Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 2
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


No Concept To Defend Above Pure Reasoning...

A corollary to the flaw of institutional thinking, that is, the defense of the institution above questioning, or any other word-arrangement for the same concept, illuminates the concept that the person seeking to resolve a difficult contradiction cannot hold any concept that must be defended from pure reasoning.

Outside the court, the lawyer will fail his client 100% of the time, and inside the court, at least 50% of the time (statistically more upon analysis), for an immutable reason in the lawyer defense of the lawyer institution, so entrenched that few if any lawyers or law school professors can accurately identify it despite its objective verification.

Lawyers are mentioned as a classic example because of a unique combination of elements within the lawyer institution, peripherally explaining why they are universally loathed in every culture, more than they recognize. Among the elements is ego. Ego, a concept at play within the mind, difficult to ascribe to an institution as such, will block a series of controlling questions where every other institutional defense has been overcome with effective questioning. The mechanism of ego and certain other emotion-based concepts must be learned as part of the intellectual technology puzzle, and are learned by a series of related questions. There can be no concept above question if you wish to reach the solution that will prevail above other minds of inherently equal design, who could otherwise find a flaw in your inadequately questioned solution and thus defeat it.

Consider a certain concept as a learning vehicle, the limited introduction of which herein will anger and confuse a certain percentage of the readers. The concept of God is that which is pervasively recognizable by the human mind, but elusively beyond it, by the mind's definition of God, if one's mind does not wish to foolishly claim the position of God. God being beyond the mind by definition, a proof of God is somewhat difficult, that is until one learns the process of effective questioning, the process of unlimited learning within the human mind's design. A proof of God does not demand the appearance of God, and is within the human mind's design. Utilizing said process, and this arrangement of words is only a superficial learning vehicle, the proof of God is found in the unequivocal disproof of God, unequivocal as a disproof, by the full meaning of the words, a concept most avoided by the institution of religion, for fear of its isolated effect; but then followed by the controlling question of the disproof. It is not a superficial question, and it cannot be identified until the disproof is created against all the prior questions. It is not something you can recognize until you endure that particularly exhausting arena of questioning, inherent to any knowledge of substance. The controlling question need not be answered. Its existence achieves its goal, by the design of the human mind, that which the human mind could not create, or it could change the design and thus be God. This particular learning vehicle holds profoundly useful knowledge, and therefore includes questions greatly feared by institutional chaps at every point in the related sphere.

Even God cannot be held above the most ruthless questioning, at outrage to certain human institutional leaders who fear those questions, if you wish to achieve a sustainable goal, or identify the proof of God. In fact God, or the designer of the human mind if you prefer that description, designed the process to create that questioning, for obvious reason. Is that not so? Everything less is on the table, to remove its inherent contradictions before you therefore achieve your goal.

You need not intellectually travel that far to learn the intellectual technology to achieve the goals you pursue, but if you learn the technology you will be left with the ability to do so.


Disprove your position...

The person who will fail, first sets out to prove their position. The person who will prevail sets out to disprove their position, not as charlatans commonly do, but as the person with the greatest vested incentive to disprove the position.

Notice the corollary of the priority effort to prove the other guy's opposing position.


You are your only enemy...

Your every perception is only a perception of your mind. Nothing exists if it does not exist in your mind. Attempt to discover anything that is not in your mind, and you will fail upon its discovery. Therein is an expression of a fundamental truth, merely arrangements of words that identify tools of knowledge, which you may use to achieve goals.

One such key tool is the fact that you are your only enemy. Your only enemy is in your own mind, by design, because everything is within your mind, and your enemy is only a series of contradictions to your perceptions. Is that not so? If you deny the validity of the words, then you rob yourself of a useful tool within the words. If you remove the often changing human bodies from the concepts you currently perceive as your enemies, is it not the contradictions they manifest to which you object? Are those contradictions not perceptions? You are therefore fighting only your own perceptions. The poor chap whom you perceive as your enemy is only someone fighting himself with his self-imposed contradictions you easily recognize. Because you are so readily available to yourself, logic suggests that you first defeat your only enemy before you attempt to extend your efforts to others who don't have time for you anyway. Part of the process of learning intellectual technology is that of defeating your only enemy, since he is so readily available to highly effective questions, and dares not evade answering you if he expects to live with you. Then left with no enemy to distract or thwart your efforts, your knowledge and effectiveness will exponentially advance upon further questioning. You may thus learn the knowledge to then assist your originally perceived opponent to defeat his only enemy, to achieve your goal.

Concurrently, you are always the other guy's other guy. Because there are 6.1 billion of him, and only one of you, there is little likelihood that he is wrong and you are right, unless perhaps you are each only confused by your own institutional perceptions, and what you really seek is the same as what he seeks if properly identified. Help him with that identification, and he will reward you. But if he perceives your knowledge as flawed, you did not learn enough to genuinely help him. If you first efficiently learn what he cannot escape as he less efficiently advances his reasoning, you will achieve your goal, and concurrently assist him.


Curiosity, Diversity, Knowledge...

To learn the referenced knowledge on your own requires curiosity for diversity of knowledge. If you do not have it, and if you seek advanced knowledge, develop it. The ingredients that extend your knowledge into the arena of resolving complex problems, are inherently found where you have not yet looked, for lack of sufficient curiosity.


Discussion of cost...

The value of many goals and problem resolutions within the arena of Alaska Intech's services inherently exceed the financial affordability of even governments. The magnitude of related concepts often involve the value of many lifetime's of effort and lives lost in the struggle to achieve such goals. Because not even governments can afford to pay enough money for such costs, another value must be added. Therefore the financial or material cost of the service, in each case of significant nature, is still the paltry portion of the cost. After the material cost is paid to acquire the service, the client will pay dearly in his own thought process, encountering profoundly difficult questions of his mind. It can be no other way. No goal of such nature will ever be otherwise achieved.

The material expense to the client may be of money or more innovative benefits. If you offered something of great value, what would you wish in exchange?

It is an aside to note that the money or material benefit to Alaska Intech does not and cannot contribute to personal wealth. The controlling commodity is highly advanced knowledge, having always been the antithesis of intellectually useless material holdings, since the invention of the concepts.


Incentive / Cost...

Within this section the learning vehicle is war, but the greater concept is that which must be understood. Upon initiation of war, it is inherent that people will be killed. Given a recognizable choice and time to consider it, people generally prefer to not pay that price for anything. The reason there are so many wars is that the people making the decision to utilize war as their childish process to convey knowledge to the other guy, are generally immune to paying the cost of their life for their decision. They send gullible young, testosterone-saturated male minds into the meat grinder, who are so enthusiastic for the new adventure, that the unthinking minds of the politicians and generals are fooled into thinking the soldiers like it. Therein the true cost of the goal is separated from the incentive to achieve it. The contradiction compounds the resulting contradictions. Stop reading for awhile and devise a few resulting questions, those which leaders sending other people to war did not consider for lack of incentive. If the cost can be one's life, the decision-maker is the first man at the front line, or he is a fraud who simply did not question his childish decision.

If the decision-maker for an action is separated from the true consequences of his decision, the action will ultimately fail, regardless of the illusions one can fabricate with words. It is not humanly possible to get something for nothing. You cannot sustainably get something at the cost of someone else. And that for which you did not sufficiently question to pay the full cost, is of no value to humans. Even if the decision is correct in relation to logic, the mechanism to effect it is fatally flawed if it is predicated on getting something for nothing. The extent of the proof in history is most intriguing.

The above is only the smallest indication of the related concept. It is mentioned to indicate the nature of the cost of Alaska Intech's services. The scant cost for knowledge of such magnitude, even though initially seeming like a lot of money, must be attached by genuine responsibility to the decision makers. If is it not, do not even request the service, because the service cannot provide the desired goal, and Alaska Intech will not offer the service therein. There is of course a means for achieving this concept, and leaving you with your personal assets if you are addicted to your your wealth or ego. The material cost is of no real value. But if you set out to achieve a difficult goal with the belief that you can achieve the related glory at no risk of cost, your belief is the reason you are currently failing your institution's goal.

The mechanism to achieve this concept is a block of knowledge, which must be learned early in the process. It is normally never learned by institution leaders, explaining why institutions fail their goals, leaving their leaders blaming the other guy for their own failures their entire lives. There are few more instructive examples than available by merely watching the US DemocanRepublicrat Party politicians for six years. They traded the astonishing value of their mind, for a comfortable lifestyle and ego candy, and thus never came close to greatness or benefiting others with the labor of their thinking. They have never held the ability to provide what their foolish words describe, and never will, until they learn intellectual technology.


The something within perceived nothing...

