Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 10
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)



Ask Again... 15 July 2001

Who would say, ask again, and say it with the greatest intent?

Who would never say, ask again, and not do so for the greatest fear?

And what would be the consequences of each, by each, to each conclusion?

If you can answer those questions, after considerable thought, and if you email me your answers, I will share some knowledge you will therefore wish to know.


The illusion... 16 July 2001

Is it not simply hard work, either physical or mental, that divides any human from riches, if one wants riches, while so many people play the game of acquiring riches without working hard?

The game is so popular, that many people expend much time with the details of the game. Does not the time they expend constitute the referenced work, with then only the efficiency revealed? Notice just two of the many variables. One may work very hard in quest of something of very little value, by their own choice, or work very hard the wrong way and thus achieve nothing of their desire. Within the game is the goal of discovering what work will achieve what reward.

So what would divide you from the knowledge you seek? What are some of the variables, to assist with the answer? Certainly the number of questions you ask and answer will increase your knowledge, but you may not think of the questions that lead to the knowledge you seek, efficiently. One of the common old wise sayings among those who seek knowledge, is, Look where you have not looked before.

Where will you look? Where might the most valuable and rare knowledge be hidden, in full view?

How did society train your mind to react to various words, mere words? Were you so trained, or do you hold sufficient knowledge to question that training to discover what everyone is looking for, but no one is finding because their training fooled them out of looking where the knowledge is available?

If you were searching for the knowledge you needed to achieve a difficult goal that others could not achieve, and you were handed a thesis, without comment, and it started out stating that you are a dolt, an idiot too ignorant to get anything right even if you are given instructions written in plain English, a malicious thug with a hate-filled mind doing nothing but stagnating the human phenomenon, and a couple more pages with more of the same, how would you react? How would any common person react? How were you trained to respond to words?

How would you react if you were a titled person, accustomed to be referenced with words of respect, honor and praise by many people in your institution?

By line-item description, what divides all people from what they yet seek, and by definition?

Now consider every word arrangement you would use to describe a round ball, to learn all that you can learn from a round ball. Now consider the same for a person and an institution. If you did not use all the descriptions, or if you used incorrect descriptions, would you not learn less than the person who used more words and more accurate descriptions? Is not a round ball comprised of elements and atoms and phi? If you sought the knowledge that no one else had reached, where would you stop searching, if not at least one question beyond where everyone else asked?

Now consider a person who therefore learned the most about a concept, more than anyone else. Would he not be the person from whom one could learn the most about that concept, if one did not want to learn the hard way on their own, like said person did?

If that person identified you as an ignorant dolt in relation to the phenomenon of which you wished to learn, and he was verifiably correct against every question, would you not learn how to no longer be a dolt by questioning him rather than walking away from him because he dared to call you a dolt? If you questioned him rather than walked away, would you not thus learn that knowledge the efficient way rather than have to belatedly discover the hard way that you were indeed a dolt in relation to said phenomenon? Would you not recognize that said person was most likely a dolt himself before he learned the referenced knowledge, and probably learned the knowledge because he learned that he was a dolt?

Are you what you claim, or what the results prove?

Are the US President and Supreme Court justices wise people, or dolts? The US incarcerates more of its people than any other nation, with over half of them having damaged no person, property or public policy identified in prevailing law. The US is also quick to bully people with its armed military personnel, in the US and around the world, and incessantly builds more military weapons of destruction, never seeking wisdom by questioning its actions. Does that describe wise people or dolts? What is your answer? Would you train your mind to describe a dolt as a respected national leader, and thus train yourself to be a gullible dolt?

Notice that all the world's leaders of every nation and institution, today and for all time prior, with all their titles and credentials and legions of people flattering them, cannot solve the world's problems or even their own personal problems, and are the source of the countless governmental problems. It is only government and institution leaders who start and perpetuate wars. And where are they looking for the knowledge to solve the problems? They are looking where they have already looked, among themselves, the people profusely flattering each other for their obvious inability to achieve their espoused goals. They trained their mind to not recognize the meaning and utility of the words they speak, and therefore cannot identify the parts of the knowledge they seek when they hear it. They are so accustomed to their institution of mutual flattery, they never look among those who speak truth to train their mind to recognize truth, the people who call apples apples, and dolts dolts.

Now, again, would you read the thesis that began by describing you as a dolt, if you sought knowledge where you and others had not looked before?

Look where you have not looked before, to find the knowledge you think others should hold. You are on your own. You may be assured that the dolts in government will never look where they are not being flattered and praised by dolts, and thus never discover the knowledge to extract themselves from their proven manifestation of raw ignorance, maliciousness and hatred for other people. Why do you think governments incessantly write more laws with more severe punishment against fellow equal humans who verifiably damage no one with their outlawed actions? Notice that it is increasingly those who simply do not kowtow to the idiot illusions of government dolts, who are fined, imprisoned or killed by government dolts who seek knowledge only where they have looked before.

That which divides you from the knowledge you seek, is an illusion of your own mind's creation. Question it, with real questions, lest you later discover that you were a dolt for not having earlier asked such questions.


Kill the gooks... 17 July 2001

As a US Army airborne ranger infantry officer in Vietnam, I genuinely and sincerely believed I was right in seeking to kill those Vietnamese who only wanted to harmlessly live their own life without a bunch of American government thugs telling them how to live their life. They had enough problems with their own government, and the one in the US couldn't solve even its problems at home, yet alone anywhere else, and certainly not with unthinking armed sorts in military clothes, killing whoever didn't kowtow to Washington DC. The US government creates more problems every day without solving any of them, by design.

When I was in Vietnam, I was young and did not know how to effectively question my lying, unquestioning, ignorant superiors, and was too intellectually spineless to do so even though I was trained to believe my physical bravery while carrying a gun. What I was taught by the words of my superiors did not match any manifestations, and I did not yet know how to effectively ask questions about the glaring contradictions. Because I parroted to my subordinates what my superiors said to me, as they did of their superiors to their subordinates, to my subordinates I was the same aforementioned, lying, ignorant superior, by definition and admitted fact.

I was ignorant. But because I accepted a title that held a thinking-responsibility to resolve any damaging contradictions in my mind's decisions that affected subordinates, like all titles, I was also stupid, besides being a malicious dolt by military design, for not asking the questions to insure that I met the actual responsibilities for which I accepted the benefits of my title. That I caused inordinate grief for my superiors by asking more unsettling questions than they encountered from anyone else in the military, was of no merit or excuse, since I advanced the murderous military institution while I remained as its patsy, until I resigned.

The superiors are merely the young ignorant subordinates who do not resign, and instead become progressively more ignorant inside their institution which attacks anyone who asks effective questions, and thus they face no effective questions to learn of their contradictions to correct them.

None of the excuses used by the military sorts, myself included while I parroted the same excuses, prevail over the fundamental contradiction of using force, especially before overt force is used directly against oneself. The human is predicated on its mind, which contains no mechanism for one mind to force another mind, but does contain the mechanism to efficiently effect flawless reasoning and its resulting manifestations, regardless of human opposition. Can I force you to think like me? Will you think like me if I prove to your mind with its own questions that my thoughts offer you greater knowledge and benefits than yours? Your answers? Do you utilize your own answers?

The armed National Park rangers genuinely and sincerely believe they are right in seeking to fine and imprison the mountain climbers who only want to harmlessly live their own life without a bunch of embarrassing government chaps telling them how to live their life. To violate the illogical National Park Service mountain climbing regulations is punishable, and the Park rangers derive their salary by enforcing those illogical regulations designed for enforcement budget excuses.

The rangers are young and do not know how to effectively question their lying, ignorant superiors, and are too intellectually fearful to do so even though they are trained to believe their physical bravery while carrying a gun. What they are taught by the words of their superiors does not match any manifestations, and they do not yet know how to effectively ask questions about the glaring contradictions. Because the rangers parrot to their junior subordinates the lies their superiors feed them, as their superiors do of their superiors to their subordinates, to their subordinates they are the same aforementioned, lying, ignorant superiors.

The police genuinely and sincerely believe they are right in seeking to imprison the pot smokers, gun owners, etcetera, who only want to harmlessly live their own life without a bunch of government sorts telling them how to live their life. The police (of any age) are just intellectually young, ignorant and worse because they did not escape their ignorance because they were too spineless to ask their superiors effective questions of glaring contradictions (exposed ignorance).

All the institutions function on the same concept, including the Universities, with government simply being the most classic example. It is their functional definition. If they did not reward and advance ignorance, the institutions could not perpetuate themselves within a society of otherwise advancing knowledge, most effectively advanced by people outside of the institutions. Institutions must fool fools into believing that knowledge comes from institutions rather than individual thinking, or the institution leaders would not be able to benefit from their titles and institutional process. Institutions are comprised of foolish sorts who believe that their titles are more important to them than the value of their mind. A professor or PhD, craves the flattery of his title, or he would not accept the ludicrous thing. Because his mind fears questions, he cannot comprehend a society so advanced in knowledge that the title of professor or court judge would become archaic. Such a society could be manifested within a few years (or months), easily. And the title of police is as easily made obsolete.

Yes, it is just that humans as a species are yet remarkably ignorant, still living in the intellectual dark ages, more afraid of knowledge than death. Knowledge is derived by simply asking and answering questions, while institutional leaders flee questions then use contradicted statements to fool unquestioning followers. We still imprison and kill each other rather than use the most simple reasoning process that can promptly resolve every contradiction humans create. If we resolved contradictions, we could use the resulting knowledge to advance society, at great benefit to you, with the therefore more intelligent individuals whom we now instead imprison and kill.

You can laugh at the organization leaders, think tank members, university philosophy professors and other institutional sorts who agree with the above, but cannot learn how to manifest their words because the above is true.

