Introduction to Computing, Math, Decision Making, Logic, Problem Solving.

Detective and judicial work is a great example of logic. The aspect of needing multiple contexts to prove worthing is an inherently logical process. Just a weapon and an injured person is not proof of anything. You need other kinds of evidence. Articles or remnants of fabrics or clothing that can be linked to the weapon or the injured person by various means. I think detective stories and mysteries are so engaging because they exercise the rational process, that is so rarely exercised by humans. Unfortunately the ability do this in a crime scene does not at all indicate whether a person will be able to use such systematic approaches in other erase of their life. Such as what kind of food to buy. Or purchases of any kind are likely not going to make by such reasoning. They are going to made by the irrational contextualizations of society and its media programmers. This system will be guiding the rest of the persons life, relationships and communication. 

      There are so many examples of people incorrectly charged with a crime because there is always the possibility that you have missed a condition of innocence. That is one of the problems with western judicial systems. Besides the fact that they focus on motivation as a factor, when similarly the likelihood that missed a factor in motivation is absolutely certain. That is why most other cultures historically just focuses on developing an understanding of loss and gain. This is the perennial human drama reference by Asians classically as; loss gain, pleasure pain, fame ill fame, praise and blame and has been further elucidated by more modern developments of those kinds of pairs. Others, such as power and vulnerability, altruistic and narcissistic and so on, can be reduced to the previous contexts, but they might also have some added value of understanding though modern life depictions. 

      The poorly constructed mis representations of what constitutes more or less understanding creates errors when describing what constitutes more understanding, whereas what constitutes less understanding is the proper context for elucidating understanding. People focus on proving they are right rather than the actual method that yields understand which is showing what is insufficient. It is the insufficiency that gives context to the sufficiency, not the other way around. Sufficiency is business a usual.  There are endless expels of this kind of misconstrued information. The empale of applied chemistry we call medicine is to me the most mis applied knowledge today. That is because its effects are so severe and obvious to those taking medication. But not to those who prescribe, for they live in a highly selective environment that excludes the information they would need to identify where their mistakes are being made. They are not only made in the drug applications themselves, but also in the mis-prescribing of drugs. These two areas are directly related by selective mis-information.  Thus introducing a number of different concepts and showing how they relate or do not relate is thinking. Not showing subsets of information in one domain. That leads to the world wide confusion and obfuscation of today, such as peoples mis understanding of computing. These problems are so all perverse that there is no way we are ever going to address them at a societal level. We are too addicted to “business as usual.” Just look that 2024 surgeon generals report and the way they contextualize the problem of communication. The result is more and more misleading. Exactly by the kinds of renderings that Stephen Pinker is advocating.

      This system of exclusion which is by the recognition of “basic facts.” As Mr.        says        at www.lesswrong.com points out in terms of apples, that according to Stephen Pinker logic, apples can only be referenced in terms of apples. They can not include things like, other cultural references and other understandings of apples that are outside of idealistic models of what constitiutes apples. Such as mythological references to apples. Basic facts are only basic facts by the context they are constituted in and defined by. If you remove this limitation and include other ways of referencing, you have a more functional understanding of basic facts than the one produced by the more limited context. The limited context argues that it’s basic facts are correct by way of more and more limitations. The "breaking down of the context by its smaller sub-contexts." (sense of style) Not by larger more inclusive contexts. These more inclusive contexts also reveal intrinsic properties left out by the less inclusive context. These are left to be discovered by people who are interested in alternative views. Not conspiracy theory or Aliens. I’m talking about critical thinking. Analytical thinking. Logic. Decision making as revealed by rationality and empirically derived methodologies. Stephen Pinker is a modern Plato. With idealist unsubstantiated opinions. Like Platos idea of value, and everything else in the Republic. It's familiar. It seems to descirbe things that we see. That doesn't make it meaningful. That is, that doesn't make it a functional understanding. It operates in terms of ideal models. Not functional thinking and analysis. Not something that is going to lead to a skill in terms of changing outcomes. It leads to more exploitative outcomes, which is popular with Stephens supporters, so called friends. People in other domains than literature have done a better job of criticizing Mr. Pinker than those in the area of literature. Until now. 

      Nassim’s book “The Black Swan” turned me onto a great database. The Society of Judgement and Decision Making. That operates the website The Journal of Judgment and Decision Making. It is a very rigorous study and area of research. It is empirically based.

Onto computing.

      Isn’t recorded music great? You can listen to it anytime. You can stop and start it and listen to little segments over and over if you want to. Does a recoding of music hear itself? Does the recording know if its playing or not? Does a recoding know if you are listening, or know what you think of it? 

      A computer code A.I. is a complex recording, of zero’s and one’s. It is programmed like a recording. It is processed now by increasingly complex arrangements of microprocessors. These  long stings of code to two results and compares them. It does this by determining if the outcome of the code is “halt, or not halt.” That is how a computer “thinks.” Not in terms of ideas, emotions, perceptions, visceral responses such as gag reflexes to what constitutes human environments today. 

     This computing A.I. processing can arrange, (taxonomize,) index, cross reference, put together many, many strings of code very, very fast. (A true understatement.) These iterated productions of code the processors can selectively play and mix to produce all kinds of musical arrangements. It does not know if it’s playing music or not. It does not know what kind of music it is playing.

