Bibliography - concise titles only - Acrobat *.pdf
Lucy and Neandertal
A Billion Years of Political History (Acrobat *.pdf)
Bibliography - extensive reviews - html
The Politics of Science
Kuhn Update - The Invisibility of Paradigms
The Ideology of Bullying (Acrobat *.pdf)
posted: September 9th, 2002
Grand Unified Theory section
posted, January 18th, 2003
Not because it would expose persons who are deceptive, but rather, because it would make both accuracy, and how any human mind perceives reality, self-evidently obvious to all.
Once "Logical Types ©nrm" is understood, deception rapidly becomes a thing of the past, overnight. It's not that anyone is believed or disbelieved. It's just that the whole issue becomes moot.
It conforms to singular reality, and it conforms to the way every person's cognitive mind sees things.
Our brains were designed, through evolution, specifically to cull information from others, in figuring out what is true regarding social matters.
This is because, regarding all social and political matters, an acceptance of deception regarding what another person understands to be true, is the iron rule throughout all society.
Obviously, when people are automatically checking for consistency in political and social conversations, as an ordinary, expected social convention, then obviously also, deception automatically evaporates.
Thus, to approach political or social conversations, by routinely noticing consistency, and therefore, routinely noticing accuracy and inaccuracy, also casually and routinely exposes deception, and as such, is experienced by deceptive persons as a threatening blow.
The ironclad rule against routine awareness of consistency and inconsistency in political and social conversations, results in people using as a basis for political calculations, massively inaccurate information, resulting in turn, in preposterous political and social conclusions taken as "what everyone knows".
Little wonder that even though "nature and human nature within it is geared for work out well for all persons", as an obvious matter given consistent conversation over time, still and all, given inconsistency as the heavily enforced rule, even life and death enforced rule of ordinary political and social conversation, people generally, routinely accept the profoundly absurd notion that "it is inevitable that things will work out poorly for some".
All human problems, six billion persons wide, ten billion persons wide, or however many, can be EASILY solved, in health and satisfaction for everyone, no tricks, given social conventions that allowed a checking for consistency in conversation, just as we do all the time, throughout the rest of our lives.
However, given a normal, standard, human conversation rule that disallows a checking for consistency, human problems could never, never, never be solved, not in ten thousand years.
Only when "Logical Types © nrm" is known Publicly, To All, only then is inconsistency and therefore deliberate deception, seen as impolite, rude, ill mannered, and indeed, harmful to all.
The first-hand information that we gather through our eyes, ears, skin, and so forth is 95% to 99% likely to be accurate, however, most of the information that we have regarding social and political matters comes in second-hand and third-hand.
If we had a way of checking for consistency, we could cull second- and third-hand information for accuracy, and as such, we would be drawing conclusions based upon accurate information.
However, with no way of checking for consistency, "conclusions" are not based upon how a human mind sees reality in the first place, but conclusions are instead based on wild fantasies, falsely presented as accurately reported information.
The cognitive portion of the human mind was designed to see singular reality, in large part by culling information from hundreds, even thousands of other people's cognitive minds.
But if so much of that information, is not cognitively perceived information at all, but rather, is the result of deliberately misreported renditions of how others see singular reality, then the information we wind up with, the information that we use to draw accurate conclusions in our own minds, is not accurate to singular reality.
This is not the case of course, but it would indeed seem to be the case, if one must rely on massive mis-reports of perception as a basis for thinking.
Even when you can get at least some consistent and accurate information regarding social matters, there is no math system for combining that information into consistently accurate conclusions.
Some people might think it would take some special powers to calculate, with absolute, one hundred percent likelihood of accuracy, how many same units one would have, if, on the other side of the world, someone put three same units next to two same units, but in fact, any human can do it. In fact, it doesn't take any special powers to accurately make such calculations.
Singular, primary reality is part of the structure of our bioecosystem, through and through, and being able to see that singular reality, and calculate using singular, five-senses reality as the basis, is built into our human abilities.
Again, same for everyone, world-wide, through all time.
Up to now, of course.
Arithmetic will work for combining "same units" things, but arithmetic will Not work for combining "vastly different types of things".
The singular reality basis of our bioecosystem runs through and through, but you need one math system for accurately combining "same units" things, and another math system for accurately combining "different types" of things.
In both cases, you can accomplish exactly the same goal, get safely and successfully from one place to another. You just need a different system for crossing.
Again, it's only a metaphor, which means it doesn't match up in any way beyond the basic idea of 'transport' from one place to another.
I feel compelled to implore the reader to avoid "running" with metaphors. I have to use them sometimes, we all do; sometimes they can be very helpful.
But their value is entirely lost, and worse, if a person mixes up the literal idea with the metaphor or analogy.
Logical Types For "Different Types Of Units" Calculations
- In Both Cases, You Reach Self-Evident, Same-For-Everyone Accuracy
It only seems that way, as long as there is no calculating system for combining "vastly different types of things".
It must be remembered that, in using an analogy, or metaphor for something, there are two things being compared. One is the idea being described, and the second is the analogy or metaphor for it.
The two things match up in a few places, and don't match up at all in other places.
One uses an analogy, or metaphor, in order to explain something unfamiliar, by showing some comparisons with something that is familiar.
But, of course, it is important to remember that the two things do not match up in all ways; otherwise, the 'analogy' would be just a literal description of the original thing being explained.
Without the equals sign, the numbers would have no purpose. Three plus two . . . but so what?
Without the equals sign, so what? Pretty soon, the numbers would be floating all over the page, upside down, sideways, it doesn't matter. Without the equals sign, they don't mean anything anyway.
It tells you where you're going, what the overall context is. It limits the factors that have to be taken into account as the calculations move on, and guides you to which factors are "governing" and which factors are "lower level" in any given context.
Without it, like the equals sign in arithmetic, the symbols just wind up floating all over the page, without any meaning.
Thus, the sky buckle in logical types is different from the equals sign in arithmetic, but it is analogous - it tells you where you're going, it guides you regarding the importance of factors, and it limits the calculations.
Furthermore, because the sky buckle, at the highest relevant logical level - "Geared For Work Out Well For Every Person" - is in full conformity with how this bioecosystem works, it keeps all the calculations fully consistent with the singular reality of this bioecosystem, and in full conformity with how the human mind was designed, through evolution, to work.
Again, without the sky buckle, like deleting the equals sign in arithmetic, without it, everything just goes haywire; you never know what's more important and what's less important; what's governing, and what's elements; without it, everything just turns meaningless, inconsistent, and crazy.
Given that, for the past few thousand years, it has been considered an ironclad rule of success, that "it is inevitable that things must necessarily work out poorly for some", and that, as a matter of science, anyone who realizes that "inevitability of work out poorly for some", bears No relation whatsoever to how this bioecosystem works, is themself considered crazy, and pathetic, not to mention "mentally unstable", well, then no one who aspires to societal success first and foremost, could ever get very far regarding solving the great problems of humankind.
Without the "geared for work out well for every person" sky buckle, then eventually, usually sooner rather than later, every attempt at solution to the great human problems, 'cracks up on the rocks', so to speak, goes haywire.
And again, no one who, first and foremost, aspires to success in society as it stands, can survive at all, while carrying and working through a scientific, "geared for work out well for all" frame of mind.
Once I realized that "Nature And Human Behavior Within It Is Geared For Things Working Out Well For Every Person", and I think I've had it goin' on, as an "iron nut", so to speak, inside, since I was three years old, well then, as has been said about Einstein's E=MCsq., the rest is analogous to simple arithmetic.
Well, actually, there's nothing special about me in that way, as every child, without exception, has that going on in the first place, when they're born. It's universal human nature. And it's supposed to be that way, throughout life; "geared for work out well for every person" as a frame of mind, which is in full conformity with nature's system, is what we're all designed for, again, throughout life.
And it's one of the most important reasons why we so desperately have to protect our children, not only when they're young, but as they grow older as well. And not only from being harmed, but perhaps even more important, from being driven to harm others
So I'm just like everyone else, having been born with that 'geared for work out well for all' sky buckle, built in, again, just like everyone else.
The only thing that may be a little different about me is, I never lost it, to this day, and survived, um, well, survived so far, anyway. And I'm 57 years old. And it's not that I couldn't lose it, I'm vulnerable, just like everyone else.
It's just that, even through the most violent century in world history, and a life replete with far more missed opportunities and extreme disappointments than most people could ever survive, for some reason, I haven't lost it, haven't lost that "geared for work out well for every person" sky buckle, which we're all born with. I haven't lost it, so far.
It stays with me; I don't even know why, really; maybe it was the extreme combination of science, and romance, in my mind, an extreme of both, '24/7' as they say, year after year, decade after decade, topped off with leftist politics from an early age . . . but I don't really know why, really . . . it's just what's happened with me.
The way we know it's true, is that when it's used, and we sort information using the 'geared for work out well for every person' framework as the high level "ruler" so to speak, and, using that to check for consistencies and inconsistencies in the information that we receive, then, everything combs out with full consistency.
It becomes clear what's accurate and what's not accurate to singular reality, and it also becomes clear, or certainly clearer, just which reports that are coming in from others, are accurate reports of a cognitive mind's perception of reality, and which reports that are coming in from others are inaccurate reports of a cognitive mind's perceptions of reality.
You look for consistencies, just like you did when you found out the difference between concrete and water.
With logical types, you can understand consistencies with ideas, just as you can understand consistencies with the physical objects that everyone is familiar with.
Unlike the inaccurate to nature "inevitability of work out poorly for some" framework, where the more you know, the less you understand, with the accurate to nature "geared for out work well for all" framework, again, the more you know, the more you understand.
And unlike esoteric "belief" systems, with "geared for work out well for every person", "Logical Types © nrm", and using singular, five senses reality for guidance, you don't rely on "just believing".
You can check against five senses consistency, in seeing when things do, and do not, match up.
So anyway, that's one analogy between logical types and arithmetic. The geared for work out well for all sky buckle, which tells you where you're going in the overall, which focuses the calculations, and which gives the overall context, is somewhat analogous, and only analogous of course, to the equals sign in arithmetic.
In arithmetic, there are ten digits, one through 9 and zero. Ten of 'em. Can you imagine keeping all that in mind at once?
361. Can you imagine automatically understanding what that means? Just in a flash? My God! You'd have to be a rocket scientist!
Well, logical types also has symbols, but instead of ten, there are only three. And instead of being called 'digits', they are called 'types'.
In fact, given that logical types has only three symbols, whereas arithmetic has ten, there's a lot less to memorize with the logical types system than there is with arithmetic.
In this sense, an in many others, logical types is actually easier to work with than arithmetic is; it comes more naturally to the human mind.
In arithmetic, where a digit is placed matters much. It might seem crazy, but in arithmetic, if a 3 is in the second column from the right, it means 30, but if that same digit is placed in the fifth column from the right, it means 30,000. I know; it seems nuts! But believe it or not, that's how arithmetic works.
Just a teensy little change in placement, changes completely what the digit means.
You'd think you'd have to be an Einstein to keep that in mind. If it's in the third column, it means three-hundred, but if it's in the seventh column, it means three-million.
In logical types, too, placement matters. If something is lower on the page, it means it's an element in a system; if it's higher, it means it's "governing" to that element. Easy. Simple. Nothing to it, so to speak.
You don't really have to believe anyone to notice that when two same units are placed next to three same units, you wind up with five same units.
There's no believing involved. Just self-evident, same-for-everyone, in-conformity-with-singular-reality truth. No believing involved. Your internal cognition is what you rely on for that.
