(The recent additions are on the Related Concepts 29 page.)
Related Concepts 1:
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)
NOTE ITEM A: Like all things including knowledge and good movies, there is more free gold available to you in Alaska than you can possibly use, literally. I can refer you to plenty of good gold ground openly available. You just have to wash the gold out of a lot of dirt and rocks, so many cubic yards of dirt and rocks that only miners who invest their time to learn the finer points of gold mining techniques can derive more income from that horribly boring process than a computer techy sitting on his bottom side all day enduring his horribly boring process.
Likewise, there is a lot of reading on the Related Concepts pages. It all holds proverbial gold, but your mind will not recognize the value in the vast majority of it. Of that you may be assured, or it would not contain value beyond what your mind currently recognizes. Read this slowly. Your mind must find the few arrangements of words herein that come enticingly close to your brain's prior, word-arrangement-created receptors that therefore create your questions that therefore jeopardize those receptor sites that are therefore vulnerable to new, verifiable data creating new conclusions which open yet more new receptors prior occupied with now verifiably contradicted data. It is just a boring process, like washing dirt, but it is the only way for a human mind to find the gold of new knowledge. There is no other mechanism for a human mind to learn new knowledge.
Only new knowledge acquired by your mind will solve your existing problems. No volume of old knowledge, police, armies or bombs can solve your existing problems, because your problems were created within that old knowledge.
Herein you are looking for the recognizable section, or paragraph, or sentence, or phrase that creates your questions that create new knowledge that reveals the gold in more of the sections.
It is emphasized, that without the identity of your particular problem or goal, and your mind's questions to each identified contradiction, each concept expressed herein is random, and thus requires your great effort to rearrange them to create their utility in your mind. When otherwise applied in a manner designed for your goal and your questions, such as in a seminar, the process is highly efficient.
If you wish to read only one concept among these pages, after the following two sections, consider the section titled, Analogy, Intellectual Martial Arts, on the Related Concepts 2 page. But read it carefully.
An initial consideration...
It is just a puzzle, the most brilliantly designed puzzle available for humans to figure out. It is analogous to a steel ring puzzle. No form of force, no matter how great or slight, or how seemingly designed for the parts of the puzzle, can achieve the goal. No flaw can be utilized. Knowledge alone is the key. When each part of the knowledge puzzle is easily placed in its proper position, the goal is achieved with such ease you will literally laugh the laughter sought by all people. Knowledge of the puzzle can be used to promptly resolve the most complex contradictions or achieve goals commonly thought impossible. It concurrently illuminates the disproof of the process currently frustrating all the institutions. The puzzle is therefore the most frustrating puzzle humans will ever encounter. Its controlling disguise is the zenith of simplicity. You have already identified most of the parts. And anyone can learn how to solve it. You need only ask and answer your questions.
When you encounter a concept or expression which your mind rejects or opposes because it recognizes a contradiction, the less thinking person will attempt to disprove the concept or argue against it, thus simply restating what he already knows, while the more thinking person will attempt to prove or support the contradiction to his knowledge, thus more thoroughly analyzing, questioning or synthesizing it with what he already knows, thus creating new knowledge. Within the latter, one questions their own prior perceptions in relation to the contradicting data. If one's prior data was valid, it will survive every new question. If it contained a flaw, the corrected part of the data is what you want for the next questions. It is the greater number of questions which will identify the prevailing proof or disproof.
Notice that individual thinkers can readily question their prior data, thus advancing their knowledge, while people in institutions do not do so for each item of data that contradicts an institutional concept, or they would not be associated with the institution, thus stagnating their mind in institutional dogma. The less thinking person within the institution simply fails or refuses to recognize that institutional concepts are nothing more than individual concepts that more people failed to adequately question due to their individual impatience with asking questions, and the appearance of no need to do so from the perceived agreement by other people, often including those who are older, more knowledgeable, more educated, more experienced, the leader, the boss, the official, the superior, and every such perception, except, the more questioning people, or they would be openly questioning what was suggested as not adequately questioned.
For how many thousands of years did all the institutions believe that Earth was flat? How many current institutional perceptions are in error?
The individual thinker immediately recognizes that the above has already made the institutional thinker's mind defensive rather than curious, and thus blocks its access to any value in the below information. The conclusion is correct. Intellectual technology cannot be accessed with any contradiction left in place within any concept, such as a typical marketing effort to entice a mind into a program or concept by initially omitting mention of the ultimate cost, the downside, things uncomfortable, or minor contradictions. The humor in the above is that the institutional conclusion as perceived before question is usually not at issue, but details within it. You may wish to utilize that knowledge for each concept you encounter.
There can be no process to resolve any contradiction later, because later the mind will be attempting to resolve other contradictions with what is the earlier contradiction left in place for each therefore flawed decision leading to later. Yet contradictions are introduced with nearly each sentence, including those sentences attempting to resolve a contradiction. At the get-go, every female paying attention to words noticed in the first sentence of the above second paragraph of this section that apparently only males are more or less thinking, by a linguistic convention of distinguishing between males and females for common reference to people, then adopting one gender for general use in exchanging knowledge, excluding the other by definition. If you think the contradiction does not alter your perceptions, imagine the result in the male mind if every female writer adopted the words, she, her and hers, for every general reference to people, without exception. The contradiction was created in language, for an intriguing reason not available to the common recognition at the time, left in place, and therefore created an equally intriguing extent of contradictions. Therefore, the process to resolve contradictions while they are being created even by the resolution process must involve a unique or quantum difference from normal process.
If this arena of knowledge were that of math, physics, carpentry, sociology, farming, computer programming or any other single discipline, it would initially sound more difficult but be easier to introduce for a general understanding. The difficulty in introducing an understanding of intellectual technology is in its remarkable simplicity obscured by the most brilliant disguise capable of being described. It is the difference between what your mind inherently knows or learns from its designed mechanism, and an obscure contradiction instilled into your mind from your first interactions with every other person's mind which communicated and acted from an institutional concept, such as the institutions of parents, adults, school, math, physics, farming, office work, politics, philosophy, law, comedy or any concept identified by a word which defines a set of preconceptions created by two or more minds. It is the difference between the individual mind and the social or organizational mind, each completely valid in themselves, but only capable of sustainably resolving contradictions when the line-item mechanism, the cogs, gears, circuits, blue prints, links, ingredients, parts, materials, process, elements and quarks of that ,"difference", itself are laid out for inspection and arranged in their short but proper order.
The following are only excerpts of concepts. With no identified goal or problem to structure the presentation, and no questions from the reader to create a structure, they are random and incomplete. They may assist persons considering the utility of Alaska Intech's services, or those persons wishing to independently advance their thinking process. These are only random excerpts, for lack of your patience and identified incentive to carefully read even this much.
For these concepts to be of utility, you would have to genuinely understand their magnitude and related details, as well as concepts beyond the scope of these excerpts, and then synthesize them with an orderly process to resolve each contradiction perceived in itself and in resultant synthesis. Therein you would have to ask and answer many questions, done efficiently only with the knowledge of how to ask effective questions, which cannot be conveyed outside a structured question and answer exercise, but can be learned on one's own with great patience.
The following categories or parts of the puzzle often overlap. When presented in a seminar, connected at their effective junctions by questions, they consistently overlap to create the whole of the puzzle when the parts are learned and synthesized by result of the seminar process.
To fail to remember that these concepts are only fragments of a puzzle, and to object to any perception rather than write your resulting question, answer it, or seek the answer in other concepts and your subsequent thought, is to fail the utility of these words, as so common to institutional minds which begin their thought pattern with a prior flawed conclusion rather than a question.
Listen carefully to your words as you read this.
The Meaning Of The Words...
You train your mind by the words you use. One's own commonly sloppy and inaccurate use of words and their meanings create most of the contradictions in one's mind. The accurate use of words, imperative for resolutions of complex contradictions, requires the slower use of words, because the mind is dealing with accurate definitions, that is, more words for each individual word in a reasoning-trail. The otherwise tedious mental work of devising sustainable resolutions to complex contradictions, is made highly efficient by the prior tedious work of learning how to accurately use words. The time expended on that part of the puzzle is both imperative and creates the greatest value from the process.
Lifetimes are routinely wasted unsuccessfully attempting to achieve goals that could have been achieved in a week if the person so attempting simply used a few days to learn how to accurately use the words said person was otherwise using.
The words herein carry their full meaning, and are understatements to the reader's perceptions.
The shortcoming of this format is that the reader will most likely not recognize the accuracy of the words since they imply and allude to something beyond the reader's current knowledge, a nebulous arena made clear only by the accurate synthesis of all the precisely defined words that are offered. Questioning one's perceptions is the obvious resolution to that contradiction. Inherent to every human mind, the reader must be able to effectively question his perceptions of the words, to guide those perceptions to his mind's recognition of their utility.
The imperative of your spending more time with just the concept of words is demonstrated by your easy observation that the other guy sloppily uses the meanings of his words, and is not going to do any better than that. He sincerely believes that he is effectively communicating what he is thinking. That is especially so if he holds an institutional title convincing him that his words are those of a leader. Therefore, besides your own effort in this regard, you must learn his half of the mutual effort to derive the difference between his real goal and his sloppily used words. He will often not be able to describe his real goal, because he trained his mind by the words he used, when, as used, they did not hold the meaning he originally intended. You may be assured that your assumptions of his real goal are wrong, because you did the same thing with words. When you belatedly learn how to accurately use words, you will laugh robustly over any such assumptions.
