primary consideration too, like in map making for navigation. This system is intended to be a tool for aiding in life’s planning, information collection, and behavior management. It appears that there is something fundamental about the need to resist trying to organize and reorganize this, and I’ve actually gone through the process of doing such reorganization a number of times. Early choices do not seem much worse than later choices, and in some ways they were better. I’ve made improvements which are instrumental and allow for more precision, but I could be more precise still. However, it is extremely useful as is. If I were to spend much more time organizing and reorganizing, it would be much like the organizational problem many people feel when they are wanting to find perhaps some “perfect” system of organization, that feels “finished” and not merely extremely comfortable and useful. Many people have the urge to organize and reorganize to the point in which they may feel a sense that they cannot solve some perplexing problem about their specific situation requirng organizing. It may have not come to their attention that there is no final solution, and that instead, there is a level of good utility and usefulness, that relates to certain comforts the person has. This same tendency to organize perhaps too often without a great gain in usefulness, to get to a mental comfort level, exists in wanting to represent life on earth totally accurately, and for organizing one’s entire life categories in a way that is best for one’s goals and improvement objectives.

Now it may be seen how large this interest is in organizing and reorganizing things in life, and this is particularly true of the organization of one’s mind. Consider that most aretrying to problem solve in their mind variousissues that they face, which requires words and language, and decisions about their importance and arrangments. People will find new words to describe more accurately situations, and make distinctions and new words, in order to arrive, again, at something that feels comfortable and “more final” regarding answers. If situations are complex, then again there is this feeling that perhaps more time organizing and finding new information and vocabulary, will allow for describing it entirely accurately, with all problems comfortably solved. Culturally, as knowledge progresses, we have new words and new information which leads us to think we are doing better and better at describing situations, and solving problems thereby. A great example of this is in our development of medicine, with creations of new words for illnesses and new words for underlying things which are important for finally understanding what was and is important for treating and curing illnesses. Still, it can be noticed that medicine is far from any final taxonomy or description of science as it relates to animal life, including human life. The taxonomy of the animal and plant kingdoms are still related to an understanding of medicine, as one needs to know a bit about relationships between animals that are test subjects, and humans who are administered drugs. The drugs are coming from chemicals and plant organisms which also need to be well understood to research further, what might better resolve medical ailments. So while in medicine alone this issue exists regarding wanting to find a taxonomy that is final, it relates still to the taxonomy of the entire earth and the scientific descripiton of all that exists. It does also touch on physics and chemistry and the origin of life, and sources of matter. Medicine also relies on technologies that make use of x-rays, which implies similarly, that information about electromagnetic spectrum is also required for advancement. It is not clear which, if any information about the universe would be unuseful for the further development of medicine and its description and taxonomy, and larger taxonomies.

Here we can transition to considering the importance of the brains organization and representation of language. Earlier I mentioned that different people in different cultures using different languages would use different words and relationships to describe the same world and lives within it. This implies that their brain structures have different organizations than the brain structures of those with different vocabularies in different languages. Between individuals, too, there are different selections about what words to use, and anyone who chooses to independently create life categories would have different words and relationships in mind between the words. All would be doing something related to trying to describe life and the world, and in this case, a person’s own life. But it is important to recognize, that this really does imply that people have different brain organizations relating to the words stored in their minds and their relationships. Also, the readiness of the brain to utilize some words over others. If everyone on earth was asked individually to describe their life using a set of categories first that they could choose, and the relationships later, using sentences and paragraphs, they would all do it differently and their way of doing it surely relates to the organization of tissues in their brains.

While driving around New Zealand this year, I was reflecting on some significant observations around this and the requirements of learning both for humans and for computing systems, that utilize machine learning for standalone use or with early artificial intelligence. The brain, and computing systems, rely on training in order to develop further. Networked computing systems in machine learning rely on huge amounts of information and training in order to finally “learn” what was presented to it. One machine learning system would not have the same resulting memory or physical representation of what was learned, depending on how it was exposed to the information and training, and the order of exposure. Also, different machine larning systems, learning for example, different plants on earth and their relationships, would see images of plants, and videos, and words, from data/information sets that are different from each other. If one software company created one machine learning system, and another another, they would not have the same result, and would not have the same sophistication. Different AI systems resulting from work at software companies would result in consumers having preferences for one over another. Sometimes consumers would want only one superior option, and other times, some consumers would want one that does some things well, and another if it does other things better. The point is that these systems would have partial views of the earth’s information, would have learned differently, and would have different internal representations of what is thought known. Additionally, the behavior of the system would vary. The above can be very quickly understood as an analogy for human life, since many people and many learners are exposed to information differently, with similar effects upon the brains representation of that information, with the effect that their behaviors differ. One person if they seek to describe their life using life-categories and sentences/paragraphs related to those categories, would do so differently. Some would do it in a nearly globally superior way. Some would do it well in some ways, while others better in others. Some finally, would not do it so well. This depends obviously, like with computer systems, on the level of advancement of the brain, or the quality of the system. It simply varies from one system to another, if human or if not.

As I was relfecting on the organization I chose, I noticed that some categories have larger interest than others, and some words are called to mind more easily, and during the time doing the personal-form collecting data on my behavior, some categories were much more useful than others and received more attention. This would relate well to my actual life as it would describe what I was doing versus what I was not doing at all. My life has depended on learning in a way that has been different than for others. I was exposed to different languages, culture, and regions than other people. I learned in a school system that emphasized certain books and courses and goals that were not emphasized in others, particularly if one considers this internationally. The sequence of my learnings differed from others. There are things others learned early that I learned late. There are easy things I have never learned. The implication is that my brain structure is different from others, and this includes, of course, words and relationships between words, and different strengths of associations, and readinesses to bring some words to mind versus others. My creation of my life categories relates to the vocabulary I prefer and my history of learning as it relates to describing my life.

The way that life is presented is not planned entirely. Different people are exposed to information and situations and stimulation that is mostly organic, or asystematic. What this means is that it is not systematically prepared information, quite often, that supplies the learning experiences. In my case, I’ve done lots of reading and have had an extensive education, using materials that were systematically prepared. However, there is some lack of overall planning even in these materials which leads to an organic or asystematic aspect to the overall learnings even when they were well prepared by experts. Most of my life information, of course, came from experiences with nature, and with people, which was unplanned an organic. A cause for my system of ethics is that I, like others, were not prepared with a systematic and correct overview of all learning, particularly learning relevant for the rational planning of one’s life and one’s behavior, and training in relation to that information. This Book and Journal filled this void, and I had to create it myself. The life categories are an important ingredient in this overall effort.

Since my life-categories related to learning that was organic and asystematic, any systematization created is from a brain whose organization is different and somewhat arbitrary compared to brains of others. Again, others would do it differently. And again, others would however, arrive at similar results. Even if myself and others did much to develop this system, there would be no final result that had all the strengths one wanted all at once, with no limitations. Each system would also, I noticed, be very comprehensive, and likely one could utilize one or the other, without too much loss. Similarly, like the brain itself learning, the system can be changed and switched as needed.

Focusing now on the organice way that stimulation is learned from the environment for humans, animals, and for computing systems, it can be seen that it is a necessary requirement that minds would all differ. No two humans have the same mind. No two machine learning systems would have the same result. The way to make two minds or two systems the same, would require similar hardware and biology and precisely theh same perspective, and learning of the same systematically presented materials. This is of interest to my article Abandoning Equality, which is a writing about the expectation of inequality between people, and not equality. Likewise, we here can see, that people would differ greatly just because they learn things in an organic way, in different places, and in different languages after languages are acquired, and in different times, and in different orders. Historically, people were extremely different from people now, in how they organically intook information that was available in their environments.

A system of taxonomy and life-categories which describe extremely well would be approaching what we might call an optimal system, that is approaching what we find desirable in utility and accuracy and detail in descriptiveness. However, we have already said that each would have strengths and weaknesses, and without extremely large minds, and without complete information, there could be no optimal finished system. Instead, what we would be looking for are roughly optimized systems. Humans, it should be noticed, do understand their own lives and can self-describe in ways that are much better than certain animals and machine learning systems, presently existing. Also, some people, who are considered less advanced or deficient, are thought to have ways that are less optimal for self-understanding or describing with words. Having a system such as that here described indicates it is possible to have still a better system of self-description and self-organization than which commonly exists. It appears also, of course, that this system is a novel system, and represents a state of high advancement in taxonomy of life and ability to self-describe. Others, not having such systems, however, are on considering the advancement of life on earth, and culture, pretty good methods for self-understanding. What may be said, then, is that there are some who have more optimized ways of self-understanding, and additionally, people in general, are a trend of earth neuroscience towards brains that are more optimal than what existed earlier, in the development of animal life. So there is a range of optimization on this topic. Also, I stated that people learn in different orders and in different ways. If we take people who are already somewhat optimized, taking optimization to be a relative thing and leaving plenty of room for growth for millenia to come, it can be noticed that this system can also be learned by others. Also, I stated that others would choose different words, but can have quickly the same comprehensiveness. This means with some time, alternative usages of a similar system such as this would result in others being able to have differnt systems of categories and descriptions that have properties related to optimality.

This is a promising development as it relates to potential learned of another approach to ethics and management of one’s interests, training, and behaviors. That was not my initial thought causing this direction in the conversation, however. What I wanted to indicate, is that with different exposure to information, we have different brains with different words and relations that are somewhat trending towards optimization, and that being useful already, as parts of living minds, adapted to life and living life somewhat effectively and well, that there are similarites of interest between brains even though they differ. The structure of lexicons and relationships of words, and models of life-categories, and life, vary and are partly optimal, and are useful. This offers great support of the view that trying to find a final arrangement and taxonomy is an incorrect objective, although improvements and progress is had and can continue; and it also supports the view that allowing for change in the system via learning, and change of needs is valuable; and also supports the idea that there is some interchangeableness in the system, in that different people can be effective with different sets of categories, and that one person can use this system, and develop or change it to their benefit, and that people use it differently over time. Overall this supports the idea that human brains and machine learning systems find optimizations on a spectrum related to organic learning from the world’s stimulus.

If one were to graph the life-categories and relationshps, and caluculate relative importance of words in their behavioral usage, frequency of thought, perceived priority in life management, what would be found is something that appears unplanned as a model. It would look like a set of nodes, and connections, with different weights and values. This would relate, in various ways, to underlying brain, that itself has the characteristics of having strong and weak associations, and different networked nodes, with differing thresholds related to readiness to think one thing or another. These look somewhat unplanned and tangled in appearance. The structure appears somewhat like what is thought to relate to models created by artifical intelligence software for optimizing problems in the sciences. These systems also have networked nodes, relationships that are stronger and weaker between nodes, with different information stored in different ways based on the exposure to information. All of these indicate that what results in the optimization that has resulted, from learning on organically presented stimulus, has an appearance of non-humanlike organization. In other words, what your brain looks like, what your eventual system of life-categories and relationships in the categories, and description looks like, and what the machine learning system/AI system looks like, is something that is not systematic, like what a human would plan, wanting to be really orderly and exacting in drawing it out. Humans want a kind of orderliness and structure which appears to not approach what this tendency is towards optimization. That is not to say that optimization does not occur from deliberate human planning; but it does appear that human planning results of rigidness in results. Square buildings, rectangular hierarchical diagrams, straight ways of lining things up, and not other ways of organizing which are closer to those resulting from organic natural growth. It is also noticed, that trying to arrive at an optimal way of organizing over and over, results in something dissatisfying in the rigid, straight lined results, that don’t solve all problems and don’t have properties of final optimization.

The interesting webbed and irregular networked organization resultin in nature, and in the brain, and in the linguistic representation not excessively planned or controlled in a system like this, and the similar structuring in machine learning systems, which were created by observing natural minds and how they learn, appears to approach optimization, whereas, the rigid and sometimes obsessive organization into linear structures trends towards optimization somewhat less. Also, the organic way of learning, which is asystematic, we would think, would already have such characteristics potentially, and we see also in the growth of animals and plants in nature, similar odd webbing and patterns of growth that have curves, nodules, and less exacting geometry related to our way of learning mathematics. Our way of wanting straightness, and precise geometrical figures relate to our way of learning those things. Similarly, however, the beauty of nature is compelling, but we are unable currently to use what we see in nature that appears irregular to guide our way of organizing much of what we do. Instead, we rely on the rigid and simpler structures that were made available to us in education. What nature has optimized is much more complex and much less well understood. This includes the nature of the brain itself, and it’s tangled way of organizing information that it was exposed to.

There are many systems in nature which grow in response to stimulus in the environment that results in what we consider optimized solutions, that are really somewhat optimized solutions, including examples like the arrangement of bone tissue, muscles, plants relying on sunlight, &c… bones have an odd appearance relating to the handling of stress and strain, and has a webbed like appearance, also with lines that are not perfectly straight, and nodes and grooves. These are optimized with relationships to nutrition in the environment and ability to handle gravity and forces relating to specific behaviors. Plants grow in unusual ways, not straight ways, in order to have adequate sunlight, and the result is something also somewhat of a networked organism, with webbed vascularization, and networked branches and connections between branchs, with differing sizes of branches. Much in nature follows this type of pattern, and the organization relates to stimuli coming from other sources.

At this juncture, it may be noticed that this can be taken quite a bit further if one includes all of earth’s history, recognizing that ancestry includes strong and weak associations, more growth in some areas and less in others, and an irregular total graph. The ways that ancestry happened related also to stimuli in the environment, and social forces, and disasters &c… which relate to ability to reproduce or not, for individuals and entire groups of people. This here would be where the topic would relate to a natural and somewhat optimized description and representation of the history of life on earth, and its growth, improvement and evolution. Here there would be a good point of departure, to in detail consider Darwin’s theory of evolution and advancements in evolutionary theory. Notice already, there were views as to the supposed “perfection” in nature, from the religious, which exists also in evolutionary scientists, who admire greatly the seemingly extremely well adapted traits of plants and animals, ability to live well under various conditions in their environments.

This system of nomenclature is simple, yet is comprehensive. It allows for change and adaptation. It can be expanded on to include additional detail as far as is necessary or is instrumental for describing a life and for aiding in the planning of ethical and moral behavior, and general training for goals and objectives. Limitations on ability to represent, relate to optiimizations that exist from not trying to be too rigid with organization. Any system or taxonomy aiming to describe life appears to have a limitation that exists already in describine and naming the animal kingdom. The description of the animal kingdom, welldone, would have those characteristics of organic development, and partial optimizations, similar to what we saw as necessary in brains and computers systems. Language itself, being formed on the basis of organic infomration exposure is also a system that has optimization properties that when graphed would show patterns of non-straightness and webbing like what is seen in nature. It is expected that a system of life categorization and description, is one that will have properties like this system, and would probably require a starting point like this system anyways in order to advance to later stages.

[Finished at 7:41 pm in 2 hours and 7 minutes, without edits, partly blined typed, without a reading, without spell or grammar check. Typed on a flight from Honolulu to Portland, Oregon]

Tuesday, June 6^th, 2023, 7:48am, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

Or: The choice of child’s puzzles to mathematics and reading.

Since young I wondered why people seem to have been unable to notice that the puzzles offered by mathematics, are sufficient to supply the same or similar interests thought to be had in doing popular puzzles. I think it is arguable whether people truly find published puzzles that fun, even though they do them, but assuming they provide some amusement, or some somewhat pleasant way to use time, when nothing else seems better to do, in order to focus on what can be done instead that is at least as enjoyable or more enjoyable, but more importantly, useful. Math, reading and learning area all available activities at the time that puzzles are chosen, except that people don’t imagine them to be options, perhaps for not recognizing, yet, that there are similarities.

Also, when young, I was exposed like others to a range of popular puzzles and puzzle games, that existed in our culture, in print in newspapers and periodicals, and in other types of physical games. I remember playing parlor games, card/strategy games, chess, crossword puzzles, puzzle-piece image recreation puzzles, word finders, and so on… The list of puzzles experienced by anyone from my generation or older, in a print or tactile format must be very large. Sudoku also existed, but not until I was older, in my later teens perhaps.

Here I will focus on chess, Sudoku, and crossword puzzles. These are all puzzles thought by the intelligent to be worth their time, perhaps for all of their lives. People in the high intelligence community, like Mensa, may have extra interest in puzzles, and Mensa has been a publisher and releaser of various print and tactile puzzles that are or were new, and wouldn’t otherwise exist.

These types of puzzles, chess, Sudoku, and crossword puzzles, have some things of interest in common. For example, none of them model life, the way that it is claimed, mathematics or the sciences do. Each option, limits people’s minds as to which games to play. When the time comes to choose a game, one recalls these, if one plays them, and then plays them again. If the game is chess, this can be a serious problem, as the repetitiveness of the game may not even be noticed by those enthusiastic about it, and they may choose that game, a bit too often.

These games, are also not great learning opportunities. Not only are they not great learning opportunities, people have difficulty explaining why they are worth doing. Sudoku somehow “ensures one’s mind stays agile and, well, works”. Some will try to borrow the utility of math and claim it exists in Sudoku. Chess, others will argue, is a kind of intelligence test, and of course, it is not, but certain people will think that showing some skill is a way to show that some smarts exists in the player. Chess, likes sports, also has an unadvanced analogy to life, people think, forgetting that such an analogy, could be quickly written down by, someone, and once known, doesn’t require playing chess. Chess includes a skill of using certain mental powers, somewhat different than those for Sudoku and crossword puzzles, but these powers, particularly visual-pattern recognition and planning powers, exist doing almost anything complex outside. Crossword puzzles, supposedly advance one’s vocabulary, by playing similar games over and over, with exposure to new hints at words, and new word problems and solutions. However, I think it irrefutable, the puzzles are often poorly created. The word problems are ill conceived, and answers are, well, often not answers. They words that fit into blocks that are solutions to hints, or word problems, that just sometimes slightly or partly relate. “I can guess the word that fits into the box, but the puzzle part, is well, not that well authored.” The crossword enthusiast, like the chess person, and the Sudoku person, thinks they have some special vocab by doing it. But clearly, the Stanford-Binet test, can let them know what their relative standing as to vocab is, and in one sitting. I.e. Crossword puzzles, chess, and Sudoku, and many other games, allow one to pretend one is smarter than one is. Doing these things over and over really does indicate some dysfunction in choice of activities.

Sudoku is another game, of a single type, that can be done repetitively, with a pose that one is doing math somehow, and one is good at math. However, math does not do one thing over and over again. Math has a problem set that could be done forever, with new and different real problems, and solutions that can be applied to life. Sudoku doesn’t appear to have many analogies to life. Also, Sudoku really would be something that a mathematician would be interested in, as a single problem only. A mathematician would be strange, to keep doing the same problem over and over after understanding it. It is a math problem that scales in complexity. In this way it is like the size of a chess board, which could be much bigger and include more pieces. Sudoku has easy puzzles, and harder ones, but the format is recognizably identical. A math problem exists in, perhaps, saying what is identical. The test author would know what that is very likely, but the audience would not. Meaning they may have not recognized what it is yet. However, that didn’t stop them, from playing over and over the same problem-set.

Sudoku specifically prompted me to again and again, become somewhat annoyed, at the inability of people to see how pointless and wasteful the activity is. Mathematics textbooks include sometimes thousands of new problems, each different, that would create skills that can be used for real creative productions and learning applications. Somehow, the way in which people were exposed to math, and learning, has caused them to not realize, that all of that learning really could be fun. Particularly, if the posturing about the puzzles is true: “I like visual problems and like to relate them to real life learning” (chess), “I like vocabulary, which learned would allow expression, and perhaps new ways of thinking and communicating about life” (crossword puzzles), and “I like digits, which can be used for real world scientific applications, and for personal hobbies and projects” (Sudoku), then why not use what is more useful instead, related to learning that you would claim is vital. Is that a hard puzzle to really solve, that math and reading, and learning, with books and math, and logic, and science, really are better.

One might think that “doing math” and “reading” and “writing” or doing other productions may not include enough to do, somehow. But the comparison of things to do, in the entire available things to do in math, in reading, in writing, and in personal projects, is more than three puzzles. Instead of three, you can substitute in the number of puzzles you yourself can imagine as options, that you would really choose at the time that you decide, you need something boring to work on. That number is very small and finite. People are not powerful at considering options, when the time comes, to do something other than, sitting and staring, and contemplating good actions. Reading really includes all books and things written. All writing, really includes, all you can develop with your mind into print. All learning, really does include discovering something interesting, if looking in the right places, with good questions, and does not require pretend analogies to life, like chess. You are actually learning things in life, that can apply to life. In math, there really is every textbook ever written, that has millions of problems contained. The objective of this math, is usually real life problem solving. Problems are created for the puzzle mathematicians, so one does not have to become a real mathematician to enjoy it. In other words, you can just buy textbooks and have plenty of real world puzzles, created by someone else, just like Chess and Sudoku. Sudoku, has this special thing in which not only is it one type of problem, authored by someone else who maybe was a mathematician, but the users believe they are doing math, without any mathematical expressions of any kind. The test-user, is not a mathematician or puzzle-mather. They aren’t doing math at all but believe they are because digits are present. Here as I write this, I can feel the Sudoku puzzler’s presence, wanting me to at least notice, that they do mental arithmetic from elementary school, while they do Sudoku. But they’d want me to say it in a way that makes it sound better, by leaving the elementary nature, of addition, and whatever small skills and tricks are employed.

I have noticed, since young, that some few observations about these games, are enough to make them unworth my time and attention. Let’s consider some examples. Each greatly diminish interest, but together they make the games seem foolish.

Some puzzles are conveniently scaled easy puzzles, made to be just hard enough, for you to think they are unmasterable, but easy enough for you to learn how to play them.
- Chess is an example. Chess is simply a scaled mini-puzzle, like tic-tac-toe. It really is fully-deterministic. Some claim ineffable freedom exists in chess, but that’s because they don’t really honestly have a mathematical approach to thinking about chess. It is a game that is set on an 8x8 board, and not a 64x64 board.
Relatedly, if made smaller, they become children’s games. What does this say of the slightly larger version? Sudoku could have less rows and columns. Crossword puzzles could have shorter more common words. Chess could be on a 4x4 board. Making them smaller makes them easier games, too easy to want to play. Well, what does that say about the slightly larger games* that normal average adults enjoy? Some people even call the games of other adults “Child’s games”, noticing perhaps that there really is a similarity to the games children were playing. They just got slightly more complex.

[More to come]

Cannibalism and Wartime Disrespect

Friday, June 2^nd, 2023, 9:04pm, South Pacific, Australasia

If I’m not mistaken, there were instances of cannibalism during Vietnam. Likely in all or most of the wars that have existed, in which dead remains would lie a long period, and hungry soldiers were around?

How do you not taste the enemy?

Also, during the reactions and response to 9/11, some of those angry, and in favor of military action, were calling the middle easterners “Sand Niggers”. Once again, I think most wars, had phrases to disrespect the race and heritage of the enemy peoples. Formerly “equal people, and culturally equal national friends”.