When faced with the words, "you can't get something for nothing", most people will recognize that immutable truism, and acknowledge it, especially knowledgeable scientists. But then add any of many commonly perceived contradictions, and the person who just prior agreed with the truism, including many scientists, will contradict himself, suggesting that there are of course exceptions depending upon the circumstances. Their error is simply in failing to tediously think through every resulting question, asking and answering them, until they find the flaw in the suggestion of an exception, and arrive back at the immutable truth that you cannot get something for nothing. If one sets out ahead of time, before considering any issue, to question the concept of, something for nothing, through a great range of diverse knowledge, and does so with enough concepts to identify categories of concepts which create patterns in questioning process, one can not only verify the controlling contradiction resolutions in that regard, but also in others that create efficient verifications in other of the fundamentals of the human design. During the process, one discovers the commonly referenced exceptions that transcend the spectrum of diversity, and are thus identified not as exceptions, but as separate concepts of basic truths within their parameters. To distinguish them is to resolve arenas of prior confusion in the mind, and replace them with clear knowledge not impeding the recognition of other knowledge. One can then efficiently verify the parameters of basic truisms and use them as tools to solve problems, with solutions that can prevail against everyone's resulting questions. The original process is tedious beyond one's current recognition, but results in a highly efficient process to resolve contradictions. And the knowledge can be conveyed with those key sets of questions.


Your time...

You can precisely describe your institutional process to solve a defined problem or achieve a goal, and check back in ten years to belatedly recognize your failure, if your goal had any value to humans and you did not change its description. The certainty of the expression is inherent to knowledge of institutional process. Or you can more wisely analyze the same fundamental process prior used in your and thousands of other such institutions throughout the world, over the previous 10 years, and therefore conclude today that your process will fail your identified goal or problem resolution. Therein, what is the value of your next few days or couple weeks, compared to the time and money your institution would have spent in the next 10 years? Therein, what is the level of your personal wisdom? You may be assured that your opponent or institutional competitor will not recognize the value of this paragraph, by your own reaction, except in the most rare exception if you create it.


What knowledge do you hold...

What identifiable and verifiable knowledge do you hold that is so beyond any other human with an inherently identical design of mind, in every institution, that you can succeed where all your predecessors and their ilk failed? If you cannot identify that entirely different knowledge beyond all other people, and if you do not reduce your goal down to that which was already achieved, you will fail, by definition. If you attempt a rhetorical diversion, substituting the words, enthusiasm, persona, changing times, new infrastructure, more members, more money, better communication and such rhetorical illusions also used by your predecessors; for the word, knowledge, you will fail your goal. If you are human, and you are not using new knowledge, you will not achieve a new goal. You therefore need only learn new knowledge, by simply starting to ask the extended series of questions where your predecessors and their institutional colleagues arrived at their last conclusion. It is just a process. Either your goal is worth that effort, or your institution is wasting the value of your mind if you consider it of value.


Organizational manifestations of human fundamentals...

The utility of intellectual technology is achieved by learning certain controlling concepts identifying the design of the human mind. Key among them are the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals. One could read many words explaining that phrase, or more usefully spend the same time with one's own questions about the phrase, to recognize its utility. Those fundamentals and manifestations are immutable, by design, and can thus be relied upon for human reaction to well designed process.

The organizational manifestations of human fundamentals are how the immutable fundamentals of the individual human mind function within the organizational context. Therein, pursuing the same goal, different arrangements of words that cannot create the same reactions among different mental data-blocks, are in consistent collision with each other simply because no process was first learned to resolve differences in perceptions. There is only one such successful process available to the human mind, to my current knowledge. It is described as intellectual technology. It cannot be effected with any part of the puzzle missing. There is no half-way process that can resolve only the contradictions currently perceived within the institution's issues or process. Most of the contradictions and their results impacting the institution, originate outside the institution's issues and process, but still within the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals which can be learned.


Give me power...

Give me power, and I will be corrupt. You may quote me. No human can escape the phenomenon, by design of the human mind. Therein, corruption is merely the alteration of perceptions, creating contradictions, usually damaging, that would not have been created if reasoning were the mechanism of the related thought pattern, rather than power.

The object of reasoning is to resolve contradictions. The results of power is the creation of contradictions.

When you find a person who openly states that he will be corrupted by power, you have found a person with the greatest potential to be a thinking and thus useful leader. If his words are sincere, he may then know enough to accept the responsibilities without accepting the power of the position. But to actually do so requires an extensive block of knowledge.

Ask government and organization leaders if they will be corrupted by power. Then ask them if there is any form of power that does not corrupt the human mind. And question their answers, with effective questions. You will be entertained. If you ask enough questions, you will learn why there are no genuine leaders among current governments, organizations or other institutions.

What did you want for your children, knowledge or power? What will advance them in a species predicated on its mind? What will advance a society?

Intellectual technology may be used to discover or create genuine leaders.



Watch institution leaders, to include those who want to be the leaders. They noticeably lack a depth of humor. Analyze their shallow laughter to identify the contradictions limiting it. At seeing these words, they object, and believe that they have as much a sense of humor as anyone else. They are in error. Consider only that many people openly laugh at politicians. Politicians are caught childishly lying so routinely that they are a common, openly laughed-at joke to every perceptive person in the entire world. In contrast, the politicians do no openly laugh at the people or their colleagues, for fear of losing their position. A portion of humor is therefore replaced with fear. That is only a micron of the related example. He who wields power inherently pays its price. Those in power foolishly believe that humor is an inconsequential attribute. It is instead a key tool for the reasoning process, like others seemingly unrelated.

Among the described emotions, would you rather laugh, or be angry, fearful or hateful? The true cost of anything, is what is measured in your mind, by design of the mind. He who is laughing, has excess mental resources available to assist others, that is, solve other problems, if he chooses to so apply those excess resources. He who is angry, fearful or hateful, has spent those resources, and does not have even enough mental resources to resolve his own anger, fear or hate, yet alone resolve any other contradiction in his mind, and further not even in the arena to solve another person's problems.

Within intellectual technology is the understanding of humor, as the concept itself, one of the key components of the human mind's design. A genuine understanding of the mind's process for humor is imperative for achieving difficult goals and solving complex problems. Upon learning intellectual technology, you will laugh the laughter sought by all people. Your mind will recognize the thinking-process transcending every frustration that stagnates those whose mind does not recognize the avenue of humor.

Is the foundation of humor not inherent to these humans, whose mind was so obviously designed for reasoning to resolve contradictions, and who instead still create governmental institutions to shoot each other and imprison each other as a means of resolving contradictions, while concurrently lavishing themselves with praise, titles and credentials referencing their wisdom and greatness, while the very people who are expressly disgusted with the maliciousness and greed of their governmental institutions, turn to support and praise the leaders who orchestrate it all? If you are not laughing at these humans, you will not find the solution. If you fear recognition of your contradictions, rather than seek the recognition for the inherent humor, you will be left with your contradictions defeating your process.

The utility of humor, for solving problems, starts where everyone else stopped laughing. That is part of the disguise. It defines your mind as still thinking, while everyone else is defending what they already know.


Questions and time...

Picture the following as a description of a line graph, if you wish.

At some time in the past, you were at point A, a point describing your knowledge and abilities at that time. We could also say that the entire human phenomenon was at its point A at some time in the past.

Since then, you advanced in knowledge and resulting ability, to your current point B, that which you know and can do now. The same could be said for the human phenomenon.

Why are you not currently at point C, yet more advanced than point B?

Several arrangements of words for answers, are each valid. You learn knowledge and thus ability over time, and enough time has not yet gone by to reach point C. Or, point C constitutes the yet unknown to your mind, and the human mind was designed to fear or be cautious with the yet unknown. Point C may identifiably contain concepts which anger your mind, inducing an emotion-based reaction causing your current objection to that plateau of knowledge. Or you were busy making a living at what you already know. Etcetera.

But different people learn different things at different rates, using more of their time for a specific learning process to thus learn a related block of knowledge sooner than others, showing less fear, overcoming anger, thinking more about what they are doing, etcetera. Why? What would it take to more quickly advance to point C? The value of reaching point C is obvious, by nature of your effort to reach point B.

Is not the advancing process just that of learning the related knowledge? Are not the limitations identified with time, fear, anger, necessity to make a living, and other such limiting concepts, dispelled by acquiring the related knowledge?

So how does the human mind acquire knowledge?

Every arrangement of words you might advance as answers can be described as the process of your mind asking and answering questions. That is to say, identifying a contradiction, with a question, and then identifying a resolution, with an answer, then questioning the answer to thus identify the next contradiction, question, answer, and so forth until the resolution seemingly creating no new contradiction is found. Thus a useful tool of knowledge is acquired. Then one moves on to a different concept with the same process. A later concept may reveal knowledge that requires one to question a previous concept's final conclusion. That is to be expected and incorporated in the process.

So, again, how would you sooner advance to the desirable knowledge and abilities of point C, where you will arrive more slowly anyway in the plodding course of life?

No doubt you answered that easy question, by more concertedly asking and answering more effective questions during the same period of time otherwise not used for asking questions. Simply ask more questions about things, rather than make so many statements. And question your hasty answers.