The problem is compounded among eloquent speakers, especially those with staff writing their speeches. Eloquent speech creates easily understood and comfortable images, by definition. Eloquent speech, like inspiring quotes, is superficial fluff, candy to the ears. Such word construction is the learned process of causing emotion-based reactions. Such words are a dead-end for achieving goals beyond creating popularity and raising money from speaking. The popularity of such words, in themselves creating the popularity of the speaker and thus his institutional leadership positions followed by many people, is precisely the reason you are still trying to solve the problems that great speakers said they were solving throughout every century since speaking was invented.
The other guy's concepts or word meanings, portrayed with everything except words illuminating those concepts and meanings, must be turned into your mind's concepts and meanings, just to start the process of resolving a contradiction he facilitates. And you must do all the mental work because it is certain that he will not, or the contradiction would have already been resolved. When you do that work, your opponent's ignorance is your advantage.
Watch the frustration of institution leaders who ascribe all manner of illogical excuses for the actions of inherently equal humans who oppose the institutions of those leaders. Are not the identified contradictions resolved by the use of words? Is it not therefore proven that the leaders do not know the effective word arrangements? Since both sides claim to be speaking truth, often in the same language or with quality translators, and both sides are comprised of common humans with the same design of brain, and both sides blame the other side, if their own concept of blaming the other guy is accurate in itself, is it not inherent that their failure is in not understanding their own words?
The problem you face therefore starts with the understanding of words, and will remain a problem for many more centuries, unless the person who wishes to solve the problem tediously learns the accurate use of words. If you do not wish to think more thoroughly about the words you are using, hearing and reading, such as by simply reading more slowly and thinking about the relationship of each phrase to the previous one and next one, there is nothing at this web site which can be of any value to you. In an Alaska Intech seminar, you will efficiently learn a process for highly accurate word usage, not found in the following for simple inability to identify and answer your mind's questions in this format. Therefore, if you are on your own, write and answer every question you identify from the following.
Tools are made with tools. Steel hammers are used to make steel hammers. To refuse to learn how the device was made, is to deny your access to its greatest utility. Intellectual technology is the greatest utility of words. With it you can achieve that which is beyond your current imagination, and that which has frustrated humans since their invention. Start with any word in the dictionary, and define each word defining it, just for what you learn from that exercise, then read this section.
The meaning of a word is created by ascribing to the word arrangements of other words that cause the mind to identify consistent relationships which therefore become useful for further communication. It starts rather arbitrary, but ultimately results in any questions of the meanings producing the same answers, relationships or functional concepts among different people.
The same process facilitates the invention of new words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs and more, to convey any knowledge. Of course the more words one uses to more precisely limit the concept thus more effectively used, the greater the opportunity for confusion in sheer volume of words, and thus the greater value of the related goal if a person persists to its achievement. To reduce the confusion caused by word-volume, people attempt to use less words, but that creates the greater confusion inherent to different minds (data-bases) creating diverse perceptions not limited by the additional explanations.
There is no easy escape. If you wish to successfully convey a concept with words, rather than just state it, the concept of greater value will require more words in explanation or definition, concurrent to answering inherent questions. Therein is a conceptual definition of, value, for concepts conveyed by words. The value was created by the time and effort to successfully transfer an understanding of something. Value may also be achieved by explaining nothing to another person, and instead achieving the described goal by yourself, defined by the time it requires one person to do so. Therein value is conceptually defined by time, regardless of whether it required a little effort from each of many people who learned their part, or required a lot of effort from one person who had to do everything.
The originally involved knowledge had to be learned. That is what you must learn to utilize intellectual technology. It is the whole of a complex puzzle. Therein your goal will be to optimize the puzzle's utility at an apex of the concept. Therein you must learn what others do not hold the mental energy to learn, but only because they did not recognize its brilliantly simple, original disguise. Patiently wade through abject boredom in learning some basics about words.
Consider the explained definition of intellectual technology, starting at Webster's perception of two different words, and then refining it with more words so you understand and can thus use the concept.
Intellectual: of or relating to the intellect or its use, developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience, relating to the capacity for knowledge and rational or intelligent thought.
Technology: a technical method of achieving a practical purpose, the totality of the means employed to provide objects necessary for human sustenance and comfort, the method and means to achieve a goal.
Intellectual Technology: the method and means to achieve a goal or practical purpose by utilizing rational or intelligent thought, effected by flawless thought process resolving contradictions.
The combination of selected, elsewhere standardized word arrangements created a definition, which was then refined by adding related words, available for question to add further arrangements of words finding recognition in each mind asking the questions.
Achieve: carry out successfully, to attain a desired end or aim.
To solve problems, is to resolve identified contradictions, is to clear the path to achieving goals.
To use flawless thought process facilitates discovery of flaws in all for which the process is used, including itself, by comparing what is perceived as flawless with the concept being considered. When different arrangements of words are applied, the inherent questions created by different arrangements of words will identify no new contradictions if the process or concept is in fact flawless.
Solution: an action or process of solving a problem, an answer to a problem, explanation.
Solve: to find a solution, such as for a problem.
Resolve: to reduce by analysis, to find an answer, to make clear or understandable.
Contradiction: a logical incongruity, opposition of factors inherent in a system or situation.
Logical: being in accordance with logic, formally true or valid.
Incongruity: Via Incongruous: not harmonious, not conforming, inconsistent within itself.
Note that for their lack of intellectual technology to resolve all contradictions, Webster and his successors leave a flaw in place for their definition of, contradiction. There can be no logical incongruity. The incongruity is resolved by further questioning, or the referenced logic fails to verify the incongruity as a genuine incongruity. Because so many humans hold inadequate patience for the questioning-process they leave in place many obscure flaws that they either ignore or define as mysteries, which cause their subsequent problems demanding more time than the process to correct the flaw in the first place, an exercise of which you are currently reading. The advancement of human understanding may also be called a word game, but by any name, is a process to identify and correct every contradiction, for which the mind is designed.
If the achievement of your particular goal was predicated on understanding a contradiction, by use of that word, you want to accurately use that word for your own mind's advancement of solutions to the contradiction.
Fortunately, to utilize intellectual technology, you need not become a linguist. You need only understand the concept of accurate word usage, to then understand the next concept of effective questioning to resolve contradictions in expressions. You may even create new words, if each participant verifiably recognizes the concept referenced, achieved by asking questions.
Flaw: an often hidden defect that may cause failure under stress, a faulty part, a weakness in something immaterial, a fault that may nullify what it holds.
Flawless: without flaw.
Mystery: Something not understood or beyond understanding.
There are no ultimate mysteries where the human mind is available. There is only a current lack of data or lack of effort to question the data, by definition. Each can be resolved with time and effort. A mystery is merely a point of time before the related knowledge is discovered.
By thus identifying the parameters of words, one may arrange words, held to their substance, to find their way past obstacles blocking those who do not question their conclusions.
The more words for which you have the patience to endure, and use the resulting knowledge for your own mind's reaction, before you act, the greater the goal you can achieve if you are learning how to achieve the goal by words. Your mind learns by words, before or after you proverbially touch your finger to the flame.
How much time will you use for the mistakes of actions, before you use much less total time to more efficiently think your way to the process for achieving any goal by the least actions? How much time have your predecessors used attempting actions to achieve the goal that still eludes you?
Explain and define your mind's way all the way to the goal, before you get up from your desk or conference room chair. Words are that efficient, if you arrange them as questions to cause your mind to search for the relationships.
It is perspective to note that a wise military general can immediately win any war by first devising an adequate war plan and then announcing the plan to the public, including the enemy, period. The pen is mightier than the sword. There has never been a wise military general in human history. Every military general started shooting before he finished sufficient thinking.
The process to learn intellectual technology is merely the process of scientific analysis, applied to a uniquely diverse array of variables, some of which are rarely considered by such process, to include the controlling contradiction of scientific process. Concurrently, the extent of the involved reasoning is secondary to its perfection. Science is elsewhere held to lesser standards. Therein the result is certain, and requires only patience for questioning.
Your own mind is everything...
The contradictions one seeks to resolve are those within one's own mind. The other guy's expressed contradictions are not relevant to devising a sustainable solution to your concerns. If the other guy's words or actions identify genuine contradictions, they only identify his problem which he must resolve if he expects to achieve a related goal. If he is an opponent, leave him with his contradictions, because they will more quickly defeat him after you introduce the solution for which you resolved ALL the contradictions.
Reaction to categories of knowledge...
(From the Introduction page - Excerpt: Related Concepts:) A human mind functioning under the precepts of individual curiosity, unfettered by institutional preconceptions, may or may not be interested in this material, and if interested may derive benefit from investigation. In contrast, a mind functioning under the precepts of institutional concepts will consistently react against this material, and against the expression in this paragraph, thus avoiding serious investigation and any benefit. The reaction is explainable and intriguing. This material constitutes an identifiable category of knowledge. The phenomenon of the differential reactions creates the inordinate value of this block of knowledge because it is designed for the utility of institutional leaders who react as described and thus do not investigate it. That the material is not redesigned to mitigate the verifiably adverse initial reaction of the persons for whom it is designed, secures its value, and is the only known avenue to such inordinate utility as described below. It is only the uniquely perceptive institutional leaders or their staff who will therefore gain access to said value, as their own choice unrelated to the results of another person utilizing the technology. The phenomenon in part explains why persons in institutional positions consistently create the contradictions they perceive as logical while the general public just shakes their head in amazement over such obvious illogicality. That most of the general public, inherently including the aforementioned institutional leaders, commonly create their own examples of illogicality within countless conceptual institutions, without their mind recognizing the alteration of positions and thus perceptions, again illuminates the value of this material.
