Humanity (Essential-Description)
- I THINK THEREFORE I AM -
What a doubtless statement to all means.
Doubtless language. Doubtless example of language to all. Doubtless thinking. Doubtless conclusions.
This is a short clarification of the conclusions in the article Humanity Knowns. Science is definition and reasons. This is the definition and reasons of human-nature, a conclusion to an inquiry. That is "I think thus I am" is a valid statement - which means the language of it is valid. We interpret the definition of individual thinking, from several claims about the statement, as being language with one of two conditions ( interpreting an effective effect (sense) or realising a profitable effect (sense or syntax))1
There is the individual and the organisation. There is the anarchy of individuals and the organisation of individuals. The organisation is a body where the individual is subordinate to decisions for the whole body - group / team. The organisation is based on relationships between individuals - these being irrational from time to time. Individuals interpret the effect of an organisation. The organisation is an understanding we have. Among the various organisations, there are two all subscribe to - the production and authority organisations (understandings).
LAW - WILL IS A CONDITIONER
LAW - AWARE OF EACH OTHER AS CONDITIONERS
FACT - AWARE THAT PRODUCTION IS GOING TO DEMAND DECISION MAKING AND IRRATIONAL INTERACTION
LAW - BELIEF IN RELATIONS FOR IRRATIONAL BENEFIT TO THE SELF
INTERPRETATION - EXPLOIT ORGANISATION UNDERSTANDINGS FOR PRODUCTION, BELIEVED TO SATISFY SELFS
Awareness implies necessary intelligence etc.
The individual is described as rational or effective ( rational or understanding - rationalism is defined as realising a profitable effect, understanding defined as interpreting an effective effect) with thoughts, and is thus rational or effective with the knowledge implying definition (conditioner of knowledge). The opportunity cost of goods, activities and relationships in knowledge means the individual is a conditioner of these positives too. This demands pro-rational or pro-effective relationships. The individual satisfys their effective or rational self-interest with production understandings within society and thus demanded authority understandings (interpreted effects) establishing society.
EFFECT / RATIONAL DEMAND > WORKING RELATIONS > PRODUCTION ORG. > AUTHORITY ORG. > STATUS
-
Eg RATIONAL > AGENCY ORGANISATION. > AUTHORITY OF INDEPENDENCE > FREEDOM RESPECTED
There is production understandings ( for the production and allocation of resources to satisfy self-interest) and authority understandings. We interpret the effect of production through organisation, rather than independently realise anarchic profit as individuals. We either have an interactive understanding or a coercive understanding (slavery). That is with the interactive understanding we either rationally demand an agency condition or effectively demand the social condition. The agency is an understanding of profit [effectively] on land, or an understanding of profit on capital, or on labour. That is the feudal, capitalist or collaborative understandings (systems). The agency condition is broadly defined as an understanding of profit for an individual - business etc . The social condition is an understanding of effect for society - NHS, charity, religious practice, to satisfy effective self-interest. Both in turn demanding beliefs in a, and a status for a, authority understanding ( society ).
Humanity - Irrational confidence in an understanding
( Aware of the others rationalism or effectiveness, around irrational interaction )
The fact is observed that "production" involves irrational interaction between individuals. Why? Given self-interest , the belief in relations makes organized production possible - conditioned (understood) to mean greater satisfaction. Organzed production offers greater satisfaction.
Thinking is positive language, arranged for a conditioned simplified effect (sense). That is to say thinking is something worthwhile something positive. It is something that is not necessarily a satisfactory benefit to the self (valued according to interest) but an importance generally (right language for awareness; according to knowledge of grammar), the self included. Also, thinking is conditioned as an interpretation or realisation of these positives into a sense, into an effect. It has limits and costs so is simplified too.
Thinking is thus worthwhile but limited so as to not be too complicated - theres costs to it. We thus simplify what we condition into a sense (Conditioned simplified sense). Condition is interpretation and realisation. Sense as in makes sense, for example sense to “Humanity: Essential description” is “title”, positive language arranged for realised simplified title. One sense to “I think thus I am” is a claim of "thinking is subject to existence” ( Im aware of my existence through thinking. Thinking signals existence. Existence is behind thinking, or thinking would not mean existence. Thinking stems from existence ). I think thus I am is language arranged for a interpreted simplified claim that thinking is subject to existence. On the other hand, an efficient realisation of a sense to I think thus I am would be that "thinking means I exist".
The efficient realisation and the effective interpretation are different senses, different effects - different values. One is effective, one is profitable.