The process is boring, but how much money and ego-gratification are you paying those government and organization leaders for the identified task of learning how to achieve the institution's goals, and then for doing so, that is, actually achieving the goals if they were doing that for which you are paying them, while the leaders are obviously not doing so, as proven by their results. They are being paid to be leaders, to think, to ask and answer questions, and instead they are acting as followers, making statements, looking for the largest crowd with the most money to follow and fool with rhetoric. If you are one of those government, organization or other institution leaders, and if you are not embarrassed by your current failure, you are a professional charlatan. You were supposed to reach point C ahead of everyone else, and manifest the goal for the benefit of those who are supporting you. Do so. Start questioning your conclusions.


In search of competition...

For the arena of knowledge involving institutionally created problems or contradictions, if you find a source for learning how to ask and answer exponentially effective questions, to thus exponentially advance your knowledge in a short duration of time, to thus promptly achieve your goals or resolve any contradictions; that you perceive from their data as comparable or even a distant second to Alaska Intech, please inform Alaska Intech. You might consider the think tanks, politicians claiming process for social problem remedies, representatives of universities claiming to be institutions of higher learning, lawyers, foundations, mensa groups, or such. Or you might more wisely seek those who genuinely pursue knowledge above institutional ego. Depending upon the available time, Alaska Intech will ask you and them the questions to disprove your conclusion. The services of Alaska Intech are not comparable to any known on the market or institutionally available. If other such services can be found and made more known to the public, or encouraged, we will all benefit.

The following paragraph is here stated again, within the context of this section because it holds additional value you may use in many contexts, as a tool of knowledge. If you wish to learn new knowledge, beyond that which is available through every source so far discovered, you would wisely seek those who have openly expressed the following, and can identify its verification.

You may ask me any question any human mind can devise, or make any comment, and as time permits I will respond with the best logic my mind can produce. If you find a contradiction in my response, and we can verify the contradiction, the resolution will be easy, and I will sincerely appreciate your having advanced my knowledge.


No substitute for knowledge...

There is no substitute for knowledge, none, zero, by design of the human, predicated on its mind, which utilizes only knowledge. Read that again. It is a controlling concept. All other concepts utilized by humans are subordinate to it.

You can acquire one, a million, a billion or every dollar, gun, human, or any other physical item for your organization or nation, and you will still achieve nothing of value without the knowledge to create that value. If everyone is on your side, what will you have other than the zenith of boredom and a superior opponent the moment one person learns something new and recognizes no incentive to serve you? After you acquire enough foolish followers to provide you a reasonable lifestyle, you acquire nothing more by acquiring more followers who know so little they will serve you for no benefit to them. Therefore what does your leader provide you to acquire your effort for him? If he cannot otherwise provide for his lifestyle of whatever excess it may be, of what value is he?

If your institutional leaders do not hold the knowledge to promptly achieve your institutional espousals, as proven by your leaders having been the leaders for more than six months and the espousals yet only that, you are wasting your time talking to them, unless you are doing so to analyze their reaction to your words, for benefit to your knowledge. If they have held their leadership positions for more than six months, and have not achieved the institution's identified goals, they do not hold the knowledge to do so, and they will forever refuse to seek that knowledge.

If your institution's leaders spend a moment talking to anyone, without seriously asking questions and questioning the answers, and answering every question asked of them, as a work process, they are not seeking the knowledge to achieve the institution's goals.

Therefore the task of achieving your institutional espousals is up to you. You can achieve them. You do not need a leader. You only need the knowledge. The process of learning knowledge is the process of asking and answering questions, usually a lot of them. Do not be frustrated. Enjoy it, because it is the only process available to humans, if your goal is to achieve a yet unachieved goal.

Notice that your institutional leaders do not provide you with new knowledge. They only tell you want you want to hear, usually because they also believe it. Because they say what you want to hear, plus hold a title, you foolishly think they are doing more than just telling you what you want to hear. But their title does nothing. They are only telling you what you want to hear, and nothing else, just like anyone else offering you their opinion. Anything that seems to get done because of their existence, is being done by people who will do that anyway, because they hold the knowledge to do so, and receive the inherent reward for their work. If something gets done because your government leader points an armed policeman or army at others, it will ultimately fail and is of no value to humans. A gun can provide no knowledge to the mind, and only provides incentive for a thus-created opponent to next out-think its foolish holder.

When you talk to your proven useless institutional leaders, to analyze their reaction, to thus learn more than they, you will more rapidly compound your knowledge by constructing your words as questions, in every sentence. You will learn most by the questions they refuse to answer, because you will wisely ask why they refused.


Leading edge of the human phenomenon...

Intellectual technology is at the current leading edge of the human phenomenon. It may be a bit before its time at the moment, but will soon enough become the process by which all contradictions are expeditiously resolved.

Without the key part of the puzzle identified by effective questioning, the technology does not exist. There is yet no social process to teach young people how to ask effective questions. And every institution thwarts that knowledge by not teaching it and by evading every such question discovered by chance. If the knowledge of how to ask effective questions ever escapes into society, a quantum advancement of the human phenomenon will occur, much to the benefit of every individual, therein including you, the reader of these words.

The internet will assist in readily exposing people to diverse concepts, but their minds must learn the substance of that diversity before it becomes useful. That substance is learned by asking effective questions. If intellectual technology is synthesized with computer technology, buckle your seat belt and enjoy the ride to the benefits.


Discovering the technology, and instructive vehicles...

The understanding of intellectual technology is just a sliver of knowledge among countless defined arenas of knowledge. If I used my time to learn as much about computers, I could make my computer do that for which someone else made it so capable, and to learn as much about the stock market could also be a bit useful. But to learn how to make high quality birch bark containers, or understand barnacle symbiosis with whales, among other vastly diverse knowledge, holds as much value to the mind itself, for its process, and society in general, for the diversity of knowledge which defines the human phenomenon and that which you enjoy of life.

The understanding of intellectual technology is rare because several aspects of it constitute what people assume they already know, thus hold no incentive to learn, and that which is horribly boring to learn on one's own.

Key ingredients to learn the knowledge on one's own are inordinate curiosity and inordinate tenacity.

Within that level of curiosity one will hold no respect for rhetorical illusions, such as authority and impossibility. Authority is a fool's illusion, as herein discussed more thoroughly in another section. In contrast to authority, knowledge is that which the mind respects, and you are of your mind. Did you wish to follow someone who draped himself with the most impressive trappings of authority, including titles, wealth, armies, police, lawyers, judges and jailers; or who instead held useful knowledge? Useful knowledge is identified by asking questions. If a leader refuses to answer any question, or answers it with words which do not answer the question, he is not a leader, and to follow him is to be a fool following a fool.

If a leader needs police or armies, he is not a leader. He is merely another of countless unthinking sorts in human history. That is especially so for political chaps who preach their need for spending more money on armies and police. Would a genuine leader not instead use that same time to think more, to thus resolve the problems otherwise creating the perceived need for the existing military and police, to thus release resources for yet undiscovered knowledge? Are humans predicated on their mind, or their swords, guns and bombs? Were the armies and police created to protect the armies and police, or something more desirable to more people, including to the people in the armies and police? Given the choice, would you want the armies and police, or what they were designed to protect? Did you answer those questions? What answers will the wiser military and police personnel offer? What answers will their offspring offer? Will your subsequent actions, such as voting, reflect your use of your own answer? If you do not use your answers, precisely why do you state that which you disprove with your actions? Who and what institutions which do other than they say, do you support and follow?

Pity the people who dislike armies and police, who found mental comfort in the first sentences of the above paragraph, but could not distinguish their own flaw in each of the latter sentences, and cannot find their escape, for simple fear of accurately answering questions to thus question their answers, quite identical to those in military and police institutions. If you cannot identify the process to function without police, simply create the police, but only to thus question their actions to find their flaw to thus find the process you could not first devise. But police hold power. What does power do? What did you wish to learn before you decided to use power for an answer to any contradiction? How would you learn that knowledge? Would that knowledge not be of greater value than the police, to include the greater value to the police? Are the police of their guns, or their knowledge? What answer would be offered by a police officer, and how would he utilize his answer to advance his mind to the achievement of his goal, rather than stagnate his mind in the perpetuation of the problem creating his goal? Intellectual technology creates the answers that the police will understand, endorse and utilize, for their benefit.

Also within curiosity is found diversity, a primary key to the process, but still within curiosity. Seek diversity of knowledge. That cannot be said enough if you are not yet doing so. Learn what the other guy knows, and be quick to move to the next knowledge. It is the synthesis of both data-blocks that each individual more often does not know. The synthesis holds what they seek.

I learned intellectual technology by questioning all things, and often displaying myself as foolish as others by utilizing the socially common answers before I learned to questioned them further, with tenacity extending beyond all the people who claimed to hold the answers, much to their ire quite often.

