Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 3
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)


Military example expanded... 25 November 2000

Read this as you normally would. Then start over again, reading it a second time as would a military general. The general can read it only one way. It is the difference between the two that illuminates the knowledge you seek.

The military general's job is one of the easiest in society, and thus easy to mentally adopt for its perspective. In the US, his customers either pay his salary or go to prison and have their assets seized. His company has a monopoly in the nation, facing no competition for efficiency or effectiveness. His company will imprison any employee who disobey's his decisions, and force into servitude new employees if enough don't hire-on. His employees have no functional rights. His company will kill any international competition that challenges his company, and otherwise threaten them with nuclear bombs and the most powerful war machine in human history. His company murderously and randomly attacks, to create a constant state of intimidation and terror, even if the excuse is only a small country's choice of petty dictators in Vietnam or Somalia, a small island's airport improvement project on Grenada, among countless airports in the world, constituting each country's own business, or to catch just another petty drug dealer in Panama, among an inherently endless source of them, or to slaughter some innocent Christian women and children in their church at Waco Texas, who refused to facilitate the US President's political agenda.

Could you describe a more effective system to create human incompetence from a void of competition and from the replacement of thinking with terrorizing? The general's attempts to describe greater difficulty in his job reach only to the walls of his thus illuminated cocoon. In contrast, he who holds no form of force over other humans, must learn the vast diversity of the human mind's reactions, in a constantly advancing knowledge base, to acquire favorable responses to one's decisions. What therefore would you imagine is the reaction of the military personnel reading this, who suspect that they may indeed have cut themselves off from the objective and thus useful analysis of their process and decisions within their system?

The military chaps represent the institutionally induced process of killing competitors, as a substitute for using the mind to learn the knowledge of logic-based contradiction resolution process. At fleeting moments they recognize that particular process constitutes a flaw for a human mind, but even then cannot find the escape from their self-induced dilemma, since their institution is predicated on defending their Neanderthal process from any effective questioning. Once they foolishly joined the military institution, they functionally surrendered their right to question the institution. Asking questions is the avenue to advancing one's knowledge.

To kill or imprison your opponent is to prove that he is more intelligent than you, because your mind could not out-think his, and humans are predicated on their mind. If your opponent has already started shooting at you, to prove his ignorance and impatience, you might offer his decision as an adequate excuse for your use of force instead of thought. But if the bullets are not wandering past your ears or skittering on the rice paddy water at your feet, you have time to use your mind to out-think his self-defeating contradictions, if you first out-think your own. You would do well to write that sentence on the chalk board, and focus on the uncomfortable part. So how do military personnel use their time? Do they train their mind for advanced thinking, or how to kill the people who might think more than they? What is the description of their own contradiction?

Because the human phenomenon has heretofore functioned on the basis of military force to resolve difficult contradictions, the human phenomenon has heretofore never encountered the incentive to advance the human mind beyond the process of killing to resolve difficult contradictions. Incentive is everything for the human mind, in relation to achieving goals. The understanding of the detailed mechanism of incentive in the human mind, is one of the parts of the puzzle not accessible to institutional minds.

As so often said, kill a few people and you are a despised murderer. Kill thousands and you are a famous and respected conqueror. The process of killing opponents as a means to convey the resolution to a contradiction, constitutes the same void of intelligence, without regard to the numbers of people killed. That description of the phenomenon is not successfully denied. If the numbers are controlling for the definitions, the individual soldiers, each killing only a few people, are the repugnant murderers, not the conquerors, and thus foolish at best to be unthinking murderers to only create social respect for the leaders too cowardly to do their own murdering. The leaders are the promoted product of the unthinking murderers. It was individual United States Army soldiers who set the shaped-charge explosive and used similar weaponry to slaughter the innocent women and children trying to hide from the US Government attack on their church at Waco Texas, defining the perfidy of United States Army soldiers and officers void of excuse, while Clinton was praised by the mainstream news media and those who foolishly believe it, as was Napoleon for his murderous ego trips. No US Army soldier stood in public to denounce the use of the United States Army to repugnantly slaughter US citizens at Waco. To benefit from the institution, is to define oneself by its wrongs. The examples are legion throughout history, and will occur again, on schedule.

Therefore what defines the stark difference between contemptible murderers and praised conquerors, in the reaction of other human minds? What related knowledge is useful for the general, soldier and civilian? What can be learned from questioning the concept of these petty murderers swathed in their nationalistic flags and journalistic worship, void of rights and defending none, serving only the ego of small-minded leaders?

Examine the products of the liberal news media writers and television documentary producers, who privately tell you that war is evil and an unintelligent way to resolve contradictions. Yet their television productions, books and other public expressions, creations of their minds, display great respect and admiration for the people they elsewhere define as unintelligent and evil murderers. The military generals are rightfully laughing. Those anti-military and anti-killing liberals mouthing rhetorical opposition to war, consistently praise the great military leaders, teaching the public the glory and social reward of evil and murdering. The generals are merely striving for that which is most openly admired and rewarded in the accounts of history, written by as many liberals as conservatives. These words are not new. So why does the phenomenon exist? Your answer is in error, and the proof surrounds you. You did not sufficiently question your answer.

This example illuminates the military. Police are a closely related example. But the controlling concept remains immutable throughout the institutional spectrum, extending to the most anti-military institutions, with those institution personnel reacting to their own identified contradictions identically as the military generals react to this example. You will recognize why the conservatives will not read these words, but did you recognize why the substance of the previous sentence was evaded in the minds of liberals? To derive benefit, you must read this once as a person who thinks beyond the concept of killing your opponent, and once as the military chap thinking that killing rather than thinking is the zenith of the human mind's competitive process, and then compare your perceptions, and then ask the resulting questions.

The military is an institution. After large wars were concluded, for example WWII, Korean War, and the Viet Nam War, the military reduced its size. Hold that thought for awhile. What unnoticed actions occur during any event?

The military functions on the concept of bashing the other guy over the head, using one's muscles and the tools designed for muscles, to kill him, because the involved government personnel simply do not hold the knowledge of how to resolve the involved contradictions within the design of the human mind, that is, reasoning. They are likewise too impatient to learn any other knowledge, despite the process requiring vastly less time and money than any war or force-based process. The ignorance of the government officials is obvious. If the mechanism of killing the other guy were the controlling process for the human design, to resolve contradictions, humans would not need the unique brain they hold, and the resulting series of contradictions is illuminated, down to the last remaining human having therefore conveyed his wisdom to his only remaining competition. Even the size of the planet would not save the human species using such a process to replace thinking, if you will note the distances humans travel to kill the other guy. Nor would any organization save him, if you will note the consistent manifestation of dissidents in every organization, and what creates them as a result of the previous dissidents being defeated or prevailing. The existence of humans after the test of time with both concepts at play, proves that the prevailing design of humans is predicated on their mind, not their muscle. And thus military personnel represent the flaw, amusingly by their own willful choice.

That thinking societies belatedly made military generals subordinate to civilian government leaders, achieved scant benefit and left humans still stagnated in the intellectual dark ages, because society did not ask the next resulting questions to identify how the human mind, rather than society, distinguished between the process of force and the process of reasoning. Society thought that giving the civilian president the position of commander-in-chief of the military, controls the military. Did you think there was no corollary within the electro-chemical process of the human mind? Do the decisions of the human mind's process not create new data receptors, and what do those new data receptors make available for the next data? The military does not control the president. The military title of commander-in-chief effected the military functioning of an already power-damaged mind unable to reason through contradictions. The military did not tell the president that it needed some killing-practice so it was sending the US Army Delta Force to Waco to slaughter children. The institutional perceptions of their minds control them each. It was the US president and US Army soldiers who willfully, knowingly, intentionally and each without even the most rudimentary question, slaughtered those innocent, harmless children at Waco, and then praised themselves, with the news media institution parroting the praise, for a reason they prior created in their mind's process, and cut themselves off from effective self-question. The phenomenon will continue until you learn its line-item mechanism in any human mind applied to the institutional process. Your mind learns by devising and asking questions.

The human mind is competitive, by design of electro-magnetic energy in an enclosed system. What process accommodates competition within the human mind itself?

But wait, the military generals hold minds inherently equal to their government superiors. The soldiers hold the same design of mind, as do the anti-war activists. The human brain is of a functionally singular design, then merely synthesizing different knowledge among different people. Social circumstance decides whether the brain of a child learns to become a military general, an anti-war activist, or a person laughing at both, and they sometimes even become each other at different times. The brain is the same. The data-base is different. If the poor sad government chaps can't figure out how to resolve contradictions with their mind, why can't the generals figure it out, for the benefit of the people, including the families of the generals? Did the generals want to raise their daughters into a world of war, or peace? I did not mention their sons because the answer would often be different. Or might the colonels, captains, sergeants or privates, each with the same design of human minds, belatedly decide to figure out something so basic to the human mind as how to resolve contradictions in a manner other than killing people to thus destroy productive human minds?

