Intech Concepts 5
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)
How would you title this section?... 5 January 2001
Consider two institutional leaders, such as government leaders in two nations, at war with each other, with their foolish followers therefore shooting at each other.
Give either of them a call, and let them know I will convey to either of them the process to promptly win their war, to their satisfaction, with their current resources, at a nominal fee of course. The fee must be charged only because no human can successfully give someone something for nothing.
How would you describe the apparent contradiction in the above? If you could not accurately describe the contradiction, you would be in the same pickle as the chaps still kicking and scratching at each other over their current inability to use their mind to design the winning process. If you could accurately describe the contradiction, with your description sustainable against the obvious questions, you would be at the starting point for efficiently learning how to resolve the contradiction, to therefore recognize the validity of the offer.
Notice that the followers would not be shooting at each other if the leaders did not facilitate that process in the name of their institution. Read that sentence often, to identify the definition of its corollary, and the only logical use of force against a human.
Notice that the leaders are not out on the battlefield dodging bullets. They are safe behind their many layers of security systems. Consider the total human hours and money expended just to protect the leaders from all the enemies they created with the actions of their followers. Would not their war be sooner won if their tactics were valid and that volume of resources, plus the leaders, were out on the battlefield among their men, doing precisely what they ask of their men, actually fighting? If you did not perceive the foregoing phrase, if their tactics were valid, in bold letters filling your screen, you identify why everything you are too hastily reading at this website is of no value to you. The tools of knowledge are not your perceptions of words, but your answers to questions, and your questions of your answers. What was your answer to the previous question? What was the obvious question of your answer?
In a seminar designed to learn intellectual technology, you would not be wading through all these words. In a seminar, your questions and answers would take you to the achievement of your goal with such efficiency you would laugh at your having waded through all the words at this web site. If you cannot afford an Alaska Intech seminar, create your own. Write any one or a few questions you find herein, answer them, question your answers, and so forth. It would take you a long time because there are diverse ingredients to learn to find the controlling concepts, but if your mind does not ask and answer specific questions in series, you will live out your life frustrated by your failure to achieve any goal beyond material gain. Email me when you discovered the complete mechanism to the actual achievement of your social goals. You will know when you learn the knowledge. You will be laughing robustly at the astonishing simplicity of the disguise frustrating others who wish to achieve social goals.
So precisely what goal is served by all those resources concentrated on protecting the few leaders? Did you answer the question with the words, the leader's job is to think, not fight, and for the task of thinking his mind must be clear of distractions because there is only so much thinking process available in a human brain for any one moment?
But does that not again reveal the controlling flaw of the leaders? If they are still thinking, why did they exercise the conclusion to send valuable human minds and bodies out to slaughter each other, kill many bystanders, and damage other social infrastructure useful for advancing their society? Why? Are the body guards and security system personnel not foolish for protecting the government chaps who have already proven by their fundamentally flawed decisions, to be not thinking? Once the conclusion is identified, such as to start shooting, to not join its process is to prove that the decision-making leader considers his own conclusion as wrong, and proves that his followers are foolish for acting on a deadly decision their leaders know is flawed. It is only an aside to note that every military person in the world is thus inescapably proven to be foolish if their leader is not in uniform on the battlefield, gun in hand, or training with them every day. The excuses steeped in the history of the human intellectual dark ages, cannot prevail against the proof. If the leader is being protected so he can think, any prior conclusion is a fool's illusion, by definition.
If the decision is to use force, further leadership thinking not applied to the use or physical increase of force does not contribute to achieving the goal, and those soldiers so contributing are being betrayed by the cowardliness of their leaders hiding behind body guards contributing nothing to the decision. The decision to use force is a controlling concept, and demarcates all results from any reasoning process or portion of reasoning process.
Because your leaders are, and will continue to be cowards thereafter, afraid to personally carry out their own decisions with the resources you are given, you therefore owe them no obligation. Is it not an ignorant sort who claims courage by defending a coward who claims to be a leader? You may thus use your time to do what they claim to be doing with their time, thinking instead of fighting. Therein you have the identical resources as they, a brain of the identical design as theirs. Start now.
All contradictions hold a resolution, and if created by humans, can be immediately resolved by humans, to their benefit, upon their learning the process to do so. Learning is just the asking and answering of questions.
The currently perceived contradiction in war and all other contradictions, is separated from the resolution only by knowledge not currently held by either of the combatants. Knowledge is such that either of the combatants may learn the knowledge of how to promptly resolve the contradiction at issue, and the other is therefore promptly defeated upon utilization of the knowledge.
At the end of the next paragraph I will state that you cannot possibly learn anything from reading it if you do not write your answer to each question as you encounter it, and question your answers.
One may utilize the knowledge of time, very rarely understood to its full utility, to examine the above. If two combatants are currently poking bullets at each other, would it not be useful to observe their actions and results, from a time one hundred years from now? Would one then not hold the knowledge created by the events of the interval of time? Could one not therefore ask the questions of each event, to create the knowledge to change each event if the opportunity were available? If you first learned the utility of the concept of time, could you not ask those questions now? If you suggest that you don't yet know those events, could you not identify them from the additional knowledge of how the human mind works within the institutional context in relation to time? If you perceive any further variables, could you not identify their representative concepts from the history of institutional human actions, and synthesize them with your prior identified concepts? If you stopped that process to instead send more followers to shoot at the other guy, would you not identify yourself as one of the government leaders who simply abandoned his leadership job of thinking through the variables for that job's purpose of discovering the mind-based resolution to the contradiction? Would you follow a leader who would send you out to get shot at before he used his brain to out-wit the mindless process of shooting humans to convey reasoning? Discomforted by being associated with such obvious childishness as shooting at a human opponent predicated on his mind, quite similar to the process of out-voting an opponent, might you not return to the task of resolving the contradiction by simply thinking through more efficiently categorized variables? Might that process consume some time, to produce the related knowledge? Might you not therefore ask how much time you would need to discover the uncontradicted resolution of the game? Would not the answer of the upper limit be found among countless examples of your type battle found in recent and earlier history? Therefore would not your more interesting challenge be that of simply reducing the time needed to get to what was therein proven inevitable anyway? Would not the difference between the prior manifested time period to reach the inevitable, and your process devised from thinking, result from the knowledge you learned from your thinking? Is knowledge not obtained by asking and answering questions? Is that process not merely a utilization of time? What is your opponent doing with his time right now? If you wished to win your war, rather than fight it, how would you more wisely utilize your time? For the resolution of a contradiction, what is the value of thinking, compared to all other human actions? Would you start building a bridge to your goal before you ascertained if the materials you chose could hold your weight? What block of knowledge described a few sentences ago, is therein most useful to you? Why would you give a minute or dollar to a leader who is not spending his time asking and answering questions, or already physically doing only what he suggests for you, and nothing else, with only your resources, as his conclusion of his thinking job? If you set out on the task to find the solution to a problem, by process of thinking, which is the asking and answering of questions, would not your time be consumed for that task of thinking until it produced the actual solution rather than a perpetual process? Would you make a fool of yourself by telling someone else to carry out an action, in your name, to achieve a goal, before you figured out if the action would achieve the goal? Is it not a foolish sort who follows a foolish sort?
You will not spend as much time on the previous paragraph as did the writer, and you will therefore waste vastly more time being frustrated by easily resolved contradictions. You cannot possibly learn anything from reading the above paragraph if you do not write your answer to each question as you encounter it, and question your answers. The corollary is of the proportional value.
Between what you know now, and the actual achievement of your goal, every question must be asked, and every answer must be verifiably correct. That takes a little while. But it is what your mind was invented to do. It is what no institution leader will do, by definition of institutions, that is, until the first institution leader learns intellectual technology, to become the greatest human leader in history. The human phenomenon would therefore make a quantum advancement.
Call the leader whom you want to win the war, and tell him to give me a call, not so he may learn how to win the war, which is too easy if he wishes to do so, but so you will identify the next question you need, to learn why he and all his layers of security and other followers will not use their time to learn how to win their war. Would that not be how you would use your time if you wished to learn how to win the next war? If you wish to confirm the concept, call him and offer a source for more guns and ammunition. And therefore laugh.
Knowledge versus population... 8 January 2001
The human population has been and still is increasing faster than a comparable education of the population. The reason is simple. It is obviously easier to make babies than it is to educate people. The phenomenon itself, like all phenomena, creates knowledge available for any human mind to learn. Therefore the gap between knowledgeable people, often less accurately referenced as intelligent people, by any degree of definition; and ignorant people by any degree of the definition in relation to available knowledge, is still increasing. Among any degrees or levels of knowledge therein, while knowledge is increasing among individuals, it is decreasing per capita due to the faster production of people. The thus defined, still increasing gap between sectors of the population offers valuable knowledge for any who wish to consider it.
Of course the chaps who purport to be able to measure comparative knowledge are immediately affronted that the suggestion was made without first consulting their institution, but they cannot even identify the controlling contradictions of their institution, and therein may easily flunk a genuinely valid test of any human mind's cognitive abilities. For perspective, certain officers and members of Mensa, the international high IQ club, have overtly failed the test of fundamental reasoning-ability that many uneducated farm hands or street people readily pass. IQ identifies many things related to the interests of IQ test writers, but not basic reasoning-ability, or the institution of IQ test sellers would be out of a job.
