Women & Children '74-'99 pdf

Science & History '74-'99 pdf

50 Best '74-'00 pdf

2001 Supplement '00-'01 pdf

(Click Here for Eight Page Bibliography Citations- updated to 2001 - in Acrobat *.pdf 3 mg.)

brief up down position

Paradigm Slides - Bibliography

Bibliography One 1972-'94 gif --- pdf

Bibliography Two 1995 gif --- pdf

Journals One 1983 gif

Journals One & Two 1983 pdf

Attachment Figures

Bibliography (Full Citations)

Bibliographic Text

Old Man River . . .

Paradigm Slides - Message in a Bottle

High Level Elements

Definitions

Left and Right

Good and Bad

Sane and Sound

Four Crimes

Integrity

Integrity Rules

slides up down position

Paradigm Slides - More

On Cults

Capitalism and Cognition

Elections

Metaphor

slides up down

Consider

Liberal

Sleep

Golden Vanity

brief up down position

Paradigm Texts - Short Introductory Notes

Criteria

Passing the Torch

Announcement of Candidacy

Table of Contents for the Paradigm

brief up down

Table of Contents for the Summary

Short Review of Three Books

Five October Internet Postings

Rough Notes for 1996 (soon to come)

slides up down position

Paradigm Texts - The Main Texts

Paradigm Summary (core document)

Tables for the Paradigm Summary

The Messiah Syndrome

Autobiography

slides up down

On Conspiracies

Short Reviews of 22 Books

Schema (core document)

The 'Democrats Yes' Series - Summer, 1996

brief up down position

Introduction - September 9th, 2002

Section Titles for Quantum Politics:


I. Purpose - 150 words


II. Election Season Plan - 250


III. Consistency And Knowing The Truth - 1,000


IV. A Math System For Self-Evident To All, Social Calculations - 3,000


V. God, Limits, And The Grand Unified Theory: Bringing It Home - 3,000


VI. Attachment Judgment And Cognition Judgment: Sorting Out Fear And Truth - 1,000


VII. Hardball Politics - 1,000


VIII. Grenada - 1983 - 1,000


IX. Of Gangsters And Covert Operations: Why The Bullies Win - 2,000


X. Franklin Roosevelt, The Pacific Peoples, And Me - 7,000


XI. The Bullies, Across All Nations vs. The Rest Us Jerks, Across All Nations - 2,000


XII. You've Heard Of The One True God? Well, This Is The One True Conspiracy - 2,500


XIII. Fear Of Exposure Regarding Everyday Life, Is What Stops Everyone From Exposing Fascism Overall - 200


XIV. It's Part Of The Song . . . - 1,000


XV. What Drives Fascism - 500


XVI. Robert Redford, Jack Kennedy, Elliot Ness - 10,000

total - 40,000 words

The Purpose Of This Web Site Is To Solicit Support For The Three-Hour Talk Described Above.

The purpose of this web-site is encourage support for me to elucidate, publicly, intact, in context, and in a well-protected, organized manner, a little mathematics system for determining accuracy and helpfulness regarding social matters.

This purpose has remained unchanged since May of 1983, some nineteen years, ten thousand queries, nine election seasons, and half a million words of manuscript ago, when I first proposed it.

"Logical Types © nrm imaginenine.com"

The entire math system, officially named "The Paradigm From California Logical Types And Logical Levels Mathematics System For Social Calculations Copyright © 1983 Neil Robert Miller imaginenine.com" , or "Logical Types ©nrm" for short, or just 'Logical Types', or simply logical types, as the term is used in the below, can be easily and reasonably explained in just three hours, as in the proposal above.

Normal Human Intelligence, Twenty-Five Points Higher Than Present, Is The Only Solution

The public, intact, and in context elucidation of this math system would raise the IQ of the entire American public, that is, would raise the intelligence of the American people, by 25 points overnight.

Deception Becomes Moot

It would furthermore render deception by anyone regarding any social matters impossible.

Not because it would expose persons who are deceptive, but rather, because it would make both accuracy, and how any human mind perceives reality, self-evidently obvious to all.

Self-Evident

An analogy might be, if everyone is familiar with the simple arithmetic system as commonly understood, and if someone lays two same units ( I I ) down on a table and then puts three more same units ( I I I ) down on a table, and insists that there are now eight same units ( I I I I I I I I ) there, when everyone can see that there are five ( I I I I I ), no one is going to either believe them or disbelieve them. The statement is just greeted with shrugs.

Once "Logical Types ©nrm" is understood, deception rapidly becomes a thing of the past, overnight. It's not that anyone is believed or disbelieved. It's just that the whole issue becomes moot.

Absolute Consistency Is How Humans Know What Is True

The human mind learns what is true by checking for consistencies. When we touch a pool of water, we expect our hand to fall through, but when we touch concrete, we expect our hand to rest on the surface.

To Walk Confidently

Having checked for consistency throughout our lives, allows us to confidently walk forward down the street thousands of steps per day, and allows us to know what to expect when we step into a pool of water.

To Think Confidently

Having checked for consistency throughout the ages, allows us to know that simple arithmetic as commonly understood, works, again absolutely consistently.

It conforms to singular reality, and it conforms to the way every person's cognitive mind sees things.

1000-d Intellectual Vision (see "Lucy and Neandertal")

Regarding social matters, of course, we rely, for ninety or ninety-five percent of our understandings, upon information initially gathered by others.

Our brains were designed, through evolution, specifically to cull information from others, in figuring out what is true regarding social matters.

Noticing Consistency And Inconsistency Is Considered Ill Mannered And Feels Extremely Threatening To Most People, Indeed, Feels Even Life Threatening

However, even though we have to check for consistency, that is, accuracy, every minute of every day, just to remain alive while walking down the street, just to sit down on a chair instead of thin air, just to be sure that we are seeing an up staircase rather than a down staircase, if we automatically conduct ourselves in political or social conversation also going by consistency, we are considered, impolite, rude, ill mannered, and emotionally threatening.

This is because, regarding all social and political matters, an acceptance of deception regarding what another person understands to be true, is the iron rule throughout all society.

Obviously, when people are automatically checking for consistency in political and social conversations, as an ordinary, expected social convention, then obviously also, deception automatically evaporates.

Thus, to approach political or social conversations, by routinely noticing consistency, and therefore, routinely noticing accuracy and inaccuracy, also casually and routinely exposes deception, and as such, is experienced by deceptive persons as a threatening blow.

The ironclad rule against routine awareness of consistency and inconsistency in political and social conversations, results in people using as a basis for political calculations, massively inaccurate information, resulting in turn, in preposterous political and social conclusions taken as "what everyone knows".

Little wonder that even though "nature and human nature within it is geared for work out well for all persons", as an obvious matter given consistent conversation over time, still and all, given inconsistency as the heavily enforced rule, even life and death enforced rule of ordinary political and social conversation, people generally, routinely accept the profoundly absurd notion that "it is inevitable that things will work out poorly for some".

All human problems, six billion persons wide, ten billion persons wide, or however many, can be EASILY solved, in health and satisfaction for everyone, no tricks, given social conventions that allowed a checking for consistency in conversation, just as we do all the time, throughout the rest of our lives. However, given a normal, standard, human conversation rule that disallows a checking for consistency, human problems could never, never, never be solved, not in ten thousand years.

Intact, In Context, IN PUBLIC

This, obviously, is why "Logical Types © nrm" could never work as a privately known system, since anyone who routinely thinks and talks in terms of consistency, is, in so doing, therefore automatically exposing the deception of others, and, of course is therefore considered impolite, rude, ill mannered, and emotionally threatening, and thus, is therein unceremoniously thrown out of any and every social or economic loop in current society.

