Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 6
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


Yes, a tedious process, but only from scratch... 1 February 2001

The process to discover the promptly achievable resolution to every contradiction you wish to resolve, is simple. But learning it from scratch, on your own, without assistance, the first time, is tedious. After the first time, or with assistance, it is most efficient.

You need only start with any contradiction, and ask the most obvious question, and answer it as best you can. Your answer therefore solves the problem, or it would not be the correct answer. You will of course recognize that your answer does not solve the problem, usually because the other guy won't do what your answer suggests that he should do.

Therefore you need to ask the next question to resolve the contradiction you identified, and answer it, and so forth. At first, your line of questioning may seem to go in varied directions. While you will want to move forward to the conclusion you seek, if you are instead seeking the conclusion which is correct, you will most likely be moving away from your preferred conclusion toward more basic concepts, which only upon accurate identification, build the practical process to achieve your conclusion.

The first key to the process is patience and tenacity. You must ask every question of every contradiction, and discard the half of the data disproven by your answers. Of course when first learning the process, don't shred all those wrong answers, because you may later find that some of them were correct for a section of the process to discover the controlling question. Further, utilize all your correct answers, synthesizing them to build the correct, ultimate conclusion. You will find that they reveal contradictions among themselves, creating questions to identify the answers which hold no flaws. Use all the correct answers, and discard use of the disproven answers.

Another key is your mind's difficulty in working with groups of answers. The mind consciously recognizes only individual conclusions at any one instant, for practical purposes. Therein is the benefit of writing your questions and answers, because you will not remember any complex series of detailed answers when you need their flawless conclusions any minutes, hours or days later. Because your mind functions in that manner, you could easily end up lost in a maze of questions, repeatedly finding yourself in familiar places, and repeating questions to get beyond your current contradiction. You must escape that very common trap.

Therefore you must identify a concept to group or synthesize blocks of questions and answers. Therein you must identify controlling concepts, those concepts which control identified groups of questions and answers.

Your mind will rebel the entire time, because it will be learning something new, by a tedious process, and without any psychological support from anyone else because this concept is so rarely known. Further, you will be routinely attacked or ridiculed by everyone around you, because you will be delving into inordinately advanced knowledge capable of resolving commonly manifested problems, and thus embarrassing those who purport to know the answers. That is only the most superficial indication of the overwhelming array of obstacles for any human mind to discover knowledge of this magnitude, by definition and obvious manifestation within the human phenomenon.

The ease of the process is illuminated when you discover a person who already knows it, and thus acquire assistance in approaching any identified contradiction from the other end of the spectrum, that is, from the unique type questions already identified as controlling. Therein, each subordinate question you ask more quickly arrives at a dead end in face of every subsequent question your identify. You do not have to deal with a maze. You are much sooner left with the concluding answer for which you can find no escape, even with assistance in discovering subordinate questions you did not recognize. The controlling questions will efficiently illuminate the process to achieve your goal or solve your problem, regardless of any opponent, since the questions identified by the latter phrase will have been answered.

But the balance is perfect. You must find such a person by a recognition process in your mind, when that process does not currently exist, and faces the prior indicated defenses. Then you must have the patience and tenacity to endure his impartial questions that embarrass and anger your prior perceptions. If you believe you know how to achieve a goal, but the results around you prove your error, it is inherent that emotion rather than logic currently blocks your mind's access to the process. To discover the process to achieve your goal, simply count on encountering embarrassment, fear and anger, easily defeating them with certain questions, and thus laugh robustly with your new ability to laugh robustly at that which blocks others from otherwise so easily acquiring astonishingly advanced knowledge.

That is for the process to willfully learn the process. In contrast, if you wished to use the process to achieve a goal in face of an opponent, you need not have his cooperation or desire to willfully learn the process. You would be utilizing the process for its value, not to educate your opponent. That your opponent would be educated as a result, and thereupon appreciate the knowledge, is not controlling, as it is if you had no opponent and only offered the knowledge to any who wished to learn.


Create it, or never hold it... 2 February 2001

Notice that you remember some of this from what you prior read, but could not have written this section because you did not do what was prior said as imperative to learn what you prior read.

Your mind, like mine and everyone's, despite your self-flattery, cannot understand, and thus cannot functionally utilize, that for which your mind does not create its own questions and answers to thereby physically (electro-chemical process) create data receptor sites in your cranial goo. If you skirt or hastily skip-over expressly stated or written questions and answers that verifiably resolve identified contradictions, your mind will simply not create an identification receptor for the identified data. Your brain simply requires certain processes to create what you call knowledge, and that requirement ain't just some hasty worded insistence that the world oughta be what you perceive from some hastily worded illusions.

Notice your mind's impatience with the process of tediously writing questions and answers. What is the usefully identified origin of that impatience? What is its conceptual effect on your mind? The questions have verifiable answers. You will refuse to answer the questions, and if you did under any incentive, you would refuse to question the answers, and thus you will be stagnated by the results of that lack of knowledge. As an aside, there is an easier way to learn the knowledge, but that requires an instructor.

Notice your inability to convince the other guy to patiently consider the questions and answers you created from the flaw of your own impatience.

Now notice your mutual impatience, irritation and anger toward a third party who concertedly asks the questions that you and your opponent both hastily skipped over to thus yet lack the related knowledge which could extract you from your contradiction.

If circumstance created an imperative for a sustainably accurate solution to a problem, who of the above would you seek for counsel? Become him.

Do so, and your opponent will be unable to escape the sustainably accurate solution you create.


The Book... 3 February 2001

A common prerequisite for being interviewed on prominent radio or TV shows, and receiving public attention in a number of arenas, is to have written a book. To write a book is similar to receiving an institutional title. In fact, it creates the title of, author. Authors are commonly assumed to be the experts on what they write, because they wrote the book. Certainly many authors have their detractors, but they are therein accorded more attention.

Now notice how many books have been written since writing was invented. So many books have been written that one may suggest that for the data available to humans, all the books have been written by all the expert authors.

So why are there still any unsolved problems in relation to the book subjects?

The millions of book authors would immediately suggest that not enough people read their books. But how many books exist, and how much time do people have to read more books than people have proven they have time to read? What will you give-up to read how many thousand books others say you must read?

A person in search of the controlling answer to why problems still exist after all the authors have written all the books on how to solve those problems, to thus learn how to resolve the contradiction, would divide the question into all its parts, and methodically question his way through each part, questioning each answer.

But notice at the start that the most obvious universal given for every human-caused problem yet unresolved, is that many books have been written about it, and the problem remains. A universally controlling contradiction is indicated in relation to the issue of books, by definition.

You must read this slowly if you wish to derive any benefit. If you wanted to test the theory that maybe the writing of a book on a subject involving any contradiction was the process by which you trained your mind to not be able to design or manifest the solution, what would you learn if you created the conclusion that you could not write a book about what you learned in relation to your analysis of the problem, and still design a verifiable solution, and therein questioned what you learned?

You will find the answer to that question in no book, yet it would be in the most prominent books if books held credibility for process to convey solutions to problems. What book author would reveal the controlling contradiction of books? None can even identify it.

It is only an aside to mention again that you cannot learn a resolution to a contradiction if you undertake the process to write the book about the process, nor, as also elsewhere proven, can one learn how to resolve a currently unresolved contradiction, from information in a book.

The process to design a solution to a seemingly complex problem, or learn how to manifest the solution, is contradicted by the process of writing books. Book authors would be outraged by the suggestion. But the authors have written all the books, and the social problems surrounding you still exist. You can understand the irrefutable contradiction identified. But like politicians and other institutional sorts, the institution of book authors cannot comprehend or access their institution's controlling contradiction, or the participants would abandon their institution to instead design the solutions to the contradictions, they could therefore manifest.

Stop reading books that fooled the authors into thinking they were advancing useful knowledge. Start asking questions, and write your answers, and question them. Notice the difference between what you are therefore doing, and reading or writing books. From what does your mind create new knowledge?

Notice that the other information distribution institutions, such as radio and television, routinely compound rather than resolve the referenced contradiction. Unless you are driving a vehicle or such activity, and thus unable to be writing, stop listening to radio. Start asking questions, and write your answers, and question them. And for informational television, you will learn more if you write questions of the contradictions commonly evident in the first ten minutes of a show, then turn off the TV, to answer those questions, and question your answers.


What your mind is doing... 4 February 2001

It is your choice to be among those who object to the first part of this section, and thus derive inadequate substance from the second part, or be among those who treat the first part as a given, to thus recognize the proof in the second part.

The first part: It does not matter what you do. For example, you could politically fight on either side of a highly controversial issue deeply seated in your beliefs. Which side you fight on is immaterial. And it does not matter why you do it. For example, you could be investing your time and energy for the good of your country, for your children, for money, or for fun. The reason you do it is immaterial, despite your most ardent defense of your claimed purpose.

The second part: But what is happening regardless of the above, is that your mind is learning knowledge. No matter what you are doing, your mind is learning knowledge. You agree. It doesn't matter whether I flatter you, insult you or taunt you. You agree with the obvious, simple truism therein described, and your any attempt to present a defense of a disagreement would fail.

