Written by Neil Robert Miller © June 1, 1992

Second Edition, © November, 1993
Paradigm From California © 1978, '81, '83, '84, '85, '86, '87, '90, '91, '92, '93
All Paradigm Related Materials Authored By Neil Miller Are The Intellectual And Artistic Property Of Neil Robert Miller © 1978 - 1995
All Rights Strictly Reserved. Except for limited personal use, this document may not be reproduced in any form without written permission.
Neil R. Miller, P.O. Box 31035, San Francisco, California 94131 email neil@imaginenine.com neil@imaginenine.com

Note 1: This "Paradigm Summary" explains some of the methods by which the human mind was designed, through evolution, to sort things out towards work-out-well-for-everyone continuations. The other primary summary at this web-site, "Backbone for a Cooperative Society - Schema", explains the structure of human emotions, and the guidance role they were designed to play in nature's work-out-well-all-around evolutionary design.

Note 2: The table of contents for the eighteen chapter "Paradigm from California", Vols. I & II (1983-1986) is reprinted at the end of this document.

Note 3: By clicking on the word "next" just below each paragraph's summary sentence, you can rapidly skim through, to get a quick sense of the document; if you wish, you can go back and read the paragraphs themselves if you want to determine accuracy or inaccuracy.

Table of Contents for the 1992/1993 Summary of Paradigm from California

30. J.E. McAteer High School, SFUSD, circa 1983

Please note also that there is an expanded and enhanced version of these tables entitled "Components". Click here for that file. In fact, this entire summary was originally written specifically as explanation for that components list.

Overview

Most people seem to agree that an increasingly tragic situation is likely.

Most people who are in the business of being directly aware of the general trend of societal organization on our planet at the present time seem to agree that the situation does not look good. The governance of the general direction of things - employment, professional institutions, finance, media, academia, legal systems, and so forth - has long been primarily in the hands of persons who have concluded that things are bound to go poorly for most persons, and who operate within the conviction that an increase in that tragedy is in their own interest.

previous next

Some people believe that tragedy for some is in the interests of others.

While I accept the fact that some people believe that a generally tragic situation is inevitable and some people believe that an increasingly tragic situation is in the interest of a few, I personally do not hold either of these views.

previous next

More than 90% of the tragedies currently experienced are avoidable.

My own work, in fact, has shown that an increasingly tragic situation is neither inevitable, nor is it in the interests of anyone.

previous next

What is being presented here is an entire "framework of understanding".

What I would like to ask you to consider is a particular, specific, alternative framework for understanding the situation.

previous next

A framework of understanding or basis of understanding is an entirely different type of thing from an idea within an overall framework.

First, I would like to mention something about a "framework of understanding".

It is different from 'an idea within a framework'.

Most people can look at a new idea, and, without realizing it, put that idea into the framework that they are used to, and then evaluate it within their customary understanding.

This is a natural, reasonable, and everyday phenomenon.

A problem arises, however when an entirely different framework is presented.

This whole matter of "an entire framework of understanding" is not generally well understood by people and when a new framework arises, that new framework is usually treated as a group of ideas within the familiar scheme of things.

Paradigm Change: Copernicus

previous next

Copernicus' discovery that the Earth, like the other planets, moves around the sun, is often used as a good example of paradigm change.

The most famous example from the history of science - the often alluded to 'archetype' - of a "change of framework", came in the field of astronomy with the findings of the 16th century Polish scientist, Nicolaus Copernicus.

Up until then, most everyone, including astronomers, understood the earth to be, well, essentially, "what was".

'The points of light' in the heavens were seen to be a kind of 'canopy', moving about much like the wind or other earthly things move about.

People did not have a conceptualization of the known universe as we know it; they thought of the earth as, basically, everything, and the sky as a part of, or an appendage of the earth, much like mountains and oceans - just another awesome aspect of the world.

previous next

In Copernican times, a "crisis of paradigm" developed.

In attempting to plot, predict, and understand the orbit of the near planets, however - Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and so forth - astronomers grew increasingly disturbed.

There was increased survival need for understanding these matters (world wide navigation, intercontinental climactic changes, calendar irregularities, among other things) but the more these planetary orbits were examined, the more complicated the equations for plotting their movements became.

Whole volumes of equations were come up with to predict where this or that planet was likely to be on the morrow, and even still, they couldn't get it right.

The situation developed into what has been calleda "crisis of paradigm".

previous next

The Earth was not everything, but rather a planet like other planets, in a very large area.

After a lifetime of copious study, taking all the reports and equations, his own observations, and a good deal of imagination into account, Copernicus came to the conclusion that this matter of the earth and related places being the sole main entity of existence, astronomically speaking, was actually a framework of understanding; it was not really 'a given', scientifically speaking, not really 'beyond consideration'.

You have to understand, people didn't think of "The Earth Being Everything" as a framework, in fact, they didn't think of it at all - the earth just was everything as far as they knew, and it didn't generally occur to people to actually think about it at all.

previous next

The Copernican paradigm was unbelievable at the time.

You can imagine that if someone comes along and informs you, even if you are an intelligent, learned, open-minded astronomer living at that time, you can imagine that if someone comes along and tells you that the earth is, astronomically speaking, just another planet, like that point of light called Mars, or that one called Jupiter, revolving around the sun, well, you'd find it just inconceivable, impossible to grasp, to comprehend.

This is not in the realm of a new idea - this is in the realm of a whole new framework of understanding, very difficult to grasp, especially if you didn't even know you had an old framework, or any such framework in the first place. Maybe even more difficult for a learned astronomer who is used to calculating heavenly orbits, than for an ordinary person.

Accurately, Provably, Reliably, Simply

previous next

If one tried to use the new equations about the Earth's orbit within the old framework of a stationary earth, the result would be nonsense, uselessness, and impossibility.

The shift in understanding is beyond belief, beyond conceptualization. There would be a tendency to put the new, simplified equations into the old framework, to apply them to a 'stationary' earth, but then they wouldn't make any sense.

If you tried to look at it as a new idea within the old framework, it would just be useless. You could take that to mean that the new idea was all nonsense, but then, when the equations are applied to an Earth that is spinning, as one of many planets, around the sun; then they work so accurately, so provably, so reliably, so simply.

previous next

New paradigms are at first unbelievable and frightening, even when they have been long desired, and even when they are simple, easy to understand, accurate, and extremely useful.

There might be a tendency to look at Copernicus' idea as basically a vague, mystical, shamanistic, 'interesting' theory, of little interest to the serious scientist or the hard pressed ship captain or merchant or farmer, but Copernicus could refer to science, to mathematics, to reason and logic, to concrete observation. His equations swept away whole volumes with a line or two and a few simple diagrams.

And the accuracy of prediction was profound. It fit . . .

but . . . the earth, this land we are standing on, spinning, floating in space, it just wasn't possible.

Terrifying for a scientist who spent his whole life calculating whole books filled with equations to explain what was now claimed to be an extremely, and most painfully simple orbit.

Paradigm Change: Psychiatric Dimensions

previous next

When something big is being sorted out, many things must be associated and taken seriously, including things that might make a person feel very lonely and very, very frightened.

Then there are the even more difficult, large-scale psychological problems.

Did this mean that God's attention was not really focused on the Earth, on us.

Did He have all those other planets, and perhaps even peoples in the sky to look after, and really, after all, did He consider us just a minor matter.

Were we, as a people, cast adrift among the stars, without solid tether, in danger of being flung loose at any moment, like a ball being spun about on a string? And the ideology of the church, was it all a fraud about man being the "apple of God's eye"; were we really just a minor, half forgotten sibling among the thousands like us in the sky?

If you didn't even know you had a framework about the earth being the center of things in the first place, and then that framework suddenly gets revealed to you and then shifted like this, well, it can be frightening indeed. No matter how intelligent, learned, and sophisticated one is.

Foolish to think of such people as "stupid" or "superstitious", it's quite a natural reaction.

previous next

Many people thought that Copernicus' framework should not come to light.

No doubt there were many people who, despite the fact that this new understanding brought about massive solution for widespread life and death problems, concluded that it would be best to just burn this fellow at the stake and forget the whole matter, on the theory that he was just an agent of the devil.

And, of course, it is well known that Copernicus withheld his theories until quite an advanced age specifically to forestall what he thought was the very strong possibility of execution.

previous next

Both holding a framework tightly and also being able to evaluate it and change it, are normal human patterns.

There are survival reasons why it evolved that a human holds a framework so tightly that he or she doesn't even, won't even consciously think about it, is not aware of it enough to even consider or evaluate it.

And there are also profoundly powerful survival reasons why Homo Sapiens evolved with the ability to evaluate their present overall framework of understanding and add or shift to a more advanced one.

It has been generally a foolish lesson that has been widely taught in grade school that people clung to the idea that the earth was flat because they were "stupid" or "closed-minded".

Or refused to consider the theory of arithmetic or chemistry or the unconscious on the basis of a "childish superstition".

No.

It's perfectly understandable, even for an intelligent, "open-minded", 'sophisticated', and educated person to have trouble shifting their understandings in such a way.

Science History

previous next

Over a millennial period, from time to time, a new and more advanced framework is required for survival.

But there comes a time in history, and it has come again and again, when it is absolutely essential, as a question of life and death survival, for Homo Sapiens Sapiens to become conscious of their basic "framework of understanding" in order to evaluate it and make the shift to a more advanced framework of understanding, one that more closely fits the now known facts, one that bodes better for survival in the new, more advanced situation.

previous next

What at first blush seemed frightening and untethering turned out to be something that provided a good deal more security and protection, not to mention vitality, than the previous understandings.