Notice that the warm bodies come and go, in great profusion and diversity, each mouthing admirable words that you and I wholeheartedly endorse, cycling through all the offices and positions of power. Yet the killing, maiming and imprisoning, as a mechanism to convey what is sincerely perceived as logic by the minds of the leaders, remain constant. Are you therefore not revealed as foolish if you are looking for an honest person to fill any leadership position? Are you not proven by the consistent results to be looking for a person who is either dishonest to begin with or desiring to become dishonest? The controlling concept is obviously not the persons. It is the institution. You can learn such concepts, to therefore resolve their contradictions. You need only ask questions.

Remember that reduction in military size after each war? What are the consequences of any process within an institution?

First consider that every contradiction holds a flawlessly logical resolution, by design. To identify the fundamental contradiction is to identify the ultimate resolution if one first learns the process of logic in the human mind. One can use one's mind to identify the resolution and thus promptly effect it at this time, for having therefore resolved each subservient contradiction you suggest, to thus gain the advantages of moving on with more beneficial knowledge. Or one can use one's muscles to bash their way through every first idea until they eventually reach the only remaining resolution that would have been easier and less costly figured out with the mind in the first place. Military personnel use the bashing process, and for fear of reaching the embarrassment of the concluding resolution, they invent yet more destructive process to use and reap its consequences. To suggest that they should invent better reasoning process for their minds is to arrange words that find no receptors in their minds. The conclusion they eventually reach with their legalized murdering is of no value because the inherent human retaliation for their murderous process leaves them in the defensive position of their first victims, perpetuating the process from the results of their society being taught by the news media and school teachers to glorify the institutional process of killing people to resolve contradictions.

What if the president scheduled a war, and the news journalists did not stop asking, why, after the first rhetorical excuse? What is the root cause in a human mind, to decide to kill your opponent whom you were too lazy to out-think? If you are a soldier eager for the next exciting war, don't worry, the news journalists will never ask, why, more than once. They will be too busy rushing to the office to quote the excuse, to sell the words to the public which will never ask why the journalists asked why only once. No one, especially the soldier, police, lawyer and news journalist, is ever taught how to ask effective questions, or the student would quickly learn more than the instructor, and thus embarrass the instructor who fancied himself as an instructor.

The military was originally invented by people who were simply ignorant of more efficient or effective knowledge, and too impatient with the thinking process to discover that knowledge. They had an excuse. They were dolts who were doing well to find a new cave each time the last one filled up with gnawed woolly mammoth bones. Recognizing little difference between the woolly mammoths and their human colleagues in the next village, they chose to bash their way to each goal. That process is a bit inefficient, but an option available to humans and other animals with little command of their mind. Upon being invented as the military institution, and rewarded for being what they were, even if they had to seize the rewards and fabricate their own public praise, the same ignorant people in military leadership positions, still too impatient to use their mind instead of sticks and stones, then used their sticks and stones to attack anyone who threatened the institution itself with a more efficient process, such as the primary threat to the use of force, that is, the threat of thinking. Thinking and military action are mutually exclusive concepts. Force and logic are incompatible. Upon what concept is the human mind designed, and thus ultimately prevailing?

"Be all you can be. Join the Army." Not one person in the entire American government, military, information media and other institutional systems propagating that current advertising jingle for the Army, holds the intelligence and courage to publicly ridicule such an unmitigated, categorical insult to the human mind and every religion's God. If all you can be is a device to kill the person who more effectively uses his mind to question your government leader's conclusions, you have sunk to the nadir of the animal kingdom and military generals. In fact, the vast majority of the animal kingdom is not nearly so intellectually incapacitated as to kill their colleagues within the species for simple inability to otherwise communicate with them. But other people have said those same words throughout history, to exhaustion. What demarcates an advancement beyond such manifest military ignorance? Is such ignorance not obvious to everyone, including even some military personnel upon seeing or hearing the words accurately describing the illogical nature of killing rather than out-thinking your opponent? The demarcation is not where you suspect, or the military would not still exist.

The fact that many of these military chaps are otherwise completely successful, productive and amiable sorts in society, negates no concept for which they are herein only the learning vehicle representing the mind's institutional process. The resolution to that perceived contradiction is not that these concepts are in error. The next sentence is complex but accurate. The resolution is identified in the identity of the decision-making arenas of their mind, and those of every other institutional mind, altered in what manner, by their institution. If you needed a person to resolve a complex contradiction or achieve the currently impossible, would you hire a person who practiced facing enemies with his mind alone, to out-think the enemy, or one who practiced facing enemies with superior weaponry, leaving his thinking process without a job, and on the military dole? And which of the two would you rather be, in a competitive society advancing on the ability of human minds? That which is not yet achieved defines a lack of adequate thinking. To achieve it, would you seek guns and money, or the process of optimized thinking? That military chaps use some of their time to learn superlative social and economic skills further illuminates their individual mind's universal design, and thus their greater intellectual paucity for using peace-time to train with more effective guns rather than their mind's more effective contradiction resolution skills. Does not the word, "enemy", define a contradiction, to him as well? How would you choose to resolve a contradiction, especially while your enemy was foolishly wasting his mind on weapons process? Given the choice of one tool for an unknown task, would you choose a human mind, or a gun? Laugh at how many military personnel would choose the gun while their mind is confused by your laughter.

It is one thing for the military personnel to desire, adulate and encourage killing, to be all they are told their mind can be. The military jingles are infused into their mind by many military processes. But what causes the minds of non military personnel, even those who are anti-war, to institutionally adulate and honor those who institutionally murder humans as a substitute for thinking? Your answer is not correct, and the correct answer holds the resolution of the contradiction. But the correct answer is a complex block of knowledge, not a sentence, and the institutional mind looks only for the sentence, by design. Institutions can only exist by denying the existence of the institutionally objective knowledge which creates questions of the controlling flaw of the institutional concept.

George Washington and lot couldn't even figure out how to out-think the inbred British royalty never known for much beyond scandals. The king's unthinking royal military negated the royalty's incentive to use their minds. George W and boys used their guns instead of their minds to achieve their goal. He and his still foolishly worshiped military ilk therefore also couldn't figure out that equality under written law could not exist if those Indians, women and Blacks were humans and the government of his design therefore negated the meaning of words they used for law. The same void of reasoning within the military institution, where soldiers without rights are told they are killing people to protect people's rights, was inherently used to design of the new American government, wherein the references to the word, "rights" was meaningless in form and substance. It does not matter how long the US Government lasts. It was doomed the day the constitution was adopted while women, Blacks and Indians proved that it never functioned on the concept of written law or immutable meanings of words, from the get-go. The country was predicated on a controlling contradiction rather than its resolution. The words of the constitution do not hold their meanings. The meanings are whatever someone who got a government job says the new meanings are, with the backing of armed police and military who are equally clueless as to the meanings of the words, and too spineless to ask any questions, but will kill on order. If you do not start right, you cannot end right. There is no fix of an original flaw except at the conceptual origin. And it was military sorts who created the fatal flaw of rule by government guns in this nation, since they were too ignorant to question their contradictions.

Amusingly, the reasoning-based process to have created the independent United States of America, without war, was already immutably entrenched in British law from which the King had no escape, if it had been utilized. He could have been given the choice of surrendering jurisdiction over the colonies, or surrendering his crown by an attempt to replace the United Kingdom's law with the rule of military force. The proof is most intriguing.

If the liberal public television channel personnel, including women who learned as little as men, adulate military heroes in TV documentaries, and the liberals support that channel because they state that it balances the propaganda of the conservative commercial channels which adulate the military heroes, what is the result to the curious young chap wading his way into the knowledge of life, watching TV? That young chap became the military generals, politicians, judges and every other pigeon hole in the government and news media.

What is the result of the liberals in government and all institutions, who rhetorically denounce the conservatives, and vice versa, but who then support the institution above their own expressed wisdom, for having never questioned their institution sufficiently to discover any process based on the human mind's reasoning ability? Many teenagers can accurately answer that question, but then the number of people who can accurately answer it rapidly diminishes with their age, to the point of zero for every person who views the question from the perspective of any of the many institutional concepts at play in their mind. Might your most entrenched beliefs, otherwise quite accurate among the elements your mind emphasizes, hold a fundamental flaw that is defeating your efforts? Why, again, do YOUR governments create a dependence upon Neanderthal mentality militaries, instead of contradiction resolution-related knowledge? Your answer is in error, and the accurate answer answers many other questions. It relates to the process of every human mind, including yours.

What happens to the process of the young human mind when it hears ten statements from diverse social sources that the use of force achieved greatness for the leaders, and one statement that the use of force produced the contradictions that the great leaders still don't know how to resolve by reasoning because the leaders only practiced the use of force? Write your answer, for the inordinately valuable knowledge you will only then discover. If you do not write it, more than once, or the equivalent action to create a receptor for the data, you won't learn it, despite your flattery of your intellectual prowess. It must create automatic recall for subsequent synthesis with diverse other data, including the questions that disprove it. What happens to the process of the young human mind when it is rewarded for repeating the words of the adult, and discouraged when it discovers a question that confuses the adult mind which previously learned that the use of force is the process to resolve contradictions? How would you correct an institutionally entrenched contradiction within a human mind?