You are the other guy's other guy...
You are the other guy's other guy, to 6.1 billion other guys. So who is wrong, you or the other guy? Fail to answer the question, and you cannot start the process to successfully resolve a contradiction. Again, who is the other guy? Because the trap of the initial question inherently applies and has no escape, and proves the current inability to effectively reason, by anyone attempting to answer it in either referenced case, the accurate answer is outside the question, but understandable only after the question is answered. If you think the other guy is wrong, you are more certainly wrong, by definition. You are each wrong. The contradiction of your concern is a concept independent of those humans who represent it or its parts. The contradiction itself is wrong, by its existence. It is merely not accurately identified by the squabbling humans who carelessly put themselves into the position of representing a conceptual error, usually ill defined with sloppily used words. The participants blamed the problem on the other guy, rather than the accurately referenced existence of the contradiction separate from its human representatives.
If you perceive that the other guy is part of an institution, and you are surrounded by like-minded people in your institution, thus you are not alone in your perceptions; then start questioning the other guys in your own institution, until you discover the many differences in perceptions that expose the flaw in your belief that your colleagues are like-minded. If you think those peripheral differences are immaterial to your primary objectives, ask more questions to discover the functional results of those differences, where they inherently lead.
One of the more common phenomena in politically involved organizations is their, vote-for, lists being used as, vote-against, lists by X% of the members who are in the organization, for any of several reasons not reflected by the leadership's political choices. The contradiction is obvious. It therefore holds a resolution obviously identifying another contradiction, which need only be questioned to its controlling contradiction to then be resolved to your satisfaction.
The above, and other data such as people commonly switching sides on a political issue as they learn different knowledge, identify contradictions and their resolutions predicated on concepts rather than people. It is not the people. It is the concepts. The people are not your enemies. Like yourself, they simply failed to adequately question the concepts to thus devise that which will prevail regardless of the initial perceptions of the people who will, because that which you devise will prevail against their every question, recognize the accuracy of your conclusion.
Start right and you can end right...
If you do not start right, you cannot end right. If you start wrong, that is, with a contradiction left in place at the outset, all your efforts are futile until you start over again and resolve the first contradiction, then each successive contradiction, especially the ones you thought insignificant.
Use the words that define the concept...
He who attempts to fool the other guy with words, hears himself more often, and first fools his own mind, or his subsequent words will not ring true for the actions behind them, and thus not fool the other guy. The successful charlatans in institutional leadership positions sincerely believe themselves despite the objectively recognized display of their contradictions, and the manifest proof in the failure of their efforts when compared to their words.
If you use words that do not reference the concept you wish to express, you will fail in your subsequent efforts. You train your mind by the words you use, and the smallest flaw left in place will defeat every subsequent effort, by design of the human mind. The human mind cannot create a useful receptor for a contradiction, because the mind is designed to resolve and thus eliminate contradictions from attempted memory receptors. There can be no prevailing human action that contradicts the mind's design.
There is, however, within the design, a singular process, with a brilliant disguise, for a mind to acquire and retain a set of contradictions that the mind defines as uncontradicted despite the readily available data to the contrary. The mind evades any recognition process for those contradictions, or more accurately stated, it can no longer recognize them as contradictions because there is no available neural connection or synaptic exchange between the related data and its logical conclusion. The concept can be usefully described as an alteration of perceptions in the mind, induced by an identifiable concept involving a physical process in the human brain. But the alteration is always vulnerable to correction, by the mind's original design, and thus to exist, holds a brilliantly designed disguise and defense costing the so-altered mind its ability to otherwise advance in vast arenas of knowledge.
An analogy may assist in this regard. The following is among that which the referenced persons disdain, but only therefore deny themselves the valuable and useful concept it illuminates. A classic case for instruction is the institutionally taught assumption that US Congressmen, judges and other government chaps with high titles must be referenced as: "Your Honor", or "The Honorable". Keep in mind throughout that these fine people hold the same design of a mind as you, I and everyone. There is a flawless explanation for the contradiction you perceive. The test of time has proven that there is not a shred of honor among those highly titled chaps, by accurate definition of the word, honor, and the actions of those title holders as such. Everyone except institutionally titled chaps recognizes that fact. Even many institutional chaps recognize that fact when they reference the other guy's otherwise identical institutions. But the mind of the Honorable Senator Anonymous genuinely and sincerely believes that he is honorable. If it were otherwise, he would not be able to sustain his successful image of sincerity. If I were a US Senator, Congressman or court judge, I would verifiably not hold a shred of honor, by definition of the word and its verifiable void of substance in the institution, but I would sincerely believe otherwise, or I would not be said title holder. The contradiction would remain in my mind, intensely defended by a specific phenomenon of the mind. The utility of this verifiable knowledge, involving the accurate use of words, to both the Senator and his critic, is of inordinate value.
Whether the Senator is honorable or not, is of no concern after identifying the involved concept. Let him believe his comfortable illusion. At issue is the priceless utility of your mind, especially if you the reader, are that Senator or court judge. If you sloppily use the word, honorable, routinely applying it as a title of a person regardless of the actions of the title holders individually or as an institution, when the holders look to their title and its attributes instead of the actions carried out with the title, what will you be training your mind to do with other words, and what subtle but critical meanings will you therefore not recognize in a maze of data you might use for any particular decision? What is the result of any flaw left in place? Train your mind to recognize flawless concepts, to thus derive their utility for resolving complex contradictions. Therein, use the words that reference the concept you wish to describe. If the Senator is dishonorable, he has nothing to offer any honorable person because he represents a contradiction left in place. Reference him by his name. If you must describe his nature, reference him as a person who is ignorant of his contradictions, or as a dolt, and reference every spade as a spade, for the vastly greater value of flawless reasoning to your mind, for the resolution of contradictions that otherwise frustrate you. The value of your accurately using your mind is vastly beyond any other concept. If you sell that value to be nice, or respectful, or for anything else creating a contradiction, do not expect to ever achieve the value of your mind, the most valuable commodity known to humans.
Nothing based on dishonesty, a contradiction, is sustainable. An ignorant person will utilize known dishonesty. An ignorant person will also commonly not recognize dishonesty, for inability to ask the questions that will reveal it, for laziness or impatience with asking questions. But if you consistently and openly define the word, Senator, as an ignorant person, for his obvious displays of verifiable dishonesty, without exception, so as to not flaw your own thinking process, you may therefore also reference the chap as a Senator. There is no value in the world sufficient to introduce a contradiction to your mind of otherwise astonishing value. If you leave any contradiction in place, either willfully or for laziness in questioning and resolving contradictions in your mind, then you are that which provides the humor for the observers of humans.
If you are a Senator, and your colleagues and predecessors have obviously destroyed any honor that the title might have ever held, from the days of Rome to the day you are reading this, in your conversation, request that you be referenced by your name, as a common person, and apologize for being associated with the title. At issue is not the title or your ego. At issue is your training your mind to recognize the obscure, controlling contradictions that are frustrating your current efforts. You can have the knowledge to resolve complex contradictions, or have the ego-gratification of your title, but not both, because the title instills a controlling contradiction in your mind.
That claim is of no value until you learn the knowledge to verify it. You are human. You must train your mind. It is not genetically imprinted to discover the correct avenue through a maze of contradicting variables. The value of a petty title is zip compared to the value of the knowledge to resolve complex contradictions. If you are the Senator or other institutionally titled person, imagine the laughter of the common person, that which you were before your were given your title, who recognizes your difficulty with these paragraphs, while his mind sees in them no contradiction or difficulty. Utilize his knowledge.
The difficulty of conveying this concept to any institutionally titled person, caught amid the scrutiny of his institutional colleagues equally dependent upon their institutional illusion, indicates why intellectual technology is so rare. The proliferation of institutions, organizations and government encompassing all people is only part of the explanation. The common citizen, with no difficulty in ill-referencing the Senator, who is often quick to reference the titled Senator as a dishonest swine, with apology for thus slighting the good character of farmyard pigs by comparing them to Senators, holds no advantage in his humorous or sincere description of the other guy, because his own contradiction is of the identical nature found in an arena defined by different words not of his comfort. If using words to accurately identify only the other guy were of utility, why would problems remain? What is the corollary concept for those with no titles? It exists. The controlling contradiction blocking the avenue to your goals, is in your own mind, not that of the other guy.
Therefore recognize the utility of the section herein referencing humor. Without that imperative part of the puzzle, the Senator, citizen and every other human perceiving the other guy as their opponent, cannot access the discussion of their own embarrassing displays of abject stupidity by accurate use of the reference (contradictions or ignorance expressed after incentive to resolve them was manifest). Only thereafter may they correct their contradictions, much to their robust laughter, to therefore promptly achieve their goals.
If you think senators, judges, national presidents, military generals and such chaps are caught in a contradiction with their title, and they are, pity the poor sad chaps in think tanks, which they sometimes reference as research institutes. They trapped themselves on a rhetorical pedestal above all the other titles. How does their mind accommodate the manifested fact that they cannot even think past the contradiction of their ludicrous attempt to think for other inherently equal human minds, while having not solved the problems for which their thinking was purchased? They institutionally elevated cheap advice to fraud by accepting money for what they should have been able to think enough to recognize would fail, as proven by their ongoing results. Was not the Roman Senate a think tank, thus proving the history of think tanks no more successful than Senators? And they still take themselves seriously, while people who think, openly laugh at the glaring failure and fraud of think tanks. These words accurately describe the phenomenon. The think tank expert who cannot recognize the accurately identified concept, and laugh, will fail his illusion the rest of his life.