        Very few people are going to engage is such conversations. Most of them would have to spend a great deal of effort to get around their addiction to their small domains. They likely do not have the logistical and analytical skills to know what I am trying to say. Much like a piece of selectively iterated code. More and more people succumb to the more and more selectively reduced scopes and capacities of communication, knowledge, perception and humanism every second. That has become the dominant mode of human consciousness. It has been thus reducing humans for many hundreds of thousands of years. Resulting in language and everything else known as human. Which is not saying much. Thankfully, consciousness is just a small amount of preferred attention out of the far larger arenas of perception. On the boundaries of perception exist real ideas. Unique perceptions from all kinds of signaling that is not based on the isolated so called brain functions, thus falsely rendered, and called cognitions, and executive functions. Then assumed to be the essence of communication processes. These selectively produced idealistic reductions have been guiding human development since the early origins of human existence. Slowly and steadily producing the smaller and smaller versions of knowledge people call intelligence. While I can produce all kinds of examples of this process in all areas of human activity, if you can not relate to this, it is unlikely that you will ever relate to any wider understanding of human function. You will remain in your self interested preferences forever. Without contacting wider methods of relating, logic and analysis. It does not come naturally. It is not in the idealistic reductions of virtue, upon which Plato based Friendship, freedom, justice, wisdom, courage, and moderation. Using such a model based on ideal forms is highly mis representational. As are the ideas of soul, essence, spirit, etc. Most intelligent people avoid talking about such things. Knowing that the capacity of most people is based on such idealistic and unrealistic foundations. They say they would rather focus on other principals, rather than attempt to directly address peoples most basic forms of delusion that interrupt wider capacities of relating. 

     Many discussions of so called A.I. which is only computing, and never will be anything more, occur around the idea of computers making decision. This shows the human tendency to mis-contextualize by excluding essential intrinsic data. Before one can discuss if computers will make decisions for humans, one needs to invest significant research into human decision making. The trends in decision making would also be a good idea to have some working knowledge of. This would help contextualize processes of human decision making. I hope the above gives some basic starting points.  

      This would at least start to promote a more informed discussion of how computers might or might not be able to make decisions. Just as this is an example of how people mis contextualize their inquiries and outcomes by insufficient contexts and conditions, so do computers.

      Human decision making is dependent on the scopes and inclusions or exclusions of different contexts. Computers then are also informed by similar inclusions and exclusions of data. However they are not the determinants of these things outside of the domains of zero’s, one’s, halt’s and not halt’s. Their outputs are and always will be solely dependent upon the codes in which they are programmed, of which, like humans they can index, arrange, piece together different contexts. They will never make up their own contexts as humans do. To the people who have no knowledge of these contexts computers appear to make up contexts, and make decisions. They do not make decisions like humans. Just as they do not process math like humans. They do not process communication like humans. They do not process things in terms of ideas, perceptions, emotions, ideas, values, meanings or visceral responses, such as the gag response I get from being exposed to what modern humans call intelligence and communication. Which is mostly only repetitive copy cat behavior like the way they understand genetics without the ideas of complex multi system interactions. The second most popular method is to explain things in terms of their own things. To explain concepts in terms of sub concepts within the same concept domain. Computers do not do anything like humans do them. Contrary to         on  google’s gemini platform propaganda claims. Seen just before three minutes into the new Gemini platform misleading presentation. 

      To the people who have no knowledge of these contexts com puters appear to make up contexts, and make decisions. They do not make decisions like humans. Just as they do not process math like humans. They do not process communication like humans. They do not think, or process things in terms of ideas, perceptions, emotions, visceral responses, such as the gag response I get from being exposed to what modern humans call intelligence and communication, but is only repetitive copy cat behavior like the way they understand genetics without the ideas of complex multi system interactions. Computers do not do anything like humans do them. Contrary to           google’s gemini platform claims. Humans have always lived in the very small human domain and thus ascribe human traits to non human things. Few humans can see things in other ways. Thus also the uniformed humans mistake computer outputs as creations of new contexts. Which they are not. They are complex iterations of text. Unbeknownst to the majority of causally observant humans. For example computers did not create child sex trafficking. They certainly enhance it or help to eliminate it by data storage and retrieval. Computers do not make the inclusion of some ideas and the exclusion of others. The certainly enhance it. Computers did not make predictability and unpredictability. They enhance those. Computers do not make ideas of right and wrong. They enhance those. They enhance those things according to their programmers. According to societies different conclusions about these issues. Computers do not make literature. They can enhance or degrade it. Computers do not make science. They can enhance or degrade it. Computers do not make semantics, they can enhance or degrade it. 

      Computers can not “do” any of these things, and can not do many more things, because they are simply a data storage and retrieval system. They can identify words. They can not identify non-words. The more exhaustive the programming of words, the better the approximation of words. Not the approximation of non-words. Such is the limited domain of computing. This shows they follow human logic principals accordingly to program of such principals. But not human perception. They can at an increasing rate, qualitatively and quantitatively rearrange, reconstruct in many fascinating new arrangements of data. That is all they will ever do. This is because computers are limited the computers domain. They will never included the domains of humans. Few people understand the human domain because they only understand the human domain from human-centric perspectives. This is insufficient. Humans are the most reductive organic life form. Language is a special application of experience. It is a reductive form of experience. Not an elaboration of greater contexts of experience. It is only a more and more selective way of rendering experience. While language can be wider and narrower, it only exits within the contexts of language. A human identified selective method. The problems of language started long before language. The process of specialization and narrowing of concepts may have started with the genetic anomaly, the genetic mistake that produced a more symmetrical brain. This would explain why humans function in accordance with the principals of conformity, predicability, regularity, basically properties of symmetry and for most humans have such a problem with irregularity, unpredictably, unusual-ness etc. which is the operating principal of the universe, i.e. randomness. Which humans try to eliminate arriving at the disastrous conditions of today. Simply planting trees is not going to solve this problem. Conserving fossil fuels and regulating methane production from farm animals is not going to solve this problem. Computers are not going to solve this problem. They can enhance it by further misleading people by their mis informed programmers.  

      Humans have always lived in the very small human domain and thus ascribe human traits to non human things. Few humans can see things in other ways. Thus also the uniformed humans mistake computer outputs as creations of new contexts. Which they are not. They are complex iterations of text. Unbeknownst to the majority of causally observant humans. For example computers did not create sex trafficking. They certainly enhance it or help to eliminate it by data storage and retrieval. Computers do not make the inclusion of some ideas and the exclusion of others. The certainly enhance it. Computers did not make predictability and unpredictability. They enhance those. Computers do not make ideas of right and wrong. They enhance those. They enhance those things according to their programmers. According to societies different conclusions about these issues. Computers do not make literature. They can enhance or degrade it. Computers do not make science. They can enhance or degrade it. Computers do not make semantics, they can enhance or degrade it. 