For example, how many times (total number of elections) would you vote for the Republicans and Democrats before you learned from the results surrounding us that your vote achieved no goal you identified for your own integrity, but did identify your own lack of thinking by the results of your action? Why did those politicians not solve the problems they said their actions would solve 30 years ago? Did they not prove themselves to be ignorant of how to achieve their claims? Your vote defines your decisions by each decision of the person for whom you voted. After you voted for him, his worst decisions are yours, for public display, and you cannot deny them without identifying yourself as equally ignorant, by your action. You did not vote for only part of the politician. You defined yourself by him. To deny your openly proven action is to make a fool of yourself. And your vote gave power to that politician. What does power do? What has it always done? That you currently do not know what else to do for any question, simply means that you did not ask the next question, for lack of curiosity or tenacity. If elections come only once every year or two, could you not examine the concept of political elections, to ask the resulting questions, to far more quickly learn what to do with your vote before the next election, so that it creates no contradiction proving yourself to be foolish? Your vote only identifies your integrity. How do you manage your integrity? Can you successfully answer, in public, every question of it, to include as represented by every decision of the politician to whom you needlessly chained the identity of your integrity?

If you utilize a system wherein you can claim credit for the good you do, and evade responsibility for the ill that you do, such as to vote for a poorly thinking politician who acts in your behalf, you train your mind to ignore the consequences of your actions and thus create more ill. In turn, politicians do the same by creating bureaucrats and granting them regulatory (law-making) authority, who then blame their damaging results on the courts who blame it on the politicians who blame it on the other political party which blames it on the bureaucrats who blame... That is just an example of one of the institutional contradictions. The solution exists, to the satisfaction of each of the foregoing.

Why did the politicians join a political party so openly void of integrity that a child can prove the case against the greatest defense of all the most titled chaps who would attempt the defense? Why? Each question has a verifiable answer which no wise person would fear to present to the public. I voted for those politicians, for entirely too many years, and I deeply apologize for the results and my failure to question my actions. That is only an example.

I learned intellectual technology by way of an inordinately rare diversity of data-synthesis within sustained incentive to achieve a diverse series of finite, real-life material and institutional goals normally applicable to a broad social context, rather than any one goal, or one context with a straw man to blame, but each without imperative to manifest beyond an identified proof of the result, and verification of the process, before moving to the next goal.

Most people stop short in their more concerted learning process, upon learning enough within any arena to derive financial income for material comfort, especially those enjoying the material comfort within the institutions of so called higher learning. One can fabricate the same material comfort without the money, and thus learn more knowledge, such as the demarcation between the material and the illusion of its comfort. What is the value of more knowledge? Upon what is the human mind predicated? Use whichever answers you would offer in public for judgment of your wisdom, and enjoy that use. But do not hesitate to move on from what you currently enjoy, in search of more knowledge, to discover its greater value.

Among the key false assumptions nearly universal among all societies are the assumptions that you know what law is, what money is, what power is, and how to ask questions. While it is safely said and easily verified that you know nearly nothing about each, because you so magnificently display the results, those who most certainly know even less are the lawyers, judges, police, central bankers, politicians, military generals, journalists and university professors, much to their adamant denial upon facing the words in public, while holding their titles. Equally certain is that said titled experts can never even ask to discover the knowledge they lack, for fear of collapsing their most cherished illusions, and the material value of their foolish titles, upon the first effective questions. Central therein is the common inability to ask effective questions, which leaves the public following ignorant sorts with titles, who cannot question their ignorance to escape it. Escape it. At any cost, ask the most ruthless questions of your mind and institutions.

All the experts were identical to you, I, and every other human, before they fooled themselves into the entrenched ignorance of their institutional titles. If you start asking the questions that they refuse to answer, or that they answer with obviously unrelated rhetorical tap-dancing, you will already be ahead of them by asking the questions. If you continue asking those and similar questions, you will soon be laughing at your having made a fool of yourself by prior believing or following those institutional leaders. Holding the same original design of a human mind, as do you, they put themselves into institutions which trained their mind to fear questions of their institution's controlling contradictions, while you did not so limit your mind's ability to learn. If you are one of those leaders, extract yourself. Question your assumptions, especially those of your institution. The effort is of value far greater than the entirety of your title and current perceptions. If you do, you will learn that which will cause you to laugh the laughter sought by all people.

You may wish to read this paragraph slowly, phrase by phrase. Because tenacious analysis of diversity itself within social phenomena, coupled with inordinate curiosity, was the goal, the resulting process was not lost to the inherently modifying application of a finite goal. Thus a threshold of uniquely diverse process analysis was developed to apply to itself as a separate concept. Because the theretofore unknown or unachieved of each question was the goal in each case, but the focus applied to a process itself transcending unusually diverse goals rather than concluding at each initial goal itself, the universal verification process was the primary goal in sum. The technology therefore created an intellectual foundation rather than an organizational process foundation inherent to and confined to finite goals. The nature of the mind being such that data synthesis becomes exponential, rather than linear as defined in a process to achieve a finite organizational goal, at a recognized threshold otherwise simply part of a gradient, the technology was able to utilize itself to resolve expanding contradictions.

Therefore process was discovered for asking the next question of the last conclusion, beyond the ability of the person within the related institution, and nearly everyone else.

Therein, while words must hold their finite meaning to be useful in creating knowledge, their occasional collision at a fundamental level cannot preclude questions and the pursuit of knowledge made available by those questions. Therein, tenacity and curiosity offer their benefit above common frustration and surrender to a limit. There are those who rightfully define the impossible as impossible, but thus the limit of their willingness to ask the next question. Others recognize the impossible as only the currently recognized impossible. All data available to a human mind defines said impossibility as impossible. But what happens at the addition of the next inherently existent item of data to that mind?

What process would find that item of data if you sought to extend knowledge beyond the currently impossible, even at the most fundamental level? The scientist easily answers the question by scampering off to the field or instruments to merely find new data itself, for whatever use may become apparent. So what will the analyst of the human mind's concepts themselves, do? Among other such concepts, if one wants to learn intellectual technology the hard way on their own, rather than the efficient way from an instructor, one must fully learn the entire concept of stark boredom, by definition of conceptual analysis. Within it is knowledge beyond the great intrigues more easily seen in other arenas. There are other key concepts designed to brilliantly disguise every avenue to intellectual technology, because its value to humans is without adequate description. There may be nothing more valuable.

It is only for perspective to note that at midnight of 12 November 1998, the process to promptly resolve the most socially recognized conundrum of human society, was developed. It only awaits incentive.

Beyond that, the controlling contradiction of the human phenomenon has been identified, concurrent to its solution and process. Shortly after its manifestation for the first time, all human-caused contradictions will be promptly resolved, leaving the social context that which is sought by all people. Thereafter the entire human mind potential will be left to focus on the data that has not yet been physically discovered, and thus the human phenomenon will exponentially advance into the future sought by all humans.


If you are the existing authority...

Give a person a title of authority, and then suggest that the people should not respect authority. Rightfully laugh at the predictable reaction of the chap with the title. What is authority, and how is it acquired? The question is never effectively asked by people who acquire authority, and thus they do not hold the knowledge that would give their authority genuine substance. The substance of authority is in its origin, not its manifestation. If that were not so, anyone could buy a gun or create an armed gang to the extent of any size, and hold legitimate authority over whomever they could thus intimidate. Would you teach your children that legitimate authority can be so acquired?

Therefore you would suggest that the substance of authority is in its origin. But as a nearly universal example in the world, the authority of every government official, including the police, in the United States, was created by purchasing guns from gun manufacturers, then invading and slaughtering the existing authority in the geographical area constituting the United States. You may suggest an occasional treaty with the original Indian governments, imposed under threat of being shot, but even the treaties were mere deceptions never honored. The armed European gang created their authority with guns and deception, thus holding no legitimacy under law or reason. They could have purchased the land from the original owners, over which the new guys established the authority of their government, thus legitimately trading their labor and wisdom for it. But they were lazy, greedy, armed thugs. They stole it at gunpoint. So to suggest that the existing authority should be respected, are you back to teaching your children the legitimacy of creating their own authority with guns?

Concurrently, what is the origin of the authority of parents? If for lack of knowledge, and being too lazy to learn the related knowledge, you cannot accurately answer questions with unflawed reasoning therefore endorsed by the mind of the person asking the question, and instead rely on guns and muscle for your authority, said person is a fool to respect you as holding any legitimate authority if you suggest he cannot do as you do to acquire authority.

To enhance the contradiction so that the question becomes more encompassing, if you merely assume a currently existing authority without question of its origin, backed by armed police and military, and you are an official of that authority, such as a police officer or judge, if communists join the Democrat and Republican Parties, since the Parties are already founded on nothing but falsehoods, and said communists are thus easily elected into majority power of the US government, then use the existing system of authority to appoint all their judges, bureaucrats, police chiefs, and defense department officials, then further use that power under the existing system of authority to remove any opposition throughout the government, and eliminate by law any potential opposition, only exampled by the processes the RepublicratDemocans have used to advantage themselves and lock third political parties out of effective competition, thus securing a monopoly communist authority by clever process: will you state that the communists are the authority your children should respect?

Or will you instead, under question of your more perceptive children in face of communist abuses of government power, suggest that a wise person respects knowledge, wisdom, reasoning, and such references to the original design purpose of the human mind, rather than gun-backed power acquired by any process and then referenced with the word, authority? Is it not knowledge that benefits the human condition, while authority has created the problems everyone is trying to solve?

How will you use your answer?