Use words accurately, without fear or false propriety. You train your mind by the words you use. Accurately used words, without need to defend illusions, open avenues of useful reasoning closed to those who must defend the rhetorical illusion of their titles, credentials, institutions and such concepts.
Counter productive process...
If you attempt to force a person to do something, such as with the force of police-backed law, which is logical for your knowledge-base but illogical for his knowledge-base, will the resulting threat of jail provide his mind with the knowledge that your original conclusion is correct and his is incorrect, or will his mind begin the process to resolve the separate contradiction you created by using force, thus stagnating your efforts to a progressively more costly defense system while his mind, under greater incentive, inherently devises progressively more effective counter-measures within the process of force to which you lent your process knowledge and credibility? Utilize your answer as a tool of knowledge.
In contrast, your additional thought process at the origin, simply asking the series of questions starting at your last conclusion, to devise the process which causes his mind to categorically recognize the benefit of your conclusion, would achieve your goal and make your resources available for your next greater advancements, rather than for a stagnating defense. One need only learn how to efficiently organize mental complexities beyond the currently common conclusions relying on the ultimately counter productive use of force. It is only an aside, as just one common data point in your process, to note that your perceived opponent in this regard holds no incentive to patiently listen to your reasoning, or understand it. You will therefore resolve the contradictions related to that data point, removing any need for him to do so, and still achieve your goal by designing his incentive to promptly recognize the value of the goal, and the value of then discovering the reasoning.
Concurrently, the use of force or deception creates an expanded institution whose existence is predicated on force or deception, inherently growing under institutional precepts, to compound the resulting problems, requiring additional thought and resources for a therefore progressively more eluding goal, when more effective original thought would have prevented the latter. Those who perceive a personal dependence on the existence of an illogically expanded and progressively failing institution, simply do not yet recognize the available technology to expand their ability, valuable for the same or related institutions therefore advancing to valuable goals. Intellectual technology provides that ability, enhancing rather than threatening the opportunities for institutional personnel.
The mind uses questions and answers to learn new knowledge. The key is in the questions. They must be your mind's questions consistently held to your mind's fundamental reasoning process for controlling-contradictions. Therein one must acquire the knowledge of controlling-contradiction questions themselves, which finds useful identity in any particular mind only by certain of that mind's questions.
The above is in part why books and most commercial conveyance of knowledge fail, as proven by the existence of human-caused contradictions after all the lessons were repetitiously manifest, the experts acquired all the titles, credentials and positions of prestige or power, written all the books, taught all the university classes, given all the speeches, answered all the institutionalized news media questions, talked on all the talk shows, held all the conferences, workshops, sessions of congresses, board and executive meetings, sold all their marketing-based seminars, and got elected again. If what they said were true, why do the problems and unachieved goals remain? The question has a definitive answer, indicated in the above. The test of time proves the failure of their ongoing words and process. The experts and leaders erroneously assumed that the words transferred to them created accurate concepts in their own thinking process, and then assumed the same for the other mind's thinking process. For lack of intensely questioning that concept itself to resolve its controlling contradiction, they remained ignorant of the type questioning process or resulting process that could efficiently transfer the concept-utility with or despite the offered word arrangements.
The drug analogy...
It is common knowledge that many recreational and medically used drugs act to alter the perceptions of the mind, by way of altering electro-chemical functions in the brain. One such commonly understood drug is adrenaline, produced by the body. It was discovered that the brain produces several chemicals similar to those mind-altering drugs otherwise socially frowned-upon because they noticeably alter perceptions. The alterations of the perceptions are readily verifiable. The verified existence of the concept, with no further proof in its mechanism for this discussion, is adequate as an analogy to recognize the possibility of a mechanism blocking or obscuring one's own recognition of a process flaw in one's efforts to achieve a goal or resolve a contradiction.
Why does your opponent not recognize the obvious logic of your statements? Why? Did you actually answer the question with a process-useful, verifiable answer? The response that the idiot is obviously an idiot to not recognize something so apparent and universally verified in your logic, that is, the response he offers about your reaction to his great words of wisdom, is not useful for anything but a humor-based rhetorical exclamation mark attached to your related reasoning. The related reasoning is the useful tool. Within the reasoning, the other guy can be an idiot or a genius, and you will be utilizing logic related to his mind's pattern of actions rather than their indeterminable source stimuli.
Nor is it useful as a conclusion to suggest that the chap is on drugs, either recreational, medical or naturally produced by the brain. If, for example, the chap is permanently on drugs which alter his perceptions, voluntarily or by process of human chemistry induced by some stimulus, your option within the process of reasoning is to devise the process that prevails with the perceived mind-alteration as a permanent factor. One simply adds that data to the questioning process, not in relation to the inaccurate assumption of drug influence, but in relation to the manifested pattern of data recognition in his mind.
That the phenomenon could exist in his mind, due to body chemistry beyond current human control, suggests its possibility of being at play in your own mind. You cannot control most chemical production in your brain, and we humans are far from recognizing which of countless momentary, recurrent or institutionally entrenched stimuli produce what chemical reaction where in the body. We can, however, recognize patterns of institutional reactions or perceptions, and with sufficient, effective questioning within our own reasoning process, perhaps with the very same reactions and perceptions at play in our own mind, devise the functional resolutions of contradictions in a trail of such that produces our desired effect from the results of all those perceptions. It is the nature of the questions that can identify the reasoning process of such effectiveness that it transcends all the variables.
Two access processes...
One can learn the related knowledge by one's own choice, or by the choice of another person. The processes are different, and require the person making the choice to know both processes. If you wish to achieve a goal or solve a problem, you must set out to learn knowledge of the related process. Otherwise you must wait for the choice of another person. Because the knowledge is rare, your wait will likely not be rewarded. The other person will more likely also not learn how to solve your problem. Concurrently, the person who learns the knowledge will most likely recognize that your problems or goals, no matter how profound in your perception, are not worth the use of such valuable knowledge. If you learn the knowledge, you can promptly resolve that portion of your opponent's actions which otherwise damage you, and leave him to what he therefore learns.
The history of humans is that of the foolish belief that the other guy, such as government and other institution leaders, will learn the knowledge and solve the problems as their leadership duty. The government and other institution leaders are the last people who will ever learn the related knowledge, and the first people to cause most of the problems, by design of institutional concepts. Set out to learn intellectual technology, or otherwise enjoy the common problems inherently perpetuated by those acting without adequate knowledge of their actions.
An institution herein referenced is any group of two or more people identifying their individual minds as a single mind with a single reference-name, and often a defined, singular purpose. They speak and act as "we", when their individual craniums hold only one mind each, separate, creating an ongoing contradiction in their words and actions, that is, a flaw, by definition, left in place to inherently flaw subsequent conclusions. They therefore identify a related thought pattern, or the institution would not exist. Organizations and governments are common references for institutions, among others. Any two or more people with a single reference is an institution upon reference.
Equally subject to institutional thought patterns are the institutions of parents, children, males, females, artists, farmers, skydivers, computer geeks, goat ropers and countless such conceptual institutions identified by a reference-word or phrase. Their expressed identity in discussion shifts thought patterns, and thus affects both reasoning-process and data transfer.
The same set of words identifying one concept to a grocery shopper easily identifies a different concept to the grocery store owner, and a time interval can create the owner from the shopper, thus creating a third institutionally identified perception from the same words. Because individual minds each transcend many institutions, the institutional leader speaking to even the institution's members, yet alone those outside his institution, routinely creates more contradictions than he resolves when speaking from his institutional context. A mind will not accurately think within more than one identified institutional thought pattern at any one time. Spoken or written concepts within one institutional thought pattern create many more contradictions than those solved, when communicating with a person thinking in a different institutional thought pattern. Concurrently, varied word arrangements create yet different institutional thought pattern in another mind, without the speaker or writer being aware of the change. The conceptual contradiction in sum is obvious, and the source of many additional contradictions. The resolution is achieved by a particular series of questions relating to controlling concepts. Knowing that you cannot accurately convey your reasoning with your choice of words, without a detailed exchange of questions between yourself and another individual, your logic-based choice is to devise a different process for achieving the goal you hoped to achieve with your institutional choice of words. That different process exists.
The difficulty that an institutional thinker has, is with devising the more effective process impartial to the institution's impact on his own thought process. He inherently perceives the institution as something greater than the individual mind, or he would have not joined the institution. To suggest that the institutional benefits are peripheral in relation to any alteration of perceptions, is to poorly use the word, peripheral, or its substitutes. The benefits are not peripheral. They are central. The institution is variously the source of his institutional position, authority, image, status, income, credentials, access to other institutional minds in the same trap, and more. Without the institution, he perceives his mind as unable to achieve goals related to that institution. Extensive dependence is defined, inherently extracting a price, and then quickly escalates the contradictions. He therefore defends his institution above question, to defend his titled image and illusion of superior thinking or power. The first question one does not answer, such as a question of one's institution, is a controlling contradiction for the subsequent process.