If you could give a young mind only one statement to guide his or her life, would it be: Believe and do what you are told., or, Question absolutely everything you are told., which would you offer? Notice the ease of your obvious answer, and then notice the anguish of the military general's mind as he flees the question in abject fear and cowardliness. How does the human mind learn new knowledge? Why are military personnel so embarrassing in common conversation? What event describes when military personnel start learning again? Did you want your child to learn new knowledge in an inherently advancing world, or be stuck with the Neanderthal belief that she should kill anyone who pursues a new idea not approved by yesterday's moribund old white males impressed with their military medals, to include the women who praise them? What answer will the soldier give his children?

The process of thinking, is the process of the mind asking and answering questions. The most valuable and knowledge-advancing questions are those which create discomfort for the mind, such as anxiety, irritation, boredom, embarrassment, anger, tedium, or any concept normally avoided. The questions creating the most valuable knowledge, create the most abject anguish in the human mind. Take it on. After you first learn the mechanisms of perceptions in the human mind, you cannot be hurt by your perceptions. They are inside your mind, and it is designed to resolve the most anguishing contradictions. The knowledge you have yet to discover, is found where you have not yet looked. Why you have not yet looked there is a separate issue, but that you have not yet done so defines your current lack of knowledge. Look there. Retain that concept for a moment.

Is not the mind a device designed to discover the yet unknown? Was it not the advancement of knowledge that facilitates what you currently enjoy in life? Would you trade your lifestyle for a cave lit at night by wood smoke, to avoid the tedious process of learning what led humans to a better life? That which created the knowledge of pollution-spewing jet airliners, for their benefits you enjoy, will create the knowledge of pollution-free electro-magnetic flying platforms, but only at the rate humans more wisely utilize the human mind time currently consumed with training more thousands of people to kill and imprison each other. Would it not be knowledge which accelerated that rate, the questioning and answering process, by removing the current dependence on the process of killing and imprisoning each other as the means to resolve contradictions? How would YOU learn that knowledge?

When the military reduced in size after each war, who was retained in the military, and who was not? First the people who could think enough to recognize that the military offered only the knowledge of more effective destruction and killing, a dead-end pursuit for the astonishing design and value of a human mind, were quick to shag out of the military, joining those who figured it out soon enough to not join the military. The individual can quit the institution, and the wise ones do so the moment they recognize the controlling contradiction of the institution. No salary or benefits can hold them even another day, because wisdom cannot be bought. In contrast, ignorance flocks to money and ego badges. But the institution will retain enough humans who are so fearful of asking questions (learning new knowledge) that they will never recognize the institution's controlling contradiction or the astonishing value of their own mind.

But more importantly for the military institution, its own selection process among those who would otherwise stay, immediately weeded out those who exercised any degree of thinking. Everyone inside and outside the military knows what happens to the subordinate enlisted person or officer who questions his superior's decisions, even once, rather than says, yes sir, regardless of the manifest illogicality of the decisions. The human mind's decision to kill another human for no individually manifested and imperative reason is so contrary to the mind's logic process, that a military utilizing any spectrum of originally normal human minds from the general population pool, must devise a system of institutionally creating ignorance to create such a phenomenon. While inherent on a daily basis in the military, where mindless obedience is rewarded and thinking is punished, at the conclusion of wars the process is so wholesale that it illuminates an obvious example. The least thinking of the least thinking are retained in the military, and anyone who ever noticeably displayed thinking (the process of asking and answering questions) even once, is thrown out, among the enlisted and officer ranks alike. The demarcation is so blatant and obvious, that it further defines the verifiable ignorance of those who stay after watching the process. Only a military institution could display that zenith of the concept. If you haven't watched the process first hand, you have missed one of the more amusing antics of institutional humans.

The military generals are the zenith of a process categorically designed to promote the least thinking of the least thinking in society. And their system of institutional self-propagandizing causes their mind to sincerely think they are highly intelligent leaders respected by society. If you doubt their horribly flawed self-perception, turn to society's overwhelming, institutional adulation of the greatness of military leaders throughout human history, and know why those same astonishingly ignorant generals can rightfully laugh at the society which most rewards the zenith of human ignorance. If the military generals thought any word in this section was an insult, their error is proven by their comparison to the institution of society. And thus they retain the greatest potential to most efficiently become the designers of a quantum advancement of human society, by acquisition of the least new knowledge.

The phenomenon of exponentially rewarded ignorance is common among institutions, and superficially described as the ignorant leaders defending themselves from more actively thinking competitors in subordinate positions, in a competition for more rapid promotions (ego ranks, salary, preferable assignments and all). The more muscular wolf will do the same to the more clever but less muscular wolf in a wolf pack, and the muscular wolf's colleagues will not object, for fear of the fang. While the military example is so blatant that even children can recognize it, the far greater amusement is found in the analysis illuminating the same mechanism at play in think tanks, or research institutes, of all things.

The concept does not apply to private enterprise business where thinking is rewarded above power, because the test is an impartial measurement, money, voluntarily applied by highly diverse and independent minds (customers) under no system of human-imposed force, and responding to qualifiable stimuli. The human phenomenon advances, albeit painfully slow, because private enterprise (individual thinking) prevails, by design of the human mind, and by necessity, despite the anchors of military, government and other power-based institutions. When power-based institutions belatedly collapse in abject ridicule and embarrassment, leaving the process of the human mind unstagnated by people who think killing and imprisoning each other is the highest achievement of the human mind, the schools will define the intellectual dark ages by the existence of militaries.

The military constitutes the chaps who have had drummed into their mind that they are the best and the toughest of the world, simply by their being warm bodies within the institution pounding the aforementioned rhetorical drum. Most of their time is occupied within and close to their institution, mutually reinforcing the mantra that they are the best and toughest in the world. They sincerely believe their propaganda, as members of every institution believe their institutional propaganda, or they would not be members. They also sincerely and genuinely believe that their rank or position in the pecking-order not predicated on thinking process, somehow defines their decisions as superior to those of their subordinates. Their minds sincerely hold the same institutional conceptions as the highly credentialed cartographers of high rank in great institutional positions who ridiculed Christopher Columbus. What do titles and rank produce?

For perspective, consider that military personnel routinely do poorly in open competition with pot smoking civilians in extreme outdoor adventure races requiring physical stamina, outdoor skills and strategy thinking. In response, the military institution leaders make all manner of amusing excuses, and more loudly shout their mantra of being the best and toughest, to the new recruits who are therefore fooled, until the individual soldiers ask the questions that drive them out of the military. There are no excuses in open competition. Any contradiction identified in open competition, is that which the mind can resolve. The sustainable resolution is that which creates new knowledge and ability, rather than restricts either.

The military mind is the product of their conceptually inbred institution, like all institutional members, including scientists, rather than the product of diverse data subjected to open and competitive thinking. Try to take new knowledge to a scientific institute, from outside their institution, and even the military appears comparatively brilliant. Advanced knowledge is derived from synthesizing diverse data, not the same old institutional dogma. Because humans are predicated on their mind, the ultimate advantage goes to the person, institution, society and nation seeking advanced knowledge rather than how to more efficiently kill or imprison their competitors. In the case of non-military institutions, the selection of only a few different words retaining their full meaning reveals the same contradiction.

The military is the most obvious learning vehicle and zenith of the concept of institutionally created and defended ignorance, but therein it holds a profound advantage for the game of wisdom. While many individuals have won the game of wisdom, no institution or its personnel have come close. The game therein is still at play. Even military personnel are rarely so ignorant as to deny their counter-productive concept when it is bluntly described in front of common-sense people. Did you want to kill your opponent, to be left with one less human mind who could assist you in your next inherently existent problem? Did you want to hold him under fear of you, thus creating his hatred for you, and thus his plotting to defeat you when you most need assistance? Did you want to hold him in prison, where you expend your resources to keep him there? Or did you want to make your opponent into an ally available to help you and your other friends? Which requires thinking? In contrast to the obvious nature of the military, the same phenomenon at play within every power-based institution, verifiably including schools of higher education, think tanks and scientific institutions, is more obscured under high-sounding rhetorical illusions, and thus the contradiction is not so readily recognized.

The prerequisite to resolving a contradiction is to recognize it. Therein, the military generals hold the greatest potential to quite suddenly think their way to the process for promptly achieving world peace, or other great goals. But how many of them, behind their institutional fortress walls saturated with praise for their greatness, actually encounter the expression of their blatant contradiction, anywhere it is presented, and then read this far in any such presentation, and then be curious rather than angered by the honest statement of their institutionally created magnitude of ignorance? Do you read the material of your institutions, or of your perceived opponents? Calculate the source and volume of each. If you read ten institutionally comfortable statements biased for one side, and one uncomfortable statement biased for the other, which trains your mind? How do minds organize data? Will your mind longer identify a statement, or your answer to a question? How many military personnel would answer even the questions in this section, to say nothing of certain questions designed for effectiveness? Egotists avoid the knowledge of ego, or they would have abandoned ego to instead pursue knowledge. Institution leaders do not read what effectively criticizes them. To acquire their position they trained their mind to evade questions, by institutional imperative, or the institution would have denied them their position long before they reached it.