Only when "Logical Types © nrm" is known Publicly, To All, only then is inconsistency and therefore deliberate deception, seen as impolite, rude, ill mannered, and indeed, harmful to all.

Deception Makes Consistency Impossible

At any rate, given that, regarding social and political matters, in current society, deception is the rule, it becomes impossible to check for consistency, as people routinely deliberately mis-report their perceptions, so there is no consistency regarding nature's singular reality coming into our minds.

The first-hand information that we gather through our eyes, ears, skin, and so forth is 95% to 99% likely to be accurate, however, most of the information that we have regarding social and political matters comes in second-hand and third-hand.

If we had a way of checking for consistency, we could cull second- and third-hand information for accuracy, and as such, we would be drawing conclusions based upon accurate information.

However, with no way of checking for consistency, "conclusions" are not based upon how a human mind sees reality in the first place, but conclusions are instead based on wild fantasies, falsely presented as accurately reported information.

The cognitive portion of the human mind was designed to see singular reality, in large part by culling information from hundreds, even thousands of other people's cognitive minds.

But if so much of that information, is not cognitively perceived information at all, but rather, is the result of deliberately misreported renditions of how others see singular reality, then the information we wind up with, the information that we use to draw accurate conclusions in our own minds, is not accurate to singular reality.

Tragedy

Thus, given all that deception as a basis, people cannot find any main consistencies, and wind up reaching the tragic, and unearthly conclusion that it must be that "nothing is really true", and certainly not in the "same for everyone", "constant for all time" sense.

This is not the case of course, but it would indeed seem to be the case, if one must rely on massive mis-reports of perception as a basis for thinking.

Consistency, Across The Board, As The Basis For Knowing

Once one can easily tell when another person's report of what they understand, conforms to what that other person actually perceives, or doesn't conform to what that other person perceives, then the person can cull only accurate information, they can see consistencies, and then use those consistencies as a basis to form accurate conclusions.

Social Calculations

The real problem though, has been, that there has never been a calculating system for social affairs.

Even when you can get at least some consistent and accurate information regarding social matters, there is no math system for combining that information into consistently accurate conclusions.

"Same Units" Calculating System

There has long been a calculating system for "same units" type calculations, arithmetic, allowing us to figure massively consistently, regarding 'same units' type calculations, which has allowed us to build huge technological structures.

"Different Types Of Units" Calculating System

But regarding social affairs, we must take into account "different types of things" for making calculations, and arithmetic can't take into account "vastly different types of things".

Arithmetic Works For "Same Units"

We know that we can get absolute accuracy, deriving from absolute consistency, when using "same units", because we have a proved, and self-evidently proved through all the ages, math system for that, namely simple arithmetic as commonly understood.

Three And Two Is Five Across All Cultures, For All Time

Three same units ( I I I ) plus two same units ( I I ) results in five same units ( I I I I I ). Same for everyone, over all the world, self-evidently proved, and absolutely consistent with both singular reality, and with how everyone's mind sees things.

Some people might think it would take some special powers to calculate, with absolute, one hundred percent likelihood of accuracy, how many same units one would have, if, on the other side of the world, someone put three same units next to two same units, but in fact, any human can do it. In fact, it doesn't take any special powers to accurately make such calculations.

Singular, primary reality is part of the structure of our bioecosystem, through and through, and being able to see that singular reality, and calculate using singular, five-senses reality as the basis, is built into our human abilities.

Again, same for everyone, world-wide, through all time.

For Social Matters, We Can Get Absolute, Self-Evident To All Accuracy, But We Can Not Use Just Arithmetic

But, regarding social matters, people can not now calculate absolute accuracy, even when we do have accurate information to work from, because there is, as yet, no publicly known, self-evidently proved, absolutely consistent system for accurately combining and calculating "vastly different types of things".

Up to now, of course.

Arithmetic will work for combining "same units" things, but arithmetic will Not work for combining "vastly different types of things".

The singular reality basis of our bioecosystem runs through and through, but you need one math system for accurately combining "same units" things, and another math system for accurately combining "different types" of things.

Just An Analogy Or Metaphor

Perhaps a metaphor and only a distant metaphor, please, that might help clarify this matter, might be something like 'you need one type of transportation to cross a strip of land, and another type of transportation to cross a strip of water".

In both cases, you can accomplish exactly the same goal, get safely and successfully from one place to another. You just need a different system for crossing.

Again, it's only a metaphor, which means it doesn't match up in any way beyond the basic idea of 'transport' from one place to another.

I feel compelled to implore the reader to avoid "running" with metaphors. I have to use them sometimes, we all do; sometimes they can be very helpful.

But their value is entirely lost, and worse, if a person mixes up the literal idea with the metaphor or analogy.

Without Being Able To Find Consistency, Deception Rules

At any rate, while we have a commonly known, publicly known, calculating system for getting absolute consistency regarding "same units" types of things, the lack of a commonly known, publicly known calculating system for combining "vastly different types of things" makes consistency regarding social issues impossible, and therefore makes deception easy.

False Low Level Information Yields Bogus High Level Conclusions

Again, the lack of a commonly known system for accurately calculating social matters, leads people to the tragically inaccurate conclusion that there can be no real truth regarding social matters.

Arithmetic For "Same Units" Calculations;

Logical Types For "Different Types Of Units" Calculations

- In Both Cases, You Reach Self-Evident, Same-For-Everyone Accuracy

It is not the case that there is no real, same for everyone, absolutely consistent truth regarding social and political affairs.

It only seems that way, as long as there is no calculating system for combining "vastly different types of things".

Attempting To Calculate, Without A Calculating System Makes Accurate Conclusions Impossible

Without such a calculating system, people come to the tragically inaccurate conclusion that there is no real, same for everyone, never changing truth regarding social matters, which has the effect of encouraging massive deception, exabberating manyfold the problem of finding accuracy regarding social and political matters.

Both Arithmetic And Logical Types Yield Accurate Conclusions, But In Different Realms

Logical Types ©nrm does for social and political matters, where you're combining "vastly different types of things", what arithmetic does for technical matters, where you're combining "same unit" types of things.

Of Analogies And Metaphors

Perhaps it would be helpful to mention some analogies between logical types and arithmetic.

It must be remembered that, in using an analogy, or metaphor for something, there are two things being compared. One is the idea being described, and the second is the analogy or metaphor for it.

The two things match up in a few places, and don't match up at all in other places.

One uses an analogy, or metaphor, in order to explain something unfamiliar, by showing some comparisons with something that is familiar.

But, of course, it is important to remember that the two things do not match up in all ways; otherwise, the 'analogy' would be just a literal description of the original thing being explained.

The "Equals Sign" In Arithmetic And The "Sky Buckle" In Logical Types

One of the symbols commonly used in arithmetic is the 'equals sign' ( = ). Without it, there really is no arithmetic. You could say "three plus two", but without the equals sign, it wouldn't really mean anything.

Without the equals sign, the numbers would have no purpose. Three plus two . . . but so what?

Without the equals sign, so what? Pretty soon, the numbers would be floating all over the page, upside down, sideways, it doesn't matter. Without the equals sign, they don't mean anything anyway.

The Sky Buckle

An analogy to arithmetic's equals sign, in logical types, is the sky buckle.

It tells you where you're going, what the overall context is. It limits the factors that have to be taken into account as the calculations move on, and guides you to which factors are "governing" and which factors are "lower level" in any given context.

Without it, like the equals sign in arithmetic, the symbols just wind up floating all over the page, without any meaning.

Thus, the sky buckle in logical types is different from the equals sign in arithmetic, but it is analogous - it tells you where you're going, it guides you regarding the importance of factors, and it limits the calculations.