Logical types is also based on five-senses reality. Again, no believing involved. It's math. Obvious, simple, easy. You figure things out in your mind.
I recently read a book where the author found it useful, and it seemed right to me in that case, to write a number that consisted of three solid lines of digits. Fine. That's arithmetic.
Logical types is a strictly limited system, bounded in three ways, the three boundaries defining the perimeter of life as we know it.
Whether it works to describe what happened prior to four billion years ago, or beyond the near future, that is, beyond the time when the great human-harming-human problems become solved, I don't know, and I don't care either.
I discovered, the particular part of earth's mathematics, that works for solving the current, ten-thousand-year long, human-harming-human problem.
And it can be easily shown that this logical types system does indeed cover things comprehensively, again, from four billion years ago to the near future.
But that's it.
Engendering healthy lives for six-billion, or ten-billion or however many persons, everyone, and combing out the currently terribly skewed political patterns of the world, is the be all, and the end all, of this paradigm.
Beyond, that, before or after, well, it's not my department. I don't care.
Call me a hick if you will, 'provincial', or whatever, 'a homebody' perhaps.
But in fact, it is true, that this paradigm is very strictly limited to relevance to solving problems of harm to life.
This is the paradigm of life; It is NOT the paradigm of the beyond, either prior to life, prior to four billion years ago, or what will come after these current terrible problems of harm to life are solved, that is, the near future.
For me, the six billion persons of this planet, living breathing human beings, girls and boys, are, Home. That's what I want, and who I've got, and who've got me.
Logical Types, and Tenors, and this Paradigm, is what we need to know now.
And that presumes, that the great problems of harm will indeed be solved in the near future (obviously much higher likelihood given sooner, rather than later, public elucidation of Logical Types © nrm), and presumes that the great problems of life, particularly the "human-harming-human" problems, will be solved with minimal loss of life or other damage, no tricks.
I am certainly aware that the matter of what will come in the future is in the realm of probability, as likelihood, and not inevitability, is, to my knowledge, how this bioecosystem works.
Perhaps it would be well to remember that, for the millions of years of our overall history, the likelihood that our planet and species would survive intact another decade, century, millennium, and far more, was at a constant 99.99+%. That is the environment in which we evolved.
It was not until the obviously, heinously deranged attack on Hiroshima, that confidence in the long-term future was shaken for the first time, over millions of years.
This "destruction of eveyone's 'maps' of the long term future", which the nazi bully-boys among the bourgeoisie so gleefully, deliberately arrange via toxic wastes, nuclear materials, global warming, deliberately arranged wars, bio-engineering, cultural destruction, and all the rest, is an entirely arrestable difficulty.
Given an intelligent population generally, again, given the 3-hour "Logical Types" "Talk" mentioned at the top of the Home Page, likelihood of correction is, I think, excellent.
At any rate, there is absolutely no question that we could return to 99.99+ percent likelihood of short-term, medium-term, and long-term survival of our planet and our population. Which was the condition under which ourselves, our minds and our hearts, evolved.
It's just a matter of loosening the grip of the tragically child-abused bully-boys among the bourgeoisie, who currently seem to have a stranglehold over finance capital, and the body politique.
So, all that is by way of explaining that this paradigm is limited in time. It works from four billion years ago, the birth of God, out to the near future.
After the "human-harming-human" problems are solved,
and solved forever via some sort of ordinary, garden-variety conversational 'immune-system', so to speak,
instead of the conversational-conventions-death-system which is currently operative,
then, once the great problems of harm to humans are solved, then, presumably, Logical Types will become only a lower level idea in something much bigger that will have to be figured out.
But what's relevant here, is that this paradigm is designed for operations, only from four billion years ago through the near future, up through the time when the currently damaging problems are solved.
Those are the limits of this paradigm in time.
Everything we need to know, and certainly all the systems that we need to know about, all the problems of life, can be combed out from protons, to Pluto.
Perhaps I should mention, that I count the nine planets as part of our planet's bioecosystem, mainly because the sun is so important to our bioecosystem. Thus, the full, top level system of relevance in space, is this solar system.
The Hubble is a magnificent wonder, as was the Soviet Space Station, and the Mars Rover and all the rest. Double their budget, that's what I say, as long as corporate and military influences can be kept out of course.
But they are, ONLY, useful low level elements, of low level use in understanding what we need to know for solving problems of harm. Nuggets of gold, and more, wholly worth the money, but of a lower logical level all the same.
Deep space, and the seriously sub-atomic stuff, do not hold systems of relevance for solving the problems of harm to humans.
Near space, ok, maybe, to some small non-military degree. For right now, that's about it.
Organic chemistry, of course, chemistry, electricity, optics, quantum physics, sure, of course. But that's about it.
Will logical types work, below the size of a proton, or out in deep space? I don't know. And, I, don't, care.
And anyway, I doubt that the logical types system would work at those sizes.
Beyond Pluto, for example, logical types would probably operate as just one, low level element, of many, in some much larger math system. But it doesn't matter.
I myself would call it "The Theory Of The Consistent, Same For Everyone, Invariant Properties Of Physical Space."
In a word, bigger stability and certainty - that's what Einstein knew he had found for all humankind.
and Newton figured out the constant, invariant properties of motion regarding invisible forces,
Einstein figured out the constant, invariant properties of physical space itself,
each of them moving up one logical level from what had previously been understood.
Darwin, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of evolution';
Laviosier and Dalton, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of the elements';
Freud and Bowlby, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of the unconscious';
Mendel, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of individual genetic changes';
Neil, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of human emotion';
Copernicus, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of the solar orbits';
Maxwell, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of electricity';
Piaget, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of cognition';
Marx, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of history;
Nightingale, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of recovery from illness';
Russell and Whitehead, 'the constant, same for everyone, invariant properties of arithmetic'.
They don't call those things "Relativity", although everything within each of those overall ideas, everything within them, are in some relation there too.
Indeed, needing to figure out how to handle those variations, is the reason why you need to figure out the constants, and invariables - 'the grounding' - in the first place.
If you don't know what something is grounded to, constant, baseline, comprehensive, invariant, clear and testable properties grounded, you have no way of usefully organizing, whatever you're faced with.
Without some backbone common properties, without knowing what they are, consistently understood, nothing is ever going to fit together.
the great, always fabled, 'golden fleece', as it were, the solid-as-a-rock, same for everyone, basis that is established, for the entire field,
is, "the constant for all time, same for everyone, invariable properties", of the subject at hand, for all the world to lean on, in health, vitality, and cure.
The point is, Einstein didn't "pull the rug out from under certainty", far from it.
He discovered a larger, far more stable "rug", so to speak, and nailed it firmly in place.
Just as Darwin disliked and distrusted the term "survival of the fittest", Albert disliked the name "relativity".
'Stability and certainty and same for everyone rock solid consistency and constancy' was what Albert had in mind,
"The Theory of Invariance" as he called it, but his sensibility about what he had actually found, was crudely disallowed by the war companies who control the world of physics, and of 'education', and the grotesquely Orwellian mass media.
Instead of allowing the theory to be understood by the general public within "the singular reality framework", which in fact IS the scientific framework,
Instead of allowing the theory to be called "The Theory Of Invariance" which was the name Einstein chose, the abused children of the big war corporations, grown-up or otherwise, and their satanic religionist mass media and universities, insisted upon the anti-science, "no real truth", "no solid ground" name, "relativity", which, insultingly to Albert - I presume it made him feel like he was being called a clueless airhead - and deliberately confusingly for the rest of us, describes not the theory itself, but rather, some lower level consequences of it.
Naming it "relativity" (a low level consequence of the theory, primarily operative at hundreds of millions of miles an hour), instead of allowing Einstein to name it "The Theory of Invariance" (which is a description of the theory itself), was a destabilizing, deliberately imbecilizing psywar attack on the general public, bearing no relation to standard scientific nomenclature.
I haven't looked very much beyond our bioecosystem, and while I certainly find it useful to grasp a little higher level context for the system we are in, the system we are in being this bioecosystem specifically, and all of the six billion persons in it, I haven't looked very much beyond that. And it's beyond the point.
Planet earth, all of us folks living in it, all the billions of girls and boys, our thousands and millions and billions of years of history, and our larger bioecosystem, our millions of songs and loves and wonders, is the home base of this Logical Types discovery.
"Of people, By people, and For people", to paraphrase how the great President once put it - of, by, and for, all of us, All Life.
Again, life as we know it. As regards this paradigm, that is what counts, and that's as far as it goes.
So. Limited in Time, from four billion years ago to the near future, and limited in Space, from protons to Pluto.
It goes from the smallest detectible wave or a single letter of the alphabet, on up to "geared for work out well for every person".
From chemistry and medicine, including the maths, to humans and communities and nations and regions; from affection, to health, to passion, to freedom, and satisfaction, and all the rest, on up to "Geared For Work Out Well For Every Person", all comprehensively covered by Logical Types.
What about after things are combed out in a work out well for all manner?
After 'geared for work out well for all' is "built-in", as automatics, like an immune system.
And no one pays it much mind any more, because it's solved. After that, what then?
Well, I presume that Logical Types will become a low level pillar of whatever comes next.
A low level support for the much larger understanding, that will have to be developed to handle whatever comes up next, what sort of things we are faced with after the great problems of harm to humans - particularly the problems regarding 'human-harming-humans' - are solved.
And when the great problems of harm to humans are solved, in health and vitality no tricks, six-billion, ten-billion, or however many persons wide, then my job is done.
And then they'll be a new situation. And bigger things still will need to be discovered, for the new situation.
Such is the way of things on this planet, that is, such is the way of things within our committee, "under God", so to speak, God, the committee of "the 30 or so basic forces of physics that make up life", the committee as a whole.
At any rate, as for configuration limits, "The Logical Types System © nrm" as it stands, only goes, again, "from the smallest detectible wave or a single letter of the alphabet, on up to "geared for work out well for every person". And a little more. Those are the limits of this paradigm.
in time, "from four billion years ago to the near future",
in space, "from protons to Pluto",
and in configuration, "from the smallest detectible wave or letter of the alphabet", on up to "geared for work out well for every person."
Probably only about, for example, 30 basic forces of physics -
forces such as Time, Space, Configuration, Attractiveness, Motion, Mathematics, Liaison, Form, Out-Of-The-Blue, Matter, Randomness, Waves, whatever else . . .
- probably only about 30 of them - 'basic forces of physics' - actually jostled together to make up this bioecosystem - that is, the thirty coming together to become God, or the God committee, as I sometimes like to call it,
The bioecosystem itself, and all of us in it, being the physical manifestation, at this logical level, of the combination of the thirty forces, the committee as a whole, God.
the 30 forces that found that they could get along, out of the perhaps 100 in the area, the 30, "rubbing shoulders, bumping hips", so to speak, coming together to make up life and replication, some four billion years ago.
Voila . . . 'The Great Committee in the Sky', the God committee; taken as a whole, God. Four billion years ago, the birth of God.
Those 30 forces taken together as a whole,
again, forces such as Time, Space, Configuration, Attractiveness, Motion, Mathematics, Liaison, Form, Out-Of-The-Blue, Matter, Randomness, Waves, whatever else . .
is what I understand God, the system that created us all, to be. The overall governing system.
And the committee, the committee of the 30 'basic forces of physics' that operate together to make up this bioecosystem, "The Great Committee In The Sky", operate together in certain patterns, or "rules", as we would put it, or "laws" - laws of physics, laws of biology, or whatever - in a word, "God's Laws". Seems kind of obvious.