It seems, does it not, that warfare includes, obviously, disrespect? It also includes dehumanization, and instances of cannibalism.

I can’t imagine myself at any time in the future really respecting thoroughly and soldiers or veterans.

Respect the anti-sandniggering cannibal?

This sort of respect is not really required, even if people think it is required during

celebrations.

Remember the disrespect.

I didn’t invent your privacy

Friday, June 2^nd, 2023, 8:45pm, Sydney, Australia

Zoology on a personal level can continue, including speaking about explorations and findings, and learnings, without a concern about your views on privacy—your views on sensitivities and offense.

I didn’t invent your privacy.

Are you sensitive about your inventions?

People Didn’t Solve Conversation

Friday, June 2^nd, 2023, Sydney, Australia

In everyday experience, we hear and become involved in conversations that are undesigned and unplanned in how they are conducted. A conversation is thought to be a simple thing, when it is not a meeting, with an agenda or a purpose in which a number of individuals are present. Still, in that context, it appears there is no plan or design, and no variety of methods, in which those meetings can be carried out effectively. One method I am aware of, which appears very antiquated, for handling meetings in certain formal settings, like in politics, is Robert’s rules of order. However, this method appears extremely suboptimal and unfit for continued use in our more modern context, and what was created has the appearance as an early attempt at meeting structure and process, and not a well developed process.

The purpose of this specific note-taking is more about the simplest form of conversation, between two people. A simpler form of conversation exists within one person, but this is the simplest in which there is more than one participant and two different minds. Conversations between individuals do not seem to have a planned structure, or a method with much variety; instead, they are done in a way that is not well understood in the sense that participants cannot easily describe the method they are using. Oftentimes, conversations between two people have a back-and-forth like nature in which one person begins speaking, speaks for a period, and then stops, or pauses. The pause or the stopping is a time in which the next speaker thinks either the prior speaker has finished or the prior speaker has provided enough silence for opportunity to jump in and start a turn. There is turn-taking in the conversations. In this turn taking, people seem to desire to have some parity in time taken to speak. This is part of the reason for equal time allocations in Robert’s rules of order. There is a desire for fairness in the conversation, for equal hearing and speaking time. This seems to be wanted in most conversations although in some there is a clear power disparity in which one speaker is given more importance or more time, and that may happen when a younger person is speaking with an elder, if someone is speaking with a paid expert on a subject, or if there is something else special about one of the two participants thought justifying temporary unfairness; i.e., if a speaker is having a birthday, or if a speaker is intended to be the focus of attention for having some special need.

These differences in situations create a difference in the expected parity in the turn taking of conversations, but what is interesting is that still there is a desire, particularly if one is moderately talkative, that there is some turn-taking that trends towards parity.

There are other situations which indicate that value in conversations might be developed further if one speaker gets much more time or all of the time in a conversation. It may seem odd to hear that a speaker may get all of the time in a two person conversation. However, if one considers that one signs up for lectures, and pays for time with an instructor, not to speak but only to listen, take notes and learn, without asking an questions potentially, then it seems less odd. One could have had arranged time with a lecturer to perform the same lecture to them as a single audience member. Notice, however, that when there is no audience, and there are only two participants, it does seem odd that the lecturer would not suddenly become a plain conversationalist, interacting in a normal way with a student. When not in lecture, students may believe they can get personal time from their instructors in which they can have a conversation that seems to trend towards parity in exchange, or taking turns, in what is said. There is an idea that respect would result in some consideration for the students thoughts, and that suddenly there may be equal time between the two participants.

The format of speaking and pausing and accepting a transition to a new speaker is a bit strange in my estimation. It appears to be something lacking in sophistication, and the lack of planning and method seems to result in conversations that are lower in value. A student sitting in lecture listening to a high quality professor may be involved in a conversation that is of superior value, and this shouldn’t be too shcoking if the listener is paying large quantities of money for the experience. Likewise, the instructor or lecturer may be very well compensated for only speaking and providing very little interaction with listeners. If there were a transition to another format in which the same lecturer were interacting alone with a student it is not clear if the lecturer should not still mosty speak while the student remains silent. Personally, not thinking my lectuers typically of this quality, I don’t think this type of scenario would often occur; however, there have been courses I have had in which the lecturer really was doing a great job of informing me, and members of the audience, with very little need for questions or discussion of any time. Paying for high value thinking, I appreciated when lecturers could share their knowledge for the entirey of class time without hearing from any inferiors in the audience.

Another area of interest, aprart from time management in conversations, and the back-and-forth turntaking of discussions, is personalities and vaying values in the participants. There is not equality in conversations (ref Abandoning Equality, which is clear when one considers parents speaking with their children. In almost every conversation there will be different values between participants, that will relate to diverse traits and skills and knowledge. Some converse poorly, and some rudely, even if they are not contributing value. In these scenarios I see again, a lack of method for handling the conversations. Still there appears to be an expectation of parity in time, although some talk too little and some steal too much time. Some do not listen well. Some of little more than what they’ll say next. There is a tremendous variety in the ways conversations can unfold between people with differing traits, but there appears to be very little variation in the key methods employed for managing conversations. The mothods wouldn’t be defined for us in any designs or plans, but there would be exemplars of excellent conversationalists who know how to manage many kinds of conversational situatinos so as to extract value. But these socially skilled conversationalists probbly still adhere to some expectation of partiy in time, and in some unstated rules about provind equivalent back-and-forth.

Historically I’ve been quite skilled at conversation management, but I confess I greatly err on the side of ensuring the other party feels they’ve had some degree of parity in the conversation, or perhaps more time than they should. I wonder now if there is an alternative method or approach that can used that could yield more value, that would greatly decrease the speaking time of others, and their opportunities to speak, including at times when I’m waiting to think of what next to say, or to find the right way to express a complete thought. I’m also not especially desirous of managing the emotions of the participation; it may be that, more valuable interactions will include ones that less satisfying to the other participant. Occasionally provoking frustration in the other may nevertheless result in a better conversation exprerience. I am thinking about my own benefits as they relate to the conversation; however, it is not clear to me that this wouldn’t also result in a more valuable conversation despite any lessening of positive feelings, or creation of negative emotions.

A more mature perspective in work is one that understands that interactions have a sort of cycle to them, or, that work goes on and the results of the interaction can change greatly in time. I’ve had negative conversations with colleagues that lead to long term friendships or connections. Put another way, in general, it appears a leader in an organization is a better one if they know the likely outcomes in long periods of time of all sorts of events, including ones that are negative that turn positive. This knowledge can allow one to perceive and know that future effects of seemingly negative events may better than worse.

There is also a science to changing ways of interacting with others so as to gain information about the relationship quality. This is another example in which less positive conversation experiences can lead to longer term gains in certain kinds of knowledge.

This is an exploratory posting in this subject. Prior interests in conversation have been about using them to appraise values of relationships, and for utilizing written formats instead of spoken formats to better track what was said, and to watch developments. In my history I’ve been greatly annoyed by the inability of others to recall conversations, making it difficult to have good interpersonal growth. I’ve also been interested in the quality of conversations as it relates to intelligence and creativity. Here I’m more interested in the strangeness of the expectation that there would be parity in conversations in a give-and-take format, where participants are not equally valued. It appears that this may be something very difficult to change due to possible potential social side effects. One example, is that in conversations with certain parties, they think any disagreement and potentially other modes of discussion as threatening authority, and may be willing to take actions simply for having a different way of transacting, even if there is no legal cause for it. I was thinking about this today as I was considering that certain authorities or people in businesses may want to take action as if they had legal power, simply because they percieve there is disagreement, or a challenge to their authority. Nevertheless, I intend to do some testing in my own conversations to shift away from the typical method of give and take to:

periodically speak at the same time as others to keep my side going during unwanted interruptions.
to keep speaking without giving time to the other for extended periods of time such that they may wonder if they would have an opportunity to speak.
to end conversations as soon as I’m done speaking, or after providing myself a considerably longer time to talk.
to never respond, or seldom say anything, and to stop listening, to people speaking to me, to tune them out or otherwise unsure their speaking is diminished, to increase the value of the conversation. (value to who is a topic of interest).
to have longer delays in speaking but to repetitively inform the other that I have more to say and to be patient with my pauses.
to speak more slowly sometimes but without saying any less.
to speak in a way that is more approaching my value even if it goes beyond certain age-related obstacles (I.e. unconcern about the age of the person I’m talking to, and/or speaking as I often do as someone older, which is normal given my history in business and well developed backround, and status as retiree).
To interrupt much more often with certain people.

I may follow up with some results of these experiments in the near future.

Initially I think I will start simply, by either taking all of the time, or by giving none of my time. Doing all I can to simply control pace without stopping speech, with interrupting, and demands for continuation during pauses when unfinished, and by failing to listen while not saying anything to someone speaking to me. It appears silence is usually an option even in cases where there may be some demands for interaction.

Rudimentary Advice, and Adults Ready to Do Little

Friday, May 26^th, 2023, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Often we see advice in social media that is rudimentary and childish, about how to “never give up” or how to accumulate small changes by consistent self-improvement. Here is an example of childish advice given by adults. The receptiveness of the audience, indicates that the advice provided still has not been learned, despite how basic it is. If learned, it would not be reshared often, or shared by those who are elders. But it appears elders are quite receptive to messages such as these.

Consider the advice in the image above, which was shared by an executive who appeared to be approximately sixty years old. People receiving the message were receptive an willing to reshare it, and comment on it as though it were exceptionally useful, applicable to their own lives. However, it appears to me that this is a very defective meme that should be recognized as excessively rudimentary and repetitive to anyone who is not deficient. It is like learning about compound interest yet again, as an elderly person, but with a formula that isn’t a formula at all, but merely an example of exponential growth arbitrarily selected in a juvenile way.

Consider:

The view that such a message is still useful to an adult is an indicator that many perceive themselves to be very close to immobility regarding self-improvement. If this is the case, why suddenly would such a message encourage a change. Instead, it is a sign that such changes cannot be made despite decades of rethought.
The equation of compound interest is well known and taught in high school. If it cannot be remembered or has not been self-trained, then by 60 years old, if the advice is still shared, it is evidence that the person has not learned it, thinking it still valuable. Reminders should not be necessary any longer either.
People who are highly intelligent who still find messages like this useful appear to not have utilized their intelligence on their own behavior or development on the sophistication of their advice giving or receiving.
The equation is falsely to suport the point, like a bar graph skewed to be persuasive and misinformative. 1.01^365 isn’t any representative model of growth on consistent behavior, but is instead used to say “Look, .01 will increase fast over time like compound interest.” Unlike compound interest, it uses a useless equation without any variables. “You’ll become a 37” which seems a reasonable increase from being just a one. But notice that if instead of 1.01, 1.9 was chosen, then you would equal 5.559866e+101, a number so large it can’t be written out by a calculator. “You’d be that big a number.” Alternatively, if 1.000000000001, then you’d be approximately 1 later too.

The time it takes to explain what is wrong with such memes is enough for readers to TLDR response anything that debunks the message. The result is that such messages go undebunked and people continue to use them, share them, consider them as worthwhile unreflectively. However, they’ve not realized that this message includes childish content that shows their advice is primitive, and exhibits their inability to improve, or use models that use real math, but instead uses childish ways of demonstration.

Some comments in Mensa to someone claiming special knowledge on “real creativity”

Monday, May 15^th, 2023, Tasmania, Australia

[HighIQ Community Member], appreciate your history in there. You can see my history here too if you’re interested: LinkedIn.com/in/mattanaw. Very large creative demands on my mind that had to result in decisions and tangible products of various types. I would disagree with you on this statement, selecting it out as being, still, the key area of contention in your earlier comment:

“But I was talking about what I personally consider a deeper kind of creativity – what I consider real creativity.”

Here is where I would say, there isn’t any “real creativity.” Coming from a background in Psychology, if you are making the claim that real creativity cannot be measured, I would say you’ve missed operationalization of the concept, which requires validity tests, which would come to a point of “how do we measure this?” Taking your statements as relating to a hypothesis about deeper creativity, you would need to construct a scientific experimental design, that would allow you to collect data to show that it isn’t measurable. Furthermore you would need to define the word clearly, and have parameters relating to other things that are measurable, allowing for the planning of data collections, that relate to statistical significance, which is a huge miss in scientific studies, BTW. If you think this through, I think you will find it is a way to separate out something to make it have a special place, that is not measurable, and maybe not physiological. Using measurements of what exactly would allow you to show this? If you developed such an experimentation, I think it would result in a reductio ad absurdum to your hypothesis assumed true, which would show that it is really measurable, and not something different fundamentally from creativity. But doing such a thing you would create greater clarity on creativity.

But I really do think, on grounds of introspection, and knowledge of Psychology/neuroscience, that the growth of productions and mind is related to active creativity and neurodevelopment that is physiological and measurable. If there is something underlying what is in our awareness about our creativity, which is certainly the case, then it is physiologically explained, and not introspectively explained. The physiological explanation would include why you have creative growths you are aware of, but also those you are unaware of. On this point, again, I think there isn’t a good reason to have a special thing separated called “real creativity” that is somehow more ineffable.

This error I think is similar to the one found in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in which the author writes, extensively, about how quality cannot be defined and never could be. He creates a special somewhat mystical place (you didn’t say “mystical” I know), for “quality”, pushing it into ineffability. When I read it, I thought “But I can explain quality…” but what I could not convince this person probably, is that it doesn’t have the special place he wants for it, for other reasons he has that he did not share. Probing further into your statement, I would wonder, what this view achieves for you personally, over and above your reasons for thinking it truthful. Why do you find this idea attractive? Does it help you have an improved self-concept in some way? If so it may not actually be as defensible as you think, and I feel very confident I could explain the experience in detail.

If you were to share with me what your experience of real creativity is, in detail, I think I could explain why it is measurable and better explain what it is, and relate it to my experience. But, on a hunch, on experienced judgement, I would guess if you think you can’t measure it, you may not be able to explain how you experience it. But then that makes it a physiological subprocess under your awareness, and neuroscience would explain it better.

Going further, pretending the statements came from someone else, someone I don’t know well, like you, I would say maybe this view also relates to religion. And in that case I would also relate it to other things, like a belief in a soul, or a belief in an afterlife, in that creativity somehow connects to something supposedly “deeper, more real, more meaningful that simply cannot be expressed.” But spending time with me would really reveal, I think, that it can be expressed, but expressing it shows that it is not that, and not connected with those things; and that more detail would be surfaced, than the detail which is shared. Indicating that it hasn’t been thought through completely.

You have other comments earlier in the group that indicate to me you have some interest in the creative process and what creativity means for you. I write about this actively. I would be interested to see what you have written about it, and can also share with you what I think might relate from my own writing. Or else share more thoughts like these that also, sort of feed my other writings in various creative/productive ways.

[Note: Written in 14 minutes.]

Can you unpriest a monk, or is a monk alone a priest?

Friday, April 19^th, 2023, Queenstown, New Zealand Time

Can you unpriest a monk, or is a monk alone a priest?

Or: Using Content And/Or AI to Support and Recreate Brain

Thursday, April 13^th, 2023, Queenstown, New Zealand Time

When can you sell a photograph?

Thursday, April 13^th, 2023, Queenstown, New Zealand Time

A common question of interest is whether or not photography is an artform, or whether or not soon it will become too easy to be artistic.

Related to this question is what of the experience is artistic, or produces art, that is supposedly in the photograph.

Finally, there is the question of what photos can be sold, and what the justifications are for selling and procuring certain photographs.

Before I being to say more: pointing a phone at something of interest, that is itself artistic is an artful find. It can be used to preserve something artful. It can be used to archive artwork, and to collect meaningful visual experiences. Sometimes the experiences themselves contain something which precedes whatever medium is used to do any more. Some won’t take photographs, or as many of them, because they think that the photography diminishes rather than enhances this experience, which may lead to artful productions later, of the same kind or other kinds.

When I was in my teenage years I used disposable film cameras, and would refuse to take pictures of myself, or to hand my camera to others, to take pictures of me when they volunteered kindly to do so. To me, at that time, a photo was going to be a memorial of what I saw that I enjoyed, from inside my head, through my own eyes. Even seeing myself on a photo from my camera indicated there was an experience someone else was having that I did not have myself. I wanted my camera to be like my eyes in a way. Since then I’ve decided that recording my life is valuable, and took many photos of myself and my companions in a selfie style.

Like this complaint I had, regarding photography and the art, and what it means in relation to experience is not something that others have not thought about, sometimes in other ways. Recently I had a conversation in which my companion was saying there was something he disliked about the order in which photos were taken in relation to experiences had that would prompt photographs. He also did not like that a photograph cut out or selected only a portion of the experience. To him the experience was more than the photographs produced and somehow the photographs falsified themselves, and diminished the experience itself; so instead he would not take photographs during certain better moments. Related to these complaints were various ideas about photography as a less artful form. I will not say more about these but he had numerous ideas about why he had some distaste for photography.

To some of the above I was able to provide what appeared to be persuasive points. He seemed to agree with some counterpoints, although I would admit still, there is something about photography that certainly can take away from natural experiences, which were the focus of our talk. I will share these persuasive points momentarily.

In another conversation just earlier, I heard from a photographer who was telling me that he did not like to take photos of other artworks, thinking that it was something approaching theft; or if not theft, trying to recall correctly, something not his, and instead he preferred to photograph natural settings, landscapes in particular. There was something of an issue with the relationship to another art producer, versus a relationship to nature.

Revising the Parenting Plan as Providing Reason to Live

Thursday, April 13^th, 2023, Queenstown, New Zealand Time

[Note: Unedited as part of a study in editing]

I’m not fond of the phrase “Reason to live” thinking that there are many reasons that can be provided when a persons birth has a high probability of resulting in a fulfilling life. I prefer instead to think that a person may have a very large set of expectations which individually and collectively contribute to a likelihood of a satisfying animal existence.

Many have complained that they need such a reason to live. Instead of already receiving something from their parents and environment as children which show, clearly, that forethought existed in a certain kind of plan, also answering “what is my plan?”, they are produced on sexual desires alone nearly.

I have said before that people ought to have a much better strategy regarding if/when to have sex, not faulting individuals who have a deterministic history resulting in sexual acts; but that more generally people can get into population planning, STD management, relationship risk management and life plans for selves and future others, and by doing so create some distance from history in its prior lack of strategy. Before desire alone, like animals, ensured that new animals would be produced. Reflecting on how humans procreate, they really do act similarly. Where there would be claims to plans, and strategy, of parents who pretend having made sound decisions, instead are lack of writings that support, and lack of anything that can be given over to the child to demonstrate that such planning existed before they were born. Even among married couples who have ideas about what a family may consist of, is lack of clear vision of what their kids would look like, what there characteristics would be, and a probabilistic idea about what their advantages in life would be, that would create a high quality life as a person.

Instead, later, oftentimes, parents claim they need “salvation” and a “life savings”, financial and spiritual, to make the next “better life” available. It is told also that this next life is not one that is assured. “Reasons” are taken from sources claiming to have a way to survive life well and be “granted” an afterlife, but these do not come from parents but from ancient peoples instead. A modern and thoughtful plan would not come from such a source, and would be satisfied if it came from parents who were concerned about the freedoms of their future children, to live and learn in a way they choose for themselves, but with the traits and advantages which make a good future likely.

Suppose a parent or parents were to create such a plan for their children. In this plan would be somethihng relating to expected appearance and traits of the animals which would relate to traits the parents themselves enjoy. For example, a parent who thinks themselves unattractive, might produce a child also unattractive, and potentially unhappy. A parent who is unhealthy, may produce an unhealthy child. A wife who does not thoroughly enjoy the traits of her huysband may not like her child’s traits; and if so, the child would not enjoy perhaps their relationships with women, who think similarly, or a mother, who might deride their traits which are the same as those deridden in her husband. The same is true the other direction, considering the traits of women and their desirability.

This plan relates to all traits which can be known that are of interest for determining if a life is a beneficial one. Intelligence is to be considered. Region where one lives needs to be considered, which means situational information is vital. Level of income and money, and availability of resources is required. If not, parents can simply create poor starving children, and claim there is a plan from another source, rather than realize that they animalistically, as animals too, created children out of sexual desire.

To me, having done perhaps a large amount of work which would prepare me to formulate such a strategy, I think I could arm my children, if I were to think it likely they would have genetic traits worth having, with a plan that would make it clear that the vision was appropriate to the decision for having them. “My father really did have a high expectation that if a baby was born, it would live well later, and I’m that child. He could not envision my traits in advance, but had a probabilistic expectation that I’d have an excellent life. This also gave me some direction as to what to do in life to continue to have such an expectation: by using my beauty, talents, living situation, region, and many other factors to my benefits, to have a happy and fulfilling experience.”

Such a plan would be truthful and honest, and this would create a parental bond of trust. A plan coming from parents that is honest in its vision and expectations, and predictions, would be enough to make questions such as “What is my life for, and what is my plan, and what are my reasons for existing” unreligious, and more scientific, and immediately relevant.

[Note: Unedited as part of a study in editing]

Modeling Skepticism

Thursday, April 13^th, 2023, Queenstown, New Zealand Time

When you are theorizing, how do you model the level of skepticism appropriate to your thoughts?

Updating Theorizing

Thursday, April 13^th, 2023, Queenstown, New Zealand Time

[Note: no edits in accordance with the earlier mentioned project in studying editing.]

An issue that exists in the scientific community, that is general to its work to be performed, and its manner of explaining its results, is the wording around what is a “hypothesis”, what is a “thesis”, and what is a “theory”. All have had some confusion or concern about precision concerning what a theory is apart from a hypothesis, and all in science are concerned with research and papers, in which a thesis is to be had and demonstrated.

There are several problems. Firstly, there is the problem of lack of complexity, since a hypothesis may be composed of several subhypotheses, revealing that a model would exist for each and every hypothesis which would relate to what has been thoroughly demonstrated, and what has not been demonstrated and is really “theoretic”. The word “theoretic” has been used to discuss what is not demonstrated but appears to have truth. This confounds theory and hypothesis.Underlying a hypothesis containing nested hypotheses, and within it, are premises of certain sorts which are themselves complex, which come together, which are to form a rigorous scientific demonstration or proof, which has mathematical aspects. These premises are to have a logical structure. All together a work, or set of researched works, or works, is to combine hypothesis and logical structure to fully demonstrate, or prove out, what is required for the thesis. The result of this is supposed to resemble scientific method, in that the outcome of the work is really one that has the sufficient number of components and connections between components explaining thoroughly what is to be demonstrated. This includes statistical data related components, observations, experiences in other researched papers, and logical arguments which bring together all to really convince readers that the primary hypothesis is a true one.