Furthermore, because the sky buckle, at the highest relevant logical level - "Geared For Work Out Well For Every Person" - is in full conformity with how this bioecosystem works, it keeps all the calculations fully consistent with the singular reality of this bioecosystem, and in full conformity with how the human mind was designed, through evolution, to work.

Again, without the sky buckle, like deleting the equals sign in arithmetic, without it, everything just goes haywire; you never know what's more important and what's less important; what's governing, and what's elements; without it, everything just turns meaningless, inconsistent, and crazy.

A Psychiatric Aside

This, as it turns out, is a big key as to why no one else was able to crack this system.

Given that, for the past few thousand years, it has been considered an ironclad rule of success, that "it is inevitable that things must necessarily work out poorly for some", and that, as a matter of science, anyone who realizes that "inevitability of work out poorly for some", bears No relation whatsoever to how this bioecosystem works, is themself considered crazy, and pathetic, not to mention "mentally unstable", well, then no one who aspires to societal success first and foremost, could ever get very far regarding solving the great problems of humankind.

Without the "geared for work out well for every person" sky buckle, then eventually, usually sooner rather than later, every attempt at solution to the great human problems, 'cracks up on the rocks', so to speak, goes haywire.

And again, no one who, first and foremost, aspires to success in society as it stands, can survive at all, while carrying and working through a scientific, "geared for work out well for all" frame of mind.

Once I realized that "Nature And Human Behavior Within It Is Geared For Things Working Out Well For Every Person", and I think I've had it goin' on, as an "iron nut", so to speak, inside, since I was three years old, well then, as has been said about Einstein's E=MCsq., the rest is analogous to simple arithmetic.

Well, actually, there's nothing special about me in that way, as every child, without exception, has that going on in the first place, when they're born. It's universal human nature. And it's supposed to be that way, throughout life; "geared for work out well for every person" as a frame of mind, which is in full conformity with nature's system, is what we're all designed for, again, throughout life.

And it's one of the most important reasons why we so desperately have to protect our children, not only when they're young, but as they grow older as well. And not only from being harmed, but perhaps even more important, from being driven to harm others

So I'm just like everyone else, having been born with that 'geared for work out well for all' sky buckle, built in, again, just like everyone else.

The only thing that may be a little different about me is, I never lost it, to this day, and survived, um, well, survived so far, anyway. And I'm 57 years old. And it's not that I couldn't lose it, I'm vulnerable, just like everyone else.

It's just that, even through the most violent century in world history, and a life replete with far more missed opportunities and extreme disappointments than most people could ever survive, for some reason, I haven't lost it, haven't lost that "geared for work out well for every person" sky buckle, which we're all born with. I haven't lost it, so far.

It stays with me; I don't even know why, really; maybe it was the extreme combination of science, and romance, in my mind, an extreme of both, '24/7' as they say, year after year, decade after decade, topped off with leftist politics from an early age . . . but I don't really know why, really . . . it's just what's happened with me.

Returning To The Math Of It

At any rate, if you're trying to figure out human solutions within this bioecosystem, you don't fool around with the "geared for work out well for every person" sky buckle. It's nature's law, all nature, indeed, God's law, numero uno, so to speak.

The way we know it's true, is that when it's used, and we sort information using the 'geared for work out well for every person' framework as the high level "ruler" so to speak, and, using that to check for consistencies and inconsistencies in the information that we receive, then, everything combs out with full consistency.

It becomes clear what's accurate and what's not accurate to singular reality, and it also becomes clear, or certainly clearer, just which reports that are coming in from others, are accurate reports of a cognitive mind's perception of reality, and which reports that are coming in from others are inaccurate reports of a cognitive mind's perceptions of reality.

You look for consistencies, just like you did when you found out the difference between concrete and water.

With logical types, you can understand consistencies with ideas, just as you can understand consistencies with the physical objects that everyone is familiar with.

Just A Little Bit Like A Jig-Saw Puzzle

With "Logical Types © nrm", solving social and political problems, getting accurate pictures of reality, is slightly analogous to putting together a large jig-saw puzzle - where all the pieces do indeed fit together consistently, "the more you know, the more you understand", and the big pictures come in very clear, and again, consistent.

Not "Believing", But Rather, Figuring Out

Figuring politics, becomes no longer a question of "believing" or "not believing" other people. With logical types, accuracies and inaccuracies become obvious, easy to check against all other information, just like the solution to 3 + 2 = 5 in simple arithmetic as we know it, is obvious, without believing or disbelieving anyone.

Mistaken High Level Framework

When you use a mistaken high level framework, such as "inevitable that things will work out poorly for some", then, because that does Not match nature's singular reality, then, you wind up mistakenly thinking that nothing regarding social and political issues is really, in the end, consistent, and therefore, mistakenly thinking that nothing is "really" true. Same for everyone, and constant for all time true.

Accurate High Level Framework

When you use the high level understanding that indeed, does match nature's singular reality, "geared for work out well for every person", then everything combs out, matches up.

Unlike the inaccurate to nature "inevitability of work out poorly for some" framework, where the more you know, the less you understand, with the accurate to nature "geared for out work well for all" framework, again, the more you know, the more you understand.

And unlike esoteric "belief" systems, with "geared for work out well for every person", "Logical Types © nrm", and using singular, five senses reality for guidance, you don't rely on "just believing".

Consistency, Cognition, Universal

You can check for consistency within your own cognitive mind, just like everyone else's cognitive mind. the way you can for 3 + 2 = 5.

You can check against five senses consistency, in seeing when things do, and do not, match up.

So anyway, that's one analogy between logical types and arithmetic. The geared for work out well for all sky buckle, which tells you where you're going in the overall, which focuses the calculations, and which gives the overall context, is somewhat analogous, and only analogous of course, to the equals sign in arithmetic.

Them Spooky Dukey Symbols, Gosh, It's So Complicated

Another analogy with arithmetic, is that both systems use symbols.

In arithmetic, there are ten digits, one through 9 and zero. Ten of 'em. Can you imagine keeping all that in mind at once?

361. Can you imagine automatically understanding what that means? Just in a flash? My God! You'd have to be a rocket scientist!

Well, logical types also has symbols, but instead of ten, there are only three. And instead of being called 'digits', they are called 'types'.

In fact, given that logical types has only three symbols, whereas arithmetic has ten, there's a lot less to memorize with the logical types system than there is with arithmetic.

In this sense, an in many others, logical types is actually easier to work with than arithmetic is; it comes more naturally to the human mind.

Placement

Yet another analogy with arithmetic is the matter of placement.

In arithmetic, where a digit is placed matters much. It might seem crazy, but in arithmetic, if a 3 is in the second column from the right, it means 30, but if that same digit is placed in the fifth column from the right, it means 30,000. I know; it seems nuts! But believe it or not, that's how arithmetic works.

Just a teensy little change in placement, changes completely what the digit means.

You'd think you'd have to be an Einstein to keep that in mind. If it's in the third column, it means three-hundred, but if it's in the seventh column, it means three-million.

Everyone's a Curie, or an Einstein, Easy

It's amazing what people can keep in their mind, just automatically. In fact, everyone's an Einstein, in fact, quite a lot smarter than Einstein ever dreamed of.

In logical types, too, placement matters. If something is lower on the page, it means it's an element in a system; if it's higher, it means it's "governing" to that element. Easy. Simple. Nothing to it, so to speak.

Similar, But Different

The placement scheme is different from arithmetic. It's similar, in that there is a placement scheme, but it's different, in that it's a different placement scheme.