Effectively question the controlling contradiction of think tanks, to thus create advanced knowledge most useful to think tanks, and watch how the institution of think tanks therefore responds, and laugh yourself to tears. Find and verify a flaw in your military commander's training program, to thus identify your superior military knowledge, and laugh yourself out the door.

Had the mechanism of the process, within the design of the human mind, not included the balance to every advantage or disadvantage, humans would have already made a quantum advancement, and no longer be killing and imprisoning each other as their governmental process to resolve contradictions. The balance blocking every institutional mind from the knowledge it seeks, consists of a labyrinth of seemingly minor contradictions, but all predicated on a controlling contradiction within the human mind. One can attempt to overcome each of the many lesser contradictions, such as convincing military personnel to consider an uncomfortable analysis of their institutional flaws, and then successfully suggesting they answer uncomfortable questions, and many more such parts of a larger puzzle. Or one can instead ask enough questions to learn the controlling contradiction, to either effect the thus obvious result, or be amused by the game it identifies, and move on to the next greater intrigue.

Yet despite the humor of suggesting that those who kill to resolve contradictions, instead use reasoning to resolve contradictions, the most effective potential within the therefore identified contradiction, still advantages the military generals, by design, much to the anguish of the anti-military organization leaders who could promptly achieve their goal if they could question their own institution. How could the world peace organization leaders possibly hold a flaw, since they espouse world peace? Why have they not achieved world peace? Seek the real answer, the one that the minds of the world peace organization leaders defend against the questioning which could discover it, while the military minds remain equally clueless because the same type question would destroy their own illusions.

Each person holds the same brain design. We just know different things, from decisions defining our interests and pursuit of said things. But each person can start thinking into new arenas of knowledge any time. One need simply start asking questions of different arenas of knowledge, most productively, the questions one prior most feared. The diversity of data one needs for advanced knowledge, inherently includes knowledge of something so universal to humans as such illogical hatred that one seeks to kill the other guy rather than simply ask the questions that resolve the differences regardless of the location of the human mind. Interjecting a related aside, the government negotiators for peace negotiations and every other type of inter-governmental negotiation, are as useless as the military for sustained resolutions to contradictions. Their institutional contradictions, which they are too fearful to question, only their most obvious being their underlying threat of military action, fatally flaw any sustainable resolution, as so obvious by their results. The military experience is not necessary to understanding its concept since one can instead ask many questions in that common arena of knowledge to learn of it, but those are the questions rarely recognized by people without the experience-base to question. The hunter knows more to question about hunting, than the anti-hunter. The person outside the concept can learn as much from questions, but that person must ask many more tedious questions to do so. And the questions of greatest value will always be those the mind avoids. Of course one is wiser to start asking such questions long before one reaches the age bracket of generals, but always better late than never.

Now consider what you would learn if you set out to leverage the advantage of a significant experience base in any one arena of knowledge, by effectively questioning rather than routinely supporting every concept within the arena. We have not found the limit of what the human mind can learn. In fact the process to offer a military general or group of them, or lesser ranking personnel, no escape from becoming history's greatest social leaders and designers of concluding world peace, has been discovered. Its existence was inherent to the design of the human mind, wherein the seemingly most complex problems inherently hold discoverable solutions, and become child's play as time passes and more intriguing contradictions are revealed. Of course not one of the military sorts can currently recognize the process, for lack of their courage to question their obviously flawed institutional dogmas.

But yet another concept is always at play. At the zenith of every concept will be a second element. There are no one sided coins. To figure out the puzzle is to lose incentive for something so boring as to manifest it, after such intrigue in figuring it out. The next greater intrigue is revealed by figuring out the puzzle. Were that not the case, those who do things would never make mistakes, because they would have prior figured out the puzzle of their actions. The person getting things done is the person still learning the process, by design of curiosity in the human mind. The person who is successful at doing something you perceive, is seemingly successful because his mind is pursuing something beyond what you perceive, unless that is not the case and his real success has already started to wane in comparison to those who are questioning what he has done. It is too easy to achieve world peace by methodology of reasoning process, especially with any country's military generals who would therefore replace the position of respect held for all prior great leaders combined.

The invitation for you to suggest the opportunity to any military generals, is the challenge that if accepted, would teach you the parts of the puzzle identifying why they do not hold the courage, intelligence or incentive to recognize the opportunity. World peace is less important than the knowledge you would therein derive, since it could lead you to the knowledge of how to achieve world peace, and so very much more. Your mind is predicated on the acquisition of knowledge.


The technology inherently exists... 28 November 2000

The process to promptly solve highly complex or seemingly impossible social problems, inherently exists, by design of the human mind. Even a fact so simple as that, is difficult for many people to recognize, because the accurately used words, "complex" and "seemingly impossible", separate them from the recognition that all systems are only a series of more basic systems. Before they read the following words, they did not take the moment or so to recognize that the ability to use written language, as a concept, was of complexity beyond human recognition for the thousands of years before written language was invented. It had been too complex, or seemingly impossible. Now it is easy. In fact now one can learn multiple languages with different sounds and written symbol arrangements to convey the same concepts. If I held the incentive, I could promptly learn Spanish again, or Swedish, especially with a good instructor, while at the moment, Spanish is too complex for my current data base to understand. Describe the process of driving an automobile, to a person living before automobiles were invented. What is complex, and what is easy?

Achieving the impossible is just a process, easily learned. Learning is just the asking and answering of questions, and one can sit on their butt the whole time.

When a computer geek tells me how easy a computer program is, I laugh at him. It is not easy, for a person who has not yet learned the program and the foundation for such programs. But when I can corner one of those slippery computer geeks, and slow him down, and when necessary, ask the questions that turn his original sentences into word arrangements that my mind recognizes from earlier data filed under my word arrangements, his analysis that the program is easy, becomes accurate.

It is easy to promptly achieve your seemingly impossible, institutional goals. It is just an inherently existent process. You need only arrange each item of related data into a sentence structure that is recognized as what you already know, and what you therefore learn from combining the sentences, because each data point is separately verified and the conclusion is verified with what you already know or can readily ascertain from independent sources of data. That is done with the process of asking questions. If you are an institution leader, watch what happens when you start questioning the fundamental process of your leadership colleagues. Because they are already in an institution successfully perpetuating itself, they have no incentive to answer your questions related to the rhetorical excuse for your institution's existence. Holding the same institutional leadership status, that is why your mind does not start the uncomfortable process of learning new knowledge. That is what you must overcome if you want to fulfill your original leadership responsibilities. You need not do that as long as you are satisfied with your current material success based on fooling other people and yourself, and as long as your followers remain fooled. Lifetimes can be lived in material comfort under that process. But there are other processes at play which routinely bring that level of intellectual stagnation to a sudden end, or you and everyone else would be living in a cave, under the illusion of material comfort, and the concepts of curiosity and boredom with stagnation would not exist. That you likewise evade answering the more effective questions of your followers, reveals your current comfort with stagnation, but concurrently, their curiosity, and their discomfort with stagnation. And their inherently equal minds are not within your control. In fact, you evade even your own mind's curiosity-based questions of controlling contradictions, by the design of the institutional affects on your mind. Until you learn how and why your mind evades the questions that others ask, and even your own when they surface, you have no hope of facing those questions, and answering them. To learn such knowledge is to learn how to promptly achieve your goals, before someone else will inherently do so at a sudden point in time.

When faced with contradictions, such as being told that elusive goals pursued for decades, are easily achieved, it is common for human minds to become incredulous, frustrated or angered, and then react on said emotion, rather than curiosity. The mechanism of the emotion cuts those chaps off from the more useful mechanism of curiosity. That process is part of the human mind's design.

The human mind was designed to resolve complex contradictions, as any analysis reveals, to include the obvious advancement of common knowledge into arenas of prior perceived complexity. As problems increase in complexity, the mind applies a process of grouping individual items of data into generalized concepts, and then dealing with those concepts. As that process advances into greater complexity, a point is reached where new concepts must be separately designed to handle already complex concept groups in a manner other than mere grouping. The words, new technology, describe the process, among others, of extracting the controlling concepts, from each concept grouping, verified as such against all existing questions, to work with controlling concepts rather than common conclusions from groupings of data. The description serves also to identify further new concepts, such as the institutional mind's inherent inability to recognize the controlling contradiction of its own institution, or the institution could not exist with a perpetually unachieved conclusion. The resolution of that particular contradiction requires data points of such number, diversity and distance from the institution, that one must have already learned from the other concepts, how to efficiently deal with controlling concepts.