Precisely why did the US government send the United States Army to intentionally kill women and children in their church at Waco, then not enforce the law against its murderers, then give them medals for bravery? How did the US Army create officers and soldiers who would do that in open and known violation of the law against armed military action against US citizens, and the law against murder, and who then asked no questions? How did the US Army create officers and soldiers who would remain in the Army after the US Army was therefore defined as lawless thugs who murder women and children in our own country? How does every government achieve the same results in their militaries and police comprised of fellow humans who cannot be so distinguished earlier in youth? How does society create such patently ignorant and malicious government leaders? The questions have definitive answers that can prevail against every question. No US government employee will ever publicly ask the questions to identify those answers which could be used to greatly advance society. Yet I and others can. Can you?

Inherently ignorant government chaps cannot yet even figure out that imprisoning and killing people compounds the problems. But the knowledge to promptly effect reasoning-based solutions, regardless of opponents, without use of force, is efficiently available today. Learn it. You will then laugh the laughter sought by all people. The design of the human mind contains a flawless counter balance to every concept, and it is all within the mind, the latter being the proverbial door for the use of the design for exponential advancement of the human phenomenon.

Simply question the displayed contradictions of your superiors until they fire you, or any manifestation of that nature. Question your government until they imprison you. I once enjoyed the latter honor for respectfully and harmlessly questioning National Park Service officials about their contradicted mountain climbing regulations. Question your own contradictions until you have destroyed your most cherished beliefs. In each case, that is where your questions will then start to become effective, and your knowledge will exponentially advance. Did you think you could achieve what others cannot achieve, without a cost? Can you get something of great value for less or nothing? The value of your mind is worth infinitely more than any job, physical freedom or cherished beliefs. If you cannot comprehend the value of your mind, or if you are afraid of losing your job, or being sent to jail, or surrendering cherished illusions that you prove to be false, at least laugh more robustly over your therefore perpetual ignorance and frustrations. If you laugh enough, you may learn the same knowledge from that path.


Who would you assign... 20 July 2001

If you sought the knowledge to achieve an inordinately difficult goal, or one you perceived to be easy but the test of time proved otherwise, and you received an indication that a person knew how to achieve it, that is, he knew something beyond your current knowledge, who would you assign, with what ability, to ascertain if that person knew said knowledge?

You may inquire.


The smartest person... 21 July 2001

How would you find the smartest person in the world?

Notice the great value for your interests if you were successful, and thus how quickly the effort goes awry. Must you not invest great effort to derive great value? Would you not have to set out to become the smartest person, and succeed, or you would not even be able to identify the bloke when you encountered him?

Would not the smartest person be such because he knew he was not smart, or he would have already stopped learning new knowledge and thus allowed a not so self-fooled chap to keep learning right on past the previously smartest person? How much more do you pour into your glass after it is full? What do you do after you lose incentive to keep doing what you are doing?

Perhaps you would look for the smartest person in Mensa, the international high IQ club, because it would be easy because they already identified the top two percent in the IQ game. But those chaps already know they are the smartest people in the world, by their own definition. And they authorize the tests to make sure they are the smartest, instead of those other people using any other test at which the Mensa folks don't look so smart. If you think they have not therefore cut themselves out of their prior effort to advance their smarts beyond what they held back then, by the aforementioned process, ask the Mensa folks to identify the controlling contradiction of their organization, and thereupon be amused watching people display their lack of smarts with an intriguing array of contradicting statements. Well, would not a smart person, especially among the self-verifiably smartest people in the world, be smart enough to figure out the controlling contradiction of his own institution, and then of his own mind?

The above identifies a sort of smartness that is not common to those smart medical doctors, nuclear physicists, financial gurus, and taxi drivers who know every street in the city. So what is it one means by the smartest person in the world?

Is the smartest physicist smarter than the smartest doctor, and how would one know if one isn't smarter than both of them? Hold that question in your mind. What concept is identified when we add a third discipline, and a fourth?

Who can know all those things to identify who knows the most of the greatest variety? One might therefore conclude that the quest is impossible. At the least, one must wade through the definitions of smart, intelligent, knowledgeable, thinking and a gaggle of such words, and still be left with the original problem in finding that chap.

But quite to the contrary, the goal is most achievable, with amusing ease. The various bags of knowledge need not all be learned. One need only be smart enough to know how to find an adequately smart person with that bag of knowledge, like finding the book in the library. Well, there is not enough time to learn everything oneself. No, we are not back to where we started. Now we need only find a single item. It leads us to the answer for the whole lot of them, since it is the same process. Simply learn how to identify the controlling contradiction of any one institution. It applies to all of them. The process is to simply ask the questions that reveal the controlling contradictions. The goal therein is to learn how to ask effective questions. The questions are not specific to any bag of knowledge, but how to ask them is specific to the single bag of knowledge describing how to ask effective questions, the controlling concept for the learning process of the human mind.

So the smartest person on the rock is the dude who can efficiently ask the most effective questions that identify the limit of the intelligence of anyone in any institution.

Is that chap therefore among the IQ test writers who write questions to identify the limits of someone's knowledge? Most certainly not. What is the controlling contradiction of the IQ tests? Watch what happens among the gaggle of IQ test writers when you introduce that question, which leads to its corollaries, all answerable, but not by the IQ test writers, or they would move beyond the amusingly flawed IQ tests.

What would occur if all the schools and other institutions using the IQ tests discovered a controlling flaw in the IQ tests, that flawed all their activities and institutions built upon IQ test scores? What would happen to Mensa?

The smartest person would have nothing to defend against the most effective questions, which is the only way he could continue learning to become smart. For any institution, such as IQ tests and Mensa, to exist more than a week, they must be defended against increasingly effective questions. Why would anyone defend a fabricated institution? Upon identification of a contradiction, either side may hold the resolution, by definition.

Is the smart guy the guy asking the questions, or answering them. Would that individual not have to be both? Yes. Can a person successfully do that? Yes. And you would concur with every answer, unless you therefore had a question. You need only learn how to ask effective questions.

Will you find that guy? No. The chap will hold no incentive to answer your questions, because that individual already asked and answered them, unless you can create some incentive attractive to his advanced knowledge.

But you may become as smart as that sort, by trying to find him, by asking questions, and then smarter by the same process.

Was that not the goal?



Every problem in society... 22 July 2001

If you did not prior learn how to create new knowledge in your mind by simply rearranging the parts of knowledge you already know, and looking at what you created, itself a new part to then rearrange to create yet more advanced knowledge, then this too will be of no value for your time.

Is this not simply the rearranging of parts of knowledge you already know? Is not each sentence herein that which you already know? Who made these arrangements, and what did he therefore learn by doing so, that you can verify with what you learn?

Every problem in society, and those are the problems created by humans, is simply the result of ignorance, the lack of knowledge. The source of the problem would not create the problem if he were knowledgeable of how to achieve his goals without creating problems. That is a certainty in his obvious complaints about problems he seeks to solve. Where is the origin of the problems?

Problems, that is, unresolved contradictions, inherently revisit their origin. The problem you create for yourself remains with you until you solve it. The problem you create for the other guy is his incentive to accord you the same honor, and vice versa, among individuals or groups of people. The problem that you created for the other guy, and did not solve, and thought you got away with, is therefore still a problem working its way through society, unless the other guy solved it for you, leaving you with the problem of your yet unpaid debt to him for solving the problem you created. If someone created a problem for you, that you had to solve at expense of your valuable time, who owes the debt for that time?

A problem is just a puzzle for the mind, for which the mind expends its time to solve. The mind's actual process is the asking and answering of questions, the cycling of data through prior established neural routing to find a disconnection, and thus make a new connection where it does not create any other disconnection or contradiction within the mind. What is your mind doing? What is the value of your time? Do you actually solve problems, or simply perpetuate them and pass them to others? What is the value of your mind to yourself and others?

If you meticulously follow every problem along its course of existence, you will find its the origin, and that will be the ignorance of the person who started the problem without solving it. You will also identify the ignorance of the people who encountered it without solving it. If anyone knows how to actually solve each problem they encounter, they do. The human mind is designed to identify and resolve contradictions. That is all it does. If it attempts to do so with inadequate data, the related contradiction is not resolved.

It is of course common to suggest that the other guy is ignorant of what he needs to know to solve a problem you perceive. If he is ignorant of that knowledge, you need only inform him of the knowledge, and the problem will be solved, for the same reason your mind would solve it. If he does not solve the problem upon your conveying to him the solution, it is because what you perceive as a problem is not what he perceives as a problem, or your solution was flawed, or your communication process failed. In the former, merely solve the problem yourself. If your solution is flawed, you failed to adequately question is, as indicated by it not being accepted in another mind. Ask more questions of your solution. If your communication failed, your communication process constitutes a problem, your ignorance of effective communication, an unresolved contradiction for which you need only learn the related knowledge. Do so. Then effectively convey the knowledge. The problem will be solved. Simple.

But you cannot solve a problem by creating another problem, and be left without a problem to solve. So do not create any new problem in solving a problem.

So what's the problem?

It does not matter how you answer that question, what arrangement of words you use, the resolution is found in the above.

What would you like? Honest government and world peace? Even that grand-sounding goal, to say nothing of the countless lesser goals, is too easy. The process is just knowledge, discovered the same way the mind discovers all knowledge, by meticulously asking and answering every question that humans can ask. The knowledge is available. If utilized, no human in any government can escape it. The potential reactions of other people are just the source of questions you already asked and answered, or you would not have learned the knowledge. The source of all human-caused problems is within the the human mind. Easily learn the design of the human mind, and no mind can escape a solution you predicate on the design.

But to learn knowledge of such value, is to learn knowledge of lesser value. Can an individual not effect the same goal by simply walking away from the problems of others, and not seek what causes those problems, and therefore enjoy the show these humans create with their social thrashing-about?