Consider the chaps currently holding their obviously illegitimately acquired authority, such as police, judges and all other government officials, as though you were one of them, such as one of them reading these words. You are not going to surrender your current authority to then attempt to legitimately earn it with knowledge. Your mind will not allow you to do that, for a reason discussed elsewhere. Power is flawlessly addicting, flawlessly, at its conceptual origin inherently never recognized by the mind acquiring it. But you can, as the current authority, merely take the short period of time to learn advanced knowledge to replace your current dependence on authority with the wisdom of leading under knowledge, or reasoning. It is just knowledge, that which your mind was designed to learn.

You may retain your guns, police, armies, titles, offices, judges and jailers. Because they cannot replace your mind, you may use your mind to learn the knowledge that becomes the true origin of your current authority, recognized in its manifestations and thus inherently respected by other human minds, above your guns and their representations.

Therein you will learn the origin of legitimate and thus the most effective authority, to the maximum extent of its human manifestation, not mentioning any higher authority not within the design ability of humans to create. That practical human authority for effective social order and advancement is described by written law, but not that which the words, "written law", commonly create in your mind. Written law, written by humans, that creates genuine and effective authority is least known by judges, lawyers, police, law makers and such institutional sorts, or they would not need their guns, police, armies and yet more progressively ludicrous laws piled on top of obviously laughable laws inherently escalating public disrespect of authority.

The knowledge is derived by questioning law, to the extent every lawyer, judge, law maker and police officer fears to ask. Like authority, law deserves no respect until the written law itself identifies the unflawed reasoning earning the respect of each human mind identifying related questions of perceived contradictions in law. To complete this paragraph, to answer the inherent questions leaving your mind with said knowledge, would require writing a book, and still fail to identify your particular mind's questions by the word arrangement of your perceptions. To learn the knowledge requires a process facilitating expression of your mind's perceptions of contradictions. And these sections are just random excerpts of concepts inherent to intellectual technology.

That is only one part of the puzzle, and the questions must actually be asked and answered, something any person can do. The results are just knowledge, that for which the current representatives of authority are embarrassingly late in acquiring and thus yet hold no legitimate authority or respect of common-sense citizens.

To fail to acquire said knowledge, because of individual laziness and inherent corruption of power referenced as authority, is for you representatives of authority and your institution referenced as government, to progressively lose any remnant of public respect you thought you held, and eventually be laughed or chased out of your illusion of authority. The process is recurrent. Every government eventually collapses because humans have not yet selected any wise people for their governments, that is, people who effectively question their own institution's most cherished illusions. Until then, it is merely the choice of each individual in positions of so called authority. Did you value your mind as a human mind, or as the cheap gun of the police officer foolishly relying on his gun to create the illusion that you and he hold a useful mind? The police officer may and can as easily learn the knowledge explaining your wrong answer. He need only start asking questions, if he held the courage to do so. Relax. There is not one human with a government or other institutional position, who holds a shred of verifiable human courage, including every person in the US military. The proof is inescapable, verified with only a few effective questions, and most amusing. But that is another part of the puzzle.


Why intellectual technology is available now, and not prior common...

Intellectual technology is derived from a synthesis of diverse data, with emphasis on diverse.

Each synthesis of data creates new knowledge that in turn constitutes data useful for creating further new knowledge, etcetera. As the human phenomenon in sum creates inherently diverse new knowledge, now with 6.1 billion minds attending to that task, the knowledge base becomes a bit impressive from its own perspective. Therefore among the 6.1 billion there will be some people discovering new knowledge that represents more dramatic advancements in various arenas of knowledge. It can be described as just more people bumping around in more knowledge, to thus discover a gradient of knowledge including highly useful knowledge for any particular interest, by design of the human phenomenon. Some of those people, lacking the understanding of ego as a concept, think they accomplished great things, when in fact they were just another warm body such as you, I and your neighbor, by circumstance bumping into an arrangement of data whose synthesis is useful for something. As an aside, most amusing are those who bump into nothing that produces new knowledge for humans, but acquire one of the countless institutional titles impressing themselves, by the trite methods of acquiring titles, and therefore think they are great people. They only provide others who question the displayed contradiction, with the knowledge of the concept of self-stagnating ego.

Notice that certain discoveries created quantum steps in general knowledge. Invention of the wheel, written language, sailing technology, European discovery that the world was round, internal combustion engines, airplanes, electricity, television and such discoveries each created an extended array of significant advancements. Of course the current examples are the computer and the internet. Intellectual technology is a synthesis of diverse discoveries, most benefiting from diverse information distribution. It will become significant with extended results.

Noticeable parts of the technology, such as the invention of the human brain and its process, have been around for awhile, but some parts of the technology were recently discovered by humans. One can credibly suggest that the referenced knowledge has been known since day-one by certain individuals, but such a suggestion is successfully supported only with the understanding of the knowledge. An attribute of the knowledge is the lack of incentive for the person holding the knowledge to discuss it, in face of the consistent institutional attacks, sometimes of profound nature. To even suggest the existence of the knowledge is to more often be ostracized at the least, a phenomenon fully understandable within the knowledge. Therein part of the puzzle involves an extensive sense of humor and risk. Further, to initially understand its reference by others, requires the full understanding of it, since it does not exist with any part of the puzzle missing. Further, any effective reference to it must be sufficiently extensive to indicate several of the controlling concepts, which is not a matter of sound-byte communication. Knowledge of the technology therefore transfers poorly when not used for a common goal, and those holding it are rarely interested in any goal outside exponential knowledge-advancement itself.

Notice that major advancements of knowledge are often independently created by different people in different places, about the same time. Give large numbers of curious human minds a general base of knowledge, and they will create similar patterns of thought at roughly the same speed, by the singular design of the human mind. Knowledge is currently being widely shared. Other people are inherently discovering and discussing the referenced technology.

Controlling-concepts within intellectual technology, as parts separately known by different people, create the technology when each such concept fills key data gaps in any one person's mind. Only a questioning process can identify each precise gap, and then fill it. Consider the technology as a 17 part puzzle, with the puzzle completely useless and not identifiable until all 17 parts are individually understood and further synthesized. Because the parts are so diverse, and because societies institutionally developed extreme specialization or division of labor among individuals, it was inherent that the diversity plus complexity of the currently accumulated knowledge would rarely facilitate any one mind encountering the involved concepts for effective synthesis. First the knowledge had to be discovered against huge odds, then it must overcome overwhelming obstacles to its transfer, if transfer is an interest. Therein is an indication of its inordinate value.

While yet perhaps a bit before its time, the time for intellectual technology is at hand, and it can only benefit people, by design of the human mind.

Far more intriguing will be the results of the general population learning intellectual technology, which will create a quantum advancement in the human phenomenon, benefiting all humans, including those who most fear new knowledge. Amusingly, that is merely a goal easily achieved with the technology, if there were incentive. It is then that the question of, why only then did humans discover such theretofore unperceived advancements, will illuminate much of the explanation of the human phenomenon.


Analogy, Intellectual Martial Arts...

The Peasant's War Lord

One sentence in this analogy will tell you what you seek, and the others will make that possible.

You will not sustainably achieve any goals of substance until you understand this analogy to the extent of being able to write it, whether you learn the knowledge from this analogy or any of countless other sources.

The analogy herein is sometimes expressed with the use of the Japanese Samurai, but it combines several cultural phenomena, so I will reference a more generalized War Lord.

In a time mostly past, in a culture far from here, War Lords acquired their title and position by being born into a privileged family subculture.

Beyond that, each War Lord had to learn useful skills to contribute to society. There were not always enough wars for every War Lord all the time, and be damned if a War Lord was going to surrender his position just because there were no wars convenient to his bailiwick. What is a War Lord to do if his father won the war? War Lords were the institutional leaders of their society, and had to be at least tolerably competent for their more mundane responsibilities. The standards in their arduous education process as young lads, were generally high. Ego needs substance.

The Peasant also had to learn useful skills to contribute to society. The standards in his education process were unequivocal. He learned to produce, and then produced, period.

The only difference between the Peasant and War Lord's functionality for society, was that one of them held a title, a formally attached word other than his name, creating a rhetorical illusion of something greater than the human design. After the title was attached, the War Lord and the Peasant were still equal humans of the same design. They each just knew and did different things, both useful contributions to their society in whole. They were created as each by chance of birth in a particular family, not any different ability of the mind or body.

The only possible affect of the War Lord title, was on the mind. It otherwise produced nothing, and did not constitute any knowledge or ability. It was a rhetorical illusion. First, the title altered the perceptions of the mind of the holder, and then to a much lesser extent, altered the perceptions of the people around him. That the people around the War Lord were less impressed by his title is inherent. Why would the War Lord need a sword and an army, if all the Peasants and other War Lords considered the title and its holder anything more than just another rhetorical illusion attached to just another common human? Well?