As regards the Copernican shift, it turns out that the distances of space are so vast, the time frame of the cosmos is so vast, that such things are of an entirely different 'logical level', an entirely different 'type' of thing than distance and time as we know it here among life on earth.

The 'force' of gravity is so powerful that there really is no danger of us "being flung off" into space, and our own orbit remains stable, in human terms; in terms of life, our own orbit remains stable essentially, forever.

And this bioecosystem, our own home base, life, the God of life, the God of this star, is in fact, all-present.

The old French expression "the more things change, the more they stay the same" turns out to be quite inaccurate, that is, not accurate.

Rather, some things change, whole emotional/intellectual/operational configurations advance to higher, previously unknown levels, much like configurations of genes in physical evolution had advanced in their time to previously unknown levels, while other things, such as the truth of a matter, like the truth of the Earth's relation to the sun, remains the same.

As it turns out, even with the new Copernican advancement in understanding, life on this planet - minute to minute life as well as life over centuries - remains absolutely central to all considerations of value.

God, or if you prefer, that small and well organized 'committee of forces that make up life at this star' - attractiveness, configuration, time, motion, matter, form, and so forth - is indeed quite present and well accounted for; our very own, so to speak.

As regards what matters, individual Homo Sapiens Sapiens, life, and our stable base, the bio-ecosystem, or God, if you will; that which makes up life here on earth - everyday passions, sorrows, longings, satisfactions - remains the central, permanent, all-present value.

That particular reality is one of the things that does not change, then, now, and, indeed, forever.

previous next

The sheer volume and pace of damage to human beings and to life at large at the present time, overwhelms most people's thinking processes.

Now then. To the point.

As stated earlier, just about all persons who concern themselves with these matters have concluded that life as we know it, billions of individual people and, quite specifically, all of us, are faced with an increasingly untenable situation, indeed, so difficult that many have decided it is too painful to even acknowledge.

True, this crisis has been with us for approximately the most recent ten percent of our tenure as Homo Sapiens Sapiens (that is, ten thousand years out of one hundred thousand) but at the current stage, a sense of healthy continuation is diminishing rapidly in the minds of many people who, at an earlier time, would be actively seeking alternatives.

Crisis of Paradigm, Item 5: Children

previous next

There are currently several hundred million children under the age of 12 in factories, brothels, and on plantations, being worked to death across this planet - and that's only one little corner of the currently present tragedies.

Such children are considered to be "model workers" in the minds of persons who claim to be "family loving" and "abortion hating".

To mention only one aspect of this crisis - about ten years ago there were a little under one hundred million children under the age of twelve being worked to the bone, often, quite literally to death, in factories, plantations, and brothels across this planet, most particularly in areas that look directly to the great centers of power in Europe and North America for guidance as regards such operations.

Now, ten years later, after a decade of Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, and Kohl administrations, that number has tripled to about three hundred million and, without a shift in framework, it can be seen that in a few years, that number will increase to more than a billion - one person in six on this planet being a child being worked to death.

Apparently, children are understood to be a source of unrelenting vitality, churning out our clothes, our carpets, our shoes, the tires on our cars, the food that we eat, our furniture, and a thousand other things, without the possibility of organized revolt.

This is apparently the grand scheme that those in charge of our society, that is, the corporate directors, have in store for continuation in the near term.

"Boycotts" are impossible, as the distribution of things are so integrated that those who would scrupulously boycott child-made goods would then starve and freeze to death, and then who would be left to shift the framework?

The famous international childrens' organizations, such as UNICEF, are quite frank about their disinterest in this particular situation since, as they openly acknowledge, their bills are paid by those who, from on high, direct these operations. Likewise, of course, as regards the major news, broadcast, and publishing organizations.

It requires a careful and critical reading of obscure but voluminous materials from such little known groups as the liberal-oriented anti-slavery society of London, and of hard to find small press journals to get a grasp of the scope of the situation.

And how much longer will even they be able to, or allowed to continue to operate?

And of course, all this is but one of many signs of survival 'crisis' for our species at this time.

previous next

Tragedy is particularly painful when there is no ongoing, healing, solving, life-enhancing solution to be found.

All this may well be too painful for many people to care to contemplate and the sheer weight, breadth, and scale of such tragedy may make it difficult for a person to engage their awareness and their cognitive processes.

However, that difficulty may be ameliorated by the presence of a profoundly changed, healthy, life-enhancing, child-protecting, planet-protecting, life-protecting work-out well all around solution.

Solution

previous next

The entire tragedy rests with the world's high level leaders, and those below them, accepting an "attachment judgment" and "no real truth" framework rather than a framework that includes the idea that there is a singular truth to be found using cognitive processes.

The essence of the problem rests with the fact that there are several widely accepted propositions that make up a "framework of understanding", a framework which is, although entirely inaccurate, almost never evaluated or even consciously thought about. This constitutes the "framework of understanding" that many people, especially those in high level positions, are currently operating on, often without consideration.

Please bear in mind that I do not appeal to anyone's sense of "belief" or "trust", or possible "attachment" - to me, or to anyone.

Those things are in another realm, not directly relevant to the matter at hand.

I am appealing to your sense of reason, logic, and rationality, irrespective of attachment relationships. It is the ability of each individual human, particularly adult humans, to determine the distinction between what is accurate and what is not accurate, in their own mind, in the course of careful, conscious, cognitive consideration; it is on the basis of that particular neuro-physical property within every human that I am "placing my cards" so to speak.

It is, in fact, specifically, through each individual using their own internal cognition processes, that the solution to the great difficulties that we all face can be found.

previous next

An idea can be absolutely accurate within a particular framework; but those very same words can be absolutely inaccurate within another framework.

As for considering the alternative framework, or paradigm, which is being presented here, this framework itself is best seen as separate from the points within it.

To return to the case of the Copernican framework mentioned earlier, the framework of understanding was "topped off" with the understanding that "the Earth is a 'heavenly body' much like the other 'points of light' in the sky".

That was the overall system that Copernicus discovered.

Below that, were the high level ideas that the Earth, moon, planets, and sun were all part of a solar system, with the moon turning about the Earth, and the Earth and the planets spinning around the sun.

Then, once that's established, further detail regarding why the planets don't just 'fly away', and then, at a still lower level, the equations that could predict the orbits of the planets, and so forth could be shown.

But to just state any one portion of the whole framework such as that "the Earth was a heavenly body" or that "the sun is stationary in relation to the solar system" would mean nothing to the people of that time.

Just some vaguely entertaining, mystical theory, that's all.

In order for it to be useful, the entire framework, the entire system, had to be grasped as an entity in and of itself, including it's high level, medium level, and low level points and explanations.

The System - High Level Origins

previous next

The framework of Paradigm from California includes:

1) Things can work out all around;

2) Things can be accurately figured out to a very high degree of likelihood;

3) That which is true holds unchanging and unaffected, regardless of the fluctuations of perception.

The Paradigm from California framework, the one presented here is "topped off" with the system that unites all of the medium and lower level points.

That system can be stated as: "in biology, including within the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species, things can work out well all around".

That derives from the fact that the "patterns" and 'forces' of physics that became organized into life some four or five billion years ago, included patterns that solve problems that continually arise throughout this four or five billion year history.

In the earlier times, such patterns were manifested in the various genetic rearrangements that took place and brought solution in the form of ever more advanced organisms.

In modern times, the most recent 100,000 years, during the tenure of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, such patterns are manifested in the electro-neural configurations within the mind and central nervous system of each individual human being and humans operating together.

In the original configuration, as life was coming into being all those billions of years ago, mechanisms became operative wherein, when problem-solving was required, various new forms, previously unpredicted forms, could be developed and last essentially, forever.

Such new forms that came into being - cells, neural systems, and so forth - would themselves be built upon in the creation of still more advanced forms.

This is a basic biological pattern, and by no coincidence whatsoever, this pattern is replicated in the workings of human intellectual processes, over days, over centuries, and over thousands of years.

In humans, the process of coming up with and organizing ideas and understandings and putting forth more advanced systems of human organization in the solution to otherwise unworkable situations, has been and is, in itself, a direct advancement on the old genetic process.

previous next

Humans thwarting other humans is behavior which comes unnaturally to humans and is responsible for 95% of this planet's tragedies.

I have identified the problem to be addressed as the "human-thwarting-human" problem, which, I have concluded, is not 'structural' to Homo Sapiens (as is mistakenly claimed within the "Commonly Understood Framework).

The "human-thwarting-human" difficulty exists within what is, in fact, an overall cooperative structure, and this human thwarting human problem accounts for more than 95% of the difficulties that humans, and that life on this planet faces.

The paradigm, that is, the overall, structural understanding that we have come up with and that solves this problem we have named "Paradigm from California" and its highest level point is that "things can work out well all around". This paradigm, like all scientific paradigms, is an entire framework of understanding, rather than just a group of disassociated ideas within the previously understood framework.

Paradigm Qualifications Checklist

previous next

In order to be worth anyone's time or attention, a proported paradigm would have to be:

1) Accurate, useful, and new;

2) It would have to, in simple language, explain some widespread, otherwise unexplained and unsolved tragedies; and

3) It would have to consist of a practical, self-evidently based, easy to understand, even obvious, structure of understanding.

Paradigm From California eminently qualifies on all criteria. Furthermore, it is the only framework of understanding anywhere on this planet that so qualifies.

Further still, no one else has ever come up with anything even vaguely close.

Nor would anyone else be likely to.