What were you owed for life, where and when, if not merely the grandest show on the rock, entertainment alone, humans, here and now, and who would mess-up such a brilliantly designed production? Of course to enjoy it, one need only understand it, to leave no contradiction to the enjoyment. That is just part of the knowledge. Learn that part, and simple curiosity will take you to the rest of the knowledge.


Why government personnel cannot understand this... 26 July 2001

If you are employed by government, do whatever you have to do to quit your job, tomorrow morning, if not today. And do whatever you have to do to prevent your children from working for government. Notice the reason, with which you agree, which government personnel cannot recognize:

When you were a child, you asked a lot of questions, and learned fast, even when you were given the wrong answers, which you further questioned until you discovered those answers were wrong. You were curious.

The following is a generalization, describing the norm, but with a gradient of exceptions. The exceptions are exceptions. If you were sufficiently knowledgeable to demonstrate that you were the exception, among all the people who claim they are the exception, you would not be among them. You would instead not be within the government or a similar institution.

After your rapid knowledge advancement years of youth, after graduating from school, if you go into the private enterprise sector, you must compete against the open market, where everyone is always asking new questions to improve everything they do every way they can, faced with the competition that is asking new questions to improve everything they do every way they can. They are competing for money that can be taken anywhere else for any reason at any time. If your company is not competing, your job is not secure. While you may get a job where you dare not ask any questions of what the boss is doing, in the private sector those companies are fewer and do not survive as long as the competition. So you are in a sector where asking questions is generally allowed or encouraged, by the sector's functional definition. It is also where your better idea can improve your condition if taken to the competition, if your current boss is not savvy enough to recognize your better idea. You can manage your own better idea, in your own new business, and become as big as that guy Gates did with his better ideas that the existing companies did not recognize. Your earlier curiosity process of youth when questions and answers advanced your knowledge, is continued under another system.

But in dramatic contrast, in government you are in a monopoly based on raw power, not just money. Money can corrupt. Power always corrupts. You get your money by forcefully taking it from the people, who can go to jail if they attempt to spend their tax money elsewhere. You dare not question the boss, are often not allowed to question the boss, and there is no competition to use your better idea. The government does not allow another government to compete with it in the realm. Your boss cannot use your better idea, because he got is job by following the ideas above him, not below him, and he must still follow them. The data-base upon which the institution is based, is a narrow and stagnant one from previous years, originating at the top, instead of a broad dynamic data-base from every new day among the actively competing society all over the world. The obvious example is the military, but most of the other agencies are functionally identical under cover of hollow rhetoric. You can be court martialled and jailed for questioning orders. You do not ask questions. You do as you are told. Your mind is therefore trained to not ask questions, and your mind will do what you train it to do. Every process in government profoundly discourages asking questions, by design. Even the most obviously illogical actions, carried out on command, even when you and your boss recognize the idiocy of them, is what you will do, because someone higher gave the order, and it is not your position to question anything, or you will be removed from your position. With no other government allowed to compete against your so called services in your home area, your services are inherently stagnated, and therefore your mind's utilization is stagnated. No rhetoric prevails over the manifestation so obviously recognized by the people under every government.

It is an advanced aside to watch the direction of every order handed down to those with positions of power above the people below them. Upon precise examination, every alternation of the original order down through the chain of command, accentuates the illogical aspects, with compounded illogicalities resultant from the qualifiable nature of institutional power, reducing the percentage of original logic in the project. The original contradiction cannot be corrected without disobeying the directive which therein would create another contradiction within a fundamentally flawed process, compounding the problems. The results are glaring, and are common daily conversation among the people out in the public who can openly question and thus identify the consistently illogical actions of government personnel. The general public does not have to fecklessly whisper. The general public can openly ask every conceivable question among their diverse spectrum crossing many institutional subcultures, and thus hear such questions, to thus learn new knowledge.

Therefore, the government employees, as a generality, stagnate their intellectual advancement, dead in its tracks, immediately upon employment. The process is so debilitating to the human mind, that those government sorts cannot comprehend these words, and sincerely believe that their back room complaints among only their peers, constitutes the questioning process. That would be bad enough. But its effects are doubled by the accentuated advancement in knowledge among the public which faces private market competition that actively encourages asking questions to learn more to beat the competition. Government personnel intellectually stand still while society rapidly advances. Government process has not changed since the first knuckle-draggers invented it with the power of the precursors to guns. Your suggestions to the contrary can be questioned to your embarrassment.

The phenomenon is identifiable and verifiable from every observation. The least but easiest of the overt observations is to simply get into conversations with senior career or retired government personnel, and with senior or retired private enterprise personnel. The dramatic comparison is with people who have not been allowed to actively utilize the questioning process, for decades, and those who have been allowed and encouraged to actively utilize the questioning process, for decades. The mind learns only from asking and answering questions, and overtly verifying the results. The government personnel are missing so much, they cannot even understand remarkably simple questions. To suggest something only one question away from what they know, to thus offer new knowledge available to them with even one question, is futile, because they do not know how to ask or answer questions. To suggest the countless otherwise obvious concepts so vastly advanced beyond the so stagnated government mentality, that two to hundreds of questions are necessary to learn the knowledge, illuminates why common-sense people often laugh themselves to tears while talking about government people.

Asking effective questions is the most valuable skill a human can learn, the only way the mind advances its knowledge base, and it requires a lot of practice to recognize the type questions that can lead oneself beyond what one currently knows. You must be constantly asking more effective questions, to learn the skill. To subtract even a few weeks of practice, noticeably sets you behind a peer not retarded in that regard. Talking to senior government chaps is like talking to the high school kid who went through school stoned on pot the entire time, hiding from questions. Listening to the news about the statements and actions of the more senior government sorts in high positions, is of the highest quality entertainment, observing the nadir of human intellectual manifestation. They actually believe what they say, despite the entire history of human society proving their statements and actions to be counter productive for their espoused goals, as the results surrounding you so dramatically illuminate.

The above described phenomenon is a basic truth, the verification of which is more remarkable with each aspect and detail questioned. If it could be recognized by government personnel, there would be no government personnel. They are so self deluded by their intellectual stagnation that they genuinely and sincerely believe they are more advanced than the common people. No logical person would trade-away the value of the adult years of their mind, for a salary, when the salary is elsewhere available with not just the absence of stagnation, but the active advancement of their knowledge.

Do whatever it takes to prevent your children from working in the government sector, lest they later recognize that you didn't.


How to inexpensively cause your child to rapidly become highly intelligent... 27 July 2001

Give your young child a full size notebook and pen. If she prefers a laptop, and you can afford one, that is fine, but a pen and paper will teach her more knowledge sooner, because the process of hand writing causes the mind to think more. Give her one assignment. Every day of her life, she must physically write at least two questions of her choice, and physically write the answers. She must give the questions and answers to you, or verify that she has given them to another adult, anyone outside her age group. Tell her that you may choose to not comment on various of her answers, but if you give her a written correction to an answer, her assignment is to write two questions of your answer, and answer them.

Don't worry about her writing inconsequential questions when she wants to. The questions are immaterial. The process of writing and answering questions on a routine basis, will inherently lead to more effective questions, and teach her to be comfortable with diverse questions. Don't worry about her writing questions that make you uneasy because they are outside your knowledge. You need not comment on them, and you may learn from them.

That your child will soon excel beyond her peers, is obvious.

Oh, tell her that she must keep the record of the questions and answers, and review them on occasion, to identify the resulting questions, to therefore exponentially advance her knowledge.

Of course if you do this, your child will not be eligible for government jobs, which of course are dependent upon people who do not ask questions. And you will appreciate that. Your child will have become too intelligent for government, and thus more valuable for more satisfying and advancing private sector jobs.


Advancing your intelligence... 10 August 2001

In regard to the above, would you ask your children to do what you would not do?


A win-win situation... 12 August 2001

Pity the politicians and others of their ilk who have used the popular buzz phrase, A win-win situation. Not only do they sincerely believe themselves, but they sincerely think their listeners believe that rhetorical illusion.

It is remarkably easy to train your mind to believe what does not exist, leaving your resulting ignorance displayed at the test of time or events. Therein one need only believe what they hear or read, especially from credentialed persons.

In contrast, it requires effort to train your mind to identify what actually is. One must formulate and ask questions, often many for any item of truth. The process in your mind is to test the data against every prior recognized truth, to identify the truth or flaw of the new data, and the truth or flaw of previous data. Unless you physically ask the questions, your mind will not do any related analysis, leaving your hasty assumptions that which contributes to and identifies your ignorance. Your mind is not advancing its knowledge just because it exists. You must work your mind. The difference between a false perception and truth is identified by asking questions.

How easy is it to merely ask questions? Go ahead, write the series of questions to prove a concept to the extent that another mind will have no further questions. Would you do any less before suggesting a conclusion for others to thus identify your ability to think?

Until you prove to your mind, by asking and answering every related question, that the balance is perfect in all concepts in the universe, or we, it and they could not exist, you will be confused and err with half of the phenomena you encounter. It is one of the controlling concepts. Without that data, you cannot find the otherwise available answers to many questions.

The amusing chaps who suggest the existence of win-win situations, in defiance of the balance, offer an excellent learning vehicle. Simply ask the questions that identify the inherent lose-lose part of the result, the questions that the win-win chap did not ask, the questions of the source of the cost-cost for the win-win.

That one is twice as easy and twice as obvious as other learning vehicles, for obvious reason, illuminating the dearth of questioning and thus dearth of knowledge among the amusing win-win chaps.


A shorter path to wisdom... 13 August 2001

Among those people of whom you know, by name, including yourself, who will, and who will not stand before the public and state: Do not believe anything you hear or read, no matter who tells you, even if I tell you, unless it conforms to your own common sense and reasoning?