Based In Five-Senses Cognition

Yet another thing that's like arithmetic, is that both the arithmetic system and the logical types system are based on five-senses reality.

You don't really have to believe anyone to notice that when two same units are placed next to three same units, you wind up with five same units.

There's no believing involved. Just self-evident, same-for-everyone, in-conformity-with-singular-reality truth. No believing involved. Your internal cognition is what you rely on for that.

Logical types is also based on five-senses reality. Again, no believing involved. It's math. Obvious, simple, easy. You figure things out in your mind.

this section appended January 18th, 2003

The Limits Of The Logical Types System

Another aspect of "Logical Types © nrm" that can be compared with arithmetic is the matter of limits.

Zillions

In arithmetic, as regards how high numbers can go, there are essentially no practical limits. Numbers can go into the billions, into the quadrillions, into the skillions, with scores of digits, or even hundreds of digits.

I recently read a book where the author found it useful, and it seemed right to me in that case, to write a number that consisted of three solid lines of digits. Fine. That's arithmetic.

Limits

Not so regarding calculations with logical types.

Logical types is a strictly limited system, bounded in three ways, the three boundaries defining the perimeter of life as we know it.

Time, Space, and Configuration

This paradigm is limited in time, in space, and in configuration.

Limits In Time

As regards time, it works only for life processes from four billion years ago to the near future.

Whether it works to describe what happened prior to four billion years ago, or beyond the near future, that is, beyond the time when the great human-harming-human problems become solved, I don't know, and I don't care either.

I discovered, the particular part of earth's mathematics, that works for solving the current, ten-thousand-year long, human-harming-human problem.

And it can be easily shown that this logical types system does indeed cover things comprehensively, again, from four billion years ago to the near future.

But that's it.

The Hick

Before four billion years ago, and beyond the near future, I don't know if it would work or not, but I doubt it.

Engendering healthy lives for six-billion, or ten-billion or however many persons, everyone, and combing out the currently terribly skewed political patterns of the world, is the be all, and the end all, of this paradigm.

Beyond, that, before or after, well, it's not my department. I don't care.

Call me a hick if you will, 'provincial', or whatever, 'a homebody' perhaps.

But in fact, it is true, that this paradigm is very strictly limited to relevance to solving problems of harm to life.

This is the paradigm of life; It is NOT the paradigm of the beyond, either prior to life, prior to four billion years ago, or what will come after these current terrible problems of harm to life are solved, that is, the near future.

For me, the six billion persons of this planet, living breathing human beings, girls and boys, are, Home. That's what I want, and who I've got, and who've got me.

Healthy, Vital, Life, For Everyone, Life On This Planet, Is The Point

At any rate, this Logical Types System, and this Paradigm From California, is the paradigm of life; it is not the paradigm of the beyond.

Logical Types, and Tenors, and this Paradigm, is what we need to know now.

Solving

Perhaps I should mention that when I use the term 'near future' it is with the presumption that this population will survive, which, I think, are the most likely and useful terms to think within.

And that presumes, that the great problems of harm will indeed be solved in the near future (obviously much higher likelihood given sooner, rather than later, public elucidation of Logical Types © nrm), and presumes that the great problems of life, particularly the "human-harming-human" problems, will be solved with minimal loss of life or other damage, no tricks.

I am certainly aware that the matter of what will come in the future is in the realm of probability, as likelihood, and not inevitability, is, to my knowledge, how this bioecosystem works.

Perhaps it would be well to remember that, for the millions of years of our overall history, the likelihood that our planet and species would survive intact another decade, century, millennium, and far more, was at a constant 99.99+%. That is the environment in which we evolved.

It was not until the obviously, heinously deranged attack on Hiroshima, that confidence in the long-term future was shaken for the first time, over millions of years.

This "destruction of eveyone's 'maps' of the long term future", which the nazi bully-boys among the bourgeoisie so gleefully, deliberately arrange via toxic wastes, nuclear materials, global warming, deliberately arranged wars, bio-engineering, cultural destruction, and all the rest, is an entirely arrestable difficulty.

Given an intelligent population generally, again, given the 3-hour "Logical Types" "Talk" mentioned at the top of this Home Page, likelihood of correction is, I think, excellent.

At any rate, there is absolutely no question that we could return to 99.99+ percent likelihood of short-term, medium-term, and long-term survival of our planet and our population. Which was the condition under which ourselves, our minds and our hearts, evolved.

It's just a matter of loosening the grip of the tragically child-abused bully-boys among the bourgeoisie, who currently seem to have a stranglehold over finance capital, and the body politique.

So, all that is by way of explaining that this paradigm is limited in time. It works from four billion years ago, the birth of God, out to the near future.

After the "human-harming-human" problems are solved,

and solved forever via some sort of ordinary, garden-variety conversational 'immune-system', so to speak,

instead of the conversational-conventions-death-system which is currently operative,

then, once the great problems of harm to humans are solved, then, presumably, Logical Types will become only a lower level idea in something much bigger that will have to be figured out.

But what's relevant here, is that this paradigm is designed for operations, only from four billion years ago through the near future, up through the time when the currently damaging problems are solved.

Those are the limits of this paradigm in time.

Limits In Space.

In space too, this paradigm is limited to "from protons to Pluto", as I like to put it.

Everything we need to know, and certainly all the systems that we need to know about, all the problems of life, can be combed out from protons, to Pluto.

Perhaps I should mention, that I count the nine planets as part of our planet's bioecosystem, mainly because the sun is so important to our bioecosystem. Thus, the full, top level system of relevance in space, is this solar system.

Teeny Teeny, and Huge Huge

So, I know that there are things going on below the size of a proton, and I certainly know that there are things that go on beyond Pluto, beyond this solar system.

The Hubble

And I think it's useful to know about them. I'm a big fan of NASA; I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The Hubble is a magnificent wonder, as was the Soviet Space Station, and the Mars Rover and all the rest. Double their budget, that's what I say, as long as corporate and military influences can be kept out of course.

But they are, ONLY, useful low level elements, of low level use in understanding what we need to know for solving problems of harm. Nuggets of gold, and more, wholly worth the money, but of a lower logical level all the same.

Deep space, and the seriously sub-atomic stuff, do not hold systems of relevance for solving the problems of harm to humans.

Near space, ok, maybe, to some small non-military degree. For right now, that's about it.

Organic chemistry, of course, chemistry, electricity, optics, quantum physics, sure, of course. But that's about it.

Will logical types work, below the size of a proton, or out in deep space? I don't know. And, I, don't, care.

And anyway, I doubt that the logical types system would work at those sizes.

Beyond Pluto, for example, logical types would probably operate as just one, low level element, of many, in some much larger math system. But it doesn't matter.

NOT 'Relativity', But Rather, Rock Solid Consistency and Certainty

I can't help but note that Einstein never liked his theory being called 'relativity', a low-level insult, and an anti-science mis-nomer if there ever was one, but instead, Einstein named it "The Theory of Invariance".

I myself would call it "The Theory Of The Consistent, Same For Everyone, Invariant Properties Of Physical Space."

In a word, bigger stability and certainty - that's what Einstein knew he had found for all humankind.

From Galileo To Nightingale

While Galileo figured out the constant, invariant properties of motion regarding things we can see everyday,

and Newton figured out the constant, invariant properties of motion regarding invisible forces,

Einstein figured out the constant, invariant properties of physical space itself,

each of them moving up one logical level from what had previously been understood.

No more "relative" than anything else -

Darwin, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of evolution';

Laviosier and Dalton, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of the elements';

Freud and Bowlby, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of the unconscious';

Mendel, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of individual genetic changes';

Neil, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of human emotion';

Copernicus, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of the solar orbits';

Maxwell, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of electricity';

Piaget, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of cognition';

Marx, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of history;

Nightingale, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of recovery from illness';

Russell and Whitehead, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of arithmetic'.