The basic forces that come to my mind, for example, 10 or 12 of the 'committee members', so to speak, members of "The Great Committee In The Sky" are:
Time, Space, Configuration, Attractiveness, Motion, Mathematics, Liaison, Form, Matter, Randomness, Waves, whatever else . . .
which is probably a good third or half of our little Committee, which, taken together, is itself just one little group of forces, among the thousands of different "types of forces" goin' on out there, and different "groupings of forces" going on out there, in space, in deep space, and beyond space as we know it.
And again, out of perhaps 100 'basic forces of physics' in our area, 30 of them became organized together some four billion years ago, to make up our bioecosystem.
And those 30 'basic forces of physics', that four-billion-year old grouping, which makes up our bioecosystem, taken all together as one, is, I think, what people have long referred to as "God".
I find that terminology convenient as well, and in this context, entirely scientific.
The only reason scientists have not generally defined God this way in the past, is because they didn't apply Russell and Whitehead's "class/member" distinction to what they already know of the physical world.
Put the two together,
put together the standard scientific understanding of "basic forces of physics";
put that together with the standard, mathematical "class/member" distinction, and the above explanation is obvious!
The "basic forces of physics" are "the members" of the system, in Russell's terminology,
and "God" is "the class", "the system as a whole."
What's the problem? In full conformity with all formal physics and mathematics as currently known. Self-evident. Obvious. No?
The difference between science and religion has nothing to do with an awareness of God as a reasonable name for the overall system, the "collection of basic forces of physics as a whole".
As regards an awareness of the existence of an overall system, with consistent 'patterns' or 'laws' - it's exactly the same in science and religion.
The difference between science and religion has nothing to do with an awareness of "a collection of forces of physics" which governs this bioecosystem, that collection of forces also known as 'God'.
I think it would have to be seen, that the "high level laws of physics and biology", and "God's laws", are, one in the same. I can't see how anyone could see any difference in that respect.
and in religion, the entire cognitive portion of the mind is closed down, and one runs on "just believe", a different portion of the mind entirely.
The difference is in how one arrives at their conclusion regarding how that 'top level' force operates,
regardless of whether they call it "a committee of forces of physics as a whole", science, or whether they call it "God", religion.
"The Group Of Basic Forces Of Physics Taken As A Whole That Makes Up This Bioecosystem", and "God" - they're both the same thing.
The difference is in the mental processes used to arrive at conclusions,
whether a person is fundamentally relying on their "Just Believe" judgment, and therefore, whether a person can be led around by the nose by any convincing fakir, ready to "believe" any preposterous, and even deadly, and deadly-for-all, nonsense, which is how religion works,
or reach conclusions via a critical, conscious, reasoned, logical, mathematical, five-senses process - figure it out according to the cognitive, five-senses lights of the rational, human intelligence portion of the human mind - which is how science works.
There is no scientist in the world, NONE, who would ever suggest that there are no overall patterns. In fact, science is, BY DEFINATION, the investigation and study of those patterns!
Again, the only difference between religion and science, is whether you Just Believe things, turning OFF your cognitive, five-senses, intelligence, which is the religion method,
or whether you reach conclusions, At All Logical Levels via your critical, cognitive, comparative, rational, five-senses, intelligence, which is the scientific method.
That's the fundamental difference.
And again, the entire "atheist vs. God" "debate", is nothing but yet another of the huge, and blatantly anti-intellectual hoaxes that riddles Western history.
As Einstein once mentioned, far more literally, and scientifically, than anyone seems to understand, 'I want to know the mind of God'.
In other words, scientists are God investigators; God Himself is under investigation. Scientific investigation. Not in a hostile sense, but in an educational sense.
Scientists investigate the basic forces of physics, and reach conclusions about how those high level patterns work, how God's laws work, and how they work together - the basic laws of physics, and biology, and more,
in a word, god's laws - or God's Laws, same thing,
and scientists do it via the critical, conscious, mathematical, rational, five-senses-based portion of the human mind.
who might well be suffering under a tragic "confusion of logical levels", between an abusive parent (low level), and The Almighty (high level).
An inability to distinguish metaphor, from literal reality; born of the trauma of child abuse.
Because their attachment figures beat them up, or threatened to harm or kill them, and they never figured out it was wrong, they wind up thinking that God hates people, and by the way, God's also got this psychiatric thing about privacy - doesn't want anyone to see inside Him.
While that is indeed the way a child-abusing parent would work, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with how God works!
God Himself, loves that scientific investigation stuff;
that Curing, helpful only, life giving, life strengthening scientific investigation. To the highest logical levels necessary.
That's what He Himself has been doing, via DNA, for three billion years. Now it's done via the neurons of human intelligence. Even more adaptable; even better; as always in our bioecosystem.
God loves it, loves that investigation stuff, of all the forces with which we have to contend, high and low. That's what He gave us brains for. Kinda obvious, no?
I mean, in the common vernacular, "that's what God gave us brains for", to figure out how to be helpful;
scientifically put, "that's why human intelligence turned out to be so helpful in the course of evolution", to accurately understand the forces of nature, so as to solve the great problems of harm that we're faced with.
Religion - "God gave us brains", so we could be increasingly helpful to one another, and all the world around, all of us being, the progeny, the physical manifestation of Him;
Science - "The mathematically organized forces that make up this bioecosystem evolved human intelligence", for strengthening the bioecosystem, and all within it.
Basically the same thing. The Only difference, is whether a person arrives at conclusions, that conclusion or any other of human health significance,
whether a person arrives at conclusions via the use of their resiliant, evolved, God-given human intelligence facilities (science and math),
or whether a person arrives at conclusions via the use of their generally brittle, and necessarily half-hidden, 'just believe' system.
We're supposed to be strengthening each other, and the world around. NOT knocking others down, so as to grab what they got.
What's unscientific about that? Perfectly normal scientific logic, and reasoning. Even though it might happen to match up with what a Catholic nun might think. Even though, it's still science.
But in the science formulation, we can put aside the mercurial 'morality', 'ethics', or whatever, vagueness; that's like the old pre-Einstein 'ether'.
The literal reality, science, is better. Clean, clear, same for everyone.
Here, we're putting aside vague 'morals', and orwellian 'ethics', and identifying the structure of the bioecosystem itself. In a word, God's laws, or, if you prefer, God's Laws.
I suppose later, you can trace downwards what the 'morals', or 'ethics', of what's likely to work out well in any given context - society, or culture, or circumstance, or whatever. Sure. I suppose. But, then, it's not vague, slippery, orwellian anti-math.
An ordinary advancement in formal science.
Sure, it will get you blacklisted from every university, publisher, and professional organization in the country, ok, sure; they all work for the bully boys, I got that already,
but, in fact, it is excellent science, very much by their own standards, all the same.
In fact, far superior to what they got going now, by their own standards of traditional, straight-laced, science.
and the core meaning of the science statements, "mathematically arranged DNA operations organized human intelligence", "for strenthening the world around",
seem to me to match up.
I mean, what's the diff? I really don't see no difference.
I certainly know of their existence, as a matter of science, but it's hard for me to visualize.
So naturally, sometimes, I mean only sometimes, but still, when thinking metaphorically, I sometimes substitute in, persons from among my principle attachment figures, as shown at the top of the Home Page and in the bibliography.
It's not religion though, because I know that as a literal matter, that the people I look to, are only wonderful representatives of The Committee, especially godly manifestations, yes, but only manifestations, like you and me, and all the bears, and the birds and the bees, and not the committee itself.
The committee itself are the 30 (or however many) basic forces of physics that make up life, that jostled together four billion years ago.
It's just that things like "time", and "space", and "form", and "waves", and "attractiveness" are sometimes kind of hard to imagine, so, sometimes, for some general purposes, I just more or less elect representatives in my mind, from among my principle attachment figures, to stand for them.
In other words, when I pray to God Almighty, I pray to Malcolm, and Marilyn, and Pete, and Holly, and Joan, and so forth, a more personalized form of "The Great Committee In The Sky", easier to imagine.
Sometimes, for certain metaphoric purposes, I just find it a lot more convenient than trying to talk to 'time', or 'motion', or 'waves', or whatever.
It's a metaphoric convenience.
I presume that that's how scientists of indigenous peoples of 20,000 years ago handled it.
In other words, I presume that that, via evolution, is what we were all designed for. Or maybe close, anyway.
However for the original peoples who found the memory of, and the look of attachment figures from their history, to be a convenient metaphor for calculating and understanding how the world works,
using a metaphoric verbal and visual idea, this or that attachment figure, to "stand in" as a thinking convenience for the basic forces of physics, was, I presume, just a very useful metaphor for understanding "the high level forces and factors" that were scientifically known in literal nature, but were hard to picture specifically.
Using metaphors was, and is, part of the process of explaining and sorting out singular reality, that is, part of the process of explaining and sorting out singular-accuracy-based science as we know it.
As long as one clearly knows and maintains THE ABSOLUTE DISTINCTION BETWEEN literal reality,
and a metaphoric, partial description of it,
then, the use of metaphors, again, AS LONG AS THAT DISTINCTION IS CLEARLY MAINTAINED,
let me repeat that a third time, AS LONG AS THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN METAPHORIC 'STAND-IN',
AND SINGULAR, SAME FOR-EVERYONE, SCIENTIFICALLY KNOWN REALITY, IS CLEARLY MAINTAINED,
then, such metaphors can be an entirely reasonable, and sometimes even a necessary part of a standard, overall, scientific method of explanation.
"Sun God", "light beams", "collections of photon waves".
Or, "Wind Spirit", "air molecules in conformed motion".
And then, after you've got the force identified, you name a particular 'force of physics', or 'force of biology' for someone from history . . . "Euclidian Geometry", "Darwinism", "Lawrencium", and so forth.
You give the "God", the "Spirit", the "force of physics", a name, sometimes for a famous person, just exactly the way we sometimes do in standard science today.
Do you really think that, in the minds of the original indigenous scientists of 20,000 years ago, there was such a big difference between what spooky westerners translate in indigenous stories as "Gods", and "Spirits", and what we understand to be "general forces of physics"?
You think there was a difference? I mean, in the original?
Frankly, were we to learn exactly what they had in mind, I think they'd translate out, exactly the same.
In the original, nothing spooky about it. Just science, as we know it.
And again, in the original (that is, prior to ten thousand years ago), they had, no doubt, well, obviously, a good deal of excellent, high level science as we know it, they no doubt had a good deal of excellent, singular reality, Science.
While Religion Relies On Belief, And NOT On Cognition,
They Are Opposites At Base - But Both Have An Identical Awareness Of The Existence Of God
that is, some specific sense of the basic forces of physics that make up this bioecosystem,
are derived from what makes the most logical sense, scientifically speaking, as self-evident to the alert, critical, five-senses, same-for-everyone, cognitive portion of anyone's mind, rather than from some "just believe" base.
And religion is, by definition, a matter of "just believe"; take things "on faith". This bears no relation to the science-based ideas I am presenting here.
There are a specific number of them, and the proportions I use here, are, I think, as reasonable as any, scientifically speaking. But what the exact, or even approximate numbers actually are, I would have no way of knowing.
The numbers I'm using here, establish the framework for understanding what's going on. Another set of numbers, fewer here, or more out there, or whatever, would work just the same, regarding this explanation.
Best I can tell, it's a fully scientific, entirely reasonable framework. The best scientific explanation of the subject of God that I know of; in fact, the only one that I know of, maybe the only one altogether, for all I know.
At any rate, whatever the exact numbers would turn out to be, would change nothing regarding the general explanation given here.