Now, how would you use that item of knowledge with which you agree, despite the discomfort your mind is starting to recognize in relation to your political or organizational efforts. Your opponent is doing precisely what you are doing. You are each learning knowledge.

Therein, if you have not achieved your goal, or have not figured out how to solve the problem that frustrates your efforts, it is inherent that your mind simply needs more knowledge. To verify that you need more knowledge, consider what else you might need. If you think you need more money, look at the test of time after you or your countless predecessors first said that, or ask yourself how much money you need by what date to achieve your goal, and in either case it is proven that you instead need more knowledge, to include the knowledge of how to achieve the goal with less money. If you think you need more of anything else, like more followers, more time, more this and more that, simply ask the questions that lead to the each related flaw solvable only by more knowledge.

So if you needed the knowledge of how to achieve a goal you have not yet achieved, or solve a problem you have not yet solved, and therefore sought the knowledge, who would you seek as counsel, the person who spent his time inside his side of a battle waged for the reason he kept saying, and thus learned only his obviously failed process over and over and over, or a person who considered the side and purpose to be immaterial compared to the mechanism to learn more knowledge?

You don't learn more knowledge by doing what you did yesterday.

Ya'll let me know now when you want to learn what no institutional sort can ever learn, the process that can promptly resolve the most complex contradictions created by humans. The institutional sorts think the other guy is their enemy, thus never learning the controlling part of the knowledge he inherently holds, as is the case for his view of them, and its results. No human could design a game of such brilliance that the process designed to recognize a human source for knowledge you do not yet hold is the process to progressively restrict and shortly stop the advancement of your knowledge. In contrast, the process to learn how to resolve any contradiction, regardless of the obstacles, is the process to identify other humans who learned the same.


How to prove that Earth is round... 5 February 2001

Someone might say that a flaw is created if you must believe a given to discover its proof. How was Earth proven to be round? At the time, to sail around the world to prove it is round, would you not have to first believe the given that Earth is round, to thus no longer fear sailing off the edge, to thus sail around the world?

Notice the intermediate step. It may also be called a second variable, a complexity or part of the puzzle. How does your mind handle multiple steps, variables or parts of the puzzle between your current manifestation, and what you think is achievable?

Notice another common use of the intermediate step. If the nation's constitution is law, and one must obey the law, and the nation's legislature creates law, must you obey what the legislature writes as law? What did your mind do with the variable, while the glaring, increasing contradictions between legislative law and constitutional law so openly define the abject ignorance of the most educated nation in human history?

The human mind is designed to resolve contradictions, as its only controlling process, while most humans instead work to increase the number of contradictions, and work to sustain them in their mind. What parts of the puzzle must you discover, by the questioning process, to discover the reasoning for such a contradiction, and thus its resolution? Start asking yourself the questions. Simply believe that you will not fall off the edge of the world, then ask the questions that will take you beyond where you last reached.


Metamorphosis ... 6 February 2001

You can understand why teenagers or chaps in their 20's or 30's, who have not yet learned how to ask effective questions, cannot understand this. The test of time, the easiest answer to questions, requires a few years to recognize. But notice that you cannot understand why the chaps in their 40's, 50's, 60's and older cannot understand this, because you did not learn how to ask effective questions. That they cannot understand it is obvious. The question is, why, and the answer is in the answers to the questions of those answers. Who among you or they will start asking the questions?

Organizations politically espousing the merits of citizen rights are just one category of organizations within society. Their members and leaders are often quite dedicated to their perceived beliefs and efforts. If you can mute your distracting laughter at them awhile, you may enjoy this instructive discussion of them.

They cannot see themselves. Look at their process, regardless of their issue.

Why do you suppose the following story is so typical? Imagine the anger of those who read this, and know that it is they who are being referenced. The example citizen rights group is among independent minded sorts who are quite capable throughout the basic spectrum of human activity, from hunting and fishing for their own food, to social decorum in the professional and political world. They are successful, and manifest middle American values. They are educated. They are well armed indeed, but are not a gun group as such. They adamantly claim to support citizen rights, support the laws, police and the US political process. They are conservationists who demonstrably support sound ecosystem management. They work hard, contribute to varied charities and seek to assist others. They reasonably consider themselves to be the social and economic backbone of the US culture.

Their primary complaint as an organization is the intrusive, abusive, tax-wasteful, dishonest politicians and government bureaucracy progressively denying citizen rights and hindering non-damaging, logical human pursuits.

They have solid social support for their beliefs. Prominent among their life-long members and activity participants are career government bureaucrats and politicians who stand at their meetings and lead their complaints against the government's tax-wasteful dishonesty and contempt for citizen rights.

Their organization started out as a financially less endowed organization, and slowly increased the number of its members and financial strength over the years. They host annual meetings, banquets, newsletters, fund raisers, committee meetings, a web page, social projects, and do all the things organizations do.

That they have consistently failed their espousals is evident in a series of their undeniable political losses, and in the fact that their organization still exists, still trying to defend diminishing citizen rights, having not prevailed.

Their current president is a retired, politically appointed career bureaucrat from the same government of which the organization has complained during his entire career. Their primary paid lobbyist is also a retired career bureaucrat from the same government of which they complained during his entire career. That those two chaps were failures for the organization interests while inside the government, is manifest, and their failure outside the government is also manifest by their ongoing leadership positions in the failing citizen rights group. The organization's other paid lobbyist is their past president of many years, who is well known for promptly agreeing with all the political and bureaucratic sorts associating with the organization, and whose presidency manifested the series of political losses. And these guys put their pictures in their slick page newsletter, rhetorically portraying themselves as successful and respected.

Their undeniably proven failure in their espousals and actions led to their promotions and financial rewards within their organization. Read that again.

It is for that and they which the members are working to raise yet more money to benefit.

Which of the several contradictions is so evident you could immediately describe it in your own written words?

Is that not a description of nearly every citizen rights organization, and those which would like to have government officials within their organization purporting to support their interests?

Is that not a description of government?

What is created when institutional leaders successfully suggest among unquestioning and thus gullible followers that all fault is with the other guy? If you could successfully separate your mind and the mind of your organizational followers from any functional recognition of failure on your part, what would inherently happen to your actions and their results?

How many years will you pay for that which is not produced because you are so gullibly paying for that which is not produced?

What neural mechanism at play in the minds of the organization members blocks their ability to write the above accurate description of their organization and its leaders? What such neural mechanism confuses and angers those career government bureaucrats still complaining about what their own actively advanced governmental process is still doing to the people outside the governmental institution, just as they are still doing to the people inside their organizational institution, especially if they read these words?

How long, in minutes, days, months or years, would it take you to identify the process-source of a failure in your organizational process, whether that organization is a citizen organization or government? How many minutes or hours would it take you to ask and answer a linear series of perhaps 30 resolution-specific questions? And how would you describe the decision to instead consume 20 years of government employment or ten years of organizational leadership purporting to search for the same resolution without ever asking the series of questions leading to it?

Ask fellow citizens specific questions. Then ask government or organization leaders specific questions. Write the difference in the responses. From that identified difference in handling the process of answering questions, who would you employ to find the questions and answers that lead to the solution of a problem?

Now write the identifiable difference in the biological brains which created the dramatically different responses to your above-referenced questions. Write the source of that difference in the brains. Write the process creating those two different type persons. What concept is the only fundamental difference between them?

The organization, government and issue are not at question. Your ability to recognize the process to resolve contradictions is at question. With such an ability, a skill that the human mind can acquire only by training itself, your position within or outside the government, organization or issue is immaterial. Your resulting knowledge becomes controlling over all other considerations, inherent to the design of the human. You are human. Did you want knowledge, or did you want what every government or organization leader, and their unquestioning followers became?

If you are still sending money to those who say they represent your interests while they refuse to ask effective questions of their actions, you are they who cannot see themselves, and you are being rightfully laughed-at by they who can, just as you will so laugh if you successfully question your actions.


The controlling discovery... 7 February 2001

In a 17 part puzzle, for which all the parts must be properly put together before the meaning of the puzzle can be recognized, the puzzle would inherently be such that each part would be an absolute, not an approximate, or you could recognize it before all the parts were in place.

If you have not yet learned that the balance in all things is flawless, then you may wish to discover the proofs of that concept, to recognize it as an absolute, to then discover the more advanced proofs as each part of the puzzle verified it. From any absolute you can test other data to discover more absolutes, and thus those which determine the results of the human mind's design regardless of its hasty perceptions.

From that proof, what single discovery would be most valuable for society, and thus most rare, to define its balance, so you could test your answer against all subsequent questions?

What one concept would be most difficult to convey throughout human society, to explain its rarity?

What one social concept is most universal to humans?

After identification of individual human minds, do not humans then first organize, form associations for cooperative decisions among different minds, as their first social process?

If you were to design the most brilliant controlling contradiction as the balance to an otherwise conceptually unlimited design of such brilliance as the human mind, would you not design it into the first social process of those individual human minds?

If you wanted to design a concept as brilliant as the human mind, in competition to it, would you not design a concept in which a contradiction was disguised as the solution, to cause the perpetuation of a contradiction by the effort to create the solution, and further create it at a level so fundamental to the original design of the human mind, that the mind could not thereafter recognize the contradiction from the moment it perceived the contradiction as the solution?