Write the names and titles of those who will, and who will not publicly make that statement. You may ask them if they will so make that statement, and write their response or lack of response. Ask a variety of public officials if they will so make that statement in public, and verify it on record if they do. Ask yourself, and verify your answer.

Would not the person who publicly makes such a statement negate all of his credentials and titles, leaving him with only his ability to advance the reasoning of himself and others through every question that might be asked of his reasoning? Would he not therefore advance his knowledge beyond all those hollow titles that anyone can collect with amusing ease?

Would he not therefore induce the mechanism to efficiently advance his wisdom? Well?

Would you believe the accurate reasoning of a bum on the street, or an unsupported conclusion of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

My name is Doug Buchanan. Do not believe anything you hear or read, no matter who tells you, even if I tell you, unless it conforms to your own common sense and reasoning.

Question everything I say. If you find a contradiction in my words, and we can verify the contradiction, the resolution will be easy, and I will thank you for advancing my knowledge. The resolution will conform to logic, identified by the questions of the contradiction.

How short was the path to that wisdom, in those particular words? It was only a few months ago that I stumbled onto those words, a quote from another chap. Buddha.

Do not react to Buddha. React to the wisdom. It does not matter who said the words. They stand on their own merit regardless of their source, as is the nature of actual wisdom. It is said that Buddha is knowledge, not God. Would your God or your reasoning not want you to advance your knowledge? Utilize your answer to that question.

If Abraham Lincoln made a profound statement, would you remember the substance of the statement, or Abraham Lincoln? From where did he derive the substance of the statement, and did he utilize it? Did you utilize it, or merely praise Abe? Because you will hear no concepts that are original to he who expressed them, you may use any quote to identify your own understanding of the concept, if you demonstrate that understanding. The person you quoted made the statement to advance his and your useful knowledge, not receive praise, if the quote holds any merit, and he learned that merit from someone before him.

Expressly tell your friends, colleagues and others, in writing that others may remind you of, to not believe you until what you say conforms to their own common sense and reasoning. Unless you write that, with your name, and distribute it beyond your control, you will not induce your mind to advance your knowledge into wisdom, thus not learn how to advance your common sense and reasoning to unflawed conclusions.

Notice a corollary to that concept: My name is Doug Buchanan. Give me power and I will be corrupt.

Is there any power that does not corrupt, that is, alter the perceptions of the mind holding power? Utilize your answer. Would you support any person in a position of power who did not publicly state that controlling concept, a flawless truth? Would you support yourself if you would not make that statement? Would you expect anyone else to support persons who could not state a public truth about themselves? If they did support such people, would they not be foolish? How many foolish sorts would be required to out-reason an individual wise person? Would you support an individual wise person, or a foolish chap with millions of foolish sorts supporting him? Who will advance the knowledge and thus benefits to your children and other people, a wise person or a foolish chap with millions of foolish sorts supporting him? What answer would you provide to the people, for their recognition of your thinking ability?

The path to wisdom holds no flaw, or wisdom would not be reached. Simply remove the identifiable flaws in your own mind. Methodically identify them with questions, and eliminate them with the utilization of your answers. If you do that, you will recognize how to resolve every contradiction you encounter, regardless of the opposition which merely identifies its contradictions, if you retain any incentive to do so, and the latter is your choice.

No power, even the greatest power you can imagine, can prevail over wisdom, or knowledge, as wisdom defines and verifies. And you need no power or titles to learn wisdom. In fact, you cannot learn wisdom if you hold power or titles, as you may discover with enough questions, including those of power and titles.

If you believed any of the above before your mind asked the questions to verify it in your mind, it will be of no value to you.


Devising your questions... 14 August 2001

At this web site the reader may notice an occasional reference to asking questions. The questions are everything. Without understanding the concept of questions itself, it is an absolute that you will not achieve your more difficult or complex goals related to human-caused contradictions.

You can easily achieve all the self-deluding titles and credentials that all the self-deluded institutions can offer, and become a PhD of PhD's Emeritus, a congressman, president, governor, judge, news anchorman, international policy advisor, military general, CEO and wealthy elite. But they are nothing, nay, less than nothing because the acquisition of the titles detracted from their mind's time to question the titles and their institutions, and questions are everything. Questions are your mind's engine, transmission, wheels, key and those other parts. Without those questions, you can end up as ignorant as the United States President and United States Supreme Court Justices presiding over the nation that incarcerates, thus renders unproductive at great cost, more of its population than any other nation, proving the failure of the institutional leaders, spending more money on building prisons than building schools, while the social problems are therefore increasing. And building schools also solves no social problems. You can end up as president of the most prestigious Universities producing the aforementioned chaps and their embarrassing advisors, again proving your failure. Did you want to be so monumentally ignorant, or did you want to learn how to easily solve all the problems the aforementioned chaps are so obviously incapable of solving? What is your answer? Use it.

A reader, frustrated at reading so many words while not finding the questions and answers that solve the problem of his interest, might suggest that this site offers nothing more than the words of the aforementioned chaps. Look closer. Such a reader did not answer the questions herein, and did not notice that the aforementioned chaps do not ask questions. Stop reading the words at this site, after this sentence, and start asking the questions that convey to your mind that what this site says is readily available to your mind if you ask questions, but which questions?

How would you identify which questions you must ask? How many questions, by approximate number, need you ask to arrive at an answer for which there is no question not already answered, to thus identify an absolute which would therefore flawlessly support another part of the puzzle? Did you answer every question presented at this website and each question your mind formulated in the process? Did you write those questions and answers, and number them so your mind more readily remembers that you understand the related concept after referring back to it the third time when you asked the same question by other words a few dozen questions later? Which questions asked in this section, did you answer in the earlier sections?

Why did you not find the questions you needed, on the first try, or fiftieth try? Might the definitive answer be in the next paragraph?

What questions of what nature were you subtly or overtly discouraged from asking your parents, your school teachers, your friends, your government officials, your boss, their friends and colleagues? Click on a blank text page, and write that controlling question, right now. No, we are not interested in the personal stuff. If you were required by the most influential person in the world, yourself, to accurately describe the nature of those questions for each separately referenced category, what words would you write? If you read past this paragraph without writing those descriptions, regardless of their being correct or wild guesses, you just as well surf to another website. Your mind can utilize only what it verifies, by process, by design. If you fail that process for a particular goal, you will have no new knowledge of utility for that goal.

Now, how do those descriptions relate to each other? What are their commonalities? If you described to a person otherwise ignorant of automobiles and such phenomena, what a car was, and how its described parts made it function, but you never thought to describe the concept of bolts, might you not have demonstrated to him that you are an idiot with a loose pile of parts that cannot do what you say they do? What controlling item of knowledge did every institution in your learning process, fail to teach you? Write that question on hard paper, with a pen, red ink. What are you attempting to manifest with thoroughly believed process that cannot possible succeed because you have not bolted the parts together, for ignorance of the proverbial bolts? What question must you ask to learn about those bolts from a person who did not think to mention that part which he assumed you knew? If the word, institution, such as the institution of parents, exists, would it not have a set of characteristics that create it, and which among them create a controlling contradiction in the human mind? To suggest that there is no contradiction, is to negate the rational for the institution's existence in your mind. Why is the institution identified as such, beyond the individual minds which constitute the institution, and what is the cost of their utilizing or referencing that institution instead of only their individual minds? You must identify and verify that contradiction in your mind, or you will fail your institutional espousals.

What did you train your mind to do, when, as a school child, you did not ask your parents or teachers certain categories of questions about parents and teachers, for reason so subtle at the time that you therefore assumed that such questions were not proper, or for more overt reasons? Notice the precise nature of that question, and notice that you did not write the answer because it illuminates your mind's current, gross embarrassment. You failed to ask categories of questions upon which every subsequent concept was dependent and thus obscurely flawed for absence of foundational answers. Your school teachers were once children and students, who did the same thing, and failed to question it. Therefore you were taught by people who were completely ignorant of the controlling concepts that left you as ignorant as they, after all that time you wasted by going to school instead of using the same time to ask fundamental questions extending to unflawed, advanced knowledge. What academic questions, if asked a grade school, high school or university teacher, would overtly embarrass the teacher with the obvious answer that the teacher knew little if any more than the student? How many such questions reveal the extent of the teacher's ignorance, especially within the controlling concepts of the human mind's process? When so questioned, how would the teacher react in real life? What is identical in the process of the child's, adult's, student's and teacher's mind?

What school, court, government or other institution could survive as an institution if the people outside the institutions discovered that the titled institution leaders were first, 100% as ignorant as the common people in relation to the controlling concepts of the institution, and second, created all the human-caused contradictions surrounding you because said leaders imposed or facilitated social actions based on ignorance assumed to be knowledge under the institutional ruse of titles? What questions could extract their children from the plight of intellectual and social stagnation which is saturated with the damaging problems you recognize and was created by their institutionally titled parents, to thus with those questions produce a quantum advancement of the human phenomenon? Pity the children of institutional parents reinforcing institutionally taught contradictions.

What general concept questions did you not ask your parents, that would have unequivocally proven to your young mind or anyone else, that adults are little if any more intelligent than children, for a reason so subtle way back then, that you forgot the reason, but your thus-trained mind learned to not ask a type of question of any institutional person. Parents constitute the institution of parents, or the word, parents, would not exist.