After you tediously ask all the related questions your mind creates, the process to efficiently achieve institutional goals becomes easy. Until then, the total life efforts of countless more people, including yours if you are within an institution striving for a goal, will be wasted pursuing the knowledge that can be easily learned by anyone in a week or so. When the technology becomes common knowledge, school children will marvel at how many millennia spoken language existed before humans figured out how to use it to easily extract themselves from all the contradictions they alone created with nothing more than spoken language. Our era will be called the intellectual dark ages, when humans feared to use the tool of language to ask the most basic questions of their institutional processes, to thus solve the problems.


Too many words... 30 November 2000

The human mind's impatience for words, and aversion to repetition, is part of the puzzle. How many times, and by how many slightly different arrangements of words would a political conservative have to hear that it is humanly impossible to successfully get something for nothing, before that conservative would learn how the concept applies, and its related mechanisms? A conservative is incensed that he is used for the question, rather than the political liberal who so obviously violates the referenced concept. It is the conservatives who incessantly tell the liberals that they cannot get something for nothing. But what is the net result of violating a verified concept obviously or not obviously?

Every time the conservatives vote for a political candidate, to get an honest person in governmental or institutional office, they are trying to get something for nothing, and sincerely cannot recognize the contradiction they create. When one learns the mechanism, one can accurately apply the concept of voting for candidates, to achieve its applicable result, and concurrently know how to get an honest person into the involved office. Until the difference is learned by process of asking and answering questions, enduring all the slightly different arrangements of words to thus illuminate the mechanism of that subtle difference, the people who vote in elections to get honest candidates into office are creating a controlling contradiction whose results will leave them voting in futility the rest of their life, for a government or institution which is therefore dishonest.

It is perspective to note one of the common comments of political insiders and activists who flatter themselves with their claimed knowledge about the process. They privately acknowledge that all the candidates are verifiably corrupt, and routinely state about their favorite candidate; "He may be a liar, but he is our liar." By itself, outside the context of focusing on the contradiction thus created, the statement seems to answer the question about the corruption of a candidate, for those who train their mind to deal with statements rather than questions. But you cannot resolve a contradiction with another contradiction, and be left without a contradiction that must be resolved if you expect to achieve the original or sustainable goal. No human lies only to the other guy, by design of the human mind's process for attempting to sustain contradictions. You cannot get something for nothing, such as the product of a lie for the value of the words alone. That is just one of the applications of a controlling concept the conservatives do not comprehend, quite like the liberals. And you may be assured that a conservative political activist will never read all these words, yet alone ask the questions to create understanding in his mind.

Because the related knowledge cannot be learned by ignoring the greater number of words, specifically without the yet more words involved in your mind's related questions and answers, and cannot be transferred without them, the object, if you wish to achieve a goal other than learning more knowledge, is to learn the readily available process to use your knowledge as a tool rather than for conversation or education. That process requires a few more words, primarily your mind's questions.


How we are fooled... 30 November 2000

Notice how many people use the phrase, "serve your country". Notice that military and government people say they are proud to serve their country, and often tell other people they should serve their country.

What are they saying? What are they doing? Which is prevailing for one's results? Which is prevailing in one's mind? What are the results of the difference itself? What is the mechanism of the difference?

What are you serving? What is your country? Can you answer the questions in a manner that demonstrates that you know your language and how to use your mind?

Your country is a geographically defined or politically defined piece of land. Your country is terra firma, land, soil, rock and water. Farmers serve their country. They spend a lot of their time manicuring the ground, and therefore their country serves them, by facilitating the growth of the farmer's crops.

Soldiers and other government people do not serve their country. Because they fool themselves with a word that does not mean what their mind is thinking about, they train their mind to use words not referencing their actions. They thus train their mind to make illogical decisions, that is, making conclusions from inherently incorrect data, thus creating an expanding array of problems.

When you serve your country by the definition in the minds of government leaders, you are serving those government leaders. You are servants to petty egotists with government jobs, and your master even has you fooled into paying him for the privilege of serving him. The government leaders are the beneficiaries of the efforts of the people serving what they call their country. Government leaders get uneasy when the true nature of their common rhetorical ruses are openly discussed with words that hold their meaning. They have built self-serving systems dependent upon fooling the people with rhetorical ruses. But government leaders are merely the common people who stumbled into government jobs, and often leave those positions at some point in their life. Their mind sincerely believes their own rhetorical ruses, including all the ones that are damaging them, causing problems for them, defining them as ignorant among the common people, even among their more perceptive children. Their mind cannot distinguish between the fabricated contradictions that may materially benefit them, and the many more contradictions that ultimately cost them more than they would choose to pay if they could recognize the process to make logical decisions.

He who thinks he has the people fooled, is more greatly fooled. You hear your own words more often than others hear your words. You train your mind by the words you use.

Upon facing these words, US military personnel commonly defend their military status by saying that they are therefore serving the US Constitution. That is how easy they fool themselves. If they were serving the constitution, they would commonly say they are serving the constitution. They do not say that. They say they are serving their country. You train your mind by the words you use. They have unalterably trained their mind to believe a ruse, and thus believe an array of such ruses. If they commonly said they were serving the constitution, after awhile they might therefore read the constitution, then look at the common actions of the government, and thus recognize they are serving a lie. The government leaders need not worry. You can show these words to military people, and the next time they reference the concept, they will say they are serving their country. There is a reason that military personnel in every country will continue to serve a lie, never recognize the meaning of the words they parrot, and get mad at you if you show them their error with their own ability to understand the words of their own language. They trained their mind to be a robot's brain, rather than a thinking human's mind, and therefore cannot exceed the ability of the least intelligent human commanding them. And their commanders came from the pool of referenced military personnel. The government personnel are secure in the people serving them and paying them, thus stagnating the lives of the government personnel in the intellectual dark ages, still needlessly suffering what ails and confuses them. There is a reason humans strive to fool themselves into damaging themselves. Military personnel are only an example. All people in every institution react the same way to thought processes defined by words.

If you think that the government people are gaining the benefits from the people they fool, consider their reaction if you ask them, in front of their family, what they are therefore leaving as the society in which their children must be a part, either foolish people being rhetorically tricked into serving dishonest government personnel, or a dishonest government person living on defrauding the people. At that point the government person will respond with words openly proving that his or her mind is unequivocally fooled by the same concept, verbally tap dancing away from the question as though the question could not exist. Their sentences will introduce a series of data that they then consistently contradict in their conclusions. The material benefits of the ruse, derived by the government person, often envied and despised by many citizens, were derived at the cost of the vastly greater utility of the government person's mind. They literally cannot even understand grade school level logic and meanings of words. Their mind is stagnated in an embarrassingly vacant intellectual world so self-contradicted that they cannot reach even the meaning of the words they use. If they could recognize the difference, and the value of their mind, they would immediately flee what they are doing. They can't.

Two questions: What could you achieve if you trained your mind in how to extract your mind from the results of such common ruses? If you hold a government position, what could you achieve if you could train your mind in how to extract your mind from the results of such common ruses? The choice is yours. Approximately zero of the people who read this will make the choice to so train their mind to therefore efficiently achieve astonishing results, for a reason in the reaction of human minds toward questions of their most entrenched contradictions, much to the amusement of observers.


Overlapping contradictions... 1 December 2000

The following paragraphs are of such repetitious and boring nature, seemingly expressing the same concept, that people will read them hastily, if at all. The goal of the following expression is small and obscure, certain to not be noticed from hasty reading. The accurate conclusion of the paragraphs just describes a controlling concept. The current institutional ignorance of that concept describes why the vast bulk of all institutional human energy is currently expended only for the purpose of illuminating the involved contradiction so that people can eventually recognize it, learn to understand it, and thus learn how to resolve that controlling contradiction. Therefore that entire effort can be replaced by recognizing the following word arrangements, their synthesis, and utilizing the knowledge. Because the words of this paragraph hold their full meaning, the value of reading the following slowly and thoughtfully, is described in a profoundly substantively manner. Of course only you can create value in words. If you fail to recognize it, to your mind it does not exist.

Every person reading these words recognizes that the US Republican Party does not tell the public certain things contradicting the Party positions.

Every person reading these words recognizes that the US Democratic Party does not tell the public certain things contradicting the Party positions.

Every person reading these words recognizes that the police do not tell the public certain things contradicting police policies.

Every person reading these words recognizes that the environmentalists do not tell the public certain things contradicting the environmentalist positions.

Every person reading these words recognizes that the liberals do not tell the public certain things contradicting the liberal positions.

Every person reading these words recognizes that the conservatives do not tell the public certain things contradicting the conservative positions.

Every person reading these words recognizes that university professors do not tell the public certain things contradicting the positions of professors.

If you are reading hastily, did you recognize the magnitude of the words, every person, repeated to emphasize that meaning?

Every person reading these words recognizes that the communists do not tell the public certain things contradicting the communist positions.

Every person reading these words recognizes that the capitalists do not tell the public certain things contradicting the capitalist positions.

Every person reading these words recognizes that the socialists do not tell the public certain things contradicting the socialist positions.