And further design into it a quality so addicting to the human mind, that said mind can even read this arrangement of plain English words, and still not recognize the concept expressly revealed?

If you are an organization leader or follower, you are already the victim.

Would you therein not first face the most brilliantly designed contradiction a human mind can attempt to resolve, and then from a position which was designed to categorically prevent your recognition of the resolution? But what was the original design of the human mind, and thus its ability? What questions would you have to ask to identify and then verify that design, to thus recognize any alteration of it?


Encryption... 8 February 2001

Is it not so, that we encrypt our mind's messages in words, and have a hell of a time trying to usefully decrypt each other's messages, and often even our own?



Think... 9 February 2002

Notice how you react against a suggestion that you should think. Now notice how much, and the results.

Humans are predicated on thinking. Their brain defines them. Would it not be logical for any suggestion of thinking more, to be inviting, positive, enjoyable, sought? Why is the suggestion so universally disliked, even by students in school?

Thinking is easy. One can do it while comfortably sitting on one's bottom side. The results of it produced every convenience you enjoy.

Notice that very few people, including those with extensive education, can describe what the process of thinking is. They have often never even thought of describing the process of thinking.

Thinking is nothing more than the asking and answering of questions, among other people or alone. The mind merely identifies a contradiction, and cycles through a series of word-arrangements, that is, questions, before it finds a question that causes the mind to recognize an answer, or an item of data that resolves the contradiction, or part of it. Usually the identified resolution involves only a portion of the originally identified contradiction, thus necessitating further questions to find more parts of the resolution in sum. That is usually manifested as a partial answer that leaves an immediately recognized exception which requires more questions to harmonize with an uncontradicted answer.

Therein the mind is looking for existing groups of already learned data within the mind, where a new item of data fits without creating a contradiction.

If the new item of data is compared with a small group of existing data, it is easy to find a place that the new item fits without creating a contradiction. As larger groups of existing data are considered, the more difficult it is to find a place in the mind for a new item of data to fit without contradicting something.

Thinking therefore gets a bit tedious as it extends toward more valuable results.

Every concept, except the ease of thinking, disadvantages thinking. Does that not raise some interesting questions in relation to the human mind, predicated on the thinking process? Would an absence of disadvantages to thinking not have resulted in a human phenomenon which would have already discovered the answers to every question you can imagine? So would you not therefore seek to identify and overcome those disadvantages?

The description of our impatience for a tedious task explains why, when we consider new data, we often leave it where it first seems comfortable in our mind, but creates a new contradiction where we stopped thinking about it because we didn't have the patience to keep searching for the answer that had no exceptions.

Notice that any contradiction or exception causes one to disbelieve the new data, and assume the accuracy of the existing data that we already learned, when there is often little support for the assumption. Just because you already learned something does not mean it is true. How long did humans emphatically believe that the world was obviously flat, and that humans would never fly through the air?

For an instructive vehicle, ask a difficult question to a person who claims greater credentials or greater intelligence than you, including college professors. Carefully analyze their commonly inadequate answer for a genuinely difficult question. If you persist with a series of questions trying to discover the accurate answer to the original question, and if you carefully analyze the responses of the supposedly learned individual, you will notice his increasingly defensive reaction against the questions, from the first question, rather than curiosity in discovering the verifiable answer. He will not say, I don't know, and he will not answer the question with an answer that answers the question. Therein he will not be thinking. He will be evading the process of thinking.

Human minds under the influence of institutional phenomena, such as identified credentials and titles, react against questions more than they react in search of the answers, opposite the process of thinking, and thus opposite the advantage of the human over animals, plants and rocks.

Of course the classic learning vehicle is a politician, who is just a common human like all the rest of us, who fell victim to the popularity contest game, and thus ended up with the contrived illusion that he is a leader, that is, the illusion that he thinks more than other people just because he has mouthed appealing arrangements of popular words, such as, we can work together on this issue to solve it for the good of the people. He extended his thinking only the the child's level of saying what is popular, often obvious lies, to obtain the reward of institutional popularity, along with that particular institution's dole of money and power. Look at political leaders throughout history. Then look at the people who created social innovations that lasted because individual humans identified advantage in them. Notice the dramatic difference. Political leaders simply do not think beyond the child's level. They do not question their decisions. They do not discover that for which people willingly work to earn.

Is not the definition of a real leader, a thinker? What would happen if a social process convinced a person that he was a leader, without his learning anything more about how to think than he knew before he was defined as a leader? Ask a politician even a simple question, and you will not get a logical answer. Ask him again, in search of an answer that actually answers the question you asked, and he will rhetorically tap dance all the way to the moon to skitter away from your question. What mechanism causes human minds to avoid questions that cause their mind to do what it is designed to do?

Consider another classic example. School is designed to teach knowledge to children ,that is, to ask and answer questions to cause them to think, so their mind develops knowledge. Of course school extends into adult years. So what socially identifies schools? Sports. First enjoy the humor. Then notice that you do not have the patience to think through to the verifiable resolution of that glaring contradiction, proving that you are the proverbial sports fan rather than a thinking fan. What most influenced you in school, even if you did not like sports? How do you get a stadium full of people to support a thinking contest every weekend in as many places as school sports are played? Of course the latter question leads to recognition of the arena for thinking, but illuminates the contradiction of the emphasis on sports in schools.

After the evening TV or radio news on the day's most popular riots, murders, car accidents, fires and thefts, and often before the perfunctory weather report, the sports report includes the current ranking of the schools. What is wrong with that picture? How did schools become defined by sports rather than that upon which the human and schools are predicated? The actual answer to that question holds no contradictions, and you will not think enough to discover it, for lack of any schools that teach thinking.

No institution teaches effective questioning, or within a week the students would be able to ask the questions that proved the teachers as ignorant as the students. No institution can exist within the context of such perpetual embarrassment, by definition, or the institution members (such as students) would not need the leaders (such as teachers).

Which will advance your better living: Yourself and the general public being aware of new scientific discoveries, or the ranking of the high school and college football teams? What would constitute a logical priority for news from the institutions of schools, offered by their results with news journalist jobs? Why has no news media institution ever asked that question among its employees and customers? Why is the question itself feared by institution personnel? Why are the commonly hasty and embarrassingly first answers to those questions never questioned?

Ignore for the moment the obvious series of contradictions in the otherwise useful suggestion that someone of sufficient institutional position walk around to all the news media CEO's and suggest that over a three year period they gradually replace most of the sports reporting time with reporting on academic discoveries at schools and other learning institutions, or such discoveries identified by the high school and college of the person discovering the new knowledge. There is no end of such interesting new scientific discoveries available for the mainstream evening news. The full sports reporting can be left to sports channels. Society in general would therefore proportionally advance its understanding of useful knowledge progressively resolving problems, bettering everyone's lives, including those of the journalists, rather than stagnate with the annual repetition of muscle-against-muscle games in fixed exercises advancing no new knowledge to the observer. But the example of sports is only one learning vehicle among others.

Why is new knowledge relegated to the obscure science channels, while the daily sports, weather, murders, riots, wars, hollow political yammerings, and other such non-advancing repetition, broadcast for social saturation? Your answer is wrong, and not important at this moment. Until your mind absorbs the extent of the contradiction, you will not find the unflawed answer to a question of the contradiction.

What defines governments? Military. Not one politician or military leader can figure it out, or they would have corrected the contradiction. Again, is the human predicted on its mind, or its muscle/guns? Which nation will advance the human phenomenon, the one with the most practiced minds, or the one with the biggest bombs? Even at these words, the politicians and military sorts cannot figure out what would result if they let the other guy bomb the world into submission under his rule. In that event, what would he then do, with what, to therefore prove to all humans precisely what politicians and military sorts cannot figure out from these words and their abject inability to ask and answer effective questions? Given no resistance, how many people could a national leader subjugate under his personal police state before it turned against him by design of the human, and how would that question arise to cause its thus openly exposed answer? So why is it that the equally intellectually absent news media reporters routinely report on military events rather than scientific/academic events? No one was bombing the news channel broadcast center. The reporter was not shooting out the window to defend her ability to report the evening news. News of distant or potential military issues are illogical for use of broadcast time or print space, in comparison to advanced knowledge leaving military issues in history's land-fills with catapults and stone fortress walls, if the journalist thought about what she was reporting. She could be reporting on intriguing new discoveries benefiting wide sectors of the population, and sometimes benefiting everyone, thus satisfying the human mind's curiosity for new knowledge. Why did her and her boss decide to report on the same stagnant concepts they were reporting in 1957, 1857 and back to the time of the invention of language?

The institutional examples represent you the individual mind, by definition of the institutions being comprised of individuals. You respond to the design of your mind, rather than question it. Because you respond to it rather than question it, you do not learn about it, and thus do not learn how you can gain advantage from your knowledge. Humans want to start doing something, no matter how strenuous or dangerous, rather than keep thinking. We strive to exercise our muscle more than our mind. We take our mind for granted, foolishly thinking we already learned what we need to know, and start physically acting on what we know. Why? Does not the exception to your answer offer what your mind and thus you seek in life?