I mean, we're made up of about 30 forces or so. Of which we can currently identify about 15, again
forces of physics such as Time, Space, Configuration, Attractiveness, Motion, Mathematics, Liaison, Form, Out-Of-The-Blue, Matter, Randomness, Waves, whatever else . . .
Those twelve, and maybe another ten or twenty more, are close to the limits of what our bodies are designed to see and understand. One percent, tops, of what's goin' on out there. Maybe a little bit more than one percent. Maybe. And maybe a lot less.
But, theory of "Everything"? Whaaa . . .??!!??
You mean the whole 1,000 forces?, including the 900 that don't even exist in our vicinity? And the other 70 that are around and are not included on our particular God Committee?
You want a theory of the whole thousand? Or, including the far beyond, the whole 10,000? Whaaa . . . ??!!!???
It seems a little silly to me.
Certainly for this paradigm, the limits are clear.
This is, however, "The Theory Of Everything Of Relevance To Solving The Problems Of Harm To Life".
It is 100% that, and it is very very much limited to that.
Now, if that's what's meant by "The Theory of Everything",
namely, "The-Translation-Factor-For-Everything-We-Need-To-Know-To-Solve-The-Problems-Of-Harm-To-Life-As-We-Know-It",
if that's what's meant by "The Grand Unified Theory", then, "Logical Types © nrm 1983", and "Tenors ©", and this Paradigm, may well comb it out.
Naturally, those who run the industries employing the physicists, who crave, and depend, on sucking white the world's people, will tolerate no such limits, because if we take the grand unified theory out of deep space, and bring it back to earth, then it becomes obvious that they themselves, the bullies and war-makers of finance capital, and their whole capitalist system, are in fact, the real problem.
As such, for them, distracting both their captive professionals, and the university population, and the population at large as well, by any means necessary, distracting from the actual, overall solutions in the here and now, is their purpose.
but in my opinion, as regards limiting "The Grand Unified Theory", to the forces relevant to solving the great problems of humanity, and of life, well . . .
I think Einstein would love it.
All this is by way of comparing Logical Types to another math system, in this case, showing that logical types is similar to arithmetic, but it's not the same as arithmetic.
Like arithmetic, it's got symbols, placement, purpose, and is based on five-senses reality.
Different symbols, different placement, and different purpose - a sky buckle, instead of an equals sign.
And in comparison with the 'goes on forever' quality of arithmetic, Logical Types is a limited system; limited in time, in place, and in configuration.
In any case they're both just math. It's just that logical types is a little easier than arithmetic, and it comes a little more naturally to people than arithmetic does.
But the big difference of course, is that with arithmetic, you can only combine "same units" things.
With logical types, you combine, with the same sort of precision and accuracy, "vastly different types of things".
That's why, you can't rely on arithmetic for accurate calculations for social and political matters, but you can get the same sort of self-evident consistency, certainty, and accuracy as you get with "same units" arithmetic, when you use logical types for social and political matters, combining "different types of things".
Sorting Out Fear And Truth
If something made you feel scared, you'd move away from it; if something made you feel secure, you'd move towards it. I call this "the anxiety/security" guidance system. All mammals, including humans, have it.
An analogy, and again, only an analogy, please!, an analogy would be, like a magnet. Attracting, or, repelling.
And it is only an analogy, because there's a lot more to it than that.
With human reactions to danger and safety, it is really not so simple as "run away from", or "move towards".
"Tend to move away from", "tend to move towards", "tend to move outwards"; in life, especially among people, these things operate as a much higher logical level 'system', than the simple "snap" of a magnet. With life, there's a lot more to it.
Still and all, there's something about that 'magnetic force', some small property of it, that does seem to be a perhaps distant metaphor, for what goes on between a person, and circumstances outside, and what goes on between people generally, and circumstances outside.
In humans, there evolved what we popularly call "brains", that is, human intelligence.
This is another kettle of fish, so to speak, entirely.
Our minds evolved to allow us to coordinate information, ideas, feelings, and the like, of all sorts, from many different vantage points.
Brains, for creating secure, vital, loving, cooperative lives, for all. Wow.
We, us humans, we have another judgment system, besides just the anxiety/security judgment system that all animals have.
We have, a cognition system. We have, human intelligence.
It's different from the old anxiety/security judgment system. We still have that too. In a big way.
But we have another system entirely, in addition to the anxiety/security judgment system.
We have the ability to figure out what is true. And figure out, what is helpful, in the overall, and for all, over time.
We have the ability to put together many memories, from many people, and from many places, and from many things, so as to build, astounding vitality, astounding security, and astounding things of wonder.
This is, what I call the "cognition judgment" system.
We were designed, through evolution, to use our cognition system for figuring out what is true.
Very very different, from just knowing what to avoid, or what to move towards.
The reason is, that the way mammals, and especially humans evolved, when we become frightened, we tend to not so much move away from the danger, but rather, towards someone, or something that is, or that appears to be, protective.
This is especially true in young children, as shown, and proved, in exquisite detail by the British theorist John Bowlby in the second volume, "Separation", of his great three volume work, "Attachment and Loss".
Bowlby didn't deal explicitly with cognition. As a matter of psychiatric study, it was not his specialty. But attachment was. Par excellance.
And again, he shows conclusively, certainly to my mind, that the normal human reaction to danger, especially extreme danger, is to move towards a protective figure. This is most obvious in the case of children, but in fact, it is the case, in one way or another, throughout all life.
When we feel frightened, and especially when we feel terrified, the normal, healthy human reaction, is to 'run', or move, or turn, towards a strongly protective person, or to someone who appears to be strongly protective. In a word, to unthinkingly, attach.
How do they do it?
In fact, "attach to protection", "or to apparent, fraudulent protection" is the actual, normal human reaction to terror.
You arrange, via a back door, hidden manipulation, some terrifying event or circumstance, and then present oneself as the great protector, out front. For most of the population, they just attach to whatever, or whoever seems protective under the frightening circumstance; right now, that's all they know.
Pimps, child abusers (including bible thumping child abusers all across "The Bully Belt'), apocalyptics, serial killers, mafiosas, right-wing political consultants, spy strategists, pornographers, political aides, secret agents, paramilitaries, social service administrators, agents provocateurs, broadcasters, publishers, Nazis, and of course, US Republican Party tacticians, are the leading masters of this field.
That's how the British got the drop on Joan, it's why Hitler 'gets the drop on' Weimer, why Dulles gets the drop on Roosevelt, why Hoover gets the drop on Kennedy, why Nixon gets the drop on McGovern, why Pinochet gets the drop on Allende, why Zebrinski gets the drop on Carter; it's how Bailey gets the drop on Clark, how Renquist gets the drop on Clinton, how Bush and Sharon get the drop on those 3,000 ordinary working people at the WTC and Pentagon, and on all the rest of us, and all else, a billion times and more, before, since, throughout all everyday life, everyday, and on up to the highest levels of world power.
That's what them vicious, nazi smirks are all about; that's how they do it.
You arrange, via back door channels, some anxiety-producing circumstance, and then, stepping out front, present oneself as the savior.
It is a technique that is just not open to helpful persons, for obvious reasons.
Enter, Cognition Judgment
I never studied Piaget with the sort of long-term concentrated, attention that I gave to Bowlby's work, in part, because I learned of cognition from a wide variety of sources, certainly not only Piaget.
As a photographer, as a social sciences high school teacher, and as a political theorist myself, how cognitive understandings are arranged, became one of my own specialties throughout my life.
And in fact, as far as I know, this very clear distinction
between "attachment judgment" which we exercise when we're terrified,
and "cognition judgment", which is easiest to bring forth when we feel confident that we have ready access to resilient protection, that is, when we feel generally secure,
that distinction between "attachment judgment", and "cognitive judgment,
is, as I use the terms anyway, my own formulation.
The point is, that what I refer to as "cognition judgment", is where the ability to reason out the singular reality truth regarding the world around us, resides in our mind.
One is our security/anxiety judgment system, which I prefer to call, our "attachment judgment system", or just "attachment judgment", which informs us of danger and safety, informing us of the presence of danger, and the presence of security.
And two, we have a cognition system, which we use to figure out what is true, and which guides us in figuring out what is helpful in the overall.
It's a mix-up.
We're supposed to use our attachment judgment, to learn that danger is present, and that security is available. That's what it's for.
But we're not suppose to use our attachment judgment to determine what is true and what is not true. That's Not what it's for.
Humans have a different judgment system, a cognition system for determining what is true.
We were not designed to use the system that was designed for simply knowing that there is danger present, or that there is security present, as though it were a calculating system for knowing what the actual danger is, or figuring out what the solution is, or for what is true, or what is not true.
However.
To find out exactly what is dangerous, and to find out how to arrest the danger, and cure the dangerous circumstance, in humans, AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT judgment system is called for.
We were designed to use our attachment judgment to know that danger is present. Yes indeed.
And we were designed to figure out the source of that danger, NOT by using our attachment judgment, but rather, by using our cognition judgment, a different portion of our overall judgment system entirely.
Tragically, it is falsely claimed that, in the end, it all comes down to "who you believe", and "what you believe".
This is not, in any way, how the human mind was designed to work.
But in current society, the major projection of all major institutions, is that knowing, is all about "belief", and "believing".
All this "cognition judgment" talk, it is falsely claimed, is just another "belief" system, or even "belief scam".
In Grenada, near the beach, was a medical school, attended by medical students mostly from The United States. Essentially, it was an American medical school, regarding ambiance, curriculum, and attendees.
The students there had, by all accounts, a more or less idyllic life as they attended medical school, being most welcomed and encouraged by the Grenadans.
Comes the 1983 invasion, and even a cursory glance at the newspapers showed that the US Armed Forces, had initiated the invasion by deliberately bombing the school (not in error, but on target), instantly and traumatically shattering the students' customary security.
Then they looked up, and, can't you just hear that fife and drum music in the background, then they looked up and saw a troupe of United States Marines, flags waving in the breeze, come storming up the hill.
Well, naturally, the students were immensely relieved to see US troops charging in to save them from this extremely traumatic attack, and all the media was filled with bubbling, breathless reports of the students, about how wonderful it was to see Old Glory, their savior.
Meanwhile, the comatose media viewers, identified strongly with these clean cut American, would-be doctors, subject to such terrible danger, terror, and trauma, and therein, media viewers "understood" that a storming American presence, invading this little nation, was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Since absolutely zero reasonable argument could be made for the invasion of this tiny literally defenseless country, which was attempting to organize a cooperative political and economic system, so the media turned to splashing this "Savior of Defenseless Americans, Saving Innocent Kids Who Are Just Trying To Do Good In The World", tweet tweet, saving them from the terrible terror and savagery of the local circumstance, presumably, the crazed, mentally unstable, darky Grenadans.
Again, EVEN THOUGH they had contrary, hard information as part of the story.
"Saviors Of Innocent American Kids" was the best justification that the Republican Party could find for the invasion.
See? Get It? Get It? My God, What Does It Take . . .
I Thought I Was Slow Witted, But It Took Me From About The Time I First Heard About It, After The First Tower Was Down, Till Just Before The Second Tower Went Down, To Figure That Out . . . I Mean Cheeezzze . . . What Does It Take . . .
The train of thinking doesn't make any sense, but this is exactly the sort of thinking by which people reach conclusions!
How come?
People don't even know that they have a cognition system, for figuring out what is true and what is not true, and what is helpful and what is harmful.
No figuring out, based on cognition and consistency, what is true and what is false, and what is helpful and what is harmful.
No no. No cognition judgment, for political and social matters.
Only "attachment judgment".