Every person reading these words recognizes that the mountain climbers do not tell the public certain things contradicting the common stories of the mountain climbers. There I was, mind you, and it was desperate indeed, albeit as usual. It was in the dark of night, in the dead of winter, in the heart of the Alaska Range, huddled in a hastily dug snow cave lost somewhere in the middle of the glacier, trapped amid gaping crevasses plunging to icy black depths. The mountains towered above and the storm raged with untold fury. Exposed flesh freezes in seconds you know. To this very day I am not sure that I survived. I will omit mention of the caviar, cognac, entirely too much fine Callebaut Belgium chocolate and such repast, as we lounged in our hastily dug three room snow cave, warm and glittering bright from candle light reflecting off every snow crystal, while the aforementioned storm indeed raged as such outside. The desperation came from the fear that the storm might stop and we would hold no excuse for not pressing on with such foolishness. The path ahead was fraught with peril, albeit as usual.

Every person reading these words recognizes that court judges do not tell the public certain things contradicting the positions of court judges.

Every person reading these words recognizes that lawyers do not tell the public certain things contradicting the positions of lawyers.

Every person need not read these words to immediately recognize each of these cases upon any such reference creating their mind's such recognition.

And if you think that is obvious, consider what women don't tell the public about their subculture.

What might women therefore mention about men?

Every person reading these words recognizes that news media journalists do not tell the public certain things contradicting the positions of news media journalists.

Every person reading these words recognizes that the organizations criticizing the news media do not tell the public certain things contradicting the positions of those news media critics.

Add every category of humans, to the above expression of that concept.

Did you therefore actually describe the concept referenced above, and then describe its extent among humans, or just skim the words to achieve no value in knowledge?

Did you therefore conclude that to learn the whole story about anything, one must get half their data from outside the institution offering the story, just for the first chance of finding it?

But how many people, might you suspect, recognized from the above its synthesis, or combination, and then that there is one contradiction left unrevealed by everyone considering the concept? After combining all the referenced issues, and all that can be added, what is left not told to the public by every institution in sum? Where do all the concepts overlap without even one identified category of humans able to say what is therein not told to the public? The overlap must exist, by proof in currently unsolved social problems surrounded by every conceivable institution openly claiming that their process can solve the problems. Obviously no grand conspiracy devised by all humans to keep all humans fooled, can be at play. With no prejudice that could possibly transcend every issue and its associated institution, among humans, that which is left not told could only be what all the people in all those referenced institutions do not know. Concurrently, it must be knowable by definition of it consistently contradicting known positions.

Would that not be the most valuable knowledge for all the institutions, governments and other organizations?

To learn the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, is to learn that which every person functioning within the thought pattern of any institution, does not learn. The organizational manifestations of human fundamentals are therefore a controlling concept, and one cannot learn it from within an institution, by definition verified in the human mind's process.

Imagine the denial, confusion and anguish that immutable concept causes the poor chaps in think tanks. Every other institution seemingly criticized by myself or actually criticized by anyone else, holds the unassailable ability to laugh at the poor chaps in think tanks who therefore cannot think enough to identify their own controlling contradiction. That is, every other institution, except one. Consider the fine folks in Mensa, the international high IQ club. In fact, part of the verification of the technology was to ascertain that the fine folks in that admirable institution claiming the greatest thinking ability of humans, cannot identify their own controlling contradiction. That certainly leaves every person or institution criticized by any other person, with a comparatively unassailable excuse for their decisions and actions. Even the think tanks can laugh that the Mensa chaps cannot identify their otherwise readily identifiable institutional contradiction.

And therefore again, with humor of that magnitude, if you are not laughing at what institutional chaps are afraid to tell the public about their decisions and actions, you are missing the human show. Only when you start openly laughing at your own institution, you can start the process of learning how to promptly achieve what yet frustrates it.


The most prestigious international award... 4 December 2000

The controlling flaw of institutional leaders describes their potential. If there were no contradiction in the actions of institutional leaders, there would be no potential, which is to say, they would have achieved their goals and be enjoying the results. Because the same people would still exist, the new potential would be in the new challenges they pursued with their thus advanced knowledge, more greatly benefiting their followers. That the minds of the institution leaders adamantly refuse to recognize their controlling flaw, denying the existence of such a concept, identifies why they will die of old age before they recognize the astonishing value of their minds. They could have already achieved their espousals if they had recognized the controlling contradiction blocking their mind's access to the process. The existence of the institutional flaw was inherent within the design of the human mind, or all the answers would have already been found, and the dimension of time would be understood. But that flaw can be learned and corrected by any individual, by design of the human mind, at each individual's choice, or our particular species would not have survived. The accurate description of that finely tuned balance is most intriguing.

Some of the great inventions and technological advancements have been achieved because a person or organization offered a cash prize or prestigious award for the first person to achieve a seemingly impossible goal. Such awards are rarely offered because they first require an entity of sufficient wealth or prestige to offer a reward commensurate with the goal, and then require that the offering entity surrender any institutional ego to the diversity of human minds outside all institutions. Every institution will deny the following, but an analysis proves its existence. Institutional leaders despise and fear individual minds functioning outside the cocoon of institutions. For an outsider to bring forward the knowledge for which the institution and its institutional colleagues advertised themselves as being the experts, is not tolerable to institutions. They dare not admit or facilitate the proof that untitled persons can prevail where the minds of titled persons fail, lest the flaw of titles and credentials is exposed. Institutions cannot exist without titles and credentials, for lack of simple knowledge.

Therein, for the few times such rewards are offered, it is often by wealthy individuals, sometimes functioning through an institution which could not gain the advantage of administering the reward without surrendering to its related stipulations. Even then, an analysis will show that the institution will disadvantage the individual who holds the knowledge, to advantage a fellow institutional sort with less knowledge, easily covered-up by the institutional process of the news media. Does the news media obtain issued-based news from individuals holding the related knowledge, or from titled people? From that proven process, with time, especially after the originator of such a reward dies, the institution will then even attack the individual who attempts to achieve the goal, so the institution can perpetuate its institutional process dependent upon the goal not being achieved. For amusing perspective, notice the Nobel peace award. Therein the flaw of an individual offering such a reward through an institution, or doing anything through an institution, is illuminated. But that is only an accusation, requiring the reader to expend much time to research and verify the phenomenon. There is an easier proof.

Of course the private enterprise system constitutes the genuine process and incentive to achieve the seemingly impossible. Within the free market, he who proves the success of his idea gains the rewards of money, ego, good feeling or any other reward associated with the achievement. The free market, that is, the judgment of value by you and other equal humans under no force, is the most impartial judge available to humans. That concept is in harmony with the human mind's design. But that concept is not the issue of this section. Herein another concept is used to illuminate a flaw of institutional leaders.

There is no end of examples to use as instructional vehicles. The issues referenced for the examples herein, are not important. Only perceptive readers, those who ask questions, can recognize in these examples the concept represented in sum. Access to understanding the represented concept, among the minds of many individuals and all institution leaders, will be blocked by their reaction to the issues themselves, rather than the concept for which the examples are only the learning vehicles.

Consider some currently popular issues, representing opposing sides, and something universal. Remember throughout, that these are just examples as learning vehicles for a different concept. On one side of the fence, the conservatives, represented in this case by gun owners, are obviously losing their rights, and want to get their rights back. They feel that a person who does not use a gun to harm people should not be damaged by the increasing number of laws that restrict and cause expenses for their non-harmful actions. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and similar organizations represent those chaps.

On the other side of the fence, the liberals, represented in this case by hemp smokers, are routinely being shuffled off to prison for actions that do not harm anyone any more than smoking cigars, drinking wine, eating chocolate, eating fatty hamburger and bacon, climbing mountains and countless other legal pleasures. They think that adult citizens own their own bodies, that the government does not own each citizen's body, that the government therefore holds no lawful authority to dictate each person's management of their own body, and that hemp smokers should get their rights back. The Drug Policy Foundation (DPF) and similar organizations represent those chaps.

On both sides of the fence, nearly everyone in the world, with the exception of those most successful in the military institutions (career chaps), wants world peace, so they can enjoy life without fear of war and without having to squander vast human energy (tax money) on an institution designed only to facilitate war, slaughtering, maiming, testosterone-fed bravado in the face of death for sport, destroying humans and what they create. Did you want your tax money to better your life, or to kill a few more people to create news media orchestrated popularity ratings for your president otherwise caught in a sex scandal? Nearly every country has a gaggle of organizations striving for world peace, including all the government leaders consistently claiming that they are working for world peace.

Remember, the concept at issue, for the advancement of your knowledge, is outside the gun, drug and peace examples. The concept as issue is what the exampled institution leaders each do not do to achieve their espoused goals. That the gun, drug and peace organization leaders have categorically failed their espousals, is obvious. Gun owners are overtly losing their rights as new gun restriction laws continue to proliferate. Hemp smokers so increasingly crowd the prisons that the walls are starting to crack. And on average there are 17 shooting wars in progress around the world every year, to this very day, since war was invented as the second most popular hobby of humans, while all the institution leaders cry, peace, peace.