The US military generals thought they knew all they needed to know about war when they led their military off to Vietnam. US Federal Police thought they knew how to stomp-out the Christian Branch Dividian religion when they rolled two cattle trucks full of heavily armed US Government goons up to the Dividian church in Waco Texas, and shortly thereafter slithered away dragging their dead, to call the US Army to send tanks against a few lightly armed untrained men who never attacked anyone and only attempted to defend their church, home and families. A US President and his generals, again, thought they knew how to kill a leader of another nation when they rhetorically demonized him with their news media then diverted the amount of money that could cure cancer, to bomb Iraq into what they thought would be defeat. Where is Napolean's empire, Alexander the Devil's empire, the British empire, the Soviet Union and all the others? The examples, involving the full spectrum of human endeavor, are endless, and as it is with other nations, are manifested in the US nation whose government-financed and thus government-controlled schools emphasizes everything except, thought and thinking.

The most superlative examples are found in universities and think tanks, especially those including law and politics, where line-item analyses of administrative decisions by university and think tank personnel prove a consistent manifestation of glaring and hilarious contradictions to plain common sense thinking. No university or think tank will question its own institution.

Each case would not exist as an example of human failure, if the involved decision-makers had simply sat a couple more days, and questioned their conclusions, that is, if they had first learned how to ask effective questions, rather than listened to the news media whose journalists never learned how to ask effective questions because they listened to their school teachers who never learned how to ask effective questions because they listened to every other institution whose personnel never learned how to ask effective questions because they...

If you wanted to advance your knowledge, did you want to believe the person talking or writing to you, or question him?

What gullible sort offers a standing ovation to a speaker, rather than question his words?

If you wanted to find the most effective questions, would they not be the ones that the most people refused or failed to answer?

That you learned the futility and waste of time questioning teachers, politicians, lawyers, judges, news journalists and every other institutional sort who dodged, rather than answered your questions, did not teach you to not question yourself, unless you flee your own questions, like the aforementioned institutional sorts. You can learn everything in the universe, by questioning your own mind, and if you believe otherwise, it is because you have not started asking the questions.

There is no end of references to the concept that everything is already in your mind, and that you need only identify it by thinking, yet we strive to stop thinking so we have more time to learn less the hard and inefficient way in the physical world. How costly is that single decision? For simple lack of knowledge, readily available by asking and answering questions, you are willfully paying taxes to lavishly reward unthinking people who live more opulent lives that you, to sic their police and military on other people, to imprison or kill them because those government chaps cannot figure out how to otherwise convey knowledge of a solution to a problem. And your so called schools, paid by the same process to produce those unquestioning and thus unthinking people, are too busy cheering-on the basketball team rather than teaching students how to ask effective questions.

I trust you enjoy the humor of these humans, who fear thinking more than any other activity.

Ask the questions to overcome your fears.


The fear of knowledge / science... 10 February 2001

Humans long belatedly verge on the capability of genetically synthesizing any living creature they want, and extending your life, well-being and happiness as long as you wish.

If so informed in the celestial evening news, a casual observer of the human phenomenon way over there on planet Earth would speculate that humans would be dancing in the streets, celebrating the greatest and most beneficial scientific breakthroughs since the invention of stone pyramids for coffins.

So why are many humans wringing their hands in worry, governments passing laws to restrict scientists, placing embarrassingly ignorant politically appointed bureaucrats in charge of fellow humans who more wisely used their time to learn useful knowledge, diverting money away from new knowledge and toward more anti-missile missiles, newer army tanks, upgraded submarines bumping into other boats, newer Marine tilt-wing aircraft that have killed more Marines than any enemy attacked by the aircraft, more prisons, more police, more laws piled on top of yesterday's more laws futily seeking to stop humans from doing those harmless things that humans do?

Precisely why, not just some opinion, but why, verifiable against all questions, do humans display an institutional fear of what humans learn and do by design of the human mind?

Why is the proof of your inability to accurately answer that question, with an answer containing no exception or created contradiction, so readily available as a public challenge to anyone?

What causes a human mind to think that it is rational, but that anyone else who learns more is an enemy dangerous to all humans?

Why does the human mind fear rather than revel at the capability of the human mind?

Why do you fear the invention of another bomb more than you seek the invention of a cure for another disease currently killing millions of people, or fear a new source of clean energy allowing you more time to invent or provide what you think can make lives more enjoyable?

Who is looking for bigger bombs, and who is looking for what benefits you, and to whom have you given authority to control whom?

What causes a human mind whose institution of employment or political support is predicated on guns, police, bombs, military, killing, imprisoning, stealing by taxation, and threatening everyone, to think that a human who predicates his actions on knowledge rather than force, is an enemy to humans? Is not the answer within the first part of the question? How does a human train their mind to perceive data?

Those questions have answers, sustainable against all questions, to which you would publicly ascribe your name for judgment of your reasoning ability, if you first learn how to ask and answer questions.

The common fear of those who never learned how to ask effective questions, that evil will reign from human discovery of new knowledge, and that new knowledge will surely get into the hands of Adolph Hitler's ilk, and good is provided by government which knows no solution to problems beyond a bigger military, more police and more prisons, defines the intellectual dark ages in which the human phenomenon on planet Earth is still mired, much to the howling laughter of observers. But you need not allow your own mind to be so stagnated in the dark ages. The exit door leading to knowledge is labeled, Questions.

In the last few thousand years humans have had the opportunity to figure out what questions to ask to preclude their amusing propensity toward bashing each other over the head with their militaries and police, and with that foundation of knowledge, use their mind to resolve such simple human-caused contradictions as war and all forms of physical force. On average it would require a week or so to learn those amusingly simple questions and their effective use, from someone who learned them the hard way.

But because humans fear questions and thus knowledge, more than any other concept, for an identifiable reason, we arrive at the era when the ability to ask and answer questions would promptly unleash a quantum advancement of benefits for humans, but humans still haven't figured out how to easily resolve the simpleton fears that are therefore compounded by the knowledge that could so vastly benefit us.

Better late than never. Because every day you are missing more of the benefits otherwise so readily available to you, start asking the questions to learn how to resolve such simple contradictions as Neanderthal-mentality war, use of police force, and such guns-for-brains responses to contradictions, so you can learn how to benefit from the new knowledge vastly more advanced than the contradictions that government chaps perpetuate.


Why government was left behind... 11 February 2001

Did you think that the intellectually innovative concepts that produced 100% of the advancements of humans, from the wheel to the map of the human genome, but marginally demonstrated only twice in government, have not always been readily available in the same minds?

Why do you suppose that the people holding such knowledge of advanced concepts, never felt that government was worth the use of such valuable concepts, and left government and thus all its personnel, still stagnated within the embarrassingly rudimentary, animalistic behavior of snarling with armies and police, at fellow humans, in government's perpetually failing attempts to resolve even the simplest of human-caused contradictions?

Consider a human phenomenon that by use of the human mind advanced itself from whatever start you may believe, to an international space station, an internet-connected world now genetically synthesizing whatever life forms it wishes, with an endless series of astonishing examples of advancement (albeit still primitive by comparison to that which was always available), while in contrast any description of the history of government would record two fleeting spasms leaving government right back at the start still swinging clubs, bombs, police guns and threats of prison to effect its therefore self-defeating decisions.

In human society, what institution remains as primitive and reptilian-minded as Tyrannosaurus Rex?

When the intellectual competition is so far behind, that there will never be adequate incentive to use such valuable knowledge to go so far back to help such helpless, ignorant, malicious people in government, too arrogant and filled with hate for everyone around them, to even ask for such obviously needed help, the proof of the situation as described is manifest by the best proof known to humans, the test of time. Is it not obvious that the countless advancements of human history, including the light in your face as you read these words on the screen, identified a continual history of brilliant thinking by many humans from diverse backgrounds, often surpassing the total social impact of the all most powerful governments combined, while all those thinking innovators consistently let government desiccate in its own intellectual vacuum.

Laugh yourself to tears over the political think tanks comprised of people who so foolishly claim the same intellectual credentials as government sorts claim, and have never advanced government beyond the aforementioned.

Who would not immediately trade away the stifling bureaucracy of every government, and their military, for the knowledge to live 500 years, routine tourist trips to other planets, or the cures for major diseases? What total human-hours have been squandered just filling out useless government paperwork to create excuses for useless tax paid paperwork shufflers, or squandered shooting each other in wars, and how many human hours would it take to learn how to cure cancer? Compare those two numbers. What are you still doing with those hours? How did government people get left that far behind the normal ability of the human mind?

If your question is why all those countless thinking people in human history, who advanced human well-being with inventions and processes at every level, let the institution of government remain mired in its pre-stone-age, reptilian mentality, the answer is elsewhere, but you therein recognized the obvious proof.

Pity those people who sincerely believe that government personnel are as intellectually capable as non-government personnel. It is obvious, by the design of the human brain, that they were as capable as everyone else, that is, before they got government jobs. How do humans train their mind? Government personnel have invented nothing that advanced humans. Their claims to the contrary are like the US President routinely taking credit for the efforts of the people who prevail despite the chains and anchors cast by the President's stifling bureaucracy. The government sort bought everything they use, with money stolen under excuse of taxation and threat of prison. Their bureaucrats attacked every new innovation and process, attempting to destroy them if they benefited the people without first creating more power or money for government. They refuse to answer any effective questions. What would happen to a human mind which functioned within such a concept? Government personnel cannot recognize what those words mean even if you hand them a dictionary. Tomorrow they will be doing the same, or they would not be in the government.