Above more than one other problem exists in how these hypotheses are linked together, and what to call each independent already existing hypothesis, regarding its state of maturity in its own development towards becomine a theory. A theory is supposed to be something that has already some weight in evidence and prior work, and is trending towards truth accepted. However, since there are different kinds and levels of assurance as to quality of prior work, each theory and hypothesis really would benefit from having different names, and a different nomenclature, capturing what is uncertain about each.

A theory is a longer statement of sorts, and a hypothesis is a shorter statement that is supposed to be testable. Both resemble each other, but differ regarding the levels and kinds of existing work has been done to support both.

A ‘theory’ is confused with ‘theorizing’ because a theory, we are told by some in the scientific community, is a statement of sorts in which theorizing has been complete. This confuses the language.

This brief writing is intended to reveal that a new nomenclature would support clarity around what a hypothesis is more particularly, and what its level of related skepticism should be. Arguably, theories which are secure in existing work are still hypotheses under this way of looking. Theories are still questioned later. What are the questions and concerns regarding theories which are accepted? Which are the questions and concerns about theories which are less accepted. Classify these concerns and you have the solidity of the theory, and hypothesis, and ways to talk about the solidity, apart from the usage of two words which have confusions.

More to be added later regarding what such a nomenclature may look like if developed, providing some pathways for the work of others, if I do not continue further to work on the issue myself, working around the words theory and hypothesis to simply provide more detail and clarity regarding what we might be skeptical about, and what might go past skepticism to natural understanding of the world.

Thu Apr 13 15:11:14 NZST 2023

[Note: no edits in accordance with the earlier mentioned project in studying editing.]

A comment in the HighIQ community regarding claims that certain rarities are really not so rare

Sunday, April 6^th, 2023, Invercargill, New Zealand Time

A comment in the HighIQ community regarding claims that certain rarities are really not so rare

Productions of folks don’t seem to support this at all in my view. If we were to aggregate productions of each of those who are supposedly 1 in 24,500, we would not see quality or significance which is approaching what should be had on criticism relating to subtests of intelligence [Edit: for those who are IQ 176 vicinity]. For example, we would see productions which are thought to be of better quality, with better significance, and less defects (a subtest), less pattern mistakes (a subtest), less vocabulary sophistication or word combination (a subtest), less memory length of written statements and compactness of meaning (subtests), etc… through all the subtests. Less indications of visual/written match of ability, which indicates lopsidedness in productions. Why would there be lopsidedness of productions? Individuals who have claims such as this, are to be measured on productions to determine in what ways there is a match or mismatch with intelligence measures that are test based, because the skills used for the test are to be self employed in productions. If not there is lopsidedness that debunks.

In our experiences reading high quality materials of various sources, and artistic works, we can see how rare these are. Not that they need to be developed to this extent with practice for signs to be evident regarding non lopsidedness of productions and testing. A child can show productions that are showing that there is not a lopsidedness with less development and resources.

Aware that Mark posts all that may be of interest including what is easy to agree with or not, I don’t think this is a share indicating agreement, and so I don’t anticipate any interpretation that I’m somehow trying to be contradictory with the purpose of the post, which is informative and for keeping folks perhaps current.

If we don’t ever do it we’re patterned away from it

Sunday, April 6^th, 2023, Invercargill, New Zealand Time

If we don’t ever do it we’re patterned away from it

Explorations in Greater Freedom

What hand symbols or gestures are you disallowed from using, in your freedom of speech, and how does that relate to artful symbology, and your artful expressions, which are symbolic and analogical, and meaningful, and communicative? What say you, Communications Doctorates?

Wednesay, April 5^th, 2023, Invercargill, New Zealand Time

My History of Writings in the High Intelligence Community

and my book, Book and Journal of Mattanaw

[Important Note: Unedited as a result of my ongoing study on editing, for some reasons provided below.]

Thu Mar 30 14:14:21 NZDT 2023

Some may have noticed that my long history of writings in the intelligence community had characteristics that did not necessarily resemble writings of a book or academic articles. This was deliberate.

In order to carry out a personal project of building a website or blog, or a book, or any writing whatsoever that is expected to be sold, there must be content. There must be sufficient writings the justify the effort of collecting them together, and for anyone who has blogged, they know that there must be enough writing and material to justify paying for a server, a domain name, applications such as a webserver, and anything else that might be a costly investment. A complete book requires a design, and a complete site requires one also, but if there is no material to include, one designs a site or book before there is anything to put in it of value.

Recently I have thought of putting together a living will in order to make clear to people certain things I really do not wish to occur after my death even though that control does not exist in great measure. There are finaincial things of interest, and assets come to mind, when thinking of waht happens when one dies. But what also about one’s wishes? Wishes is an expansive topic including how one is remembered, and how one’s thoughts and productions might be used later, if one is an artist or creator. One would not want one’s artworks to be defiled or used for other purposes. Similarly, people make provisions for their own bodies, so that their bodies are used in a way that seems compatible with one’s wishes, if one takes the time to think carefully about what those are and is not satisfied with simply being buried in a cemetery only, according to custom’s of others and normal practices where one lives.

I’m not here going to discuss fully what my complete set of wishes would be in life and at and after death. Instead I want to focus on what is relevant to content that might be created for a book, or website. How could these relate? Firstly, I have stated before that I am much averse to quotations. I would not want to be an author that is known for small excerpts of works unread, taken out of context, repurposed for intents that are customary or highly different from my own intentions. Like being burried in a cemetary according to the customs of others, I don’t want my ideas to simply exist in someone else’s context. Much better than this is to be understood. For someone like myself, I have already discovered it is not possible to be understood because the bulk of materials I have produced are too large, and will be much larger on development, for anyone to read in detail. But, if my wants were recognized, and they do not appear to be recognizable, people would think as they quote, that they have not fully understood; but part of my wishes would be that people simple recognize that fact, if any quotation is made. Being not famous enough for quotation perhaps, I wouold think the same of any excerpting, or selection of sentences, which results in a few words or phrases, or a sentence, or small number of sentences. Knowing that it is not interpreted correctly without a thorough reading is already respectful of the situation of the author, and of people’s thinking more generally when it cannot be easily encapsulated, or cannot be encapsulated. That people are aware they need to read all or most of a work in order to fully understand a meaning, even of a component part of the work, is already enough, perhaps, for people to see that they could read what else exists to achieve that, and perhaps some might. Even if no one did, the recollection of my view on quotation, and short sentences, would be known enough to create the right way of looking at excerpts or fragments of what gets used, and what is remembered. Not everything can be remembered. People will select small fragments and excerpts.

As a retired, former expert software architect, trusted to guide international corporations and governments, I know well what an appropriate content and writing strategy is. I would be the person entrusted to guide all on this topic!

Creating my own Book and Journal has been a long process. It’s not finished and is a work in progress that will go through all my life. Knowning in advance that such a process requires content to justify the design, I perused materials from brief articles with social intent rather than those which would be of academic intent. Earlier articles seemed very much what like short blog posts that one finds on the internet. Later, I became interested in sharing my mind, closer to its operation in real time, on topics that are often socially critical, in a format that allowed for errors, blemishes of various kinds, justified on grounds that such writings would be draft if found in handwritten journals, and would be forever in draft if in conversation, where many errors happen, but people listen; furthermore, unedited streams of consciousness writings, which we learned about in our educations as youths, have the strenghts of sharing something untained by editing. If I edit a work, I have not shared precisely what I was thinking and how I was thinking it. As a typist, I can really type as I think, and leave those thoughts in place without alterations. Doing this fulfill other objectives related to creating artifacts of self, but that writing is for another time in the same book and journal.

Being able to write in such a way that is somewhat similar to what is done between friends and amongst others in social media, where formality is not expected, and where much is allowed and permitted regarding sharing authentic things as people might say, I have been able to amass much content which could and was used for justifying the existence of a site, domain, server, design, and book. Since my book is also my living autobiography, and the reader is also experienced in social media, it can be seen that blending such social materials does allow for a timelined living autobiography. Suppose you were to collect all your writings together from social media, all your videos and photos, and retain them for yourself as a photoalbum and journal. Would this not enable you to create your own living autobiography, from what you’ve already done? The author knows and knew this has not existed, and it is a difficult thing to have and retain, and organize what has been put on software products not independently owned. These things are lost forever, and remain disorganized, with no way to download and organize those materials, to have them in the same way that photo albums and journals are had.

So much of my earlier writings are about my life and thoughts, but were very limited in that they did not provide my thinking as it related to earlier book plans which were more of an academic or intellectual quality. This also relates to somewhat undesirable expression in the form of sentences and short phrases, full of blemishes, which are nice too remembering life, that result in a misundersanding of sorts about what one is doing, and what one really wants to say, and how one would like to be remembered, or read in the future. I have stated above that I’m not in favor of quotations. Yet I made plenty of quotations myself, simply posting on social media sites that require a certain small amount of text and no more.

A reader who has seen much of these writings may be surprised that my intention earlier was to use my own writings as a source to show limitations about using these short writings, over longer ones. Knowing how some people think, I was aware that some could even claim there is a hypocrisy in someone claiming that quotes are unwanted or have fundamental issues, who also quotes, and uses short excerpts of text, instead of longer ones.

As I said above, I don’t expect that people would necessarily be able, or have time, to read enough to refrain from relaying my thoughts in a way that is not short. My practice also explains why quotation exists, and why people deal in short sentences and phrases, and why so many authors, unfortunately, have been disfigured in time, being shared only in pieces that could be had or recalled. It also explains somewhat, the interpretation of fragments from writings which do not exist entirely, that are still used and interpreted, despite a permanent lack of material which would provide an ability to interpret. Some fragments have been used to create false views about authors, simply because it could not be admitted that their works were lost. The works of many authors like Epicurus, Epictetus, Aristotle, and others are permanently gone. This implies they really cannot be known. Yet charitable interpretation to their fragmentary sources has not been applied in a way that is uncommon: to protect them from mythologization and fictionalization. Once cannot know an author if their works have been lost!

My writings to date have allowed me to build a considerable work of living autobiography, justifying investments, and now I can transition to writing more in an academic and intellectual way, that will help to explain my desire that people are rightly interpreted; myself included. If one cannot be righly interpreted, one can receive a charitable omission from making any further fictionalizing commentary! Or biography!

This writing is primarily to explain the earlier postings over the last few years. What they mean in context somewhat. They have enabled me to justify continuing writing and maintaining my publishing technology. Others will face the same issue as this when they plan any type of website, blog, or journal. Large organizations face this. What content do we have to share? How fast can we get content? What will fast content look like compared with slow, torturously edited and updated content? In my case I used content and materials suitable to my long term objective, that was faster. The fast content really did serve my purposes and is interesting in my estimation. It provides artifacts and data about my life, and a primary source commentary of the type of life I’m living, which is similar to the lives of others, who are contemporaries, like the reader of this posting. It enabled my objective of having a finished book, with the structure required to incorporate all my other productions, written or artistic.

What is difficult in this process is that one knows that the earlier writings are not the ones one would want to be interpreted using! One wants it to be finished! In my case I chose for structure and direction, knowing that later works would clarify earlier ones, and that I would not finish really, but would have a good product at death. But if I died earlier, all interpretations of my mind would have been done with fragments, and it would have to be admitted I would be unknown.

[Written in 41 minutes with no proofreading and no edits]

Finished Thu Mar 30 14:55:42 NZDT 2023

Sunday, March 12^th, 2023, 7:21 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

You like the younger version of your spouse compared to the older

A Mathematical Proof-like Demonstration of Preference of Youth to Age in Aesthetics from Sexual Preference and Cultural Example

Recently I made a statement that someone I had some relationship interests with was hot to me, although she was older. I used the example of her daughter to confirm why she was attractive. This indicates that there would be a preference I would have for her younger self to her older self, which is true. I utilized the younger self to make it more clear why the later version was attractive. Just like how someone would argue that their wife is attractive to them, for being a progression of the younger that is pleasing.

An ethical maxim that existed in recent history was to check the appearance of your potential spouse’s parent to confirm that they will still seem attractive to in their expected aging. If the parent of the potential spouse did not seem attractive, there could be reasons for not going forward with a desired relationship. Since marriage is a long term commitment with unexpected changes in time, information regarding expected change matters, where it exists. There is a family resemblance in aging, that is medically utilized. It would be medically utilized for predicting age related conditions which relate to visible appearance.

Reasoning steps:

At the beginning of your relationship, you find your spouse attractive.
Considering the incremental changes of your spouse in time, you use the historical maxim (a heuristic axiom or theorem), to know the future appearance, and a series of appearances from youth to old age.
The series of change of appearance is decremental with respect to preference, also using the historical maxim as a justification for continuing a relationship, versus preferring it more.
You find the mother attractive, but less so.
You will find the daughter more attractive to the mother.
Now relating this to my actual scenario: I find the mother attractive.
The daughter is an example of the earlier appearance of the mother in the series.
I find the daughter more attractive than the mother (but ignore it).
I find the mother attractive.

This isn’t done obviously and requires more steps than simple mathematical steps alone (needs statistical steps). But the mathematical component of the proof with the series does seem to have a usable generalization.

It might be fun to find other ways to express this proof formally, so that you can explain why you like younger people and older ones too. You may realize or help others see that, there is a series in aging as it relates to attractiveness, with this assumption already existing in culture, and an expectation that it would not relate to specific numbers of years of age. (One can make this same argument in favor of Indian arranged marriages). I leave it to the reader to decide independently what it might imply regarding various parts of relationship ethics.

Saturday, March 11^th, 2023, 3:38 PM Lower Hutt, New Zealand Time

Making good encyclopedias available offline

In my effort to solve issues of homelessness and wealthy camping (they relate), I have discovered the issue of needing to be stimulated with information if in the back country, offline, for extended periods of time. If satellite technology is available and energy too, then this is not an issue. But at present, even with Starlink, it’s not very movable or feasible, or simplistic to resolve. If one is in another nation, in a sedentary remote position, Starlink may solve it. Either way, offline resources for backups in these conditions are needed.

I came to the conclusion that scanning the Columbia Encyclopedia would be wortwhile and would provide endless reading material. Wikipedia would be excellent, too, but it is largely not usable. Some notes on this topic were exchanged in the high giftedness community between myself and another very intelligent person. He suggested that The Tormont Webster’s Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary is another good option.

Below are some notes of mine, to his share, which was in response to my comment regarding the Columbia Encyclopedia, which I own but have not yet scanned.

Response 1:

After looking at Kiwix, wondering how they could earn after noticing the difficulties of handling a 92 GB complete English wikipedia, I saw they are doing their work for enabling people all around the world, with offline computing only. I looked for other offline ways of using wikipedia, and there are none, unless one writes what Kiwix does, and I think that’s not worth it, due to unmaintained data APIs. So my little project of working to have off-grid reading, went to the discovery that this need is the same as for gifted kids worldwide. Gifted kids without resources. I think it is an amazing idea. Intentions may not be amazing from what I’m seeing since there is an odd board group or advisory panel for it. But, it seems cool. Much better would be unlocked wikipedia with easy html download. For this group and any folks enabling the gifted here, and I know there are some, I think this may be another thing of interest. So now there are three somewhat compact large-scale encyclopedias that are potentially usable for offline use (the one in OP for scan, and the Columbia Encyclopedia for scan. They seem about the same length and are reasonable for scan and storage).

Response 2:

, btw, I’ll have the Columbia encyclopedia in my possession not too long from now again, when back temporarily in AK. I was thinking to scan it for offline use. KiwiX is the offline wikipedia. It seems glitchy and a little problematic, but an alternative. Since the Columbia Encyclopedia it is out of print, I may be able to share it, once scanned. In that case we can all have it. I was wanting it for off grid camping and vacation, for ample reading with minimal connectivity and load. I’m carrying just one book now and already it feels too heavy, and it isn’t enough reading material. This encyclopedia looks very nice. A lacking of the Columbia Encyclopedia is that its illustrations are not in color. Makes a little more classy though, but nevertheless, color is wanting here and there.

This information should be valuable to anyone who wants a condensed form of high quality encyclopedic reading material.

These comments were from within 2 hours ago, posted in a private High IQ community within Mensa.

Tuesday, February 28^rd, 2023, 8:17 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

Mattanaw says you need not join moments of somebody else’s silence

Rock Lizard.

Saturday, February 25^rd, 2023, 5:46 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

Plans for the Evening

Today’s plans for the evening, on returning home, after enjoying some time at the gym in Wellington, and perhaps a jog doing some exploration, is the following:

Work on incorporating creative productions process workflows into the mind and habits.
- Process and push new media album to cloud.
- Server checkup.
(Mental Development) Productions: Save new diagram on sensory-attentional process.
Environment: Add music to playlists while being entertained:
- Listen to male opera singing, and vocal training, and scales.
- Listen to instrumental scales, and whistle along.
- Put Etudes from Chopin on playlist, and if there is time read along from sheet music.
Evening Routine: Get things ready and plan for tomorrow (including camera).

Thursday, February 23^rd, 2023, 2:36 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

Suffixes and Prefixes, and Interfixes that didn’t Dictionary

The potential dictionary size is vast if you simply build on your already attained mastery of wrapping and interstitialing fixes.

Thursday, February 23^rd, 2023, 2:36 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

Mocking Shit Faux-Jargon like “Boomer”

Boomer is a word that has been used by the media with full commitment but is truly shit jargon.

Shit jargon is something that needs to be recognized within the process of evolving the shared scientific vocabulary.

If it comes from the media, is a generational concept, as a rule it should be rejected as shit jargon.

Recently I updated my glossary page with words I coined. One coinage is the word “Cageism” which is interesting itself. Suffixing to expand vocabularies in a false way, while disabling people from using their mastery of the approach to coin new words is also worth making fun of. For this purpose we will join generational concepts with ways ofusing the word “Cageism”:

Related coinages: Cageism, cageist, cageophiliac, encageophiliac, cageophobic, cageomaniac, encageomancer, cageonometray, cegeonometrician, encagenobstectrics, millenialwokeuncageists,genzrevertocageophilistinism, boomercageist, unsuffixingcageist

Thursday, February 23^rd, 2023, 2:02 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

Redoing strange grammatical constuctions, like variations on ‘lay’

In the near future I will begin changing some english usages to use my own versions of poorly done grammatical variations in English. Obviously I will not attempt to cover the language exhaustively. However, any parts of English that seem a “reference nuissance” or nuissance offensive to natural mastery” that I am wanting to change will be changed.

The variations of the word ‘lay’ may be one such starting point, except for places where i’ve already done it, as with superpluralification.

Thursday, February 23^rd, 2023, 1:55 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

First of the Author and “Firsting” Behavior

In my lists page that includes my lists of obvious errors, falsities, and likely areas of untruth, I wrote about what I think of as “firsting”. Firsting is “He was the first” type statements about famous figures, false leaders, messiahs, prophets, cult leaders, and others who want to claim more for themselves than is honest or is documented for posterity.

L. Ron Hubbard in Scientology had a booklet with false firstings. It is unclear if it was of his preparation or the preparation of a mythologizer (Ref. bibliography the work Two Lives of Charlemagne). Either way there are numerous obvious firstings, that have the following characteristics:

They are testably false
Some are untestable, but are obviously false
Some lack primary source documentation (corroborating materials from Hubbard or other sources).
No access to history in which to independently want to make the claims (versus simply hearing lies from a motivated person who wants something).

The implication is that they are obviously false statements, that for others may appear possibly true, but for those people, they would have no way to verify, and would have nothing but claims to think it true.

However, that does not mean that nobody really “firsts” anything, and I argue in many locations for many purposes that each person is entirely unique, and is a first of sorts by default, which ensures they are [unequal] to others (Ref: Abandoning Equality). So firsting is something easy to do really. When you do things you are firsting becaue you are connected with the complete description of the situation in which you do it, and already you are unique, so what you do is unique. This I have used to argue that history never repeats itself (which is really just a recalled phrase anyhow).

What I am using as a heuristic device is using utterances of claims to firsts and similar statements as invokers of skeptcisim and cause to think cautiously. The utterances I have in mind are “monumentalisms” trying to make what one has done or what another has done as some monumental achievement worth durable respect or maybe separation from others as especially unequal or high in worth. Obviously there are reasons to think some as great, but firsting is a red flag as to false motivations and bad salesmanlike intentions.

This work does have the property of creating firsts in the world, and later I will list many meaningful ways in which my work really does do something either monumental, or does something leading to something that is monumental in an important way. There are huge differences between this and firsting. Namely this work has these properties:

A primary objective is honest recording of history to create artifacts.
Artifacts then can be used to test history and provide primary source materials to people who want to see if any big firsts really are true.
I am making the claims and not someone for me. This is important because if Charlemagne wrote his autobiography, it would agree in many ways with the version of Einhard, but not of Notker the Stammerer, who was a mythologizer. This means that it is important that peole who do something important tell their own story so they are not falsified by either a mythologizer or someone who pretends to be a follower with bad intentions, or anyone else with an interest in tampering, slandering, or making something excessively great.
The document form itself will be unusual to history. This means as an artifact those things which are listed as firsts will be clearly firsts, although it is understood that failure to preserve other parts of history could result in an inability to compare. If this exists, then ther may be a difficulty in inability to compare with what has not been preserved.
The author expects the reader to be skeptical.
The author expects truth-testing processes to be utilized.
The author will be obviously unmotivated about making things great by keeping things proportional to what they achieve.

Tentative Conclusion

In my work from the early 2000s I mentioned that this total work is partly an attempt to arrive at trustworthy conclusions which seem to be durable (Ref: Rational Times. Much is tentative in what we conclude from our analyses of things, but oftentimes we do arrive at hard and definite conclusions which are durable or permanent. A permanent conclusion is that whatever you make as a fiction is a fiction, and is therefore permanently false. We can easily recognize permanent falsities and these constitute more trustworthy truths. Much harder is representing nature in a way that is complete. In this we are often close, and close enough to have something duruable, but not far along enough to not already intuit that our representation witll not be supplanted later by something more clear, detailed, and integrated with other truths, which themselves will likely have more clarity and details. Certain truths later will have more power (akin to unlocking nuclear weaponry with physics).

A tentative conclusion to move forward with, directed simply at myself too, might be:

You certainly are creating many novel and important firsts with this work you are doing. These firsts are of a type which have little relationship to “firsting” which is a really abhorrent behavior, but does involve red flags, which should invoke skepticism in others, concerning how to validate or confirm that those firsts are really firsts, and if those firsts really have any special importance. The list provided will provide a reader with a definite set of testable claims as to achievements. This list combined with an honest approach at self-verification, and corroborating artifacts, and evidents of positive intentions and motivations of the author, along with other truth validation techniques, will provide readers and the author himself with ways to recognnize that caution resulted in verification, and that caution resulted in showing an example of where others are obviously firsting.