They don't call those things "Relativity", although everything within each of those overall ideas, everything within them, are in some relation there too.

There is variation within those ideas, all over the place.

Indeed, needing to figure out how to handle those variations, is the reason why you need to figure out the constants, and invariables - 'the grounding' - in the first place.

If you don't know what something is grounded to, constant, baseline, comprehensive, invariant, clear and testable properties grounded, you have no way of usefully organizing, whatever you're faced with.

Without some backbone common properties, without knowing what they are, consistently understood, nothing is ever going to fit together.

In fact, the great discovery, Einstein's or anyone else's, the discovery itself,

the great, always fabled, 'golden fleece', as it were, the solid-as-a-rock, same for everyone, basis that is established, for the entire field,

is, "the constant for all time, same for everyone, invariable properties", of the subject at hand, for all the world to lean on, in health, vitality, and cure.

The Bullies Among The Bourgeoisie, As Always, Deliberately Maiming Science, Intelligence, People, And Planet Alike

While Einstein's "Theory Of Invariance" itself, the theory itself (as far as I can tell) is obviously entirely sound, the Name of the theory, "relativity", is nothing but a huge, anti-scientific psywar hoax against the intelligence and intellectual self-confidence of the population at large.

The point is, Einstein didn't "pull the rug out from under certainty", far from it.

He discovered a larger, far more stable "rug", so to speak, and nailed it firmly in place.

Just as Darwin disliked and distrusted the term "survival of the fittest", Albert disliked the name "relativity".

'Stability and certainty and same for everyone rock solid consistency and constancy' was what Albert had in mind,

Albert and Mileva, Bringing It Home

In fact, Einstein tried to bring it home, right from the start. And thank you Mileva.

"The Theory of Invariance" as he called it, but his sensibility about what he had actually found, was crudely disallowed by the war companies who control the world of physics, and of 'education', and the grotesquely Orwellian mass media.

Instead of allowing the theory to be understood by the general public within "the singular reality framework", which in fact IS the scientific framework,

Instead of allowing the theory to be called "The Theory Of Invariance" which was the name Einstein chose, the abused children of the big war corporations, grown-up or otherwise, and their satanic religionist mass media and universities, insisted upon the anti-science, "no real truth", "no solid ground" name, "relativity", which, insultingly to Albert - I presume it made him feel like he was being called a clueless airhead - and deliberately confusingly for the rest of us, describes not the theory itself, but rather, some lower level consequences of it.

Naming it "relativity" (a low level consequence of the theory, primarily operative at hundreds of millions of miles an hour), instead of allowing Einstein to name it "The Theory of Invariance" (which is a description of the theory itself), was a destabilizing, deliberately imbecilizing psywar attack on the general public, bearing no relation to standard scientific nomenclature.

Seeing Things From Above, From Outside Is Helpful

At any rate, as regards the limits of the Logical Types © System - in space, it works from Protons to Pluto; that is the extent of this bioecosystem. For me, that's home, and those are the limits of this paradigm.

I haven't looked very much beyond our bioecosystem, and while I certainly find it useful to grasp a little higher level context for the system we are in, the system we are in being this bioecosystem specifically, and all of the six billion persons in it, I haven't looked very much beyond that. And it's beyond the point.

Planet earth, all of us folks living in it, all the billions of girls and boys, our thousands and millions and billions of years of history, and our larger bioecosystem, our millions of songs and loves and wonders, is the home base of this Logical Types discovery.

"Of people, By people, and For people", to paraphrase how the great President once put it - of, by, and for, all of us, All Life.

Again, life as we know it. As regards this paradigm, that is what counts, and that's as far as it goes.

So. Limited in Time, from four billion years ago to the near future, and limited in Space, from protons to Pluto.

The Limits In Configuration

And, logical types is limited by configuration.

It goes from the smallest detectible wave or a single letter of the alphabet, on up to "geared for work out well for every person".

From chemistry and medicine, including the maths, to humans and communities and nations and regions; from affection, to health, to passion, to freedom, and satisfaction, and all the rest, on up to "Geared For Work Out Well For Every Person", all comprehensively covered by Logical Types.

What about after things are combed out in a work out well for all manner?

After 'geared for work out well for all' is "built-in", as automatics, like an immune system.

And no one pays it much mind any more, because it's solved. After that, what then?

Well, I presume that Logical Types will become a low level pillar of whatever comes next.

A low level support for the much larger understanding, that will have to be developed to handle whatever comes up next, what sort of things we are faced with after the great problems of harm to humans - particularly the problems regarding 'human-harming-humans' - are solved.

And when the great problems of harm to humans are solved, in health and vitality no tricks, six-billion, ten-billion, or however many persons wide, then my job is done.

And then they'll be a new situation. And bigger things still will need to be discovered, for the new situation.

Such is the way of things on this planet, that is, such is the way of things within our committee, "under God", so to speak, God, the committee of "the 30 or so basic forces of physics that make up life", the committee as a whole.

At any rate, as for configuration limits, "The Logical Types System © nrm" as it stands, only goes, again, "from the smallest detectible wave or a single letter of the alphabet, on up to "geared for work out well for every person". And a little more. Those are the limits of this paradigm.

Strict Limits

So unlike arithmetic, which can go on, technically, forever, logical types is strictly limited,

in time, "from four billion years ago to the near future",

in space, "from protons to Pluto",

and in configuration, "from the smallest detectible wave or letter of the alphabet", on up to "geared for work out well for every person."

The Famous "Grand Unified Theory"

It has occurred to me that this matter of limits, may have been the great problem with attempts to develop a "grand unified theory", or, "theory of everything" as it is popularly called.

God, Defined. Let Me Introduce You

After all, there are probably something like, say, 1,000 basic forces in the universe as we know it, and some 100 in the vicinity of this planet.

Probably only about, for example, 30 basic forces of physics -

forces such as Time, Space, Configuration, Attractiveness, Motion, Mathematics, Liaison, Form, Out-Of-The-Blue, Matter, Randomness, Waves, whatever else . . .

- probably only about 30 of them - 'basic forces of physics' - actually jostled together to make up this bioecosystem - that is, the thirty coming together to become God, or the God committee, as I sometimes like to call it,

The bioecosystem itself, and all of us in it, being the physical manifestation, at this logical level, of the combination of the thirty forces, the committee as a whole, God.

the 30 forces that found that they could get along, out of the perhaps 100 in the area, the 30, "rubbing shoulders, bumping hips", so to speak, coming together to make up life and replication, some four billion years ago.

Voila . . . 'The Great Committee in the Sky', the God committee; taken as a whole, God. Four billion years ago, the birth of God.

Those 30 forces taken together as a whole,

again, forces such as Time, Space, Configuration, Attractiveness, Motion, Mathematics, Liaison, Form, Out-Of-The-Blue, Matter, Randomness, Waves, whatever else . .

is what I understand God, the system that created us all, to be. The overall governing system.

And the committee, the committee of the 30 'basic forces of physics' that operate together to make up this bioecosystem, "The Great Committee In The Sky", operate together in certain patterns, or "rules", as we would put it, or "laws" - laws of physics, laws of biology, or whatever - in a word, "God's Laws". Seems kind of obvious.

The Committee Of The 30 Basic Forces That Make Up Life, Out Of The Hundreds Present

So, of the 30 or so basic forces of physics that make up life as we know it, we can identify perhaps 15 at most.

