Stepping up to the plate with regard to radical Islam.

I think it is probably correct to interpret the position of radical Islam to be that the state is stronger that entrusts its government to those of its population who are recognized to be the most spiritual. This is written into the Koran.


Therefore it is possible that radical Islam, when it found out that I had seen on a building the same fire that Moses saw on a bush, and also found out that this fact was known to the top monarchy of the United States, that it was considered by radical Islam that the United States was weak because it had not trusted me to assume the role of government.

This organization of the facts, I might speculate, can be developed into a strategy for maintaining legitimacy in the world's top spiritual leaderships of an attack on the United States.

It would be nice if I could just think this and write words of leadership of the United States. To a certain extent I do this. However, it is not government. Government involves checks and balances. What I have is thinking in the dark about the impact of what I say and write. It's all guesswork.

If I knew that what I wrote was law, I certainly wouldn't write so indiscriminantly as I have done to date, largely trying to establish myself as an authority.

Authority and government are different.

Any ruling body which finds a  voice among its people that commands attention for one reason or another must assess how best to incorporate that voice into the rule of the people. In my case, the matter of my place in rule has been attacked within the organization. I cannot count on anything I write or do being parsed favorably. The position of my attackers within the organization is unknown to me. Also, the point at which they first packaged my life as undesirable is unknown to me. As a result, as I said before, I strike out into the dark.

One could imagine that attacks by Al Qaeda have been less spectacular since 9/11 because I have until now refrained from putting to words my interpretation of the attacks. To a certain extent it's a matter of belief. I am still pretty much a modest person and don't like to attribute world events to myself. When I do act to have such an effect it is usually not specifically designed to have a certain effect on my place in the world downstream from any such effects, only to perturb the world. It is my feeling, and a blatant one, that my poverty is the result of someone's doing, not any result of the law of averages affecting all the various things I have tried in an attempt to escape it. Not only the bottom line of my enterprises have been zero, but also the components of each one have followed the path of zero tolerance for productivity. It doesn't take complex thinking to imagine some scenario in which someone might at some point have concluded, for very concrete reasons, that I am worthless despite this or that success all throughout my life. Environments vary widely and certainly some might find me undesirable. I find this no reason to give up. The total environment has the kind of specifications of its rulers that the master of any small environment will have the basics that could manage a place there. This is the grounds on which political candidates are given a green light for positions of great power. It is a fairly straightforward process. My task will not benefit from an attempt to guess what objections these people have to me and then addressing them with some combination of defense and reform. This I conclude from the standpoint of the structure and dynamics of information. I cannot know the nature of the complaints. It is not that I have a certain attitude about it. It is that my existence is ruled by a certain economic principle which consistently persuades me not to go looking beyond a certain level of composure for the evidence of such complaints. This is inherent within a mindset that chooses to imbue a large environment with goodwill and leadership that it clearly otherwise lacks. The indifference to complaints begins early in such a venture.

The invisible hand in my economics of life made itself deducible when my father told me I wasn't going to get into Yale College. I believe I treated this information as only that. Had I been devoted to an agenda I might well have given it great importance and struggled with it in aggravation. So many years have gone by now that my aggravation is devoted to a whole universe of concerns about my fate. So long as I can rely on the word of IPBI (see my autobiography, segment 7100, item id 8656) that I am First (the only sensible interpretation of this being it refers to a monarchy in the United States) then I know that there is some agency with rulership powers here that will have reason to include an attribution of ability to rule in all its attributions of me, and that any attempt I make to do honor to such a position will include possible realizations of such honor. Unfortunately, this is as yet a pursuit of authority, not government, and the core problem of my life is unaddressed by this.

I will look forward to the development of governing powers in the plans for me. I would meet them with a change of approach. I don't believe any structures exist for such a development. I would go in that direction if there were an expression of interest. I would not if there were not. We already know monarchies exist without published inclusion in the Constitution. I myself do not know what documents apply to the rule of the monarchy that inducted me. I find it hard to believe that they would not exist within law, particularly since my discovery of a bulletin at the Yale Law School that referred to monarchies in the U.S., discussed in the autobiography, segment 5300, item id DCAD.

It is my judgment that government by me would require a different documentation than exists now in support of my place in this monarchy. I have pretty much gone the route with this state of affairs. I don't want it to be represented that my being spiritual has anything to do with religion. For me, it has always been a matter of survival. This produces the corollary of putting my descendants on an equal plane as I keep for myself. There is no other use for much of what I have learned than my descendants avoiding more effectively what I avoided only to the point of immolation. A well governed population is a better substrate for conferring survival logistics upon one's own offspring. They provide exceptions.

irrelevance and the square root of minus one

It seems to be little appreciated that much of what goes on in the lives of "spiritual people", from the common church goer to Jesus himself, is much more rational, even calculative, than is given credit for. I was musing over this and happened to reflect on the possibility that the term for the square root of minus one, imaginary, is not as linguistically appropriate as the term "irrelevant". In the complex number plane, where real and imaginary values are graphed orthogonally, an imaginary value is quite plainly irrelevant to values on the real axis--it does not add in and can be componentally disassociated from the real values. Imaginary is not a measurable concept. Irrelevant is.

What if all the considerations present in a life viewed as irrelevant were actually just as calculative as the considerations present in a life viewed as relevant. When would we notice the effects of multiplication of two values that are irrelevant to get a product that is negative and relevant? There never having been a ledger sheet for irrelevance, all the calculations involving irrelevance are out of control except for the traditional lessons of spirituality, a largely trial and error process. it is easy to see how negatives to relevance, as well as negatives to irrelevance, could develop quite naturally. Jesus, and all prophets, have a hell of a time with the establishment. They're always considered negative by a great number of people. I am not saying this is incorrect. It is correct, but I am proposing that it's more understandable than has been thought.

It may very well be that we are missing a lot of economically important information in the economy by not incorporating irrelevance on ledgers and in our money system.

The creation of a profit from manufacture of a product occurs because the total spent on materials and processes is exceeded by the saleable value of the manufactured good. This is called a synergy. The sum is greater than the parts. But what I take it is happening is that addition of the inputs is not where the synergy comes from. It comes from their multiplication.

So anytime a product is profitable we can pretty much expect that there is a multiplication of relevant values involved in its manufacture, somewhere on a ledger. But if just one irrelevant value gets mixed in with all the relevant values in the multiplication, the net result becomes irrelevant. And if two irrelevant values get involved, the net result is negative. For this reason companies watch very carefully to weed out irrelevance from the workplace. But if irrelevance were monetized, it could be ledgered and the size of the economy would be doubled, on first principles. There would no longer be any fear of irrelevance because it would be steered by accounting into net positive relevant values.

Somewhat murky, I'm afraid, but perhaps you get the picture.