That the majority of any significant, geographically identified group of people are below that gap between so-defined knowledgeable people and ignorant people, is obvious in the mechanism of exponential baby-making that created it, as can be verified with common analysis process.
Now consider the concept of majority rule, and immediately recognize the problem of your society.
Next consider the knowledge illuminating the problem as greater than you first considered. There is no social mechanism to place knowledgeable people in positions of social governance, regardless of their percentage in the population. In fact each existing mechanism creating social governance is counter productive to achieving knowledge, wisdom, intelligence or any such concept as a governing process.
All the existing mechanisms create power, the antithesis of logic, knowledge or wisdom.
Majority rule does not work to achieve wise government, for the above described reason. Concurrently, every process of power does not work, for a reason more accurately described elsewhere, but herein notice that power is merely the process of majority rule among a smaller group which controls concepts of power such as guns, money, news media, related power group leaders, jobs and such concepts, overtly lacking the concept of wide-spectrum knowledge or wisdom. Is that not obvious in the fact that knowledge cannot be controlled by humans? Knowledge is of itself, and humans can only acquire it, not control it.
Because the human mind is a knowledge-creation device, if it pursues knowledge it will train itself to continue doing so. Therein it holds no need or incentive to make other people's decisions for them, which would thus stagnate its own advancement of knowledge. In contrast, government and all institutional leadership structures exist on the concept of the leaders making decisions for followers and other human minds, thus not only stagnating their own advancement of knowledge in a world where knowledge is advancing, but devoting further of their mind's time to defending those inherently contradicted decisions, against objection by the inherent percentage of human minds who rightfully question such misapplication of decisions to unrelated data-bases (other independent minds). An institutional leader thus starts out with a lack of knowledge necessary for the goals of his job, as identified by his quest for power rather than knowledge, for a knowledge-creation device (his mind), and then makes himself or herself more ignorant in relation to the claimed goals of the job, by design of the institutional effects on human mind process.
As a learning vehicle for the concept of knowledge, go ahead, expend the time and effort to try to control knowledge. Try to hold an institutional secret among humans (thus known by more than one person), and watch time and knowledge laugh at your wasting your time otherwise valuable to you in learning more useful knowledge.
As an aside, leave the poor sad government and other institutional sorts with their supposed grand conspiracies and secrets. While they are consuming their time to hide their knowledge, they are making themselves comparatively ignorant while you advance your mind. If they released their supposedly secret or guarded knowledge to the public, regardless of what it is, it would be synthesized by more human minds (creating the analogy of a super-computer created by linking personal computers) to thus create more knowledge among more people to thus more rapidly advance society to thus more greatly benefit the poor sad chaps keeping their institutional secrets. For those questioning such things, I herein demarcate between public institutions, especially government, which cannot hold a secret without contradicting their definition of public ownership; and private enterprise institutions and individuals which may logically hold secrets of their creation for benefit of their privately funded effort.
Now notice that social governance is an inordinately popular concept among humans. But extend your view. Governments are merely organizations of humans, like every other organization, an organized hierarchy of people willfully acquiescing to data-analysis and decisions being made by a progressively fewer number of people in a pyramid system. The decisions made by the few are those to which the many acquiesce by their joining or being socially stuck with the organization. Again, the self-inflicted contradiction is obvious. The decisions are made by those with the lesser knowledge or intelligence due to their institutional time and effort wasted to obtain and defend power rather than learn new knowledge. No volume of rhetorical tap-dancing, excuse making, credentials thumping or flimflammery can prevail against that controlling mechanism for the human design. And a few questions can openly expose the embarrassing ignorance of any institutional leader. The members were foolish to acquiesce to decisions of prior identified less knowledgeable people, and the leaders were foolish for thinking they could make decisions for other equal human minds.
The phenomenon is accurately referenced by the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals. Its science is astonishingly precise within a concept that otherwise appears to hold too many variables to analyze.
Therefore, and for every other arrangement of words flawlessly proving the phenomenon, you are on your own with only your own mind. Use it. It is as good as that of the poor sad chap with the grandest title of the greatest leadership position in the most powerful government or institution. And in fact your mind is more effective because it is not deluded into thinking that it can successfully make decisions for other human minds, that is, different data-bases your mind does not hold within it.
Questions are the key. Every question you ask and answer, writing them, will create in your mind more knowledge than the chap who feels he or she is smart enough to not need to ask or answer questions.
Question the observed contradictions created by what those institutional leaders are doing, not to change what they are doing, but to learn what they know and thus immediately know more because you learned it from a the process of asking questions, thus inherently expanding your knowledge. But that is just practice. More often, question the contradictions created by what you are doing. That is where you will rapidly excel beyond the institution leaders, because their mind cannot actually question what they are doing without destroying their institutional position. They are failing, are they not, or their mind would not need their institution of unquestioning followers. And their mind cannot access the proof of that simple, immutable truth.
Now imagine if an organization leader's mind could learn the referenced knowledge from questioning his or her own institutional concepts. What no institutional leader, great or small, can imagine or learn from this section, identifies the quantum advancement of the human phenomenon if any such institutional mind could learn how to question the controlling contradiction of their institution.
Amusingly, the knowledge of how to promptly cause such a phenomenon of quantum level benefits to humans, exists, among a number of humans, but it is knowledge, and thus holds no need or incentive to waste time advancing those who fear, flee, loathe and attack knowledge for their intent to preserve their material comfort and ego-candy to which their mind is flawlessly addicted. Greater knowledge is more valuable than ego-candy, and is that for which knowledge and time are used among knowledgeable people.
There is nothing illogical about pursuing material comforts and ego-candy, until one does so at damaging or forced cost to any other human's decisions, or one's own.
Odd lot these humans, but of superlative entertainment, by design, wouldn't you agree?
A government of wisdom is yours for the asking... 9 January 2001
Consider a society governed by wisdom alone, not by a wise person or persons, but by written wisdom alone, represented by any human mind which identified and verified greater wisdom for open record of written governance over any social actions, administered by servants who would not consider defying record of wisdom, because of its nature.
Would not you and all other wise persons immediately institute such a government, at any cost of effort, for the obvious benefit of yourself, your children and society?
Would not it only be unwise persons who would object, and thus identify their nature to everyone around them?
The mechanism to promptly achieve such a government, exists today, and without a fight by the existing power-based government chaps, as is inherent to the mechanisms of wisdom.
Are there not several arrangements of words that, by themselves, you and your most prominent political opponent, all your neighbors and your children unequivocally agree upon? Bring forward the person who will object to a law that states that it is unlawful to damage another person. Therefore, finding no objection to that law as written, what process occurs from that point, as you each speak more words? Does that process not conclude at results which identify each of you as opponents of each other? What words would you use to preclude the process which creates those particular results from what you originally agreed upon? That question has an answer. Did you prior practice answering questions, to thus be able to identify the inordinately valuable answer in this case?
A crude and heavily flawed form of the concept exists in the concept of the US Supreme Court, a concept very few people, including US Supreme Court justices, understand, and explained elsewhere. But the US Supreme Court itself is so extensively flawed that it does not represent the concept of wisdom. Every analysis of its origin, process and results identifies the US Supreme Court as an institution of ignorant people wielding institutional power above wisdom, far above it.
The evolution of the US Supreme Court as an institution, created a group of people who are categorically ignorant of how to ask effective questions, and further, void of any knowledge of how to question their own institutional contradictions. There is no mechanism in any institution, especially in the US, and flawlessly in the institution of lawyers and law schools, to teach a person how to ask effective questions, for proof presented elsewhere. The US Supreme Court justices are thus void of wisdom, since wisdom is created by asking and answering questions without limitation by any concept.
The US Supreme Court justices are nothing more than political hack lawyers and lawyer-judges, common people who stumbled into horribly flawed law schools and related circumstances of life, selected by elected political hacks manifesting the us-against-them concept of achieving a power-based institution for their purpose of favoring one side of the contrived battle of us-against-them personalities. All the rhetoric to the contrary is disproven by the easiest questions of the process to select the Court personalities, and by the obvious results of their embarrassingly unwise decisions. Logic dictates that if anybody can become a Supreme Court justice by stumbling through the obviously easy and chance circumstances proven to be the process to do so, the justices are therefore anybody, and for them to then suggest great wisdom, or demand public expressions of elevated respect, proves their ignorance and lack of wisdom. A quick glance at a cross section of lawyers and their actions reveals that law schools impart more ignorance of law, and lack of ethical values, than any other formal school, and thereafter no judge appointment comes with any bag of new knowledge or wisdom.
In contrast, identified wisdom universally earns respect regardless of which warm human body manifests it.