"If it scares me, it's wrong", and "if it feels safe, then it must be right". "What else could a person ever go on?" most people seem to figure.
"Are they on the other side?" "Oh." "Then it must be false". "What else is there to go on?", most people figure.
Only "attachment judgment".
That is the number one judgment system projected by all academia, by all media, by all professional organizations, and by all political consultants and aides.
And, and this is crucially important, And, by almost all liberal and leftist 'opposition' as well! Can you imagine?!!!
"In the end, it all comes down to attachment judgment", is the universal, and tragically sociopathic claim. Who you believe, and what you believe. That's all. End of conversation.
Why The Bullies Win
And, to top it off, they warn darkly, that we must have absolute, secrecy, "to protect you even better"!!!
Can you believe this?
Then they called it gangsters; I think now they call it "covert operations" (!!!) I mean, doesn't anyone notice???!!!
Den, da next day, a smooth talking "insurance salesman", wid a couple of beefy sidekicks come by, offering 'protection', against the sinister darkies, if you'll just pay some protection money.
I think they, the big spy/propaganda agencies, the Republicans, the media, the academics, are laughing uproariously all the way to the blood bank, at anyone who takes their idiot cover stories seriously.
I think, they're laughing at anyone, who seriously falls for any of it!
That's what I think.
Cognition Judgment Is For Figuring Out From Where The Danger Actually Comes.
It's A Very Very Very Different Process, And A Very Different System
"Where There's Smoke, There's Fire" - But That Says Absolutely NOTHING About Who The Arsonist Is
BUT is using their "cognitive judgment", which is a different judgment system entirely, to figure out just wherefrom the danger and trauma actually emanates,
and what the pathways to actual good security actually are,
then the harmful, and the deceitful, lose all their harm and deceit power, in a flash.
And under that circumstance, the most helpful persons, who, by definition, could never pull such manipulations in the first place, then the most helpful persons, will not only be without standing, but will often enough, be framed up for the crimes of the deceitful, harmful ones.
Et Voila. Holocaust. There, Here, Everywhere
"Logical Types © nrm" presents the 'blueprint' so to speak, the 'graph paper', again so to speak, of the actual structure of human intelligence, and the means by which to employ it to find and identify consistency, accuracy, and helpfulness. Across all social and political matters.
And that "blueprint", that "graph paper", so to speak is "The Logical Types And Logical Levels System Of Social Calculations © 1983 Neil Robert Miller imaginenine.com"
I know very little about the case, having followed it almost not at all at the time. I know less about it than most people do, and I certainly have no special investigative information of any kind.
Simpson played his part, played his cards right, and indeed, the reactionaries came through, got what they wanted through their media, and paid off Simpson through their powerful spy/provocateur connections throughout the black community.
But the ninety-nine percent of public traumatic events are not autonomous events at all, but are specifically arranged by the bullies of the biggest, most influential spy agencies.
There's an old joke, from my generation (the '60s), which I think I remember seeing in a movie from that period.
At one point in the film, two hunted gentlemen are discussing the source of the coup, and one comments "Always blame the CIA." "Even when you're wrong, you're right."
Meaning of course, that if you peel back the front-men, you'll ALWAYS find as the high level planners and manipulators, the biggest and most vicious spy and propaganda agencies in the world, namely, headed up by the CIA.
. . . ha ha . . . ha . . . uh . . .
But for myself, as a political theorist, I didn't take it as a joke, I mean, after I got through chuckling, I realized it's a pretty darn good general rule of thumb.
In the years since, of course, I have come to understand that it's not a good "rule of thumb" at all. It is almost a 100% rule.
Except these days, the manipulations have become so boastfully obvious, that, when one presumes that any traumatic shock event is the result of the planning of the big spy agencies, it's almost hard to be wrong in any way at all.
When they played Patrice's assassination as 'darky troubles', they were specifically arranging Kennedy's assassination;
whey they played the Kennedy assassination as "just some lone, freak thing", they were specifically, arranging Malcolm's.
When they played Malcolm's, as a local, Muslim dispute, they were specifically arranging Martin's;
when they played that as just some angry cracker's fault, they were specifically arranging Bobby's.
They were not accessories after the fact; they were fully conscious and deliberate planners and implementers of the next one. Murder in the first degree, treason, capital crimes, sociopaths.
Preposterous to think that, "well, they just didn't know that".
As a theorist, I'm guessing that Pearl Harbor terrorized and traumatized the Japanese people, far more than it did the Americans.
And, of course, the American military also, desperately desired a big trauma hit, so as to arrange a big war in the Pacific, .
Let's just say, that maybe he was not real keen on an annihilation of The Pacific Peoples.
What's very convenient for liberals generally, is that what they're trying to do, does indeed match up with what people want, in Roosevelt's case, the New Deal, a far fairer economic and social circumstance for ordinary Americans.
This, of course, is in direct contrast to what Republicans and reactionaries want, which is directly contrary to what is in the interest of most people, and really, in the end, contrary to the interest of anyone.
Thus, while the major, big political hoaxes come absolutely naturally to Republicans, necessarily so, as natural as the day is long, it is the sort of thing that, for Roosevelt, was out of character, and to put himself in the position of having that huge "right-wing dagger of exposure" hanging over his head regarding something that huge, is something that would delight the right-wing, and eventually would massively strengthen them, but is something that he had no need or inclination to subject himself to.
In this case, as can be seen below, his back was to the wall, regarding the fantastic grip that the reactionaries had over the mass media, and therein, over everyone's understanding of politics, particularly world politics.
If all that was the case, and I think it was, what might his circumstance, as a practical matter, have looked like?
If Franklin had any doubts, well, this is what I think he was faced with. Finance Capital doesn't mess around. This is the big time.
Without "Logical Types and Logical Levels © nrm", no one knows how to discuss, in literal terms, the things that matter most; and most political and strategic talk, as a practical matter, is therefore couched in a kind of hidden "attachment" code.
Here, I'm trying to bring out into the open, the main factors that I think the President was actually taking into account, and was actually faced with.
I do think that these were among the major factors, or were the major factors, running through Roosevelt's mind, when he made that Pearl Harbor decision. That is, indeed, my very educated guess.
I'm not an investigator; I'm a research theorist, which is an entirely different field.
I put together thousands of bits of information, collected in my mind over many decades (see the bibliographies), and comb through and organize it all, for consistency, accuracy, relevance, and helpfulness, especially in the light of more recent events and dynamics.
There is very little low level information in the following account, that is not already well known to most people, and nothing at all at the low level that is not well known to virtually all scholars of the subject.
What I do best, is put together what everyone already knows into the comprehensive, accurate, relevant, and helpful, "big picture", so to speak.
That's my specialty, and this understanding of the matter, as a detailed, historical, clearly spoken, 'big-picture-fitted-together-with-consistency' account, so far as what I've heard, is indeed, brand new.
No numerals, all spelled out, from The Beatles, like John Lennon's 'Imagine', and, on The White Album, Ringo's 'Number Nine'.
If you want to include my name, it's Neil Miller imaginenine.com, or Neil Robert Miller imaginenine.com, or just Neil imaginenine.com. But as long as the web-site stays up, and I have been told that I officially have sole ownership of the domain name, then just, imaginenine.com is fine.
I just fit it together better, that's all.
"A thin little sliver at the top"; one one-millionth of a million people's work, 'the thin little sliver at the top' as I like to call it, 'the big picture', the system of it.
That's the part I know about, the part where my particular skills, shine.
And that's because I use singular reality, logical types, and the sky buckle, as automatics, all the time, coupled of course, with the books and journals such as are listed in the bibliography.
And, singular reality, logical types, and the sky buckle, is the only combination that could ever bring full consistency, up and down the logical levels, within this here bioecosystem that we happen to be living in. The only one.
With any other combination, attempts at calculation break up into a 'round and 'round, mess of knarled spagetti, and dissolve into nothingness.
It's like, I've 'cracked the code', in this case, 'the big code in the sky', so to speak, for solving problems of harm to life.
It's like, when I was a little kid, I wanted to have 'x-ray/telescopic' vision, like superman, to be able to see far away, and through walls and stuff. But when I got a little older, it was a little different; what I wanted to see, to understand, was politics. A little different, but maybe, metaphorically, similar in some way.
And again, singular reality, logical types, and the sky buckle is, metaphorically, akin to the "x-ray-vision/telescopic-vision" machine.
The important thing is that, for coming up with fully consistent and likely-to-be-true conclusions, with "Logical Types © 1983 nrm imaginenine.com" becoming publicly and properly known, Anyone Can Do It.
It ain't "the frog's quick tongue", it ain't "catchin' the ball", it ain't nothin' like that, that's for sure.
For me certainly, except in the most thoroughly obvious, or repetitive cases, such as the WTC/Pentagon attacks, it takes me sometimes years, to put it all together in my mind, especially when working alone, pathetically isolated, and without resources, or even enough sheer nutrition.
I knew of course, that war is not the answer, but rather, an intact and in-context, fully public exposure, of "Logical Types © nrm", and The Locket, that is, a massive raising of the public's intelligence and intellectual consistency, is indeed the answer.
So, in order to really answer the question, I started to search back, and sort out in my mind, 'just what did happen at Pearl Harbor, anyway?' This account, is the result.
Like the rest of this paper, and this web-site, and this entire project, and my whole life, this account is not really, in the end, about Pearl Harbor, or even about spy/propaganda manipulations.
It's about the crying need for an immediate, well protected, well organized, intact, in context, FULLY PUBLIC exposure of "Logical Types © nrm". That's what it's really all about.
In all events, the reader will have to assess for themself how much of the general ideas expressed is consistent with what else has been reported regarding the history of the time, and will have to assess for themself, the general importance of the factors.
Having an absolutely consistent, universal, self-evident to all, mathematical standard, "Logical Types and Logical Levels © nrm" for assessing relative importance of factors, would certainly be very helpful in making such assessments, but in the absence of public exposure of "The Silver Locket", the reader will just have to assess such matters as best they can.
At any rate, this is the way it looks to me.
Regarding the New Deal, his motivations, his rhetoric, and his actions, indeed matched up, as they often do for the best of the liberals.
Again, very different from the reactionary approach.
His great Presidency focused on a fair deal for ordinary working people, and the whole Nazi idea, in both its European and American incarnations, entailed the destruction, exactly, of every type of protection for ordinary people that he'd fought for and built.
Roosevelt well understood that the Nazis, both at home and in Europe, were out to fundamentally kill the whole New Deal type of society for ordinary people, that he'd struggled for, with it's job, health, income, labor fairness, old age, and other protections, for all, across the board.
In Asia though, it was unclear whether the ordinary people of Asia would have a better deal under the European Colonials, or under the more local Japanese Colonials. This was an unsettled question at the time, and at best, it still is.
But it was absolutely clear what happened to ordinary people under the Nazis.
It was also absolutely clear that a Nazi victory in Europe would strengthen enormously the already very powerful right-wing and Nazi forces among the ruling classes here, putting in jeopardy, and perhaps destroying altogether, his very progressive New Deal/Fair Deal for ordinary people.