A man is just a man, until he talks about men, and therein becomes more in his mind, especially if a perceived opponent is referenced, such as women. Therein he becomes yet more in his mind, forgetting that he is just another human among 6.1 billion and soon to be worm food. In contrast, if he fully recognizes from the outset that he is worm food, there is nothing to alter his perceptions between the existing data and the resolution to an identified problem. The person fully knowing he is isolated without asset beyond his own mind, misses no data in a reasoning process. The person with a title, starts thinking at his institutional illusion, missing the imperative data between said isolation and the perceptions of his title or institutional reference. You are just human, with the same off-the-shelf brain everyone else was issued, like the other guy holding the data you need. No human-created illusion can change that. So do not attempt the change. The brain and its data-analysis process are the only real tools one holds. Use the original data to create unflawed knowledge, while the other guy is impressed with his intellectually useless institutional title. But it is not that easy. After you read this, think more carefully about how your mind reacts to the reference of each institution of your inherent or voluntary membership.
The process of learning is that of asking and answering questions. To learn new knowledge, there can be no concept successfully held above question by the human mind, by design, especially for goals not prior achieved. The singular, consistently verifiable reasoning-trail must start at a flawless position, usually back at the definition of the human concept. Those questions which seem to question one's own institution are those not asked by the institutional thinker, and routinely contain the data explaining why the institution and its personnel are failing. The concept may be described as a disguise, since the questions that seem to initially most threaten the institution, most strengthen it if asked and accurately answered.
The use of any institution or its reference compounds the contradictions otherwise common to any thought process, and then entrenches them rather than ever resolving them. Therein, a primary portion of utilizing intellectual technology is the identification of the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, to thus correct their contradictory results.
The zenith of reasoning capability is a single human mind, whose ability for any block of knowledge is advanced by training. It is impossible to increase human intelligence by creating an organization and adding members. If it were otherwise, the Chinese government would be the most intelligent organization on the rock, having solved all the problems, or more than other societies. In fact, the moment the second mind is added to the organization, the inherent contradictions diminish each participant's ability to reason through contradictions, that is, until they learn intellectual technology.
In any series of concepts, a controlling relationship can be identified upon sufficient questioning. Contradictions are usually not resolved because a popular resolution to a more dramatic or obvious portion of the contradiction, contradicts a less noticeable concept controlling the former. Spending unnoticed dollars to save the dimes in sight is a concept applicable to concepts. Upon learning effective questioning process, the controlling contradiction of any institution is quickly identified. The same process promptly resolves the contradiction, and thus the subordinate contradictions in exponentially efficient groups. For lack of the knowledge of effective questioning process, the institution leaders literally cannot recognize their controlling contradiction, or they would have done so and promptly resolved it to promptly achieve their espousals.
The Human Mind's Design...
It is inherent that the human mind is of a design. The mind invented the words and their definitions to create such useful concepts. The design limits that which is available to the mind. For example, the mind is a reasoning device, not a muscle. Therefore some things are available to the mind, and some are not, by design. Yet the design includes the useful concept of attempting to use the mind for that which is not available to it, to thus identify its design limits. Part of the intellectual technology puzzle is that of learning the exact design parameters of the human mind, by process of unique questions. To achieve complex goals or resolve complex contradictions currently beyond common achievement inherently because adequate or effective thinking-time has not yet been applied to them, one must use their available time within the human mind's design, rather than waste that time with futile pursuits outside the mind's design.
Of course one must first learn that design and its precise limits. The time therefore spent to learn the mind's functional design is imperative. It is somewhat obvious that institutional thinkers with impressive credentials, who do not know how to question their own conclusions, and especially those of their institution, also do not know the design parameters of the human mind. One need only observe their own unresolved problems, or the more embarrassing of their statements throughout history. What was so often, too soon said by great institutional leaders, about the shape of the earth, the ability of humans to fly, walking on the moon, every other person's race, religion and perceptions, the results of the other political group prevailing, the home use of computers, and every other expressed conclusion subsequently proven by time to be amusingly illogical? The leaders did not question their conclusions. They did not know when they were inside or outside the mind's design for functional achievements. They thought the possible to be impossible, and the impossible to be possible. They used their time to espouse conclusions which proved their foolishness, rather than learn the mind's design parameters to thus know what could be achieved, and what could not. And only because they held mutually conferred titles, foolish people believed them. First identify the human mind's controlling parameters. Use that knowledge.
Those who fail to stop what they are doing, and first learn the seemingly complex data-block of intellectual technology, by any means or from any source, will for the rest of their lives randomly attempt to achieve goals or use processes that are not available to the human mind, and concurrently remain ignorant of goals and inordinately effective processes readily available to humans.
Your mind's controlling contradiction...
Intellectual technology is the knowledge you are seeking more than any other knowledge, that for which you will spend your entire life pursuing, with very little chance of learning, because it is disguised within the knowledge your mind fears far more than death itself. It is the knowledge of your own mind's controlling contradiction, that which your mind does not allow you to even approach under common circumstances. If you are so very fortunate to learn it, you will laugh robustly over your having feared it. You will laugh the laughter sought by all people, knowing what simple disguise stops so many people from learning how to achieve the seemingly impossible. It is only knowledge. It cannot hurt you.
For Those Not In A Position To Utilize Alaska Intech Services...
There is no currently known, efficient way to learn the referenced knowledge outside a particularly rare type of questioning process. If there were, it would have most likely been discovered, and all the social problems would have been resolved. The referenced knowledge can be learned the hard way, but it takes a lifetime, if one is fortunate and asks enough questions to irritate or deeply anger their every acquaintance. Start today. If you have an unanswered question of a concept, break it down to many smaller questions, write them, write the answers, question the answers, repeat that process to exhaustion and combine the answers for which there are no unanswered questions. At each contradiction created by your current answer and its lack of common manifestation, ask more than your first question creating your first excuse as an answer. Break the question down to smaller parts again. Ignore most of what you have been taught as conclusions, especially by persons with titles or institutional authority. Seek the statements of reasoning, not the conclusions, and consider them in relation to the human design itself, not institutional illusions. Be tenacious, and do not stop questioning your conclusions. Watch closely to identify the commonalties of concepts and institutions perceived as opposing each other. Spend your time writing rather than reading the words of others. Find the contradictions in what you wrote. Seek out diversity of knowledge, great diversity. Half the ingredients for the knowledge you seek will come from that which you initially find not interesting, or seemingly unrelated to your pursuit.
Circular reasoning or verbal masturbation is a common description of reasoning process. A person using that description to discard the referenced concepts identifies himself as not knowledgeable of questioning his way out of a perceived contradiction or confusion. He does not understand the meaning of the words, circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a useful term describing a highly useful process. Upon completion of circular reasoning, the person expressing it recognizes the original concept and each arrangement of words or sub-concepts comprising the circle, connecting its each element, arriving back at the original concept, sometimes identified by a slightly different arrangement of words, as a verification of the unbroken reasoning trail. The value of those different arrangements of words in the circle is in the inherently different knowledge they create among perceptive minds. Two differing sets of words describing the same concept will identify two different parameters of knowledge, more so in two different minds. If that were not so, why would the other words or their arrangements have been invented? The two different sets of words hastily perceived as identifying the same conclusion will also create new knowledge in an individual mind sufficiently perceptive to add new knowledge from new arrangements of words, rather than deny their mind the knowledge just because the words are sloppily perceived as similar. The controlling contradiction separating you from your goal or problem resolution is inherently in your own mind, and need only be identified by a slightly different arrangement of words connecting two data points you did not prior connect. Circular reasoning or any exercise of reasoning process rearranging words to identify new perceptions on a concurrently verified reasoning-trail constitutes an efficient search for those data points. Therein questions will verify the connections.
The whole and the parts...
To most efficiently sustain our bodies and advance our diverse interests in material concerns, we humans have developed division of labor. I need not know how to program this computer to adequately use it for my interests, nor do I need to know how to grow rice for supper, since it grows poorly in Alaska. I need only learn the parts of the puzzle that sustain my interests, including what I trade for the rice and the process to bring this web page to you. There are enough people to learn and fulfill the other parts of human advancement.
As another example of the above concept, we humans have identified an interesting difference between the male and female brains. They seem to have a slightly different neuron structure joining the two halves of the brain, and obviously display different thought patterns, as so commonly discussed since the first day males and females started conversation. It is an aside to note that female brains seem to recognize whole concepts more efficiently that male brains, while male brains recognize details more efficiently that female brains. Besides the greater arena of commonalties, they thus serve different parts of the puzzle in whole, referenced as the human phenomenon.
Therein we identify the whole puzzle and its parts. They are two separate concepts, by definition. You may understand the whole, and not the parts, or understand the parts, and not the whole, or any portions of each. Neither has the advantage without the other. For an example, at the first glitch, my computer can become worthless without knowledge of how to fix the particular glitch. My knowledge of using it can be useless without the knowledge to fix it.
But the benefits of division of labor or cooperation in social process are of no value for intellectual technology, and in fact hinder access to learning it. The rarity of its manifestation is in the imperative of the single mind to know the entirety, and its parts, and their synthesis, for the sliver of knowledge described as intellectual technology. It is just a small block of knowledge, but is can be used to promptly achieve that which has frustrated humans since day one. If cooperation in social process fails to function, the resolution cannot be with cooperation in social process, by definition. A new data point or block of knowledge must be added. Notice with amusement, upon manifestation of discord, the number of times that institutional leaders, from small local clubs to large nations, cry out and plead for, "unity, unity, unity, unity", when there is no unity. There is no unity for a reason that cannot be resolved by the cry for unity. The resolution of the discord is found in the knowledge not held by leaders, that which simply incorporates knowledge of the part of the puzzle not learned by the leaders because they are spending their time crying for unity or devising yet another war, another organization, another institutional plan, or such use of force, power, and institutional thinking that only creates the next contradiction.