There are positives to thoughts and we thus value how we have them. Satisfying need to think is satisfaction of realisation or interpretation. These are valued. As definitions are positive, we value interpretation or realisation of them. There are two ways of thinking, with thinking having one of these two conditions. Realisation (operative-activation) of profitable language, or interpretation of effective language. When thinking we rationally operate definitions we know, or we effectively define what we think.
Thinking is interdependence of knowledge (defined awareness) and will. We think in words, with knowledge implying definition (we do not invent the words we think - knowledge implies definition). We action definitions of awareness with our will. They form a sense according to a condition. Knowledge is awareness defined, with the definition being interpreted or realised from subjective reality. That is, thinking is conditioned from sensory awareness or knowledge. Thinking can be described as language, conditioned for simplified knowledge. The effect and the condition are the two considerations of knowledge when thought. Realisation is a focus on the condition, interpretation is a focus on effect.
Theres interpreting an effect (understanding, arranging positive language for an effect) and realising a rationale of optimal benefit (rational, arranging positive language according to profit).
We either interpret effective senses to language (Understanding of awareness) or realise an efficient sense to language ( rationally realise logical awareness ). We operatively-activate status and truth (Its values and costs) in the elaboration of language. We think given a condition (efficiency), we think rationally - thinking positive knowledge (awareness) in terms of a condition (efficiency). Realising language is realising a logic and thus the sense. Interpreting language is interpreting many logics, meaning this way of thinking is more effective. Sense is the reason for language, realising or interpreting this yields an implication of the other.
We either interpret a demand for the most effective (yet profitable) good or service, OR we realise a demand for the most profitable (yet effective) good or service. One is rational, the other is effective.
Rationalism is defined as "realising the most profitable effect". Understanding is defined as
“interpreting the most effective profit”.
We value knowledge because we think in it, if we surrender it for other subjects, then these are something positive, something worthwhile. There are effected or rational facts of opportunity costs to goods, activities and relationships in knowledge, meaning goods, activities and relationships are effective or profitable to the individual.
Interpreting an effect is interpreting a higher ( but less profitable ) effect than what would be realised. When using a book as a paperweight, you are interpreting a higher but less profitable benefit to the book. A rational, profitable benefit would be to read it. A profitable paperweight would be one bought in a shop, compared to a book bought in a shop.
Bill Gates, when comparing chocolate bars will be effective, due to his money stock (and perhaps future income) being so great relative to the price. He picks the highest value amongst a set of profitable chocolate bars. He is not indifferent. The difference between an individuals money stock aswell as expected income, and the price determine rational or effective self-interest and thus how much the humanity-understanding is demanded. Again, where Bill Gates compares chocolate he is effective (the difference between money stock and the price is great) but when comparing mansions - he is rational. There is a lesser difference.
It may be important to note, that not much satisfaction is gained through cost / price minimisation to the consumer - the effective conditioner demands the values (what he wants).
When giving up a degree for work its a rational choice, at least related to university fees. Not considering the university at all when working with good relationships is irrational and effective. We are individual positive abstract conditioners.
Individual Human-Nature
/------>Knowledge (Forgone)
/------>Goods (Valued)
Positive Abstracts Conditioner-->>>
\------>Activities (Valued)
\------>Relationships (Believed, faith)
Conditioning the sense to each others language is being aware of the reasons of the other. We are aware of the other around irrational interaction (relationship). We believe in reasons for all such irrational relationships, as they are similar and we value reason.
Humanity is thus a common understanding between others, revolving around irrational interactions. for example working relationships are an understanding we have. We have the understanding of an agency for rational production. Irrational exchange is an understanding we have. We have an understanding of a social condition for effective production. Council housing is one such understanding. We interpret the effect of housing rather than rationally realise profit2.
To satisfy effective or rational self-interest, individuals engage in production. Production requires occasionally irrational interaction. Production requires an understanding. Individuals believe in relationships when rational or effective, and thus form a production understanding.
The Capitalist Production Understanding And Necessary Authority.
Interpret the effect of capitalism, at the occasionally irrational (but differing) opportunity cost of independently anarchically realised profit to the individual.
When we condition each others language, then we are aware each others reasons. Where we are aware of each others reasons around an irrational interaction - then we have a relationship.
Thus when we have an interaction with irrational costs and benefits - then we have a relationship (an understanding, a believed interpreted interaction-effect, that is to say interpret an interaction).
Belief is defined as irrational confidence in the truth of something. That is, irrationally interpreting something as truth. We have confidence that the common understanding is true. There is confidence that the common interpreted interaction effect is true - thus awareness of it is satisfactory (true).