Again, this idea that "things can work out well all around" would seem, by itself, much like Copernicus' "Earth is a heavenly body like those other points of light in the sky" idea, like just a vaguely interesting 'theory', of interest only to 'romantics', mystics, 'naive types', and the like, were it not backed up by an entire framework, worked out in meticulous detail and in conformity with the most concrete of scientific principles and specific, conscious, everyday observation. Furthermore, again like Copernicus' paradigm (and Lavoiser's and Mendel's and Darwin's and Einstein's and so forth), it is only of serious interest if use of it actually sorts out, in a fully consistent, self-evident, and provable way what was previously convoluted, unworkable, mysterious, and contradictory.

This, the Paradigm from California does, and in fact it takes the entire field of the social sciences out of the realm of the vague and brings it squarely into the realm of the concrete, specific, provable or disprovable, self-evident, and scientific.

Finally, in order to qualify as something of pressing importance, it would have to provide a framework for solving some extreme, damage-producing difficulty, of profound and immediate impact on everyone's life, and for healing much of the damage already existent, for arresting the damage that is currently being created, and for preventing in the future the damage that the addressed problem would otherwise engender.

This, Paradigm From California also does.

previous next

Paradigm from California framework:

1.) That which is true is absolute;

2.) The emotions and feelings involved in the give and take and value of life can be specifically identified and measured;

3.) Hierarchy is structural;

4.) The logical levels math system is easy to understand;

5.) A person can cognitively and carefully sort through a situation and come to a conclusion that has a very high degree of likelihood of being accurate.

What appears on the facing pages are a few of the points from the Paradigm From California framework, including some of the highest level "system" points, such as:

1) "that which is true, or 'the truth', is an entity which is absolute, the same for everyone, and constant for all time";

2) 'emotions', and especially the creation of an individual emotion and its transfer from one person to another can be seen, defined, quantified, and most important delineated and measured";

3) "hierarchical relations are neither good nor bad but, rather, structural to all biology and human life";

4) "the mathematical system of logical types and logical levels is as simple as arithmetic for any person, schooled or unschooled, to understand and as basic to everyone's everyday operations",

5) "the processes of nature are understandable and definable and every human being has the physiological capability to think things through", and so forth.

In addition to the "system level" points, the 'tables' also summarize an additional fifty or so more portions of the framework of this paradigm which consists about 1400 points altogether.

While the whole thing is quite simple to grasp in a moment, it has been worked out in great detail, in large part to facilitate careful scrutiny.

Science History

previous next

The Paradigm itself is in two volumes (tot. 1,200 pages) and this article is one of five 40 page summaries.

The reader should bear in mind that this article that you are now reading is but one of several summaries of this paradigm that have been prepared and distributed.

The two volumes laying out the paradigm itself consist of 1,200 pages, including fifty charts and diagrams, and have been available for publication since the 1984-1986 period during which they were written by myself as the principal author.

In early 1985, Volume One, which is written in an extremely simple style and which contains our most important findings was filed with the Library of Congress copyright office.

Volume Two, a scrupulously detailed and very high level rendition of the overall framework was completed in 1986 and distributed to about 400 persons, mostly scholars, corporate officials, directors, and stockholders, scientists, journalists and broadcasters, educators, religious leaders, philanthropists, high level administrators, publishers and editors, public officials, and the like.

previous next

Paradigm from California is finished and will stand, particularly as additional information comes to light.

I must mention that, in the ensuing six years since that hundred thousand page distribution, more information has come to light that would allow a rewriting of some portions of the original work in a more articulate fashion.

Furthermore, certain easily correctable syntax difficulties may be apparent.

One of the difficulties for me personally has been that I have had to spend many years writing entirely alone, without an iota of much desired editorial and contextual discussion.

previous next

A hundred and twenty thousand pages delivered to 600 recipients over eight years; no response.

While I will not herein go into the difficult history of attempts to have this work evaluated, suffice it to say there have been about eight sets of presentations over the last decade, to about 700 persons, each attempt meeting with a wall of deafening silence - no discussion, no disagreement, just silence.

This letter constitutes a ninth attempt.

The long, difficult, colorful, and voluminous history of this project is described in some detail in the paradigm itself and in supplementary materials and I'll say no more about it here.

            Framework of                           Framework of              
Paradigm From California                Inaccurate, But Common Presumptions         
         



   Every person holds an                 Some people have an ideological     
   Ideological Framework although        framework and some do not.          
   many are not conscious of it.                                             

            Framework of                           Framework of              
Paradigm From California                Inaccurate, But Common Presumptions         



   The basic patterns of life and        There are no basic patterns of      
   human interaction can be              life, and even if there were,       
   sorted out.                           they couldn't be sorted out.        



   Things can work out well              It is inevitable that large         
   around.                               numbers of people are going to      
                                         be miserable.                       



   Work out well can be                  Work out well in any sense is       
   universally defined as having         different for each person.          
   good protection that protects                                             
   caretaking; caretaking that                                               
   goes well; and the taking on                                              
   of risks that pays off in                                                 
   enhanced caretaking.                                                      



   The 90% problem that humans           The problems of humankind are       
   are faced with can be defined         too varied and too numerous;        
   as                                    you can't really say that one       
   "humans-thwarting-other-humans"       particular thing is the main        
   .                                     problem.                            



   The major difficulty that             You can't really solve the          
   humans have faced for the last        major problems of the world.        
   ten millennia is an unlikely                                              
   and correctable anomaly.                                                  



   Nature and evolution is, to a         Nature and evolution is             
   99+% degree, a cooperative and        basically a hostile,                
   "work-well-together"                  competitive, and "dog-eat-dog"      
   operation.                            type of operation.                  



   A .1% incident or anecdote can        Any incident or anecdote that       
   be inaccurately presented as a        one finds can be accurately         
   inaccurately presented as a           claimed to be a 99% pattern.        
   99% pattern.                                                              

            Framework of                           Framework of              
Paradigm From California                Inaccurate, But Common Presumptions         




   The primary pattern governing         Right wing policies are             
   all right wing policies and           designed to increase personal       
   activities is the destruction         initiative.                         
   of cognitive facilities among                                             
   the general population.                                                   



   The four billion year                 Evolution is a slow process.        
   evolutionary system includes                                              
   some processes that are                                                   
   unchanging, some that are                                                 
   slow, some that are very, very                                            
   rapid.  The change process, in                                            
   evolution, is a very, very                                                
   rapid process.                                                            



   The political terms "left" and        The term right refers to these      
   "right" in their most useful          guys who want to kill those         
   historical definition refers          guys and the term left refers       
   to (left) the view that things        to those guys who want to kill      
   can work out well for everyone        those other guys.                   
   ongoing and (right), the view                                             
   that things must necessarily                                              
   work out poorly for most                                                  
   people.                                                                   



   Racial or cultural prejudice          Some people have a "deep            
   has no basis within                   rooted" racial prejudice.           
   genetically endowed human                                                 
   operational patterns and is a                                             
   fraudulent description of a                                               
   vicious, 'one against the                                                 
   other' manipulation.                                                      

previous next

The following section explains some of the first questions that are likely to come to mind regarding this paradigm.

What follows is some further text, putting forth additional explanations that may be helpful in grasping the fundamental distinction between the framework herein presented which is the Paradigm From California framework and the framework that most people have been used to going on.

The following pages are designed to clear up some of the confusion that has been rendered by people's thoughts being governed by the "Commonly Understood Ideas", which are summarized in the right-hand side of the tables on the facing pages.

The reader, however, may prefer at this point to jump straightaway to the tables, read through them, and come back to this later. Please feel free to do so.

But be sure to come back to these text pages as they clear up some questions that are almost certain to arise.

In fact these following paragraphs may be some of the most immediately useful material of all.

All One Way Or The Other

previous next

The framework of understanding within which a statement is made has as much to do with the statement's accuracy - likelihood that it states the singular truth of the matter at hand - as the statement itself.

One of the greatest difficulties presented by the "Commonly Understood Ideas" is the fact that under that system of ideas, a distinction is often not, or usually not made between a specific idea and the context in which that idea operates.

It must be borne in mind that the framework herein presented constitutes the overall context for the statements made within it.

Each and every one of the statements listed in the "Paradigm from California" columns are only accurate within the overall Paradigm from California framework.

None of the statements within the Paradigm From California framework, those within the left-side columns, absolutely none of them, zero, zed, none, are accurate within the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework which is listed on the right side columns.

This may be difficult to grasp at first.

Much as Copernicus' equations, if put in the context of a "stationary" earth would have no meaning, and any meaning that someone attempted to ascribe to them within the context of a stationary earth would be nonsensical at best and inaccurate or a lie at worst, the ideas within the Paradigm From California framework are accurate only within that Paradigm From California framework.

The framework is the overall context that governs all of the ideas and systems within it. Delete the Paradigm from California framework, and 'nothing means anything' (a familiar "Commonly Understood Ideas" precept).

previous next

Within the Commonly Understood Ideas framework, "nothing is 'really' accurate'; unchanging, same for everyone accuracy.

Does this mean that the ideas within the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework are accurate within that "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework? Well, there's the catch.

The governing ideas of the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework include the proposition that there is no real truth - "truth" is said to be just a matter of perception, that is, is multitudinous, different for everyone, and ever changing.

Thus, within the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework, nothing is true, nothing is consistent, nothing is accurate - not the "Paradigm from California" ideas, not the "Commonly Understood Ideas", nothing at all - for the absence of consistent, absolute truth constitutes a governing precept of the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework itself.

previous next

It is not possible for a person to believe something to be true while believing that there is no real truth to be found.

If someone says that they have concluded that there is no real truth, it must be recognized that that is a claim that someone can make.

But if that person then claims that they understand something to be true and something else not true, well, then, what can one say.

It's kind of ridiculous, to be charitable.

previous next

No combinations, no in-betweens - it's an all one way or the other matter.