Why do so many court judge rulings in the US Court system so blatantly and verifiably fail the test of common sense, as you and countless others readily recognize, as even some frustrated court judges admit, yet cannot access the Supreme Court for lack of money and process resources to overcome what the US Supreme Court of lawyers defends against correction that would reduce the lawyer institution's raw power over law? What Supreme Court justice could credibly claim the top position in the US Court system, and claim said court system manifests justice or wisdom, while not resolving the aforementioned contradiction? There are obviously no wise persons in the US Supreme Court or anywhere else in the US Court system, or institution of lawyers. The human mind was designed to identify and resolve contradictions, as defines wisdom, as defines its void in any institution defending rather than resolving any identified contradiction.
The examples of willfully retained contradictions saturate the political spectrum of personalities holding government and other institutional positions. For brevity, consider only one example that of course shuts down the minds of about half the institutional readers. Precisely why, in your written words subject to public question of your wisdom, is it that the United States, via courts, incarcerates more of its citizens than any other nation, arrests and damages vastly more, and about half of those persons incarcerated at great expense to society, damaged no person or property? What written words would you use for open record to identify the concept of wisdom, for your children's use of it, when even one person is in prison for harmlessly possessing the common plant, hemp, when many of the other approximately forty million American adults who have done so are ludicrously easy to apprehend in possession of hemp, and thus imprison, while your government and its courts do so only at arbitrary whim? Notice that if you did not answer the question you are wasting your time reading this. Do you own your body, or does the government own it? Is law, law, rather than the rule of personalities, if the law may be enforced or ignored at whim of enforcement personalities?
If you refuse to answer questions, with written words for others to judge your wisdom, you have none, since wisdom is created by the ability to answer questions for impartial judgment of your wisdom. Notice that your pitiable government chaps evade answering questions, to thus keep their mind stagnated in ignorance. If you do not know the answer to a question, do you not identify your wisdom by writing the answer, I don't know? Is it not the defined task of a leader with a human mind, to think, that is, to ask and answer questions, to thus learn new knowledge, to thus identify the verifiable answers to your questions, to thus be a leader? Would you follow a leader who repeatedly says he does not know the answers to your questions? Is that not why institutional leaders evade answering your questions, and lie if their lips are moving? Would you follow a leader who evades answering your questions, and lies each time his lips are moving? Could you not identify a lie by asking questions of it? Who are you currently following and supporting, and what does that identify of your wisdom? Who, by description of his reaction to your questions, do you vote for in any governmental or organizational leadership election?
Note that to recognize an opportunity for governance of wisdom alone, and the process to achieve it, you would have to recognize wisdom, its verifiable form, not just what you think it is or how you think society should be governed. If you were to instead seek the expedient of a wise person to create such a society for you, without your having to go to the trouble of learning genuine wisdom, you could be fooled by any flimflam artist mouthing or writing impressive-sounding arrangements of words about wisdom, and flattering you in the process to gain your favor.
You can promptly achieve a government based on wisdom. But first you must learn what wisdom is, and then how to institute it. To do that, you must ask the questions of contradictions in your own actions, and write your answers, and write your questions of those answers, and so forth. Nothing else that you do in your life will be of greater value to you and your children. You just as well do so, because you are on your own in a society governed by fellow equal humans who did not do so, routinely malicious as a result of the magnitude of their ignorance, even in the US Supreme Court, who would genuinely prefer to achieve wisdom, but cannot possibly recognize its concept for fear of answering such questions as found herein, and fear of questioning their own institutional contradictions.
Spirit versus logic... 14 January 2001
There are those who understand whole concepts, who often state of individuals and humans in whole: You had it right in the first place, so why did you leave that position? These people allude to the spirit and other nebulous references to many things. Of course to them, there is nothing nebulous about the very precise concept of the spirit, despite their inability to create more detailed word-arrangements to describe the gears, circuits and parts of the mechanisms comprising the spirit.
And there are those who understand details, who state: If you can't explain the parts of the concept, how would you know if your conclusion is not an illusion caused by something else? These people allude to logic, science and reasoning process. They can describe each gear, circuit and part in the entire mechanism of many things, despite their inability to describe non-physical manifestations in whole.
If you analyze those two concepts, among other divisions, you will find that a significantly higher percentage of females reference the spirit, for explaining concepts, while more males reference logic. There is of course much overlap in that generality. A primary reason for the generality is explained in a slightly different physical structure of the male and female brains, beyond the scope of this section.
The reason human-caused contradictions saturate the human phenomenon, is that the people representing those two concepts intensely believe that their perspective is accurate. Amusingly, it is, in each case, deluding each into thinking there is no need to learn something more abstract to them, for the same conclusion. They thought that the conclusion was the only goal of value. Their flaw is that they refuse to perform the possible but more difficult process of learning the actual, verifiable substance of the other perspective. Unrecognizable to their minds, even at reading these words, is that the half of the knowledge they yet do not hold, and thus need if they wish resolve human contradictions, is found within the other perspective, in each case.
There are no proverbial one sided coins, in physical or spiritual concepts, by design of the human concept, and all things known to humans.
While all manner of techniques are available and commonly utilized for resolving personal contradictions, to the extent of each mind's related knowledge, how do people convey knowledge of those techniques to another person? Words. The exceptions, while useful in rare cases, are exceptions.
To suggest that one learn a concept for which the involved brain was physically designed to slightly less advantage the understanding of that particular concept, is to cause that mind discomfort. You do not pursue that which discomforts your mind, by its inherent choice. And you cannot force it to do otherwise. It responds to reasoning alone. Incentive is everything.
But notice that the other general half of the population is very comfortable with the knowledge seemingly uncomfortable to oneself. Further, notice the overlap of knowledge among all perceived divisions of humans. Notice also the apparent similarity of the human brain's design among all people, other than the very slight difference between the male and female brain structure, no matter which way we slice it or dice it. Therein the knowledge of the other perspective can be learned, without any physical pain, and without much expenditure of time when incentive is identified.
Consider that the referenced perspective difference transcends vast numbers of minds which have proven to cover the spectrum of all other social classifications, from the rich to the poor, the lazy to energetic, the successful to the slouches, the intriguing weird to the boring norm, the powerless to powerful, the stamp collectors to mountain climbers, and even those odd people who play golf, of all things. Notice also that you and those whom you know, classify people by all the common classifications, a few the aforementioned. Few have ever even thought of a classification dividing those who perceive whole concepts versus those who perceive the parts of concepts, yet that division describes the source of all human-caused contradictions.
Now consider, that for something so nebulous as why perfectly capable minds hold such an aversion to learning a different perspective or thought process for fundamental conclusions they routinely agree upon, especially when the reward to learn a different fundamental perspective is obviously so great, such as to resolve all one's own and society's frustrations, the demarcation in one's mind must inherently be of an astonishingly brilliant disguise. Is not simplicity the greatest disguise known to humans?
How easy is it to sit on one's comfortable bottom side, perhaps among the privacy of close colleagues, or solitude if preferred, simply asking and answering questions not prior actually asked and answered by oneself?
One of those questions is: What concept in the human mind causes it to be discomforted by certain questions of objective concepts holding no personal value in evading? Well? Would I have to write the words of your answer, to which you would sign your name for public judgment of your reasoning ability? Could you not do the same with a little patience?
The easily learned concept yet stagnating humans in the intellectual dark ages of such primitive physical manifestations is known and of astonishing brilliance. Amusingly, the physical mechanism and its location in the brain will most likely be discovered at the same time the first institutionally altered mind discovers the question to reveal its conceptual definition.
The spirit will be understood by the logic chaps when the logic of it is understood by the spirit sorts, among those who have not already synthesized the parts with the whole of it all, much to their inordinate amusement.
This is what they will do... 15 January 2001
Of course this is obvious, because it is what they have always done. And most amusing, they could read these words and would still insist that they are doing more than this, as did their predecessors in the face of the same disproof.
After they do this, they will have produced more of the problems you recognize today, because it is what already produced the problems you recognize today.
You can wait a year, or ten years, and conclude that the words written in the, This-is-what-they-will-do, section of Alaska Intech's Related Concepts pages, were correct back in January 2001. Or you can look back in history, a year, ten years, a hundred or a thousand years, and recognize the same results of today, for the same reason. Or you can chuckle, knowing that you recognized this well before you saw it written here or anywhere else.
The question is: Will you actually learn the lesson their power-altered minds are incapable of learning, to thus change your actions, such as stop wasting your money and time on them, at the very least? Or will your actions prove that your mind is still as incapable of learning as theirs?
Who are they? They are the leaders of every power-based organization of humans, measuring power in numbers of their members, votes, money, influence, news media attention, numbers of distributed books, connections, commodities, and everything except concluding the solution of associated problems from having thought enough to discover the efficient solution process. They comprise the spectrum from the largest organizations and governments, with millions of members, to the smallest local club of a dozen people or even less. The most obvious are the government chaps, but the spectrum includes all the citizen organizations decrying the government sorts and each other as political opponents, including the think tanks who foolishly suggest that they are instead intellect-based, oblivious to their own controlling contradiction of striving to influence numbers of people or power brokers. They are those who suggest that those other guys are their political opponents, or any other type of opponents, even as an aside to the group's purported purpose. That just about covers the whole lot of them in organizations of two or more people who, as their organization, discuss rather than solve any human-caused contradiction.