      They can not do any of these things, and can not do many more things, because they are simply a data storage and retrieval system. They can identify words. They can not identify non-words. The more exhaustive the programming the better the approximation of words. Not the approximation of non-words. This shows they follow human logic principals accordingly to program of such principals. But not human perception. They can at an increasing rate, qualitatively and quantitatively rearrange, reconstruct in many fascinating new arrangements of data. That is all they will ever do. This is because computers are limited the computers domain. They will never included the domains of humans. Few people understand the human domain because they only understand the human domain from human-centric perspectives. This is insufficient. Humans are the most reductive organic life form. Language is a special application of experience. It is a reductive form of experience. Not an elaboration of greater contexts of experience. It is only a more and more selective way of rendering experience. While language can be wider and narrower, it only exits within the contexts of language. A human identified selective method. The problems of language started long before language. The process of specialization and narrowing of concepts may have started with the genetic anomaly, the genetic mistake that produced a more symmetrical brain. This would explain why humans function in accordance with the principals of conformity, predicability, regularity, basically properties of symmetry and for most humans have such a problem with irregularity, unpredictably, unusual-ness etc. which is the operating principal of the universe, i.e. randomness. Which humans try to eliminate arriving at the disastrous conditions of today. Simply planting trees is not going to solve this problem. Conserving fossil fuels and regulating methane production from farm animals is not going to solve this problem. Computers are not going to solve this problem. They can enhance it by further misleading people by their mis informed programmers.  

      This leads to a more technical discussion of computing. Computing is based on the number theory known as set theory. This underlies a similar problem of computing. The mathematical technicalities of proofs are similar to other domains of proofs. For an introduction to these ideas I recommend the you tube video Maths Fundamental Flaw. This goes over some basic contributions to mathematical proofs of Hillel, Godel, Wang andTuring are discussed in simple language with technical examples. These are fundamental to understanding some of maths basic applications such as set theory, quantum fields, and computing. Once you get familiar with these kinds of proof rendering, you will understand a lot about what math and computing are, and what they are not. The what they are not being most imporatant. This video, and it's comments lead to many, many other more recent developments of these early ideas. I have found them most intriguing. 

      Computers only use one kind of signaling. While life does not.  The only signaling computers operate by is zero’s, one’s, halt and not halt. That is their functional domain. We might technically say these are subsets of computer code. We will never know all the kinds of signaling in the real world. Humans do not functionally live in the real world at all. That’s why one of the ways I refer to my project as Reality Vs. Humans. The real world is made up of properties that we avoid. Irregularity, the unknown and the unknowable, the random, etc. More closely related non intrinsic human properties that we don’t like are unfamiliarity, non-conformity, the unusual, the unpredictable. It is hard to distinguish human realms from less human realms. 

      We live in smaller and smaller references. Often subsets of the same set same context, same condition, and it is unnatural to produce other kinds of sets or contexts. It does not come easily to anybody. It takes work. I think Nassim said he spent ten or twenty years on his white swan project. He’s probably still working on it. 

      We are not moving in the other direction, away from smaller human subsets of ideas. Humans and human society is based on some simple processes. Not the wider more inclusive processes of the real world. Society tends to produce people who want to be around people like them. People who think like them and who do not challenge them in any significant way. Society needs conformity more than diversity to operate in its mode of control, exploitation, and oppression. See discussions on control elsewhere. Considerations other than this are again the stream. Certainly against the empire of humanity. 

       As Nassim Taleb so elegantly, simply and with great elucidation points out in his second book, seeing another white swan is not more information pertaining to white swans, and equally no information about all swans being white. In order to understand conditions of white swans, you have to have information about kinds of birds, kinds of birds that are white and not white, what constitutes a white swan in terms of an etymology of birds, types of birds, what is a swan, different types of swans and so on. The conditions are endless. That is why you can only prove what white swans are not. Because you are never going to have all the conditions that constitute a white swan. 

There are always possibilities that you have missed a condition of what a white swan is.   

      How is the misrepresentation of the term A.I. going to lead to more problems than the ones commonly presented. Simple, the same way all misrepresentations get mis-applied to things they shouldn’t and in ways they shouldn’t be applied. A great example is the applied chemistry domain called modern medicine. One example the exploitation of enzymes. Very popular trend is in the exploitation of kinase family enzymes. Which is huge. A good example is the CPK enzyme, creatinine protein kinase. The problem is incurred by the method of exploitation. That is, to only recognize one property out many known properties. Doing this is the same as mis representing a concept, like A.I. computing. The examples are endless because this is how humans function. Eliminate properties in the service of ones preferred perception, other wise known as consciousness. 

   

       The one important application to remember about these processes is how human value is recognized or not recognized.

When people are degraded we are excluding contexts that they intrinsically have. When we are depressed we can not see the properties that we have when we are not depressed. It is the same selective process. Thus value is found by identifying and including more contexts intrinsic to human nature. As we lose those recognitions and capacities through excluding them, we narrow the context of humans. This has been going on since the early origins of human beings. We began with wider, more inclusive and more general understandings of relating. We have been selectively reducing them. The scientific method is about finding more contexts for understanding. Sometimes the applications of those understandings get used in selective ways. They also get applied in terms of selective interventions that exclude properties that have been identified. This is the essence of human folly.

additonal notes for the second clip; applications for Dual Identities, Dual messages You Tube video

 Additional clip for dual identities You Tube; contextual expansion

Expanding the clip on dual identity, which proposes an educational program for both out group migrant minorities, and in group majorities. The material focuses on advising members to adhere to their own nationalistic heritage, as well as become informed about another groups identities. Thus maintaining a healthy sense of respect and acknowledgment of each groups selfhood. 

A similar process is proposed by Mary Frances O’Connor in her novel grief model. That being, this partner will always be here for me and I will always be here for them. While also recognizing that I will never see this person again. Mary applies her model in many areas of grief. 

I suggest there can be many other applications of these kinds of models. The first the be able to construct is a solid empirical context. Subjective considerations and characteristics can be applied as well. It is highly recommended in all application to start by identifying the more objective conjectures first. 