When I say this is tentative I also think it tentative in keeping with the objectives of the thoughtstream during more rational moments. I do not think subsequent thoughts will not elaborate on this tentative conclusion to create a writing that is of better quality on the same topic. Also I don’t think this written tentative conclusion is a total representation of my way of thinking which includes other durable conclusions that are unstated and need to be written out or connected with this. This paragraph above and earlier statements however trend towards a better statement and are more trustworthy than others which might be less rational. This writing is part of a more Rational Time in life, which is worth recollecting. The conclusion has not been written in logical form to allow for logical analysis assuring soundness, but that is a formalization requirement that is not always possible due to life-complexity. Aspects of parts of this argument can certainly be shown reasonably efficiently and will be recorded later (time and life permitting), providing adequate expectation that the author’s thinking results in soundness more generally. The writing provides the datum required for inductively and statistically arriving at that expectation. In this way perhaps later with adeequate time a finite number of well chosen arguments, in conjunction with all artifacts provided, will allow for a validation that the author’s mind will result in sound arguments of high complexity. I already intuitively knows this to be the case but has much more work to ensure the reader is able to have what is needed to confirm this in my mind. In this way also there is agreement between the objective here, the tentative conclusion above, and the goal to ensure the reader can tell that I am not doing any firsting behavior, which is done by others who are and were unable to do the same. This message should be a note indicating that such an effort really would result in significant firsts by the author, if the reader simply compares this with what they have been exposed to (particlularly by comparing with old dictatorial politician’s claims to greatness, of the 1900s, and not those who were perhaps honest and dictatorial in history).

Wednesday, February 20^nd, 2023, 4:55 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

New reading of Schopenhauer

Today, after having it long in my possession, I began reading “The World as Will and Idea” also known as “The World as Will and Representation”.

At this point in the development of my work I don’t think I require this reading in moral philosophy. Already I’ve read enough and my project underway has a completeness in its trajectory, indicated in my earlier remarks on coherence of work and editing. I hae much to say regarding reading versus preserving creativity.

Now and in the future I intend to read additional works of philosophy, but with efforts made to ensure my work trajectory remains distinct. This does not mean I do not wish to be influenced by new ideas. The tree of work I’ve had growing for the last twenty years will remain mostly the same tree even if I am influenced in various minor ways.

I need to say much more on my creative process which has included readings in the past which were very influential but never so influential as my own thoughts had in reaction to these materials.

Wednesday, February 22^nd, 2023, 2:45 PM Palmerston North, New Zealand Time

What internal implementation disputes exist in the brain, and how does the brain resolve those for us, with or without our participation?

Wednesday, February 20^nd, 2023, 1:29 PM Palmerston North, New Zealand Time

Knowing if and when processing is parallel

A moment ago as I was thinking over how to include my sensory process in my attention management process, I realized there is more than one way to achieve the same or a similar implementation, with a similar functional result, in that the sensory process could be one that is called at the outset of the process and just before exit, and operate in parallel for the same duration, or could be included within the process and be thought of as a way that the process itself is carried out. This appears to have implications outside of this interest which is more general and interdisciplinary.

For example, as we think, we are not certain of the implementation in our brain of our learned skills and way of thought. It is not clear precisely how two parts of a process or two processes which relate but are not controlled together are structured physiologically or biologically, or how they operate for a specific duration. More unrelated parallel processes are assumed to be parallel but may not be parallel depending on the interpretation. Because the brain is a network unlike a plain activity diagram process or coded program, it’s definition and modes of function may not permit of a siple distinction of parallel or non-parallel processing and instead would probably be better modeled using a more detailed way of thinking allowing for complex interactions and blended storage (networked shared and unshared nodes, connections, and loose transactions.

For programming there is a question as to what differences exist choosing to implement code one way or another. With regard to architectural decisions around parallel processing, or parallel definition, there appear intuitively to me to also be many possible ways of considering, but even if still complex it is much less complex than decisions in the networked system, if they are planned for in advance especially. The software arhcitect’s job is mostly to plan well in advance and potentially face social judgement and various real-world problems if things are not planned well initially. A brain, however, is not pre-planned in its implementation but is a learning system that gets defined and redifined, stored and restored, structured and restructured as time goes on. This is considering the program as separate to an extent from hardware, or physiological instructions and precursors.

Even more complex would be to think similarly concerning interaction of physical rulesof nature, and potential implementations of those rules (i.e. how the rules really work and what their structures are). What the structures of the rules of the implementation of nature is omitted from the idea mathematics represents nature. Without knowledge of the implementation of mathematics, it is not known from mathematics what may vary in the rules, or how they really model nature and how rules interact. Instead we have something that is more representative of behaviors rather implementation.

There appears to be an arbitrariness in my decisions as to whether to make this process parallel or to include it within the single process, although my behavior will depend on which I choose to some degree. Both processes which might be parallel or combined are also arbitrary. Resulting behavior is more optimal than before even with the arbitrariness. For now I can’t measure the difference between one or the other or see what might be preferable. It seems there is an arbitrariness that is insoluble, which explains why programmers never can agree regarding what is optimal regarding architecture and programming language choices. Maturity in software architecture seems consistent with this perspective but not in a perspective that thinks too quickly that one is certainly any better than the other, where such uncertainties exist.

[Written in 21 minutes semi-blind typed, some confirmation reading along the way on the spots being typed, no spell check or proofreading. Has not been read yet.]

Thursday, February 23^rd, 2023, 2:36 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

Suffixes and Prefixes, and Interfixes that didn’t Dictionary

The potential dictionary size is vast if you simply build on your already attained mastery of wrapping and interstitialing fixes.

Thursday, February 23^rd, 2023, 2:36 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

Mocking Shit Faux-Jargon like “Boomer”

Boomer is a word that has been used by the media with full commitment but is truly shit jargon.

Shit jargon is something that needs to be recognized within the process of evolving the shared scientific vocabulary.

If it comes from the media, is a generational concept, as a rule it should be rejected as shit jargon.

Recently I updated my glossary page with words I coined. One coinage is the word “Cageism” which is interesting itself. Suffixing to expand vocabularies in a false way, while disabling people from using their mastery of the approach to coin new words is also worth making fun of. For this purpose we will join generational concepts with ways ofusing the word “Cageism”:

Related coinages: Cageism, cageist, cageophiliac, encageophiliac, cageophobic, cageomaniac, encageomancer, cageonometray, cegeonometrician, encagenobstectrics, millenialwokeuncageists,genzrevertocageophilistinism, boomercageist, unsuffixingcageist

Thursday, February 23^rd, 2023, 2:02 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

Redoing strange grammatical constuctions, like variations on ‘lay’

In the near future I will begin changing some english usages to use my own versions of poorly done grammatical variations in English. Obviously I will not attempt to cover the language exhaustively. However, any parts of English that seem a “reference nuissance” or nuissance offensive to natural mastery” that I am wanting to change will be changed.

The variations of the word ‘lay’ may be one such starting point, except for places where i’ve already done it, as with superpluralification.

Thursday, February 23^rd, 2023, 1:55 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

First of the Author and “Firsting” Behavior

In my lists page that includes my lists of obvious errors, falsities, and likely areas of untruth, I wrote about what I think of as “firsting”. Firsting is “He was the first” type statements about famous figures, false leaders, messiahs, prophets, cult leaders, and others who want to claim more for themselves than is honest or is documented for posterity.

L. Ron Hubbard in Scientology had a booklet with false firstings. It is unclear if it was of his preparation or the preparation of a mythologizer (Ref. bibliography the work Two Lives of Charlemagne). Either way there are numerous obvious firstings, that have the following characteristics:

They are testably false
Some are untestable, but are obviously false
Some lack primary source documentation (corroborating materials from Hubbard or other sources).
No access to history in which to independently want to make the claims (versus simply hearing lies from a motivated person who wants something).

The implication is that they are obviously false statements, that for others may appear possibly true, but for those people, they would have no way to verify, and would have nothing but claims to think it true.

However, that does not mean that nobody really “firsts” anything, and I argue in many locations for many purposes that each person is entirely unique, and is a first of sorts by default, which ensures they are [unequal] to others (Ref: Abandoning Equality). So firsting is something easy to do really. When you do things you are firsting becaue you are connected with the complete description of the situation in which you do it, and already you are unique, so what you do is unique. This I have used to argue that history never repeats itself (which is really just a recalled phrase anyhow).

What I am using as a heuristic device is using utterances of claims to firsts and similar statements as invokers of skeptcisim and cause to think cautiously. The utterances I have in mind are “monumentalisms” trying to make what one has done or what another has done as some monumental achievement worth durable respect or maybe separation from others as especially unequal or high in worth. Obviously there are reasons to think some as great, but firsting is a red flag as to false motivations and bad salesmanlike intentions.

This work does have the property of creating firsts in the world, and later I will list many meaningful ways in which my work really does do something either monumental, or does something leading to something that is monumental in an important way. There are huge differences between this and firsting. Namely this work has these properties:

A primary objective is honest recording of history to create artifacts.
Artifacts then can be used to test history and provide primary source materials to people who want to see if any big firsts really are true.
I am making the claims and not someone for me. This is important because if Charlemagne wrote his autobiography, it would agree in many ways with the version of Einhard, but not of Notker the Stammerer, who was a mythologizer. This means that it is important that peole who do something important tell their own story so they are not falsified by either a mythologizer or someone who pretends to be a follower with bad intentions, or anyone else with an interest in tampering, slandering, or making something excessively great.
The document form itself will be unusual to history. This means as an artifact those things which are listed as firsts will be clearly firsts, although it is understood that failure to preserve other parts of history could result in an inability to compare. If this exists, then ther may be a difficulty in inability to compare with what has not been preserved.
The author expects the reader to be skeptical.
The author expects truth-testing processes to be utilized.
The author will be obviously unmotivated about making things great by keeping things proportional to what they achieve.

Tentative Conclusion

In my work from the early 2000s I mentioned that this total work is partly an attempt to arrive at trustworthy conclusions which seem to be durable (Ref: Rational Times. Much is tentative in what we conclude from our analyses of things, but oftentimes we do arrive at hard and definite conclusions which are durable or permanent. A permanent conclusion is that whatever you make as a fiction is a fiction, and is therefore permanently false. We can easily recognize permanent falsities and these constitute more trustworthy truths. Much harder is representing nature in a way that is complete. In this we are often close, and close enough to have something duruable, but not far along enough to not already intuit that our representation witll not be supplanted later by something more clear, detailed, and integrated with other truths, which themselves will likely have more clarity and details. Certain truths later will have more power (akin to unlocking nuclear weaponry with physics).

A tentative conclusion to move forward with, directed simply at myself too, might be:

You certainly are creating many novel and important firsts with this work you are doing. These firsts are of a type which have little relationship to “firsting” which is a really abhorrent behavior, but does involve red flags, which should invoke skepticism in others, concerning how to validate or confirm that those firsts are really firsts, and if those firsts really have any special importance. The list provided will provide a reader with a definite set of testable claims as to achievements. This list combined with an honest approach at self-verification, and corroborating artifacts, and evidents of positive intentions and motivations of the author, along with other truth validation techniques, will provide readers and the author himself with ways to recognnize that caution resulted in verification, and that caution resulted in showing an example of where others are obviously firsting.

When I say this is tentative I also think it tentative in keeping with the objectives of the thoughtstream during more rational moments. I do not think subsequent thoughts will not elaborate on this tentative conclusion to create a writing that is of better quality on the same topic. Also I don’t think this written tentative conclusion is a total representation of my way of thinking which includes other durable conclusions that are unstated and need to be written out or connected with this. This paragraph above and earlier statements however trend towards a better statement and are more trustworthy than others which might be less rational. This writing is part of a more Rational Time in life, which is worth recollecting. The conclusion has not been written in logical form to allow for logical analysis assuring soundness, but that is a formalization requirement that is not always possible due to life-complexity. Aspects of parts of this argument can certainly be shown reasonably efficiently and will be recorded later (time and life permitting), providing adequate expectation that the author’s thinking results in soundness more generally. The writing provides the datum required for inductively and statistically arriving at that expectation. In this way perhaps later with adeequate time a finite number of well chosen arguments, in conjunction with all artifacts provided, will allow for a validation that the author’s mind will result in sound arguments of high complexity. I already intuitively knows this to be the case but has much more work to ensure the reader is able to have what is needed to confirm this in my mind. In this way also there is agreement between the objective here, the tentative conclusion above, and the goal to ensure the reader can tell that I am not doing any firsting behavior, which is done by others who are and were unable to do the same. This message should be a note indicating that such an effort really would result in significant firsts by the author, if the reader simply compares this with what they have been exposed to (particlularly by comparing with old dictatorial politician’s claims to greatness, of the 1900s, and not those who were perhaps honest and dictatorial in history).

Wednesday, February 20^nd, 2023, 4:55 PM Wellington, New Zealand Time

New reading of Schopenhauer

Today, after having it long in my possession, I began reading “The World as Will and Idea” also known as “The World as Will and Representation”.

At this point in the development of my work I don’t think I require this reading in moral philosophy. Already I’ve read enough and my project underway has a completeness in its trajectory, indicated in my earlier remarks on coherence of work and editing. I hae much to say regarding reading versus preserving creativity.

Now and in the future I intend to read additional works of philosophy, but with efforts made to ensure my work trajectory remains distinct. This does not mean I do not wish to be influenced by new ideas. The tree of work I’ve had growing for the last twenty years will remain mostly the same tree even if I am influenced in various minor ways.

I need to say much more on my creative process which has included readings in the past which were very influential but never so influential as my own thoughts had in reaction to these materials.

Wednesday, February 22^nd, 2023, 2:45 PM Palmerston North, New Zealand Time

What internal implementation disputes exist in the brain, and how does the brain resolve those for us, with or without our participation?

Wednesday, February 20^nd, 2023, 1:29 PM Palmerston North, New Zealand Time

Knowing if and when processing is parallel

A moment ago as I was thinking over how to include my sensory process in my attention management process, I realized there is more than one way to achieve the same or a similar implementation, with a similar functional result, in that the sensory process could be one that is called at the outset of the process and just before exit, and operate in parallel for the same duration, or could be included within the process and be thought of as a way that the process itself is carried out. This appears to have implications outside of this interest which is more general and interdisciplinary.

For example, as we think, we are not certain of the implementation in our brain of our learned skills and way of thought. It is not clear precisely how two parts of a process or two processes which relate but are not controlled together are structured physiologically or biologically, or how they operate for a specific duration. More unrelated parallel processes are assumed to be parallel but may not be parallel depending on the interpretation. Because the brain is a network unlike a plain activity diagram process or coded program, it’s definition and modes of function may not permit of a siple distinction of parallel or non-parallel processing and instead would probably be better modeled using a more detailed way of thinking allowing for complex interactions and blended storage (networked shared and unshared nodes, connections, and loose transactions.

For programming there is a question as to what differences exist choosing to implement code one way or another. With regard to architectural decisions around parallel processing, or parallel definition, there appear intuitively to me to also be many possible ways of considering, but even if still complex it is much less complex than decisions in the networked system, if they are planned for in advance especially. The software arhcitect’s job is mostly to plan well in advance and potentially face social judgement and various real-world problems if things are not planned well initially. A brain, however, is not pre-planned in its implementation but is a learning system that gets defined and redifined, stored and restored, structured and restructured as time goes on. This is considering the program as separate to an extent from hardware, or physiological instructions and precursors.

Even more complex would be to think similarly concerning interaction of physical rulesof nature, and potential implementations of those rules (i.e. how the rules really work and what their structures are). What the structures of the rules of the implementation of nature is omitted from the idea mathematics represents nature. Without knowledge of the implementation of mathematics, it is not known from mathematics what may vary in the rules, or how they really model nature and how rules interact. Instead we have something that is more representative of behaviors rather implementation.

There appears to be an arbitrariness in my decisions as to whether to make this process parallel or to include it within the single process, although my behavior will depend on which I choose to some degree. Both processes which might be parallel or combined are also arbitrary. Resulting behavior is more optimal than before even with the arbitrariness. For now I can’t measure the difference between one or the other or see what might be preferable. It seems there is an arbitrariness that is insoluble, which explains why programmers never can agree regarding what is optimal regarding architecture and programming language choices. Maturity in software architecture seems consistent with this perspective but not in a perspective that thinks too quickly that one is certainly any better than the other, where such uncertainties exist.

[Written in 21 minutes semi-blind typed, some confirmation reading along the way on the spots being typed, no spell check or proofreading. Has not been read yet.]

Upcoming Thoughtstreams: Self-Created Textiles on an Animal-Creativity Spectrum…

Self-Created Textiles on an Animal-Creativity Spectrum.
Seeking information and imposition of information, and killing the old “nature nurture” convo stagnation.
Equivalent Classification Schemes, Life-Taxa, Bio-Neural Representations, Weathering, and Flexibilty of Life Categories.
- Ref: Pattern History of Your Tissues.
Training AI to Know Your Real Face with Static Data, and “Close Enough You?”

[In the list above, I left some title-like capitalization, and some without, but all was written in the same sitting. I.e., could not be used as an artifact indicating alternative authorship or times of authorship. May indicate a problem in historico-philologico-archaeological methods.]

Wednesday, February 15^th, 2023, 2:38 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time

Pretending one is not Procrastinating, and Unchangeable Occlusions

Wednesday, February 15^th, 2023, 2:38 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time

There are two ways to appear to oneself that one is progressing or is active, and that is by moving around or thinking with greater rapidity. A person who is not particularly creative, will not be creating new movements or new thoughts while doing these rapid things. This means nothing new could be done in the thinking or the moving, but what is thought is using recollections of what was thought before, and what is done, is mostly using movements of what were done before. Speeding up thinking with caffeine or drugs or some other stimulation, and movement after frustration, or from a desire to escape stagnation, will increase rapidity, but will not increase it much in the way that may be really desired. It is likely that there is an illusory gain, in those who are really immobile in relation to creativity, in simply increasing rapidity of thought and behavior, which includes all that one does in life. It explains somewhat the use of drugs and preoccupation with bodily movement in those who are more active, but not creatively active. One can use fast communication and “fast thinking” with high productivity, and one can use something like moving around often at work as an indicator that good work is being accomplished. Even gains may indicate slowness, concealed in the form of focused fastness. Bodybuilding may be the result sometimes of a perceived inability to progress. One can go to the gym and simply feel like something is happening, and still have good progress on something in which consistency guarantees the results. One can also do drugs to increase the feeling that one is making mental progress that would otherwise feel like is not ocurring.

I am greatly interest in increasing one’s ability to not procrastinate. Speaking for myself, someone who procrastinates very little but occasionally on certain areas where gains are desired, I want to clearly distinguish between two things:

Ability to remove obstacles to progressions that can happen, and
Knowing what cannot happen, or knowing what limitations on progress exist.

I think people appear to be quite a bit slower than they think they are regarding their ability to progress various parts of their lives, and substitute frivolous behaviors, or use of drugs, to create an appearance for themselves and others that they are more productive than they are. This is even if they are overcoming certain kinds of procrastination.

One could think of procrastination in another way. What are my ongoing unchangeable versus changeable occlusions that exist inside me and outside me that slow my thinking and actions? What would reduce these occlusions, and how much reduction of occlusion is possible?

If I move around fast and think fast frivolously, that occlusion still remains that I’m pretending does not?

Some may pretend to be mathematicians for example, and spend quite a lot of time moving around, buying books, and reading about math, and quite a lot of time talking to people about math, and yet not do math, because of a permanent occlusion which is:

“I don’t really have a good aptitude for this.”

This must occur for many who come to believe at an early age they would like to do math, but discover they aren’t that interested, or work around it actively, but not on it actively.

One may not really be procrastinating if one cannot do something, and people really need to identify what they are capable of in order to determine the distinction. Likely they already know. Sometimes some small bits of additional information are required to confirm. Knowing that one cannot do something well, or that low interest exists, seems easier than trying to overcome procrastination all of life.

References:

Practentice

Sunday, February 12^th, 2023, 4:47 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time

Automatic Weight Loss and General Life Excellences

Sunday, February 12^th, 2023, 2:48 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time

Recently, I’ve been able to get myself back into a state where I’m losing weight habitually without any effort. Today, while walking, thinking about certain improvements I’d like to make, including getting off coffee and only drinking water or citrus or foraged herb infused waters, I noticed I have not been recognizing my fitness accomplishments. Originally my Personal Form was intended for tracking fitness and weight loss, with the goal of habituation and automaticity. I did not want to need to think about realizing goals for weight loss especially. Just before starting the form I was at nearly 270 pounds. Gradually that form shows my weight diminishing. Later I was able to maintain a much better weight around 190 pounds, mostly without thinking much about it. Now, however, being older, and having some different health goals, I want to be thinner. Returning my attention to weight loss I’ve made some changes, which took conscious effort. I had to focus on this periodically for a prolonged period of time. Now, I’m losing weight rapidly, and am forgetful even of my fitness gains. This caused me to think again about how nice it is to attain automaticity in goal realization, by habituating a plan. Not long before today I noticed that my plan was really trending towards automaticity. It appears, this current plan, may be one that has more perpetually the benefits I’d like to have which may be over and above what I accomplished earlier with weight loss, and constancy of somewhat unattentive monitoring.

There are parts to the plan which are not deliberately only for weight loss. Firstly, I mainly eat a single meal a day, mostly at night. This has been largely habitual for a very long period of time now, so is not the main focus of new accomplishments. I made budgetary changes relating to the category of livelihood, which relate to my goal of alleviating homelessness by walking and camping, and using public transportation more often, which relate respectively to property-and-organization, and fitness. The budetary consideration involves eating cheaper basic protein rich foods and fruits, and keeping transit costs low not having a car. Not having a car implies walking more often (and running the way I do things now). Eating protein rich foods and fruits once a day implies reduction of calories. In combination both bring down weight. My current focus on wanting to decrease coffee intake relates also to increase of water, which is what I call “water worship”. “Water worship” is sarcastically mocking religion in that worship is largely staring and thinking about something a while (some idol). Making water a sort of idol, (for fun), I will eventually consume just that. Currently I drink no alcohol, which means I have no alcohol calories, which relates to nutrition and health. In my plans I relate each of the life categories, which can also be seen as early as 2006 in the Personal Form, which had the purpose of gathering minimal health information along key categories especially, with some practice gathering more informaiton as well. The outcome here is that I have been able to cdreate a situation in which my expenditure is lower and I’m automatically losing weight, and am becoming more healthful. As a vegan who excercises I’m already healthy. However, I wanted to lose weight and make various improvements and have been able to achieve that. Automaticity is what is most wanted, and it’s funny to make bigger gains with thoughtlessness than attentiveness! Abdominal muscles are being revealed without my thoughts as to how to get better abdominals. A humorous thing for men, is accomplishing this with greater ease not thinking about it. Having it perpetually requires that one is already habituated to behave in a way that retains it. Some are obviously able to do this already. The objective of the Personal Form and the Life Categories, and my moral philosophy and ethics which is more than this is to automatically be excellent in various domains in which one can be excellent without excess or otherwise detracting effort.