What are they going to do, perpetually? They are going to plead for more money, and simply seize it in the case of the government boys. They are going to beg their members to get more members to join and support the organization. They are going to encourage their members to write more letters to the news media editors, to the congressmen, bureaucracy, officials and staff, and the other guys, to support the cause and criticize those other guys. When they are the government sorts they are going to write more laws, statues, ordinances, regulations, codes, policies, procedures, rules and orders, make the penalties more severe, hire more bureaucrats, lawyers, judges and police, build more prisons, develop more deadly weapons, and such forms of merely seizing more power for the central authority. They are going to say that the other guys are their opponents and that the other guys are wrong. They are going to say that they are right in what they are doing and that their cause is worthy. They are going to say how hard they are working for their followers. They are going to say that their followers are dedicated, good and admirable people who are right in their beliefs and cause. They are going to give each other in their leadership structure and allied organization leaderships, wall plaques, certificates of appreciation - often framed, awards, medals, trophies and statues, lapel pins and all manner of mutual flattery symbols. They are going to give a token few such symbols of flattery to their common followers, selected for their gullible susceptibility to flattery and unquestioning support for the leaders. They are going to give their leadership colleagues more titles of honor and power. To the extent of their organizational income, they are going to spend the member-provided money to pay for the banquets, perks, wine, high salaries, first class tickets, the aforementioned symbols of self-flattery, and countless other benefits for themselves and their insider colleagues, at cost to their purported goal process. They are going to give rousing speeches of great and small magnitude, written by speech writers if the organization members shovel enough money for speech writers, all saying the same hollow words organization leaders have mouthed since speeches were invented. They are going to arrange for the staff to quickly stand and clap loudly to initiate standing ovations for the leaders. When the money is there, they are going to hire their friends as consultants, experts, staff, lawyers and any other convenient title they can relate to the organizational cause, avoiding anyone who can actually achieve their organization's goals. They are going to organize meetings and conferences and committees and commissions, and pay the expenses for the leaders to travel around to these organizational circuses, replete with the aforementioned banquets. They will write brochures, pamphlets, magazines, advertisements, posters, books and web sites. They will even sit down with their opponents on rare occasion and tell each other that they should do as each other suggests, then flatter themselves for having done so, then accuse the opponent of not listening or cooperating. They will create factions within their organization to maintain an internal opponent, to jockey for the better leadership positions or benefits, no matter how subtle or obvious. They will cling to their leadership positions or benefits as tenaciously as they can for its structure, and test the related limits. When they get any leadership title, they will instantly forget that they were only a member the moment before, and not recognize that no bag of new knowledge comes with any title. They will forever after think that their thinking-ability is somehow superior to non-titled humans. They will sincerely think that the knowledge of how to win a popularity contest or organizational conniving and back-stabbing contest is the knowledge of how to achieve their organization's espoused goals, oblivious to the glaring disproof from every day they hold their title. They will deny that this is the total net sum of their institutional value, and be angered that anyone would print these words.
And the result of all that activity which any common-sense person can guarantee, will be the problems it has already produced, on schedule.
What are they NOT going to do? They will not sit down and question their actions to discover why what they and their predecessors have been doing since organizations were invented, never solve the problems they purportedly organized to solve. They will not think. They will not ask and answer questions of their actions. They will not use their mind for its designed purpose, nor exercise the actions of a genuine leader. That is why you can guarantee the results.
So to test your eligibility to be a great leader of organizations, institutions, governments and their think tanks, experts, lawyers and consultants, your eligibility to be, they, as opposed to a genuine leader, what is your answer to the question no organization leader will answer: What actions in relation to organizations, will you therefore exercise starting right now?
What would you have to actually do to learn new knowledge to distinguish yourself from, they?
Do it, or you are they.
The threat of curiosity... 16 January 2001
It is obvious to the reader that no police, judges, politicians, government bureaucrats or institution leaders are reading this. Their response to this web site is fear, anger, boredom, confusion and such descriptions. They thus do not read these words. They did not get past the home page, or even finish it. So this section is privileged from their questioning.
To get their current jobs, how much time did they spend reading and listening to words presented by people who held income or power-based, superior-sounding titles? Then upon achieving their own title, how yet more narrow did their data-sources therefore become? Where might you suspect is the knowledge that all institutional sorts are obviously missing, as proven by their results?
Why do government chaps act the way they do, especially police, judges, and other bureaucrats? They hold the same design of human brain as every other human, yet their decisions are in marked contrast.
Why are they so malicious and greedy in wielding their petty power to harass, restrict, impose upon, limit and damage common people who have harmed no one? Who would impose upon their neighbor, under threat of fines and prison, confusing, illogical, time-consuming, costly demands and legalese-written, indecipherable, prying paperwork required just to exist or carry out common human actions that damage no one? Who would overtly deny the rights of fellow humans, as process to put them in jail for actions that damaged no one? Who would work hard to pay more taxes to bureaucratically attack or hold in prison people who have harmed no one, and who have no incentive or intent to harm anyone? Who would force their hard working neighbors, who cannot afford to pay for a quality education for their children, to pay tax-tribute for lavish lifestyles of government insiders and their high-living colleagues being given multi-million dollar pay-offs in other nations, attending tax paid banquets and riding first class? How much salary or how lavish of banquets, how many laws or how many nuclear missiles, how much power and how much news media attention are enough for them, before you should be able to spend the money you worked for, on your own decisions? How much bureaucrat-imposed, costly paperwork with how high of fees, are enough, to get government permission for all the common, non-harmful human actions now decreed as criminal actions without a government permit, a piece of paper changing no action, before you can spend the money you worked to earn, for your decisions? Why can you ask fellow humans any public issue question you can devise, without fear, while many of the same questions asked of a police officer or court judge can get you threatened, beaten or jailed in the United States? What are your precise answers to those questions? Why do you think so many people will complain about the described concepts, but not answer the questions?
Yes of course, the friends of those government sorts, and those with similar characteristics who do not currently hold a government job, object to the suggestion that the chaps holding petty government power are malicious. Okay, use the word, damaging, instead of malicious. Circumstance and their own void of curiosity have sheltered them from what they often belatedly come to learn, to then conclude maliciousness. They do not ask uncomfortable questions. They flee effective questions. They hide in circumstance and think it protects them, like all victims who are later surprised that such things could have happened to them. They accuse others of things that did not occur, as excuses for the malicious actions of government chaps. They think that appeasing and making excuses for fellow malicious people in government will protect themselves. They claim that the few tokens of good done by government and any institutional sorts justify all the wrongs, without even questioning the controlling contradiction of using any good to justify a wrong. They display the reaction that is herein questioned of their mind's process.
You can mention the popular and dramatic examples of those old enemies who openly proved the CONCEPT AT PLAY, such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Reagan among the US liberals, Clinton among the US conservatives, ad infinitum. Did not Reagan seek to imprison pot smokers, and Clinton seek to imprison gun owners, and if they were successful imprisoning those approximately 120 million people, would not Hitler and Stalin be amused? At such mention of damaging actions by government leaders, the apologists for Stalin, Hitler, Reagan, Clinton and lot, will think that the problem was the person, and the enemies of the person. They will be clueless of any, concept at play, above the name of the warm body filling the related position of power. It will not even dawn on them that the malicious or damaging person could not have functioned without a lot of common citizens making excuses for his damaging actions, and highlighting the tokens of genuinely beneficial actions for which he successfully took credit. They will have never asked the questions that distinguished between the government chap's beneficial actions and destructive actions, as a concept, and the resolution of the difference. There is a reason they never even thought to ask the related questions.
The government chaps and their ilk in other power-based institutions obtained their job because their mind is simply void of common curiosity. The concept at play is predicated on just their mind's lack of curiosity. They just wanted an ego-gratification job and financial income by way of a known, simple process that involved no challenge to their mind. It never even dawned on their mind to ask what was wrong with using armed, unquestioning, ignorant people holding the government Tax Man title, wielding the threat of prison, to seize the money earned by the hard work of the people, to pay the Tax Man and the other wasteful, self-serving government sorts, above functional accountability for their actions or cost-effective benefit to the tax slaves. Someone told them that was just the way society works, and they never even thought to ask why or question the resulting contradictions. The issue is immaterial. The lack of questions is everything. Their mind is that void of a primary thinking-process imperative for learning new knowledge to thus resolve contradictions, ie., curiosity.
The criticism displayed in the above words, and the taxation example, are not at issue. The criticism may be entirely in error. It is a learning vehicle. The described mechanism of curiosity versus threat, manifesting verifiable contradictions, regardless of the persons or issue-examples, is the knowledge of value.
Their mind is simply void of curiosity. The curiosity receptor at a certain neural synapse was clogged by a stimulus-redirection chemical compound released by the ego distribution site next door, after an over-production cycle was triggered by the announcement that the name-recognition synaptic site was awarded a title by another government or citizen organization leadership sort who needed a warm body to replace someone who retired, was promoted in the same fashion, or dared to ask a question. Amusingly, that description is quite accurate.