I have had many kinds of domino like effects of loss in my life. A personal loss of different kinds has triggered professional losses, familial losses, social losses, lifestyle losses, and more. These can take on many arrangements. There is no particular order to any of these models. 

I have used these models in terms of, “I had these conditions in my life at that time, and I have these conditions in my life now.”

It has been my experience that the more I use a framework such as this, the better and faster the resolutions take place. I think the process of developing the appropriate, different contexts is the most essential. 

The resolution seems to take place in  different ways. It can start in one area or another. It can result in different kinds of observations. It can have results in one area before another and vice-versa. 

The most consistent thing I notice is that I become more at ease with both the contexts. And the situations in my life that these contexts occur in become easier to tolerate with less reactivity, avoidance, less negative reinforcement and less negative arousal.    That last one is a funny term to me.

There are also applications to meditation and meditation like practices of reflection. Some mediation teachers today propose a combination of Vipassana and Jhana practices. Vipassana refers to noticing the characteristics of experience as a meditation. And classical characteristics are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no self. There are endless interpretations of these things and I think it is best if you just explore your own. I don’t think it is necessary to only use the classical objects of mediation. Some teachers in classical asian settings also recognize that these are very culturally selective. I will be sharing some of my own insights in this area in the future. Jhanna refers to the concentration like aspect of meditation. I think the most basic thing to notice about this aspect of the practice is the slowing down of ones senses. That seems to be the most common basis of what people experience in Jhanna. I recommend Richard Shankman’s book “The experience of Samadhi” as an excellent exploration of the above topics.  

So these two, Jhanna and Vipassana represent another pair to be able to recognize in meditation. 

Similar ideas found throughout so called spiritual literature are the ideas expressed by the symbol of the Uroborus and the Mandala. The Uroborus is the symbol of the snake eating its tail. This represents another pair in itself. The head being that of singularity. I like the term for consciousness proposed by Nassim Taleb as the “winner take all,” phenomena. That is, our consciousness only has room for the most preferred area of our perception. The tail represents the wider encompassment of our peripheral attention. This is also known classically as the center, a point, and the circle, the periphery. 

The mandala also embodies a pair or more often a quatrain of four aspects of a whole. This represents the wholeness of different conditions. Sometimes this can be told in creation myths where opposite aspects of creation are revealed. Sometimes developmentally  in terms of chronological events. 

The ability to recognized these different contexts as pairs or such, has long fascinated humans. 

In my developmental story of birth in prolonged vulnerability to a socially conditioned context of control also produces a pair. The important thing to keep in mind is that neither of the aspects in more dominant over the other. The domination stories of religions and cultures represent and reinforce a more exploitative model of oppression. Humans have a long way to go in this area and that is why I often suggest that so many models are obsolete in the consideration of more comprehensive human models. 

Venerability is popularly identified as weakness, susceptibility, liability, instability, weakness, frailty, peril, risk, jeopardy, danger, precariousness, feebleness, infirmity, brittleness etc. I always find it interesting how societies bias’ show up so clearly in language and how those go into programming the ways we relate to important pairs. This misrepresentation is another aspect of why humans increasingly today in terms of social conventions in all areas always pick the least effective indicators for what they are experiencing, what they want to look at, and look to for guidance.   This is revealed in depth in all areas of human activity in my upcoming book.

You do not often hear of vulnerability as a positive emotion, or in reference to learning. These are enormous basic deficits to human awareness, perception, and functionality. 

For me Joy and Vulnerability go hand in hand. As do being able to access new experiences directly engages vulnerability. However this is complete ignored in mainstream society. 

Singular identities, group identities or group preference policies must be distinguished from whatever purely subjective identifications, preferences or prejudices may exist among individuals and groups. These subjective feelings may of course influence identities and group policies, but the primary focus here is on concrete identifications, and group/government policies and their empirical consequences—not on their rationales, hopes, or promises, though these latter considerations will not be wholly ignored. Fundamentally, however, this is a study of what actually happens, rather than a philosophical exploration of issues that have been amply—if not more than amply- explored else where. Adapted from Thomas Sowell, Affirmative Action Around the World

Socio-econo-politco; An excerpt from my second book, unpublished, that was the basis for the short socio-econo-politico clip on You Tube contestual expansion.

First a short description of value

The one important application to remember about these processes is how human value is recognized or not recognized.

When people are degraded we are excluding contexts that they intrinsically have. When we are depressed we can not see the properties that we have when we are not depressed. It is the same selective process. Thus value is found by identifying and including more contexts intrinsic to human nature. As we lose those recognitions and capacities through excluding them, we narrow the context of humans. This has been going on since the early origins of human beings. We began with wider, more inclusive and more general understandings of relating. We have been selectively reducing them. The scientific method is about finding more contexts for understanding. Sometimes the applications of those understandings get used in selective ways. They also get applied in terms of selective interventions that exclude properties that have been identified. This makes the selections look intentionally harmful. I tihink mostly it is due to the inability to consider wider and greater contexts. That has been the essence of human folly. 

       Idealism operates out a very narrow, isolationist, conterfactual representation of value. We often just call this Platonic to keep the conversation in a more secular tone. Platonic notions of value correspond with the way all his ideas, explanations, metaphors are rendered. Idealistic or Platonic models are also called top down. A presentation of an "Ideal Form" as Plato called them. This is an idea that is developed to explain things that has no emprical basis. That is, it has no evidence. It is decidedly "perfect" before any kind of application. Then it is applied. Everything then conforms to the "ideal form. The perfect idea of something. In this case of top down modeling everything then is explained in terms of the ideal idea. Nothing can prove otherwise because it is said to be perfect. Everything seen in this way proves the ideal form. This is also known as corroboration. Like saying that seeing one more white swan proves that all swans are white. Of course this doesn't prove anything people continue to operate in this way. Except in more analytical sciences. You can see the video and material on problem solving for more clarity.