Why has every thinking person left government as the single most embarrassing, pre-stone-age concept known to humans?

What do you most enjoy? Given the choice of anything for yourself, even if asked of an 18 year old male, would you not choose to laugh the laughter sought by all people? Would that not cover everything, to be able to do so? Would access to such a choice not be the most addicting concept to the human mind?

When action A constitutes a pain-in-the-bottom-side effort with no incentive, and vast disincentive, with everyone reacting by attacking your harmless effort vastly benefiting them, while not doing action A offers the most addicting benefit a human mind can derive, would you, the reader, having learned the knowledge offering the choice, not logically choose the laughter?

It is an aside to indicate the nature of what you are reading, relating to one of the parts of the puzzle, that you can only manifest the laughter if you first go to credibly great effort to openly offer the knowledge, for the proof that the offer will not be accepted.

If you are in government, or any institutional position, including those chaps who institutionally rail against those abusive government chaps, your mind is worth vastly more to you than what you are doing with it. If you have experienced your governmental or institutional concept for a year or so, that is enough for the knowledge it offers. Now question what you are doing until your institution drives you out, for their fear of your questions. It is then that you will get the first indication of the great value of your mind.

You cannot help your government colleagues, or your anti-government organizational colleagues, or any institutional minds. Ditch them. They must learn on their own, from the questions they are too cowardly to ask.


The benefit to scientists... 12 February 2001

Same as all the other institutional sorts, if any scientist were to read any of this, he would conclude that it applies to someone else, since he is a scientist, and his profession is predicated on questioning everything. Therein he fools himself with a superficially accurate description that he did not actually apply to controlling-questions.

A few scientists can be rhetorically herded into questioning the most superficial tenets of their own institutions, on rare occasion, but only that which is superficial and only for a short conversation. They will refuse to question fundamental contradictions of their institutions. When demonstrated, that alone proves why even scientists are so stagnated in primitive knowledge. But there is something more.

You only have one brain. It handles all the issues for you, including many of the unrecognized decisions for your body functioning. You do not have a separate brain for separate issues. Data of different issues zips along the same neurons, and bumps its way across the same synapses. The same cranial tools are used for a lot of different data, each day.

Which most routinely prevails for any decision, the data, or the tools that the mind uses to create the resulting decision?

Which are the variables and which are the givens, among the data and the brain's design? If a pattern of contradictions crosses arenas of data, where would you look for the source of the contradictions?

Select a smattering of common issues impacting the daily life of any scientist, not of his scientific interest, but demonstrably of his ongoing involvement with action and thought. If you learn how to ask effective questions, you can easily ask a few such questions that will expose a pattern of contradictions in the scientist's sincere answers, and will expose his emotional irritation with your verifying his embarrassing errors. He will make amusing excuses further exposing his lack of knowledge in questioning his routine assumptions. A portion of his illogical responses will result from the neural activity altered by his institutionally created ego. But the portion that can be specifically traced to his inability to ask effective questions of any contradiction is the portion that explains why his scientific endeavors are also stagnated.

If a human, be he a non-scientist, a scientist, or considered to be a brilliant scientist at the most advanced edge of his playground, does not learn the process to ask his own mind effective questions, that is, the most rare knowledge among humans, then he is left as only what he is, explaining why humans in sum are still stuck in the intellectual dark ages.

If a scientist or anyone else wishes to make a quantum advancement in their ability to think, they would be wise to learn the knowledge of how to ask effective questions of any contradiction, so that at the first identification of any contradiction, no matter what its source or nature, they can quickly identify the questions that promptly resolve the contradiction. If their mental process is frustrated at a fundamental level within one set of data, it will commonly be inefficient at a similar level within other sets of data. And a person will usually not know what mental process is hindering his current inability to discover a solution to a contradiction. The missing parts of puzzles are usually found outside the focus of the puzzle, or they would not have been missing. The only logical solution is to discover the universal contradiction resolution process, regardless of what data is involved.

At issue is a very fundamental, easily learned process, that of simply asking effective questions, the most rarely learned knowledge available to humans.

Scientists will not lean such knowledge, even neural research scientists, much to the robust laughter of observers. If the knowledge were not rare, humans would have long ago resolved all contradictions, with the human brain designed to quickly do so.

Consider an example from the best collection of human-caused contradictions, the law library. Of course if you think scientists are befuddled, lawyers are, well, you know. The contradictions are not in the human actions described in law, of which there are only a few subject to law. The contradictions are in the morass of contradicting laws fabricated by lawyer judges, lawyer legislators and their lawyer staff to inflate the institution of lawyers who get government jobs and private jobs created by government idiocy. The common case for this example, a simple one already figured out by many, and not really very important in itself, leaves scientists and lawyers bewildered but claiming all manner of obviously contradicted excuses they claim to be the law.

Many people believe that the law requires you to have a drivers license to drive a car on public roads. One of the currently popular national radio talk show hosts, poor sad chap like nearly all the others, has emphatically stated that you must have such a license to drive a car. He is the one who is commonly incensed by people who question rather than kowtow to people who sank to government jobs. And many gullible people believe him.

But a license is defined by the government as an instrument granting permission for an action or activity. Permission is grantable and thus deniable. The public roads are public rights of way. Cars, like horses in earlier days, are the common means of travel.

In the US, can you lawfully be required to obtain government permission for the right to travel by common means on public rights of way?

Notice who will refuse to answer that simple, easily answered question. Ask a lawyer, judge, police officer, radio talk show host, scientist or any other institutional sort. Notice the variety of amusing words they use to slither away from answering the question, and to create contradictions rather than resolve any contradictions.

If you can be required to hold such therefore deniable permission, you have defined the primary law used by the old Soviet Union to restrict the activities of its citizens, and have identified the authority of the US Government to deny you permission to visit your ailing grandmother.

To anguish the poor chaps such as lawyers, judges, police, politicians and others who would advance all manner of excuses for their fraudulent demand that you must get government permission to travel, in their attempt to cling to their ruse of government employee power over other humans, ask them to reveal the law that distinguishes when, where, by what other means for what list of reasons you can travel by common means on public rights of way without getting deniable permission from the local police or any other government agent. When they say you can walk or ride a bus or get a taxi, ask them what the law allows you and is responsible for when there are no sidewalks along the road at night where poison snakes inhabit the ditches, or you must cross 50 miles of desert where there are no buses and no taxis. Play with their contradictions, and laugh. Because their excuses compound the contradiction of their first wrong answer, they simply get themselves deeper into entertaining illogicality.

Because the correct answer to the question reveals that they have been made a fool of by a simple ruse of lawyers, judges, police and politicians, their entire adult life, they cannot bring themselves to state the correct answer which then raises the questions that verify the resolution of the contradiction.

Now, if an educated scientist was so easily made a fool of, and does not know what questions to ask to resolve such a glaring contradiction affecting his day to day activities, what other of his beliefs and purported knowledge are bogus, and what other contradictions does he not know how to resolve? What pattern of errors did he train his mind to perceive as fact, by not asking effective questions of glaring contradictions?

If he says the issue is immaterial to him, tell him to give you $20 and stand in a line for 20 minutes, as is common to renew a drivers license. Watch his reaction prove the contradiction of his hasty statement. The example is immaterial in itself, and is material for the lesson at question. There are many examples like it, some of them of superb comedy. The ability to promptly resolve a generic contradiction without creating a substitute contradiction is that which scientists and such institutional sorts simply do not learn.

You do not need a drivers license to drive a motorized vehicle for non-commercial purposes on the public roads in the US, if you know what words to say, and what questions to ask to leave the police officer respectfully honoring your rights identified in the prevailing law. That is one of the many proofs of how thoroughly gullible and easily fooled US citizens have become, including those chaps who hold all those prestigious credentials fooling others. How many human hours have been wasted standing in line to needlessly renew drivers licenses, while the clerks routinely filed their fingernails and yakked on the phone with their friends? Which agency other than government lawyers, police and judges, is most universally despised by the public? How many human hours could accomplish what of genuine benefit to society, and what, instead, do government sorts fool gullible citizens into doing instead of finding the cure to the cancer in the bodies of the government sorts? But don't try to drive without a license until you learn those words. They are the answers to the questions you must learn to ask. Those government chaps are malicious in their unflagging intent to keep even their own children under the heel of governmental illogicality.

The scientist who leaves that contradiction unresolved in his mind, relating to an identifiable inconvenience in his life, however small but therefore easily resolved, subjecting his own children to kowtowing to abject ignorance, as with several categories of other such contradictions, leaves in his mind a learned process that does not question other contradictions. And he can't figure out why he is frustrated and takes so long to figure out his scientific goals. For failure to learn the controlling concept of scientific or any other human mind endeavor, his mind is thus of obviously lesser value to himself and any scientific institution which wishes to discover concepts at the leading edge which inherently requires greater reasoning ability than the competition.