But with such detail in the description of the cause, what is the detailed description of the results? Precisely why do police, court judges, other government bureaucrats and citizen organization leaders become angry and malicious when a citizen merely asks them an effective question of their actions? The examples saturate the human phenomenon. One may analyze the increasing occurrences of court judges yelling at defendants, and threatening them with further criminal charges, such as contempt of court, when the curious, accused citizens politely and lawfully ask certain questions of the judge's glaring contradictions in word and action. Why do court judges routinely deny jury trials for citizens requesting jury trials, when the prevailing law of the Constitution allows no such authority for judges? The question has a definitive answer which your mind can only learn by process of its own questions which may be assisted. If an accused person respectfully and harmlessly tries to reach that legally accountable answer, not the diversionary excuses of the judges, in a court of law where expressed reasoning and law are the purported process, every judge will maliciously make every threat in his repertoire of threats, and then jail the accused under the fraudulent charge of contempt, before the answer will be revealed, unless of course the accused already knows the answer and is thus not under the jurisdiction of the judge. What triggers the human mind to become angry and retaliatory at certain questions, instead of curious to find the accurate answers? The issue is that of questions, not accusations that the government and other power-based institutional chaps are malicious chaps.
Curiosity is viewed as a threat by the power-damaged mind. The chemical blocking the curiosity receptor redirects the involved neural stimulus to the nearby threat receptor. Simple, harmless questions created by curiosity are recognized in their mind as a threat, rather than a mutually recognized reason to resolve a curious contradiction to derive the benefits of the therefore advanced knowledge. No judge's job is threatened by impartially presiding over a court of prevailing law or a court of jury decision, yet the judge's mind identifies a threat in the questions that would decide the different procedure. The same is true for citizen organization leaders who encounter member question of their organizational by-laws procedures, or the police officer who faces question of his process, among countless institutional examples wherein the process of logic does not threaten the position of the process administrator, yet is perceived as a threat. In each case, the results of mutual curiosity would greatly advance public respect and effectiveness for the institutional administrator of process, while the results of process administrators illogically perceiving the same questions as threats, create every genuinely human-caused problem.
You would be most amused with the remarkable precision of the phenomenon. Demonstrations can be, and have been, devised to control that neural on-off switching, by a second party, with comic results. Mere arrangements of words, the same words not changing between only slightly different presentation process, otherwise categorically harmless and impartially verified as creating no contradiction or threat for any curious person, can be presented to an institutionally power-damaged mind, to snap it back and forth between fear and courage, between enthusiastic agreement and instant retaliation. The power-damaged mind will not recognize what is happening within its wildly divergent and thus illogical reactions to the same harmless words, while obviously recognized by observers. The reaction of the institutionally altered mind is analogous to a child having not yet learned about lies, and genuinely believing his unpracticed lie is fooling adults. The questions are the key. The same words presented to a curious mind, not damaged by power, create a consistent response without any contradictions. At issue are questions, which of course need not be answered. It is not possible to force an answer from a human mind, and a mind can provide any answer it wishes, if any. A question cannot logically create a threat response, unless a brain's normal neural routing of related stimuli is, by a process, diverted to the threat receptor.
At question is not just some police officer involved with the mob. The concept involves your most honest and respected friends, including you, who are just an elected officer of a local little harmless social club occasionally supporting a public cause or just their own process for electing their own next officers. At question is the human mind's demarcation between open curiosity and a perceptually limited institutional process.
Of great amusement to the observer, the so called lie detector or polygraph to measure sensory responses to questions, including new developments in neural activity measuring, was used by power-based institutions as a weapon to help get those evil criminals, liars, the other guy, the enemy. Like many inventions, it was used by the power-based, us-against-them, institutional crowd, whose minds are void of curiosity. Because those institution leaders sought to catch an enemy perceived as a threat, instead of seeking new knowledge to satisfy impartial curiosity, the use of the lie detector made its public and private institutional leaders comparatively more ignorant than the criminals, as is verifiable. The effect includes the institution of scientists who genuinely believe their goal is categorically impartial, seeking knowledge alone. The effect was compounded by the same leaders fearing their own instrument. They sought to expose the other guy's lies, while protecting their own, to thus deny themselves the extraordinarily valuable knowledge of the human mind's response to any contradiction, that leaves the currently most sophisticated lie detector or neuro-computer analysis instrument as a horse-and-buggy era relic of ignorance-production among its handlers. The device attempts to measure a type of mental activity that is otherwise more easily recognizable and of zero value compared to what is available right now today if one's curiosity is not limited by any concept harmlessly advanced by words. The human mind's response to any contradiction, is not the other guy's response to any contradiction, or the response to only the other guy's contradictions, by definition of those words and their substance. In the forgoing sentence is the key to learning the human mind's response to any contradiction, of value well beyond your current understanding, and that from which the future will marvel at the astonishingly primitive, intellectual dark ages of the year 2001 and all time before intellectual technology became common. There is zero need for a lie detector in law enforcement. Its continued use defines the embarrassing ignorance and self-stagnation of the law enforcement institution.
That institutionally power-damaged minds of those pitiable humans who have fallen victim to government and other institutional jobs, will continue to maliciously damage fellow humans, in the name of every concept ever used to attempt to force other humans to conform to illogicality, is a certainty, until intellectual technology is commonly learned. That is immaterial. That you can learn how such concepts work within the human mind, yours, is material. Why and how does the human mind fabricate an inherently self-defeating contradiction or illogicality from data, and is that knowledge not what you need if you wish resolve all contradictions to thus achieve any goal of yourself or your institution?
Consider any example. Police exhibit a high professional suicide rate, as well as other damaging psychological results of their job, such as high rates of divorce, alcoholism, domestic violence, stress-induced serious medical ailments, etcetera. Those facts are a matter of verified record open to anyone, over which police wring their hands and complain, rather than learn how to promptly correct. So what would cause a person to become a police officer, and then willfully evade asking the questions that would discover the source of those problems, to resolve them? If the issue was that of the cure for cancer, the effort to discover the cure would be a bit difficult. But because the issue is that of a human-caused contradiction, it is only a simple, but somewhat lengthy, series of questions to resolve the contradictions, to thus be a police officer immune to the causes of the contradictions. When you are of sound mind, would you willfully set out on a course already proven to lead to a high rate of suicide, alcoholism, divorce, domestic violence, frustration, confusion, stress-induced diseases, etcetera? If the course you selected for its other qualities, was proven to commonly end at the aforementioned problems, would you not ask the questions to preclude your being among those who ended there? For an analogy, if X% of parachutes failed to open, would you refuse to wear a reserve parachute? What would you imagine as the reactions of police reading this web site not harmful or threatening to any reader curious of human actions? If a genuine void of their mind's curiosity blocked a person from asking the questions that saved them from self-induced violence and suicide, and could easily be proven as the case, would one wishing to avoid suicide in a high-suicide profession, not first set out to learn how curiosity worked in their mind? How many goals of value can be reached with only one step?
What concept is required for a person to answer the foregoing questions? It is obvious for this phenomenon, that the identification of the deadly and otherwise damaging problem, is the identification of why each involved person will refuse to solve it. The curiosity necessary to discover why curiosity is absent in the self-damaged mind, to correct the damage, is absent. Facing such a statement, with curiosity originally existing in every child's mind, and the beneficial results of easily rediscovering it, what would cause the mind otherwise facing known damages, to rediscover the curiosity mechanism of their mind? The question holds a definitive answer.
Laugh yourself to tears at the comedy of it all, because the minds of all the police psychologists whom you would expect to seek out and pay well for this valuable knowledge which could advance our nation's police force to the most successful, admired and respected police institution in the world, void of self-inflicted damages, suffer the same void of curiosity, from the same mechanism within their mind. After so many years of effort, for so rudimentary a problem caused by humans alone, why have police psychologists not solved the problem of the yet increasing psychological problems infecting the police institution? The police psychologists, upon whom the police foolishly rely to solve police psychology problems, hold the same controlling contradiction, as is obvious in the ongoing results. Laugh more thoroughly, because while you could learn how to devise and display the proof, and its resolution, to the unanimous satisfaction of any group of impartial observers, no scientist studying the police or their psychologists can identify the proof or resolution, for the same void of institutional curiosity in their mind. They would instantly object to such words incredulous to their mind. So if psychologists and other scientists are not maliciously contemptuous of police, laughing at their deadly problem, after the test of time has left the scientists no defense, why have they not informed police of the simple process of how to do their job while avoiding the human-caused contradiction of the police institution's high rate of suicide, alcoholism, domestic violence and a litany of similar damages? Or why have they not admitted to the public, for record, that their title of psychologist or scientist is therein proven to be just an illusion of no more real value than their or your personal name? Did you recognize the question that slammed shut the curiosity door in the mind of the scientists?
Do the police carry guns to protect you, or themselves? Can they protect you if they are not where you are at the moment of a crime? Do criminals damage you while police are present? Why do armed police commonly object to you carrying a gun? Why do police commonly insist upon carrying guns while they are off duty, and thus a citizen just like you, purportedly protected by the armed police they say protect you? Not one institutional leader, from the police, psychologists, scientists, pro-gun sorts, anti-gun chaps, and others, can identify the readily available, flawless resolution to the existing contradiction illuminated in the foregoing questions, because their mind's reaction to the questions cannot tolerate effective question of the controlling flaw in their own institutional perceptions of the contradiction.