Earlier I wrote about Related Accomplishments, which provide other examples across life which relate to the successes of this ethic, which are small things and large things, comprehensively covering all I do and am. Today this reflection on my not even recognizing the gains I’m making, is another confirmation, after many confirmations, that just regarding health/fitness/nutrition, I’m repeating again the expected excellences of this plan. But this plan covers all else and for each of the others I’m now reminding myself of the other accomplishments too.

One can be a scientist of sorts, replicating the results of the plans one had earlier that one looked away from to focus on other things. An early goal of the Personal Form I had was disuse. Once I was finished with habituating the effects I wanted, it meant I learned and integrated the plan, so I could stop training and simply live that way. Then I could focus on other things to improve. I did know, however, that people tend to unknowingly do things which can gradually steer habits away from where they were. For that reason I already knew and planned to use the form, when I thought I needed it again. Currently, I’m using the form in a more developed mnemonic state, described in Attentional Architecture. Now the personal form and the attentional architecture are better fit within my larger system of ethics which is slowly being shared here in my Book and Journal. It is important for the reader and myself to recognize that this small sample experience is connected with the total ethical method which is true and corresponds with a true understanding of naturalism. Here it may feel unnatural to discuss these other topics relating to naturalism and philosophy to discipline relating to personal development on life data and processes. However, a more holistic understanding, being what people are supposedly searching for, would imply ease of integration. For me it is natural to quickly relate these, but as I write, see that for the reader, there could be some feeling of oddness in making such transitions. Ethics requires a person to develop excellences on the basis of observations of their behavior, and moving themselves, including their minds and bodies, to new minds and bodies. This implies a need for making observations, either collecting or remembering data, and making changes to alter the data. The results of changes of data connect with visible results. One can also focus on the visible results taking less data, but the two approaches harmonize. For example, as I lose weight I see it of course and know it relates to the plan. If I’m wanting to better understand the total ways in which such a methodology can be used or should be used realistically for improving my life, I need to be knowledgeable more about my psychology, and the world around me. Occupationally, I would not know what to do if I did not think this way. Any category relating to life at all is included in the plan or is adaptable to the plan. I have already had the accomplishments in occupation which relate and demonstrate. I have had accomplishments in each and all of the categories which demonstrate. Thinking this way allows someone to carry over successes in something like fitness to other aspects of life, which is a way of looking at fitness which already existed. However it is inadequate. This method in the Book and Journal of Mattanaw is and has been adequate for a more maximally general purpose which is close to what people want when they are looking for guidance in their lives as wholes.

Book and Journal of Mattanaw as Uncharacteristic of the Views of Others

Title mistake corrected. Wednesday, February 22^th, 2023, 12:26 PM Palmerston North, New Zealand Time
Original Posting: Sunday, February 12^th, 2023, 1:29 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time

[No edits as part of a study in editing]

Thinking about how this work might be used within a work of history, relied on as a primary source artifact saying something about a time or place, this would not be usable to characterize the thought of large groups of people. Instead, this work is really uncharacteristic. Certainly elements of what are contained would say something of the current period, because the current period supplied the raw material for thinking and the outcome of this work cannot have an entirely new vocabulary. However, combinations of words, and sentence strings are more improbable than those produced by others. There would be less matching of thoughts in sentences here with thoughts that might be had or might be recorded by others. In life the author has been mostly differentiated from others regarding opinions and thoughts on all matters whatsoever. The author knows this but since youth thinks independently on his own plans and objectives, in order to remain closer to what appears to be truthful about the world and life and planned behavior. While stating that this work is uncharacteristic of others, the author thinks still there would be many people who would look at various paragraphs and agree even if they believe there are omissions or incompletenesses. There might be significant overlaps between what others would think as true and what they read here, even though, I think separate thoughts of others would reveal that the work here is uncharacteristic and not the usual. What I think this would lead to is that others would find what is here written often truthful, but not of their minds or of other minds they would know, and they would not be able to expect or anticipate what is here written. Being able to anticipate what is here written would imply the thoughts are more probable, and expectation is built from what one has experienced often, or has at least experienced personally. This is an argument also one might say that human animals occasionally emerge the reveal to others what is true more completely than what they would arrive at, and that no other around, or no collection of others, would be able to replace that thought. Meaning that thinker and those thoughts that are true (even with certain omissions and incompletenesses due to the nature of mind and communication), that individuals are sometimes the only way to get certain pieces of information from a truth-system that is more holistic and accurate, and improbable from nature. This author is not religious but nevertheless sees inside the idea of revelation what might be true about special teachers. Writing as I do I’m motivated by my own skill and results over time in my life and have been a special teacher to myself, having none that could produce what I’ve produced, because of its being uncharacteristic. Often I’m revelaing to myself what would not otherwise be had. Already there is thought to be a pantheon of sorts of academic professionals, including teachers who are hierarchically better than others, and who are sought for more information by many people. Firstly, they trust their own information, if they are really of the quality others think they are. Switching attention to myself I’ve found good information in the writings of others but I have not felt satisfied that these others would be able to teach what I need in a way that I could not better do myself. I would not substitute my head for theirs, and I would not want to substitute my knowledge for theirs, excepting to add detail in any special area where their attention really appears to be deep and accurate. In this way again, I’ve found myself uncharacteristic, even considering those who are special teachers to others. This way of thinking is self-confirming I think of the idea that there can be special teachers, and forms of revelation, and that this writing is uncharacteristic of the thoughts of others more generally.

There was another point to make however regarding the meaningfulness of this work as an artifact of history. I think as a historical document one would have to first realize that this thinking is atypical, but would typically have points in which others would have some agreement as to truth. I think there would be many points of agreement with people who are prepared to disagree. In particular I think religious people would read this document already with intentions to contradict it, without necessarily having real logical contradictions. Observations about history I think would be useful even if atypically thought or expressed, and this would include observations that are general. Of great importance, obviously, is that I am writing something I think conveys many general truths, and this would include observations which are universal. Truths about people and the world. This is separate from who has arrived at these truths. That is what I said would be uncommon. Observations like those which are found in Preliminaries are ones that are often univeral to all people during the current time. For example, the Human Shortcomings listed, and the commonality of assumptions found in Assumption Elimination. Observations like that people really think they are separate from animals is something that is really important for history. Currently and looking backwards in time, for a long period many or most thought they were not animals. Right now, today, many or most people do not think they blend in with animal nature, or if they think they do, only have that opinion in a fractured way, while mainting that we are not in other thoughts, particularly religious ones. For the historian of the future, a document like this would be supportive of trying to show that at this time and before, people were very confused about what they were, and how they fit into natural history. Regarding this, this time period will be seen, and should be seen, regarding this particular point, as a largely primitive time period. As a point of etiquette, this topic is mostly glossed over or covered up, creating an impression that maybe people are scientific in their opinions as to animal nature, and that they are no longer superstitious. But when this conversation is forced, it is found that it is against etiquette, and that people do not often hold naturalistic views, and that they are unable to do so in a uniform way, maybe for not being able to talk about it often, due to etiquette breach. In this way this work is uncharacteristic in its commitment to naturalism, and would be useulf for historians of the future as a social commentary, regarding certain unpopular thoughts, and the level of knowledge of the general public concerning areas which should involve true assumptions, if modern.

[Written in 28 minutes without spell check, or edits, blind typing. Has not yet been read. 1:57 pm]

Ends and life-cycles

Sunday, February 12^th, 2023, 12:55 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time

Life-cycles like the birth and deaths of animals, and discrete organisms, can be thought of as having beginnings and ends on the object level, but also have many beginnings and ends, in between that are of importance. For example, for a human, death can be very uniteresting. One may be elderly and die very slowly as an organism, after already having many end moments, near death, involving the mind, and various activities like conversation.

The words “beginning” and “end” are each not as clear as one may think they are and again, in my view of things, description is much better at times to attain better understanding. “End” is something that is matched to many different kinds of phenomena, but has some emotional connections apart from any specific phenomena. Thinking about the end of life and the end of enjoyable activities, relationships, and so on, make some connect more sadness with the word “end” than should be transferred to other kinds of endings; and also to the same endings where they would be better understood if described without using the word. Some will try to achieve a “flip” on a sad interpretation to make it a happy one, by saying things like “ends are new beginnings” and the like, and while there is may support better descriptions it is a primitive way of doing so, and it excessively binaries the mind and world in its way of trying to deal with emotions.

I have not liked the insistence on a positive ending in literature and life for any particular thing which may have a story. People are lead to incorrectly infer that if some particular ending event seems negative or sad, then an entire life or entire story has been totally affected. A simple observation that comes to mind is that ends seem to be more related in time to the surrounding events of the end. By this I want to create attention to the fact that a death does not retroactively change anything preceding the death, including all the truthful story leading up to the death. In a way, periods long preceding a person’s death are immune from alteration by the death, or various other end of that life.

If I were able to write my entire autobiography up to and including very last moments, as though I could drop my pen right as my brain stopped functioning, I would want it to be as accurate as nature, without any concern for any ending. In a way an ending is not a “special event”. If you start to write differently for the ending to make it “big” or “extra meaningful” what is being done is falsification of a later part of life.It’s similar to trying to make larger or more meaningful any particular earlier time in life taken randomly perhaps. The ending can come quickly and randomly… Meaning it may not have any association with any other kind of happening which would be considered to be of higher value. There are special events and happenings in life, but that does not mean an ending to life will align with that kind of event. Most likely it would not if it is simply a death event after long sickness, and likely that would be in a situation in which it seems little is going on.

Moving back to the earlier point, there are many kinds of life-cycles in the body, and in behavior which include onsets and offsets. As one moves through life many things life-cycles complete. I was thinking yesterday regarding life-activities that people will gradually diminish all activities until there are none but thinking, and biological processes. I was also thinking earlier in earlier postings on thinking aright about death without fearfulness, that our nervous systems also often permanently lose access to certain parts of the brain, and prune them until they are don’t exist. Various tissues have life-cycles of their own. The life-cycles of tissues/cells and biological materials result in life cycles of brain activity. There are all different kinds of ends and deaths throughout life in a single organism.

Stopping now on this thought to do something different, I want to write that ends of an organism, again, do not cancel ends that occured earlier. Things are ending along the way often. We’re familiar with ends, and most ends do not bother us and do not get story magnification. Old ends have true stories which can be told that would not change because of new stories. Considerations like these enable me to think that any particular later end for me isn’t one that would have any special magnified sadness or happiness about it, or culmination that would change the story backwards in time. In psychology, to change one’s ealier story for the later is a form of psychological fallacy, and others who do such a thing are considered oftentimes harmful or abusive. Traits for often doing such a thing are estimated as lower, and pathological. While I do see certain personalities as more harmful than others, I’m not sure I would agree with this way of approaching the topic, but outside of psychology it is still logically incorrect to infer that ends of stories imply changes to earlier portions of stories, and natures data going backwards in time is unchanging. The psychological idea of gaslighting is related to an already incorrect illogical way of thinking, and unscientific understanding of the way the world works. I think this creates an approach for doing literary criticism that would lessen the value of approaches to literature that put too much emphasis on the ending, either of the book or the story it tells.

Pattern-history of Your Tissues

Friday, February 10^th, 2023, 11:34 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time

Although people at birth are unlearned and are composed of unloaded hardware in ignorance, and are similar to each other in being infants (ref Abandoning Equality), their DNA instructions which are not of their creation do seem prepared somewhat for the context in which they will encounter world-information, although the preparedness precedes greatly the exposure to information. The brain tissue and its instructions were due to arrangements which were earlier, and much earlier, and primordially earlier depending on which part of the system is analyzed. Your ability to utilize certain information from the world relates to some brain components which are certainly of animal preparation. Their sexual desires that assured their side-effect babies, preserved some traits that you still now have, including sexual desires that assure side-effect babies for the future.

In order to understand the interplays of you, which is information joined with old instructions for tissues, you would really have to read zoology, exposing yourself to yet more information, of a kind appropriate for claiming that kind of tissue. You hardly need to know much of your lineage in the modern time, which means you don’t need to know your genealogical history much, or perhaps your family preceding your experience, to know your tissues and its way of sponging. More of interest is your life interactions during your living, and the pattern-history of your tissues.

When were each of the pieces of your nervous-system prepared earlier and when were the first rough equivalents already appearing as your pretend equals in prehistory? How prepared were those tissues for cultural information, including 20-year current fashions? What relationship between tissues and cultural information are a progression or not on ideas about what is jealousy provoking at a basic level? How do you fit into this time in a way that can’t be unfit, and how do you compare with that which might seem more optimally combined?

[Finished in 25 minutes with minor edits, at 11:59 AM]

Thinking of Salt as a Drug and Not a Mineral Nutrient

Thursday, February 9^th, 2023, 3:56 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time

[Unedited as part of studies in edidting]

Recently I was pondering over my planning for my salt intake either on dependency to what is sold in stores, and independency using what exists in nature. Thinking further on how I would utilize store-bought salt, like the very fine-grained iodized salt used in the United States, and similar salts here in Australia and New Zealand, I recalled my earlier removal of salt from my diet, and reflected on my current behavior, adding salt to my food and not only sometimes having it administered to me in prepared foods. When I do add salt, I experience, like others, after effects which include uncomfortable water retention and sluggishness. Salt, on researching it’s effects, has something akin to a half-life, or elongated period of time of secretion from the body which takes several days or longer. Utilization of salt within the body is not somethign simple but goes to the electrical, and is involved in heart functioning, and is expelled in complex ways, not only through the kidneys but through the skin, as a result of maintenance of body heat. Trained doctors would not be able to tell you what the complete actions of salt is, and where and how it is stored at any particular time in the body, or what it’s electrons end up doing. They could tell you some of the functions but not all of them. For the non-physiologist wanting to understand one’s own salt intake, one does need to know a little about how it is retained and expelled over time. This is also complex and not easy because it depends on other factors like activity, level of hydration, and actions of other foods and drugs. If one wants to reduce salt in the body, one can do little more than wait, hydrate, and exercise. Exercising will expell water and salt. Not consuming more and waiting simply lets the body do it’s normal process of expelling salt in a way that is also unique to the individual.

Not having any salt at all, one will eventually run low enough to die. Salt must be consumed. However, it is not clear that salt needs to be consumed with anything else if one already has access to it in nearly pure form. Salt is used to flavor food, but I have also recently noticed, that I can achieve flavors approximating saltiness with citrus fruits. I then considered that flavorful foods can be created without any salt at all, and that some foods, like soups, which are saline solutions, require an excess quantity of salt before salt is detected; whereas, other foods require very small quantities of dry salt in order for the salt to be noticeds. Application of a small amount of salt to something and eating it will enable tasting the salt, like if one exercises vigorously, let’s the sweat dry, then tastes the perhaps invisible salt remaining. Salt in combination with food seems a risk, whereas controlling the application of salf seems less so, and creates a greatetr likelihood of noticing the taste.

I devised an experiment while walking about here in New Plymouth, New Zealand. I will take a small quantity of table salt and scatter it over a paper with a grid of centimeters. It will have a uniform layer of salt at a known volume and weight. This will enable visual recognition of quantities of salt. I will then check the quantity of elemental sodium in the salt by checking the type and getting the data online. This will enable my usage of salt outside of food as a controlled substance, or drug that I can administer on my own. This will be useful to ensure I do not have too much, but it will also enable me to make sure I don’t lose too much fluid while I’m doing my back country hiking for my homelessness eradication project. While hiknig around water is important to conserve so I can use the salt to control my depletion of liquid.

After doing this, I will liquify the salt with water and dry onto the paper uniformly, so the paper becomes like skin with dried salt from exercise. I will then cut the grid, so I have little pieces of paper with somewhat precise amounts of salt that I can use, like a drug dealer would, for controlling quantities like pills. A square centimeter of paper will then relate to a precise amount of elemental sodium. I can then just eat the papers, or else leave them in my mouth until unsalty, to get my salt, like an anmial with a salt lick, or your drugging on acid when they were a teen.

I will then go back to my earlier behavior of not even having or thinking about salt, in my own cooking. Periodically I will have food already prepared and will then have uncontrolled amounts, but other times, I will not use salt, and I will only use it as a drug for complete control.

Salt usage in unknown quantities does present a real health risk, and many know about issues with salt. However, my interst for the present is knowing about how much one has and what it’s effects are, immediately as it relates to taste and comfort, and also over time as it relates to a variety of physiological states. It really can be managed in a drug like way. Of course it also is a drug like all the other chemicals in foods, which we learned in chemistry and biology. If people and children were educated to use specific already measured quantities of salt with known amounts of elemental sodium, from childhood onwards they would know more than doctors likely about the effects of salt on their own bodies. Considering this, one has to wonder why it is sold only in unmeasured piles. Extra packaging is not desirable, but there were sugar cubes before. Salt cubes and sugar cubes both could enable learning in children and in adultsfor their own health benefits and for becoming more like scientists.

[Written in 24 minutes with no editing, no reading, semi-blind typed (seeing somewhat the type as it flows from the mind inattentively), no proofreading, and no spell check. I did not read it yet. Finished at 4:20 pm]

Author: Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh

Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
B.S Psychology, University of Maryland, 4.0, Summa Cum Laude¹
B.S Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland, 3.91, Magna Cum Laude²
B.A. Philosophy, University of Maryland.³
G.E.D, State of Maryland, Montgomery County, 1999.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

Nearly Free Air Insulation in Clothing

Thursday, February 9^th, 2023, 5:04 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time

In my learnings working in the fireplace industry while young I discovered that a layer of air is considered among the very best insulators, and this, along with reflection, is the reason why the thermos is so effective, and why some building insulation systems and ventilation systems work as well as they do. While thinking again on solving issues relating to homelessness and wealthy camping, and thinking to myself that I’m not quite as equipped as I should be for warmth in my current camping research project, I began thinking of makeshift ways of using air to create temporary insulation underneath clothing. The goal is to add warmth at the lowest possible cost for those who are only partially prepared or have insufficient resources: like wealthy campers who did not buy enough expensive gear, and the homeless who have insufficient funds and planning abilities. Recently having purchased inexpensive plastic freezer bags in large quantity I considered that I could fill bags, seal them, and distribute them under my garments to test the amount the would insulate. Likewise, while sleeping in my sleeping bag, I will arrange bags filled with air, first breathed at 98.6 degree Fahrenheit, to see again what is accomplished for insulation. Thinking myself an energy producer until death, I wonder how much I can achieve with simple heat-filled air gaps, with methods of air circulation to release moisture. From what I know it appears that it is feasible to have systems using air in clothing and in sleeping bags, and it seems unfortunate that designs for such systems have not entered the market. Initially my purpose on this project is simply to heat with free things. Organic matter is also something I may try to surround myself with to stay warmer, but air insulation seems promising for creating new clothing. If useful enough it may be worthwhile to encourage some growth along this direction, which would also help for potentially creating needs for recycled plastic materials.

Air is an extremely good insulator, particularly if you include air circulation, but also quite good simply with a seal (thermos).
There can be more than one air layer, including one’s that are sealed and others that ventilate.
It can certainly be used somehow in clothing.
A person is a producer of warmth, and warm air. It is fun to produce warm air and I can’t stop.
Sleep systems can make use of air insulation almost certainly, even with ventilation.
Reflection in conjunction with heating should enable slower release of heat from pre-heated air, and retaining of heat produced by the body.

It appears a combination of reflection, air, and heated air production, and ventilation, can in various combinations fulfill a large range of needs related to inexpensive but effective clothing from cheap plastic sources, and also create solutions for wealthy campers, and for homeless people who may be willing to have less comfort even in the solutions they are supposedly receiving. This means it does not need to be the best solution, and maybe among the worst, to support the needs of the homeless, and it would still potentially be successful.

Quick Remark on What Some Call Lateral Thinking

Wednesday, February 8^th, 2023, 5:04 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time

A comment to someone who was discussing their lateral thinking and interest in brainstorming:

I’m a bit of a lateral thinker too. Any particular thing I’m working on has many aspects which lead some to perhaps think there are tangents occurring. But really it’s relevant lateral thinking happening. Without that kind of thinking holism is not possible, at all. Some will have to be thinking in a lateral way to see how situations are larger than they are at a really close view of one main interest. Brainstorming is doing that. I enjoy white boarding sessions in which related ideas come together to “become something”. If they did not become something there would be an unreality to what is being done, and disconnectedness and fracturedness would reveal that people are simply thinking separate things without an ability to combine them. Lateral thinking without synthesis would be a kind of change of spotlight without any ability to put pictures together, and then I think people think it is not lateral thinking. Although it is just without synthesis perhaps. Someone with ADHD may have issues with such a thing.

Development on Homelessness Solutioning and Example of My Attentional Management Process

Wednesday, February 8^th, 2023, 3:14 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time

[Unedited per usual as part of a set of studies on editing]

Today after waking from my AirBnB in Waitara, NZ, I decided to take a walk to the bus to take a rider into the larger town of New Plymouth, where I would sit for coffee and write. Taking the bus is consistent with my plan now to experiment in distriuted livelihood and to increase my walking and self-reliant transportation (without a vehicle). I’ve driven over 750,000 miles to it is an interesting change to be using public transportation, bicycles, and walking on foot (although I’ve also been a bicycle commuter). As I walk around and take various forms of transportation, I connect the activity to my attention management process that I’ve created, as part of the self-training progression of my personal ethic. Walking is an especially good time to be using this process, and most would agree that walking is when good reflection often occurs for people. I often use this process while walking especially, but I do also use it for other activities while I’m awake. Transitioning to the bus, I switched again to use this process mindfully thinking about what I was doing, sitting on the bus enjoying sunshine through the windows and sights I was seeing, that are still somewhat new to me. Actually utilizing the process, I stepped into consideration of the various life-categories in sequence, starting with Cycles and Shifts, which relates to cyclical biological behavior, and cyclical life plans, which in our culture relates to the calendar. Being on the bus I thought about how my transit plans relate cyclically to my scientific and experiential study of distributed livelihood intended to solve problems related to homelessness and related problems faced by wealthy campers and travlers. Monthly now I travel to a new location, which indicates I have a monthly travel cycle in which I have a new temporary residence. On arrival in recent cities, I’m doing related cyclical research on aspects of the new place, particularly map reviews of the cities and spaces nearby. Not having knowledge of transit infrastructure including bus and train maps, I review maps to see how I will move in and out of specific areas of interest. I do this when first arriving at a city, before quickly learning how their particular bus system operates, receiving payments. I then learn the extent of the system, and connections to other systems. I reflected as I was on the bus, that an upcoming campint trip had some planning vagueness as I did not choose yet the specific areas suitable nearish to ends of the bus lines. This was something I was going to need to decide. Wanting to improve upon this cycle, and on the travel method incorporating camping, and research method for rapid understanding of cities and transit and avenues to areas of interest connecting with my needs and objectives, I thought that I would do a map review while at the coffee house, to identify good camping spots. These would be spots outside the city or on its outskirts, reasonably near for foot travel to the bus lines near their ends. I recognize this is not the only approach that may be used for camping planning but it is one that relates to my expectations of comfort and relative isolation. I then determined that what was needed during my cyclical arrivals at new destinations which are more adventurous, or plans before arrival, which are more for creating more relaxed less exploratory initial experiences, was clearer knowledge of the locations of terminals of bus lines towards endpoints and the geographical/climate conditions of areas near those locations, and land-ownership conditions, which might impact rules for camping. Thinking that there would be many locations which would be suitable, I would think about how I would analyze maps to enable intuitive and quick identification of areas, resulting in nearly automatic decisiveness, which is similar to the decisiveness experienced by readers of maps who are trained on specific usages for long periods of time, like drivers wanting to easily get to destinations with specific driving needs and preferences. Having a large number of locations quickly identified, I would have something akin to “many potential dwelling locations” automatically known. Making it fun and short with a phrase I called this to myself having “Many homes.” I then thought about how homeless people may not have self-training for comfortably deciding among many known safe options. This would imply that a problem faced by homeless people is one of imagination and one of indecisiveness in relation to viable options and alternatives for safe sleeping and camping. Instead homeless would likely choose something near and less safe and comfortable, for not having a better strategy and self training which would exist for a camper who is wanting to have a reasonable location on lands that allow it. A camper who would have many options for this. Wanting to resolve this difficulty for myself as an experimenter in this type of livelihood, I have trained over time to get to a point in which I could make a small advancement on my plans, relating to a number life-categories, while utilizing my attentional process, which is part of my moral-philosophical ethical project, and writings. If successful on this particular effort I would have training which could potentially be used to train others to live in ways that are appropriate for wealthy campers and homeless people alike. At time of this realization I thought it would be wortwhile to incorporate into my plans for writing during the day at the coffee house at Starbucks in New Plymouth. This is where I am now completing the writing which traces back this development beginning with the starting of my activity method beginning when I was leaving my AirBnB this morning.