Did you think that the human phenomenon could manifest contradictions (problems) without there being manifestable solutions? How were the problems defined if not in relation to the solutions? Is it not merely knowledge, and nothing else, that demarcates the solutions from the problems? If the problem involved institutions, such as the institution of society, would it not be an institutional contradiction that created the problem, separate from individuals, or it would be an individual problem? Precisely what contradiction is therefore inherent to institutions, as institutions, and therefore which new knowledge could inherently resolve that particular contradiction, by definition? Read that question again, and then recognize the source of the contradictions and evasions of solutions, the institution leaders who for a learnable reason cannot recognize their institutional contradiction, the proverbial ignorance of the aforementioned automobile bolts. And because those leaders are humans, derived from the general population pool, despite their childish ego, might there be a learnable, fundamental contradiction, which if learned, resolves arrays of contradictions yet frustrating these humans? Would it not be simply a learnable design feature of the human mind? It is.

Now therefore, to whom would you turn if you wished to learn the controlling concepts of humans, that you and every institutional person trained your minds to never question, and thus never learned, right from the get-go? What did the phrase, controlling concepts of humans, mean in your mind? What prevents your discovery of the process that will achieve your complex goals? When you write, do you write in questions that thus cause your mind to think, thus advancing your knowledge into complex analyses, such as what you are reading, or do you write in statements, which cause your mind to conclude that it has answered the related question and need no longer think? Or worse, do you read the written words of others to find knowledge so loaded with entirely too many of their words unrelated to each of your precise questions that you forgot your valuable questions during the distraction of the writer answering questions devised by his mind for his knowledge unrelated to what you need? Did you think that writer could recognize your questions without your asking them? Was the writer inherently not answering his mind's questions? If your mind wanted to learn what he learned, would you not have to physically adopt his questions, by writing or stating them for your mind's processing, and then answering them, to thus learn only what he learned rather than what you want to learn?

The answer to the first question of the above paragraph, is first, yourself. But because you are therefore asking to learn the controlling concepts of humans, with the full meaning of that phrase, which you intensely trained your mind to evade from day one, you can learn the most valuable knowledge known to humans (the zenith of human knowledge), from square one, the start, absolute ignorance, the hard drive without an operating system, zip, nada, nothing, only by the most intensive and extensive questioning process your mind can barely if at all recognize at the moment. Writing your questions and answers is the least of your efforts, and imperative. If you think I overstated your current ignorance, write the most embarrassing questions that prove to children and adults that adults are little if any more intelligent than children, which can survive against every question of other adults and children. First you are a human, with the human brain design, and only then are you what you think is an adult or child, or any other institutional category.

And the answer to the first question of that same paragraph, is second, a person who already did the above, who learned the controlling questions and verifiable answers from among the rather inordinate maze of inordinately diverse questions retracing the human mind's learning process starting from the get-go, without any institutional impediment, and who is willing to assist you, to thus, first render your process more efficient, and second, because of the nature of the controlling concepts of the human phenomenon, so efficient that no other concept can convey anywhere near that volume of knowledge in so little time. And if you think this is just philosophy, you did not answer the questions and are as useless for your goal as are the philosophy institution sorts.

But it is imperative that the process follow your mind's questions, by design, with your mind learning how to ask effective questions, or you will end up again going through an entire learning/schooling process of 16 to 28 years being told what is, and left with the questions for which your lack of manifestable answers is obvious. Did you need to learn what everyone else tells you that you must learn to know what they are so obviously failing at, or did you need to learn what YOUR mind seeks, to manifest its defined goals? Did you need the answers to your questions, or the answers to the other guy's questions? Or both? How will you find them? Concurrently, it is imperative that you create the incentive to learn those many years of knowledge, regardless of it requiring only a few days if you learn from someone who already learned it. To learn the controlling concepts, all other knowledge promptly falls into its thus adjusted place, becoming inordinately useful without contradictions.

The balance is perfect in all things. By analogy, with current technology, how much fuel of what weight does it require to propel that weight to the moon, or a spin around the galaxy in a red convertible? How much thinking, in time or intensity, thus expenditure of energy, is required to achieve a quantum reduction in the energy to transport what to the moon? Is not thinking, merely the asking and answering of questions? Did you want more fuel if the test of time proves that you cannot achieve enough for that spin around the galaxy, or did you want the knowledge to not need that much fuel to achieve the same goal? Was it not new knowledge that got humans into the air, and then more new knowledge of a more advanced nature that got them to the moon? Was not the knowledge always available, as Leonardo De Vinci belatedly demonstrated for those who needed a picture, so many generations before others understood the simple pictures? Did you think no more new knowledge existed, readily available today if you simply looked for the knowledge the way knowledge is found? What divides the knowledge we know today, from the knowledge we will know in ten years? If it is only time, would we know it if we asked no questions in those ten years? Would we not know it if we asked the same questions in one month?

And when will you start, while all the institution leaders, having so trained their mind, instead defend their institution from the questions that prove their institution's embarrassing, controlling contradictions, that would otherwise lead them to the knowledge their institution could utilize to promptly achieve their institutional goals?

Start. They will not, by definition of their institution's existence. And they will live out their lives blaming everyone else, and frustrated, for what was in fact only their own ignorance of bolts.


Alteration of perceptions... 15 August 2001

To learn new knowledge, that is, to synthesize data not prior synthesized, alters one's perceptions, that is, changes them from their previous status. For a species predicated on a mind designed to synthesize data, this seems to be a useful and beneficial process.

Consider an example: If you learned how to use a computer program to create your own web page, for the first time, your prior perceptions of your computer would be altered. You would no longer view your computer and web pages with your previous confusion, frustration, anger and desire to retire your computer with a 12 gauge shotgun at least once a day. That is unless you therefore encountered different and yet more reasons to do so. But the alteration of perceptions came with useful new knowledge.

Now notice another concept altering perceptions. To acquire an institutional title also alters one's perceptions, verifiable in concept and practice. The organization Directors and State Legislators genuinely believe that they can make decisions for other adults, that other adults concur with that ability, and that those decisions are binding. Prior to acquiring such a title, that perception would not be accurate. The title and the degree of such a perception of power over others is immaterial. Any title with a micron of perceived power or ability attached to the title, alters an array of data analysis in the mind. The verification is consistent.

But the title is separate from knowledge. Any new knowledge synthesized to acquire a title, if necessary for the title, does not need the title. They are two separate concepts, capable of standing alone on their own merits, or the word, knowledge, would be a synonym of, title. While the alteration of perceptions created by new knowledge is obviously useful, the alteration of perceptions by acquisition of a title has no useful or beneficial result for a human mind. Minds utilize knowledge, not titles, to synthesize new knowledge and achieve knowledge-based goals.

As in previous discussion of titles and certificates which alter your perceptions, both as a title holder and a person foolishly impressed by titles, the object herein is first learn what you can about the concept, to an extent that no question remains in your mind, which of course requires that you ask and answer all the questions the author cannot possibly identify in this format. And then a practical solution will be suggested for those who do not identify the solution from their own questions.

Consider an example: Two political candidates compete for election to the US Senate. Everyone except a foolish sort recognizes and can verify that a popularity contest, especially in the political arena, identifies popularity, not any measure of knowledge. In the example, one of the two candidates becomes an Honorable US Senator, and the other, because of a few less votes unrelated to knowledge, remains as whatever he was when he entered the popularity contest. The winner won a material benefit and ego gratification, at cost of an alteration of his perceptions that no wise person would ever accept, leaving the citizenry represented by an unwise person whose perceptions are not those of a common person with knowledge, as is their choice.

As an instructive aside, the election loser is thereupon usually not an honorable person if the new title of the new Honorable Senator is not therefore proven to be a ruse. Since the honor of the loser did not change just because he lost a popularity contest by a few votes, nor honor created by winning a popularity contest, the Honorable part of the title of the new Honorable Senator is proven to be a ruse, creating a flaw in the altered perceptions of the Honorable Senator who accepts that reference to him without having prior acquired it from some verifiable proof of personal honor above the common person. If you are not commonly referred to as the Honorable your name, why is the Senator so referenced? Precisely and verifiably why? If you use words outside their meanings, you train your mind to alter its perceptions outside those of people who logically use words for their meanings. It is obvious and verifiable that the Senator's perceptions are altered by his newly acquired title, quite like the publicly despised, political hack lawyers who are appointed to judge jobs by a politician or political process, suddenly acquiring a purportedly respected title without any new knowledge. The spectrum of intelligence, honesty, knowledge and many other concepts, represented by the people holding titles of congressmen and judges, renders the titles as amusement among intelligent people, for anyone's decision based on the titles. Those titled chaps are genuinely and sincerely fooled by their titles. Watch them. Ask them questions. Compare their actions and words with commonly logical humans.

The title of PhD (Doctor of Philosophy in any discipline) is so distant from any relationship to new knowledge that it has become an open joke among doctoral candidates and those successful. The process has been reduced to the equivalent of colleges selling expensive cracker jacks boxes (programs) with enclosed PhD prizes, to maintain and increase the financial income of the colleges, despite their outrage at such words. The PhD standards and contradictions vary so greatly over time and between schools, disciplines, subjects and candidate committees, that an attempt to defend the concept of PhD titles or certificates collapses with a scant few questions that grade school students can ask to promptly destroy the illusionary knowledge of highly titled University officials.

Consider also that a University PhD title is available to anyone with access to a copy machine. And only a few gimmicks can create such titles that routinely fool even universities, and can sustain themselves against several common processes of verification. If you walk into someone's office which has some framed certificates on the wall, their legitimacy is rarely if ever verified, and they will have achieved their effect, especially among titled people who are more fooled by titles than non-titled people. If a phony certificate fools a person, as is routinely the case, it has defined the merit and value of certificates separate from the merit and value of related or unrelated knowledge. You may easily verify that a person successfully using a phoney title or certificate, starts acting as though it were genuine, because his perceptions were altered in the same way as the holder of a genuine title, each using their title above their knowledge, as proven by their accepting or using a title instead of the knowledge alone without a title.