Why do modern government and organizational leaders hold titles consistently defined as superior to other inherently equal humans? Do the titles produce anything or constitute useful knowledge or ability? What do the titles do to the mind of the holder? Did you answer those questions feared by title-holders, or just read-over them to thus derive no knowledge? That their title affects their mind and thus the decisions of the Honorable US President, the Honorable US Congressman and the Honorable Court Judge is unequivocal and verifiable to exhaustion. Those otherwise fine chaps will tell you they are honorable, they believe it, and they institutionally expect to be referenced as such. The rhetorical illusion of the title is used as a mental substitute for the objective recognition of the otherwise inherently flawed and often dishonorable nature of their actions. A title is always a rhetorical illusion. Its substance is inherently flawed by design of humans, and by the additional design of the concept of a title. The flaw flaws the perceptions of the mind of the title holder.

List on record any dozen or so of the many more available, open and verified actions of dishonesty perpetrated under power of office by the aforementioned titled chaps, then try to collect signatures of citizens who will go on that record as stating that the aforementioned are honorable. 100% of the titled persons think they are honorable, while only 3.4% of the citizens think said persons are honorable. You may suggest a different percent after attempting to get those signatures, if you can get even one. What causes the difference between the 100% and 3.4%? Well?

Consider who, by name and title, voted in the US Congress to fund (reward) the following chaps, and then willfully refused to call into genuine accountability, the entire US Army chain of command which ordered and carried out the placing and exploding of a shaped charge on the roof of a Christian church precisely where said titled personnel knew at the time was directly over civilian women and children hiding in terror from the massive US Government military/police, heavily armed siege on their church, thus willfully and needlessly slaughtering those innocent women and children at Waco Texas (proverbially hacking apart Peasants for the War Lord's sword practice), in a manner so repugnant and perfidious it would cause war crime convictions of said US Army personnel in any civilized nation. Consider the same US Government chain of command orchestrating the accusation, trial, conviction and punishment of a US Army Private (Michael New), who joined the US Army, not any other Army, and whose crime was to respectfully refuse to serve under a foreign command during one of Washington DC's recent, recurrent dirty little Wag The Dog foreign wars (proverbially hacking apart Peasants for War Lord sword practice) veiled under a foreign command. The examples are nearly endless.

If the US Government Executive branch officials openly commit repugnant crimes over and over again, with impunity, while the Legislative and Judicial branch officials of the same government and same political parties remain silent, refusing to initiate due process of criminal law as every government official is required by law to do upon recognition of evidence that a crime has been committed, are they Honorable? Kindly take the time to answer that question, and thus do not thereafter embarrass yourself among thinking people by suggesting that any US Government official or agent, including any military person, court judges or your favorite Republican or Democrat politician is honorable. Do you know any congressmen, judges, bureaucrats or military personnel? Who still believes that those titled government employees are "Honorable", because their title officially identifies them as such? Precisely who, by name and title, gave them their title, as opposed to their job duties? To answer the question is to recognize the childishness of said titles. Titles are substitutes for toilsome intellectual work, and define its absence.

Might you wish a few million more examples of less dramatic, dishonorable government agent perfidy, proving the affects of titles on the human mind, to include those sorts so foolish as to respect titles and their foolish holders?

Would you and they not instead choose to function under openly recognized and flawlessly respected wisdom, without need for titles, if you and they knew how to access it? Your answer?

If you were told by titled people that you earned a professional or prestigious title, or were otherwise granted one, would you be so foolish as to accept it? What is the title's cost to your mind? Can you get something for nothing? If two people learn the same set of knowledge, and one of the people accepts a related title, who will hold which advantages and which disadvantages? How much advancement of your mind's knowledge will you surrender for how many dollars or what measure of ego created by a title, while the other guy uses his mind to continue advancing his knowledge and thus the benefit to himself and the people for whom he works or leads? What will your mind learn from this analogy? Did you want the title so your mind could relax in its benefits, and wield the convenient title instead of the untitled knowledge, or never reach any accepted title so your mind kept reaching for new knowledge, with no power to substitute a title for your mind's reasoning always being questioned and thus advancing beyond those around you? Well?

Pick a word to reference the affect of that title on the mind of its holder. Remember that word. You may wish to write it. What you write will be very useful to remember after you read this analogy. Only with full knowledge of that concept, and no mere illusion, can you be granted the title and not sustain the damages of its otherwise inherent affect.

The War Lords wrote the social rules. These were the rules. The War Lords would wear what armor they wished, and carry swords, and go about hacking apart whomever of the Peasants the War Lords wished to use for sword practice, of course necessary for war, to protect the peasants of course. The Peasants would wear only loin cloths, carry no weapons, and be hacked apart at whim of the War Lords. The War Lords thus compounded the rule of their sword with the rule of fear, and thought they were pretty damn smart figuring that out.

What can the modern War Lord-styled police and court judges in the US wear and carry, when and where, for which you and other non-titled Peasants will immediately be shot or imprisoned if you or other Peasants, as inherently equal humans, do the same? Therefore what will you learn to do because you read this analogy?

After awhile the Peasants encountered sufficient incentive to give this game a bit more thought. Unlike the American gun owner mentality, the Peasants under the swords of the War Lords did not clandestinely make armor and swords for themselves. There were inconveniences with that process at the time back when junk yards had not yet accumulated much scrap steel, and loin cloths concealed little. Besides their loin cloth, the Peasants had available to them little more than their mind. What is the capability of a mind with incentive? Did you answer that question?

The Peasants therefore used their minds to invent deadly, unarmed martial arts for self defense. They did this by analytical thinking, that is, asking and answering questions in their mind.

They more closely watched the War Lords, especially during War Lord Sword Swinging 101 classes. A human can make the most unpredictable actions. But put a sword in his hands, and his actions are dictated by the limits of the sword. Now the actions are of a manageable number to analyze. Next the Peasants divided each otherwise identified sword movement into short segments, to learn each segment's process and vulnerability, and also better understand the whole of the segments. Certain movement segments always followed other movement segments. The peasants thus created a lot of useful knowledge, using many words to describe and thus analyze the knowledge, while unthinking War Lords and those they intimidated used only the two words, sword swinging, and thus stagnated their knowledge at that generalized level of fear, or of sword swinging. Divide your questions into smaller questions.

And the peasants could use a stick to practice the movements of the opponent, to learn them well, because muscles are of the same design among different humans. Remember that sentence. Regardless of the size of each muscle, they each move the related body part in the same vector uniformly among all bodies. If your concern is impact location rather than impact energy, then the size of muscles is the lesser consideration. Is the unarmed, loin cloth clad person at the non-handle end of a sword more impressed with the energy behind the razor-sharp sword, or where it swings? The War Lords were foolishly impressed with the muscle behind the sword, and practiced what impressed them, while the Peasant was watching and thinking about the vectors of the sword swings, and practiced that thinking.

The War Lords compounded their contradictions. Fearing the same sword-swinging by other War Lords, they used their first answer to the problem. They created body armor, cumbersome stuff that it is. They thus limited their available body movements to a yet fewer number. They also created a perception that they were immune to much of the sword-swinging, further reducing their incentive to use their mind. They replaced the utility of their mind with material things.

The Peasants, with their analysis and a lot of practice thinking, since that was all which was available to them, could thus observe the first flex of a War Lord's muscles, and know what full movement would then take place. Remember that sentence. The mind's thinking process itself functions quickly. The response to a threatening action of one body functions about as quickly as another, but can be improved with practice, to the extent one uses the far greater potential of the mind, rather than comparatively slow muscles. Incentive is a function of the mind. One need only fully understand each concept then train with their synthesis to gain a commanding millisecond advantage over the person who did not so train. One need not strike the opponent first, but only first recognize the opponent's action to thus only move to the optimal position in relation to that action.

But there was more to learn. At what exact point in a defined movement, is what spot on the body vulnerable to the least impact or touch of one's bare hands or feet, requiring the least energy expenditure, to quickly cause the movement to go so awry that it concludes in wasted energy, or damage to the person initiating the original action? The Peasant learned that, as well as simultaneously moving his own body to a safe spot or a better position for the next interaction. The process required time thinking and practicing. It was all conceivable, and then easily manifested with just a bit of practice. The incentive was to retain one's life.

It took awhile for the Peasant to learn this, what with his day job in the rice paddies and all, but he figured that his life was worth the effort, and the effort taught his mind much more than he derived from sitting in front of the TV. It took a lot of observing, thinking, and practicing. But deadly, unarmed martial arts was therefore invented, from scratch. Each Peasant who learned the knowledge, was immune to the swords of the War Lords.

The War Lords were accustomed to judging their enemies in rival War Lord families by the size of their muscles, armor and sword, because that is of which they trained their mind. With no such data available from the Peasants who learned unarmed martial arts, the War Lords became a bit uneasy of mind when riding among the Peasants whose friends and relatives had been hacked up by people holding the title of War Lords. The potential victims and potential killers among the Peasants, all looked the same, skinny little runts in loin cloths, with no swords or armor to identify them. And they had already been turned into an enemy. Rule by fear creates hatred of the ruler, the enemy of all humans. Thus it is fools who rule by fear, and fools do not think as accurately as those who are not fools.

You cannot kill all of your enemies, and to kill or otherwise damage one person is to create enemies by creating fear and thus hate. What can your mind do with that knowledge after you verify its consistency within the design of the mind?