Notice the difference in the words, you, and, scientist, or in, you, and, police. Any human mind can be either or both, by circumstance. Did you think that changing a word did not change a human mind's reaction? Did you answer the question? What next question would you therefore have? What value would you hold in the understanding of how curiosity was changed to threat in any human mind? How would you learn that knowledge? How does the human mind learn any knowledge?
If you ever encounter a police department which wishes to learn how eliminate the deadly, stress-induced damages caused by their job, you may reference this web site, page and section, and laugh at the threat they perceive from the curiosity-predicated process to learn how to promptly solve their problems. The same is true for their psychologists, the military sorts, judges, government leaders and any other institutionally titled chaps including those criticizing the poor government sorts. When you are laughing, your curiosity receptor gains a certain advantage over your threat receptor. Use the advantage. That the aforementioned chaps are not laughing at these amusing antics of humans, is their choice.
Your enemies... 17 January 2001
Skip to another web site if you intend to read the next paragraph quickly. The value of the seemingly repetitious next paragraph is in your mind fully visualizing the people identified by their institutional reference words.
These people were identified and verified by millions of people, as enemies of humans, and therefore politically or physically attacked. Communists, capitalists, nazis, republicans, democrats, greens, libertarians, jews, catholics, christians, moslems, buddhists, hindus, turks, serbs, gun owners, pot smokers, anti-gunners, anti-druggies, pro-this, anti-that, armenians, americans, japs, arabs, mexicans, russians, gypsies, unionists, corporations, governments, cults, witches, the rich, peasants, farmers, business owners, suburbians, urbanites, natives, newcomers, ranchers, workers, carpet baggers, bourgeoisie, lawyers, politicians, police, military, civilians, blacks, whites, males, females, and the entire rest of the list of categories of people.
You are therefore either the enemy of humans, by several counts verified by the unshakable belief of many million people, or your only real enemy is in your own mind.
Your mind is a reasoning device designed to create new knowledge.
Consider the value of the knowledge of how to defeat your only enemy, and what you would thereafter learn, unfettered by any enemy. Did your mind want knowledge, or enemies? The answer is your choice alone.
What could you do for your cause, opposed by your enemies, if you held the knowledge not discovered by your enemies because they were too busy opposing their enemies?
Your rights.... 24 January 2001
There is not an arrogant word in this section, or on this web site. If you can find any contradiction to truth or to other words herein, and we can verify the contradiction, the resolution will be easy, and you will have advanced my knowledge. Would you not say the same for your words, and submit them for public questions, and answer such questions for public question? Notice that no government or institutional leadership chap will do so.
Is it not a contradiction to suggest that a person holds rights, but does not own his own body because your government with your support owns his body under its claimed authority to dictate what said person may or may not put into his body, including even things so ethereal as smoke? Can you hold rights as a human if you do not own your own body? Do you support your government? Did you think there are no detriments in the attempt to hold the benefits of two mutually exclusive concepts? Between you and a government official, who can answer those questions for public judgment of his mind's reasoning-ability? That is just an exercise. The issue is immaterial. The ability to actually answer the questions, accurately, and verify the answers, is of far greater value than any issued-based implication of the questions or answers.
The concept of human rights, citizen rights, individual rights, unalienable rights and a gaggle of other rights, is a concept which your mind may use to advance its knowledge, and as an unimportant aside, manifest them. It is also a commonly popular issue among groups of humans. While every human is actively involved in the concept, many people are not interested in the issue. The latter utilize their time for other things. But notice the popularity of the issue of rights among humans.
You will never regain your rights without understanding these words, and thus be able to flawlessly describe the mechanism, not just the concept, but for emphasis, the mechanism, of the contradiction in the first phrase of this sentence.
How important is your understanding of flawless precision in the use of any words? The actions you take as a result of reading this section will prove that importance, to any observer. Can you intellectually observe your own reactions to concepts?
Fail to flawlessly understand the concept of rights, and you will fail any goal within the issue. Understanding the concept is just knowledge, that for which the human mind was invented. There are very few people who understand the concept of rights. The test is unequivocal. No organization leader in the world comprehends the concept of human rights, or he would laugh at the suggestion that he continue being an organization leader. In a citizen rights organization, what are the rights of the members as demarcated from the rights of the leader by the identification of the leader's title? Do not be hasty with your answer.
Rights do not come into question until two or more people are at issue. Organizations do not exist without two or more people, even if one of them is a lawfully defined artificial person. The only organization members who understand the concept of human rights are those who are members for amusement, who openly ridicule their organization and its leaders. That the US DemocanRepublicrat Party members and leaders haven't a clue of what citizen rights are, is obvious. More amusing is that the Libertarian Party leaders and members, who can speak and act the concept of individual rights far beyond their colleagues in any other political or citizen rights organization, if they are not among the aforementioned ridiculing their organization, remain as clueless of the concept of rights as are Nazi, Communist, Republican, Fascist, Democrat, Monarchy, Taliban, Tyranny, and every other social organization leaders and members. If that were not so, the Libertarians would have already easily effected the socially free exercise of the citizen rights they so politically adulate, rather than still wasting their time pursuing political and organizational power which is mutually exclusive to the concept of rights.
The number of humans in the world, who verifiably understand the concept of rights, may easily be less than twenty thousand, with less than a thousand in this nation. The numbers are a fun guess to give substance to the concept of very few. The actual number, while not practical to ascertain, would be amusing to know and verify. While the proof of such understanding is unequivocal, no institution capable of ascertaining the number, has any members capable of understanding the concept. If you are reading this, you do not understand the concept of rights, for another amusing reason. You may prove that statement to be in error. Simply define rights in a manner that contains no contradiction among human actions, state it to the public, with your name, invite questions, answer them and do not contradict your then concluding definition.
The demarcation between rights and anything other than rights is an absolute, and defined with the most precise use of common words. The disguise of the demarcation, which so readily fools people, as it did myself for entirely too long, is brilliant.
This section does not identify or describe the concept of human rights, and cannot produce its understanding because this forum does not facilitate your mind's questions. Rights are one of those controlling concepts you will not comprehend without actually asking and answering each related question your mind identifies from its perceived contradictions. This section only indicates some controlling concepts within the concept of rights, parts of a puzzle for your amusement or frustration. No human can escape the truths herein described in words.
The concept of rights is inherent to and not separable from the concept of humans. To be human is to hold all your rights. Rights are unalienable, and inalienable if you accurately define the difference between inalienable and unalienable.
There is no human capable of taking your rights away from you. There is no human ability to do so. Another human, such as those pitiable victims of government employment, as I once was much to my unalienable embarrassment, may hold the power of muscles, swords, guns, a gaggle of minion police or military who will exercise said power on command under the rhetorical illusion of authority, to intimidate, attack, beat, imprison , kill, or by other description, assault you, for any reason including your merely exercising your rights. But said minions cannot seize your rights. Like all other concepts within the human mind, there is nothing in the concept of rights to physically seize. If you do not correctly use the word, you will not know how to manifest it. Use the words that mean what you wish to convey.
I often reference the process to regain one's rights. I introduce that contradiction for brevity in otherwise referencing the process to regain the free exercise of unalienable rights, a more accurate description I learned from another person who questioned my sloppily used words during my process of learning what rights are and what they are not. When I use the short description, and I am not therefore questioned by those who have not prior questioned my words, I learn about those who do not recognize or question contradictions.
The process of another human assaulting or otherwise damaging you because you exercised a right, constitutes assault and damage, unlawful in every social system, if you learn how to utilize the concept of law. Such acts of assault and damage routinely identify the unmitigated, undeniable ignorance and maliciousness of street thugs, police, military, prosecutors, court judges and other poor sad gullible sorts who believed rather than questioned the institutionally titled chaps who purported to teach them the ways of humans and society from the knowledge they, in turn, believed rather than questioned.
You can only willfully surrender your rights. They cannot be taken from you. You surrender them to police and other government sorts because you are fooled out of them by way of an intriguing process, and are too lazy or yet too ignorant to ask the questions that create the knowledge negating your being so fooled. Amusingly, if your institutional illusions are predicated on your fooling other people out of their rights, regardless of your understanding of these words, you will never learn the questions that can regain the free exercise of your rights, because those questions destroy your power to fool others out of their rights. Most amusing to the observers are the citizen rights organization leaders who routinely fool their own followers out of their rights, for organizational expediency and centralization of power, thus more effectively training the minds of the leaders to be unable to recognize rights. Concurrently, police, prosecutors and court judges, being institutional leaders of a section of organizational process, do not understand the rights or the process to manifest them. Their mind sincerely believes, from what it was taught and did not question, that the rights of the other guy are subject to the decree of police, prosecutors and judges. Rights cannot be subject to a second human mind's decisions. In the choice between human rights and power, foolish sorts choose power, and no human can have both. Therein police, prosecutors and judges are defined as foolish, and the verification is sustainable against every question humans can devise.