If one understands that 'that which is true', the truth of a matter, is an entity that is singular, absolute, the same for everyone, and never changing, that is, is constant for all time, if one considers things within that framework, then, careful consideration will show that every one of the ideas within the Paradigm from California framework are consistent, accurate in letter and spirit, literal, and backed by the best scientific observation and calculations as well as backed by the most alert and conscious and concrete human experience and the cognitive portion of every person's internal evaluation and judgment facilities.

If one figures under the 'guidance' of the proposition that there is "no real truth", then nothing is consistent, nothing "really" makes sense, nothing is "really" true or accurate, that is, none of the things in either column "add up".

Working within the Paradigm From California framework, the individual ideas in the left side columns are highly consistent and precisely accurate, while the ideas in the "Commonly Understood" column are not consistent or accurate.

Working within the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework, nothing is consistent, nothing is true, nothing is accurate.

Within that right side framework, the Paradigm From California ideas are not accurate and the Commonly Understood Ideas are not accurate.

Again, within the right side framework, nothing at all is accurate.

previous next

The ideas that make up the Paradigm from California framework are accurate within that framework; within the Commonly Understood framework, nothing at all is accurate.

For this reason, it is impossible to conclude, in the 'thinking' sense of the term 'conclude', that some things from the left side columns are accurate and some things from the right side columns are accurate. If the framework of operations includes the truth as absolute, unchanging, and the same for everyone, then all of the statements in the left side columns are accurate and none of the statements in the right side columns are accurate. If one operates under the precept that 'there is no, real, same for everyone, unchanging truth', then, within that framework, nothing is really accurate, and within that right-side framework, none of the statements on either side of the page can be seen as accurate.

No combination, no "one from here and one from there", no in-betweens are possible.

As regards overall paradigms, it is a "one way or the other" matter, absolutely and completely.

"Personal Self-Interest"" Two Clear, Distinct, Opposite Definitions

previous next

An example of a statement that is accurate within one framework and inaccurate within another framework.

As an example, take the statement "Everyone operates primarily in their own self-interest." Within the Paradigm From California framework that is an accurate statement as it is recognized that almost all of the emotions and feelings that any person has within them and experiences were built outside themselves while almost all of the emotions and feelings that each person creates are experienced elsewhere.

Thus, it is rather obvious that in order for any particular person to do well, everyone else has to do well; the better people generally do, the better the person's own life goes.

Damage to people, both distant and close at hand is always accurately understood to substantially cut into the pool of available things of value to life which every individual depends on, and the resultant pain and anxiety is accurately seen to make its way into everyone's emotional and operational balance, no matter how covertly nor how distant.

In other words, because - as a matter of the basic physics of life on this planet - the vast bulk of each person's internal thoughts, emotions, and feelings are created outside the person who is experiencing them, and because the vast bulk of what each person creates is experienced elsewhere, it is in every individual's immediate, and long-term, and obvious self-interest to insure that everyone else is in an excellent and powerful position to create, build, and generate the passions, the ideas, and the physical things that every other person lives on.

Thus, as a matter of obvious biological structure, the only way one can operate in their own personal self-interest is to make sure that their 'systems', the other members of the Homo Sapiens species, the other portions of their own 'central nervous system chain' do well.

Otherwise, life becomes increasingly thin, flat, shallow, dishonest, imbecilic, disease-ridden, and pain-ridden.

previous next

A statement that is accurate within the Paradigm from California framework is inaccurate within the Commonly Understood Ideas framework.

Within the Commonly Understood Ideas framework, the very same seven words "Everyone operates primarily in their own self-interest" is obviously inaccurate, for that framework 'tops off' with the beliefs that it is inevitable that some people will do poorly; you really can't think things through very far; in order for some to do well, others have to do poorly; and the best you can do is try to avoid being the one who gets damaged while 'accepting' that others must become damaged. Within that inaccurate context, "self-interest" involves a person doing well independent of whether others do well or poorly, a virtual impossibility of nature.

previous next

The framework in which a statement is made is as crucial to determining its accuracy as the words that make up the statement.

Thus, exactly the same sentence, "Everyone operates primarily in their own self-interest" is an absolutely accurate statement, in letter and spirit, when considered within the Paradigm From California framework. That same statement is entirely inaccurate, in fact, it is preposterous, when considered within the Commonly Understood Ideas framework.

previous next

An accurate statement made within the framework of the left side columns does not describe the same idea when it is put in the framework of the right side columns.

Within the right side framework, that same statement is inaccurate.

I mention this, because one of the difficulties that I suspect will be encountered is that of a person taking an idea from the left side columns and attempting to, or claiming to, evaluate that idea within the right-side framework.

But once a group of words from the left-side framework is put in the context of the right-side framework, that very same group of words no longer describes the same idea and, more important, the changed context renders the very same words absolutely inaccurate. Within the right-side framework, which includes such things as "no absolute truth", "things can't really make sense" and so forth, any statement can be shown to be, and in fact is, nothing but a nonsense collection of words. This point, regarding paying attention to the high level context, the framework of ideas in which an idea is presented, cannot be emphasized enough.

This is not a vague, philosophical question; it is a concrete, every day, life and death matter for every individual on this planet.

The Very Narrow Point/Purpose/Bias/Focus/Direction

previous next

Paradigm from California is not a philosophy.

Rather, it is statement of fact: concrete, specific, provable or disprovable, self-evident to all.

While awareness of it can be disassociated, repressed, ignored, or destroyed, primarily by effecting damage to cognitive facilities and also, it can be consciously lied about, it is different from a 'philosophy', which involves "believing in"
something vague, unprovable, or indescribable.

As such, a 'philosophy' is an entirely different entity altogether from the Paradigm from California frame of reference described here and the ideas within this paradigm.

Thus, within the Paradigm from California framework, every statement operates within the context of "work-out-well-all-around" and is directed, in some specific way, towards that high level context.

Within the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework, however, which includes "no real solution", "no real truth", "things can't 'really' be figured out", and so forth, statements are made without "tether"; "floating in space" so to speak; "perception soup" as I like to put it.

Within that right side framework, "nothing 'really' means anything", and ultimately, "nothing 'really' matters" anyway.

Perhaps, in a nutshell, this is the difference between a 'philosophy' such as is depicted in the right hand columns of the facing pages, and a scientific paradigm, such as Paradigm from California depicted in the left-hand columns, which is not a "philosophy" at all, but rather a concrete, specific, life and death reality.

Get it right, and people live and do very well; get it wrong, and people everywhere find themselves tortured to death, and the species perishes.

Simple, concrete, clear, specific.

Explanation

previous next

Without the truth as a guidepost, electrons in the brain do not have pathways along which to organize and spin in a whirlpool fashion.

One of the most difficult things about the "Inaccurate but Commonly Believed Framework" which is depicted in the right-hand side of the tables on the facing pages, is that when ideas are considered within it, those ideas seem to, to use a popular expression, "go in circles".

This is because, without the ability to identify something as accurate - same for everyone, constant for all time accurate - virtually any idea has the same 'weight' as any other idea.

When thinking something through, the groups of electrons in the human brain that constitute high level combinations of thoughts are seeking pathways that will bring more and more organized thought configurations.

Actual electrons whizzing around, by the millions inside the brain.

Metaphorically speaking, (and only metaphorically, of course) one might think of it as millions of particles of graphite being organized into a crystalline diamond. When, for example, thousands and thousands of equations are organized into E=MC2, there is a parallel organization of electron configurations in the mind of the scientist who comes up with that crystallized equation.

The same process takes place when hundreds of volumes of astronomical observations are organized into "the Earth goes around the sun", or, to use a more present example, when thousands of journals, tens of thousands of hours of fierce argument, and three tons of personal notes are organized into the formula "caretaking/risk/protection".

These are examples from the extremes of science, but the process of organizing widely divergent thoughts (central nervous system electron configurations) into clear, closely accurate conclusions, albeit at a lower level than the examples given, is a process that is required of every Homo Sapien in order for there to be general survival and well-being, including, of course, the survival and well-being of every individual. It is also a process that every human's brain was specifically designed for through the three million tumultuous years of the Homo family's evolution.

previous next

The "Commonly Understood Beliefs System" is imposed specifically because that framework makes it impossible and even dangerous to attempt to think anything through.

However, if the structure of thinking is precluded from using, as a reference point, the ability to find the singular, absolute truth of a matter, is precluded from making the distinction between an idea and the system of ideas that the idea is part of, is precluded from operating on the basis of there being overall, more advanced, ongoing solution to be found, then the electrons and groups of electrons in the brain that constitute the thoughts that one has are "forced" into more or less random pathways or into "back and forth" type patterns, escalating into a 'round and 'round "whirlpool-like" 'spin'.

This is why attempts to think things through, attempts to think anything through, within the framework that is herein identified as the "Commonly Understood Belief System" can be best understood as a "trap", and a very unhealthy one at that.

It is for this reason that I must warn that attempts to do any advanced thinking of any kind under the framework of the "Commonly Held Beliefs" (no same for everyone truth, etc.) will invariably lead to a disastrous outcome.

previous next

Without the distinction between one of many and a system of things, thoughts spin in a person's mind in an unhealthy way.

Without any reference to the distinction between a specific, single idea and the group of ideas which it is part of, one cannot organize thoughts in a stable, consistent, and advancing way.

Within the inaccurate, commonly understood framework, thoughts that a person has that 'contradict' one another cannot be organized side by side so that the higher level idea that includes both those thoughts, and more, can be found.