The darkening clouds of Nazism in Europe, was his primary concern overseas, and regarding its power implications at home.
previously entitled - The Darkies Didn't Do It, The Bullies Did It
Section Titles for Quantum Politics:
I. Purpose - 150 words
II. Election Season Plan - 250
III. Consistency And Knowing The Truth - 1,000
IV. A Math System For Self-Evident To All, Social Calculations - 3,000
V. God, Limits, And The Grand Unified Theory: Bringing It Home - 3,000
VI. Attachment Judgment And Cognition Judgment: Sorting Out Fear And Truth - 1,000
VII. Hardball Politics - 1,000
VIII. Grenada - 1983 - 1,000
IX. Of Gangsters And Covert Operations: Why The Bullies Win - 2,000
X. Franklin Roosevelt, The Pacific Peoples, And Me - 7,000
XI. The Bullies, Across All Nations vs. The Rest Us Jerks, Across All Nations - 2,000
XII. You've Heard Of The One True God? Well, This Is The One True Conspiracy - 2,500
XIII. Fear Of Exposure Regarding Everyday Life, Is What Stops Everyone From Exposing Fascism Overall - 200
XIV. It's Part Of The Song . . . - 1,000
XV. What Drives Fascism - 500
XVI. Robert Redford, Jack Kennedy, Elliot Ness - 10,000
total - 40,000 words
down . . . up . . . titles
Purpose
The Purpose Of This Paper and This Web-Site Is To Facilitate A Public Explanation Of A Very Simple, Newly Discovered System Of Social Mathematics.
The purpose of this paper is facilitate support for a public elucidation, of a little mathematics system for determining accuracy and helpfulness regarding social matters.
"Logical Types © nrm imaginenine.com"
The entire math system, officially named "The Paradigm From California Logical Types And Logical Levels Mathematics System For Social Calculations Copyright © 1983 Neil Robert Miller imaginenine.com" , or "Logical Types ©nrm" for short, or just 'Logical Types', or simply logical types, as the term is used in the below, can be easily and reasonably explained in just three hours, as per the proposal at the top of the home page of this web-site and in The Silver Locket (pdf) file.
down . . . up . . . titles
The Tenth Election Season Since 1983/84
Normal Human Intelligence, Twenty-Five Points Higher Than Present, Is The Only Solution
The public, intact, and in context elucidation of this math system would raise the IQ of the entire American public, that is, would raise the intelligence of the American people, by 25 points overnight.
Deception Becomes Moot
It would furthermore render deception by anyone regarding any social matters impossible.
Self-Evident
An analogy might be, if everyone is familiar with the simple arithmetic system as commonly understood, and if someone lays two same units ( I I ) down on a table and then puts three more same units ( I I I ) down on a table, and insists that there are now eight same units ( I I I I I I I I ) there, when everyone can see that there are five ( I I I I I ), no one is going to either believe them or disbelieve them. The statement is just greeted with shrugs.
down . . . up . . . titles
Consistency And Knowing The Truth
Absolute Consistency Is How Humans Know What Is True
The human mind learns what is true by checking for consistencies. When we touch a pool of water, we expect our hand to fall through, but when we touch concrete, we expect our hand to rest on the surface.
To Walk Confidently
Having checked for consistency throughout our lives, allows us to confidently walk forward down the street thousands of steps per day, and allows us to know what to expect when we step into a pool of water.
To Think Confidently
Having checked for consistency throughout the ages, allows us to know that simple arithmetic as commonly understood, works, again absolutely consistently.
1000-d Intellectual Vision (see "Lucy and Neandertal")
Regarding social matters, of course, we rely, for ninety or ninety-five percent of our understandings, upon information initially gathered by others.
Noticing Consistency And Inconsistency Is Considered Ill Mannered And Feels Extremely Threatening To Most People, Indeed, Feels Even Life Threatening
However, even though we have to check for consistency, that is, accuracy, every minute of every day, just to remain alive while walking down the street, just to sit down on a chair instead of thin air, just to be sure that we are seeing an up staircase rather than a down staircase, if we automatically conduct ourselves in political or social conversation also going by consistency, we are considered, impolite, rude, ill mannered, and emotionally threatening.
Intact, In Context, IN PUBLIC
This, obviously, is why "Logical Types © nrm" could never work as a privately known system, since anyone who routinely thinks and talks in terms of consistency, is, in so doing, therefore automatically exposing the deception of others, and, of course is therefore considered impolite, rude, ill mannered, and emotionally threatening, and thus, is therein unceremoniously thrown out of any and every social or economic loop in current society.
Deception Makes Consistency Impossible
At any rate, given that, regarding social and political matters, in current society, deception is the rule, it becomes impossible to check for consistency, as people routinely deliberately mis-report their perceptions, so there is no consistency regarding nature's singular reality coming into our minds.
Tragedy
Thus, given all that deception as a basis, people cannot find any main consistencies, and wind up reaching the tragic, and unearthly conclusion that it must be that "nothing is really true", and certainly not in the "same for everyone", "constant for all time" sense.
Consistency, Across The Board, As The Basis For Knowing
Once one can easily tell when another person's report of what they understand, conforms to what that other person actually perceives, or doesn't conform to what that other person perceives, then the person can cull only accurate information, they can see consistencies, and then use those consistencies as a basis to form accurate conclusions.
down . . . up . . . titles
A Math System For Self-Evident To All, Social Calculations
Social Calculations
The real problem though, has been, that there has never been a calculating system for social affairs.
"Same Units" Calculating System
There has long been a calculating system for "same units" type calculations, arithmetic, allowing us to figure massively consistently, regarding 'same units' type calculations, which has allowed us to build huge technological structures.
"Different Types Of Units" Calculating System
But regarding social affairs, we must take into account "different types of things" for making calculations, and arithmetic can't take into account "vastly different types of things".
Arithmetic Works For "Same Units"
We know that we can get absolute accuracy, deriving from absolute consistency, when using "same units", because we have a proved, and self-evidently proved through all the ages, math system for that, namely simple arithmetic as commonly understood.
Three And Two Is Five Across All Cultures, For All Time
Three same units ( I I I ) plus two same units ( I I ) results in five same units ( I I I I I ). Same for everyone, over all the world, self-evidently proved, and absolutely consistent with both singular reality, and with how everyone's mind sees things.
For Social Matters, We Can Get Absolute, Self-Evident To All Accuracy, But We Can Not Use Just Arithmetic
But, regarding social matters, people can not now calculate absolute accuracy, even when we do have accurate information to work from, because there is, as yet, no publicly known, self-evidently proved, absolutely consistent system for accurately combining and calculating "vastly different types of things".
Just An Analogy Or Metaphor
Perhaps a metaphor and only a distant metaphor, please, that might help clarify this matter, might be something like 'you need one type of transportation to cross a strip of land, and another type of transportation to cross a strip of water".
Without Being Able To Find Consistency, Deception Rules
At any rate, while we have a commonly known, publicly known, calculating system for getting absolute consistency regarding "same units" types of things, the lack of a commonly known, publicly known calculating system for combining "vastly different types of things" makes consistency regarding social issues impossible, and therefore makes deception easy.
False Low Level Information Yields Bogus High Level Conclusions
Again, the lack of a commonly known system for accurately calculating social matters, leads people to the tragically inaccurate conclusion that there can be no real truth regarding social matters.
Arithmetic For "Same Units" Calculations;
It is not the case that there is no real, same for everyone, absolutely consistent truth regarding social and political affairs.
Attempting To Calculate, Without A Calculating System Makes Accurate Conclusions Impossible
Without such a calculating system, people come to the tragically inaccurate conclusion that there is no real, same for everyone, never changing truth regarding social matters, which has the effect of encouraging massive deception, exabberating manyfold the problem of finding accuracy regarding social and political matters.
Both Arithmetic And Logical Types Yield Accurate Conclusions, But In Different Realms
Logical Types ©nrm does for social and political matters, where you're combining "vastly different types of things", what arithmetic does for technical matters, where you're combining "same unit" types of things.
Of Analogies And Metaphors
Perhaps it would be helpful to mention some analogies between logical types and arithmetic.
The "Equals Sign" In Arithmetic And The "Sky Buckle" In Logical Types
One of the symbols commonly used in arithmetic is the 'equals sign' ( = ). Without it, there really is no arithmetic. You could say "three plus two", but without the equals sign, it wouldn't really mean anything.
The Sky Buckle
An analogy to arithmetic's equals sign, in logical types, is the sky buckle.
A Psychiatric Aside
This, as it turns out, is a big key as to why no one else was able to crack this system.
Returning To The Math Of It
At any rate, if you're trying to figure out human solutions within this bioecosystem, you don't fool around with the "geared for work out well for every person" sky buckle. It's nature's law, all nature, indeed, God's law, numero uno, so to speak.
Just A Little Bit Like A Jig-Saw Puzzle
With "Logical Types © nrm", solving social and political problems, getting accurate pictures of reality, is slightly analogous to putting together a large jig-saw puzzle - where all the pieces do indeed fit together consistently, "the more you know, the more you understand", and the big pictures come in very clear, and again, consistent.
Not "Believing", But Rather, Figuring Out
Figuring politics, becomes no longer a question of "believing" or "not believing" other people. With logical types, accuracies and inaccuracies become obvious, easy to check against all other information, just like the solution to 3 + 2 = 5 in simple arithmetic as we know it, is obvious, without believing or disbelieving anyone.
Mistaken High Level Framework
When you use a mistaken high level framework, such as "inevitable that things will work out poorly for some", then, because that does Not match nature's singular reality, then, you wind up mistakenly thinking that nothing regarding social and political issues is really, in the end, consistent, and therefore, mistakenly thinking that nothing is "really" true. Same for everyone, and constant for all time true.
Accurate High Level Framework
When you use the high level understanding that indeed, does match nature's singular reality, "geared for work out well for every person", then everything combs out, matches up.
Consistency, Cognition, Universal
You can check for consistency within your own cognitive mind, just like everyone else's cognitive mind. the way you can for 3 + 2 = 5.
Them Spooky Dukey Symbols, Gosh, It's So Complicated
Another analogy with arithmetic, is that both systems use symbols.
Placement
Yet another analogy with arithmetic is the matter of placement.
Everyone's a Curie, or an Einstein, Easy
It's amazing what people can keep in their mind, just automatically. In fact, everyone's an Einstein, in fact, quite a lot smarter than Einstein ever dreamed of.
Similar, But Different
The placement scheme is different from arithmetic. It's similar, in that there is a placement scheme, but it's different, in that it's a different placement scheme.
Based In Five-Senses Cognition
Yet another thing that's like arithmetic, is that both the arithmetic system and the logical types system are based on five-senses reality.
down . . . up . . . titles
God, Limits, And The Grand Unified Theory:
Bringing It Home
this section appended January 18th, 2003
The Limits Of The Logical Types System
Another aspect of "Logical Types © nrm" that can be compared with arithmetic is the matter of limits.
Zillions
In arithmetic, as regards how high numbers can go, there are essentially no practical limits. Numbers can go into the billions, into the quadrillions, into the skillions, with scores of digits, or even hundreds of digits.
Limits
Not so regarding calculations with logical types.
Time, Space, and Configuration
This paradigm is limited in time, in space, and in configuration.
Limits In Time
As regards time, it works only for life processes from four billion years ago to the near future.
The Hick
Before four billion years ago, and beyond the near future, I don't know if it would work or not, but I doubt it.
Healthy, Vital, Life, For Everyone, Life On This Planet, Is The Point
At any rate, this Logical Types System, and this Paradigm From California, is the paradigm of life; it is not the paradigm of the beyond.
Solving
Perhaps I should mention that when I use the term 'near future' it is with the presumption that this population will survive, which, I think, are the most likely and useful terms to think within.
Limits In Space.
In space too, this paradigm is limited to "from protons to Pluto", as I like to put it.
Teeny Teeny, and Huge Huge
So, I know that there are things going on below the size of a proton, and I certainly know that there are things that go on beyond Pluto, beyond this solar system.