Those who more energetically pity the police and other malicious government chaps around you, may suggest that the police and their government ilk are ignorant, rather than stupid and such common rhetorical criticisms, and that case can be demonstrated. Would a police officer arrest the pot smoking liberal or unregistered gun possessing conservative if the police officer was shown and had verified the prevailing law negating his authority to make such an arrest? The answer in the overwhelming percentage of cases is, no. Police, being human minds just like you and I, shown the verified law, will enforce only the law, without objection. Thus ignorance, rather than stupidity and maliciousness is proven, but only under that limited proof. Is ignorance of the law any excuse? Who could claim ignorance of the law, above stupidity; the citizen who damages no one and holds no intent to damage anyone, or the police officer who commonly tells others that ignorance of the law is no excuse, thus unable to claim ignorance, and who holds the known legal duty to impose only the prevailing law, and thus not impose inferior law contradicted by a superior law, and thus impose no damage where no damage was prior created? An arrest or citation constitutes damage, by the accurate use of the words. To willfully carry out an action that damages someone who damages no one would be ignorance if done by a small child, but unequivocal stupidity and maliciousness when done by an adult police officer openly acknowledging the known legal duty to create no original damage under power of office or color of law. The most cursory analysis of arrests and incarcerations reveals that more than half the cases involve no damage to persons or property, or intent to do so, except that intentionally caused by the police damaging the person whose action only contradicted a verifiably law-contradicted law. Police ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially where they willfully initiate the only damage in the case. Of course the prosecutors and judges are equally among the cause, but do not excuse the actions of the police or each other.
Therein, the police officer and his mental ilk holding the jobs of prosecutors and court judges, may claim a personal defense of their actions, with a public admission that they are horribly embarrassed by the recognition of their abject ignorance, and maliciousness, but only once in a lifetime immediately upon being caught by expressed reasoning, and not mitigating their responsibility to make whole again all those people whom they damaged. They will not do that. They cannot comprehend any concept on this website. The power-damaged mind cannot regain the command of logic, or the concept of power and its inherent maliciousness could not exist. Such chaps are therefore the lesson for others to learn. Learn it. And rights are the lesson most illuminated therein.
Do not react too hastily in reading the following sentences. The general public does not deserve to hold any rights, under the concept that rights are predicated on the human mind's comprehension of the concept. If you cannot comprehend it, you cannot hold it. It, is within your mind. Therein, it is the mental effort to learn the related knowledge that creates that which is earned or deserved. Stated in other words, you cannot retain what you do not earn, or if you see in it no value, you will not make any effort to retain it, and rights can only earn value by your mind's difficult effort to learn the knowledge of the concept of rights. That rights are not earned by action without thought, is proven by the military sorts in every nation who routinely run off to war to risk their life for what they were told are their rights, without their asking any questions to cause their mind to think and thus learn and thus create genuine value for rights, only to return and, such as in the US, vote for the RepublicratDemocan politicians, 100% of whose efforts constitute the process of progressively destroying even the remaining remnants of the free exercise of the rights described in the US Constitution, as only the most overt of their contradictions. Until you learn the concept of rights, against the most ruthless questions any human mind can devise, do not embarrass yourself by suggesting that you hold any.
But while the entire lot of you in society therein do not deserve the rights you so adulate, a separate and unequivocal concept disallows any legitimate use of that commonly stated opinion of so many people, as grounds to deny your exercise of those rights. No matter how ignorant, gullible, rich, poor or malicious you or those pitiable government chaps are, no human can create any legitimate reasoning to deny the free exercise of another human's rights. Laugh robustly over the sorts who immediately react with outrage at the previous sentence, who instead suggest that the government holds the right to deny the rights of a murderer, etcetera. Therein, they simply reveal how sloppily they use the word, rights, without the ability or patience to learn what rights are. If you use the word, rights, for that which does not constitute a right, in even one case, you will continue to be frustrated in your thrashing-about within the rights issue, confused as to the precise boundaries of rights. At issue is not the other guy nit-picking over the definition of rights when you claim that he knows what you mean. At issue is your own mind transferring a concept definition from one set of your brain's neurons, into another set of neurons where the concept definition creates a contradiction, without your concerted adjustment of the data. The other guy is not confused. Your mind is. Use the other guy, not as an enemy, but as a lesson to observe, to methodically think through your own mind's contradictions, to resolve them. Write your questions and answers on paper or a screen. The process will take less time than you spend railing at the other guy, and the rewards are beyond any value you currently perceive.
The institutional sorts who so loudly and fervently worship rights, especially the police who are so quick to defend their rights with their guns, and who claim that it is they who are defending everyone's rights, are the ones who most commonly insist that they and their ilk must be able to deny the rights of you masses who don't deserve your rights and who don't kowtow to the institutional sorts. There is not one among them who can use English words to demarcate the otherwise precise definition of rights, because they believed rather than questioned the institutional chaps who taught them.
Because the concept of rights is what it is within the design of the human mind, if the police and other government chaps were to learn that knowledge, they would willingly state that they therein dumped the greatest burden and confusion a human mind can hold. It will not happen among them. The concept of institutional power can never willing surrender any portion of itself to human rights, and still exist.
Do whatever it takes to learn what human rights are and what they are not, to the extent of leaving no contradiction in place against the most exhaustive questioning. No human goal can be sustainably achieved without that knowledge.
Donate to your defeat... 25 January 2001
Logic works. If your prefer a different word, other than logic, to describe a process inherent to the human mind's design, which humans cannot change, then use that different word. Logic, is accurate, and will do for this section since the writer does not have access to your preferred word.
Logic. You donate money to your organization leaders, as have your predecessors to theirs, and their espousals have not been achieved, or you would have no reason to donate your money to them.
It does not matter what the organizations represent, or who their leaders are. Select any random group, including those opposing each other. The leaders obviously do not know how to achieve their organizational espousals. The proof is manifest. The test of time has long since illuminated the proof. And yet you keep sending them money. You are rewarding them for not knowing how to achieve their espousals, and not achieving their espousals. Logic works. There are no words that can extract you from that proof.
What do you get when you continue rewarding someone for what they are doing?
The organization leaders did not sit down and ask, how do we achieve our espousals? They sat down and said, our followers like what we are doing.
An honest person would sit down and figure out how to actually achieve a goal, before he purported to know how or asked for money to produce that goal. There are no honest people in organizational leadership positions outside hard-product or flawlessly defined service, private enterprise businesses.
By rewarding those who are failing while they flimflam you, you are the only persons defeating your espousals. That is a superficial description of the elsewhere described greater substance of humans as individuals always being their only enemy.
For a valuable learning exercise, when you get the usual junk mail begging for your money for this and that cause, put one dollar in the return envelope, with a note stating that the donation will insure the ultimate defeat of the organization's cause. If you cannot recognize the existing proof in those words, use as many years as you wish to belatedly recognize the proof of your dollars and notes. But as soon as you do, you can advance your knowledge from that controlling concept.
Do yourself a favor. Spend your money on yourself and those who verifiably produce what they claim in accountable words. Don't worry, nothing will change, the world is saturated with gullible sorts who will adamantly reward failure their entire life. It is your mind that is of value to you. Use it for the benefits of understanding the process of logic, or anything else that advances your knowledge.
Medal of dishonor... 27 January 2001
Among other examples, eighteen US Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to US Calvary soldiers for the battle in which they slaughtered Lakota Indian men, women and children, in previous days, and the Calvary were the attackers. The medal was therein and prior rendered not just void of honor and thus a meaningless symbol, but a symbol of dishonor. It is not deniable that no honorable or intelligent person would accept the US Congressional Medal of Honor, by definition of its proven meaning. That which is proven to be, cannot be proven to be otherwise.
It is understandable, in that we humans learn slower than we flatter ourselves, for gullible young males heavily influenced by testosterone and by impressive titles of superiors with more ornate uniforms, not yet versed in asking questions of human contradictions, to accept such a medal and any of its lesser ilk. But to retain them after a few more years of maturity, identifies their holders as void of honor or intelligence. No excuses prevail. The prior, uncorrected utilization of the symbol is controlling for its meaning.
That Medal of Honor winners can easily surround themselves with their colleagues and large numbers of equally unquestioning chaps whose illusions and defense from the feeling of insecurity are predicated on flattery, alters nothing of the controlling concept. The controlling concept prevails, by design of logic impartial to humans. There is no reward, award, benefit, rhetorical tap dancing or threat that can change a dishonorable, unintelligent action to an honorable, intelligent action, by definition. To accept and retain symbols proven to mean dishonor and lack of intelligence, are precisely that.
Setting aside the controlling flaw of any such inherently contradicted, flattery-based award above the results of the action alone, any medal or symbol of any particular action may be supportable in logic, but not if the identity and purpose of the medal have already been contradicted without correction. While one may accept appreciation for their noble actions, they are foolish and dishonorable to accept an identified award already rendered as a symbol of dishonor and malicious actions.
That the award grants little-discussed, additional benefits for its holder, as is the case with many military medals, only further identifies its cheapness needing further scams to float some desire and adulation for the award among unquestioning people who function on self-defended ignorance.
The astute reader recognizes the same concept controlling all ego-based or ego-benefiting titles, beyond one's given name and the honest description of one's actual actions. Given names, applied to babies, like certain words such as, wisdom, are universally recognized as separate from any identification of an individual's status beyond identity of his own actions. Unlike the former illusion created by titles and medals, the later name and description can create no claim beyond what one identifiably earns.