A purpose of the above writing is to provide a narrative of the utilization of my attentional management process that I have written about and created a technical architecture for, Attentional Architecture. The beginnings of this architecture were in writings from approximately 2006 in my Personal Form. An intial review of the personal form and attentional architecture would not reveal really clearly utilization. However the utilization is made more clear by a narrative sample usage of the form connecting clearly with process diagrams. The process diagrams are well tested and well used, with many hours of usage and usage of approximately 45 days in its present version. This provides also an example of how my thinking in my project relates to its management within this process.

[Written in 31 minutes partly blind typed without edits, except for one typo briefly noticed. It has not yet been read, spell-checked, or proofread by the writer. Title now being added post-completion. Added two links afterwards as well. Finished at 3:45 pm]

Comment and response to “Cyclical Euphemization Process and Anticipated Word Expiry”

Wednesday, February 8^th, 2023, 3:03 PM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time

Below is a comment I received regarding my article Cyclical Euphemization Process and Anticipated Word Expiry. This comment was received in a social group to which we are both members. Context was not provided for interpretation, and my comment beneath creates context establishing relevance to this comment, and gives reaction to what is perceived as an attempt at being helpful.

In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of postcultural consciousness. Therefore, if semantic materialism holds, the works of Gibson are not postmodern. The primary theme of the works of Gibson is the role of the reader as artist. Derrida uses the term ‘capitalist theory’ to denote not deconstruction, but predeconstruction. However, semantic materialism suggests that the establishment is part of the defining characteristic of language, given that the premise of Foucaultist power relations is valid. The subject is interpolated into a semantic materialism that includes truth as a totality. Therefore, many discourses concerning postdialectic narrative exist. In Pattern Recognition, Gibson denies Foucaultist power relations; in Mona Lisa Overdrive, although, he deconstructs surrealism. But Foucaultist power relations implies that the goal of the poet is social comment. In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. Lyotard uses the term ‘Foucaultist power relations’ to denote a self-justifying paradox. It could be said that Debord promotes the use of postcultural capitalist theory to attack sexism. “Society is intrinsically used in the service of class divisions,” says Foucault. Lyotard uses the term ‘surrealism’ to denote the role of the reader as poet. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a Foucaultist power relations that includes consciousness as a whole. In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of subdeconstructive sexuality. The economy, and therefore the futility, of surrealism depicted in Gibson’s Neuromancer is also evident in Pattern Recognition, although in a more capitalist sense. However, Marx uses the term ‘semantic materialism’ to denote the absurdity of neotextual art. The subject is interpolated into a cultural paradigm of narrative that includes culture as a totality. In a sense, if Foucaultist power relations holds, the works of Gibson are modernistic. Sartre uses the term ‘poststructural deconceptualism’ to denote not discourse, as Baudrillard would have it, but subdiscourse. Thus, a number of desublimations concerning semantic materialism exist. Marx suggests the use of surrealism to modify and analyse class. But Finnis[2] holds that we have to choose between Baudrillardist simulation and neotextual semiotic theory. Lyotard promotes the use of surrealism to deconstruct hierarchy. Thus, many theories concerning a mythopoetical paradox may be found. Bataille suggests the use of semantic materialism to challenge sexual identity. Therefore, a number of discourses concerning Lyotardist narrative exist.

Below are my responses to this comment:

Thanks for sharing. I have a background in Philosophy so this is appealing. The readings referred above are more continental than my philosophical learnings, and are of interest perhaps, in addition to what you are trying to convey, as areas of possible exploration where I might need them in relation to my larger work (Book and Journal of Mattanaw). It appears you have shared this because the observations here on Gibson, relate, in a variety of ways, to the understanding of the lexicon within a cultural total, interpreted correctly, along Foucalitian, Deconstructionist, Materialist, Early Economist, Sociological and Artistic cultural perspectives. I have not read Gibson so this provides some interest for pursuing that potentially if it seems instrumental. The connections to surreal art are of interest and my own ethical studies include aesthetic considerations too, but without any specific focus on artistic school, as much as a focus on psychology (perception and sexuality).

Relating to the OP though, I think the relevant concern for that particular posting, is one pointed out already. The planning and evolution of terminology and changes as they relate not only to scientific development, but reactions of public to changing utilizations which can include those perceived as harmful. Your writing above applies to that in particular because those who are affected and impacted may not understand their own cultural influences.

When I share from my blog or copy-paste sometimes the formatting is thrown off, and line breaks don’t work correctly with word wrapping. It appears for this reason that this is copy paste. Did you happen to copy paste this from any work that is your own or did it come from another? My assumption is that this is your writing which is nice, but I don’t want to assume that, if copy pasted from an unavailable resource.

mattanaw.com/thoughtstream.html

it looks like this is a literature review to place Gibson in context for some additional writing. In that case knowing the source would be especially interesting. I’m interested in reading more concerning this. If it is an excerpt you like from elsewhere, thanks for saving and sharing. If it is your own writing, I’d like to see more of what you’ve prepared, or see later what is next. This is good here: “Society is intrinsically used in the service of class divisions,”

Cyclical Euphemization Process and Anticipated Word Expiry

Tuesday, February 7^th, 2023, 11:17 AM New Plymouth, New Zealand Time

[Unedited without proofreading for an ongoing set of studies related to editing.]

For a long-enough period of time people have been exposed to a process in which words that were originally well-intentioned or jargonized became insults or offensive terms after public alteration of the original usage. Some examples:

[It is known that the history of this needs to be revisited perhaps for a better tracing of pathways and for better exmaples]

Manic Depression, which became:
- Bipolar Disorder (which is now offensive, and may pend changes).
Retardation, which became:
- Menally Handicapped (which is now offensive, and may pend changes).
Autism, which grew to include
- Aspergers, which was altered to become
  - Autistic Spectrum (development more on scientific advancement),
  - Or for some Neurodivergent (which may be less offensive).

Earlier these terms were yet earlier terms that were changed to be euphemized or professional terms instead, with specific meanings, which were then converted to insults by members of the public. After children and adults and other nonspecialists alter the terms to be derogatory, their offensiveness increases until there is a desire to change the words, even for those in a professional occupation making specialized usage.

It was perhaps noticed by some few who realized that this is simply a cyclical process that is inevitable, as words for diseases, conditions, and various states of being that are considered undesirable inevitably become words that are used to demean and disparage others. A new word is introduced that is intended to euphemize an older word, or supplant depending on interpretations, with the intention that a scientific interpretation is used that is objective or more descriptive, and not at all intended to offend or insult. Sometimes the objective is purely advancement on science, and sometimes it is to aid in improving public welfare for people who are mistreated. Either way new terms that relate to personal details which are considered undesirable will become words that will be used to offend or demean others who do not have those same characteristics, just as someone is likely to use the words “dumb” or “stupid” for people who are neither. The cycle is related to the fact that people do not want to be like those who are lesser in value along certain measures.

While words are updated and altered to attempt to satisfy people who may be damaged by the words, or those who think they are supportive of alleviating harmful affects, others are annoyed that the change should be required, for being more objective and understanding of the specific meanings of the concepts in their more scientific application. Professionals and others may think the words suitable, given their usage, and their ability perhaps to refrain from using those same terms to harm people. In the field of psychology, certain words are known to be harmful to patients and people in the public, and within the field they are more disciplined in their avoidance of these words. Educated people may not want to often revise words for purposes that are political or unrelated to scientific goals.

It is suggested here that since this cycle seems to have inevitability to it, because of the change of concepts from advancement in science, and the expected utility of the words to harm others, that a scientific treatment of the process itself be used for planning the professional lexcion. If it is understood that there is a natural process to the evolution of words which includes modifications to preserve feelings, and to decrease immoral or abusive behavior, then it appears professionals ought to incorporate it into their professional ethic, and utilize it in their planning of their own fields. With this understanding it would be more clear to everyone which words will likely require changes. Having all people aware of the types of words that would likely end up in this cycle would perhaps create better human awareness around the evolution of words, and of moral practices concerning their usage.

An alternative would be to train regarding this cycle, and instead of making the changes to words on the basis of expected usage by the public for injury, make the changes pre-emptively on the basis of improvements which would occur anyways, in the science. Redefinition and reclassification is required as knowledge grows. Instead of utilizing the same words for words that are targeted for being part of this cycle, these words are simply changed to be more descriptive and current. In this case most is achieved by the dvancement of science, and all those who understand the cycle, including both professionals and people in the public, will know to wait for words to change as they become increasingly misused for aformentioned reasons.

[Written semi-blind typing, without edits or spell check, without planned composition, arrangement, or development of conversation, from thoughts on the topic which pre-existed partly, however. Incl. awareness of the cycle. One minor typo fixed after. Completed at 11:44 a.m. in 27 minute]

Familiarity with Self is Not a Clarified Representation

Monday, February 6^th, 2023, 9:38 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time

Yes, you and others are self-familiar.

But what organized true representation did you make of that familiarity?

Did you write a true autobiography?

Did you depict your life true in visuals and sounds?

Familiarity is done by having normal animal functioning.

How good is your self-familiarity is only shown with the quality of your clarified representation,

otherwise it is not clear how well you know yourself,

to yourself,

or anyone else…

A clarified representation is something you have that is not in you that requires your own independent creation.

Familiarity with self is not a clarified representation.

Combining Widely Separate Situations and the Brain’s Reactions to That

[Written without editing for studies in progress]

Monday, February 6^th, 2023, 4:19 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time

One of my interests in my writings is the proper understanding of truth as it relates to situations, and models of situations. In order to arrive at a good understanding of large situations, like for Earth as a whole, one must be able to consider patterns and analogies, and similarities, between situations that are contained. Before recently, one was mostly only able to do so by comparing and relating in one’s mind what one has learned from experience during exposure to separate situations, and from using what has learned from other’s explanations and recordings of situations, as poorer but useful substitutes from more direct experience. As we are increasingly able to store audio-visual materials showing diverse situations, and presenting these situations quickly for comparison, we are more able to see relationships using better copies than what humans could earlier relay only with verbal communication and artwork, we are increasingly more equipped to compare realistic or nearly realistic situations to understand larger situations, like for Earth more wholly.

More recently I began reflecting on how this relates to the experience one has psychologically in relation to mobile applications that can present short pieces of situational information in quick succession to a user. Social applications currently exist in wide usage that display short videos and images to users very briefly, before moving on to present new videos and images that often includes very different scenarios, sometimes widely separated in time and space. One might see an image of a display of talent from a young person wanting exposure in North America, then suddenly see something about animals in Asia. Video content and images appear to be shorter and smaller partly because of software and video scaling limitations in the architecture of the applications, but the resulting experience is also one that has desirable aspects, relating to experiences we’ve already had watching the news or other television shows that show one thing of high interest, but move quickly to another. Listening to musical mixes in some night clubs, DJs quickly move from one track to another in a very short period of time. These experiences indicate that people do enjoy oftentimes having more types of stimulus for shorter durations than longer types of stimulus for longer durations. Taking this further, it may be the cause of choices of song length, television show length, and movie length. Historically I have preferred very long movies, and longer songs, but there have been plenty of counterexamples to this preference even in my experience. Additionally, after certain extended periods of time, other limitations like limitations on comfort and need to use toilets and restrooms interrupt, and need to eat and get rest from stimulus exposure, cause a more definite need for moving on to other activities and behaviors.

Considering, from one’s own experience, the range of experiences of various kinds of entertainment, their formats and durations, one can see that certain social media exposures really do include a somewhat new experience. Videos are much shorter, and one can scroll through several videos in seconds if one can immediately see they are not of interest. These applications have millions of users and millions of videos, from diverse situations all over the world, and in seconds many can see many videos from many places, watching only for short durations. The size of the total data of video content and user experiences of that content is very large, and again, is unique to the total human experience from pre-history to the present day. There are two very interesting considerations which relate to this unique and new phenomena. Firstly, there is now data about a larger number of situations which may be quickly compared, because of short formats, and because of the largeness of the datum, and range of spaces and times in which users can share content concerning. Again, these videos include vivid content which is much better in quality than descriptions that would have existed in human verbal communication earlier. Verbal communication about interesting events also, from our experiences, was longer in duration and one could not simply jump between verbal descriptions with the rapidity that one can switch between highly vivid audio-visual content. Secondly, this data, and our experiences with the data, can tell us something about our own brains and to what extent it appears that humans were equipped for such experiences, switching so rapidly between different kinds of situations, invoking different mental events, emotional and intellectual.

Observing my own mental experiences with these applications, especially TikTok, over several years, I have found that strange combinations of experience sometimes prompt unexpected mental connections and emotional associations that do not seem to be entirely normal, given the history of human experience. There have been times in which the emotional response of some materials appeared to be transferred to subsequent materials, which did not have situational relationships in nature, apart from what has been enabled by the application itself, in being able to show very unrelated things in a short time.This seems to indicate some things about the brain and ability to disable certain reactions, between exposures to different situations. For example, if one is exposed very quickly to a victim of an injury on TikTok, one may have an emotional response that is culturally or personally appropriate to that exposures. Perhaps one feels saddened for a victim, their appearance, and angry about their experience. TikTok sometimes shows burn victims who wish to share information about their lives. A user can watch the video and feel this for a period of perhaps 30 seconds; or, the user can simply feel a reaction to an extremely momentary exposure, and move four or five videos along, briefly seeing each video and quickly deciding that something else is wanted. They may then see another video of interest, perhaps seeing someone attractive doing a workout. Clearly this would be a very different kind of content; however, oftentimes, elements of the one situation resemble elements of the next, even if the content is quite different in terms of potential emotional reactions. One can see something and still have an emotional reaction to the prior video, and transfer it somewhat to the new video, even if the new video seems different from the one preceding it. The extremely diverse number of situations that can be experienced in succession should be evident considering that any user from any place on earth may post something with different intentions and interests. Quantifying situational diversity is not something that is immediately achievable and probably does not exist, but certainly there are more than trillions of combinations of aspects which constitute the total earthly situations. On the app, one gets sexualized content then immediately after, violent materials. Then lovable animals, then scenes of sports. The result of the strangely large pool of unrelated content presented to users in quick succession are mental events which are unusual.

In everyday experiences sometimes we are interrupted quickly in what we are doing with catastrophe or suddenly unexpected situations. Perhaps a person has a sudden health event that one never experienced, while working. Perhaps one is enjoying a drive, before suddenly being investigated by police in a very aggressive fashion. The emotions of the one experience often influence the reaction to the other experience that prompted very different emotions. Having relaxing driving experiences suddenly becomes something related to avoiding aggression. Work suddenly becomes a health risk. Typically, there is consistency in the experiences which does not involve quick changes, and so one can have many drives that are long and enjoyable, and one can have exhilarating days of work, if one is doing something one really enjoys, that unlocks potential. Or one can simply do days of work in comfort in a routine, without any feeling that there are risks. This seems to indicate firstly that one does not expect rapid successions of real events, and one’s brain certainly would have been evolved in an environment that does not have great leaps between situations frequently. One often does not enjoy sudden changes of situations. There are examples in which sudden changes of situation create excitement too, but again in normal human experiences one does not change space and time quickly, but rather can only switch environments within one’s area somewhat infrequently and at a pace not nearly like that which is provided now by TikTok and other social media apps. It appears then that the brain has not necessarily been equipped to move so rapidly between widely different kinds of situations, and that sometimes if it is done, it is unwanted, with side effects, and other times, it is stimulating and exciting. When I’ve used these applications, I have alternated between really enjoying the experience, and really disliking it. And I have experienced odd psychological side effects, transferring emotions and sensations from one situation in which I’m exposed, to the next which is largely unrelated.

It is unobvious whether this kind of experience falls under the total experience in which humans can have and get familiar with, without any especially negative near or longer term consequences, or if there are more serious consequences because of the newness of the phenomena. It is not clear if the brain is general enough to handle all kinds of learning situations, or if it is better to keep experience closer to what is closer to that in which it was originally evolved.

Either way, the data and the application, presents a set of useful scientific opportunities for understanding how the brain functions, what its preferred functions are, and for learning about the Earth and its interrelationships.

More soon

[Written in 47 minutes with no spellcheck, no edits, mostly blind typing with reading or feedback of what is typed at the time it is typed. Finished at 5:06 pm]

Upcoming initial postings

Tuesday, January 25^th, 2023, 9:09 PM Waitara, New Zealand Time

Items to post concerning from recent thoughts:

Topic shifts in discussion, interjections, rules of collaboration.
- Involves thoughts I developed while in bed late last night.
The life categories and structure of organization of one’s life.
- Will appear here or on the existing life categories section.
Writing off the recent notes regarding objectivity relating to ritualization for more probable recollection.

This post is in keeping with permitting myself to include some planned tasks openly via thoughtstream. Sharing of Tasks and Plans.

Cohesive Visions, Plans, and Post-Editing

Friday, January 20^th, 2023, 8:24 PM Sydney, Australia Time

When one writes concerning a topic of high complexity wanting to eventually bring it to a cohesive work, that reads well, has good transitions, and is well encapsulated, one needs to either have a vision as to what the work will need to become, or one will need to eventually come to a vision of what the work can be that is more simplistic. The present work will be demonstrably more of the former, although does include elements of the latter; the reason for its having elements of the later is creativity which occurs along the way which influences thoughts about what might be better concerning the vision. Obviously creativity along the way to a better result which realizes the vision is desirable. Sometimes it may give new pathways to better projects. In my case, however, I am mostly simply realizing an original plan and that is and will be demonstrable. This is important because it indicates early recognition of significance, ability to write things that might be incoherent to others, for their complexity, but later bring all together into something that is really obviously coherent and consistent with the initial vision and its significance. In fact, I could have written about how it could be combined, but doing that would in an unsatisfactory way speak of something that is better revealed at a time when it is spoken of better.

This is very different from another pathway which might be had. This may consist of more narrow visions had separately, written about without a vision as to synthesis. Some writers may enjoy writing this way thinking of each as a separate project. Some writers who do not have a corpus or body of work that obviously fits together as a singular piece of work of many pieces, are sharing with us that they did not have such a vision or work, but rather had separate visions or works. This is not necessarily something that diminishes the quality of what they are doing, depending on what their focus or goals happens to be. For example, a film maker, should not be expected to create movies with interesting widely separate situations, in a way that they fit with the each other as singular works. They may seem quite different, and that may be what indicates the quality of the creativity of their creations. They are able to “get out of” one way of doing something, to do it very differently to arrive at a better final piece of another kind. If one writes one biography, certainly it should not be the same work as another’s biography. Because of personality there will certainly be aspects of method and style included which may allow one to identify the cdreators influence. But this is not really something deliberate, but more accidental. Novels, works of different kinds of art, and different genres, need not be part of a single work. The artist for these pieces may more deliberately want to separate them. Actors do this when they want to make sure they don’t transfer something from one character to the other, falsifying the future characters, by giving them traits that they would not have, brought by a separate entity, the actor, having nothing to do with the character itself within their situation or creative universe.

Writings that are separate or visionary that have some complex aspects that are not part of a vision, will seem erratic or chaotic, and perhaps irritatingly disjoint, such that if they are encountered together, may seem to indicate purposelessness, or lack of goals. Many writers write this way. Collections of their writings may appear very incohesive. Arguably some may say they have not yet finished, and so, the vision that holds them together must wait. However, typically, signs and indicators as to vision and pathway would be easily spoken concerning without revealing everything. In these cases it is highly likely that if something of the vision cannot be said, and sufficient short indications as to directions are not provided, they do not exist, or are also fractured and not systhesized. Articulation of the significance of the work in some few statements that don’t reveal and do not share something that is inadequately stating something that should be stated later should still exist. Apart from writings of complexity that have this characteristic of perpetual analysis paralysis as to holism, or even incremental separate synthetic part wholes, we have most other people who think more simply about things separately and narrowly, without writing. These thinkers are still mostly doing what this paragraph indicates they are doing. They think about something of interest temporarily, bring it to a point of personal satisfaction, and then jump to another topic, think about it, and bring it to a point of satisfaction. They jump around unable to bring them all together in a singular or somewhat holistic vision or thought plan. If they were to write, they would have a similar chaotic work of many writings about different things that don’t come together coherently. As with an artist however, these works would come better into view looking at the life of the person, and seeing their personality. However, they would like as part of their lives and personalities something of a clear vision that brings these pieces together.

All who would be included in the prior paragraph would have to, afterwards in writing their autobiographies, or in writing what they think joins their mental content and their written content, do post editing. They would have to look at their lives, and their writings, and find hidden connections. They would have to admit, that if they found it, it was when they found it that they found it, and not earlier. They would not be able to say “This was my plan all along” but rather, in a retrospective, these writings and these thoughts, and these actions, come together in such a such a way. I think most would be unable to bring it together even in post editing, although reading repeatedly ones writings may provide new insights which would result culminating thoughts joinging things together creatively. If done later in life, this must consist of very pleasant moments of finally arriving at something from a sort of incohesive collection, to something that feels holistic, and maybe is. However, I think that would be really rare. When I speak of holism in any case, I’m still thinking of partial holism, as I’ve already written about the impossibility of any kind of perfect holism. Yet there is a desirable holism of life plan and “making sense of things”, of “coming to an understanding” of life. This is not merely autobiographical. It is more because a successful autobiography truthfully tells life as it happened in a shorter format; whereas, coming to an understanding and telling one’s life story includes that one came to an understanding and may actually include writing about that understanding which can communicate it to others. Better still is if the life itself also included the plans which include the understanding, and culminate in greater undersrtanding, were always cohesive, and required less of this post-editing. In that case attribution of the understanding to each earlier phase in one’s autobiography is honest. For others who attain later and attribute it earlier are really falsifying their own life story.