How many US citizens, including young people and previous military people communicating with others in society, learned to hold in contempt the US military and police after they slaughtered innocent women and children in their church at Waco Texas, and then slithered away from accountability among their perfidious ilk in Congress and the US judicial branch? Therefore what additional percentage of thinking people will have nothing to do with military, police, government and its court judges, leaving those institutions with yet less questioning and thus less intelligent people who will therefore act more maliciously toward the people in the future? What were the itemized and net consequences of the War Lords attacking the peasants for sword-swinging practice?

Inventing the unarmed martial arts was the hard part, but the War Lords created the incentive. A lot of Peasants did not survive the development process, like many new things. But after the process was developed, the other peasants needed to only learn it from those who had already learned it. That was comparatively easy. In face of incentive, many Peasants learned the knowledge.

There is more. The deadly weapon used by the Peasant to assist the arrogant War Lord to kill himself, was not a sword or gun. Nor was it hands or feet which were used primarily to deflect and redirect movements at vulnerable moments. Nor was it muscle which was used minimally to only deflect and redirect, since the Peasants were not in a position to bulk-up with muscle at the gym. The mechanism that turned the tables was the human mind. The War Lord killed himself with his own redirected movements and his own weapon, with which he consumed his own time and muscle to train. Like all humans, he was his only enemy. His enemy was therefore equally strong and armed, and was so lazy in thinking that he could be turned against himself with just a little more thinking by the other guy. Something in the mind of the War Lord caused it to not recognize what the Peasant did. Remember this paragraph during the concluding part of this analogy.

The Peasant learned something new and different, beyond his social data-base as a rice farmer. The War Lord, thinking he was already at the zenith of knowledge since there was no title above him, did not learn anything new and different beyond his data-base as a War Lord. Both the Peasant and the War Lord were equally capable of learning new knowledge, by design of the human mind. One did so, and one did not. Precisely why? Why did War Lords became a socially disrespected lot? Did you answer the question with an answer demonstrating thought, that is, more questioning? Is not the human species predicated on constantly learning new knowledge, rather than developing greater dependence upon yesterday's knowledge and inventions?

The War Lord acquired and carried a title in his mind. If you seek to learn something new that no one has yet learned, would you want to think you were already the leader, or think you had yet to get there by your effort at thinking your way to and then beyond what the leader knew? Would you want to spend your time defending a useless title, or spend that same time thinking your way into new concepts? There are only 24 hours per day, and learning new things requires use of the hours you are wasting on what you already know.

There is more. Once the Peasant learned how to kill the War Lord, with scant exertion, by using bare hands, feet, mind and the War Lord's muscles and weapon, the Peasant class was a threat to the War Lords. But the War Lords were not enamored with wading in the rice paddies to plant and harvest rice, so they could not wage war on the Peasants. Hacking up a few Peasants on occasion was just a business expense for training, but going to war against the Peasants would promptly bankrupt the business. The War Lords were dependent on the people they had foolishly made into an enemy who therefore became deadly. What did the US DemocanRepublicrats with their US Army and FBI do among thinking American Christians when those government boys slaughtered innocent women and children in their Christian church in Waco Texas, etcetera? The prior history of all War Lords, like each government's title holders and titled institutions relying on accumulated power and fear, addicted to the titles that identify them with prior abuses, already made the Peasants into permanent enemies of War Lords. Why do you think that the entire spectrum of government titles are now considered by the vast majority of the public, as thieves, thugs and liars, against which citizen defenses progressively become more innovative? The War Lords therefore worried a lot, not doing their health any favor, and spent their time defending the lesser position of the title to which they were hopelessly addicted. Against what are the burgeoning new American police forces defending whom? The War Lords thus had less time and resources to advance themselves and their people into the benefits of new knowledge. The minds of the War Lords sincerely believed that their social system was superior to others, inherent to their accepting their superior title.

The test of time reveals many things. How many of the current governmental systems are based on War Lords and Kings, under those titles? Was the perceived superiority therefore not a rhetorical illusion? Who would choose to live under the old social system of the War Lords? Precisely who produced the modern benefits you appreciate, despite the efforts of the War Lords to force the people to serve only the defense of War Lords? What did their title do to their mind, and what did the people recognize in the results? What are the new governmental titles doing to the minds of those copying the War Lord concept under its new disguises?

Because the Peasant never acquired a title, and was never part of an identified institution of privilege; when he was carefully observing the War Lords, questioning every detail and each origin of each observation, he was able to recognize the origin of the War Lords' institutional imperative to attack the Peasants and thus the need for the Peasants to devise the defense, all at waste of time that could have produced more rice. The War Lords had created a rhetorical illusion in their title of War Lords, and because it was inherently an illusion, claiming superiority over humans, the War Lords had to defend it from illusions of threat, and thus attacked the other guy who had to be held subservient to an illusion. Because the other guy was inherently another equal human inherently manifesting that fact in his normal actions, he was thus perceived as a threat, while the threat did not exist outside the creation of the illusion in the mind of the War Lord. The title of War Lord could not tolerate mere humans as being equal. Thus the humans holding the title could not tolerate perceptions that revealed mere humans as equals, when the human design holds no mechanism for one human to be lesser or greater than another. The illogicality of the entire show was recognized only by the Peasants, since the War Lords were the first victim of their own illusion, as is the result of titles.

The Peasants who learned the new knowledge created no title or privileged society in their newly developed martial arts, to remain anonymous to an organized attack by the War Lords, and thus held no fabricated illusion in need of defending by attacking perceived threats to an illusion. The Peasants held no need to attack and kill those War Lords who did not attack the Peasants. It was each attack of a War Lord that resulted in his death by his own actions, not any attack by the Peasants. The defense needed no offense because the defense was the result of thinking enough to turn the actions of each offense into the defense, producing a defense without need to waste time and effort on an unnecessary process and infrastructure of offense. The Peasant, having seen what the War Lords ultimately caused for themselves because they foolishly created an enemy by attacking Peasants, and having learned from observing the War Lords, that there is no real difference in humans that cannot be resolved by learning more knowledge, recognized the wisdom of not creating unnecessary enemies who will thus learn to become more deadly. You might read that again.

The War Lords were faced with an enemy manifested as knowledge, rather than as an army or group of identifiable people. The War Lords took swords to a mind-battle, and were thus inherently doomed to defeat, by design of the human predicated on its mind rather than its inventions. How does one attack knowledge with weapons, and win, if not by killing everyone who thinks more than the weapon-holder, including his own organization's superiors and subordinates, and those who therefore discover the knowledge to extend life longer and make it more enjoyable? Were the weapon-holder to win such a battle, he would be the only human left, and dare not question his most recent conclusion, for fear of his killing the person who dared to display the knowledge revealed by a new question. The foregoing absolute is literally beyond the understanding of the War Lord mentality people in every society and government who seek to defeat their enemy with any form of force, such as the use of military or majority rule laws backed by police guns and prisons, yet the foregoing concept is not escapable by any human. To learn that knowledge is to take a quantum step to where you can access the second half of what you seek. Knowledge will always ultimately prevail over force, by design of the human. Look at your unthinking organization leaders and their power-based tactics, and do not wonder why you are methodically losing your battles.

Consider the conservatives and liberals. What would happen if the liberals won their political battle by using their current police and military backed tactics, killing or imprisoning all the conservatives, leaving only liberals? Try to find a liberal with whom the next liberal agrees on all things, and thus identify the new enemy he must kill or imprison, since he chose the wrong weapon for the contradiction he faced at the outset. The conservative of course could not wish for his institution's victory, and thus face the same fate. The contradiction holds a resolution, which are not any of your current guesses.

There is more. Unarmed martial arts consisted primarily of the use of the mind, by design, a concept beyond the recognition of the War Lords and their mental ilk in power-based rather than thinking-based institutions. The power-based chaps genuinely believe that swords and guns are the ultimate form of human intelligence to convey knowledge to others. Their denials at facing the words are hollow upon describing their actions that they brag about among fellow power-based chaps. They foolishly replaced the word, "reasoning", with, "power", thus oblivious to the design of the human mind. The actively thinking or reasoning mind of the Peasant encountered no reason to stop thinking after securing his defense, and simply kept asking and answering questions, beyond each conclusion, since the process became exponentially productive. Remember that sentence.

First the Peasant learned how to promptly kill the unsuspecting War Lord with the War Lord's own anger-driven clumsiness, and then learned to never do so, read that again, never do so, because the extension of the skill was to deflect every movement, leaving the War Lord exhausted in abject defeat, at the mercy of his intended victim, with no more available defense of his body, mind or title, and thus with no available escape in body or mind but to respect the Peasant more greatly than any titled War Lord, destroying the illusion of the title, and illuminating the concept of knowledge. Anger, force, power, weapons or any of their manifestations were no longer usefully available to the War Lord, because they would just cause another humiliating defeat, with no escape but respect for the Peasant, or learning what the Peasant learned, which included the following.