Without the ability to make a clear, accurate, and automatic distinction between similar-seeming thoughts that are actually describing different things, that is, are describing different contexts; without a sense of work out well possibility; without the clear understanding that there is an absolute, definite, same for everyone, never changing for all time truth to be found; and without the absolute understanding that the human cognitive process is capable of discerning just what the truth of a particular matter is - without that structure or 'framework of understanding' - the person's mind goes back and forth, in a 'mirror-like' fashion, or 'round and 'round from one simplistic 'opposite' to the other, and the person experiences a 'spinning' sensation in their mind.

Then they either "seize" on something, leading to an inaccurate formulation, or they attempt to keep thinking it through, in which case the 'spinning' escalates dangerously, or they conclude that attempting to think things through is unhealthy and vow not to so engage in the future.

previous next

The Commonly Accepted Ideas is the wrong system for thinking.

However the human mind - the mind of every Homo Sapiens Sapiens - was specifically designed, through evolution, for thinking things through to ever more advanced conclusions. It's just that the framework of the "Commonly Accepted Ideas" is the wrong system for depthful thinking and is indeed a dangerous and unhealthy system for such thinking.

previous next

People think that they're not smart enough, but really, it's just that they're using the wrong framework.

People are not usually aware that it is this "Commonly Understood Framework" that itself precludes higher level thinking, that is, prevents it from taking place, but instead people generally conclude that they are personally 'not smart enough', or not 'stable' enough, or not 'strong' enough to think things through, or, alternatively, that the human mind was not designed for such depthful thinking.

previous next

The spinning sensation doesn't come from thinking; rather it comes from using the wrong framework for thinking.

The 'spinning' sensation mentioned above is not characteristic of how the human mind works - rather, it is characteristic of what happens when the 'Commonly Understood Framework Of Ideas' is used to attempt to sort something out.

This 'spinning' sensation, incidentally, can be so personally frightening, that it alone is enough to stop a person from attempting to think anything through, sometimes for decades to come.

And quite rightly so.

For the 'Commonly Understood Framework' does indeed constitute a framework that is quite literally unhealthy for attempting to think through high level ideas.

previous next

It has been, and is, the Commonly Understood Belief System that stands between the human mind and solution to the great problems that every individual faces.

It must be emphasized that it not true that ordinary humans can't think things through - rather, it is true that this "Commonly Held Belief System", which has held sway in all of the most murderous societies stretching all the way back to Socrates and the Greeks and long before, constitutes the primary obstacle to clear and damage-solving type thinking.

It is primarily because this framework - no acknowledgment of absolute truth, no distinction between a "one of many" type of idea and "a system" of ideas, no acknowledgment of thoughts and emotions as physical measurable substance - it is primarily because this framework has prevailed in the upper reaches of large societies 'lo these past 10,000 years that, for example, the horrors of the wholesale slaughters of the Mediterranean cultures by the Greeks has been reenacted again and again, before and since, across the planet over the past several millennia and continues to deeply permeate the everyday lives and intimate moments of every single individual.

Crystallization And Utilization Of Ideas And Other Substances

previous next

High level thoughts are made up of internal electron configurations and can be held and built upon leading to increased intelligence and greater emotional depth or can be 'spun out' desperately, leaving the person flatter and meaner than ever.

This matter of high level thoughts being made up of electro-neural configurations within a person's central nervous system, metaphorically akin to a tightly crystallized diamond as mentioned earlier, has presented special problems for the dissemination of this paradigm. For such high level internal crystallizations can be held by an individual and built upon, can be transferred to another person as high level ideas, or can be "spun-out", that is, "used up" in a wide variety of lower level ways rather than being held or built upon.

In the current climate, the fact that people generally are so lacking in high level clues regarding the nature of life, and accurate high level ideas of all kinds, causes them to immediately and desperately spend any internal configuration they can possibly 'get their hands on' so to speak, in any direction that arises.

Such spending can be in the form of an apparent momentary increase in respect from persons in the world around, can be in the form of momentarily increased financial or political opportunity, can be in the form of enhanced sexual activity, and can take a variety of other forms.

Naturally, in the wake of such desperate and reckless spending, the person is left far 'flatter', 'lower', and meaner, more vicious, and far more clueless than ever before.

All this is even more true of 40 and 70 year old persons possessed of high prestige than it is of young people.

previous next

Sometimes, bringing an unconscious dynamic into the realm of conscious deliberation can lead to a work out well solution.

No one, as my dad used to say, seems to be able to, metaphorically speaking, "hold their water" and continue to think carefully. And worse still, almost no one dares to acknowledge that to be the case for them personally.

Is that insulting to the reader? I don't know.

I do know that it is precisely accurate.

I would further state that if that dynamic was brought out of the unconscious and into the realm of conscious and overt consideration and decision-making, it is very likely that the great problems that humankind has encountered for these past ten thousand years would be healed straightaway.

previous next

Difficulties regarding considering the Paradigm From California include:

1) Threats from others;

2) Use of an unworkable but familiar framework (the commonly understood beliefs); and

3) An unconscious or reckless use of high level configuration in low level ways.

Thus, there are three difficulties regarding the ability of anyone to hold these matters in mind, NONE OF THEM having anything whatsoever to do with disagreement.

One: there is the difficulty of thinly guised but very serious threats from those above and around should the person deviate from the "Commonly Understood Framework", such deviation being seen as adherence to an unfamiliar and "highly-perceptive" and therein 'exposing' or threatening "ideology" (see pgs. 33 and 40).

Two: there is the problem of attempting to evaluate the Paradigm From California ideas within the "Commonly Understood Framework", leading to the internal 'round and 'round sensation mentioned above.

And three: there is, in the current climate, a paucity of and a desperate 'starvation' for accurate and useful high level understandings of any kind, leading to a reckless spending of the internal electro-neural configurations that make up such understandings in any low level way that may be close at hand.

previous next

It can be easily explained how, even though no one, or almost no one, can find a solution to something of great concern to everyone, that solution can indeed exist.

These three reasons also constitute the primary formula why, except for the appearance of this paradigm, no one, especially no one in advanced societies, has ever been able to get more than ten percent of the way towards coming up with a practical, realistic, work-out-well-all-around, overall plan of solution to the great difficulties that humankind has been enduring, a plan such as I am presenting in Paradigm From California.

Origins Of The "Commonly Understood Framework"

previous next

The Paradigm From California Framework is the framework of thinking of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

The Commonly Understood Beliefs Framework was designed as a rare, tragic, and temporary anomaly for use in extraordinary circumstances.

It must be understood that the framework of understanding that I have discovered and identified and that I have named "Paradigm From California", evolved, through several million years of evolution of pre-man, as the framework of thinking that Homo Sapiens Sapiens was specifically designed to operate within.

The "Commonly Understood Beliefs" framework also evolved as an alternative possible framework, but it evolved for use only under very rare, temporary, and highly specialized circumstances. Under the conditions obtaining during the two or three million years during which the neuronal structure specific to human intellect was evolving, under those conditions, occasionally an entire tribe would be killed through foul weather, inability to locate food or water, wildfire, predators among the big cats and other species, loss of navigational facilities, or other circumstances of nature unrelated to any intra-species conflict.

In that circumstance, the sole survivor or alone survivors would no longer have reference to the intellect of the tribe as a whole, and indeed would lose altogether their survival balance, which was entirely dependent on care giving towards their tribe and protection from their tribe. Having lost all sense of possibility for such a balance, the survivor would no longer have any behavioral patterns by which to survive and would die.

However, when such a person died, other tribes would not be forewarned of the danger and would have no way of understanding its extreme nature and would be themselves at extreme risk of themselves being killed off by that same natural disaster. Thus, in those areas and circumstances where there was no shift in intellectual and behavioral framework for a survivor of "death of tribe", surrounding tribes would also die.

previous next

The Paradigm From California framework is the framework that was designed alongside the Homo Sapiens Sapiens central nervous system.

The Commonly Understood Beliefs framework was designed for temporary use in rare, alone, and tragic circumstances.

Thus, there evolved within every individual the possibility for an alternative framework of operations, one that I have identified as "Commonly Understood Beliefs" that was designed for use in rare, temporary, alone, and extremely tragic cases. This "Commonly Understood Beliefs" framework allowed the alone survivor of a "death of tribe" circumstance to continue to survive without any reference to the well-being of anyone or anything else, without any ability to think anything through, without any hope or 'map' of the larger world.

It's a low, tight, mean, narrow pattern that would allow the person to live - albeit in an intellectual and emotional "coma" - long enough to make contact with another tribe, one that was operating (as were just about all persons in all tribes) under the "Paradigm From California" framework.

When contact was made, the still healthy tribe could note in amazement the condition of the survivor - physical and mental condition - and could, by sorting out metaphor and in a wide variety of other ways, sometimes even over generations, figure out what had happened, be forewarned, and lay plans for survival, plans that they would have no other way of knowing they ought to make.

previous next

The Commonly Understood Beliefs framework evolved to allow a lone survivor of tragic loss to survive long enough to make contact with another tribe, and transmit information regarding potential loss of the new tribe.

Thus, the Paradigm From California framework of ideas - recognizing the existence of absolute, singular, same for everyone, constant for all time truth, recognizing the distinction between a concept and the system of concepts that it is part of, understanding that there is always a more advanced, ongoing solution to any problem to be found whether one actually finds that solution or not, and all the other framework points mentioned on the facing pages and in the full two volume work - that Paradigm From California framework is the system of understanding that Homo Sapiens Sapiens was designed, through evolution, to operate within.

The intellectual, emotional, and behavioral system of Homo Sapiens Sapiens works spectacularly well alongside that framework of understanding, and it served us well for the ninety thousand years it was universally in force throughout Homo Sapiens Sapiens society across this planet.