One can readily derive reward, great and small, from growing potatoes, making computers, or inventing a better mouse trap. One can even make a small fortune from inventing and marketing pet rocks, organic foo-foo-smelling soap, or buying the domain name www.beauty.com just a few years ago when it was only $35. What would you pay for www.defendrights.com, or achievegoal.com? It is a bit more difficult to derive a private enterprise living from regaining individual rights or achieving world peace. People will expend their wealth and life for the battle to defend rights, achieve peace and such concepts, but not a dime for the actual achievement of the espoused goals, within the private enterprise process. What would you do with the knowledge of how to actually achieve those goals, when other incentives, such as greater intrigues, enticed your time?

So would it not be logical for the multi-million dollar, gun, drug and peace organization leaders (and any institutions), if their espousals were truthful instead of lies, to offer an open reward for the process to verifiably achieve their goals? Would that not gain access to the greatest potential of human minds available in the world? Would that not be the most effective method to actually achieve difficult goals not readily incorporated into the private enterprise system? Would that not match the concept of institutional leadership process functioning within a species predicated on thinking? Would that not create actual incentive where there is now only rhetorical incentive?

Are those institutional leaders not otherwise failing at great annual cost to their followers, simply for lack of knowledge on how to achieve their goals, despite all their lame excuses? Your answer?

If they offered such a reward, the institution leaders could then sit back and merely evaluate the intellectual potential of the whole world competing for the reward. The institutional leaders would not be confined to the obvious absence of related knowledge inside their own failing cocoon. The leaders would acquire an array of profoundly valuable knowledge even from the proposals that could not verify the success of their process. For the reward, anti-gunners would reveal their secrets to the pro-gunners, if they held any secrets of usefulness to achieve a goal (they do not). The anti-drug sorts would reveal their secrets to the pro-drug sorts, if they held any secrets of usefulness to achieve a goal (they do not). Military generals would flock to the peace organizations with what they flatter themselves as their great, analytical minds, for the very goal they so consistently espouse; peace (they hold no such minds).

Of course no one in the institutions could claim any such reward. Not one of them can demonstrate espoused goal achievement in their institutional processes. They are each charlatans of such admirable quality they have themselves and their foolish followers convinced of their expertise, beyond their question, with the latter being the explanation. The anti-gun sorts can't stop gun crime and gun possession even in countries where guns are banned, to say nothing of the routine use of other tools for that human trait still popular for lack of education in relation to its controlling contradiction, revealing concurrent ignorance in every education institution leader. The anti-drug chaps can't stop the massive flow and use of drugs even in countries where drug crime is a capital offense, for lack of education in relation to the related controlling contradiction, again revealing the aforementioned ignorance of the institutional educators. A quick review of the actions of the poor military chaps invokes either the zenith of pity, or uncontrollable laughter, because those poor sad chaps learned what they know from people who think the zenith of intellectual potential is to more efficiently kill other minds. Their existence proves their unmitigated failure. If you must maintain a standing military, you did not win the previous war. If the solution to a problem is not sustainable within the design of the human mind, and thus without the constant threat of killing the other guy, it was not a solution, and instead only a substituted contradiction.

The controlling criteria to claim such a reward for achieving a difficult goal is the verification of the offered process, and no institutional mind can recognize the concept to offer such a process, while it inherently exists and thus can be verified against every question when the genuine product is offered. To recognize the process, to offer it, requires the ability to ask effective questions, an attribute of the individual mind, verifiably absent in the institutional mind. Such a skill can easily leave institutional minds with the proof of the process, to their satisfaction, by asking and answering the questions the institutional chaps had prior feared to ask, and evaded. The institution leaders would learn the inherently existent knowledge they prior missed. It will only be individual minds who know and could come forward with the knowledge of how to achieve currently impossible goals, by design of the human mind.

Considering their annual budget, the National Rifle Association could easily offer a fifty million dollar reward for the process to actually achieve their primary goal, and thus return NRA to being a shooters club rather than a political sink-hole. Additionally, if what NRA says is true, the taxpayers would therefore save billions of dollars better spent on advancing public education. Likewise, the liberals could easily offer the same reward to achieve their goal for the drug issue. Additionally, if what they say is true, the taxpayers would therefore save billions of dollars better spent on advancing public education. And the peace organizations could offer a vastly greater reward by merely telling their government leaders to put up the money or publicly prove their existing preference for war. If what the peace organization chaps say is true, the taxpayers around the world would therefore save trillions of dollars better spent on advancing public education. And inherently energetic military personnel could get more rewarding jobs exponentially advancing the human phenomenon in newly available arenas of knowledge.

The examples are immaterial. Others could have been used. Note that the exampled organizations, and others, will not offer such a reward that gains access to the intellectual capacity of the world, to learn how to achieve their espoused goals. The institutional leaders fear knowledge, and fear the achievement of their goals. Their minds literally cannot comprehend the existence of a world outside their warm little day-to-day institutional cocoon where their minds perpetually fight the demons only their minds create, safe from any outside competition. They cannot currently recognize any greater value for the use of their woefully failing minds. But they still hold the choice to do so.

The corollary to not offering open rewards designed to attract advanced knowledge from the human population pool, is that the institution leaders therefore do not create for themselves any incentive to consider knowledge more advanced than produced inside their failing little cocoon. Incentive is everything to the human mind, for goal achievement. With it, things happen. Without it, things do not happen.

Now consider what is at play for the concept itself, of institutionally rewarding the process to manifest currently impossible goals.

When a person has advanced a concept beyond everyone else's initial recognition, such as a process to achieve what is commonly perceived as impossible, the concept must be manifested by said person, or it waits for its next chance. If other people cannot initially understand the concept's explanation, and hold no incentive to patiently learn such advanced knowledge, their access to the understanding is only in the inescapable manifestation of the concept, thus learning from the result. That is inherent to the process of the human mind, explained elsewhere.

The concept's next chance for manifestation will certainly occur, at shorter intervals until it is manifested, for an easily identified reason explained elsewhere. Given an objective view of the human phenomenon at its origin, in relation to each person who started thinking about each concept, when would you have predicted that humans would discover that the earth was round, that the South Pole would be reached by humans, that humans would land on the moon, and return, that the human genome would be mapped, that humans live for 500 years, that war and bashing each other over the head become amusing relics of history, that frequent flier mileage is available on trips to other galaxies, with a double mileage bonus in the off-season?

How long do you want to wait for the manifestation of your desires? What incentive will you offer for the knowledge of how to produce them today?

Considering the number of things each person can pursue with his time, precisely who, under precisely what incentive, is pursuing the goals of your greatest desire? If you named persons in institutions purportedly pursuing those goals, you are as self-deluded as they. Many humans commit suicide, as is their choice, completely within the control of an individual mind. If an institution actually achieves its defined goal, it leaves itself without its excuse to exist, thus committing suicide. While that is a choice of individual minds, every institution will refuse to do because there are other people in the institution who crave the institutional leadership positions (power) more than the achievement of the espoused goal, by design of the concept of power in the human mind, despite their denials at reading these words. And those people are the ones doing the actual work to insure the referenced goals are never achieved. You do not command your own mind until you can answer every question any mind can devise, without creating a contradiction, encompassing each part of the human mind's puzzle. Until then you are subject to the mind's controlling concepts, such as the incentive of power over reason in a mind lacking the referenced knowledge.

Concurrently, as one advances a highly advanced concept in their mind, it is certain that other people are aware of the same concept, but of such progressively fewer number in proportion to said advancement, that they hold progressively less chance of encountering each other to reinforce the process or the competition to achieve it. At one point in the advancement of the concept toward its perfection or maximum utility, it is inherent that only one person would theoretically recognize the concept, but in practice, several people will still understand it, by different arrangements of words, by design of the human phenomenon, explained elsewhere. The knowledge of how to promptly achieve seemingly impossible goals, with world peace just an example, has long been known, with no incentive to utilize such rudimentary knowledge. How often do you do what is so easy that you find it too boring to do, while others find it intriguing because they have not yet learned that block of knowledge?

Concurrently, not contradicting the above, and a part of it, to manifest such advanced concepts requires the efforts of two people or entities working independently or on separate parts of the concept as manifested, and no more than two entities for the sooner manifestation, for reason explained elsewhere. There are no one sided coins in any concept.

If one synthesizes the above, they will hold a piece of the puzzle, necessary in itself to understand the whole.

Why, the reason sustainable against every question, does not every institution openly offer a reward worth all or a major part of their annual gross income, for the process to completely and efficiently achieve their espoused goal to their prior defined satisfaction? Because the process exists in each case, by definition of the human phenomenon in relation to its ability to conceptualize goals, the controlling contradiction of institution leaders, that is, their imperative to never achieve their espoused goals, is therefore revealed to even the least astute readers, while yet beyond the understanding of institutional minds even when faced with these words.

The first institution leaders to recognize the existence of goal achievement process outside the highly self-flattering credentials of their institution, will become the first genuine leaders within institutions, in human history.


What we now know they didn't know... 5 December 2000

How many examples does your mind need before you recognize the concept in sum, represented by the examples? It must be many more than you will suggest upon being asked the question.