The piece of paper itself, a PhD certificate with nothing but the ink, and often just a rhetorical reference to the title, have repeatedly proven to achieve the same institutional effect as an otherwise four year effort of intellectual activity. The same is demonstrated with the concept of paper money, backed with nothing but ink and governmental lies, currently fooling every society of humans in the world, except those few persons among them who can accurately describe the consistently fatal flaw of paper money. So what is the nature of the human mind, and are you a human using paper money, reacting to those other certificates acquired from university professors with their certificates, who cannot successfully answer the most basic, effective questions requiring simple knowledge?

Notice the institutions and processes, with the expenditure of human-hours they represent, created around the concept of verifying the legitimacy of certificates and institutional titles. By analogy, the more expert knowledge of how to lay bricks was lost to the huge consumption of time spent to devise, enforce and verify the journeyman brick layer's certificate which holds more financial value than the brick layer's knowledge, within a system having evolved into the dependency on the certificate rather than the knowledge. The titled supervisors who derive their jobs from their titles, know little about laying bricks, and thus cannot ascertain quality brick laying knowledge, and are dependent upon the certificates which ascertain only the quality of the copy machine used by the guy variously influenced to approve the certificate for inherently less time spent learning how to lay bricks, covered with the illusion of the grantor's title and certificate acquired the same way. To apply yet more human-hours to rhetorically prevent what is obviously the case, detracts from the resources available to teach brick laying skills, compounding the case. At its extreme in any skill, especially those related to public services, you have the American society.

While the results of laying bricks are easily observed and judged, to make belated corrections if necessary, the results of political and social management expertise are more easily covered with rhetorical illusions, and can be obscured for hundreds of years, stagnating the human phenomenon as long, as the currently comical human phenomenon, awash with highly titled and credentialed chaps, so poetically proves. We are yet mired in the intellectual dark ages, with highly titled sorts leading every institution that is so obviously failing.

If there were no certificates and titles, a person's knowledge would be judged on asking and answering questions, and observing performance, thus creating incentive and process to advance the knowledge of the judge and judged, and thus advance the human phenomenon. In contrast, the titles and certificates, inherently flawed by the title-based or otherwise knowledge-unrelated process to acquire them, create incentive to not ask and answer questions, or carefully observe performance, thus stagnating the knowledge of individuals and the human phenomenon. The accumulated results are that of which everyone complains and blames on everything but the source. Society turns to titled experts to solve the problems that are created by the titles of experts, much to the amusement of observers.

If you wish to gauge the effect of titles on the human mind, count the number of times college graduate students say they are learning about this or that subject, compared to the times they say they are going for their Masters or PhD. If universities announced that they would teach the same classes and verify that any graduate completed any course, and the grade, but not offer Degrees, the students would abandon the universities, and simply work in the field that would better teach them the knowledge, and be paid. Titles and certificates, separate from knowledge, are more addicting than heroin, because they create power rather than knowledge, and power is the most addicting concept of the human mind.

Given a choice, did you want the titles, certificates and paper money, or did your mind want the knowledge that resolves every contradiction against every question? Calculate the costs with great care and many questions, then use your answer. The former represents ignorant people, and the latter represents the person you will seek for any related endeavor if you made the only choice that allows your mind the ability to recognize the difference.

Knowledge is useful regardless of any rhetorically related titles which may or may not exist, and are or are not utilized. One can be fooled by their own titles or another person's titles, while knowledge cannot fool a human mind. Knowledge is only what it is, and all of what it is, while right at the get-go titles start out by being partially or completely hollow, or they would not been needed or utilized, then compound their contradiction.

Upon question, the contradiction of titles is promptly recognized as creating a counter productive result for the design of the human mind, and is in fact the necessary counter balance to the synthesis of new knowledge. Did you want the title, or the knowledge? Which will serve and sustain you against critical questions? With the knowledge along, what do you lack for the questioned use of the knowledge? Would a titled person be able to accurately answer that question in face of a person with the knowledge? With the title alone, what do you lack for the questioned use of the title? If you wish to achieve a related goal requiring an intelligent colleague, would you chose a colleague who will accept the implication of your title, or only your knowledge? And if you wish to achieve a related goal requiring an intelligent colleague, would you chose a colleague with a related title or the related knowledge? Is there a difference between a title and knowledge? Which do you need for a sustainable goal? If there is a balance in all things, did you want to be on the verifiable knowledge side of the balance, of the title-fooled side of the balance? Use your answers.

Now look at all the titled people who are failing the espoused goals of their titled positions. Ask enough questions and you will discover that 100% of titled institution leaders are failing the openly espoused goals of their titled positions, and successfully serving only verified goals that the title holders do not state in public, and admit only upon effective questioning. Can you achieve a sustainable goal with a contradiction left in place?

What inherently single item of new knowledge must you learn to extend your knowledge beyond the current limit achieved by everyone else in the world? How much time will it require to learn? Is time a limiting consideration for a human? How much time did your competition consume to instead achieve, admire and defend their titles? Why do you think all those government agencies put in charge of disciplines represented in the private sector are always claiming credit for what the private sector already discovered, therefore at complete waste of tax money? The government sector only creates titles, altering the perceptions of the holders, not knowledge, and the titles waste more time of the holders, in addition to any related private sector titles.

Your titled competition for knowledge does not even understand the concept of titles, or they would laugh robustly and promptly discard their extensively counter productive titles. What is the indisputable merit in a title, if not only the skill of the linguist inventing the words of the title, and what is the indisputable merit in a credential, if not only the skill of the printer? Beyond that, any purported knowledge is not attached to the therefore useless title or credential easily fooling fools who are too ignorant to verify any real knowledge or they would not use or reference any title.

Your ability and willingness to ask the questions that publicly destroy any merit in any person's institutionally applied title, is the starting point and minimal imperative to verify any knowledge they may hold, and places you already beyond their ability to advance their knowledge. Notice how many parents teach their therefore intellectually stagnated children to respect titles and credentials, rather than teach their children to ruthlessly questioning titles to discover their controlling contradiction. Said respect leaves those children easily fooled by an impressively titled void of knowledge, and notice the nature of your society. Notice the intensity and time which titled persons use to defend their titles and the institutions which granted the titles, denigrate or ignore anyone who questions those titles, discount the knowledge of anyone not holding institutional titles, and flee any effective questions related to the knowledge purportedly represented by those titles. Is there a more perfect formula for making oneself progressively more ignorant?

While your perceptions are advanced and thus altered by advancing your knowledge with new knowledge, the perceptions of titled persons are altered by their titles, and then stagnated at the fixed position of those titles they defend above questions that would advance the knowledge of others beyond such silly rhetorical devices. The PhD who acquired his PhD with a thesis on mechanical adding machines, received high material benefit from holding his title and certificate, thus inherently lost the competitive incentive to effectively advance his skills, and is still receiving high material benefits from his old PhD certificate, while the untitled nerd in China, who learned his computer skills from his friends easily hacking the White House central computer managed by highly titled computer experts, must prove his skill to get even a bottom end job, and must always prove his thus competitively advancing skills by their merits void of title. Which would you hire if you needed someone with the knowledge to more efficiently add large numbers? Which would you choose to be if you wished to advance your knowledge beyond something so ancient and useless to the human mind as material benefit? Utilize your choice.

Which public and private institutions of highly titled leaders are failing the meaning of the words of their public espousals, with how much ongoing public support, if not 100% of them, proving the intellectual stagnation of said public?

In a society as amusing as ours, having evolved into one so openly placing titles and certificates, like the King's Seal in previous days, above knowledge, there is little one can do without some ludicrous titled person insisting that you receive a title or certificate for what you do, to fabricate the illusion of validity for their own titles in that arena. You can even get tax funded college credit for mountain climbing these days, of all things. And don't you dare stop paying your obscurely channeled taxes for college students frolicking in the mountains to get their credits for their BA, BS, MA, MS, PhD and EtC. Imagine the poor victim of institutionally credited mountain climbing who therefore cannot access the inordinately valuable lessons of the mountains while among them, and oblivious to the substance of this sentence. So if you are among the one in a million who recognizes the categorically damaging alteration of perceptions created by titles and certificates, and if you value the utility of your mind above an ego-certificate which inescapably damages that utility, in a society where avoiding titles is as hard as avoiding air pollution, what do you practically do? Answer the question, and use your answer.

Seek and acquire the knowledge, but perhaps politely refuse the titles. Accept only those titles which are heavily chained to the practical use of the knowledge, but then never display use of the titles. More than that, subsequently ridicule the titles, either brashly or with rhetorical artistry that gets the message across to commonly intelligent people while fellow titled chaps are thus confused. It is the chairman's prerogative to be referenced as the servant. Use the prerogative, in real life. By the office holder constantly reminding the institution followers or victims, and colleagues, that he is only a servant, he more usefully trains his own mind that his only value to his followers and the world is his knowledge alone. But one cannot use that device as is done by the common sorts in institution offices who insincerely pander the device on rare occasion to select audiences while elsewhere using the title instead of knowledge. You train your mind by what you do and say. If you create and sustain a contradiction, you train your mind to sustain your ignorance. The back side of an original signed certificate makes great stationary for a personal letter of idle matters, that will therefore really impress the receiver who is impressed with certificates. If, to acquire the knowledge of the practice associated with a demand that you use the title, you must therefore use the title, write on a piece of paper the date, no more than four years thence, you will surrender the title, either with ridicule or regrets that other commitments require your time, and move on to advanced knowledge which is otherwise inherently stagnated by the use of a title. If you fail the change on that date, you will have lost the understanding of anything in this website anyway, and will become nothing more than amusement for commonly intelligent observers. You will have traded the astonishing value of your mind for whatever worthless material or ego benefit your title derived, while other humans are advancing their minds to and beyond the knowledge you yet crave.