Faith is defined as an irrational expectation of good fortune - expectation of the effect of humanity. However this is simply too self-interested and humanity is satisfactory when we are not self-interested about it. This means awareness is satisfactorily true (believed).
We believe in relationships to satisfy effective or rational self interest - relationships that form the production understanding. These understandings (as occasionally irrational) are upheld by a further understandings (authority).
The agency condition is a production understanding of an operation to profit the individual. The social condition is a production understanding of effect for society. Social conditions either up-hold the agency condition ( law ) or is actually involved in production for effective value ( housing, NHS).
We interpret the higher valued effect of an irrational interaction (by contributing to a social condition, usually through an authority - paying tax etc) rather than realise higher consumer profits as individuals on markets. We interpret an effect for both; we interpret an effect between us (Eg - NHS). Relationships are understandings between others. We interpret resources for these understandings rather than realise profit; specifically we interpret resources for an effect of an NHS, rather than independently rationally realise profits. We have a higher valued, more effective, but less profitable NHS. That is the people of Britain have a more effective healthcare system (covered for it all ) but also less profitable ( the way its done )). The hospital can be effective and built in the city centre, or it can be built in a high-income area of the city to realise the greater profit.
When demanding an effect such as a road, then individuals demand an irrational relationship (in this case construction workers build roads, not build on the market for profit). This means we interpret the effect of roads and infrastructure at the expense of profit, that is we make a contribution to an authority who remunerate the construction industry for road supply. This is in effect irrational production, requiring effective-irrational investment - cooperative investment. Cooperative investment is an understanding for effective-irrational investment, as opposed to independent-rational investment. The state is an understanding for irrational investment.
Another example is the public library. That is we may privately loan high valued books which have a certain consumer profit at the expense of goods and services with higher profits. One individual may forgo the profitable cinema for a higher valued book, another individual may forgo profitable television for the effect of a book. Both would be better off with an understanding to contribute toward a public library and forgo less producer profit doing so. We thus interpret the effect of a public library.
There is a downside to supplying all in a society with the same product. There will be inelastic supply due to shortages and thus an increased cost to the factors of production.
This is evidenced in the Soviet Union, where aiming to supply everyone with the same goods, together in the same plan, would cause shortages of specialised factors of production - it was a serious inefficiency to the production of everyday goods through social plans.
However with common goods, there must be supply to all. That is on markets conditioners will demand less consumer profit and demand effective goods. However, there will be increasing supply costs and production only slightly increases.
Thus with a social condition (an understanding of effectiveness for society) investors avoid producer profit and invest in common goods alone. They dont aim to produce everything to all, but reach a housing objective. There is in effect less demands on capital goods and lower costs to production as a result. The opportunity cost (the producer profit) is forgone by the investor and not passed on. Thus theres greater expansion of the production of common goods.
We have a social condition, an understanding of effectiveness for society rather than independently realise profits on markets. Thus an understanding of investing in common goods over profit.
For consumers there is higher consumer profits in everyday goods, that is forgone for housing. This is effective ( Housed ) and irrational ( less consumer profit ). We all demand housing, its an effective value we all want, irrationally. However, it would be better for the state to invest in housing at the expense of profit - as this is less output forgone.
Interpreting the effect of housing, is interpreting the common good. Common goods are defined as “...goods where opportunity cost is not a factor in demand of the first unit - only possibly with other common goods....”, SO, housing, food (when starving), education (first words read), health, heating and clothing are common goods. They are essential, so no matter what the price of other goods - opportunity cost will not effect the demand of the first unit. Housing is valued as products are forgone, but as this opportunity cost is not a factor in housing demand, it indicates an effective understanding, but theres no comparison.
The first unit of a common good has infinite value , indicated by the fact opportunity cost is not a factor. Common goods are important, important values. THUS, we have effective insurance (from each according to ability, to each according to need) of them. Health care is very important, so we have effective insurance of it (NHS). Housing is also important, an effective value.
Also, where there are two individuals who can produce an effect for each other or produce profit on markets. Rationally they would produce for profit. However where one individual ( who supplies holidays ) demands the effect of an M3 over a golf GTi, and the other individual ( produces cars ) prefers a luxury holidays - then they may enter into an understanding to produce effect for each other and not produce for profit. Where an understanding is not feasible, both should be paid equally so as to afford effective products on markets.
Humanity is determined by success or failure as social, family, or individual units and offence.