If you believe scientists, like lawyers, judges and news journalists who are equally incapable of asking effective questions, instead of question them, you are the amusement for the observers. If you are that scientist or other institutional chap, it is your choice to be laughed at by common-sense people who can ask effective questions, or question your way to their knowledge, and beyond.


Stress... 13 February 2001

Learn intellectual technology, and stress will evaporate, because human-caused contradictions will be resolved upon identification.

The people teaching stress relief, are not.


Businessman, bureaucrat and thinker... 14 February 2001

The businessman, the bureaucrat, and the thinker, are not each other, for reason.

If you did not make it yourself, including the tools to make it, the businessman is why you can enjoy what you have available to enjoy. He organizes and thus makes possible the production and distribution of what people want, with their part of the mutual, organized effort. As a human, he makes personal mistakes, and business mistakes. Every human, like you and I, makes mistakes. The business mistakes are corrected, or his customers eventually leave him without a business. If the customers do not put him out of business, any accusation of mistakes are not mistakes. They are the cost that the customers are willing to pay for the product or service. He holds no force over the people. They can spend their money as they jolly well please, and also start their own better business to put him out of business, that is, if it were not for government bureaucrats routinely using government power to defend the damaging scams of dishonest businessmen. (If you want to hire a guide to climb the highest mountain in North America, Denali, in Alaska, in a National Park, you must usually violate the law to hire an experienced Alaska mountain climber instead of the non-Alaskan rip-off artists awarded permits by the National Park Service in exchange for political support for Park Service budget scams, ad infinitum.) The businessman places goal-achievement above process, or you would still be waiting for the manufacture of your next roll of toilet paper, as do many Russians still suffering the long-range effects of the Soviet Kremlin now being tried by Washington DC. The first home computers and first of everything else, were and still are poorly designed, frustrating garbage, but the business goal is to get a competitive product to the people wanting to try it and therefore improve it. And you appreciate that, or you would still be reading this in a book instead of on a screen. The first printing press was a clunker, and the better models still are, now that we have the clunker internet. Business products and services are a trial and error concept, with inherent risk, as is all of life, despite the extent to which the businessman flatters his thinking-ability. But the businessman must think enough to organize the process to produce products or services of value that you customers recognize.

The government bureaucrat constitutes the reason you are still living in the primitive dark ages compared to how you could otherwise be living. He attempts to stop all human activity which does not serve his useless bureaucracy which offers nothing needed and no compensation for the time and effort everyone in its grasp must spend to serve it under penalty of prison. The government bureaucrat is a sinkhole for human endeavor. He is an anchor or leech on human capability. He is a human like all humans, making personal mistakes and institutional mistakes. He points to the mistakes of everyone else, and fools fools into thinking that he exists to solve everyone else's mistakes. He solves nothing because there is no incentive to do so even if he could think enough to solve even his own mistakes. In fact, he concertedly fabricates problems because his institution's existence is predicated on the rhetorical illusion that he solves everyone else's problems, so he must increase those problems. He need not serve or please his customers. His government's armed police imprison and seize the assets of anyone who does not pay his salary and expenses via taxes. No one is allowed to compete with him, under penalty of prison. The bureaucrat places process, not just above achievement of any defined goal, but totally replacing achievement, since achievement of any defined goal eliminates the need for his bureaucracy. Goal-achievement is mutually exclusive to bureaucracy. He does not think, since thinking is defined by the process of identifying and resolving contradictions. The bureaucrat creates and perpetuates contradictions, the opposite of the human mind's thinking process. His job is fulfilled by being paid good money to cause problems or do nothing, so he does.

The thinker is laughing himself to tears over the lot of them, including himself and fellow thinkers, as are those fellow thinkers. He uses his mind for its originally designed purpose, to think, that is, to identify contradictions, then ask and answer questions beyond the thinking effort of the businessman and the non-thinking victim of government employment. He therefore discovers and holds the answers you seek, to resolve all of your problems, if he was diligent at his endeavor. He is highly amused, often laughing robustly, because he though enough to learn that, like his own mind, your identically designed mind already holds the answers to your problems and all other contradictions, while for reason you do not recognize, you refuse to ask and answer the few questions that connect your mind's identity of each problem with the readily available solution. The thinker therefore recognizes the humor of how many years it took him to figure out something so simple and basic to the human mind. As a human, he makes personal mistakes and thinking mistakes, they being the same. And he readily solves them when they are identified, despite your perceptions, because that is his game. If he is not doing what you think he should do, why would he want to, when there are more intriguing things to do? He will not get in your way, because he has no power over you and has learned the futility of wanting or using power, while thinking is so productive. Therefore he is no problem to you. But he will not provide you products or services, because thinking produces only questions and answers. He can convey to you the knowledge you seek, but only if you ask, and only in the manner knowledge can be successfully transferred between minds. Therefore he is generally useless to you, because until you think enough to learn how to ask for and utilize what you would initially perceive as his opinions, they are no better than your own opinions. If you want his knowledge, you must ask him questions, and you have never learned how to ask effective questions, and do not know what to ask to learn the knowledge of how to ask effective questions. He has also discovered why you will not think enough to recognize the astonishing value of thinking, that is, asking and answering questions, or you would be a thinker and thus discover the answers he already found.

Of course the businessman distrusts the thinker, because the businessman is a competitor for material gain, confusing the limited goal of material gain derived from thinking, with the unlimited goal of knowledge derived from thinking. The businessman thinks the thinker is competing with him. The businessman has not thought enough to compete with the thinker who could tell him how to make more profit from his products or services, as a paltry aside to the greater value from thinking. The businessman simply won't figure it out, or he would become a thinker and thus become generally useless to you, as well as watch his business collapse for failure to produce.

The government bureaucrat loathes the thinker to the extent of government concertedly imprisoning and killing thinkers throughout human history, the US government no exception. What, again, was the threat of those people in their church at Waco, teaching the Christian religion verbatim from the Christian Bible, or the Falun Gong religious teachers in China, each maliciously murdered by government sorts, ad infinitum? I and others could fill your computer's memory, and every home computer in your city, with current examples of US government bureaucrats (all government sorts including those of the judicial branch) using bureaucracy, including its corrupted illusion of law, to maliciously attack and damage thinkers, for no reasoning outside raw fear and hatred of any human who thinks (asks questions). US Court judges are the most malicious and hate-filled of the lot, top to bottom. Thinking and government are mutually exclusive concepts. There is no greater human fear and hate than that which government minds hold toward thinking minds, as history verifies against every question. What obviously happens to every government employee who starts thinking and thus asks questions? The verifiable explanation of this odd human behavior defining a primary contradiction of the human mind, attacking its own design, can only be discovered by the thinker, of course. You will not discover that explanation which prevails against any question, without becoming a thinker, and thus suffer the consequences, and laugh yourself to tears, often.

You easily recognize the large number of people who quit their government job, in every nation, in disgust with the dismal ignorance displayed by the people around them, or were fired or disadvantaged-out of their job because they thought enough to ask questions of accountability about the contradictions created by the government agencies. Every person in the world recognizes the phenomenon, including those whose otherwise void of thinking was proven by their successful career within government and similar, large institutions. Even those who stay within government privately discuss the glaring ignorance of their superiors who are the most ignorant of the lot because they were promoted because they asked no questions and thus trained their mind to evade knowledge. It is just a professional phenomenon not unlike the sore muscles and pains associated with the various professions of hard manual labor among laborers who suffer those pains for their income, but think vastly beyond the ability of government sorts. It is always an individual choice to change one's destiny. If the laborer wants to avoid the sore muscles and pains of manual labor, he can decide to easily get another job. If the thinker wants to get some physical exercise and do something useful for others, he can get a labor job. If the government sort wants to learn how to think, he can quit his job to spend more time among people who can openly ask and answer questions. You train your mind by what you do with it. I had a couple government jobs, and thereafter I had to work hard to make up for the lost thinking time therein. My general labor jobs taught me much knowledge, besides the income, exercise and benefit for others. And nothing compares with my thinking job, but I gotta get outta this uncomfortable chair and get some exercise, either go climbing or get a labor job.

In considering the above, because humans are predicated on their mind, and everyone has one that is just as capable as the next guy, by design, despite the outrage such a comment creates among those poor chaps whose mental process is damaged by ego, especially by government and institutional titles, many people try to claim a higher position in the thinking game. They want to think that they can think better that others, without thinking enough to recognize that they would thus have to sit around on their bottom side just thinking, an excruciatingly boring process, to improve that skill, to thus become useless.

Therein any sub-category of people, such as a particular profession or interest group, could be discussed to identify the particular demarcation between what they do and what they could learn by thinking more. But the best example which says much of the others, are the so called think tanks, or research institutes, especially the public policy research institutions. The think tanks do not think. They fit the classifications of being useless and non-harmful, but they do not think. They attempt to offer a service or product in thinking. Think. Where does that fit in the above? What do they end up doing? Look around for the products or services of think tanks. If you think you see one, look again at what a businessman does. If you look for the results of thinking by think tanks, notice their absence. Every government, significant political party and large organization uses what they mutually refer to as prestigious think tanks? So why are there any remaining problems in government, political parties and large organizations? Could not the thinker answer that question, to the extent of solving the problems rather than making excuses proving the lack of enough thinking? Do not all governments and all their bureaucracies claim to do what think tanks claim to do? The test of time is no longer deniable. All the current think tank solutions and all the previous think tank solutions throughout history, don't work, for a reason the think tanks can never discover, by design of think tanks. They cannot identify their controlling contradiction, or they would correct it and no longer need a think tank.