The utility of intellectual technology is manifested upon learning both the parts of the human phenomenon puzzle, and its whole, and their synthesis, as concepts. One becomes the master of the knowledge of the human mind's design, not master of the design, just the knowledge. That is asking much, but not with an efficient set of questions exponentially eliminating sets of contradictions to compare unflawed parts with what is then an unflawed whole.
Intellectual technology is predicated on the functioning design of the human mind, the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, and such concepts universal to the human phenomenon. Its utility knows no institutional boundary among humans. A nation, country or government is just an identified institution. Intellectual technology is applicable to solve problems or achieve goals in every nation or between them.
Because the exact meanings of words, and thus flawless expression of concepts, is an imperative part of conveying the knowledge, although not as imperative for effecting most results, any language obstacle only requires additional patience and a team of high quality interpreters. Because patience for a questioning process is an original requirement, the additional patience for translations and concept verifications is only a matter of time rather than that of training the mind.
It is an aside to mention a related example, obviously near an end of the spectrum, that is little understood and upsets many readers when suggested in this manner. World peace is readily achievable and efficiently effected using intellectual technology, and would most benefit those who most fear it. It is a further aside to note that the conclusion of formulating that extensive process was somewhat memorable at the hour, day and year it occurred. The example sounds somewhat grand or dramatic, but is not so when applied to the process of intellectual technology. The process to flawlessly resolve each individual contradiction in a process is not effected by the total number of the contradictions, or their diversity or magnitude. Each contradiction is resolved in the same manner using the same original process-knowledge. The largest or most complex problem is solved the same way as the smallest or simplest problem. The most difficult part is identifying the most obscure, original contradictions amusingly easy to resolve by any mind. After learning those, the concluding portion of the world peace puzzle is just boring process.
Of course peace between any two militarily bickering nations is more readily achieved, among lesser goals. Even the military generals raised in the cocoon of a war mentality and enamored with its art, would find intellectual technology of infinitely greater intrigue and reward. Running off to war was an imperative part of learning the knowledge the hard way. But it was only a small part among many. Those who construct their life on any one part therefore simply never recognize the diverse, other parts.
Either Side, Or Both...
Consider all the human hours, years and centuries consumed by humans attempting to resolve their manifested differences. Consider the processes. Objectively, the battle fields of wars are little different from the voting booths, negotiating tables or debate forums of opposing parties. Two parties represented by institutions which perceive each other as opponents attempt to advance their institutional perceptions over those of the other, then settle for the inherently contradicted result of the process, then individually begin the process to compound the remaining contradictions until they escalate to the next resolution process, and so forth, while the human phenomenon is stagnated by the human hours consumed in that self-defeating process. If that institutional technology were successful, there would be no more manifested differences. The smallest flaw left in place inherently grows to equal or exceed the flaws prior resolved. The test of time has been ample. Any successful process therein would become known as the solution and would be applied at the least contradiction to solve it within minutes to release the otherwise wasted time for greater achievements. That technology has obviously failed, and because the human mind was designed to resolve identified contradictions, the next more advanced technology was inherently existent to efficiently resolve all differences to thus exponentially advance the human phenomenon.
Verifiable after the test of time, the concluding technology for resolving contradictions created by the human phenomenon will be referenced as intellectual technology and defined by that which is herein discussed. That is not just a suggestion of the next technology, but the concluding technology, until the original design of the human mind is changed by a particular other concept, for an intriguing new process.
Intellectual technology is predicated on the design of the human mind. It does not require the opposing institution to initially be involved. Only one institution (or one individual if there is sufficient incentive) need create the resolution to the contradiction that therefore no human mind can escape. The controlling mechanism is the intellect, that is, the mind and its process. Within this technology one is not out-smarting the opponent as such. The opponent holds a mind of indeterminant variables inherently beyond another person's control or even understanding. One is instead out-smarting the identified contradictions, and attaching the flawless resolutions to concepts within which all human minds conform by design.
While both sides of a perceived institutional contradiction could use the technology, within therefore easily achieved mutual agreement, they would therefore have to both learn the technology. There is little likelihood of both sides deciding to learn a block of knowledge they both foolishly fear in the first place. One institution may learn the knowledge and effect the goal or problem solution, regardless of the other institution's opposition, leaving the other to learn from the results encompassing them.
Incentive is everything for human action. With it, things happen. Without it, things do not happen. The more valuable incentive becomes obvious if one questions their way past initial perceptions. All those institution leaders face the same vulnerabilities as all humans. Were the time available to their purported great minds, free from bickering with other institutions, they could find the cure for cancer and other causes of death they and their family face, or work at something more valuable to fund the efforts of their interest. The greatest threat to the life of the military generals, their families and the government officials dumping money into war machines and other self-perpetuating contradictions, is cancer and the other common causes of death, not war. That percentage of human time spent outside the concept of reasoning, attempting the concept of force, is counter productive to the great benefits that reasoning provides humans. So how did minds perceive incentives subordinate to priority concerns of the same minds?
Cancer is just an example. Select any examples subordinate to your primary interests. You will be most damaged by that for which you did not most prepare.
But that concept is not sufficient incentive to cause those military generals and government officials to fund medical research rather than war. They will let their children die of diseases otherwise curable, while they fund war machines, only as an example identical to the medical research institutions spending time supporting the political parties diverting funds into bureaucratic ozone holes in the name of medical research and national defense, because they are each simply ignorant of the utility of the reasoning process to more efficiently achieve the goal of their military, medical or political efforts. To promptly resolve their human-caused contradictions is to leave more time and resources available for the advanced knowledge that can leave them living 100 years as biological teenagers having fun before they start growing old, in a society without need to fear war or other institutionally created problems.
War is just an example. For those so enamored with war that it constitutes their love of life, intellectual technology will serve their love well. Was the controlling concept of war to kill the other guy, or defeat his mind?
Until they encounter the incentive to question their conclusions, humans will illogically vote in majority-rule elections and scamper off to wars instead of utilizing the reasoning process of the human mind for its exponential benefits.
What incentives do your actions prove currently control your mind? Question them. Identify the incentives that will lead your mind to precisely where you want it to be, because they will.
Did you want to die of old age having been uselessly fighting the other guy your entire life, or frustrated by the actions of the other guy, as those military, police and political chaps, or did you want to know precisely why humans fight each other, to the extent of knowing how to resolve every human-caused contradiction, and therefore laughing the entire time while therefore learning more useful knowledge? How would you identify the incentive to learn what you currently do not know?
It Is A Disguise...
If humans create a contradiction, its resolution is inherent to the creation, since it is a human phenomenon rather than anything greater. The resolution to which any human would ascribe their wisdom, including those who create the contradiction, is therefore readily available within the design of the human mind. So why do you not recognize it, the actual resolution, not the rhetorical illusion of suggesting that the fault is with the other guy? The resolution process is merely disguised, and the disguise defines the brilliance of the human mind's design. The process is exposed as is all knowledge, by asking and answering questions, that which the mind most fears. What concept would create stark fear of a self-created illusion holding no possible threat or damage?
They Who Most Fear The Knowledge...
One of the greater amusements afforded by learning intellectual technology is the recognition that those who most crave the related knowledge, such as governmental and institutional leaders, most fear it, most evade every avenue to it, and would most benefit from it if they could escape their fear. Therein the word, fear, merely represents the description of a concept more usefully understood in the more complex description of the balance in all things. There is no logical reason to fear anything, so we invented the concept to efficiently explain-away a more complexly described concept.
The worst that can happen is that you die, and you will die anyway. If you suggest a preference based on time, what is time? Therefore, if you fear an unknown, learn the unknown or do not so embarrass yourself by exposing your fear. Consider military and police personnel who so loudly brag of their bravery, yet live their life in fear. Why do they carry guns? Your mind is designed to efficiently learn the unknown. Do so.
The avenue to uniquely difficult goals in the human phenomenon leads through the greatest images of intellectually fabricated fear, far greater than fear of mere death. Were it not so, the goals would have been achieved at the outset, by design of the human mind's capability. Learning the nature of emotion-based fear and similar concepts is part of the puzzle.
Why are so many humans so easily convinced to run onto the battlefields into the face of brutal and agonizing death, or gather to rail against the other guy in rallies and demonstrations, or flock to the voting booths to vote against the other guy, each only creating the next contradiction yet to be resolved; yet so few humans will spend far less time, money and effort to sit down at a comfortable setting and methodically work through the questions that could resolve their every perceived difference? Why? Answer the question and verify the answer. The answer that can prevail against the questions you most fear and thus do not ask, is a part of the puzzle. You need only consider the questions. And you can do so in a comfortable chair.
Now consider the proof that you are yet among the foolish who fear to utilize reasoning. Sit down and write a series of questions and answers starting at any human-caused contradiction you perceive, moving toward any flaw in your own actions, and notice where you start encountering difficulty. Notice that is the point where frustration sets in, a reaction of the mind. Your physical setting does not change. You are still comfortable, and face no physical threats or required exertion. But your conclusion will be that of a requirement to then physically rally an organization of people to go forward to battle on the battlefields, demonstrate in the streets, vote in the voting booths, raise money to buy your way out of your frustration, harangue the crowds, print the posters, post the web pages, wearily lobby the politicians, tediously hobnob with so called influential people at their leisure and your work, write the books, explain your actions as educating the masses and leaders, and then start over every next morning stagnated in the quest and then defense of an inherently untenable process, by design. Why didn't you stay sitting in the comfortable position, and merely question your way through the contradictions that frustrated you out of your chair?