As words make sense to language more complicated, theres diminishing marginal understanding thus benefit to knowledge; thus other things when compared to knowledge. Success to the individual means goods depreciate in value relative to relationships (relationships appreciate). Social success means irrational relationships preferred (relationships appreciate). Preferred irrational family relationships have distinguished opportunity costs (relationships appreciate) and offence is intended and thus means something (relationship depreciation).
The belief in the common understanding thus appreciates and depreciates. The confidence that the understanding is true appreciates with success, peace and family - compromised by offence and failure.
Again evidenced by the soviet union where prevention of failure to the citizen through subsidy and zero-unemployment policies, built an understanding (high humanity). However this understanding depreciated sharply in the 1980s from a number of factors.
Thus instead of being rational and shopping at Lidl's or Aldi's for ingredients to bake a pizza ( maximize consumer profit ) individuals may be effective and choose a higher but less profitable value ( order a take-away from pizza hut ). As the individual is demanding irrational investment in effective value over profit ( invest in pizza hut over the profit at Lidl's or Aldi's ), then the individual is demanding an irrational relationship (an understanding of individuals irrationally benefitting each other ). However, if people stop contributing to the understanding ( unemployment ) this is a failure and people believe in the understanding less and favour rational markets. Offence and failure depreciates the irrational confidence in an understanding for effective value.
Where the belief in the common interpreted interaction-effect (irrational confidence in truth of interpreted interaction-effect) is high, then theres a focus on awareness for interaction. Thus theres a focus on awareness with language of thoughts. That is understanding in language of thoughts.
(Realisation of knowledge OR Interpretation of interaction?)
Where the belief in humanity is lower - then the realisation of the awareness is the focus. Knowledge from the self for rational language of thoughts.
Human-Natures ( Understanding Or Rational Thought )
Belief In The Common Understanding
HIGH BELIEF (EFFECTIVE SELF)>Thinking is language interpreted for a simplified defined awareness>Interpret effective awareness for thoughts>Focus on awareness for thoughts>Understanding in language of thoughts>Interpret effective know.>Interpret effective Pos. Abstracts>Interpret effective relationships>Outcome for relation>Institutional or social conditions that satisfy>Authority understanding>Left-wing Relation-status beliefs for participation
EFFECTOR [DEMANDS]> EFFECTIVE GOODS > IRRATIONAL RELATION > SOCIAL CONDITIONS > AUTHORITY > STATUS
LOW BELIEF (RATIONAL SELF)>Thinking is language realised for a simplified defined awareness>Self calculates profitable defined awareness for thoughts>Focus on profit for thoughts>Rational in language of thoughts>Realise profitable know.>Realise profitable pos. abstracts>Pro-rational relationships>Method for relation>Agency conditions that satisfy>Social conditions to up-hold>Authority understanding>Right-wing relation-status beliefs for participation.
RATIONAL > PROFITABLE GOODS > PRO-RATIONAL RELATION > AGENCY CONDITIONS > AUTHORITY > STATUS
What you condition (ie - understand) is either from our awareness or from the self. Either we subjectively calculate profitable awareness according to the self (realise our awareness) or interpret an awareness we are in (understand our awareness).
Where theres a lower belief in the common understanding - then knowledge preffered to interaction. Thus theres a focus on method to our awareness for knowledge. When focusing on defined awareness, we focus on the method to thinking not the effect. We thus operatively-activate definitions we find in knowledge ( arrange language for a condition of profit) and thus be rational with language. When rational with language, then rational with knowledge implying definition. Forgoing profitable knowledge for profitable goods etc means self-interested rationalism between others is realised to be the method for profitable positives (agency condition). Social conditions to uphold this method. Right-wing beliefs in a relationship status to satisfy.
Where theres a high belief in the common interpreted interaction effect - theres a focus on awareness for interaction. When focusing on awareness, we focus on the effect of thinking not the method of it. We thus interpret definitions from knowledge of what we sense (arrange language for a condition of effect) and thus be effective with language. Where effective with language, then effective with knowledge implying definition. When forgoing effective knowledge for positive abstracts then a relationship is required which in turn demands a satisfactory outcome. Thus demanding an institution or a social condition for this outcome. Left-wing beliefs in a relationship status for this.
That is, where for example an effective essay is demanded at university then cooperation or institution is demanded. Through cooperation or responsibility the other may only contribute one sentence. However, if we are effectively self-interested then we demand this sentence for a more effective essay. Where we are rational we will not cooperate or otherwise as we did all the hard work - but the other only contributed a sentence. The other has more profitable opportunity and thus a negotiation wont work. Thus for an effective essay the benefits are divided for equality or morality. It is not rational.