The "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework - no singular, same for everyone, constant for all time truth; no distinction between a lower level concept and the higher level system that it is part of, presumption of fundamental intra-human conflict; no real ongoing, more advanced solution and the other points listed in the right side columns and so familiar to everyone - that "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework was also designed through evolution, but for use in rare, temporary, tragic cases only, and was designed only to allow the holder of such a framework to live long enough to inform another tribe of some terrible natural disaster so that that other still surviving tribe could be warned in time and could solve the problem of a distant, tribe-killing natural disaster before that problem killed them as well.

previous next

The 'human-thwarting-human' problem is new, having only been around for about 10 percent of our existence.

The "human-thwarting-human" problem is new, having only been a serious difficulty to Homo Sapiens Sapiens for the last 10,000 years (10 percent) of our existence (1/300th of our existence if you figure from the appearance of the Homo family).

The "human-thwarting-human" difficulty came about and continues to plague our species because this "Commonly Understood Beliefs" framework which was designed as a tiny one tenth of one percent factor, came to be adopted by persons operating from high, influential levels of large societies, and came to be hammered, slammed, and brutally imposed on succeeding generations as each generation reached adulthood and often even before they reach adulthood via workplace and academic institutions, via family life and communications media, via social institutions of every stripe.

The methods of imposition of this "Commonly Understood Belief System" include everything from gentle cajoling and offers of wealth and protection to sarcastic humiliations and the withholding of basic survival necessities, to the most brutal forms of violence, rape, and outright murder, including starvation and murder on the large scale.

(A detailed narrative regarding the neurological shift within an individual that accompanies this imposition appears in a book length chapter of Volume Two of Paradigm from California.)

'Passing The Torch'

previous next

Genetic change 'outdid itself' so to speak, by creating a higher level replacement for its own problem-solving function, namely the human intellectual/cognitive system.

In earlier times, several billion years ago, nature hit upon a 'species to species' mechanism for solving damage-producing problems: the genetic 'graphics tablet', which consists of apparently 'dormant' clusters of genes within each organism's chromosomes, and which was designed to be the "rearranging and solving structure" for solving damage-producing problems and losses, again, by arranging genes into ever more advanced configurations from species to species over millions of years.

Although the mechanism of genetic advancementis no longer relevant to the major problems that must now be addressed, it is helpful to understand that that old genetic change mechanism, is, in fact, a lower level, earlier form of what later became human intellect, human decision-making, and problem-solving.

In the current, more highly advanced form, electrons arrange and rearrange within the neural structure of the human central nervous system - thoughts, emotions, enactments - solving problems and creating more advanced solution, minute to minute, over lifetimes, and over millennia, replacing the earlier, lower level system which consisted of genes being arranged and rearranged within chromosomes over millions and billions of years.

The earlier structure for problem solving, that is, genetic rearrangement, while working within the rules and patterns of the overall bioecosystem ("the laws of God" or "the rules or patterns of this star's 'committee' of high level forces of physics", as you wish); while working within those "laws" or "patterns" genetic rearrangement itself created its own replacement, which is the higher level, current structure for problem solving, namely, the cognition/intellectual system of each Homo Sapiens Sapiens individual.

Thus, each individual's cognition/intellect system was designed through evolution, to be, in our own time, the specific mechanism that solves previously unseen and unforeseen problems, much as genetics functioned as the problem-solver in its day.

It's a big responsibility and Homo Sapiens Sapiens did spectacularly well with it for ninety thousand years.

Unfortunately, about 9,000 years ago, some people made (and some people keep making) some absolutely unnecessary, atrocious decisions, some 'strongly-self-perpetuating-but-not-completely-so' processes were set in motion (and continue to operate), all of which in turn, brought about and continues to bring about catastrophic consequences.

Mostly avoidable then, absolutely correctable all along, almost entirely repairable now.

previous next

The 'Commonly Understood Framework' destroys the very system - cognition/intellect - which is the key problem solver in the contemporary age.

What is special about the "Commonly Understood Framework" as a problem in and of itself, is that it specifically attacks and destroys each person's internal, cognition/intellect system, which, again, is the very system that evolution specifically developed for solving damage-producing problems in our time.

Thus, as long as the "Commonly Understood Ideas" continue to hold sway, the system within each person that was specifically set up to solve damage-producing problems, that is, the cognition/intellect system, is absolutely blocked from being accessed by the individual. The "Commonly Understood Ideas" lock up the person's intellectual system and then instruct the person to believe that "they're just not smart enough", or that "there are no real answers", or that "life is just naturally grim", but those things are not true.

What's worse, also included is the instruction to disassociate the source of the primary precepts, leaving people to conclude they just thought of them themselves or 'learned it from life' or something.

Evaluation and 'trace-back' is specifically disallowed.

Quite a racquet, as they say.

previous next

In nature, long-term strongly self-perpetuating systems are accompanied by organized mechanisms for adjustment and helpful change.

In fact, the social mores and conversational conventions developed under the aegis of the "Commonly Understood Framework" - the syntax of speech and sociability - set up a "strongly-self-perpetuating-but-NOT-completely-so" societal replication of this cognicide/suicide, from generation to generation to generation.

It's been nine millennia so far, 300 generations, which is pretty tight, but it is very definitely an entirely shiftable tendency even still, in fact very much so, species-wide, and all with just words at that.

Carefully, critically, consciously, and freely considered words.

Social Conventions

previous next

Whenever the existence of absolute, same for everyone, constant for all time truth is denied or disassociated, the most deceptive and brutal persons and the most life-killing patterns will prevail. As regards large societies, there are no exceptions.

One underlying convention that just about defines acceptability among the highly educated, involves an acceptance of the idea that the truth is neither absolute, nor singular, nor the same for everyone, nor forever constant, nor important to account for or even recognize as a consistent entity.

However, it can easily be seen that in any large society, I'll say it again, ANY large society, wherein the proposition, as a mater of the structure of this bioecosystem and all within it; any large society in which it is generally presumed that there is no absolute, consistent, same for everyone constant for all time truth, in any society wherein this obviously inaccurate notion of "no absolute truth" is the governing framework for rules, laws, and, most important, for general figuring processes, in any such society, liars, thieves, and the most destructive and life-killing patterns will prevail.

There are no exceptions.

That's worth saying again.

As regards large societies, there are no exceptions. It is an absolute, and, when you think carefully about it, an obvious rule of nature and of human life within this bioecosystem.

previous next

One of the top five reasons that things go poorly in this world is that the obvious fact that absolute, cognitively knowable truth exists, is denied at the highest levels of society.

It is not accurate to say that there is no absolute truth and therefore things are likely to go poorly.

It is accurate to say that that which is true is absolute, and precisely the same for everyone and any, ANY society that ignores (quite unnecessarily) that obvious governing basis for evaluation is, quite simply, and entirely unnecessarily, doomed and its citizens consigned to desperate, ongoing insecurity at best, and, especially at the current stage, sooner rather than later, far worse than that.

Who Is To Say What's True?

previous next

An individual figures out what is true by assembling many factors and using the cognitive portion of their mind, rather than by believing someone or believing in something.

Finally, there is the extremely important query regarding, if something that is true, is true for everyone in the same way, how does a person determine just what the same for everyone truth of any particular matter is? Simple.

Every Homo Sapiens Sapiens individual (that's us, each of 30 billion of us so far) is endowed by their creator (the group of basic patterns and forces of physics that became organized into this bioecosystem some four or five billion years ago); each person is endowed with a judgment system that can evaluate based upon reason, logic, arithmetic, concrete experience, and specific and conscious observation.

That ability is only one third of each person's overall judgment system but it is a key and most decisive portion and it is the portion that must be used in order to figure out what is true, what is accurate.

However when the "Commonly Understood Beliefs" prevail, that portion, that cognitive portion of each person's brain is not, cannot be, is precluded from being used because of the very nature of the "Commonly Understood Beliefs" framework.

Judgment Systems: Attachment Judgment

previous next

Under the Commonly Understood Beliefs framework, attachment judgment is used exclusively, while cognition judgment is frozen out.

In every human being, in addition to the truthfinding, cognition portion of their internal evaluating system, there is another one third portion as well.

This second part of each person's three part evaluation system I have identified as something called "attachment judgment".

Under the "Commonly Understood Beliefs" framework, this "attachment judgment" portion is used INSTEAD OF cognition judgment RATHER THAN IN ADDITION TO IT. While attachment judgment should be about half of our evaluation process, instead, under current circumstances, because of the prevalence of the commonly understood framework, it is in fact about 95% of those processes.

In fact, within the "Commonly Understood Belief" framework, it is impossible to even make a clear distinction between these two types of thinking; "cognitive judgment" which includes conscious, rational, organized reasoning, using the understanding that there is an absolute, singular, same for everyone truth to be found, that there is a work-out-well-all-around solution to be found, that there is an absolute distinction between individual ideas and overall systems, as well as other cognitive methods and structures - within the 'Commonly Understood Beliefs' framework it is impossible to make the distinction between that and "attachment judgment", which consists of an entirely different combination of evaluation methods, none of which include conscious, cognitive reasoning.

previous next

Attachment judgment is the portion of the mind we use when we believe someone or follow someone else's judgment.

We have named that portion of each person's judgment system which evaluates on the basis of other peoples' ideas "attachment judgment" because it is tethered to, or refers to the ideas of those who we "look up to" or are more expert than the person themself is, or who are more influential, or who hold the power of success or failure, economically, socially, or physically over the person's head.

While the portion of each person's evaluation system that we are calling "cognition judgment" involves specific guideposts, tethers, and structures ('absolute truth', 'one of many as distinct from a system', 'organizing contrary ideas', 'work out well all around', etc.), "attachment judgment" also has its own guideposts, tethers, and structures, albeit of a different nature.

previous next

One part of attachment judgment consists of "little voices", which are generally, unseen attachment figures.