After verification of the concept, use every rational mechanism to consistently train your mind, that titles, certificates and their related positions of office or employment are a functioning detriment to your mind's perceptions, and that they are categorically separate from the useful knowledge otherwise associated with them. That significant effort is imperative if you wish to advance your knowledge in a title-based society, and the cost of getting too close to titles and certificates.

To test your current or achievable knowledge with a related aside: How can a licensed lawyer openly surrender his license (or have never acquired a lawyer's license or title) and then openly, easily and lawfully practice law in court and in public, for pay, utilizing knowledge of the law, by himself without an intermediary, and be vastly more effective and valuable for a client than any lawyer operating under his or her licensed title? The verifiable answer enrages lawyers who therefore recognize they were made fools of and functionally defrauded by their law school, and angers clients who therefore recognize they were functionally defrauded by their lawyer. The related knowledge is worth more than a Harvard Law School certificate of graduation and a lawyer's license. It can be learned in less than a week, with the knowledge of how to ask questions which no school institution instructor will ever teach, for fear of the questions. Lawyers are one of the more classic learning vehicles, thoroughly fooled by their inherently hollow title, among every society's greatest ignoramuses. They are more amusing and less perceptive than military generals and career politicians who so consistently display abject ignorance with their statements and actions.

The value of your mind can only be achieved by hard mental work, simply asking and answering advancing questions. Is that not so? Your answer? What is the value of a mind, for a human, and what is the value of a title or certificate with the King's impressive Seal? Use your answer. There are millions of paths to the proverbial titled couch in front of the institutional VCR. Avoiding each one requires significant questioning, in your race against time. But to understand precisely why all those countless institution leaders spend their entire life pursuing otherwise promptly attainable goals they can never hope to achieve because of what fooled them into thinking they could achieve them with their titles, and to thus be able to easily do what they cannot, is of value beyond your current recognition. You would laugh the laughter sought by all people.


It is not this or that... 20 August 2001

It is not this or that.

It is this AND that.

Notice that leaders of different organizations, including those who are allies and those who are enemies, state that the solution to a particular problem is this or that, and they are adamant about it.

The contradictions in what they say are obvious. Who believes which solution, is immaterial. The goal is to identify what the flawlessly definitive solution is, regardless of who believes what, and then how to achieve it, regardless of who wants or does not want the solution. You may then do what you wish with that knowledge. You may be assured that the knowledge is worth vastly more than the solution to any manifest problem.

Notice that institution leaders are otherwise successful people in society, plus they have attracted the support of institutional followers.

So why is not the correct solution among the expressed options, evident or otherwise verifiable? The leaders are each in error, all of them, always. The solution is in a combination of parts of what they each say, not any one of their described solutions, and not the parts they would guess. The slightest flaw in any expressed solution defines it as not a solution.

As with countless simple scientific demonstrations, to the person who has not yet learned the science, the mixing of a quart of water with a quart of sugar results in the magic of no more than a quart of fluid. It is not magic. What occurs is just knowledge. The knowledge is worth more than the cost of buying too many containers for your sugar water.

Consider a couple classic opponents. The liberal peace and love advocate says that the answer is for everyone to love each other. He cannot usefully define love and he cannot identify how he can convince everyone of what the liberals have been saying since liberals were invented a few thousand years ago. His solution is a rhetorical illusion. The conservative suggests that the answer is to possess enough bombs. He cannot define what enough is even after he has more bombs than he can transport to his enemy to drop on them, to say nothing of their cost while the enemy is either countering him bomb for bomb, or more wisely spending money to create friends rather than enemies fearing bombs. The conservative's solution is a rhetorical illusion.

It has been a few thousand years, and the continued existence of both sides proves that their solutions are a fool's illusion. Now, try to teach a bomb advocate about love, or a love advocate about bombs, and laugh at the impossibility. They insist that there is no reason to learn about what is wrong. But that goal would be comparatively easy. The fact that the love advocate cannot usefully define love demonstrates that he is functionally ignorant of the concept, and that the bomb advocate cannot identify what enough bombs are, demonstrates the same. That they are the advocates for that which they are still ignorant demonstrates that they cannot comprehend the concept of learning the knowledge of anything, and explains why they have failed their espousals. They want the bombs and the expressions of love, not the knowledge of either.

Without the knowledge, your concept is a rhetorical illusion, explaining why you have not achieved your goal.

With the knowledge, you can achieve your goal.

Learning the knowledge of either can be done in less time than building a quality bomb from scratch, or creating genuine love in even two people.

But both the love-nic and bomb-freak, like the pro-this and anti-that, fear the knowledge of their concepts more than death, as is manifest, for a qualifiable reason the learning of which evaporates the fear.

Consider the males and females who openly state that the other cannot figure out obvious solutions, for a reason of which they both remain ignorant, and would laugh themselves to tears if they easily learned the reason.

Go for the knowledge. It is worth more to your mind than the therefore easily achieved goal of your choice, regardless of your opposition. Learn the concept of love, then learn the concept of bombs, then learn the next concept, and so forth until you recognize the commonalities of all concepts, including the concept of an opponent.


Join, and laugh... 21 August 2001

Imagine how much you would learn, how rapidly, if you understood this from having already learned it. But your mind must learn the proof, regardless of these words.

Join a variety of organizations, not for the goal of supporting them, but to learn about them from the incentive of having given them your money, time and the credibility of your name. When you are a member of an organization, the organization represents you, by definition, and is therefore, in practical terms, you, by your acquiescence. Concurrently, the organization leaders represent you, and are therefore, in practical terms, you, by your acquiescence. Your only choice to claim your own representation above that of an organization leader, is to not be a member of the organization. You cannot have it two contradicting ways.

Notice that, as an organization member, you therefore hold two minds, by definition of your acquiescence to the decisions of your organization leader, by your willful membership in the organization. He publicly represents your decisions, or you would not be a member of his organization. You therefore hold the mind in your cranium, and the one in your organization leader's cranium. Now two entirely different data-bases make your decisions. That is a highly useful tool for learning new knowledge. You can question your other mind. Don't worry, your leader will not question you, because you, as a member, do not represent him as a leader, and because he is scared spittless of any effective questions, he does not ask or answer them. You will have to question your own mind. But you are not afraid of questions, if you are still also an individual mind, so ask those questions, of both your minds.

You learn by asking questions of your mind.

Therefore question yourself, which is to say, question your organization leaders. You will learn most from the questions you fear to answer. Write the questions your leaders fear and thus refuse to answer. Because your leaders represent your mind by definition of they being the thinking entity for the organization which represents your mind, precisely why would you fear to answer your own questions? Why? What is happening in your other mind, the mind of your organization leader, that makes it afraid to answer simple questions that you can answer? Ask as many questions as you must to find that answer. It inherently exists, is available, is verifiable against every question, is yours for the asking, and is of priceless value beyond your current imagination.

The easiest questions of your organization leader are: Do you represent the power of the organization? Does power corrupt?

Laugh robustly at the fear you strike in your other mind. No question can ever harm you. No knowledge in your mind can ever harm you, and can only benefit you. You always retain the option to utilize or not utilize existing knowledge before you ask more questions to learn more knowledge. But an institution leader fears knowledge, for a reason within the concept of institutions, and thus flees effective questions.

But that process is only practice for a better use of the knowledge you learn. Use what you learn from your membership in organizations, to therefore learn about the institutions of which you are a member by default, such as the institutions of males or females, your nation of citizenship, your ethnic background, your status as an adult or minor, your profession, your hobbies, or any other reference that identifies you by a category other than your individual name. Precisely why do males suggest the failure of females to understand males, and vice versa, while each understand what they individually say, and can answer every question which created the referenced knowledge? Why do organization leaders fear to answer effective member questions? Why does the individual mind react differently than the institutional mind, to the same stimulus?

Why does the government's court judge, judge himself differently than he judges the victim of government who is brought before him? Ask enough questions to discover the definitive answer that prevails if you are the government's judge or the victim of government. Ask enough questions to discover the definitive answer that prevails if you are the male speaking of the female, or the female speaking of the male. Do the same until you discover the answer that prevails if you are the pro-this issue or anti-this issue, or anti-that issue or pro-that issue. There is nothing between you and that answer, because you can ask your mind every question leading to that answer, and answer each one.

It does not matter which organizations you join. They are functionally identical in their actions beneath their words. The pro and anti of each concept are doing the same functional things. The US Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, Communists, and every other political party are first seeking the power that inherently damages their reasoning process, seeking to make and force their decisions on other inherently equal human minds, uniformly refusing to answer effective questions, and then mouthing hollow words that are verifiably contradicted by their actions. They can never achieve their espousals because they attempt what they already contradicted. They made themselves ignorant, surrendering the priceless value of their mind, as the cost for the paltry money and ego-gratification they derived from the political party status, much to the robust laughter of observers.

Did you think there were any contradictions outside the mental fabrications of humans? You need only ask enough questions to discover the prevailing phenomena regardless of these amusing humans. That does not require very many questions. You will discover that the contradictions are created only by the institutionally altered perceptions of the individual human mind, but not because I say so. You must discover that from your mind's own questions. You may do that on your own, or more efficiently with someone who has already done it.

But do that, so you need no longer waste-away your life with contradictions perpetuated in institutionally altered minds simply too fearful to question their way to answers long known by those not afraid of questions. You will therefore laugh the laughter sought by all people, watching those humans fighting themselves their entire lives, still thinking the other guy is at fault for the questions the self-fighters refuse to answer.

The original design of the human mind has nothing to fear in any question or any knowledge. Use that design. The institutional power-damaged mind fears all knowledge in any mind. If you are a victim of accepting institutional power, even that of a member of the institutional mob, you are the lesson of what not to do, for those who seek to advance their knowledge. If there were no such balance stagnating such a limitless device as the human mind, we would have long ago learned everything, and the game would be quite other than what it remains. You need not be among those so stagnated. Fear no knowledge. Ask and answer every question.