The Hubble
And I think it's useful to know about them. I'm a big fan of NASA; I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
NOT 'Relativity', But Rather, Rock Solid Consistency and Certainty
I can't help but note that Einstein never liked his theory being called 'relativity', a low-level insult, and an anti-science mis-nomer if there ever was one, but instead, Einstein named it "The Theory of Invariance".
From Galileo To Nightingale
While Galileo figured out the constant, invariant properties of motion regarding things we can see everyday,
No more "relative" than anything else -
There is variation within those ideas, all over the place.
In fact, the great discovery, Einstein's or anyone else's, the discovery itself,
The Bullies Among The Bourgeoisie, As Always, Deliberately Maiming Science, Intelligence, People, And Planet Alike
While Einstein's "Theory Of Invariance" itself, the theory itself (as far as I can tell) is obviously entirely sound, the Name of the theory, "relativity", is nothing but a huge, anti-scientific psywar hoax against the intelligence and intellectual self-confidence of the population at large.
Albert and Mileva, Bringing It Home
In fact, Einstein tried to bring it home, right from the start. And thank you Mileva.
Seeing Things From Above, From Outside Is Helpful
At any rate, as regards the limits of the Logical Types © System - in space, it works from Protons to Pluto; that is the extent of this bioecosystem. For me, that's home, and those are the limits of this paradigm.
The Limits In Configuration
And, logical types is limited by configuration.
Strict Limits
So unlike arithmetic, which can go on, technically, forever, logical types is strictly limited,
The Famous "Grand Unified Theory"
It has occurred to me that this matter of limits, may have been the great problem with attempts to develop a "grand unified theory", or, "theory of everything" as it is popularly called.
God, Defined. Let Me Introduce You
After all, there are probably something like, say, 1,000 basic forces in the universe as we know it, and some 100 in the vicinity of this planet.
The Committee Of The 30 Basic Forces That Make Up Life, Out Of The Hundreds Present
So, of the 30 or so basic forces of physics that make up life as we know it, we can identify perhaps 15 at most.
The "Atheism vs. God" Hoax
The explanation here, as far as I can tell, is in absolute conformity with what is known in the formal 'hard' sciences, very much including mathematics, provable or disprovable by standard scientific reasoning, requiring no "just believe" ideas, and relying on ordinary, self-evident, same-for-everyone, five-senses, logic.
The Big Difference Between Science And Religion
The difference is that in science, the cognitive, rational, testable, five-senses, alert, critical, intelligent portion of one's brain is used to arrive at conclusions,
The Apocolyptic "God Hates People" Idea, As The Product Of Unmitigated Child Abuse
Some grown up child of an apocolyptic bully boy might not like it, a Repbulican, or whoever; 'investigating God' might feel like genuine terror to such a person,
In short,
Getting In Touch With Our Inner Nun
The point here is, that when the overall system is looked at scientifically, it becomes clear, even obvious, that this bioecosystem, over billions of years, evolved mechanisms for strengthening it's world, which necessarily means, strengthening all within it.
Einstein put aside the matter of a soupy ether, and identified the structure of physical space itself, the space that held the supposed ether.
It's crystalline, hard, cold science. Same for everyone, as self-evident to the most alert, critical, five-senses-based cognitive mind of any person.
Anyway, the core meaning of the religion statements, "God gave us brains", "so we could be helpful",
An Anthropomorphic Convenience
I should mention that I do find it difficult to picture in my mind 'a committee' of 'basic forces of physics', when I try to visualize "The Great Committee In The Sky".
Ancestor Worship, And The Original, Indigenous Gods
Modern westerners may call it "ancestor worship", or some sort of spooky 'spiritualism'.
Science Relies On Cognition, And NOT On Belief,
Anyway, no matter what metaphors you use, the scientific process I describe here, is Not religion, because the basic ideas of science,
A Word On The Numbers That I Use For How Many Basic Forces Of Physics There Are
I suppose it's important to emphasize, that the specific numbers I'm using here (I have no way of counting them) - 30 forces of physics in our system, or 100 in the area, or 1,000 in deep space, or whatever, hopefully obviously, are not meant as literal amounts, but rather are used to give a basic idea of proportion.
Everything Everything vs. Clear Limits
Anyway, if by "Theory of 'Everything'", they mean the 1,000 or so forces that make up the known universe (let alone the 10,000 in the far beyond), if that's what they mean, "a theory of Everything Everything", why, it's a little silly, and certainly not a very scientific idea.
The Theory Of Everything Everything
This is NOT "The Theory Of Everything Everything" paradigm. That's just silly.
Our Old Friend Albert
Of course, I cannot really say what Einstein himself would have thought, since he's been gone a long time,
end of January 18th, 2003 appendage
down . . . up . . . titles
The Return
Similar, But Different
But to return to the subject at hand.
So, Politics, Of Course, I Mean, It's Me Talking, So What Do You Expect . . .
Perhaps it would be well to mention something about the political significance of a public, intact, and in context awareness of the "Logical Types ©nrm" system.
down . . . up . . . titles
Attachment Judgment And Cognition Judgment:
First, The Work Of The Great Committee In The Sky, God's Work, Evolution
In evolutionary times, built in, over millions of years, all mammals, and in a certain sense, all organisms, had to know certain things, for guidance.
Fear And Safety
In earlier mammals, before humans, one of the main things you had to be aware of, was what to move towards, and what to move away from.
Danger, Results In Us Moving Towards Protection
In fact, when we sense the presence of danger, rather than move away from it, we tend to, first and foremost, move towards protection.
Security, Results In Us Exploring Outwards
And when we are in a secure situation, then we tend to explore outward from base. Very different from simply an attracting and repelling 'magnet'.
Only A Metaphor
I only use the 'magnet' analogy to convey a sense that there are forces that work between us and the world outside us, that are, analogous to the force of a magnet.
Something New
At any rate, in humans, an additional guidance system developed, in addition to the "anxiety/security" guidance system.
Affection, Communication, and Intelligence
In the evolution of humans, over the last three million years, there developed the ability to put together many different "points of view", many different "vantage points', many different ideas and emotions from many different people's experience, to put all that together and see nature's wonders from many different angles all at once.
Remember And Combine
This allowed people to comprehend "systems" for figuring out how to build warmth, controlled fire, how to build shelter, how to fashion clothes, how to ward off large carnivores without having to fight them, how to survive in all sorts of climates and terrains, with just present body structure. And how to remember, and combine, across generations, across hundreds of generations.
Grace, Music, Nutrition
Eventually, how to figure, and remember, by representing the world in artwork, dance, music, and, how to grow food, how to create (!) food, and all sorts of nutrition, and good health, how to live together, in large, vital, warm, loving groups, among many people. Secure, vital, advancing.
Understanding
"Brains", for understanding reality, far beyond an immediate "what to move towards and what to move away from".
Figuring Out What Is True, And What Is Helpful
We have the ability to figure out, to calculate, in our own minds, using our five-senses in combination with singular reality around us, to calculate what is true, singular reality true, far beyond merely what to immediately fear and avoid, and what to immediately want and move towards.
Each Person Has, Among Other Things, Two Different Judgment Systems In Their Mind
And it is a different judgment system entirely from the "anxiety/security judgment" system.
Attachment Judgment
Without getting into it here, I should mention that I generally refer to our "anxiety/security judgment" system as the "attachment judgment" system.
Attachment Judgment - Fear
He shows, that the normal, immediate human reaction to the presence of danger, is to "attach" to the most familiar, protective figure available.
Attachment Judgment - Security
When we feel securely attached to protective persons, and reasonably secure in that regard, we tend to feel like exploring outward, further and further from our secure base, and in fact, we can become very brave.
Politics
Although Bowlby never delved into it, the political implications are absolutely enormous.
down . . . up . . . titles
Hardball Politics
Hidden, Harmful Manipulations
The technique of, via hidden "back door" manipulations, creating horrible harm and terror, and then presenting oneself as the 'savior' protective figure, is the number one technique - as a social, as a professional, and as a grand political matter. It is the number one technique, by which bullies and fascists through all time, manage to achieve their false credibility, and their so very much hated power.
The "Fight Or Flight" Hoax
As it turns out the "fight or flight" hoax, so infamously portrayed in the world of psychology "teaching" as the normal reaction to fear, is one of the most insidious frauds in all American education.
Those Who Destroy, Tend To Be Quick-Witted, "Bang Bang"; Those Who Create, Tend To Be Slow-Witted, "Building", And "Figuring Out", Takes Time"
The right wing knows this so well; as usual, progressives are totally in the blue.
Frame-Ups
And in fact, again, for obvious reasons, the most helpful persons usually bear the brunt of the loudly proclaimed blame for the terror manipulations.
'Anxiety Judgment' Is 'Attachment Judgment'
At any rate, this matter of a very normal "attaching to protection", or "apparent protection", when faced with terror, is why I refer to the "anxiety/security system" of judgment, as "attachment judgment".
But, But, How Do You Tell, Who's Who, And What's What, Especially In Times of Terror???
It was in fact the Swiss psychologist, Jean Piaget, through whom I (and Bowlby as well) first thought of specifically identifying what I came to call "the cognition system of judgment", or "cognition judgment", which is an entirely different component of the human judgment system.
Two Different Judgment Systems, As Components Of Overall Judgment
Thus, among other things, we each have two different sorts of judgment system, in our mind, which together, along with other sorts of processes, make up our overall judgment system.
Using The Wrong System For Figuring Out
The great problem arises when we use our anxiety/security system to identify what is true, or what is helpful in the overall.
Using The Right System For The Right Purpose
When there is danger present, we certainly are supposed to pay attention to our "security/anxiety" judgment system, our "attachment judgment", to understand and know that danger is indeed present.
Cognition Judgment, As Different From Attachment Judgment
The problem we face in modern societies, is that people are constantly led to believe the mistaken notion that there is no such thing as "cognition judgment", as different from "attachment judgment", really.
down . . . up . . . titles
Grenada - 1983
An Example From Everyday World Affairs - Grenada, 1983
I remember that the example that we used in the original Paradigm volume, was from the then recent invasion of Grenada, a small Caribbean island nation, in 1983.
Old Glory To The Rescue
The students, of course, dove for cover, in shivering, traumatic terror.
EVEN THOUGH!!!
Even though in the actual circumstance - it was the Navy who bombed them in the first place - even though the actual circumstance was part of the public news story, STILL AND ALL, because it "felt right" to people to identify with these students, being so totally grateful for seeing The Marines and The Flag come racing up the hill, comatose viewers, just assumed that it was the Army that was the saviors and the Grenadans that were the savages.
How Come?
So. How come people fall for it? Even when all the required information for assessing the actual source of the danger, is directly in their face?
See, First They Throw A Rock Through Your Window, Via Vicious Technicians And Mindless Puppets, From Behind Your Back, And Then They Offer Themselves As Your Saviors, Out Front.
So, back in Grenada in '83, how come the part about the Navy bombing the school in the first place, seems disassociated, but the part about the marines and the flag saving everyone, is associated, and then, what naturally comes to mind, is the (non-existent) local savages creating all this terror, as attested to by the exhausted, and oh so genuine ("up close and personal"), such terribly genuine relief and gratitude, expressed by the Grenada medical students about being saved by that glorious flag? Sigh.
Well, You Know, Nothing "Really" Makes Sense Anyway. I Mean, They "Learn" This At Harvard!!! I Kid You Not!
Because people are encouraged to think that nothing, "really", in the end, makes sense anyway, people then think that the best you can do is to just "believe", the strongest apparent "ally" around.
Feels Good, Must Be Right; Feels Bad, Must Be Wrong. What Else Is There?