Post-editing of a collection of writings to achieve understanding is not something that is undesirable but rather something that might be the best that one can strive for given one’s abilities.

Yourself as an animal can only achieve what is possible to it given it’s nature. It’s abilities and it’s properties. One has to really consider in one’s planning if one is going to realize one’s goals what is possible given one’s abilities. One’s executive functioning in the brain is related to one’s plans for oneself and also the realization of those plans. If one has good executive functioning concerning planning of what is realizable, one would already choose something that is attainable or not given one’s nature. Not all should plan for a work such as this one, and many would do well not to.

Written in 27 minutes without edits or spell check, blind typing with only part screen reading, Friday, January 20^th, 2023, 8:51 PM Sydney, Australia Time

Paper and Energy

Friday, January 20^th, 2023, 7:28 PM Sydney, Australia Time

Recently, as I was thinking about my offgrid living plans, and travel plans, regarding my computers and my devices, I realized that I could accomplish most of what I want to accomplish, even for months at a time, with few batteries, as long as I shifted my attention back to paper. My writings can continue on paper. My artwork I’ve been wanting to do, is of course, something that can be done on paper. Sheet music can be written onto paper. Paper, unlike all my computers, and phones, and so on, is very lightweight. It would enable my backpacking to not have these devices and instead have paper and writing implements, and would make travel much simpler.

Thinking about this on the train in Sydney this early evening, I realized that there may be a benefit to thinking about paper books, and paper to write on, as having battery power. What are the energy needs of paper once you have it? What are the comparable energy needs of computers and phones, for doing similar tasks.

My primary tasks of interst involve what I’ve included above, but also archiving. Eventually, my writings will be in a digital format for archiving, and for later publication, returning what was digitized back to paper again. Writing is something I use to occupy my leisure time for fun, and also to continue my book and journal that’s in progress. Artwork, and sheet music involve plans for additional productions which I intended to be digital primarily, but now am considering doing on paper, if energy considerations make it more worthwhile.

Paper Energy Requirements Contra Electronic Devices

My iPhone battery life appears to have the following key energy limits:

Duration in usage: 1 day.
Duration of single charge when off: 30 days or more.

The iphone battery life in usage is really some number of hours less than 24 hours. But I have noticed, it holds a charge that satisfies me for roughly one day before it needs to be recharged. For this reason, I simply say my phone can last one day if I use it. If I do not use it, it can last more than thirty days turned off. In cold weather I believe it may last only a day or two turned off.

My computer battery life appears to have the following energy limits:

Duration in usage: 2 days.
Duration of a single charge when off: 10 days.
Cold weather duration of a single charge when off: 1 day.

I know my computer will completely lose it’s charge if left in a cold car overnight. For example, I lived in the state of Alaska. I did not always bring my computer inside, and sometimes did leave the computer in the car. Returning to computer not long after, I would find it’s battery empty even if it was fully charged before.

Now let’s consider energy requirements of paper.

Duration in usage: depending on the paper, up to 700 years.
Duration in storage: depending on the paper, and storage conditions, perhaps several thousand years. Perhaps more if stored in resin.

Paper appears to exceed digital devices in terms of energy requirements very greatly. What are some implications of this? Below are some implications that directly relate to my plans regarding the archiving of my book and journal:

Final archival format is not digital because it will be lost.
- We saw that a stored book may last more than 700 years in a library. This is excluding the fact that it can be copied and reprinted again and again, meaning it can be stored 700 years many times. There are risks that the books would be burned, lost to water damage, or some other hazard. For this reason they are usually copied and stored in more than one location. However, these risks only become probable over very extended periods of time. A book in a library will almost certainly last a very long period of time.
- Comparing this to digital books. With digital books, there are many parts of the technology with interfere with reading access, which eventually can come together to total and probabl loss of that book, even in the near future. Firstly, with a digital book, the screen goes off. Paper, the screen never goes off. With a digital book, you may need a password or security step to access for reading. It is mixed with other things you have, that make for undue protection of the book. Without the password or security step to gain access to the device, not only may you lose the book, everyone may lose it. It’s archival potential has been eliminated. If any part of the device is damaged, it may make access for copy, retreival, or other impossible. Hardware failure is nearly certain to occur within 30 years, even if there is no accidental breakage. Software limitations placed on digital computers have planned obselescence. This means that the book will not be accessible on the computer, or readable using software on the computer, after some passage of time. Regarding this book, which is on a website, I have to apply a security patch to the server, or allow the cloud provider to make software changes, that can interrupt the server, and make the book inacceissible. This may happen in a timeframe of just a couple years. Browser technology may be unable to render books in my format in the near future. Storage media used apart from the computer systems that allow you to see your books, which are similar to storage of books that nobody can open, eventually degrade. How they are organized becomes confusing, and easy to lose, since all is on a chip, whereas, in a library, there are many books that are not likely to be lost all at one time. If you have a chip you may decide to just throw it away, forgetting what’s on it. It may break, and I’ve had chips break (mini SIM cards). Whereas, my library was an annoying possession to have that could not simply be eliminated when I wanted to rid of it.
- A website, printed as a book, has longevity that the website or file cannot have, because of these many parts of the technologies that can fail.
- The point of this as it relates to batteries is that along this entire path of digital storage for archiving are all these problems AND related energy requirements, because the entire systems are electrical systems. Paper archiving requires no energy, is not utilizing any parts that depend on energy, can fail to supply energy, can fail to supply signals using energy, can fail to display a screen using energy and the like. Whereas, with paper, it’s always on. It is accessible. It is harder to lose, and harder to get rid of. It requires no energy in the lifecycle regarding its own presentation, and self-storage of the content.
Paper and Pencil never turns off, is not unavailable if there is no energy supply, is lightweight for not requiring battery storage, always can show what it will show, even if energy is not supplied, and it would not be supplied.
- When I’m traveling on a hiking trip, to read and write I really would prefer to have my computer systems and phones working indefinitely, but that’s far from the case. All devices if used will certainly have no power at all within 2 days. However, I considered, if I’m only using paper, for writing, artwork, and music creation, I can still scan and archive them digitally at a later time, and return them to paper again. However, I then can use it for my entire trips. I will not have to worry about losing battery as I do my work. I can live offgrid for months and have no worries concerning my abilities to continue my work and fun tasks recording my thoughts and reading them again. Taking a single hard copy book alone with me, printed on fine paper, I would have many pages to read and recall at low weight, without any chance that I would be unable to continue reading for extended periods of time. Total weight of some paper and some implements, and a lightweight book of many pages, is much less than for carrying devices, computers, solar generators, cables, etc… But again, all can be returned to digital format later if necessary.
Creation format and archival format as paper has many benefits

[More soon]

Finished without edits in 40 minutes. Friday, January 20^th, 2023, 8:08 PM Sydney, Australia Time*

Notes on Objectivity in Symbolic Ritualization for More Probable Recollection

Wednesday, January 18^th, 2023, 6:51 PM Sydney, Australia Time

Write about the universal applicability of a symbol like the fitness template. (It should seem somewhat ridiculous because of the arbitrariness of it). 2 minute analogy to a lecture in college or theological seminary which is expanded into a 90 minute paid course lecture. Ease of learning it. Secular understanding provides the feeling of practicality and willingness to use and find interest in one’s own life. Arbitrariness seems ridiculous but also is creative, which indicates people can create similarly without support, and enjoy the ridiculous arbitrariness of it while having the usefulness, and having something shared with animals. Feels more obviously proven in development of examples in culture and seemingly interpsecies behavioral analogues. That it corresponds to a need in morality which explains its historical usage in parts of religions, with examples of religions that can be recalled. While the choice of symbolism and specific ritual may be creative, and arbitrary, and have a sense of ridiculousness associated with it, it is also unarbitrary, because of its history in nature it appears to have evolutionary utility. And it relates to cycles of attempts to rehearse what is not often recalled otherwise; thoughts and ideas are encouraged in the brain, to increase probability of recollection later when situations would make it useful. If related to emergency response, or related to having certain behaviors in important contexts which could relate in death, serious injury, illness, or psychological damage, which may be lifelong, training provides similar examples. Acronyms in emergency training are used so those trained more easily recall what is wanted to be done during emergency situations. If what is trained is not done during emergency situations, the person may be considered incompetent at their job, although it is understood that emergency response can be more high-pressure with less time for decisions than other contexts. Yet that is the reason for the ritualization, and training, to create higher probabilities that thoughts will occur when wanted, and behaviors will occur when wanted, which is the same thing which has caused the formation of symbolism and ritualism described. This would be an example of a really objective moral proto-design, which before was more natural in its manifestation, of people who were ritual in behavior but could not explain using objective grounds why. This non-objective natural origin is a cause of trust in one’s group but distrust in another. Because it is not known why really but appears to be of great importance, and is arbitrary to the culture that created it, with a feeling of ridiculousness that results in cognitive dissonance when challenged, even if the challenge is for learning.

Preface: Opening task lists and current work plans.

Started Writing: Thursday, December 1^st, 2022, 7:23 PM Cairns, Australia Time

Before I was using a log to keep track of my backlog of tasks, but I’ve decided not only to open up my life via wthis website with health and identity information, and various thoughts as experienced, but to open up to include some immediate plans relating to work projects I’m conducting.

There may be very little interest in some of these task lists that I’m producing. However, as a log, and part of my living autobiography, it provides more information about my activities as they are happening.

A few writing projects are incomplete on this site including the following which I hope to complete in the next few weeks:

finish interview regarding charlatans of the high intelligence community.
add more content regarding intelligence related to communication of significance and density of meaning in the fastest typing.
completion of the list of favorable moods that I’d like to be able to experience on-demand. This relates to the writings on the life category of Mood and Mediation, and Higher Order Attention.

This is the very first post of this type including items from my personal task backlog. I have not yet determined exactly how much I should be sharing from my backlog. Historically that information was somewhat confidential to me, particularly as my tasks related to my business. Customers would certainly be protected and I could not provide backlog tasks related to work performed for them. However, for work items in my business that I create for myself in my business, I am contemplating sharing those. It does not appear that there is anyone who could take and do those tasks, and combine them into a meaningful plan that would be competitive against my plans. This would be another progression in my attempt to see what needs protections and what doesn’t, finding that more and more can be open, reducing privacy but increasing various freedoms from having to protect.

Started Writing: Thursday, December 1^st, 2022, 7:30 PM Cairns, Australia Time

[Finished in 7 minutes, without approximately 7 minor typo fixes, with spellcheck, no grammar check, and little self reading (semi-blind touch typing).]

Author: Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh

Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
B.S Psychology, University of Maryland,
B.S Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland,
B.A. Philosophy (Nearly Completed, 2003), University of Maryland.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#sharing-of-tasks-and-plans

Started Writing: Tuesday, November 29^th, 2022, 1:53 PM Cairns, Australia Time

I’m not that into relationships.

What were the obligations you were thinking I had?

What control do you feel thinking about that, regarding my relationships?

http://www.mattanaw.org/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.html#im-not-that-into-relationships

Preface: Brothers who aren’t.

Published: Sunday, August 25^th, 2022, 3:08 PM Cairns, Australia Time

Solving your problems by calling each other Brother or Sister.

You know how people at one time called each other “Brother”?

I was just thinking to myself. You say this because you are in a situation in which you think people will endanger each other, but you are similar enough to each other, that you think pretending you’re family will support kindness.

Now imagining myself in this context, where people say “Brother” perhaps in the 70s and 80s, or whatever period this was most used:

“I appeared here and there were too many of you. You are a population problem. I’m not solving your problem by making you family even symbolically, such that I forget what metaphors are. Instead, you’re not my brother, and well, I’m not sure I need to talk to you either.”

Doing otherwise somewhat makes you responsible for others poor behaviour. Ok some of you can’t control yourselves. If you think calling each other brother will help you, go ahead. But I prefer wide separation from problem people.

Strangers with problems.

Legally do you want to be brothers? How fake is your brotherhood here.

Author: Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh

Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
B.S Psychology, University of Maryland,
B.S Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland,
B.A. Philosophy (Nearly Completed, 2003), University of Maryland.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#solving-your-problems-by-calling-each-other-brother-or-sister

Preface: Building on earlier work on the morning and evening routines, using the life categories.

Started Writing: Tuesday, August 22^nd, 2022, 12:23 PM Cairns, Australia Time

Making the morning and evening routine mnemonic connect with the memory journey methodology

The memory journy methodology in mnemonics has been used by memory games competitors to achieve very good quality results that showcase what is possible for our memory skills.

I’ve used the memory journey in my early twenties, when I first learned about it, from a source unknown but probably while I was in college studying Psychology, but later also in the book Mind Performance Hacks. Using this method I’ve also had good results, and used it for things like remembering shopping lists, and for remembering things to do in the course of my day.

The memory journey is simply walking through a familiar location mentally, while along the way storing and retrieving things you need to remember, in places which have also been called “memory pegs”. I would walk through my childhood home, always in the same way, looking around from one room to the next, in the same order. Along this pathway would be locations of interest which are the memory pegs, or storage locations, where things could be placed. If I had a shopping list, I might put something at the doorway when walking in, perhaps “broccoli”. I’d find the brocolli at the entrance when I walk through that path, and when I was shopping, I’d remember that I need to buy brocolli. Walking through the remainder of the home, a very large number of objects can be seen and recollected. While I used it for lists probably not exceeding 30 items, others have used it for recalling hundreds if not thousands of objects for memory competitions. There are many other methods that can be used, and I’m not a memory competitor and could not tell you them all. However, this method is reusable and certainly effective. It is re-usable and each time you can add new objects to the journey. Another tip regarding the memory journey is that it is easier if vividness of story is added to the journey. I would make nonsensical and absurd things happen at different locations in the journey for new list items, that would help me remember. Maybe I step on the brocolli walking through the entrance, and squash it, releasing a stinky odor. This makes it really easy to recall later when out shopping.

The memory journey, however, does not have to be only an unreal journey. In my morning routine, the goal was to go through a sequence of tasks that all relate to my various life categories. The objective was to complete all that’s necessary in one’s day in a very short period of time, perhaps less than two hours every morning. When I devised this, I was working long hours, and wanted to ensure before work, that I was already clean, exercised, practiced some mediation, and completed certain other tasks that would ensure I was mostly feeling finished with doing what I needed to do for entire days. Since the list included a sequence of steps, each relating to a life category, there is something to remember, if one is not referring directly to the personal form. I had these steps listed on my form so could simply read it. But not wanting to be permanently dependent on a list, written down, I recognized eventually it is better to simply rely on the habits that were formed, and memory. Automaticity is desired. I would often write about Habitualization/habituation after practice as a goal of using the lists. Now again wanting to use my morning and evening routines, I’m wanting to build on what I did earlier, and simply use my memory to recollect. I’ve created a new way to walk through the various categories that I’ll record here soon, which is a mnemonic method.

The morning routine, being a set of tasks done in sequence upon waking, has a journey associated with it already. When you arise in the morning, you go through a sequence of steps in your environment where you arise. If you wake in your bedroom, you’ll often use the restroom, after walking through a hallway, and then, if you recall your steps, you will walk to other parts of your home, going through different rooms, seeing different things and completing different tasks along the way. This is a retraceable journey. It is easy to forget, in the morning, if one has not done a morning routine or one has not done one in a while. I’m in a state of requiring retraining. The mnemonic approach to remembering the steps is good, but an additional real-world recollection aid will make the process better. I’ve used this as well. This method is to leave things you need to remember alone the paths you regularly take in your home. For example, I’ve put water at various locations around my home, to ensure I’m drinking enough water. At this moment, in my home, there are water glasses filled, all over in different rooms. Walking along my morning routine pathway, I will find water. Water and hydration is on my list in relation to the category of nutrition. The effect is it forces you to remember, but it also appears, makes it possible to aid the memory journey, since now there is an expectation of seeing water along the path visualized. It is not only added to a memory peg with the imagination, it really exists along the path. This is a new development and I’m working to ensure that other things I need to remember also exist along the path and that it is blended with my memory journey which is imagination based.

Along the path at home, messages can be left, as is often already done, and not only objects. Today I put my memory cards on my counter beside my couch to ensure that when I sit, I resume my photography productions. This is something I think most do. It is highly useful to train to do this often, even outside of the memory journey.

When you leave someone a message who leaves with you, you’ll put it someplace you know they’ll see it. A place along their pathway, which might resemble your own. What is different here, is adding messages to your own pathway along a total journey through your home, that you will take over and over, so you are completely reminded about all the steps, and don’t miss out on steps when you are really performing them.

I will add more later on these developments relating to these cyclical routines soon, and also on my new method of focusing attention in periods where there are many distractions, to things that are consistent with rational plans. This will help so one is not redirected away from their more rational goals and plans.

Ended Writing: Tuesday, November^nd, 2022, 12:52 PM Alaska Time

[Finished in 29 minutes, without edits, spellcheck, grammar check, or reading. Semi-blind typing while partly attending to what is written on the screen.]

Author: Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh

Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
B.S Psychology, University of Maryland,
B.S Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland,
B.A. Philosophy (Nearly Completed, 2003), University of Maryland.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#making-the-morning-and-evening-routine-mnemonic-connect-with-the-memory-journey-methodology

Preface: On finishing with others concerning voting.

Started Writing: Thursday, November 17^th, 2022, 12:14 PM Brisbane Time

Foolishness of the Common Trust in Voting.

Abstract, Teaser, Contents:

Voting in democratic nations has a cermeoniousness which has resulted in creating voting events which are national holidays. The cermeoniousness of the voting process includes repetition year-by-year in a way that is familiar and similar from one voting even to the next, which resembles celebration of holidays like Christmas. People are brought into a similar mindset during each event and tend to recollect similar feelings and similar ways of thinking and speaking for each event. When voting comes around, we know how to think and feel, and speak, in ways that are supportive of the voting process, implying that between us, and for each event, there is much similarity. What is uncommont to these various events are new ways of handling ceremony, changes to rituals, changes to ways of thinking about voting, and recommendations for improvements. The process of voting is considered universally to be received, and is treated as complete, and not something ready for updates. Voting is something mostly discussed vigorously during voting, and lesser so outside of voting. In this way also it is similar to holidays. People think about it intensely at that time [Mattanaw, 2022], but less outside of that time, again like Christmas or New Years, or like birthdays.

Voting is at a stage of low growth, and is of low sophistication, and not high maturity. Sophisticated new thinking during times that people think about voting, has not been applied to the voting process itself. Instead ceremoniousness has resulted in a feeling of constancy about voting process between votes, and being understood and common, means all can or think they understand it. Sophisticated critiques of voting process, and sophisticated ideas about voting, have not been sought or shared during times when people think most about voting. I have found that I am largely a solitary thinker about voting when I want to consider how voting might be improved. More than this, however, I’ve determined, that my behavior is inexclusive regarding this; anyone who wants to improve voting and achieve a greater level of personal sophistication would need to do so alone. We have not been given a way to vote on an individual level either, and so one must work entirely independently arrive at a solid process for arriving at a vote that seems sophisticated, and satisfying.

Sophisticated objections to voting do not exist and would seem contrary to ceremony around voting. This would be a cause for reactions against well-intended objections to current voting practices that might result in improvements. Lack of knowledge of the sophisticated objections to voting imply that one has been unable to speak openly and utilize open political thinking and criticism about voting itself.

Some objections to voting inclued, among the contents:

Voting as ritual recollection
Value of education is left out of voting
Freethinking in politics applies to itself
The field of human resources is not used
Voting appears primitive once one considers growth and improvements
Diversity is left out of voting
Voting improvements have been disincentivized
Abstract, Teaser, Contents, Back to Top

Voting as ritual recollection. Voting is a sort of holiday. As a holiday, it has a ceremoniousness, which includes ritualization and desire to repeat things as they are recollected precisely. It is governed and protected also by rules. The making voting a holiday means it is uniquely resistant to criticism, and critical thinking, and thinking generally as it is not recollection, but new thought. It has not been considered if voting should pertain to voting itself. It does not allow political consideration but ceremonial holiday repetition. This may explain why politics has been considered an activity that one should not be open about, alongwith religion. It also explains why people tend to have the same perspective: as with other holidays, the repetition of those holidays and ways of celebrating results in not only similar sentiments over time, but similar sentiments between people. We know that those who celebrate Christmas tend to think similarly about Christmas, celebrate it similarly, speak about it similarly, and celebrate it ways that are very similar over years. Christmas ceremonies within families resist change. Those who desire to stop celebrating are strongly pressured to continue celebrating. Voting is also a national holiday, blending religion with politics.

Voting appears primitive once one considers growth and improvements. Using one’s political mind for evaluating voting results in a perspective that is solitary. However, being supposedly a fundamental process, one would think it would have maximum attention, and maximum sophistication. However, it appears it is more simple, and more religious than other democratic processes. Thinking carefully about even voting has been a practice of mine for a long period and my finding was that I was totally alone doing it. Furthermore, I found that people have been unable to retain what I’ve stated to them in conversation concerning voting. However, they are trained on recollecting every year what has been ceremonial concerning it. Something as important as voting should be something that is maximally sophisticated, which implies it has and receives maximum attention, and has maximal acceptance within the democracy; however, the reality is it is a protected topic. People assume it is complete, but it is in the beginning stages of development and is at a state of very low maturity. Since people have not discussed this, none can state my position regarding why I would consider it to be of low development. I have never heard anyone say anything regarding the maturity of the voting process. If the voting process is on a stage of maximal maturity, at a point where it is space-like in difficulty of improvement, then growth inhibitions would be natural, and would relate to education, and finding of talent to improve it. However, even the talented have been indoctrinated into thinking it is a final and complete system. It has not been acknowledged that it can even be improved, or that voting is only a component of a system of politics, that can be worked on somewhat separately from other parts of the system. That it’s not a component implies that other parts of the system are also in a state of low maturity, because to make changes in one part of the system, should be simple for not impacting other parts of the system, while curently, we can expect if one changes voting, one will have many interrelationships that must be fixed in other parts of the system. At present, dependencies between parts of the system are not known, discussed, or tracked. For the reader, this should indicate, that the voting process is not only low on its own, is very low in ways that will be revealed later, as the total system of politics is eventually developed and improved. It will be shown, that the process by which it grows is slow and stagnant, and it hasn’t really developed on its way of developing. It doesn’t quite know how to grow, and the rates of growth will later show that it largely preserves immature processes. Discussing voting is something that has been disallowed, in a system that is supposed to be encouraging free communication, and the result is that critiquing voting is a solitary activity. I would expect, potentially, I may be the only person thinking in this way regarding voting. “Someone, somewhere, surely is thinking about this?” But I have no reason to expect so, other than that I cannot be the only one on this topic, who would see the mathematical aspects of voting. But I don’t think the sophistication would exist in anyone else very likely.