After all the points on the gradient between action and thinking among human minds, are described, with all the social categories of people which most fit those points, one demarcation separates those who can and cannot identify the entire gradient. It is the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals. What is the designed process of the isolated human mind, fully functioning alone in the cranium? And what is its first systemic alteration? What species is so intelligent that it can organize two or more individuals to create emotional comfort and other perceptions and abilities for every action available to the species? What do you get with organization, if not the same separated minds with a different measure of physical power? Among the names of two or more people and their named organization, which names holds a thinking mind, which one does not, and what can be effected with each name? If you enter a court room or battlefield, will your mind react differently if your opponent is Joe Doe, or the United States Government? What did the name create in your mind? What was instead the actual opponent of your mind?

If you needed the answer to a question of an obvious contradiction in law that no one else could verifiably answer, would you ask some individual named Doug Buchanan, or the United States Supreme Court? Which name identifies a thinking mind? Who did everyone ask? If you live in the US, precisely, sustainable against every question any human can devise, including the poor sad victims of their title in the US Supreme Court, why do you and everyone else who can read the English language, recognize a 100% contradiction between the dictionary definitions of the words in the plain English language supreme law of the land, i.e., the US Constitution, and the ludicrously illogical, malicious dictatorship by the unthinking government bureaucracy under which you live your life? Why? Identify the thinking human mind which is named, US Supreme Court. Which can resolve a contradiction, with the human mind's logic process; a human mind or two Supreme Court justices? Is not the majority of any group commonly found to be in error after greater thinking? Why was Earth thought to be flat, by all the prestigious institutions with names, so long, and who resolved the contradiction? Within the human mind's designed process of logic, which decision of a Supreme Court split decision, is ultimately correct? How would you discover that obviously discoverable answer?

Who can eventually become Supreme Court Justices? Precisely what demarcates your ability to understand the plain dictionary definitions of English words, before and after common humans stumble into that job?

What is the controlling contradiction of your mind?

Would you not want to learn that answer before you became a US Supreme Court Justice presiding over a nation undeniably separated from the rule of its supreme law, while its non-thinking officials make fools of themselves by still waving that therefore meaningless scrap of paper in front of the citizenry?

When you claim the rule of written law, while everyone around you recognizes that the existing rule is the rule of personalities with government jobs, what have you done to your mind?

The law thing is just an inconsequential example among more profound concepts.

Ya'll let me know now, ya hear, when you want to learn how to promptly solve the greatest or most frustrating social, political, institutional or other human-caused problems your mind can identify, regardless of your opponents. It is too easy. It is just knowledge of thinking process, that for which the human mind was designed. It is just a knowledge-puzzle, only requiring you to patiently ask and answer the questions that fit the puzzle together, for whatever you wish to do with it. And chuckle, knowing of my robust laughter while writing this paragraph, again offering that which has always been readily available to everyone throughout human history, and will never be sought where the answers sit in full view of your mind, smiling, waving their arms, trying to your get attention.

It could be no other way with the astonishing capability of the human mind and its ludicrously dismal results to date.


A Model... 15 February 2001

This is just a model, a valuable learning vehicle for your mind. It may accurately represent the actual mechanism at play, but only by chance and scant data, because there is no proof of the model herein. Other models can identify the same concept which is accurately portrayed, by the proof you will recognize. The object is to consider the model which therefore illuminates the results of the mechanism, and thus advances your knowledge regardless of the model.

It may be suggested that there is a primitive area of the human brain, which, because it is so well developed from thousands of years of use, accounts for the propensity of humans to physically bash each other over the head, shoot, imprison and threaten each other with guns and laws backed by police guns, as society's primary organized means of conveying reasoning. Perhaps the area is the size of a penny, on one side of the brain, suitable for diagrams in the weekly news magazines, science section.

Of course anyone capable of reading these words is amused by the entrenched process of humans who, as a species, have learned how to reason with words, that is, ask and answer questions to constructively ascertain fact and effective process without any physical damage to anyone, while they yet instead spend so much time, and predicate their social functioning standard on shooting and imprisoning each other.

Notice how many individuals who claim to be educated and thinking persons, who are socially and economically successful, after they say whatever words they wish, still act from that primitive part of the brain, supporting soldiers, police, prosecutors, judges, jailers, lawmakers, bureaucrats and other institutional humans whose process and economic foundation rests on the use of force, such as shooting humans or imprisoning them under threat of being shot by police. Precisely what mechanism in their brain, by the best description you can devise and write, accounts for the starkly different decisions, between the use of force and reasoning? From cursory data, it is obviously that penny-sized, well developed part of the brain being utilized for related decisions and actions, while the reasoning part of the brain is used for idle conversation. Is that not apparent from the actions open to analysis?

But the biologists who dissect reptile brains have discovered an interesting relationship to human brains of people with government jobs, or what can be found of brain matter in the craniums of government chaps. It appears that while specific parts of the human brain are indeed associated with specific functions, to include such things as speech, sight, smell, touch, math, reading, imaging and many other concepts, there is also a lot of data that travels through several parts of the brain, involving more than just one area, calling into question the claims that government sorts cannot think beyond the mentality of reptiles. Concurrently, the brain researchers have discovered a complex set of neurons, synapses, receptor sites, chemical exchange processes and progressively smaller, individually identified parts of the mechanism used for thinking. So while that penny sized part of the brain may eventually be identified as that well developed primitive part of the brain prevailing over the more useful, but currently less well practiced part of the brain used for reasoning, the controlling mechanism may instead be a smaller part of the overall mechanism, or some combination among different parts of the brain.

Maybe it is a single neuron or type of neuron or synapse, or chemical, or receptor site or some more difficult to classify part or mechanism of the brain that causes an otherwise rational person to seek to imprison another human, rather than reason with him, as a result of the brain's synaptic receptor recognition of holding a government title, such as soldier, police, prosecutor, judge, congressmen, ad naseum or ad amuseum.

For the person not currently sitting in some obscure, funny-smelling laboratory, surrounded by bubbling flasks, jars with brains, computers and flickering lights, peering into the microscope, sticking micro-probes into bits of gray goo and watching numbers stream across the computer screen, the model is not important. The certainty that a point of origin for the glaring contradiction between the reasoning human mind and the gun-mentality government mind, is manifest, and the brain-dissectors are just slow to discover it because they had to spend so much time with the idiot IRS forms and 57,000 other government forms required under threat of prison, that they haven't had time or remaining mental energy to discover the knowledge society so desperately seeks.

Is it a penny sized part of the brain, or a single synaptic chemical receptor, or something smaller, or a combination of things?

As every scientist knows, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The knowledge is available by many mechanisms.

But in the case of the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, the explanation as to why the human brain's reasoning process is abandoned at such time as a prior proven reasoning human acquires the title of a court judge, lawyer, infantry soldier or any such titled position, is the same when the title is that of, scientist, much to the unmatched laughter of those who discovered that explanation, and the process of its proof.

You can discover that knowledge. Start asking questions where the titled chaps have arrived at their last conclusion, and are too important in title to question their conclusion.

The series of models you can therefore discover include the brain thing as only one of them. All the models, physical and conceptual, illuminate the flawlessly consistent phenomenon and the mind's functioning design.

When humans belatedly advance out of their current intellectual dark ages, the courts, opposite those of today, will be administered by humans who are taught and practiced in the process of reasoning. They will function as more efficient, remedial schools to explain reasoning for public record in relation to an individual's errant actions, for that individual, with no subsequent process necessary because the reasoning will be of such effectiveness as it will verifiably create the desired reaction in the errant individual's mind, as well as the remedy for the manifest error. And the designed purpose of the courts will be to put their institution out of business, by illuminating the flaws of normal parenting and schooling processes, so those flaws can be corrected in said processes to avoid such embarrassment, and society thus creates so few individuals who error in relation to social process that courts are no longer necessary. Imagine an existing judge trying to put himself out of business after so craving the petty title of judge, after craving the petty title of lawyer, and laugh at his reptilian mind's insatiable addiction to petty titles. Now imagine what the human mind can learn if it is not addicted to something so primitive and stagnating as social titles.

If you would suggest that such a process is not available to the human mind, you would relegate your mind's usefulness to less than that of even animals which prove that they need not kill or hold in prison those of their own species which socially err, and no more than animals which occasionally bite those among them who err. If you admit ultimate dependence on the soldier's or policeman's guns and prisons, you are likely a victim of government employment, or an unthinking chap in any case. Because your mind holds the ability to deny such a paucity of thinking, when will you start thinking past your last conclusion to grant your denial validity?