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7562396168653700830/7931383516755453871

You Tube contextual expansion. I will start this exploration with a reflection on polarity from occurrences around Professor and Mrs. Einstein’s visit to America in 1912. A polarity immediately arose between the more “uptown” Jews and their interests which clashed with the “downtown” Jews. This is also referenced as the difference between the Brandeis camp and the Weizmann camp. The Einsteins’ chose Weizmann as their companion and representative for the tour. Weizmann was of the older European Jewish community. Brandeis represented the assimilated, aristocratic and more politicized interests of modernized Jews in America.

      The uptown interests were particular about installing efficient managers they called “safeguards” to modulate the interests of more eastern European Jews. This pertained especially to interests of “Zionism” and building the community of Jews that included a Jewish University in Jerusalem which was still Palestine at the time. The British later took over and controlled Jerusalem until May 14,1948, when the state declared itself a sovereign nation; Israel.  
       These different Jewish interests look like the legendary power struggles constituting the history of human development. Which at times produced small groups that seem to make efforts at improvement for a while. These different Jewish interests include other more regional and nationalistic conflicts and reactions between the more assimilated and the less assimilated Jews. Einstein tried his best and I think succeeded in his relations with all his “fellow tribesman” as he warmly thought of them. Although the tensions and conflicts between the groups continued, and were heightened as the possibility of a Jewish Jerusalem  arose. Alberts’ visit to America was of rock star proportions and truly resembles the kinds of rock star controversies that we see in the media today. Divisions caused by what a few words might mean, and the interests involved. Though todays high profile media profiles hardly contain the kinds of ideas, changes and meaingins that Alberts tour involved.
      Issues around notable persons typical to previous times differed in a number of ways. One similarity to Alberts speaking engagements was in the oppositional groups interest in where he might speak, how much the engagement should earn financially and where that money should go. These were highly contended and politicized like any good public figure. However, the differences in topics, international concerns, social representation could not be more separate from todays popularized media events. These focus on the issues of todays media driven interests and are far less relevant to the distinguished persons intrinsic nature and their achievements in those domains. The stories of todays media are mostly told removed from such human domains.
      This social influence may have been a factor that hindered Albert from being able to bridge the human interest diversity of the special interest groups, though he brought great advances to more universal properties through math. I have not read on the particulars of the theories of relativity. I can say that it is now obvious to some or many in the field that we are going to need a lot more formula’s. We are going to need to develop a lot more diversity of understanding than that for human relations that turn out to be a bit more complex than celestial bodies. Since humans are regressing a bit currently in our development it has enticing to try to find a few simple formulas or ideas that can be adapted to maximum exploitation and control, no matter what the group is.            The tensions were also promoted by the more individualistic or personality characteristics of the people involved. Some, more assimilated, educated, sometimes called “cultured” Jews clashed with the older civilization based Jewish heritage in Europe. These American had adopted the American version of oppositional, specialized interests rapidly spreading since the development of America. Einstein clearly favored the concern for the community of Jews over any economic and political concerns. He tried his best to see past some of this and include all his fellow Jews as he thought of them, but that was not enough for the environment at the time. This brings up a number of ways some polarities and interests can play out across our social fabrics.     

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL DOES NOT REPRESENT THE VALUES OF ALL JEWS, BUT ONLY THOSE OF THE POWER BACKED, POLITCALLY INSTALLED, EXPLOITATIVE ROLE DICTATED BY OTHER WESTERN INTERSTS.                                                                                                          