I was informed of yet another TV documentary, this time in which the question was raised as to why the fine folks in Germany were so technologically advanced in the 1930's and 40's, and a bit interested in the war stuff, but did not develop the atomic bomb, while Americans developed that bomb, despite their being still asleep on Pearl Harbor day. The documentary apparently was created because certain old US military records were recently declassified, revealing yet another example of a typical government keeping knowledge hidden and thus its society intellectually stagnated.

As an aside, private enterprise gets knowledge out into society, in the form of products and services that therefore advance the human phenomenon, facilitating the creation of yet newer ideas improving the available ideas. In contrast, people with government jobs, using public tax money to do so, inherently hide knowledge, even from each other, out of their entrenched fear of everyone and everything, to thus stagnate themselves and their society in ignorance, and thus the intellectual dark ages. Wise humans recognize fellow humans as their allies. Government people think that all other people are their enemies, explaining the intellectual and social stagnation government creates wherever it goes, as well as explaining what sort of minds are attracted to government jobs.

In this case, as I was told with what may be a cursory and imprecise explanation, the documentary mentioned German scientists, both in Germany and those who escaped just before that Adolf character corralled all the politically correct scientists and killed all the Jewish scientists. The referenced scientists were shown in the declassified records to be more knowledgeable about nuclear physics than were their American colleagues at that time. The difference in results was that the German scientists focused on the parts of the nuclear power puzzle as theories in physics. They sincerely thought it was all just theory or philosophy, and did not recognize their discovery as parts of a puzzle that held immediate utility in verifiable process. They did not fully recognize at that time in their life that theory and philosophy are the hard bricks of knowledge used to build tangible stuff. It was an entirely separate concept, requiring different knowledge, to synthesize the theories to create a useful tool. Upon hearing that the US had dropped a successful nuclear bomb on Japan, several of the otherwise highly knowledgeable German nuclear physicists did not believe that it was a nuclear device, because they simply had not extended their knowledge from the parts of the puzzle to the whole of the puzzle. They just didn't ask more questions of their mind because their mind has not prior asked basic questions about the hard mechanical utility within what is otherwise described as philosophy and theory.

Putting the parts of that puzzle together has impressed a lot of people, many of whom are still in awe at so much power released from such a small basket of ingredients.

Extract from the example, the utility of its concept.

There are those who understand the parts of any puzzle, oblivious to the whole of the puzzle, and those who understand the whole of a puzzle, oblivious to the parts they yet need to understand to manifest the whole, and those who can synthesize the two and any other concepts, but lack the understanding of each, and those very rare few who can understand the parts, the whole, and the synthesis process. It is inherent to the human design that the latter know only that sliver of knowledge for only one type of puzzle, and hold a equal measure of inabilities where others are routinely successful. No one is smarter than anyone else. We just know different things. There are only 24 hours per day. Within that limitation, we each learn some of those different things, not all things.

Why would you suggest, from the above, that it takes two people or entities to manifest a concept, but with more difficulties as more minds are applied, their inherent complexity colliding more often than synthesizing the specific data missing in each mind?

If you think nuclear energy is impressive, how might you describe the potential of the knowledge of how to promptly resolve any human contradiction to promptly achieve an array of grand goals heretofore thought impossible?

As prior mentioned, this web site was preceded by a unique process of writing hundreds of letters, with word arrangements similar to what you are reading, but including more questions, directed to certain entities. The recipients of those letters commonly mentioned that the letters offered just a bunch of useless philosophy and theory void of anything useful for the goals of those entities. You may imagine my laughter. Like the German scientists who could not understand how to synthesize the parts of the nuclear power puzzle they held, unable to conceive any useful purpose for their theories and philosophy, in many cases the entities receiving those letters were given, gratis, the parts of the puzzle they needed to promptly achieve their goals for which they continue to spend tens of millions of dollars annually, and more, in highly laughable frustration. They hold the knowledge to solve the problems of which they publicly complain, but don't hold the separate knowledge of how to put it together in their mind, and willfully refuse to seek the latter even when it is openly offered to them. The commonality was their institutional positions among varied institutions, while individuals who were genuinely interested were consistently able to manifest useful results from the so called theories and philosophies properly arranged for certain of their needs.

The controlling contradiction of the institutional chaps is their inability and refusal to ask questions, for having never been taught how to ask questions, and their institutional belief that their great titles and credentials preclude any absence of such simple knowledge as how to ask effective questions. The word, wisdom, defines the ability to ask effective questions, and wisdom is a only a conclusion of the other guy, never a title or credential.

World peace and any lesser goals are too easy. There are much greater intrigues of the human phenomenon's functioning.

Odd lot these humans, but of grand entertainment, by design, wouldn't you agree?


Tomorrow's government knowledge, today... 5 December 2000

Consider a simple example of knowledge and time.

For this example, one cubic inch represents all the knowledge held by your government back in the year 1900. Two cubic inches represents all the knowledge held by your government in the year 2000. The difference is in time and volume of knowledge. The mind creates new knowledge by asking and answering questions.

If in 1900 the Russian government knew the knowledge held by the US Government in year 2000, the Russian government would still be sending advisers to assist the US government, currently for the process of counting election votes.

Had the Russian government in 1900 set out to easily learn 100 years of governmental knowledge, hiring independent thinkers, paid with part of its military budget or leadership luxury budget, the Russian government would have promptly learned the referenced knowledge, and Czar Nicholas II would be history's greatest world leader.

That the knowledge existed, has since been proven, and was discovered by the human mind's basic process of learning, that is, asking and answering questions. One can leisurely ask and answer the involved questions, over the time span of a hundred years, or more systematically do so in a short period of time, if one first learns the process of effective questioning.

Precisely what could you do with the verified knowledge that in 100 years the usual governments would still be spitting and biting, kicking and scratching, clawing and gouging each other's people, with military forces, as the government method to solve problems, in the name of peace and stability of course, like the children they display themselves today? Does not each verified data point facilitate the synthesis of a new tool of knowledge? Would you therefore not learn that the government's process to solve problems is not worth another minute of your time or dollar of your money, and thus your time and money could be used to learn the separate knowledge of how to change what you would otherwise end up doing? If you are a government leader, could you not learn the same thing, for its greater value to you?

The Russian government is only an example. The same concept applies to any government, although US government leaders would hold greater difficulty in learning advanced knowledge. They sincerely believe that their internationally dominant US military, including the soldiers of their US Army Delta Force who slaughtered Christian children and women at Waco Texas, can solve problems by slaughtering anyone who dares to advance knowledge benefiting humanity, without first kowtowing to the pitiable minds in Washington DC. Therein they manifest the identical flaw of Czar Nicholas II with his Cossacks, like all power-damaged minds. What difference was there in the Cossacks unleashed on the peasants in the Kremlin Square, or the Chinese Communist tanks unleased on the students in Tienamen Square, and the US Army Delta Force unleashed on the Christians in their Branch Dividian Church at Waco Texas? The Washington DC government sorts place power above knowledge as the perceived zenith of human intellectual capability, and kill anyone benefiting the people with plain knowledge illogically perceived by government sorts as threatening the central power. Comical lot these chaps who sink to government jobs. Their perceptions are consistently fraught with self-induced error, but they kill first, and even then ask no questions of what they did. Because they fear effective questions of their actions, they will kill again, on schedule.

The issue of this example is government knowledge, not citizen knowledge. To represent citizen knowledge, the proportional measurements would be in cubic miles, many hundreds. Government knowledge is the most rudimentary form of organizational knowledge void of competitive incentive to advance. He who attempts to advance government knowledge is fired from any government job, or he is otherwise imprisoned or killed. It is flattery to suggest that government knowledge has increased a cubic inch in the previous 100 years.

Three cubic inches represents the knowledge that will be held by your government in the year 2100. It is just knowledge. It is just the answers to questions yet to be asked by government personnel.

If today, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, whatever name is finally selected for the comical office of US president, or any other national leader, sliced off a suitable portion of their military budget, executive pork budget, or budget of any other inherently counter productive bureaucracy stagnating the government and society, and allocated that money to the goal of discovering the knowledge that will be held by government in the year 2100, whichever leader did so would shortly thereafter become history's greatest world leader.

The knowledge inherently exists, and has already been discovered. One need only ask tomorrow's easily identified questions, today.

Of course the reader of these words may share the laughter of the writer, because the referenced process is predicated on selecting independent thinkers. Only genuinely independent thinkers (common-sense people) hold minds not stagnated by the institutions currently anchoring society in the intellectual dark ages. Inherently failing governmental leaders can only conceive of selecting institutionally titled people with lists of institutional credentials, having already proven the failure of their own institutions, who would therefore only achieve new titles and credentials associated with their appointment to the therefore useless Blue Ribbon Commission On Governmental Advancement of Knowledge and Everything Else. And thus the government just as well spend the money on more guns, bombs, other bureaucracies and such power-based concepts representing the antithesis of knowledge.

But imagine these words finding their way to a leader and circumstance recognizing that these words are inherently true.

The words that I use carry their full meaning.



End of Intech Concepts 3


IntechConcepts 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1