Word arrangement concept... 25 August 2001

Consider a set of words, a rational, logical statement, for which each word held its meaning, and the statement could be shown to be correct upon every question, thus constituting knowledge that can be reliably used.

Now consider a set of words which would, in addition to their impartially identifiable meaning, anger the common person, that is, would cause the person's mind to alter its perceptions in a manner that hindered or altered the impartial analysis of the meaning of the set of words.

Now notice that there is an inherent gradient of such emotional responses to certain sets of words, with anger being just a more recognizable reaction to words. Some sets of words create other perceptions separate from their meaning under impartial analysis.

Precisely what mechanism in the human mind causes it to create over-riding, altered perceptions of what is otherwise a logical expression of words which are used for their dictionary meanings? Notice that the mechanism is commonly activated, but often with different reactions and results for the same words among different minds.

Now notice that small sector of people who seem to express fundamental concepts, and emphasize that they are correct and functional if utilized.

Why is it do you suppose, that while it is difficult to get a common farmer to say something illogical, that which would constitute a lie, it is obviously easy to get a politician or bureaucrat to say something that is illogical and constitutes a lie? If fact, you can't get the latter chaps to say anything else. The question was, why. The politician and bureaucrat are just the most recognized example for the question. Career criminals and certain other sectors of society also have such difficulty, but the question was, why.

If getting a job on the government dole so consistently alters the mind's perceptions in such a specific manner, might there be other institutional phenomena that create specific reactions in the human mind, in relation to information or other stimuli?

So therefore synthesize the concepts in the above seven paragraphs. And then re-examine how you could be identified in relation to institutional phenomena, and precisely how your mind has reacted to which certain fundamentally logical statements whose words you therefore did not analyze precisely in relation to their exclusive meanings.

If you wished to successfully hide from humans precisely what they most sought, would you not hide it in what they most expressed?

Can you identify any phenomena for which there is no balance?

But until you learn how to ask effective questions, a skill hidden with the same design, you will not recognize the process to learn what is hidden in what is most expressed. All knowledge that you seek is amusingly simple and obvious.

Do whatever you have to do to learn how to ask effective questions. It is a simple skill, easily learned. Start practicing today. Ask many questions. Write them. Write their answers. Highlight the more effective questions, and learn their commonalities.

Or acquire an instructor. You will of course, for that more efficient process, ask him the questions that identifies the limit of his knowledge, and not stop asking questions.


The Code... 26 August 2001

You can defeat your enemy, intellectually. That fact has been recognized throughout history.

Some credentialed chap on a recent Nova TV show about the German WWII Enigma encryption machine said that, the British breaking of the German Enigma code, and decoding German messages for the Allied forces, demonstrated that one can defeat their enemy intellectually. Poor institutional chap, aint got no smarts about the English language. By definition, to defeat your enemy intellectually, you need no form of force, such as that massive Allied military. Since the entire resources of the Allied governments could not recognize a single intellectually capable person within their governments or institutions, the only places they looked, for lack of any among them, had there been no Allied military to use the decoded German messages, Adolph would have suffered a fate worse than death, English roast beef on his trips to the British suburb of Germany. There is no mechanism in one mind to force another mind. The only mechanism available to the mind is conveyed reasoning, that is, intellectual technology. Breaking the Enigma code was breaking the Enigma code, not defeating the Germans intellectually. But the words the Brit used carried meaning that he did not recognize. You can defeat your enemy, intellectually, therefore sans any force or power.

Even many of those who do not know how, can recognize that it can be done.

Those who know how to do that, are superlatively amused. The process is brilliant in its simplicity, and can be used to solve the entire array of human-caused problems, if there is any incentive to do so for any one of the problems, several or all.

Those institution leaders who do not know how to do that, and want to know, can use their intellectual ability only to the rudimentary level of then using force or power, be it war, majority vote backed by armed police, deceit, or any other form of power, which is inherently self defeating, much to the robust laughter of those who know how to use intellectual technology. The reason institution leaders can only think to the low level of the use of power, is usefully described within the technology.

All the questions of the technology are answered within the technology, by design.

Any human mind is capable of learning the simple process of intellectually defeating one's enemy or resolving complex contradictions, by a simple process.

You need only ask questions, and answer them.

The process to learn the process, is the same in each case.

You need only ask questions, and answer them.

It is analogous to breaking a code. You must ask a lot of questions, synthesize a lot of combinations of words. And because the code also reveals the design of the human mind, the process to break the code is of that complexity. The balance is perfect in all things. But the complexity is controlled by the simplicity of asking a series of questions.

If you start from scratch, with no clues, you must ask a very large number of questions about an inordinately diverse array of phenomena. A rather small percentage of people have done that, and laugh.

But if you start with some of the clues, you need not ask as many questions, and can learn the knowledge sooner. This website is saturated with clues, but it lacks the diversity, since it discusses a single concept.

If you are given all the clues, you will have very few questions, requiring very little time. I could give you those questions in this section. But the code matches the description of brilliant, or I would have used another word. Those few questions must come from your own mind, your data base, not mine or anyone else's. The words of your questions must be in harmony with your mind's data base. They must identify contradictions your mind identified with precise neuro-chemical receptors therefore open to particular chemical compounds within the brain. The design of your mind, the most brilliant encryption and decryption device on the rock, at least that I have found so far, is such that if your data-base creates the question, rather than hears or reads someone else's question, then your mind will create the neuro-receptors to recognize the utility of the answer, and related data constituting other parts of the puzzle.

It is an aside to note that only then can you learn the questions that your opponent's mind cannot evade with contradicted answers, to thus cause its self-defeat. Those questions are of no value herein, because you are not my opponent. No hypothetical concept can induce the same process in your mind, as the real thing. You do not control your mind. Its design controls you. You can learn its design, and if you do, the limits evaporate.

For socially complex problems, if given all the clues, data and the process to discover the questions, by an instructor, a common human brain might be able to learn intellectual technology in a week or so. Consider that: One brain questioning data from another brain, for a week, to solve a complex social problem, actual solution promptly manifestable with already available resources. How many Cray Computers would be required for how many years to derive the categorically definitive solution to a complex social problem created and sustained by diverse human minds? How many millions of institutional member person-years of human minds have been consumed so far attempting to solve even simple social issues of ongoing controversy, with no solution yet effected? What concept describes the difference?

Do you not suspect that only one controlling concept divides frustration from success for any concept, including the concept of all human-caused contradictions? What was the controlling difference between the ancient dream of humans flying through the air, and the crowded lines at the airport security stations creating vastly more problems, cost and damage than all the past and future terrorists combined?

Consider all the institutional leaders who desperately crave the knowledge of how to promptly defeat any enemy, resolve any contradiction or achieve any goal, including the paltry terrorist problem. Among those referenced questions, is the one of why you could tap any such institutional leader on the shoulder, and point to these words, and he will not comprehend a single useful concept herein, and will think ill of you for wasting his time. The code is superlative. The people who are waiting for the leaders to learn the knowledge, could learn the knowledge, while the leaders cannot, by definition of their position. Who asks questions, and who makes statements? Do you not learn only what you already know when you make statements? Well? Do you not learn what you do not yet know, by asking questions?

How can you defeat your enemy or resolve a contradiction, and why have your institutional leaders not yet done so?

If they blame their enemy, then their enemy is smarter, by definition. Would you follow someone not as smart as his enemy, to thus define yourself? If the blame were accurate, indicating the intellectual ability to correctly identify the source of the problem, why has the enemy not yet completely defeated you, with actual defeat? The blame is never accurate, only indicated by the enemy laying the blame for his problems on your institution leader.

If they could live many lifetimes, the institution leaders would still be blaming each other, and as clueless of intellectual technology as they yet display. They cannot even ask themselves why they have not yet prevailed, and answer their question with an answer not already proven false by their results. Would that not be the first question you would ask?

The best and brightest, and highest IQ's, the most highly paid and the most institutionally flattered and pampered, of each nation's government, prestigious universities and think-tanks, the most secret of the most secret military institutions of the most elite intellectuals for whom there is no limit in the covert funding, including the best and brightest of any institution you identify, represent abject ignorance, at best, as easily proven by even a few grade school level questions. They have done what they have done, at great cost, and the problems are only worse. No excuses prevail over the ability of the human mind, by design. You need only learn the design, a simple matter. The best and brightest were selected for their credentials, by people with credentials, while the process has already proven its fatal flaw perpetuating itself and defending itself from anyone outside the institutions, century after century, much to the howling laughter of observers.

But you can learn the technology, if you simply ask questions. Do not forget to question diverse phenomena, diverse. You do not have to learn the entire puzzle before you start enjoying the comedy of all the institution leaders, including those who define themselves with grand titles and credentials, including those of seemingly profound intellectual superiority. The balance is perfect in all things. For an immutable reason learned in the technology, you can have the title or the knowledge. What is your choice? What is the value of your mind?

How much time is required to get the title you want? How much time is required to get the knowledge you want? There is a reason those two questions identify different goals. How much time do you have? Notice that those with the titles prove that they learned the knowledge of how to achieve and defend their titles, and concurrently prove that they did not learn the knowledge of how to achieve the goals of their institutions, or the institutions would no longer have a reason to exist.

The other guy is only distracting you, and can never benefit your mind except to the extent he asks and answers questions. Notice that he spews more statements than asks questions. More wisely use your time to advance your knowledge. Ask and answer questions. And have fun doing that, because you must, to learn the knowledge. That is another clue. The institution leaders do not know how to have real fun. Look more closely. New knowledge is beyond what you currently hold. If you are not having fun, you do not have the excess mental energy to learn knowledge beyond what you currently know.


End of Intech Concepts 10


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