If you are human, and thus predicated on your mind, when would you stop using your mind and start using your muscle? Would it not be, by definition, at that point where muscle was not needed, beyond that of lifting your fingers to write the reasoning that your perceived opponent could not escape in content or format? That level of reasoning exists, and it is other than what you currently perceive, separated only by a series of questions easily endured for a few days, comfortably sitting in your chair. Your opponent holds the same design of mind as you, and cannot escape the controlling concept of human reasoning.
Why don't I do it for you...
Asked and challenged by many frustrated people, why I don't achieve their goals for them if it is so easy; and it is; the answer is within the related knowledge. There is no interest. Some people design things. Others build them. I build some things. I design others. Intellectual technology is a design or puzzle I was fortunate to discover. I did not design it. I had the time to discover it because there was nothing I wanted to build with any part of it while I was learning it. A separate concepts identifies why I held the tenacity to identify its each part. If I wanted to use it for something, I would have stopped short in the learning-process, and be making money attempting to use the first isolated parts of it to profitably fail that which so many institution leaders are failing because they stopped learning, too soon, to start making money among people who are as hasty in their conclusions.
There is no incentive. Because no person can successfully give something for nothing, I cannot give you something for nothing. My incentive was to learn knowledge. If your incentive is to achieve a goal or contradiction-resolution, such as the incentive of being paid as an institution leader to achieve a sustainable goal, or the ego-based incentive to be sustainably recognized as a great person, you need only learn the related knowledge. It is available.
The amusement of these humans is superlative. Because humans routinely discount the reference to the lives lost and misery endured in so many wars and battles for all manner of goals still eluding them, I will mention that trillions of dollars, representing massive human effort, are being spent on processes that are inherently self-defeating from the outset. Citizens of nations and members of organizations are pouring the vast wealth derived from lifetimes of work, into the pockets of institution leaders who easily flimflam followers with hollow rhetorical illusions about solutions just another million dollars away. The same citizens and members openly attack and ostracize fellow, untitled citizens who suggest non-dramatic reasoning process to discover and then resolve contradictions in the process of the leaders.
The masses worship and lavishly pay their leaders, by definition of the existence of the leaders. It is the leaders who hold the incentive created by the followers, not the individuals whom the masses discount. The knowledge is therefore available to the leaders. That the leaders hold greater fear of knowledge than do individuals, countering the incentive, is merely part of the puzzle relating to the aforementioned amusement of great magnitude.
If you are not laughing yourself to tears over these humans, you are missing the show.
If you are supporting the leaders instead of individually learning the referenced knowledge, you are the show.
They are the same...
As with other concepts herein expressed, the institutional leader reading the following will not be pleased. It is inherent that the concepts which the leader finds unpleasant, are those which he normally avoids, and thus within which are disguised the elements of knowledge he needs to acquire, to achieve that which he has not yet achieved. For an institution leader to achieve a difficult goal, the discussion of the related concepts must include the worst of the leader's fears, angers, displeasures, hatreds and such emotion-based concepts inherently avoided by design of the human mind. Is that not so?
A difficult but available and useful step in this process, otherwise impossible in the normal context, is to recognize that discussion of intellectual technology is and must be between the leader and a flawlessly impartial entity having no other goal beyond analysis of flawless logic. This functionally imperative step, over a conceptual obstacle otherwise insurmountable, cannot be achieved with an institutional analyst such as a lawyer, think tank expert, professor, professional staff, expert consultant, or any such entity identifiable with its own institution. An institution cannot identify the controlling contradiction of an institution. An institutional representative will inherently defend the institutional illusions common between the consultant and the consultee. The same concept, in another form, occurs between two non-institutional sorts, such as two common citizens not involved with institutions of their discussion. No part of the puzzle may be missing from the process. Intellectual technology involves no approximates.
If, in the course of the related process, a question by the leader identifies a contradiction within the institutional knowledge of the expert, said expert's mind will defend the contradiction, rather than correct it at that moment of identification, or his institutional position collapses. Do not for a moment be so foolish as to believe that you would admit an institutional contradiction of your own institution, upon its identification. Therein the controlling concept is within the adjective, institutional. A flaw left in place flaws all conclusions derived from use of the flaw.
Therein, you may ask me any question or make any comment, and I will respond with the best logic my mind can devise. If you can discover a contradiction in my words, and we can verify the contradiction, the resolution will be easy, and I will be grateful for your having advanced my knowledge.
The process analyst you seek is the one who can make that above statement, and then verify its proof upon demand, with certain questions. There are no such other process analysts in the professional market, to my knowledge. If you find one, I would welcome the opportunity for a few questions. Do not bring one forward lightly, for fear of his embarrassment. If you find one, and he or she is interested, we will most enjoy some highly advanced discussions, inherently advancing my knowledge within the narrow sliver of otherwise boring knowledge represented by intellectual technology.
The above in this section was just a part of the puzzle necessary for the following concepts which displease organization leaders, but hold an imperative part of the puzzle for their mind to achieve difficult goals. Upon such achievement, the following becomes immaterial.
All the governments, government agencies, organizations, institutions and their leaders are functionally the same, including those who most rail against each other and even go to war against each other, if you step back a couple more steps and look at them.
The leaders place the rhetorical illusion of the organization above the individual, while the design of humans is such that the individual mind is above all but its designer. Is that not evident? Is the mind not separated from the group by physical location and its individual, unique data-base? What is "the organization", if not just two words with no functioning brain attached to it. XYZ Organization does not have a brain attached to the name. In contrast, the names of actual persons each have a brain attached to them.
The functional definition of the organization, after all the bovine scat is espoused, is the leadership clique advancing the hollow words, "the organization", to feed off the work of the foolish individuals supporting the organization. The organization leaders feed the members rhetorical illusions, and the members feed the leaders hard work and enough money to give the leaders a comparative life of leisure and ego-candy above that of the members.
The above is not the case for private enterprise companies having survived the test of time. Therein the owners and managers provide product and service process (results of thinking) for which the customers get precisely that for which they willingly pay (result of thinking). There is no sustainable illusion involved. The product or service is openly identifiable beyond mere words, or as mere words where mere words are knowingly being purchased. The test of time proves the case, or the case recognizably fails. The goal or contradiction resolution is identifiable in a verified manifestation beyond a rhetorical illusion.
Organizational technology is merely a process of trading words for money, with no other achieved goal. Look closer at the process. Every achieved goal for which the institution leader takes credit, is the achievement of individual minds despite the cost of the useless institutional leader. Now note that the institutional leader represents a concept, and unlike the institution name, holds an individual mind inherently equal to other minds. Therein is an indication that a leader who learns the controlling contradiction of institutional thinking, can in fact create goal achievements completely attributable to the leader as an individual, and by chance of the phenomenon, goals of profound social and historical value espoused by institutions. Therein, each participant earns credit for what they actually did, rather than claiming the self-defeating illusion of achieving what others did.
The creation of the illusion of a thinking entity, that is, the leadership body of an organization, for which there is no singularly functioning, physical brain attached to the organization identification name, is an amusing phenomenon of humans. From that recognition, one may notice the mechanisms used to maintain such an illusion. Prominent among such mechanisms is each group leadership accusing the other group leadership of being an enemy, yet both are functionally doing the same thing, etcetera. Without a fabricated enemy to distract the attention of the followers, the organization cannot exist, since it cannot tolerate the level of scrutiny that would identify no brain attached to the organization name. If the organization leader's mind were sufficient in itself to achieve goals, he would need no institutional illusion to fool himself and others.
Foolish humans are addicted to hating the other guy. The other guy need only have a name attached to him. Organization leaders serve the purpose of giving him a name, such as his organization name among other institutional identifications. The leaders therein benefit from the results of the human addiction to hating the other guy. The leaders need that crutch simply because they stopped advancing their knowledge, to instead spend their time lavishing in the self-stagnating words-for-money game. They stopped short of learning how to achieve their goal, because they were taught by a society of institutions that institutional thinking was the zenith of human thought ability, and never taught how to question that obviously flawed assumption.
Because of the nature of institutional leadership competition as a separate concept, to be successful as an institutional leader, one must flawlessly believe one's own institutional illusions. Any attempt at a charade would soon enough fail, with a rival leader more genuinely exhibiting the institutional beliefs quick to be recognized by the institution members holding those beliefs by definition.
Therein, the institution leader who wishes to actually achieve the institution's goals, to thus become the genuine leader of history, rather than merely perpetuate the rhetorical illusions for a stagnant position of employment, must lead his own mind through a certain labyrinth of questions no rival would hold the courage to even approach, to thus learn the substance of what he currently knows, learn what he prior feared to learn, and the synthesis of both. It is the questions that are the key, and they are only questions, mere arrangements of words. They cannot damage you, but to the institutionally altered mind they are feared more than death, as history so consistently proves. It is not easy to identify those questions. Had prior leaders asked themselves those questions at the time, they would have been truly great, rather than those who left you with what you are working to correct.
Intellectual dark ages...