So, naturally, well, the only basic guidance they have, is "if it makes me feel safe, then it must be true and right", and "if it makes me feel scared, then it must be untrue and wrong".
The "Allies" View Of Accuracy, The Darling Of Academia And Media Everywhere
"Are they on my side?" "Oh." "Then it must be true".
The Cure. One Size Fits All
Obviously, the three-hour "Logical Types © nrm" talk mentioned at the top of the home page, is specifically designed to give people access to their cognition system, to allow them to assess matters, for overall, long term, through and through, consistency and accuracy, and helpfulness.
down . . . up . . . titles
Of Gangsters And Covert Operations:
The Good 'Ole, 'Rock-Through-The-Window/Demand-Protection-Money' Charade
What all this means politically, is that, the way things are now, with people having no access to their cognition, it works so well for those who think they must live, fundamentally, via harming and deceiving others, to simply arrange, via "back-door" manipulations, a traumatically terrifying operation, get the general public to identify with it, as fellow terror-ees, and then, the most powerful harmful, deceiving manipulators, are presented as the savior.
Of Gangsters And Covert Operations - Exactly The Same Dynamic; Just Different Wording
Hasn't anyone seen this movie? about a zillion times? When I was growing up, they replayed this theme on every gangster show, a thousand times a week. Was I really, the only one who saw it?
Da Plot, And I Don't Even Watch TV, But I Know Everyone's Seen This One
See, first they hire some darky - in the old days it was an unshaven, hunchback, shifty-eyed Italian stevedore type, probably one'a them darky anarchists - they hire 'em, sometimes putting a gun to their head if necessary, to throw a rock through the poor store-keeper's window, and pause just long enough for his sinister, slobbering profile, and them shifty-eyes, to be glimpsed by all, before scampering away.
"Believing In", Or Figuring Out
If the members of the general public are relying on a "believing in" regarding true or false, and are relying on a "believing in" regarding helpful or harmful, all based upon "security/anxiety judgment", "attachment judgment", well, then obviously, the most harmful and deceitful will prevail, every time.
Attachment Judgment Is For Knowing That Danger Is Present;
If, however, the general public is using their "attachment system" to indeed know that danger is present, yes,
Frame Ups, Of Joan, Bill, and A Billion Times In Between, Before, And Since. Frame-ups; The Main Stock In Trade Of The Deranged Ones
As long as "attachment judgment" for figuring truth prevails, then the most criminally sociopathic will prevail.
Straightforward, At Last
On the other hand, when cognition judgment, for figuring out accurate from inaccurate, and helpful and harmful, when cognition judgment prevails, then harmful manipulations are automatically, accurately exposed, via anyone's and everyone's cognitive process, from the first moment of their unfolding, making such operations, so counter-productive to the manipulator's purposes, that they just simply don't take place anymore.
Why The Bullies Win, As Things Now Stand
When "attachment judgment" prevails through a population, then the bullies, the most deceitful and harmful, will prevail, and the most helpful, anti-harming, and intelligent, will be destroyed.
The Bullies Dissolve, In The Clear Light Of Day
When "cognition judgment" prevails throughout a population, then the bullies will be exposed so rapidly and automatically, that they will cease to exist as a large-scale force, and the most helpful, anti-harming, and intelligent, will, again as an obvious to all matter, have the most general influence.
'Blueprints', 'Graph Paper', The Structure Of Intelligence, In From The Blue
Thus, the point of the three-hour talk, the point of it is, to give the general population access to their cognitive judgment.
The Big "Shock Events" In Politics
In fact, as it turns out, every traumatic shock event in politics for the past century as an example, was the specific, conscious, planned, operation of the highest level, most powerful bullies in the area.
From The Maine To The WTC
From the battleship Maine, blown up by American spies, presumably using Cuban front men, to the assassination of the Archduke, presumably arranged by the Hungarians using Serbian front men, to the Reichstag fire, obviously arranged by the Nazis using an allegedly communist front-man;
Assassinations
every single shock assassination, Patrice, Jack, Malcolm, Martin, Bobby, Jock, Walter, and the two or three dozen others of the era;
Bombings, Provocations, And Other Disasters
every shock event, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and later on, the Hungarian manipulation provoking the Soviet invasion ('56), U2 ('60), Tonkin ('64), the 'Czech Spring' manipulation, again provoking a Soviet invasion ('68), 'Iran Hostage' ('80), KAL007 ('83/'84), Kuwait invasion ('91/'92), the Simpson case ('93/'94), AA800 over the Long Island shore ('96), that Yemen Navy bombing ('00), the WTC/Pentagon mass murders ('01/'02); the 'Anthrax' scare ('01/'02), and whatever the Republicans and their allies, Israeli and otherwise, are going to put forth next, in this run-up to the big '02 elections,
Almost Without Exception
every single one - every big shock event, almost without exception, and perhaps without exception, is specifically planned, arranged, and implemented by the bullies among us, who operate at the highest levels of the biggest spy agencies of the area, which very much includes those very media agencies themselves, who are also ruled at the top, by sociopathic bullies.
The "Autonomous Event" Hoax
Shock events are always presented by the media as "just" this random, "lone", autonomous, event, until proven otherwise, while, in fact, they are fully aware that every last one of those politically significant, traumatic shock events, are, in fact, the specific, conscious, and deliberate plan of the most powerful spy agencies in the area.
The Simpson Murder
But . . . the Simpson killing? How?
He Never Woulda Dared
However, just as a theorist, it seems obvious to me that Simpson never would have dared such a thing, essentially, in effect, in broad daylight, that is under what he knew would be under the major, constant, media Klieg lights, if he had not had prior assurances.
'No Real Truth' Is Anti-Cognition, Attachment Judgment Propaganda, Republican Electoral Tactics
The right wing needed to blanket the TV watching public (the electorate) with "no real truth" (which means, directly, no cognition) in the year long run-up to the '94 elections, and I presume that Simpson was assured, that if he'd play his part, and play his cards just right, then the right-wing assured him that he would receive the most powerful legal, media, and juror's community support that the biggest of the big money and spy agency connections could arrange.
History And Theory
For me, historically speaking, as a theorist, it just seemed like, and seems like, the most obvious thing in the world.
Deliberately Arranged
Again, every big devastating shock event, almost without exception, and again, perhaps without exception, is specifically planned, arranged, and implemented by the highest level bullies among us, who, operating at the highest levels of the biggest spy agencies of the area, have arranged, and continue to arrange every single one.
Exceptions? Maybe.
I know of no exceptions. How about a hurricane? Or a volcano? Ok. There might be some traumatic, mass events, of a climatological nature, maybe, I Said Maybe, that really are, "just one of those things", so to speak. Maybe.
"Always . . . "
"Z" I think it was called. It was about the then current, violent and extremely ugly coup de etat in Greece.
What A Great Joke, Chuckle Chuckle . . .
Everyone took it as a great joke, "Always blame the CIA, even when you're wrong, you're right." Ha ha ha.
In Fact, The 95% Default Is, Political Trauma Shocks Are Arranged By The Highest Level Consortium Of Bullies
The fact that the bully-run media plays each event as though the default were, "well, just some weird, lone, autonomous, out-of-the-blue event", "life just must be, just basically evil" (it's so stupid!), the fact that the bully-run media plays each event that way, is obviously the most vicious terror operation of all.
Every Time!
Even though it is reasonable to investigate each specific case, to see if it is among the 95%, or whatever, even though, right from the start, indeed long before the start, every publisher, every broadcaster, every editor, every even slightly alert academic and administrator, every major financier, KNOWS, SPECIFICALLY KNOWS, that every such event is specifically arranged by the largest, and most powerful spy or secret police agencies in the area.
down . . . up . . . titles
Franklin Roosevelt, The Pacific Peoples, And Me
Pearl Harbor
It's ridiculous to imagine that the Japanese didn't know what happens when you smash down on a giant's toes, and then run behind a tree.
The Japanese/US Bourgeoisie/Military, Across All Nations, Hand In Glove
The Japanese military decided to traumatize the Japanese people with the sort of attack that would instantly put all Japan in terror, and attaching to their own, brave, biggest bullies, the Japanese military.
The Oval Office, In This Great, Attachment-Judgment-Based, 'Democracy' Of Ours
Franklin Roosevelt, of course, was also caught in the trap - he very much, and certainly very properly, wanted to join the war against the Nazis in Europe.
Europe Was Roosevelt's Primary Concern
I don't know for sure, one way or the other, but, let's just say, that Franklin was not real keen on engendering an apocalyptic, white man's race war in Asia.
Roosevelt Neither Wanted Nor Needed A 'Threat Of Exposure' Hoax Hanging Over Him
Let's just say that he was not real wild about the idea of pulling a major, extremely traumatic hoax on the American people, of catastrophic proportions, that would haunt him to his grave, and far beyond.
He Was Acutely Aware Of The Very Powerful, Home Nazis
Roosevelt was quite rightly worried about the US Nazis among the ruling class breathing down his neck, and worried about the future of all the protections for the working people of the United States that he'd built, with The New Deal.
His Own Health, And America's Health
I must presume he was worried about his own heath in the moment, and certainly, with Nazism on the triumphant march at the time, he must have had serious concerns about the future health of the American People.
Liberals, In A Reactionary/Attachment-Judgment World
It seems to me that that old American expression, 'caught between the devil, and the deep blue sea', does indeed apply in this case. In an almost archetype way.
The Big Spy Brokers For Finance Capital, Present Franklin Roosevelt With The Major Offer
Let's say, that the big US spies, the brokers for the bourgeois corporations, and the big banks, backed up by Churchill, offered him a deal;
My Best, Very Educated Guess
I presume that there was Not a literal conversation like this; and I presume that this is Not written in the style of a White House conversation.
I'm A Theorist, Not An Investigator
Perhaps I should mention, that I have no new low level information, nor any low level information that is not publicly known, of any kind, regarding the Pearl Harbor events. I haven't read anything about it in years, indeed, for the most part, in decades.
Proper Attribution For Significant New Pictures
Which means that any discussion of this material must be properly attributed to imaginenine.com - that's all; just those fifteen characters will suffice.
High Level Vacancy Necessitates High Level Deceit
And the .com part is important, as I presume that, if the site ever became well known, then the vacant ones would buy up every variation in the book, as a confusion tactic. After all, what else have they got; if they do that, then obviously, they have nothing, which is why I call them, 'the vacant ones'.
Singular Accuracy, Plus Logical Types, Plus The Sky Buckle, Plus Non-fiction Books - Voila, The Big Picture
At any rate, the low level information is old news; I work with what everyone already knows.
Another Kind Of Time
Like the work of all the best research theorists - Marx, Darwin, no doubt Joan, had she lived, Lavoisier, Nightingale, Bowlby, H. Clinton if she ever got the room, Einstein, Curie, Malcolm, and the all the rest - theory-oriented research - earth science or social science (in the end, the same thing) - is a process that takes time, and that takes place over time.
Of Stimulation, And Answers
What stimulated me to put this together, was a remark I read somewhere, almost a year ago, of someone saying something like, "well, you know, the WTC/Pentagon attacks were like Pearl Harbor. What can you do? You gotta make war on 'em."
The Oval Office Circa 1941
There's Franklin Delano Roosevelt, quite rightly, the most widely and deeply loved President of the United States in almost a century, sitting in The Oval Office.
His Focus Is On A Fair Deal For Ordinary People, Which Also Necessarily Means Defeating Fascism In The West
He's focused mainly on Europe, not Asia. Fundamentally, it's the Nazis that he wants to defeat.
But The US War Effort Wound Up