      I see all politics today as jockeys vying for positions of power and control, most people today call that value. You can see how limited peoples understanding of value is. (see videos that include the topic of value for more indepth ivestgation and inquiry into value. The ones in charge of making decisions at higher levels of societies organizational structure are the more valuable characters. It a position mostly of economics.  While there are many interested in widening the scope of these polarities, very little has changed. There has been change in both directions. Here it is to be noted that the more assimilated Jews were interested in power positions in the new Jerusalem. To be the ones representing a Jewish Jerusalem. A new economic and exploitation machine of oppression was born, Isreal. It was born of economic interests, due to the interests of those who came into power. It used that power to exploit religious beliefs, as all power based institutions do as their civilization decline. We find another very old schism, the schism of religion and power. Power was slowly wrestled from religion and wielded a more powerful, more singular god; money. Capable of being all powerful and all knowing. (Money will make people just as irrational as religion.) We will be exploring these dynamics from a variety of disciplines and human experiences.
       I am going to present another view, closely related, from a Polish artist who was commissioned by the Polish government to make public arts representing the Polish people and their heritage, pre WW2. Stanislav Szukalski was a man of great sculptural talent from a young age. He was perfect for illustrating the wild, enduring strength and intelligence of the Polish people.  He was religious, as per the times, and an eccentric affirmation of Polish greatness, which was contradictory to what he saw in his visits to America, which has always succeeded in its interests by degrading and mis-appropriating the value and form of others, the hallmarks of exploitation. He supported Jews before the outbreak of world war two and was a friend of Ben Hecht, a well  recognized writer and Jewish sympathizer concerned with the history and now increasingly acute abuses of the Jewish people before WW2.
      The Nazis, before they invaded Poland, asked Stanislav to create a great sculpture of Hitler. Stanislav replied with drawings of Adolf dressed in ballerina outfits. They replied with a simple statement of “We can not use your ideas”. When they invaded, Stanislav’s enormous government-provided studio/warehouse was one of the prime targets of the invasion. He spent two days digging himself out of the rubble. Almost all his works from his entire life were destroyed including giant statues outside the building. These statues were remarkable on all accounts. One being a gigantic presence of the first King of Poland, incredibly portrayed. The method of destroying a culture by destroying its arts and humanities is a well recognized and successful approach.
      Before all that he made the statement that “ Economic interests and community interests are opposed.” Stanislav had no problem stating his views with conviction. It’s an awesome observation by an astute, dedicated, scholar of the human experience.
      The most basic infrastructure of life is communication, whether by chemical signaling or neurologically based on more sensory networks. The two types of human communication infrastructures here are revealed in the types of “community interests” and “economic interest.” Community interest of communication infrastructure here are a grass roots type development of human relations and behaviors. These are a direct, immediate product of functionality based in developmental features and ongoing adaptability essential to communities.
         These patterns of polarized interests, behavior, feeling and thought will be further presented in terms of biology, neurology, math, art and design. These polarities are at once obvious and confounding at the same time. They look more obvious when put into some social dialogue, and less obvious the more personally we try to identify their dynamics in our own lives. Could this be the same as the opposition of operations to finance? That is, the concerns of operations being the infrastructure and functionality of communications and human contributions and workability that is the heart of any business. The economic concern being of the relatively narrow, scant scope of the small margins of consideration dictated by a bottom line cost analysis. That leaves out most all human operational concerns. This little battle is at the heart of every boardroom's chief operations officer, COO and the chief financial officer, CFO. Might the superseding economic interests be encouraging exploitation in a fundamental behavioral way of an addiction process that has been proposed but not been well recognized in terms of the many ways it operates? We will look at some parallels in neurology for this schema in the biology, neurology chapters.
        Might we all use more specialized interests and skills in our everyday approach to our lives, and all our relations. Might these represent the smaller aspect of our human existence that is “mine” as supported by my selective environment? Could these interests also be further losing sight of broader human interests? Are political interests mostly disguised as human interests to push their own agendas? Is this reflected in other kinds of divisions of interests? It is far easier to see the mis-representations of others than in ourselves.
      How about political interests redefining, hi-jacking and abbreviating human interests for their own power seeking agendas of special interests that are mal-contextualized. These repackagings of human functionality are easily bought by innocent, unsuspecting party members who are unable to differentiate one issue from another. The repacking tells them they are buying one thing when they are actually buying another agenda that has nothing to do with what they think they have just purchased. They think they are getting a good deal on something when they are being looted in other ways. A good example is the debate on family values and other family issues. This disguises what some people call “family values” to hide other power seeking agendas. Is this creating a greater schism between families and communities? Contributing to the current development of individual to individual opposition that is the next step of our contemporary group oppositions.  Ken Wilburs developmental theory of civilizations does not include family values. It starts from a level up in development and begins with small tribes, small communities, not families.
      One of the effects on families being usurped by economic interests is that the individuals in the family will be dominated by economic interest rather than family relational processes. Thus families are more easily split up. This can take the form of individuals leaving the family for work and or education. The larger network of relations and learned processes of relating and integration of a diverse, extended family network will be reduced to a significantly smaller network of relations and relational skills.
      The schism mentioned above regarding economics and a society have a variety of other co occurring variables. The individual interest versus the social interest. Another variation in the socio-economic cycles is the roles individuals play. The individuals understandings become less representative of the social. Some individuals will represent a more assimilated, social adapted and some will present as recognizing their own needs as more important and different from the socially agreed upon behaviors, feeling, thoughts.
       The greater schism also makes anonymity more acute as society becomes more homophylic, and individuals have needs further removed from the more general social needs. These behaviors stemming from anonymity have long been said to become easily anti social, and family outcasts as well.
      My point in all this is that some considerations of economics work well for some types of examinations and descriptions of societal behavior while other areas require other kinds of understandings to represent them well. Understanding in community interests are going to leave out important understanding for economic areas. And the understanding in those areas are going to leave out important operations for communities.

Most important to consider is that; Societies have always and will always choose the worst possible indicators and contexts for what they want to know. Economics is a good, and not to confronting, context to look at. Economics has always displaced human intrest. Reducing human interest to contexts that leave out the essential nature of life. That is a wider concern than human interst. Or human ideas. Are human ideas sufficient for undestanding humans? No, obviously. This gets a little more confronting. Consider that we never considered econimcs to be secondary to; how much times people spent outside, how many people outside of ones culture were interacted with on a daily basis, and what would we consider as indicators of interaction, likes and dislikes, yes. We always choose the worst possible indicator. That is obvious. Applied chemistry as medicine is one the worst examples of selective attention and resulting effects of exploitation on the planet today. I know people that work two jobs to pay 800$ a month for medications that are making them more sick than their jobs. 

    Did we ever choose how much time kids spent with their parents as an indication of a societies GNP? How about how much free time people have? How about how they are able to modulate triggers and repsonces? How about how much time people spent outside, or touching the earth, in a garden, or time researching subjects for their own interests, or how engaged they are with each other, or how much their companions mean to them, or how much they rely on internal landscapes for their understanding, or how much they explore new ideas, new languages, new cultures. Literally, any human activity would be a better indicator of well being of a society than an individual as an economic unit of production. Does any of that make sense? Or would you rather continue being exploited by condtions that you do not understand. For if you understood them you would be taking a greater interest in a wider scope of understanding. Good Luck. It takes enormous dedication. Far more than participating in the convenience that is known as society today. A convenient and comfortable death,

       I also like to include the different kinds of responsibility that these interests represent. One, a more privileged position of interest should represent a greater responsibility that is more widely considerate and inclusive of others not less. These smaller self interested views and behavior represent interests and processes that undermine better relations better, and better understands of the wider domains of human potential. Community interests should be more concerned with the “grass roots” development of relationships and functions within the immediate community and less representative of the centralized, control protocols of a centralized authority.