The basic forces that come to my mind, for example, 10 or 12 of the 'committee members', so to speak, members of "The Great Committee In The Sky" are:

Time, Space, Configuration, Attractiveness, Motion, Mathematics, Liaison, Form, Matter, Randomness, Waves, whatever else . . .

which is probably a good third or half of our little Committee, which, taken together, is itself just one little group of forces, among the thousands of different "types of forces" goin' on out there, and different "groupings of forces" going on out there, in space, in deep space, and beyond space as we know it.

And again, out of perhaps 100 'basic forces of physics' in our area, 30 of them became organized together some four billion years ago, to make up our bioecosystem.

And those 30 'basic forces of physics', that four-billion-year old grouping, which makes up our bioecosystem, taken all together as one, is, I think, what people have long referred to as "God".

I find that terminology convenient as well, and in this context, entirely scientific.

The "Atheism vs. God" Hoax

The explanation here, as far as I can tell, is in absolute conformity with what is known in the formal 'hard' sciences, very much including mathematics, provable or disprovable by standard scientific reasoning, requiring no "just believe" ideas, and relying on ordinary, self-evident, same-for-everyone, five-senses, logic.

The only reason scientists have not generally defined God this way in the past, is because they didn't apply Russell and Whitehead's "class/member" distinction to what they already know of the physical world.

Put the two together,

put together the standard scientific understanding of "basic forces of physics";

put that together with the standard, mathematical "class/member" distinction, and the above explanation is obvious!

The "basic forces of physics" are "the members" of the system, in Russell's terminology,

and "God" is "the class", "the system as a whole."

What's the problem? In full conformity with all formal physics and mathematics as currently known. Self-evident. Obvious. No?

The difference between science and religion has nothing to do with an awareness of God as a reasonable name for the overall system, the "collection of basic forces of physics as a whole".

As regards an awareness of the existence of an overall system, with consistent 'patterns' or 'laws' - it's exactly the same in science and religion.

The difference between science and religion has nothing to do with an awareness of "a collection of forces of physics" which governs this bioecosystem, that collection of forces also known as 'God'.

I think it would have to be seen, that the "high level laws of physics and biology", and "God's laws", are, one in the same. I can't see how anyone could see any difference in that respect.

The Big Difference Between Science And Religion

The difference is that in science, the cognitive, rational, testable, five-senses, alert, critical, intelligent portion of one's brain is used to arrive at conclusions,

and in religion, the entire cognitive portion of the mind is closed down, and one runs on "just believe", a different portion of the mind entirely.

The difference is in how one arrives at their conclusion regarding how that 'top level' force operates,

regardless of whether they call it "a committee of forces of physics as a whole", science, or whether they call it "God", religion.

"The Group Of Basic Forces Of Physics Taken As A Whole That Makes Up This Bioecosystem", and "God" - they're both the same thing.

The difference is in the mental processes used to arrive at conclusions,

whether a person is fundamentally relying on their "Just Believe" judgment, and therefore, whether a person can be led around by the nose by any convincing fakir, ready to "believe" any preposterous, and even deadly, and deadly-for-all, nonsense, which is how religion works,

or reach conclusions via a critical, conscious, reasoned, logical, mathematical, five-senses process - figure it out according to the cognitive, five-senses lights of the rational, human intelligence portion of the human mind - which is how science works.

There is no scientist in the world, NONE, who would ever suggest that there are no overall patterns. In fact, science is, BY DEFINATION, the investigation and study of those patterns!

Again, the only difference between religion and science, is whether you Just Believe things, turning OFF your cognitive, five-senses, intelligence, which is the religion method,

or whether you reach conclusions, At All Logical Levels via your critical, cognitive, comparative, rational, five-senses, intelligence, which is the scientific method.

That's the fundamental difference.

And again, the entire "atheist vs. God" "debate", is nothing but yet another of the huge, and blatantly anti-intellectual hoaxes that riddles Western history.

As Einstein once mentioned, far more literally, and scientifically, than anyone seems to understand, 'I want to know the mind of God'.

In other words, scientists are God investigators; God Himself is under investigation. Scientific investigation. Not in a hostile sense, but in an educational sense.

Scientists investigate the basic forces of physics, and reach conclusions about how those high level patterns work, how God's laws work, and how they work together - the basic laws of physics, and biology, and more,

in a word, god's laws - or God's Laws, same thing,

and scientists do it via the critical, conscious, mathematical, rational, five-senses-based portion of the human mind.

The Apocolyptic "God Hates People" Idea, As The Product Of Unmitigated Child Abuse

Some grown up child of an apocolyptic bully boy might not like it, a Repbulican, or whoever; 'investigating God' might feel like genuine terror to such a person,

who might well be suffering under a tragic "confusion of logical levels", between an abusive parent (low level), and The Almighty (high level).

An inability to distinguish metaphor, from literal reality; born of the trauma of child abuse.

Because their attachment figures beat them up, or threatened to harm or kill them, and they never figured out it was wrong, they wind up thinking that God hates people, and by the way, God's also got this psychiatric thing about privacy - doesn't want anyone to see inside Him.

While that is indeed the way a child-abusing parent would work, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with how God works!

God Himself, loves that scientific investigation stuff;

that Curing, helpful only, life giving, life strengthening scientific investigation. To the highest logical levels necessary.

That's what He Himself has been doing, via DNA, for three billion years. Now it's done via the neurons of human intelligence. Even more adaptable; even better; as always in our bioecosystem.

God loves it, loves that investigation stuff, of all the forces with which we have to contend, high and low. That's what He gave us brains for. Kinda obvious, no?

I mean, in the common vernacular, "that's what God gave us brains for", to figure out how to be helpful;

scientifically put, "that's why human intelligence turned out to be so helpful in the course of evolution", to accurately understand the forces of nature, so as to solve the great problems of harm that we're faced with.

In short,

Religion - "God gave us brains", so we could be increasingly helpful to one another, and all the world around, all, the manifestation of Him;

Science - "The mathematically organized forces that make up this bioecosystem evolved human intelligence", for strengthening the bioecosystem, and all within it.

Getting In Touch With Our Inner Nun

This bioecosystem, over billions of years, evolved mechanisms for strengthening it's world, which necessarily means, strengthening all within it.

We're supposed to be strengthening each other, and the world around. NOT cutting each other 'down to size', so as to grab what they got!

What's unscientific about that? Perfectly normal scientific logic, and reasoning. Even though it might happen to match up with what a Catholic nun might think. Even though, it's still science.

But in the science formulation, we can put aside the mercurial 'morality', 'ethics', or whatever, vagueness; that's like the old pre-Einstein 'ether'.

The literal reality, science, is better. Clean, clear, same for everyone.

Einstein put aside the matter of a soupy ether, and identified the structure of physical space itself, the space that held the supposed ether.

Here, we're putting aside vague 'morals', and orwellian 'ethics', and identifying the structure of the bioecosystem itself. In a word, God's laws, or, if you prefer, God's Laws.

I suppose later, you can trace downwards what the 'morals', or 'ethics', of what's likely to work out well in any given context - society, or culture, or circumstance, or whatever. Sure. I suppose. But, then, it's not vague, slippery, orwellian anti-math.

It's crystalline, hard, cold science. Same for everyone, as self-evident to the most alert, critical, five-senses-based cognitive mind of any person.

An ordinary advancement in formal science.

Sure, it will get you blacklisted from every university, publisher, and professional organization in the country, ok, sure; they all work for the bully boys, I got that already,

but, in fact, it is excellent science, very much by their own standards, all the same.

In fact, far superior to what they got going now, by their own standards of traditional, straight-laced, science.

Anyway, the core meaning of the religion statements, "God gave us brains", "so we could be helpful",

and the core meaning of the science statements, "mathematically arranged DNA operations organized human intelligence", "for strenthening the world around",

seem to me to match up.