Humans are a young species still stagnated deep in the intellectual dark ages. We still bash each other over the head in wars, and throw each other in prisons, slaughter innocent children in their church in Waco Texas, etcetera, almost exclusively through governmental institutions, for the process of conveying our reasoning to the other guy. If you are not therefore laughing at these humans, you are missing their only current utility. They were given the astonishing abilities of a human mind, an astonishing contradiction-resolution device, and they remain clueless as to its basic utility, using it to create rather than resolve contradictions.
For a learning vehicle, consider he whom many of the western institutions have described as the least astute national leader in the world, Mr. Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Who proved to be less intellectually astute? Mr. George Bush of the US was so angered by Mr. Hussein's inherently self-defeating contradictions, that, instead of using his mind to easily out-smart Mr. Hussein's contradictions, Mr. Bush abandoned the utility of the human mind to raw anger, squandered billions of dollars to slaughter over a hundred thousand human minds otherwise useful to advance the human phenomenon, initiating the process that slaughtered many of his own countrymen by all the mechanisms inherent to war, to leave Mr. Hussein in power, having comparatively beaten the arrogant United States of America yet again, garnering yet greater, rightful eastern institution respect for Mr. Hussein. And the US government is still denying the ongoing, deadly results of its foolish use of toxic weapons, as it has done after every war, thus yet compounding the contradictions at great damage to Americans. At any point the contradictions could have been identified and resolved by the use of the human mind, by design, without the other guy's escape.
The above is only an example. A Kuwaiti may describe it in words more critical of Mr. Hussein and more praising of Mr. Bush. A Chechnyan and Russian may describe a different example with the same words and switched reference names. The represented contradictions and manifested results are not changed by the examples or descriptions. The use of the mind was curtailed by institution leaders, at a proverbial Neanderthal level, to fool their gullible followers into bashing each other to death in an illogical attempt to convey reasoning that is only successfully conveyed by use of the mind alone. To use force, is to identify the opponent as more intelligent, leaving all the military and police powers representing the nadir of intelligence among humans. They do that by their own choice, usually for simple fear of questioning their decisions, when they hold a mind originally as capable as anyone else.
The past is always only a learning vehicle. While unlikely because of institutional effects on the human mind, it is readily possible for Mr. Hussein to utilize his prior actions, that did not advance any genuine benefits, as a learning vehicle suggesting the utility of entirely different technology for his next pursuits, such as intellectual technology. Therein he could set out for the goal, and easily become history's most respected national leader. The process is just knowledge. It is just as available, but more difficult for a US president to do so, or any government leader. The greater institutional power of a US president creates the greater barrier or fear of questions which might initially appear to threaten that institution. And US leaders still ludicrously believe that the US won the above-referenced war. No humans win any war. The war wins, proving the persistent inability of institutional humans to utilize the design of the human mind, much to the amusement of observers.
When humans belatedly emerge from their current intellectual dark ages, they will be amused at how humans survived the era of bashing each other on the head and imprisoning each other, and worshiping the leaders who contrived such process void of thinking. Humans will therefore laugh robustly. It is only that humans are fast breeders, like mice and flies, that sustained their population despite their odd affinity to killing each other for what they perceived as a contradiction-resolution process.
It is inherent to the design of the mind that some people will actively pursue intellectual technology, and others will fear it, fighting against it, while most people are too busy with other things to even recognize the concept, as has been occurring since the human brain was invented. As time passes, more data is discovered, and thus more people encounter more diverse data. Therein the parts of intellectual technology are becoming more available to the general population. The internet has greatly accelerated that phenomenon. Therein a greater percentage of the people are becoming more reasoning oriented, rather than force or power oriented. Therein military, police and other such force-based institutions, to include the established political parties, are left with a progressively smaller percentage of the population willing to embarrass themselves by joining institutions predicated on shooting each other, writing laws against each other, and imprisoning each other (proverbially bashing each other over the head), rather than using the same time to advance one's reasoning ability for the obvious benefits to oneself and all humans. More people are belatedly recognizing that humans are predicated on their mind rather than their government's guns.
Therein the military, police and such institutions are ending up with progressively less-thinking people, such as those too frightened to question their superiors. The proofs are categorical. The quality of those institutions is therefore obviously deteriorating. The best of their self-glorifying propaganda cannot cover the obvious results. These words can be presented to soldiers and police, and they know that these words are correct, despite their overt denials. They know that they are too afraid to ask their superiors about the obvious contradictions they recognize in their institution and the decisions of their superiors.
The common fear of questioning superiors is created by the superiors being unable, for lack of adequate knowledge or courage, to answer any substantive question of their obviously common institutional contradictions, so the superiors routinely retaliate against any subordinate who dares to question them, to discourage such questioning. That inability to accurately answer any question is correctable by simply practicing the asking and answering of questions, but the superiors prior trained their mind, as subordinates, to fear the questioning process. Upon promotion to the positions of superiors, their title convinces their mind that they do not need to practice anything. Their title convinces their mind that they already know it.
In contrast to police and military personnel fearing to question their superiors, the citizens are more concertedly questioning the increasingly flagrant maliciousness of US military, police, judges and such force-based government personnel, and also in other countries affected by the information age. The citizens are therein proven to hold more plain human courage than the soldiers and police.
Those police and soldiers who were previously the most frightened of questioning their superiors, and thus were the most institutionally supportive of their superiors regardless of the contradictions created by their superiors, and who thus remained ignorant of all the things they did not question, were promoted as time went by. They are now the military generals and police captains, so entrenched in their ignorance they literally cannot answer common citizen questions about the glaring contradictions of police and military actions, thus causing more questions.
The damaging results within the institutions are compounding the problems. Even those younger personnel within the institutions themselves, who can read and function on the internet, not yet as deeply entrenched in institutional ignorance as their superiors, are caught in escalating frustration. The more thinking of them quit their institutions early. Those remaining, too fearful to question their own superiors, caught with the frustration of being ordered by ignorant superiors to carry out obviously more illogical actions angering more citizens, retaliate against the citizens as scapegoats, compounding the problems. Classic examples of the frustration are illuminated by the uniquely high suicide rate and similar psychological problems among police, and rightfully low morale among military personnel. There is no propaganda fix. The public-relations and morale-boosting rhetoric compounded the problem by creating misleading illusions while the real problems therefore increased.
To listen to the US government and its copy-ready news-release writers called spokespersons, lacking enough communists with which to threaten the people, there are terrorists with bombs behind every tree, dangerous drugs in every car, and loaded guns in every school child's pockets. Real life keeps making a lie of the government propaganda, and besides the citizens, the more thinking police and military personnel recognize it.
For lack of enough communists to attack, the US Army was even unleased on a Christian church in Waco, to slaughter innocent women and children, when no one in the church was harming anyone, while real news journalists were kept far away under threat of arrest, and the government news-release writers fed the news media what the government chaps dictated. The government sorts then hastily bulldozed the evidence. That was the US Army and federal police terrorist squads who merely shoved aside the local sheriff for whom the church members would graciously open their door at any time. To think that such dramatic examples will not occur again, among all the less dramatic examples perpetrated by government power-based forces desperate for budget excuses, is to display remarkable ignorance. Power is insatiable, always.
The words of accusation or denial for any issue are only entertainment., and will change nothing. The citizen reaction is immaterial compared to the reaction of the minds of the federal police and military personnel. The actions and their trend are only data for the analysis of minds. It is the ability to accurately question the controlling concepts at play, which describes the human ability to resolve the related contradictions and achieve the related goals. Nothing herein will create a change. This web page of related concepts only indicates the existence of a block of knowledge that if utilized by anyone with incentive to do so, can resolve the related contradictions and achieve goals of any magnitude.
Either the institutional leaders learn intellectual technology to promptly resolve their spiraling contradictions, or the institutions will do as all institutions have always done, methodically advance to their inherent collapse, providing history's lessons of what not to do, yet again, for those who even ask that minimal level of questions. The difference now is a shorter interval because of the information distribution effects of the internet. And thus the corollary knowledge is more readily available to devise a victory from what will otherwise be a defeat. The US military and police, having sunk to maliciously attacking the people they were supposed to protect, identical to the lawyers, court judges, politicians and other power-based institutions needing an enemy for the institutions to exist, can sufficiently question their actions to learn the controlling contradictions, to instead benefit the people and thus themselves, if they learn how to ask the questions they always feared most.
There is no reason, except for raw fear of knowledge, to facilitate a collapse of an institution, when the original concept of institutional leadership is that of thinking sufficiently to achieve the institutional goals. Yet while you are reading this, the military and police leaders of the US and every nation are devising training programs for more effective methods to attack the people with guns and other forms of force, rather than using the same time to out-think the related problems so there is no need to attack the people. Because they are as described above, they literally have no concept of how to out-think rather than out-gun a problem. And every attempt to out-gun a problem has left the problem in place, plus the problem created by the contradiction of attempting to out-gun what was created by human minds. If you are a military general or police captain, or any member of those institutions, recognize that in fact your institution never offered you incentive to win a war or catch real criminals without the use of guns or force, with instead the use of your mind. And incentive is everything to the human mind, for goal achievement. How will you verify that knowledge, and then how will you utilize it, starting today?
On the day that any institution, inherently including the United States Government and every other government, eventually collapses, it is replete with leaders who literally cannot understand why the collapse took place. Some of them later recognize what they could have prior recognized if they simply thought a bit more. They simply did not prior ask the questions which would lead to the understanding and thus the correction of the problem the prior day.
End of Related Concepts 1.
Related Concepts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, ETC Page