Now notice who will refuse to surrender their medals, titles, certificates of this and that, honors and symbols of flattery. Then notice who will. To whom would you go if you needed knowledge rather than a rhetorical illusion referenced by a title?
Titles, medals, awards, certificates and such rhetorical illusions are not given for the results of one's actions, unless those results hold no merit in themselves and thus need some symbolic illusion. Such illusions are only fabricated and granted to create the illusion of a superior status of the persons or institutions conveying the title. Were a peasant to convey knighthood, the knight could be no greater than the peasant. The receiver of the medal or other title is only a cheap dupe serving the need of the giver to imply that the giver is so great as to be somehow divined to give such an award. Who gave the giver that which he gives, and why would they need his decision to give it?
Quite often the inherent ruse of medals is so openly displayed that only the most gullible and unintelligent humans can retain any respect for them and their institutions. After the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and US Army assaulted the Christian Branch Dividian church at Waco, without provocation, and slaughtered men, women and children in a manner essentially identical to the US Government slaughter of American Indians in earlier days, every common-sense, honorable person recognized the unforgivable shame of those agencies and their personnel. But rather than recognize and correct their shameful actions, their power-craving leaders in the Whitehouse and so called Department of Justice office, therefore awarded medals for bravery and valor to the agents who murdered even innocent little children. The US Government had expressly promised a little girl child in the Dividian church, via a recorded phone call during the siege, that they would not enter the church and kill the little girl. Then, after waiting for a very windy day, with no fire fighting equipment brought to the scene, and even blocking local fire engines attempting to respond, the US Army and FBI willfully drove Army tanks into the church, crushing the walls, accompanied by US Army Delta Force soldiers who then fired incendiary rounds into the highly flammable mixture of kerosene and CS gas the Army tanks had just finished pumping into the church. The repugnant nature of the United States Army, FBI and BATF personnel was identified by their actions, then further illuminated by their accepting the medals. In addition to all the previous examples creating the current, proven void of honorable personnel among them, the US Army, FBI and BATF will never again acquire an honorable, intelligent person who is capable of asking questions and thereupon ashamed of their having considered serving such perfidious institutions. The concept is controlling. No excuses prevail over the controlling concept.
The solution is to correct, rather than reward the contradictions of human imperfections. But one must identify those contradictions. One identifies contradictions by asking effective questions. No institutional mind is capable of doing so, or institutions could not produce dishonorable actions without destroying themselves by even one person standing among them to effectively question the contradictions. Therein you are on your own. If you as an individual do not hold the common sense to question such contradictions, and thus become a victim of government employment, the greatest value of your life will most likely be to display the example of what common-sense people do not want to do with the value of their life. That the government consistently uses rhetorical ruses of honor to cover up dishonorable actions defines the inherent corruption of government and the gullibility of humans who do not question the contradictions.
It does not matter what you think about the medal of honor and other such government medals. They are not your medals, even if you were given one. The decision to award them is owned by the US Government. They are the government's medals. Their meaning is defined by the US Government. Their meaning is defined by the decision to award them for human actions, and no meaning can be altered by lies. If they are even once awarded for dishonorable actions, such as slaughtering innocent children, they are forever thereafter medals of dishonor. If you wish a medal of honor to exist, your option is to create a new medal with a new reference, and guard its meaning against any dishonorable action. The same is true for a title. If you wish an honorable federal police force to exist, for your employment or that of anyone else, you must create a new one, and guard its meaning against that which has been perpetrated by the FBI, BATF, DEA, NPS and all forty nine of the other currently existing, armed US Government law enforcement agencies of malicious, ignorant, unquestioning personnel. If you cannot do that, and you wish to be an honorable person, your option within honor (logical human decisions) is to find honest employment outside the government. No excuses prevail above the logic. Don't worry, there will be plenty of dishonorable, malicious sorts who will always flock to government employment. They deserve the fate they earn. The only decisions you will ever control are your own, and those are difficult enough. You will never redefine the government by being an honest government employee. Your actions may be honorable, but the actions of government have proven to be dishonorable, and your accepting the dishonorable title and benefits proves you to be either dishonorable or so unintelligent that you obviously cannot distinguish between the two, or you would not associate your honor with dishonor.
That is how childish, unintelligent and dishonorable title holders are. That is how childish those who next accept titles are, and who retain them after the sufficient few years of adulthood to question their actions. It was United States Congressmen of the RepublicratDemocan Party who funded and defended those awards and murderers. As it was done in the past, it will be done again, for the same reason of abject human dishonor and ignorance created by the corruption of unquestioned institutional power.
One easily recognizes within the ongoing respect shown for medals, titles and certificates, among the therefore unquestioning and thus unintelligent masses, that these humans are still mired in childishness and intellectual dark ages. One easily recognizes that the vast majority of title holders will live out their entire lives intentionally retaining their titles, not even thinking to ask the first obvious question of them.
The only issue at question for you the reader, is the resulting knowledge of you the reader. Your mind will never derive benefits from an unresolved contradiction, since the human mind and thus its holder can only benefit from resolving contradictions. You will never discover the knowledge you seek while your mind retains that contradiction. The choice is yours. Retain your illusions among frustrating and damaging contradictions, or resolve the contradictions and thus advance your knowledge.
You might at least demonstrate the wisdom to so inform your children, but you would fear to do that while your own mind is dependent upon titles. Your children will have to learn the controlling lie perpetuated by yourself and other adults, on their own, with all the disadvantages you instill in them. And if they are so fortunate to discover your lie, to advance themselves out of verifiable ignorance, your titles will therefore sooner earn you their inherent results.
How would you convey the knowledge you seek... 28 January 2001
If from exhaustive mental effort, you learned knowledge of vast value avidly sought by many people, which could only be learned by the process that the human mind uses to learn new knowledge, that is, by asking and answering questions, what words would you say to those people otherwise avidly seeking the knowledge you held, to convey the knowledge they clearly needed and sought? Is that not a question? Might your answer not lead you to the knowledge? Would you not have to answer the question to start the effort?
What to do if you are stuck in a contradiction... 29 January 2001
If you are caught in a common contradiction, such as your desire to be an honest and logically functioning person while being employed by government or any other institution which perpetuates dishonest and illogical functioning, identifying you as such by your willful support of the institution, your mind is training itself to maintain a contradiction. The effects of training one's mind to do something are of far greater impact than you recognize, or human-caused contradictions would be far less in number.
A liar does not lie only to the other guy. Your mind will do what you train it to do, and not alert you each time, because it assumes that you already know, because it was your choice to train it to do that.
What can one do within any concept if one trains their mind for that concept? The same answer applies if you carelessly train your mind to do something otherwise not of your preference. The effects extend well beyond the recognized training exercise. If you are intentionally illogical in one regard, you will be illogical in an expanding array of your actions, noticed by others while your mind remains oblivious.
The resolution of a contradiction within the human mind's electro-chemical process can only be its resolution, and cannot be the application of another contradiction. You, I, and everyone else are not smart enough to consistently remember which fabricated contradiction was being applied to alter which other contradiction, because the mind is not designed to maintain contradictions. It is designed to resolve contradictions. A lie cannot consistently sustain a lie within the human mind's process.
While the process described with the word, ego, obviously holds strong influence on the human mind, when coupled with the process described by the words, institutional power, it is flawlessly addicting, leaving its victim as a permanent example of what not to be. Therein a controlling contradiction will be maintained by a process described elsewhere, while everyone not so afflicted, and thus capable of common-sense reasoning, will recognize the illogical results. But if the unique process to train one's mind to be incapable of recognizing a precise arena of logic, is just based on a job necessary for income, a job you otherwise hold in no great regard not imperative for your existence, your disadvantage offers an excellent opportunity.
Insecure people cling to their job, but commonly admire or respect those people with sufficient command of their destiny to make changes at will. If your job defines a contradiction, recognize the imperative to change jobs if you seek to extract your mind from being trained in progressively self-defeating illogicality, and gain the additional great benefit of training your mind to command its own destiny. The latter is the proverbial spice of life with many advantages inherent to training your mind in new arenas of knowledge. The former is an inescapable imperative if you wish be an honest person capable of learning useful new knowledge.
Square One... 30 January 2001
You cannot create an organization of two or more people, without creating power.
You cannot create more intelligence by creating an organization of two or more people.
Power corrupts, that is, alters the perceptions of the human mind.
What questions would you therefore ask?
Would you support an organization before you asked those questions?
What degree of intelligence do you therefore identify?
Do you not create a greater degree of intelligence by asking and answering questions?
Question this... 31 January 2001
What you seek in this section is what your mind recognizes before you get to the conclusion.
Your mind must therefore be asking questions of what contradicts your current knowledge.
Is not your current knowledge defined by your actions?
If you are human, thus predicated on your mind, among other humans, how would you most readily defeat your opponent, if not by causing him to start acting, thus denying him time to think?
How would you do that without defeating yourself with the same process?
End of Intech Concepts 5
IntechConcepts 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1