That process is available today, with laughable ease. If you, the reader of these words, easily learned intellectual technology, by the common process the mind uses to learn, by design of the human mind, you would laugh yourself to tears over the ease of that process and its current disguise. But not one court judge in the world can discover it, by design. It is available for those who are still young enough or commonly intelligent enough to question their conclusions, including those conclusions which if effectively questioned would destroy the current foundation of their institution, leaving the individual to design a new foundation within their mind. The inordinately rare but readily available foundation is that of effective reasoning.

Consider a school, in which the teacher would never make any statement, and every sentence she said, was a question. That is only part of the concept. It is an aside to offer, at your inquiry, knowledge of the most advanced and effective school a human mind can create, producing geniuses from anyone, but no current school administrator or instructor can recognize the concept, by design.

Amusingly, elsewhere discussed within inordinately advanced concepts, while readily learnable by any human, the capability of the mind may never be recognized by society or any social leaders, and may instead be designed as a part of the puzzle crowding the primitive part or mechanism of the human mind to a goal we might describe as destructive, but requiring a measured degree of intelligence to achieve a then more advanced phenomenon, such as some useful part of the light from a nuclear explosion. Therein humans are merely an initially destructive tool for a higher goal, with the extent of their reasoning capability that which drives their primitive capability, by original design, to the demise of humans in raw fear of the primitive capability's destruction by reasoning, for an intriguing goal discussed elsewhere.

Why else would the humans who are so called Honorable Justices of the United States Supreme Court in 2001 and whenever you are reading this, insist that an inanimate object can commit a crime, among so many other displays of abject void of reasoning, that you and judges cannot find the few examples of reasoning lost amid the therefore idiot's joke referenced by governments and their self-deluded lawyers as, law?

Odd lot these humans, but of inordinate amusement, by design, wouldn't you agree?


Terrorist hours... 21 February 2001

Until you can write the following words, and publicly ascribe your name to your words, you will not discover the knowledge. There are only a few parts of the puzzle, but each part is imperative. Terrorists are only an inconsequential example. It is entirely too easy to solve the seeming puzzle, as an idle aside to greater intrigues.

Get a piece of paper and pen, or a new screen, to write the data, and then zip into the internet to find and calculate the data. Then add-up the total human hours lost because of the remaining normal life expectancy of the total number of humans killed by terrorists hijacking airplanes, including the lives of any lost terrorists.

Now add-up the total human hours consumed by every result of every terrorist hijacking every airplane ever hijacked. The hours of news media time, creating it and listening to it. The hours of talking about the subject. The hours of debating, designing, manufacturing, installing, training with, and utilizing every airport security device designed to protect passengers from those terrorists among them, and then the new models of each gizmo. Add up the hours to create and read all the hundreds of thousands of signs warning everyone that they can't do anything at an airport, and the time listening to the threats that anyone who sets down anything will have it seized by security, and don't forget the time spent on the perfunctory questions of the ticket agent who hasn't heard her own robotic words or the answers in years. Add-up the hours spent parking in a distant parking lot, and walking from and to it, at every little podunk airport at which no terrorist could or would function for any discernible reason, because any cars parked for a moment in the spacious drive-up areas are a threat because they might contain a bomb to blow up the whole airport and every airliner in the air for 100 miles. Add-up the hours of waiting in line behind security check stations, having luggage searched, X-rayed, squeezed, sniffed, rifled through and repacked. Add-up the hours walking back and forth through the metal detector and then scanned with the hand held thing to discover the penny down in the bottom corner of the suit pocket. Add up the hours of all the government airport anti-terrorist security platoons, drearily moping around the airport lobby's striking terror into the hearts of terrorists, plus the out-of-sight rambo platoons constantly training to swoop through the windows, in their black ninja armor and helmets, M-16's blazing, tear gas grenades being tossed by the hand fulls. Add up all the human hours diverted away from productive use of human time.

Millions of times more hours of productive human time is robbed from the people by the anti-terrorist chaps, than the terrorist chaps. And the terrorists, who can easily outwit such childish actions, are not deterred those scant rare times people want to be what the terrorist government personnel call, terrorists. The so called solution, which is by chance the cause of the problem if you could recognize its fundamental process, as proven elsewhere, is millions of times worse than the problem. Until you can say those words in public, and prove them against every question, you cannot start to describe the hilariously simple solution.

Government sorts, like all the other institutions financially, socially and psychologically dependent upon perpetuating the problem, literally cannot figure out the puzzle. They can read this section, and not have a clue as to what the words mean. Look around you for the proof.

It is only when you fully recognize, not from mere words, but the answers to your own questions of absolutes, the magnitude of the contradiction and its inherently spiraling plunge to its own demise, can you look back at the brilliantly disguised solutions you so hastily fled to attack those evil terrorists who were doing only what your institution initiated without a shred of logical reason.

Until your mind is so comfortable with each concept, that you understand its every nuance, and thus be asking the next level of questions that can only arrive from recognizing the details of each concept, you will be asking the questions that everyone else keeps asking rather than answering because they fear to answer.


The game you are playing, regardless... 22 February 2001

If you think you are not playing this game, then it is being played with you, or otherwise put, you are playing this game or you are already dead.

It is the game of the human mind's functioning among other other humans.

If you object to the word, game, then select another word. I will herein use the word, game, because it is a simple description of the process at play.

Much human interaction is cooperative and non-competitive, but much is otherwise, including much competitive thought among those who claim to not be competing. The human is a competitive species, like all species.

When you introduce a mind into a particular game, with its identified set of rules and conventions, the mind first learns those rules, functions among them, then promptly thinks beyond them. Notice that every set of rules and laws define limitations which human minds immediately think beyond, and commonly act beyond, violating the rules and defining the ability of the mind. The competitive mind competes against the game and its rules.

Among the game of soldiers, the soldiers seek to shoot first within the rules of the game, for obvious reason, but not always so confined by intent or circumstance, often hastily shoot the wrong people. The rockets and bombs often hit the wrong places. The rules are routinely violated. The participants evade responsibility for their malicious actions by saying, "That's war." The war game has dramatic consequences, but is just an example. The mind creates a game, then creates rules that are more restrictive than the original design of the game, and imposed to disadvantage he who foolishly obeys the contrived rules rather than the original design of the game. So where is the controlling contradiction?

The police game is another example. Police routinely compete against other humans, beyond the rules by hiding behind their badge for their advantage to physically assault other people without accepting the risks inherent to the game of hitting other people as a plain citizen. To suggest that direct physical assault against another human does not induce a flow of adrenalin is to identify one's ignorance. To suggest that said adrenalin does not routinely create excessive use of force for the task at hand is to identify one's ignorance. One can watch police routinely use unquestioned, robotically trained process, to maliciously subdue those persons who offer no resistance, to recognize that police epitomize the violation of the rules. So where is the controlling contradiction? Simply list the known tricks the police are formally taught and use to search houses and cars, without warrants, in violation of the rules. The police game is such a classic example that the citizenry now openly defines the police as the largest organized gang of armed thieves, thugs and murderers in the US, and getting worse. Where is the controlling contradiction that can be easily resolved to thus create what the police where originally designed to be? What was the original design of the competition, and what did it become?

Judges use their scam tools of judge-written, inferior process law to silence their competitors, the accused persons with an human mind capable of competitive thinking. The court example is magnificent. The court was originally designed as the arena for competition in reasoning, to discover and apply its highest form. But the government judges now consistently violate the rules, with raw power of office, to render the courts as throne rooms for edict leaving any mention of law or reasoning as a highly laughable suggestion. So where is the controlling contradiction, and thus the resolution to thus achieve the original design of the game, its flawless form of reasoning?

Each game of competition among humans, regardless of its nature, is predicated on the human mind, by definition of humans. Think more than the other soldier, and you will need only one shot. Think yet more, and you will not need that many. Think more than the criminal and you will not need to use force in apprehending him. Think more than the accused in court, and you will invite him to say as much as he wishes, to find the greatest reasoning. The commonality of the examples is that of the human mind, itself.

You will not learn how to outwit a worthwhile opponent, until you learn how to outwit the human mind, and that defines the zenith of the human mind's ability, which is not the ability to surpass its own design, but the ability to understand itself to the extent that no human mind can find an unrecognized part of the design, an unanswered question for the task at hand. It is really quite easy. One need only ask the next question of the last conclusion, until you can find no unanswered question. It does not take much time after using the same process to learn effective questioning process.

Therein, one may consider the game of verbal combat. Might you not need any rules after the identity of the game. What would each combatant learn if there were no rules or holds barred in a game of verbal combat? What would each combatant learn from the other chap's patient, progressively more effective verbal expressions impacting the human mind? Might it not be a game ideally suited for the human? Might the rule-mentality chaps who might suggest rules merely be ignorant of the mind's design for dealing with words? Might the competitive event result in the knowledge you sought? Might the worst case scenario require far less time than a physical war, and result in greater knowledge rather than bombed-out cities? Which would be your personal choice, and what would the other guy learn if he chose to learn the game of verbal combat? Do you use your own mind's answers to questions?

Could you not compete in that arena, by listening to others, without their knowing you were playing the game, and advance your knowledge vastly beyond their best efforts at anything, especially if they wasted part of their time with the physical force game, as do government chaps to silence their competitors? What could you then do with your knowledge, to them?


End of Intech Concepts 6

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