I mean, what's the diff? I really don't see no difference.

An Anthropomorphic Convenience

I should mention that I do find it difficult to picture in my mind 'a committee' of 'basic forces of physics', when I try to visualize "The Great Committee In The Sky".

I certainly know of their existence, as a matter of science, but it's hard for me to visualize.

So naturally, sometimes, I mean only sometimes, but still, when thinking metaphorically, I sometimes substitute in, persons from among my principle attachment figures, as shown at the top of the home page and in the bibliography.

It's not religion though, because I know that as a literal matter, that the people I look to, are only wonderful representatives of The Committee, especially godly manifestations, yes, but only manifestations, like you and me, and all the bears, and the birds and the bees, and not the committee itself.

The committee itself are the 30 (or however many) basic forces of physics that make up life, that jostled together four billion years ago.

It's just that things like "time", and "space", and "form", and "waves", and "attractiveness" are sometimes kind of hard to imagine, so, sometimes, for some general purposes, I just more or less elect representatives in my mind, from among my principle attachment figures, to stand for them.

In other words, when I pray to God Almighty, I pray to Malcolm, and Marilyn, and Pete, and Holly, and Joan, and so forth, a more personalized form of "The Great Committee In The Sky", easier to imagine.

Sometimes, for certain metaphoric purposes, I just find it a lot more convenient than trying to talk to 'time', or 'motion', or 'waves', or whatever.

It's a metaphoric convenience.

I presume that that's how scientists of indigenous peoples of 20,000 years ago handled it.

In other words, I presume that that, via evolution, is what we were all designed for. Or maybe close, anyway.

Ancestor Worship, And The Original, Indigenous Gods

Modern westerners may call it "ancestor worship", or some sort of spooky 'spiritualism'.

However for the original peoples who found the memory of, and the look of attachment figures from their history, to be a convenient metaphor for calculating and understanding how the world works,

using a metaphoric verbal and visual idea, this or that attachment figure, to "stand in" as a thinking convenience for the basic forces of physics, was, I presume, just a very useful metaphor for understanding "the high level forces and factors" that were scientifically known in literal nature, but were hard to picture specifically.

Using metaphors was, and is, part of the process of explaining and sorting out singular reality, that is, part of the process of explaining and sorting out singular-accuracy-based science as we know it.

As long as one clearly knows and maintains THE ABSOLUTE DISTINCTION BETWEEN literal reality,

and a metaphoric, partial description of it,

then, the use of metaphors, again, AS LONG AS THAT DISTINCTION IS CLEARLY MAINTAINED,

let me repeat that a third time, AS LONG AS THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN METAPHORIC 'STAND-IN',

AND SINGULAR, SAME FOR-EVERYONE, SCIENTIFICALLY KNOWN REALITY, IS CLEARLY MAINTAINED,

then, such metaphors can be an entirely reasonable, and sometimes even a necessary part of a standard, overall, scientific method of explanation.

"Sun God", "light beams", "collections of photon waves".

Or, "Wind Spirit", "air molecules in conformed motion".

And then, after you've got the force identified, you name a particular 'force of physics', or 'force of biology' for someone from history . . . "Euclidian Geometry", "Darwinism", "Lawrencium", and so forth.

You give the "God", the "Spirit", the "force of physics", a name, sometimes for a famous person, just exactly the way we sometimes do in standard science today.

Do you really think that, in the minds of the original indigenous scientists of 20,000 years ago, there was such a big difference between what spooky westerners translate in indigenous stories as "Gods", and "Spirits", and what we understand to be "general forces of physics"?

You think there was a difference? I mean, in the original?

Frankly, were we to learn exactly what they had in mind, I think they'd translate out, exactly the same.

In the original, nothing spooky about it. Just science, as we know it.

And again, in the original (that is, prior to ten thousand years ago), they had, no doubt, well, obviously, a good deal of excellent, high level science as we know it, they no doubt had a good deal of excellent, singular reality, Science.

Science Relies On Cognition, And NOT On Belief,

While Religion Relies On Belief, And NOT On Cognition,

They Are Opposites At Base - But Both Have An Identical Awareness Of The Existence Of God

Anyway, no matter what metaphors you use, the scientific process I describe here, is Not religion, because the basic ideas of science,

that is, some specific sense of the basic forces of physics that make up this bioecosystem,

are derived from what makes the most logical sense, scientifically speaking, as self-evident to the alert, critical, five-senses, same-for-everyone, cognitive portion of anyone's mind, rather than from some "just believe" base.

And religion is, by definition, a matter of "just believe"; take things "on faith". This bears no relation to the science-based ideas I am presenting here.

A Word On The Numbers That I Use For How Many Basic Forces Of Physics There Are

I suppose it's important to emphasize, that the specific numbers I'm using here (I have no way of counting them) - 30 forces of physics in our system, or 100 in the area, or 1,000 in deep space, or whatever, hopefully obviously, are not meant as literal amounts, but rather are used to give a basic idea of proportion.

There are a specific number of them, and the proportions I use here, are, I think, as reasonable as any, scientifically speaking. But what the exact, or even approximate numbers actually are, I would have no way of knowing.

The numbers I'm using here, establish the framework for understanding what's going on. Another set of numbers, fewer here, or more out there, or whatever, would work just the same, regarding this explanation.

Best I can tell, it's a fully scientific, entirely reasonable framework. The best scientific explanation of the subject of God that I know of; in fact, the only one that I know of, maybe the only one altogether, for all I know.

At any rate, whatever the exact numbers would turn out to be, would change nothing regarding the general explanation given here.

Everything Everything vs. Clear Limits

Anyway, if by "Theory of 'Everything'", they mean the 1,000 or so forces that make up the known universe (let alone the 10,000 in the far beyond), if that's what they mean, "a theory of Everything Everything", why, it's a little silly, and certainly not a very scientific idea.

I mean, we're made up of about 30 forces or so. Of which we can currently identify about 15, again

forces of physics such as Time, Space, Configuration, Attractiveness, Motion, Mathematics, Liaison, Form, Out-Of-The-Blue, Matter, Randomness, Waves, whatever else . . .

Those twelve, and maybe another ten or twenty more, are close to the limits of what our bodies are designed to see and understand. One percent, tops, of what's goin' on out there. Maybe a little bit more than one percent. Maybe. And maybe a lot less.

But, theory of "Everything"? Whaaa . . .??!!??

You mean the whole 1,000 forces?, including the 900 that don't even exist in our vicinity? And the other 70 that are around and are not included on our particular God Committee?

You want a theory of the whole thousand? Or, including the far beyond, the whole 10,000? Whaaa . . . ??!!!???

It seems a little silly to me.

Certainly for this paradigm, the limits are clear.

The Theory Of Everything Everything

This is NOT "The Theory Of Everything Everything" paradigm. That's just silly.

This is, however, "The Theory Of Everything Of Relevance To Solving The Problems Of Harm To Life".

It is 100% that, and it is very very much limited to that.

Now, if that's what's meant by "The Theory of Everything",

namely, "The-Translation-Factor-For-Everything-We-Need-To-Know-To-Solve-The-Problems-Of-Harm-To-Life-As-We-Know-It",

if that's what's meant by "The Grand Unified Theory", then, "Logical Types © nrm 1983", and "Tenors ©", and this Paradigm, may well comb it out.

Naturally, those who run the industries employing the physicists, who crave, and depend, on sucking white the world's people, will tolerate no such limits, because if we take the grand unified theory out of deep space, and bring it back to earth, then it becomes obvious that they themselves, the bullies and war-makers of finance capital, and their whole capitalist system, are in fact, the real problem.