Dual Identities, Dual messages From Youtube; Contextual Expansion; Dual Identities, Dual Messages

 I am a huge fan of interdisciplinary studies. I find solving problems by using research and methods from a number of different domains to be of the utmost in beneficial and developmental understanding. It accesses regions of interrelating that encourage greater capacities of relationship and correspondence. This brief introduction associates modern social and cultural research, human development models, modern grief research, and modern psychological research. The keywords in this presentation are; dual identities, double messages, dual messages, double  standards, dual process, dual standards and the like. These kinds of communications, views, methods and outcomes have found their way into areas such as judicial topics to personal relationships to personal identity to navigating grief to intercultural relations and even consumer rights.
      I would like to start with a study from China titled “Dual Identity and Prejudice: The Moderating Role of Group Boundary Permeability.” Front Psychol. 2017; 8: 195. I chose this to begin as recognizing effects of change are so much more easily and readily seen in large networks than smaller more individual networks. For example, the effects of a small temperature change is so much more obvious on a planetary scale than a small changes effect on an individual human.
 This study describes current research into how to promote the inclusion, welfare and security of incoming migrant groups into China. The study also includes outcomes for gender differences of rural to urban migrants. The study addresses old segregation policies in China from the Cultural Revolution of the late 1940’s and Early 50’s known as the Hokou system. The recent study measures outcomes of a simple information based, educational message that encourages minority groups to identify with their own groups unique heritage and culture while simultaneously emphasizing a superordinate in-group identity, such as Chinese. Research has also demonstrated that inducing a dual identity can promote the majority group members’ positive attitudes and action toward minority members. The results also include effects on group permeability which improve possibilities for upward social mobility for disadvantaged groups, which present threats to the in-group identity of the dominant group. When the boundary is not permeable racism and prejudice are promoted. This demonstrates inducing a dual identity can act in several ways to promote the majority group members’ positive attitudes and action toward minority members. These issues of group identity, group boundary, and group permeability have been studied across many cultures as early as 1979. This Chinese study also includes references to many studies such as Gaertner et al., 1996; González and Brown, 2003, 2006; Guerra et al., 2010; Banfield and Dovidio, 2013; Scheepers et al., 2014 and many more. The simple introduction of including nationalistic subgroup identities with larger supra-ordinate nationalistic identities seems to offer one solution for promoting prosocial, positive, egalitarian, humanitarianism within intergroup relations. This is different from trying to create a new supra-ordinate identity which seems popular with some groups today.
    Humans have always been possessed by the idea of creating their own supra-ordinate groups that surpass the identity of all other groups. A fundamental kind of social hubris. In doing so, they create more problems for themselves by now having less in-group identity members who struggle against all the other more closely identified groups. This puts them at the most severe duality while that is being hidden from them by their new supra ordinate identification. Resulting in a counter-reinforcement of avoidance, enmeshment of their narratives, further dissociation. What other ways can we understand how this process works? We will take a look at this predicament in several other contexts.  
      Mary Frances O’Connor presents a slight revision of the common grief models that are based on an oscillation of loss oriented and return to daily life orientations. I think that is such a poorly constructed distinction that does not even stand as a distinction. That really echoes the larger themes of misrepresentative indicators so all-pervasive and increasing in human activity today, especially in America.
      The dynamic Professor O’Connor focuses on is the dual messages of this person will always be here for me, they are no longer here. That includes dual messages like, I will always have this person to be here for me, and I will always be here for them. And, I will always have this person to take care of, and they will always be here to take care of me. I think the difference between this model and the more conventional or popular model is significant. I will not be addressing the more prolonged types of complicated grief or childhood grief here, as those are special applications. I will just outline these two grief models and focus on the insight of Mary’s model.     
      Professor O’Connor also presents research on the avoidance of grief issues that causes sufferers in grief to encounter more repeated triggers from the immediate environment as well as other environments. This also decreases the opportunities to heal and learn through experiences related to a person's loss. Avoidance, also known as negative reinforcement, increases the fears around the contexts of loss. The sufferer needs to find ways to integrate, relate to, associate with and learn from the losses.
    CS Lewis the Christian based writer said that grief was the form love takes when a loved one dies. Here we can see another example of a dual message that can be very difficult to assimilate. These kinds of dual contents and contexts are representative of many cultural understandings and perspectives.
      A lot of literature often focuses on the domination of one view over another. The conquest of an opposing way of thinking, relating or demonized fellow(s). Or again the development of some new supra ordinate understanding will altogether supersede other relations. This is also found in the logical systems of humans known as syllogisms or dialectics. While these systems are no doubt interesting and alluring one might start to question their validity across many applications. The models suggest that in the synthesis stage things lose their original characteristics. I suspect this is largely a misrepresentation by platonification of models.                                                                                              If we look at biological models, which I often suggest as an alternative view and additional basis for examinations, we can observe other kinds of relations and processes. For example, transcytosis the process of identifying and integrating foreign elements into a cell shows a calcium ion, or sodium, can function in many different capacities in different cells but retains it’s characteristics of said ion. This biological model supports the conditions of Dual Identity and Dual Messaging in grief. The griever is asked to consider the two opposing views without necessarily adopting a new view of the situation.                                                     Conjugation is another process that has many more applications. This process often changes the composition much more significantly. Another transformation is the states of matter. Which are now found to be basically four. Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasma in which the properties of electrons do not conform to the other three. It can also include other properties such as compressibility, pressure, buoyancy, viscosity, and surface tension that do not conform to the other three. We now have significant evidence that there are many other variations and states and may be six or seven or even more. It is likely we will contiue to find more states of existence for compounds and other substances. The conjugation method analogy is more supportive of the syllogism, dialectical process. For my more simplistic metaphors I am just presenting that the models of syllogisms and dialectics do not apply well in the application to Dual Identity and Dual Messaging where no supra-ordinate, or synthesis occurs by a third condition.
     Imagine if all consumer product advertisements were required to come with a disclaimer similar to dpharmaceutical adds. Fro exmple, imagine if a fragrance product such as a room freshener or laundry sheet which depicts the products ability to make your entire life a soohting walk on the a sunny quiet beach in the late afternoon, perfect conditions, your feet splashing in gentle waves, with a hollywood star-like beautiful committed lifetime partner, unconditionally embracing and swaying in each others arms as you meandeeffortlessly care free with the breeze that carries your freshness product scent, were required an accordingly informative disclaimer that all your hair might fall out, permanently numb all your senes, make you impotent, and give you a horrible auto immune disease that cripples your body, confining you to a wheel chair in the back ward of some decrepit state hospital, a stale cadaverous seedy scent that reminds you of the fragrance product deleivered with uncaring, abusive care takers. Don’t laugh, it could be you.                     