Because learning is exponential to the mind not fearing knowledge, the Peasant also learned how to subsequently treat the physically and intellectually vanquished opponent, just like any inherently equal human of social usefulness, as a free person not usefully limited by unthinking armed sorts with government titles. The Peasant therefore acquired a valuable ally rather than a useless dead body whose brothers and colleagues would be looking for revenge. And more so than the dead person, the person in prison does not contribute to society, and his friends become the enemy of the imprisoners, and the person guarding him does not contribute to society, and the person paying the expenses of both does not contribute to the society which could otherwise make life better for humans and thus both the Peasant and War Lord. The knowledge and skill to defeat your enemy without damaging him, and then impose no damage in his vulnerable position, to let him go about his useful life as he sees fit, with no punishment but what he learned from the results of encountering your wisdom, is worth far more to you and everyone, than the knowledge to defeat your enemy. It is worth the value of sustainably achieving your greatest goal.

There is more. Having used the mind to out-think the opponent's use of his muscle, the Peasant's next questions approached the opponent's mind as itself alone. These human minds can make the most unpredictable decisions, but put an institutional title into one's mind, and its thinking is limited to that dictated by the limits of his institutional title, despite his foolish illusions and denials at facing these words. Now his decisions are a manageable number, a very small number. Next the Peasants divided the question of each otherwise identified institutional decision into more detailed questions, to learn each revealed concept's vulnerability, and also fully understand the whole of the institutional decisions. The process of analyzing the opponent's mind can be practiced with one's own mind, because minds are of the same design among humans. Did you remember the above sentences verifying the fundamental concept transcending superficial examples. And the institutional sorts cannot identify their institution-created enemy who is thinking more than the prestigiously titled government and other such institutional chaps craving ego-gratification rather than knowledge. The thinking mind carries no sword, armor or titles to noticeably distinguish it from other people.

With the advantage of the mind dealing with a mind rather than muscles, fully within the design parameters of the mind, utilizing reasoning alone, one can not only recognize what the titled opponent is going to do next, by a uniquely knowledgeable understanding of his first otherwise imperceptible indicators, well before he does it, obvious by their paucity of prior thought, one can also design that action by providing the intellectual stimuli, a deflection of his identified thoughts carried by his own mind's momentum, directly to his achieving your goal.

Did you remember the first sentences of this analogy?

And therefore intellectual martial arts were invented.

The organizational manifestations of human fundamentals are that which the modern organizationally titled War Lords cannot recognize while swinging their institutional process swords, because they see the process from the handle-end.

If as a common reaction, among others, you perceive from the above what you suspect may be knowledge used by the exclusive class of inordinately wealthy, privileged and powerful people, to create their social status, privileges and lifestyle craved by so many other people, you missed the substance of the analogy. The wealthy and powerful have no access to the knowledge, among them. They instead have wealth, power and titles, defended as did the War Lords. They are the foolish War Lords who traded the astonishing value of their human mind, for the childish trappings of ego, wealth, power, social status and material accumulations. They remain mired in the intellectual dark ages, confused by their own mind, sincerely believing they are leaders despite their overt failures, ignorant of the human phenomenon beyond money, guns, votes and such manifestations of power worthless to the human mind. They have no access to otherwise achievable new knowledge to advance the human phenomenon and thus equally benefit the children of the privileged and powerful. They are the best example of that which most stagnates humans, and that which most fools humans.

How many War Lords would have killed history's greatest inventors of that which made your life so comfortable, before they produced their inventions, if the inventors had lived under the War Lords and did not cower in fear before their titles? How many did they actually kill?

What has changed? How many of the greatest contributors toward the comfort or life of your offspring, are not yet so only because they are currently in prison because they did not cower before your US Democrat and Republican War Lords and their malicious court judges routinely adopting more strident, illogical laws against that which harms no other person, to say nothing of the other nations under equally non-thinking governmental and such institutionally titled leaders? Is it not the type curiosity that produces the new inventions making your life more comfortable, which first reacts against illogical government restrictions on the freedom to pursue such curiosity, and thus first fight for their freedom, and thus consume their time in that manner rather than producing what you want? How many people who could otherwise use their time and mind to find the cure for the cancer which may kill you and your own offspring, are instead using their time trying to figure out how to regain human freedom from government officials who yet do not question their own illogical conclusions? Words of denial or excuse are worthless in face of the proven manifestation. Some of those proofs are of superlative humor in that they identify astonishing advancements available to your life and lifestyle, and that of your children, willfully withheld because you have created an abusive governmental system, literally not deserving of the discovered knowledge. Which people so hate their children that they seek to imprison as many human minds as possible to thus rob their children of the inherent benefits of human mind diversity free to synthesize new knowledge? Look at the actions of your government leaders. The rice of a better life is not planted or harvested by people busy either defending or fighting against your institution's attacks, or other such failure to use your mind.

The limit of the analogy does not illuminate the full effect of titles and similar concepts. Give the least Peasant any title above his fellow humans, and his mind will be denied one or more of the questions imperative to access the knowledge, or he would question his title to find its controlling contradiction, and thus have already surrendered it. What have you done with your titles, including that of Owner? The knowledge is with the untitled peasants, those with genuine incentive to think, and thus those who learn what they therefore need never manifest, for lack of any enemy. The concept does not compare the Peasant with the War Lord. It compares the person who thought enough to learn the knowledge, with the person having not yet thought that much. Any human can be or do either, inherent to the singular design of the human mind. Thinking is merely the process of asking and answering questions.

The referenced knowledge is just a sliver of knowledge, like all other slivers of knowledge no greater or less than any others, in sum comprising what humans have currently discovered. It is of no value for swinging swords, growing rice or many other tasks. Its utility is found in promptly and sustainably achieving goals which currently frustrate institutional opponents who are thus still mired in the intellectual dark ages.

You can learn this knowledge now. That is easy. You do not have to invent it. Inventing it is hard, and was already done. But you must learn enough on your own to recognize a person who already learned the knowledge. They hold no incentive to display its results, and they hold no titles, wealth or institutional privileges so craved by those who place fabricated illusions above the value of the mind. Those who acquired the knowledge thus hold no need to attract self-benefiting attention, rather than learn yet more knowledge. There is a reason for the continued existence of the War Lord ilk and modern power-based institutions whose perceived strength is in numbers of members, connections to titled people, money, weapons and all such stagnating concepts. The concept in sum must precede the knowledge of Peasant martial arts in each mind because the human mind was designed to first be attracted to the trappings of power, such as armor, swords, guns, money, armies of voters, titles and other manifestations useless to the design of the mind, as the creation of the contradiction creating the imperative incentive for humans to learn the design of the human mind, and its ability.

If there is no contradiction, there is no question, and thus no answer. The design is brilliant beyond the human ability to create, but within the human ability to learn, by design. Easily learn the knowledge, and vast arenas of historically frustrating questions are promptly answered, and more.


Conclusions and questions... 18 November 2000

You are as certain that your conclusions are right, as I was when I was a teenager. In fact, you are more certain upon my stating that, because you are no longer a teenager. But after you became an adult, if you subsequently learned anything, you repeatedly recognized that items of knowledge you prior concluded were correct, were in error, because at that prior time you simply did not hold the new knowledge you subsequently learned. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that you have learned nothing more than you knew as a teenager. To therefore admit to that obvious fact is to admit that your current conclusions are easily in error, since you do not yet know everything, including the vast diversity of data which may easily prove your prior conclusions as flawed. If as a governmental, organizational or other institutional leader you suggest that your current conclusions, still defended against effective questioning, are that upon which others should act or be forced to act, you reveal your gross foolishness or maliciousness, thus embarrassing yourself in face of commonly intelligent humans. So at what point in time, for what arenas and items of knowledge, are which of your conclusions actually correct, and by what proof? The verifiable answer to that question requires a longer process than could be presented in this section of words, and requires answering many of your questions. But that inordinately useful answer exists.

Part of the answer is herein indicated: Your questions are more often correct that your conclusions, by definition. Is that not so? So to be correct more often, you need only learn how to effectively utilize more questions, and fewer conclusions. Read that again, preferably several times. The value of that process is not easily acquired. If your questions are effective, instead of mere rhetorical tap dancing without substance for an attempt to fill the description, you will be asking questions that cause more grief for your mind, than anyone else's mind. Your mind will defend against such self-inflicted grief, and literally block your access to questions of that inordinate value. It has the ability to do that, by a certain mechanism of which you are not currently knowledgeable, for a proof found elsewhere. The contradiction can be resolved only by learning that knowledge. In contrast, notice that you do not have as effective a defense from the socially manifested results of your flawed actions not prior sufficiently questioned. Once other people act on your conclusions, or initiate defense against them, your prior errors can figuratively bite you and your offspring, and be very difficult to correct after so many other people adopted your flawed conclusions or reacted against them, as their correct conclusions. You are therefore obviously wiser to prior question your conclusions, effectively.

The wisdom you cannot acquire by just becoming an adult, by living a long life or being given a prestigious institutional title, is obtained by asking questions rather than stating conclusions. And you must ask an extensive diversity of highly effective questions to give any substance to your reference of the word, wisdom.


End of Intech Concepts 2

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