As such, for them, distracting both their captive professionals, and the university population, and the population at large as well, by any means necessary, distracting from the actual, overall solutions in the here and now, is their purpose.

Our Old Friend Albert

Of course, I cannot really say what Einstein himself would have thought, since he's been gone a long time,

but in my opinion, as regards limiting "The Grand Unified Theory", to the forces relevant to solving the great problems of humanity, and of life, well . . .

I think Einstein would love it.

Similar, But Different

But to return to the subject at hand.

All this is by way of comparing Logical Types to another math system, in this case, showing that logical types is similar to arithmetic, but it's not the same as arithmetic.

Like arithmetic, it's got symbols, placement, purpose, and is based on five-senses reality.

Different symbols, different placement, and different purpose - a sky buckle, instead of an equals sign.

And in comparison with the 'goes on forever' quality of arithmetic, Logical Types is a limited system; limited in time, in place, and in configuration.

In any case they're both just math. It's just that logical types is a little easier than arithmetic, and it comes a little more naturally to people than arithmetic does.

But the big difference of course, is that with arithmetic, you can only combine "same units" things. With logical types, you combine, with the same sort of precision and accuracy, "vastly different types of things".

That's why, you can't rely on arithmetic for accurate calculations for social and political matters, but you can get the same sort of self-evident consistency, certainty, and accuracy as you get with "same units" arithmetic, when you use logical types for social and political matters, combining "different types of things".

So, Politics, Of Course, I Mean, It's Me Talking, So What Do You Expect . . .

Perhaps it would be well to mention something about the political significance of a public, intact, and in context awareness of the "Logical Types ©nrm" system.

First, The Work Of The Great Committee In The Sky, God's Work, Evolution

In evolutionary times, built in, over millions of years, all mammals, and in a certain sense, all organisms, had to know certain things, for guidance.

Fear And Safety

In earlier mammals, before humans, one of the main things you had to be aware of, was what to move towards, and what to move away from.

If something made you feel scared, you'd move away from it; if something made you feel secure, you'd move towards it. I call this "the anxiety/security" guidance system. All mammals, including humans, have it.

An analogy, and again, only an analogy, please!, an analogy would be, like a magnet. Attracting, or, repelling.

And it is only an analogy, because there's a lot more to it than that.

With human reactions to danger and safety, it is really not so simple as "run away from", or "move towards".

Danger, Results In Us Moving Towards Protection

In fact, when we sense the presence of danger, rather than move away from it, we tend to, first and foremost, move towards protection.

Security, Results In Us Exploring Outwards

And when we are in a secure situation, then we tend to explore outward from base. Very different from simply an attracting and repelling 'magnet'.

Only A Metaphor

I only use the 'magnet' analogy to convey a sense that there are forces that work between us and the world outside us, that are, analogous to the force of a magnet.

"Tend to move away from", "tend to move towards", "tend to move outwards"; in life, especially among people, these things operate as a much higher logical level 'system', than the simple "snap" of a magnet. With life, there's a lot more to it.

Still and all, there's something about that 'magnetic force', some small property of it, that does seem to be a perhaps distant metaphor, for what goes on between a person, and circumstances outside, and what goes on between people generally, and circumstances outside.

Something New

At any rate, in humans, an additional guidance system developed, in addition to the "anxiety/security" guidance system.

In humans, there evolved what we popularly call "brains", that is, human intelligence.

This is another kettle of fish, so to speak, entirely.

Affection, Communication, and Intelligence

In the evolution of humans, over the last three million years, there developed the ability to put together many different "points of view", many different "vantage points', many different ideas and emotions from many different people's experience, to put all that together and see nature's wonders from many different angles all at once.

Our minds evolved to allow us to coordinate information, ideas, feelings, and the like, of all sorts, from many different vantage points.

Remember And Combine

This allowed people to comprehend "systems" for figuring out how to build warmth, controlled fire, how to build shelter, how to fashion clothes, how to ward off large carnivores without having to fight them, how to survive in all sorts of climates and terrains, with just present body structure. And how to remember, and combine, across generations, across hundreds of generations.

Grace, Music, Nutrition

Eventually, how to figure, and remember, by representing the world in artwork, dance, music, and, how to grow food, how to create (!) food, and all sorts of nutrition, and good health, how to live together, in large, vital, warm, loving groups, among many people. Secure, vital, advancing.

Understanding

"Brains", for understanding reality, far beyond an immediate "what to move towards and what to move away from".

Brains, for creating secure, vital, loving, cooperative lives, for all. Wow.

We, us humans, we have another judgment system, besides just the anxiety/security judgment system that all animals have.

We have, a cognition system. We have, human intelligence.

It's different from the old anxiety/security judgment system. We still have that too. In a big way.

But we have another system entirely, in addition to the anxiety/security judgment system.

Figuring Out What Is True, And What Is Helpful

We have the ability to figure out, to calculate, in our own minds, using our five-senses in combination with singular reality around us, to calculate what is true, singular reality true, far beyond merely what to immediately fear and avoid, and what to immediately want and move towards.

We have the ability to figure out what is true. And figure out, what is helpful, in the overall, and for all, over time.

We have the ability to put together many memories, from many people, and from many places, and from many things, so as to build, astounding vitality, astounding security, and astounding things of wonder.

This is, what I call the "cognition judgment" system.

Each Person Has, Among Other Things, Two Different Judgment Systems In Their Mind

And it is a different judgment system entirely from the "anxiety/security judgment" system.

We were designed, through evolution, to use our cognition system for figuring out what is true.

Very very different, from just knowing what to avoid, or what to move towards.

Attachment Judgment

Without getting into it here, I should mention that I generally refer to our "anxiety/security judgment" system as the "attachment judgment" system.

The reason is, that the way mammals, and especially humans evolved, when we become frightened, we tend to not so much move away from the danger, but rather, towards someone, or something that is, or that appears to be, protective.

This is especially true in young children, as shown, and proved, in exquisite detail by the British theorist John Bowlby in the second volume, "Separation", of his great three volume work, "Attachment and Loss".

Attachment Judgment - Fear

He shows, that the normal, immediate human reaction to the presence of danger, is to "attach" to the most familiar, protective figure available.

Bowlby didn't deal explicitly with cognition. As a matter of psychiatric study, it was not his specialty. But attachment was. Par excellance.

And again, he shows conclusively, certainly to my mind, that the normal human reaction to danger, especially extreme danger, is to move towards a protective figure. This is most obvious in the case of children, but in fact, it is the case, in one way or another, throughout all life.

Attachment Judgment - Security

When we feel securely attached to protective persons, and reasonably secure in that regard, we tend to feel like exploring outward, further and further from our secure base, and in fact, we can become very brave.

When we feel frightened, and especially when we feel terrified, the normal, healthy human reaction, is to 'run', or move, or turn, towards a strongly protective person, or to someone who appears to be strongly protective. In a word, to unthinkingly, attach.

Politics

Although Bowlby never delved into it, the political implications are absolutely enormous.

Hidden, Harmful Manipulations

The technique of, via hidden "back door" manipulations, creating horrible harm and terror, and then presenting oneself as the 'savior' protective figure, is the number one technique - as a social, as a professional, and as a grand political matter. It is the number one technique, by which bullies and fascists through all time, manage to achieve their false credibility, and their so very much hated power.

How do they do it?

The "Fight Or Flight" Hoax

As it turns out the "fight or flight" hoax, so infamously portrayed in the world of psychology "teaching" as the normal reaction to fear, is one of the most insidious frauds in all American education.

In fact, "attach to protection", "or to apparent, fraudulent protection" is the actual, norma