    I often wonder if human systems are an adequate measure for humans, or if some other less human-centric understandings might be more valuable to consider to consider for understanding humans. I often use biological models to look at human models. I consider religions to be very human-centric.                                                                                    Popular models on grief employ the above mentioned dual structure of loss oriented experience to restoration oriented experience. The restoration is contextualized as returning to daily life. This is simply characterized by a return to typical daily behavior. I question the validity of such a distinction to be able to impart the kind of insight that could be attained by considering the dual messaging of my loved one is here, and the reality that they are not. Is returning to a more normal routine going to provide a way of looking at our changing relationship with our experience? Or is it a reinforcement of the typical avoidance that characterizes much of life in America? An avoidance of deeper reflections promoted and sustained biologically, neurologically, educationally, informationally and socially imposed on one's experience. How does returning to this state, which may be a huge factor in the inability to integrate loss in the first place, going to support a person who is struggling to make sense of their new life. It is never going to return to any resemblance of daily life before that loss anyway. Why emphasize returning to a state of dissociation, isolation, lack of connection and communication that is the source of everyone's dysfunction to begin with? The person's routine is obviously altered and daily activities such as eating, sleeping, working, communicating have been significantly impacted and some of those activities will never be able to return to what they were because the nature of the context is irreversible. There is thus a significant difference between the way these two representations function.                                                                              In another area of representation, MRI’s and especially FMRI’s have been getting a lot of attention in brain studies. These are especially popular with academics, institutionalized educational programs, institutionalized media outlets, and institutionalized promoters of popular social trends trying to make a name, a brand, and a position for themselves. I have never met an actual clinician speak even remotely favorably of insights afforded by such technology. Those have found discordancies of FMRI’s to be inconsistent and not to reveal any clinically relevant identifications of peoples conditions. Clinicians are rare. Institutionalized protocols and trends have replaced clinical knowledge and development. The hallmark of knowledge being trial and error. Not centralized conventions. Another method of misrepresentation and mis-contextualization that has been debated through the ages but now such inverted understandings provided by centralized power govern much of human life. These positions of top down regulation often appear at the end of a civilizations development and perpetuate the downward spiral of death.
      O’Conner examines the shoulda, woulda, coulda, phenomena and associates that with counterfactual misrepresentation. She sees those perspectives as avoidance that perpetuates fear and the related stress response. Adding to other cycles that create barriers of relating, communication and learning. An important quality you don’t often hear in the context of learning is vulnerability. While we are avoiding looking at and misrepresenting our environments we miss the life changing opportunities that are the hallmark and birthright of all humans.
      As basic human capacities and rights we see a history of human relations that are based on positive human dignity and universal respect. What if we based societies on capacities like vulnerability, dignity, respect and reflection over economic theories and counterfactual principals?
      On ethnic I’d like to point out is that this models also show another way that misrreprerstation occurs is through creating distinctions where there are none and not making distinctions where we should. These often occur due to how boundaries are represented and the learning that takes place by effects of boundaries. This shows the importance of marginalized information and groups. The actions of boundary give the most improatint information for occruances in side the boundaries. This dynamic can be seen in biology by the effects of capillaries on the tissues far beyond the capillary boundary. Studied with Wyn Hoff on vascular properties shows that increasing both ends of the oxygen and carbon dioxide potentials have profound effects on tissues functions and performance.
      I’d like to follow that with a little developmental story beginning with our human prolonged infancy. One of the human dramas begins with a state of complete vulnerability and dependance on one's givers. A state of no almost no organization, with corresponding absent control and almost no sphere of influence. The infant is on the receiving end of most communication and the views of a very small population that may be reduced to one person. Its expression is completely limited to the interpretive skills of its recently significantly decreasing support network that bears little resemblance to the larger historical context of older more extended family systems.
      This condition intensifies the effects of a concentrated attention, perceptive and behavior of often one human for the first perhaps year of it’s life or more, especially in America. This condition of narrowed relations begin the development from complete vulnerability to societies enforcement of the development of a sense of control. This includes an emphasis on maintaining control and in effect maintaining domination characterized by an aggressive outlook as to what that development should look like and how it should function. While the importance of vulnerability to learning and communicating is systematically eliminated.
    The most common dual messaging I heard in my professional life was along the lines of; why do I feel like shit and my doctor tells me I’m fine. That dual message is probably contributing as much stress for the patient as their own pathologies, as it appears to have no reconcilable messaging. The structure of the dual message is also highly problematic and reinforced by the rigid and narrow position of the patients conventional doctor. Here we can easily observe the rigid role and position of the conventional doctor and see how this rigid role reinforces the doctors highly selective methodology ignoring much of the patients presenting symptomology, history, and worst of all ignoring much of the easily detectable laboratory data. This is promoted by the pharmaceutical industries disregard of associated chemistry and biology left out in the production of pharmaceutical drugs. These two reinforce each other stigmatizations. Here the dynamic of narrow views and resulting enmeshment with those views due to the lack of acknowledgment of a wider completely valid context. This plays out in the above scenarios and all aspects of human experience. Misrepresentation always results from an exclusion of more complete evidence inherent to the conditions.  
      In this brief introduction to some ideas on characterizing and addressing the severely depraved state of human relations in America today. We see a need to address complicated polarized conditions that exist on many levels of human experience. Dual messages are so all pervasive, from fantastical, magical claims of products that do not do what the producers claims to support in dual message dynamics from the wider circles of education, media, politics and economics that are part and parcel of the rest of personal human relational needs, and community infrastructure needs. The narrowing conditions of communication, connection, context with reinforced rigid roles and enmeshment that blinds people in and to their positions. The irreconcilable nature of such conditions are apparent in socio-economic problems such as a particular groups sense of isolated nationalistic interest, as in the case of affirmative action have been identified as failures by researchers such as Thomas Powell in world wide studies.  I continue to address recalcitrant conditions of misrepresentations and other methods of perpetuating these irreconcilable dual states. I suggest that an educational and informational program along with a compassionate guide to navigating and implementing the information is effective for change. Secondarily, and in accordance with the above information, approaches such as visualization, various play and role playing techniques, professional EMDR approaches, and meditations on loving kindness, compassion, joy, equanimity may be used as accepted and in agreement with the patient's interests, temperaments and dispositions.