Sophistication of objections concerning voting, then would be rare and unknown, particularly if they are takenn in combination, when the number of objections is large, and independently rare. I would expect and anticipate that readers would find these objections to be largely unspoken from themselves and their peers, which means they can test in their own lives that voting appears to be a ceremonial repetition of recollections, that are mostly common, and unsophisticated. Each of the sophisticated objections regarding voting have an aspect which appears to require greater mathematical treatment. The mathematical treatments of each do not exist.One could research and find parts of mathematics that would apply; however, that they have not been applied, and are unknown to all who vote, indicates that there is uncommonality in it. That few would think to apply or use any mathematical understanding concerning this indicates it is at the lowest stages of understanding, and uncommonality.

Some key objections to the voting process as it exists calling for a better more mature voting system, includes:

That it has not considered that people are fundamentally unequal and not equal (Abandoning Equality, Mattanaw, 2022). Instead, it entirely conceals diversities that are directly relevant to quality of selection. Details: All people in our system believe that as they are educated they are improved. This implies that all who have improved are more valuable than when they started. That this applies to all people is known. This has not been used to improve the voting system so votes are weighted according to education. People are not equal regarding ability to learn. Being unable to learn, the handicapped and mentally retarded have been included with the same strength as the smartest, most able, and most intelligent, in our voting system. Being more able to vote, they are more able to self improve. Self-improvement is believed to increase personal worth for all people. This has not been included in the voting system at all.

The Job Description is Unknown.

The discipline of HR has grown to become huge, and relatively mature, but does not exist for selecting political candiates. HR does not use a voting process for selecting candidates. Human Resources is trusted for all large enterprise corporations, but they use a system closer to dictatorship and totalitarianism, in order to achieve their success. It isn’t democratic at all; yet all voters support and have been selected using HR processes. This means they have trusted a totalitarian/dictatorial corporate whatever process, that is non-democratic, to select them, but they do not use a similar process for finding political candidates. If they are asked how to use it for selecting political candidates, in a way that would be trusted, they would not know how.In fact, they have never spoken concerning that.

Voting with polling is nearly primitive. All it does is take yes and no reactions from people. There is no influence with speaking.

Voting creates a fixed unchangeable voting power of influence, but working towards persuading others, and having a media presence, does not, and is much more powerful. For explaining this I have included diagrams. Fundamentally, if you scale your sophistication in trying to influence politics during voting, you focus exclusively on persuasion and media messaging, to change the votes of others, because you cannot do anything to improve yourself to improve the power of your own singular vote, in a way that would compete. In order to increase your voting influence, you must shift to persuasion and speaking, and not in a format that is unlikely to succeed. Media influence and propaganda guide and sway, in a way that communicating with friends does not. Since we are told we are not to be political in conversation, it is known already, that it is an inflammatory topic, and people are often unwilling to be persuaded. However, they are willing to listen, change, and be educated by the media. In fact, voters only know what is going on, by the news, and political marketing. Here I am unwilling to dwell on the power disparity between an individual and the news, but instead only want to share, that an individual voter would need to scale only on this side, and become like a media organization eventually, to grow influence in voting. One’s voting power is unchangeable by education, personal growth, having a better mind, and anything related to growth that really does imply inequalities. One cannot become an expert and get more votes. It is possible, that one may not grow, and only improve abilities to message, and greatly improve one’s influence of other voters. One might want to think about which influencers seem to be basic in their intelligence, who still have influence, and still have an audience. You have no audience but someone who is an athlete does. The implication is they have greater power in voting than you do, regarding something unrelated to what is required to guide good politics.

Tasks in Politics are Unknown. There is no list of upcoming tasks and policy changes that are anticipated and needed within the work being done. Instead, the people who don’t know the job, in their parties, advertise what they will do, which does not include tasks within the actual organizaiton. The organization doing the work would provide a list of clear work tasks that require completion, policies that need change, and jobs that are open, and so forth. They would also be able to list definite jobs and projects completed, who completed them, what they were. Technology organizations would go further to measure the rate of change if they can, and they track all tasks being worked on and what was completed, and report on that work, and prioritize that work. Voters have no knowledge of what work is really done, has been done.

Policy Changes Supercede People’s Roles. In politics we are concerned with what changes, and what remains the same. We talk about policies when we discuss what changes or stays the same. Policies are central to changes of all types. A politician will be working for changes of various types that fall within the job description. Prior tasks are known regarding changes to make, if they are tracked. Work completed is tracked, and work to be performed is tracked. Knowing what work must be done, and what work is going to be done, voters can see what policies will change, and how, regardless of who will be doing the work. Work tasks can be added by new employees. However, these are tracked. In technology and business, employees can recommend changes are added and prioritized for the backlog. Employees in large coprorations already do and adopt this, and see it works.

Voters are not given any method to know this information, which would be a vital part a job. If a voter has such information, they would be incline, as they do within corporations, to be fixated on what will happen next regarding the changes, and not who makes the changes. Within a corporation, employees who really care about change appear to be somewhat unconcerned about how the changes happen, knowing that jobs shift, and people come and go. When someone is included, who appears to be opposed to what they would like to happen, they will start to be resistant, because what they would like to happen will be thwarted. This means that in a business context, they are not especially concerned, necessarily, who is doing the job, as long as they are doing it well, and are making those changes that are needed, that relate to policies within the company. In politics this includes projects, programs, and large-scale changes, that are big enough for people to be wanting to look at, in the limited attention they have during voting.

Voter Research is Infeasible. I have argued while still young, that I felt unprepared in my education about how to actually vote as an individual. It does not appear this is very difficult to teach people, particularly if the system is sophistiated enough to include people on how they can arrive at good voting decisions. Instead, they are not given any method in which to arrive at a good vote. This would include how to become informed. Instead, they are reliant on media and news sources, and potentially advertising, rather than trusted sources of information. In academics, trusted sources of information, disinclude even wikipedia. While studying at Harvard University, I was informed that I could not cite wikipedia, because Harvard does not accepts wikipedia as a trusted source of information. However all voters rely nearly exclusively on media, news, entertainment, and advertising, which are all far more untrusted within academia. Having this information in academia is considered not researching, not a success story in research. This means what people are doing to be educated is considered what one does when one is not educated. If one is to use this type of information in academic papers, or nearly anyway in advanced education, one is showing how uneducated one is, not how prepared for voting one might be.

Another way to put this is that whatever change happens, would be in writing.

It appears that whoever is hired, would have similar work to do. This work would include a finite list of tasks which would already be known. Additional tasks could be added. However, the tasks to be done were added by who and how? Where are they? It appears voters alternatively should be voting on what it is that should be achieved, by whatever candidate is best qualified. In my history of criticism of government, I’ve argued to others, that one must be able to speak about specific changes that are anticipated, if one is to be successful not being ignorant concerning political happenings. If one knows much about a topic, one will discuss specific policies, programs, and changes to be made, and what has been done. Policy expertiseis what is desired to make policy changes. Whenever there is an important task to be completed, that is political, it involves a program, project, or policy, which will be changed. It is possible to have votes regarding the specifics of policy changes, with more unconcern about who is doing the work, like normal jobs. Having a written

Writing is Necessary to Track Changes. Writing is needed to know what has changed regarding the job description, tasks to be done, tasks completed, and all that has been suggested in policy changes. Having this in writing would make it possible to create creater collaboration with voters, who might be interested enough, to read the specifics of anything related to voting.

Part of the purpose of this article goes along with my personal moral goal of finding times in which to discontinue various efforts of work, where it is not particularly valuable, by getting to point of conclusiveness which is jusitifiable. The goal is to finish various topics which I can no longer make developments on when they are no longer valuable in relation to my own personal growth paths and interests. In this article I believe I have arrived at a completion point regarding voting, and can pass the work to someone else, who is more interested; or else to everyone else, who has not started. I can also share here, that I am capable of continuing, but am not sufficiently incentivized to think concerning it further, on my own, to the extent that I have. If paid, I would consider working further on it. In this way I am able to include this within my system of ethics which I have devised, which works towards arriving at points in which improvement are not really possible or valuable. It does not appear I need to think further regarding voting, or to participate in voting.

Voting as Ritual Recollection

Voting as a Holiday

It is a ceremonial repetition of a process which ocurrs periodically, over some number of years. Those voting events that are for presidents and prime ministers are the major holidays, while the lesser holidays, might be those that are for many representatives, because in those elections, there are too many people for people to focus on simultaneously, or maintain an intense interest concerning; or those that are smaller exlections, with smaller voter bases, that are held for smaller regions/land-areas and towns/cities, which may have intense interest in certain locales, but not a large enough interest to promote the event, to a national holiday of sorts.

And of course, there really is an election day, at least in the united states², for the presidential elections³.

Recently I’ve written that holidays control how one thinks about what the holiday includes, and also controls the frequency and character of your thoughts concerning it. Since celebrated as a holiday, it is given some automatic religious qualities. Since celebrated intensely, and on a schedule, one cannot maintain those thoughts over the remainder of the year. Remaining days may have other holidays which will steer and guide attention. So one forgets elections and redirects attention away from voting, once the holiday has ended, and begins to think about it again, when others cycle back first, to make preparations related to the ceremonies.

There is a span in which it is appropriate or inappropriate to think intensely or communicate about voting as it pertains to election. If one keeps raising the topic of voting too early or too late, using thoughts similar to those that would arise near election time, they will be discouraged either by lack of interest of the other parties involved, or because social interest is not great enough for the speaker to want to resume naturaly. It is when others begin talking about something that one becomes increasingly interested and ready to maintain interst.

This is well known with Christmas, where probably the greatest span of time is allowed to others for celebration, planning, and communication about it. People are reminded about Christmas by the market, as it returns to its cyclical plans; and others once they begin to plan their ritual ceremonies. There is also a period afterwards where people are allowed to maintain interest, as they remove decorations, return gifts, and finish thinking about what has transpired. Like with Christmas, it appears interest is maintained for a longer period leading up to the holiday, but for a shorter period following the holiday; following the holiday, another holiday is known to be approaching, and people tend to shift attention to what will be coming next, rather than spending time allocating their minds to what has already happened, because of course, one must plan to live for what is next and not for what has already happened (even survival requires attention to shift to what is next, and one may already be thinking much about what is next even during the holdays). Much is not thought about that is recent during the holdiays, but that is also generally true, as the news is able to shift people’s attention, such that earlier events of supposedly great significance are no longer considered.

For the remainder of this article I will focus my attention on the larger voting events, like that for a president or prime minister.

Voting is performed in a very similar way each time a vote is held. Attitudes and opinions regarding each recurring election, also appear to be mostly traditional recollections. People are encouraged to vote without thought as to the circumstances and views of individuals; it is recommended and urged universally. People celebrate their act of voting, by wearing pins, and in voting appear honestly to think themselves as having accomplished something of value. Those who did not vote, are silent about not having done so, which is indicated by the contrast between the ostensible universality of the celebration (few openly say anything negative about voting), and the actual numbers of votes which are reported as received and counted. Over a long period I have explained to others during elections reason for not thinking that voting is as valuable as people think it is. However, I’ve never heard others say the same as I do. During elections it appears I’m nearly a sole dissenter.

Improving Voting Alone

Even saying that I’m a dissenter concerning the voting process, I would suspect that many readers would make false inferences concerning why. I would also anticipate a negative attitude in response, and more false inferences about what it might mean concerning my other views. Suddenly some will think, I’m against people being considered during planning that will affect them.

Even more irritatingly, some will assume, evening knowing who I am, that somehow my views would be unsophisticated on this topic. However, being a ceremonial thing that everyone is aware of, one can quickly tell that the standard views about voting are really basic and unreflective, and being ritual, mostly remembered and repeated. They are hardly considered anew. I would ask the reader to confirm, from their own experience with elections, how often they’ve heard something new about voting, and how often they’ve themselves considered what process alternatives to voting might exist, and how mathematically, voting might be improved. People do not even think in this way about voting, which indicates that minds, as they relate to voting, are themselves not complex. On other topics, when sophistication exists, there is questioning, probing, and creation of new ideas, often with a desire for greater detail and greater complexity. Those thinking about voting with a clear view abou the purpose of voting, would also be those that would notice where there are errors, problems, and potential pathways at solution, or actual solutions, which would do a better job at achieving those goals which voting are meant to achieve.

An illustration here might be the comparison of business versus ceremony.

In politics we expect those who are employed to have a business-like attitude towards their work, in order to make quick improvements based on what custsomers, here citizens, really want and need, and pay for. Yet we elect them with a ceremonial attitude, and those involved in doing elections do it without much changes, implying that they make little changes in what they do, and how they conduct and carry out elections.

Sophisticated Objections Contra Simpletons

What are some sophisticated objections to the voting process?

Voting is too simplistic.
We should be seeing process developments improving elections.
Policy centric politics is superior to electing representatives.
Voting has social objectives that are forgotten during elections.
It is unknown how to vote.
- This is one I’ve been saying since very young: we have not been educated on how exactly to prepare for an election, either in research, or in how to form a judgement concerning that research. We have no clear way to ascertain which facts we need, if those facts are available, and how to move from those facts to a judgment. We are not clear if security clearances are required to ascertain the requisite facts. We are not certain what the job consists of that we are thinking we are hiring for.
Voting is hiring but that appears unknown, and HR Process is not used.
- There is an entire discipline of Human Resources that is ignored in electing an employee. Hiring is not performed by a group of those who do not understand the work to be performed closely, and without a job description, and list of work items to be performed. Hiring at a corporation for important roles is done by a small group at most, if a group has any role at all. The final hiring would be done by a corporate executive in conjunction with human resources, or simply by the executive. One expert understanding somewhat what is needed would do the hiring. If a company is large enough, it is understood, that an employee requires a very good understanding of the work before they are hired, so that they understand what they will be doing. Not only that, so anyone who also might be hired knows precisely what they are doing. Given you can run for President when you turn 35 if you are in the United States, AND you are hiring agent as a voter, you should know, extremely well, what the job consists of. You are a candidate and you are hiring! However, you know very little about it, and must admit that as true, as the job of President is as unknown to you as any job in any large company is. You would not know what an executive of a large technology company would be doing, and yet you think your country has enabled you as a candidate and a hiring, voting member.
Elections are performed without a list of political tasks to be performed.
Not voting is a political position.
- If one chooses to not vote, it is a viable political position. People are told they have a voting right, which is anonymous. Having a voting right that is anonymous, they are allowed to vote however, they like, and this includes abstaining to mark that they have not considered voting for one candidate or another as representative of their minds or interests. Furthermore, strategy in politics can include any strategy considered valuable or workable, for political goals which might arise. I think it plausible that if everyone decided not to vote, if the elections were exessively rigged, as a way of showing that nobody is supporting any candidate, and that the election itself is failed, that it might succeeded in showing that. If it did, then it would be a viable political strategy. Even a necessary one depending on circumstances. Being a first voter to encourage such a process is reasonable, even if is “conscientous objection”, which is an encouragement of activism at the individual level if one notices something is not correct, even alone. However, regarding voting, it appears really people would be punished for being a conscientious objector. Some even think there is an obligation to “do the right think” which implies that one sometimes must be a “conscientious objector” who would be socially punished.

Voting Enusres You Did Little

Let us consider a more serious objection in more detail. It is this:

Voting reduces your voice to an singular momentary act, or checkmark.

Imagine you are working very hard for some job you might have, or have had, working for a company. Imagine you work there for five years. Every day, let’s say, you drive to and from work for 30 minutes, sometimes in traffic, and at a cost. Every day, let’s say, you work ten hours. For this company you do more, and you are paid fairly well, you are somewhat appreciated for your voice, and your thoughts, which you are required to use orally, and in writing via email.

Now, let’s consider voting day. Maybe you drive 10 minutes to your local voting location, and walk in, wait in a line, then you check a box, make a mark, or put a slip in a box. Maybe you punch a couple computer keys. It is done anonymously.

Do you really think you’ve done a job worth celebrating?

Now compare this with someone who has chosen a job relating to politics. They might work to steer people’s views for years full-time. They might use their voice along with politicians who hear them for a period of 5 years, or decades.

Strangely, but predictably, voters think they have achieved something worth celebrating in a ritual fashion, having been reduced to no words in actual political process. People can speak all they like in conversation.

To include

Size of impact if you steer votes versus voting (even if you don’t vote).
A democratic method in which polls result in complete steering of people to options, while allowing for perceived freedom (via forced choice).

[Include information about your divorce, and your knowledge on psychology and customer service regarding this. Note that the article doesn’t imply research. It implies sharing research, which is a recovery of what one has been exposed to in Psychology, and has used in life.]

Voting also ensures that you cannot grow or diminish your influence by learning more, or by having ill health. Voting ensures that mentally retarded have the same influence as the most educated, most trusted authorities, including those who might have some knowledge and quality of judgement for most topics that voting could relate to. General intelligence that is advanced then cannot utilize voting any more than a mentally handicapped, brain damaged, or generally cruel and deficient person. Quality of moral disposition, even if proven by revelation of all private moments, could not be usable to increasing vote strength. It is always one, and will always be cancelled by those who could not do the same.

Voting ensures no matter your personal growth, you are equal to the lesser, and that you are always canceled by greater numbers of people who forgo the same growth.

People who really are unconcerned with growth, or are unable to grow, and actively prefer not improving, will always have a group of people who will cancel your voting power, even if you have grown, become more educated, more moral, more public, and more immune to any personal criticism than others. Your former self would cancel the vote of your later self even if your later self is known to have critical information that was lacking in the former self. Given everyone was a child, this means that your older self would largely cancel the mind of your lower self, and you did do that, as you replaced later knowledge with earlier misguided information and you replaced ignorance with organized brain tissue. An implication also is that the younger cancel the older. It is known that the interests of the youth must be attended to; however, the interests of the youth includes all people who were younger than their grown selves, which would include votes that people might wish to cancel, once they are grown into their later selves. Many who reflect back to their first voting experiences would understand, that they may not have chosen as they did later, but more importantly, consider themselves better than they were when they had their first voting experience. Since most think they improve with maturity (they don’t in all ways), they would recognize that their earlier selves probably shouldn’t cancel their later selves in voting. Knowing this would apply to all people who have grown, it means we naturally want the youths to have less voting influence if we relfect on oursleves and extens what we learn regarding our own growth to all people.

Completing the Topic of Voting

Can one read such objections as those above and still really think of voting the same way, with the same seriousness, and desire for unchanging ritual ceremony?

There are few incentives to work on improving voting, but sufficient sustained personal interest. My primary interest in voting appears to relate to my knowledge of the issues and the frequency of being reminded about the ignorance that exists, and urges in the media to vote, coming from those who appear to be recollecting only. People repeat the ignorant cycle without changing much thinking concerning it, and each time the topic arises, the incredible ignorance comes into view, and there is a desire to communicate the issues. However, having communicated the issues, I’ve found that even friends and family members fail to understand, remember and retain the information, and return for each voting election, with a mind wiped clean except for what is recollected from traditional indoctrination. The conversations repeat, in the same way, and with the same information, as is to be expected with the ritual.

If I were suddenly asked to work on this process, in an planning and architectural leadership capacity, like in my work for large corporations, I would do so, because under such circumstances I would be paid, and I might have a reasonable chance of succeeding, and would likely have a receptive audience. Until such a time, I’m not adequately interested in resuming thinking on this. In my personal life, it is much better to abstain from further consideration, because really the topic appears complete, in the sense that the objections sufficiently justify disinterest and inaction.

The next time elections come around, I will not be celebrating, joining, critiquing, or working to improve the process, any further than I’ve done, pointing out clear and obvious areas of concern, and potential pathways for improvement.

Ended Writing: Sunday, August 7^th, 2022, 4:49 PM Alaska Time

[Finished in thout edits, spellcheck, grammar check, or reading. Finished at 4:30 pm]

Author: Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh

Masters Business & Economics, Harvard University (In Progress)
B.S Psychology, University of Maryland,
B.S Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland,
B.A. Philosophy (Nearly Completed, 2003), University of Maryland.

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.

Contact:

References:

Notes:

¹. Proper nouns for job titles are not capticalized within Mattanaw’s evolving system of writing. These result in an automatic respect which has not been justified.

². Proper nouns for names of countries and holidays are not capticalized within Mattanaw’s evolving system of writing. These result in an automatic respect which has not been justified.

Link:

http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#foolishness-of-the-common-trust-in-voting

Log:

Started at 12:14 pm, November 17^th, 2022 Brisbane Time.
Stopped at 2:16 pm, November 17^th, 2022 Brisbane Time.
- 2895 words, calculated using Unix wordcount, wc program.
- 9.65 pages, computed assuming 300 words per print page.
- Few edits, very little reading of what’s typed, partly blind-typed, spell check shows 16 uncorrected typos.
- Slow pace. Unrushed.
Started at approximately 2:00 pm, November 20^th, 2022 Cairns Time.
- Spent roughly 2 hours writing.
- 6366 words, calculated using Unix wordcount, wc program.
- 3471 new words, calculated using Unix wordcount, wc program.
- 11.57 new pages, computed assuming 300 words per print page.
- 21.22 total pages.
- Few edits, very little reading of what’s typed, partly blind-typed, spell check shows 16 uncorrected typos.
- Slow pace. Unrushed.

I am a semi-retired social architect and consultant, with professional/academic experience in the fields of computer science, psychology, philosophy, and more recently, economics.

Articles on this site are eclectic, and draw from content prepared between 1980 and 2022. Topics include ethics, art, fitness, finances, health, psychology, and vegetarianism. The common theme connecting all articles is moral philosophy, even if that is not immediately apparent. Any of my articles that touch on "the good and virtuous life" will be published here. These articles interrelate with my upcoming theory of ethics, two decades in preparation.

I welcome and appreciate constructive feedback and conversation with readers. You can reach me at mattanaw@mattanaw.com (site related), cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu (academic related), or christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org (intelligence related), or via the other social media channels listed at the bottom of the site.

Close

ThoughtStreamTM

Tentative Conclusion

Tentative Conclusion

References:

Paper Energy Requirements Contra Electronic Devices

Voting as Ritual Recollection

Improving Voting Alone

Sophisticated Objections Contra Simpletons

Voting Enusres You Did Little

Voting ensures no matter your personal growth, you are equal to the lesser, and that you are always canceled by greater numbers of people who forgo the same growth.

Completing the Topic of Voting

ThoughtStream^TM