As regards attachment judgment specifically, these 'guideposts' include, first of all what some refer to as the "little voices" in our heads, which is usually some hidden protection figure whose thoughts and ideas are brought to mind without the person from whom they originated being brought to mind as well.

More specifically, these are the covert projections of above parties, a source of evaluation that most people do not like to face, no matter how crude or nonsensical such evaluations may be.

previous next

A second part of attachment judgment is the projections of overtly powerful persons, near and far.

A second source of "attachment judgment" are the more overt projections of overtly powerful and present persons who hold the power of divorce, firing, homelessness, friendlessness, torture, estrangement, isolation, starvation, failure, or outright murder over one's head.

Most people are quite familiar with the insistence by at least some above party (if not many) to the effect of "it's this way because I say it is" or you're jailed, evicted, de-licensed, disowned, raped, failed, rendered beaten, penniless, insane, destroyed, or far worse.

Most of us don't like to think that we actually put up with that, but there's probably not a soul alive that, with a little painful recollection, could not recall more than one such imploration.

previous next

A third source of attachment judgment are the statements of persons who we assess to be expert and knowledgeable, and who operate from a position of integrity.

Additionally, figuring into this "attachment judgment" matrix are the sensibilities of more expert persons and the ideas and implorations of very rational, straightforward, reasonable, and convincing persons.

These are people who are trusted and believed based on their integrity and knowledgability.

previous next

Still another source is the manipulations of persons who feign trustworthiness through the use of "communications techniques".

Then, of course there are those people who gain trust through "communications techniques", which has been so grostequely in vogue these past decades, and which, by the very nature of such "techniques" are specifically designed to bypass and, in fact, shut down cognition entirely.

As regards "skilled communicators" about seventy percent of the time, they are projecting dishonest, inaccurate, and damaging information, which is why they must rely on "techniques" that bypass and shut down cognition.

previous next

Another source are those ideas that are floating around and that seem popular in the moment.

The last source of attachment judgment that I'll mention in this brief rendition, are those ideas that come to mind that people seize on in the moment because it's the last thing they heard, or because it seems to make good conversation or gets praise and support from teachers, producers, publishers, audiences, supervisors, therapists, friends, family, and the like.

previous next

Within the Paradigm from California framework, the attachment judgment matrix works best when used to only about a 60% degree.

Within the Paradigm From California frame of thinking, these and other attachment judgment sources constitute fifty or sixty percent of what one must take into account when reaching conclusions, with the various structures of cognition judgment constituting another 40% or so.

previous next

The Commonly Understood Framework specifically prevents cognition judgment from operating, so attachment judgment controls more than 95% of the evaluation process.

However, within the 'Commonly Understood Framework" such attachment judgment sources are the only basises of evaluation that can be imagined. Within that "Commonly Understood Framework", there is no real rational judgment; all individual judgment is just "attachment judgment' as just described.

previous next

Within the Commonly Understood Beliefs frame-work, cognition judgment is seen as nonexistent, or a fraud, just another "attachment trick'.

Furthermore, the portion of a person's overall judgment system which I have identified as "cognition judgment" - which is the ability to evaluate what is accurate, that which has the properties of being the same for everyone and constant for all time, the ability to evaluate logically, rationally, arithmetically, based on conscious, alert observation and reasoning and concrete experience, tethered not to the approval of above parties and peers but to the truth itself, which sometimes most everyone is mistaken about but which is always the same for everyone and unchanging for all time - that particular ability, that portion of an individual's overall judgment system is seen, within the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework", to be just another, cleverly disguised form of "attachment judgment", a "con-game", a 'trick' of words, even a "communications technique".

For within the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework, there is no real truth to be found in the first place. Again, when the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework governs, there is no real cognition judgment - everything "comes down to" a matter of "belief in" this or "belief in" that; "believing" one person or "believing" the other person, being "convinced" by this articulate person or being "convinced" by that one with the "charisma", going along with this one who seems to be "on one's side" or not going along with that one who seems to be "on the other side", having "faith" in this thing, or having "faith" in that thing.

Indeed, within the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework, it is almost impossible to even imagine rational, concrete, truth-seeking based figuring as aseparate phenomenon from "belief" and "attachment" and "following" type judgment.

Attachment Judgment/Cognition Judgment - 60%/40%, Not 95%/5%

previous next

It is an accurate, a comprehensive, an extremely useful, and a new formula to understand thinking processes as consisting of three parts, with attachment judgment and cognition judgment each being one of those three parts.

Within the Paradigm From California framework, however, it can be easily seen that "attachment judgment" is a decisive one third portion of each person's internal evaluating system, and absolute, consistent, truth-based "cognition judgment" constitutes another decisive third.

(As an incidental matter, I should mention that the third portion of each person's judgment system, consisting of imagination and other things, is also decisive and is delineated in detail in chapters 2, 7, 12, and 16 of our full paradigm but is not directly relevant to the particular discussion at hand).

Within the "Paradigm from California" framework, while Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved into a creature that had "cognition judgment" available for about 40% of required figuring and "attachment judgment" for about 55%, under the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework put forth in force starting about 9,000 years ago (just the last 10% of Homo Sapiens Sapiens existence), the balance has become horribly skewed to an approximate 30 to 1 ratio: "attachment judgment" at about 96%; "cognition judgment" at about 3%.

This is, quite literally, a murderous 'balance'.

It is not that less attachment judgment is called for, not at all.

More judgment of all kinds is required: a little more attachment judgment and a lot, lot, lot more cognition judgment - more figuring altogether, an obviously odious and "dead-end" prospect when one operates within a framework wherein "nothing really makes sense", but one that is invigorating, curing, and vitality-producing indeed when bringing forth a damage-halting, building, problem-solving outcome.

Who Is To Say What's True? The Cognitive Portion Of Each Person's Mind

previous next

Truth is found through the use of cognition judgment operating along-side attachment judgment, rather than by "just believing" something or by believing someone.

Thus, in answer to the query "if something that is true, is true for everyone in the same way, how does a person determine just what the singular truth of any particular matter is?

"; is it by "believing what this guy says?" or by "believing that one over there?" Hardly.

I never ask to be believed, never in my life have I ever asked that: the terms "believe me" or worse, "trust me" has never, ever, ever been part of my vocabulary, from the time I was a small child to the current moment as I approach fifty years old.

Never.

I'd always presumed that everyone has good cognitive facilities and six years of action packed inner city public high school teaching powerfully reinforced that awareness.

It was not until I was in my forties that it began to dawn on me why anyone would use, or worse, why anyone would take seriously someone who relies on terms like 'believe me', or 'trust me'.

Such terms are used when a person would specifically prefer the listener to shut-down their cognitive evaluative facilities, a condition I've always considered fatal to one and all.

I get trusted and believed to an extraordinary degree, but when the basis is a simple 'believing in', it always 'breaks my back', so to speak.

previous next

It is just about impossible for an honest, responsible leader to survive unless most of the population can accurately and routinely discern what is true from what is not true.

As regards large scale matters in particular, without the alert, critical, cognitive evaluating facilities of all concerned parties operating full-steam, thoughts rigidify, thinking processes go brittle, necessary advancements are impossible, people lapse into a desperately and unquenchably thirsty intellectual coma, liars, thieves, and killers prevail, and, most important of all, honest leaders and intellects are invariably, I'll repeat that, INVARIABLY crushed to death under an impossible weight. I've been aware of that horrifying fact every single day of my adult life, and that fact is, I presume, particularly obvious at the present time to anyone who thinks about it.

previous next

The Paradigm from California framework includes a detailed description of the process by which Homo Sapiens figure out what is accurate.

The Commonly Understood framework claims such thinking to be impossible and absolutely prevents an individual from figuring in terms of accuracy at all.

The way a person determines what is accurate is through the use of, as a decisive portion of their evaluating system, the alert, fully conscious, logical, rational, arithmetic, concrete, observation-based, truth-seeking based (truth, which is the same for everyone and never changes) portion of the individual's internal evaluating system.

But, if one starts with the basis that there is no real truth, this is difficult, indeed, actually impossible.

Starting with the basis of "no absolute truth", "nothing really makes sense" and so forth, it is absolutely impossible to employ one's cognitive system.

Again, this is one of the many reasons that one cannot pick, as regards the Paradigm from California points listed on the facing pages and the "Commonly Understood Ideas" listed alongside, some ideas from the left-side columns and some ideas from the right-side columns; it is one of several reasons that it is not possible that some combination of the two is accurate.

The framework itself, truth as an absolute, same for everyone and constant for all time entity in the one case, and 'there is no real truth' in the other; the framework itself governs the ability to draw - or be unable to draw - accurate conclusions in the first place.

Who Goes For Those Right Side, 'Commonly Understood Ideas' Anyway?

previous next

'Commitment' to the Commonly Held Beliefs resides only within the top few percent of the world's most influential people.

There is a major point that is important to bear in mind about the Commonly Understood Beliefs.

While they seem all-pervasive, that's because they are firmly projected and insisted upon by almost all of the most influential 5 percent of the population of the United States and the most influential 2 percent of the population of the world.

That's only about 15,000,000 people in the US out of 280,000,000 and about 100,000,000 people world wide out of 5,600,000,000.

That two to five percent, of course, is in firm control of employment, educational systems, mass media, the police and military, markets, academia, finance, religious institutions, and all the other instruments that govern the everyday life and death of every individual member of the general population.

previous next

While many spout it, very few actually believe the "Commonly Held Ideas".

Additionally, of the lower 97%, no more than twenty percent have operated in a way that encourages them to perpetuate the Commonly Understood Beliefs framework; and even for that twenty percent, any such 'commitment' is minimal - a mile wide, as they say, and an inch deep.

Contrary to the mindless blitherings of academia and the mass media, most people are aware that the currently prevailing 'philosophy' is a thin and lying 'smoke-screen'.

That leaves about 250 million Americans and about five and a half billion people world wide for whom the Commonly Held Belief system is seen for what it is - a convoluted and lying smoke-screen that serves as protection for that very few per hundred - or, in many cases, per thousand - who are not being worked and starved and tortured to death in the moment.

Naturally, with no alternative, the lower five and a half billion simply repeat some of the many variations on the 'Commonly Understood Precepts' without much thought to, nor respect for, its accuracy, usefulness or value and without any particular fondness for or commitment to the various large scale living systems that it has wrought.

They are constantly (and perversely) told that these "Commonly Understood Beliefs" are synonymous with intellect, sophistication, righteousness, and success, and having no alternative system of understanding, little access to their internal intellect, and the very real threat of starvation, torture and death should they deviate from the Commonly Understood Beliefs, they either don't think about it very much or murmmuringly go along with it.

Letter To A Responsible Party - No. 5

previous next

Running up against those with the power of large-scale influence can distort one's understanding of the Homo Sapien mind.

I mention this because I have become used to running up against an implacable resistance to anyone considering the Paradigm From California framework, and I have sometimes briefly become diverted by the inaccurate notion that such resistance is inherent in anyone considering this matter.

The problem is that in order for this paradigm to become known; in order for anyone to become aware of its existence, some person or sector of the top 3%, the ten million most influential persons in the country, has to assist in its dissemination.

However, it is primarily among this particular top 3% portion that the most blatant or serious awareness of, or 'commitment to', the Commonly Understood Beliefs resides.

That commitment is murderous for everyone and suicidal for them, but it's there all the same.

In other words, in order to crack the case for the entire planet, I have to start by cracking the case amongst the most hardened opposition.

I have long since concluded that that can be the only practical approach, but I do recognize that that approach can give a distorted impression of where the other 95% are at.

previous next

Just one or two or three people who were in a position to assist publication who also actually did so would be all that it would take.

Thus, it must be borne in mind that, once someone or some people (from the top 3%) gather whatever it takes within themselves to assist the dissemination of this paradigm, the rest is, essentially, "a piece of cake".

I kid you not.

Once this Paradigm from California becomes generally available, and any portion of the top 3% decide to seriously consider it, not only would there be little or no resistance among the general population, but there would be a vast sigh of relief and a virtual explosion of intellect, productivity, and wealth creation such as has not been seen on this planet since early farming society some 12,000 years ago, alongside a parallel bio-ecosystem healing and repair.

previous next

I do not and never have asked for belief or agreement - only for publication and public evaluation.

Furthermore, I do recognize and understand the tremendous intellectual and emotional "shake-down" that any person who becomes aware of the "Paradigm From California" becomes subject to in the contemporary climate.

Indeed, a 150 page chapter delineating the precise electro-neural dynamics of that "shake-down" appears in the latter half of Volume Two of the full paradigm. Any person who attempts to hold this framework, in the absence of protection for such awareness from high level persons, becomes an instant target of a wide range of serious - albeit thinly disguised - threats which are made when they attempt to hold this Paradigm From California framework in their mind while also being offered paper-thin but in-the-moment attractive offers in exchange for dropping it.

This has been an experience I have personally witnessed on scores of occasions and have good reason to believe such dynamics are behind most - if not all - of the implacable silence with which the seven hundred recipients to date have greeted this plan. It is for this reason that I must state emphatically that the best chance - perhaps the only chance - that this paradigm has of being considered or evaluated is through publication.

Apparently, at least in the initial stages, no one (except myself) feels that they can possibly stand alone in carefully considering even the slightest possibility of an overall, practical, realistic, "work-out-well" solution to the world's difficulties.

Thus, the fundamental request I am making of you, personally (Mr. or Mm. 2%), is that you assist in its publication either through your publishing facility, or your contacts in the publishing world, or by direct financial contribution to me so that I might publish it personally, or in any other practical way that you can think of.

Midterms

previous next

The chances might be one in a billion or one in a hundred billion. In any case, the solution came up at the ten billionth try.

And as long as I am on the subject of writing for the one thousandth of a percent most 'sophisticated' and educated persons (half a million people, worldwide), it would perhaps be well to mention the following.

Twenty years of hearing "no need to look at what you've come up with, Neil because lots' of people have good solutions" (1960's and '70's), and another ten years of hearing, "well, no need to look at the solution you've come up with, Neil, because I've learned that there is no real solution" (1980's), have finally forced me to conclude, after decades of extreme personal skepticism, that, without this paradigm, there never has been, is not, and most likely would not be a solution to the major difficulties that this world has been facing for the past 10,000 years. It took me a long, long time - decades - to reconcile myself to that fact.

Indeed, the biggest mistake I ever made, perhaps the only serious mistake, was to operate, for thirty years, as though this Paradigm From California solution was one solution of many available.

That was the single most damaging inaccuracy I ever believed, and I held it for far, far too long.

In fact, over these past ten thousand years, there have been approximately ten billion tries at coming up with an overall system for solving the largest scale solvable difficulties that humankind has been facing, and exactly one concrete, practical, workable, reality-based plan, namely Paradigm From California as herein presented.

Again, mark my words; I mean that quite literally. Naturally, the only way a person could know, one way or the other, of course, is to consider it, carefully, cognitively, rationally, concretely.

And that is all I ask.

Disassociating One Framework Or The Other

previous next

Once a person understands the Paradigm from California framework, it is imperative to continue to understand, in greater detail than ever, the Commonly Understood Beliefs framework.

To forget that framework is likely to result in extreme damage.

Well.

One last note.

As alluded to above, and as explained in detail in chapter 15 of the full Paradigm From California, the only way a person can continue to operate within the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework, is to disassociate the ideas from the "Paradigm from California" one.

When the two frameworks are held and carefully considered side-by-side, it is obvious that the Paradigm from California framework is accurate, useful, health-producing, healing, solving, intelligent, consistent, in conformity with what is known from scientific findings as well as everyday experience, is the framework by which the major problem of the last 9,000 years can be solved (that is, the "human-thwarting-human" problem) and is the framework by which things can work out well all around.

When the two frameworks are held and carefully considered side by side, it is also obvious to every individual that the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework, and the ideas contained within it, are nonsensical, inaccurate, damage-producing and death-producing, are destructive of life rather than guidance for the solutions to life's difficulties, are fundamentally alien to basic biological and structural Homo Sapiens Sapiens patterns, AND ARE IN THE INTEREST OF NO ONE.

Again, the only way that a person can continue to operate within the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework is by disassociating the Paradigm from California framework.

Generally speaking, this also involves disassociating the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework but operating within it, as unconsciously as possible, in order to be able to consider it "just the way things are".

previous next

Paradigm from California shines most brightly and clearly when placed side by side with the very best and most articulate of any opposition or alleged alternative.

This problem of disassociating one framework or the other goes deeper.

While it is possible for a person to reach conclusions within the "Paradigm From California" framework while disassociating the "Commonly Understood Ideas" framework, this is most decidedly not recommended and is likely to work out very poorly indeed.

In fact, probably the single, most important blunder made by movements attempting to put forth a cooperative approach to human interaction was the recommendation, indeed, in many cases, the insistence that their respective members or citizens disassociate the right side framework.

This error came into being because, although all the great revolutions start with literacy campaigns and see them through to the 95% level, most of those who initially populated such movements were physically starving and suffered immense physical deprivation in other ways, a condition which specifically crushes cognitive abilities.

Very much like the West, the nations of the great Socialist revolutions of this century wound up putting the lion's share of their educational system under the charge of persons who emphasized the teaching of information rather than (instead of in addition to) the teaching of the various cognitive processes, methods, and structures by which an individual figures out what is accurate - same for everyone, constant for all time accurate.

previous next

Lenin's "new socialist man" and especially Mao's "rebel, rebel, rebel to the end", were both strident attempts to crack the case of what would solve the major problem that people currently face, and solve it for all time.

I do not know why they did not hit on the cognition/intellect abilities of every person as central. But it remains personally heartbreaking for me that they did not.

If they had, I could have remained an obscure high school teacher, married that girl, and lived happily ever after, essentially, my lifelong dream.

As it was, I had to go back and crack the case myself.

Another factor was that such movements often operated, quite literally "under the gun" of violent reactionary attack, including, often, the murder of millions by invading armies, and quite literally, torturing and exterminating armies, a condition wherein a good deal of attachment judgment is required for immediate survival.

By the time the nations of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao had recovered from the starvation, and from the scores of millions killed by representatives of the American, British, French, Japanese, and German corporations, by the Nazis and the Kuomintang, and by others, the attachment judgment frame of thinking that the socialist nations had been required to pull tightly around them had become so rigidified it was again, just like it has always been throughout the west, completely invisible and apparently impenetrable.

As such, rather tragically, as much as the Russians wanted to, and as hard as the Chinese tried, they never did crack the case of discovering the system by which things could work out well all around, ongoing. That was left to an obscure American photographer/schoolteacher, burrowing a hole in a Northern California hillside (I'm speaking of myself).

No one who is familiar with the history of science will be particularly surprised at that turn of events.

'Politics'

previous next

Persons of the reactionary persuasion feel certain that the more desperate most other people become, the more secure they themselves will be, and, more important, the number one way to keep other people desperate is to deny them access to their own intelligence.

Thu