(DEMANDS) EFFECTIVE ESSAY> COOPERATION ETC> AGREEMENT> MORALITY OR EQUALITY
SELF DEMANDS> RELATIONS > PRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING > AUTHORITY UNDERSTANDING > RELATION - STATUS
The irrational interpreted-interaction effects status-beliefs are morality (most humanity), equality, freedom, and order (least humanity).
Morality - When demanding strong irrational relationships, there's a belief in the institutions upholding these ( including family ( family as effective insurance - have a family to look after us in old age ) and responsibility ( work-ethic ). We may believe in the relationship status of morality, for these institutions.
[DEMANDS] EFFECT > RELATIONS > INSTITUTIONS > AUTHORITY > MORALITY RELATION
Equality - Again, when demanding effective value then we are demanding relationships. Theres a belief in cooperation to provide effective value. Theres belief in a status of equality for this cooperation. Thus, outcomes determine the effective conditions we have, outcomes determined by the status of equality (equal entitlement not profit determines form of the NHS).
EFFECT > RELATIONS > COOPERATION > SOCIAL CONDITION > AUTHORITY > EQUALITY RELATION
Freedom - When demanding profitable goods etc then demanding pro-rational relationships. Theres belief in the agency condition to provide profitable value. Theres belief in independence for this, and thus a status of freedom is believed. Freedom is a relationship status for rationally conditioned choice - individuals, and agencies operated by individuals, perform on markets.
PROFIT > RELATIONS > PLURAL AGENCIES > INDEPENDENCE > AUTHORITY > FREEDOM RELATION
Order - When demanding profitable goods and are aware of the other - then effective operation arranged for rational self interest is believed. There is hence a belief in prohibition for this right operation ( anti-theft/fraud ) and a relationship status of order is believed.
PROFIT > RELATIONS > AGENCY OPERATION > PROHIBITION > AUTHORITY > ORDER RELATION
Criminals dont believe in anything - as soon as a relationship becomes even slightly irrational they break
from it.3.
Thats when individuals are just rationally self-interested but are aware ( from irrational interaction) others are too - then they have confidence in an effective operation ( set of interactions ) over and above themselves to ultimately satisfy this self-interest. This operation is conducted by an agency. This is in turn means social conditions ( laws ) for these operations and thus a recognised status of order is believed. More understanding, more humanity, means a belief in an understanding of choice enforced through the authority of independence. Relationship status of freedom believed in for this. Through competitive markets, agencies operate to satisfy the individual self (again upheld by social conditions - eg property rights). However, when understanding each other better as both demanding effect - then equal cooperation in social conditions preferred, thus status of equality believed in. More understanding, more humanity again, essentially means a belief in morality for institutions.
BELIEVED RELATIONSHIP STATUSES
(BELIEVED INTERPRETED-INTERACTION STATUSES )
MORALITY EQUALITY FREEDOM ORDER
EFFECTIVE SELF, HUMANITY, UNDERSTANDING / RATIONAL SELF, GOODS, ANALYSES
We have a status of morality or equality (for the effective understanding) to satisfy effective self-interest, or the status of freedom or order (for the pro-rational understanding) to satisfy rational self-interest. Society is organized as an understanding for effectiveness, or society is arranged as an understanding for profit. The beliefs have aspects of their own, a life of their own - but the underlying reason to them is self-interest.
We can see truth and status to beliefs independently of the way we think. The status and truth to knowledge is more important than the profit or effect to knowledge that would otherwise be conditioned. We interpret the effect and status to knowledge. False awareness of things, false knowledge.
False awareness implies definition of thoughts. That is, as knowledge is what we think and humanity is what we feel - they may mismatch.
This false awareness, this false knowledge ( religion, culture, ideology etc ) defines the interpreted effect to the individual. False awareness such as culture defining the value of certain goods ( false awareness as to the value of certain goods, thus interpret the effect of fashion rather than be rational and realise profitable bargains). Religion defining the value of the harvest festival ( interpret resources for the festival rather than independently realise profit), or environmentalism defining the value of recycled products ( interpreting resources for the effect of recycling, at the expense of realising profit ). We are willing and able to pay for interpreted effective value - irrationally.
SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDINGS WE DEMAND FROM KNOWLEDGE
( UNDERSTANDINGS HAVE OPPORTUNITY COST OF REALISED PROFIT )
EFFECTIVE DEMANDS > SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING < INFORMED BY KNOWLEDGE < BASED ON RESOURCE
V
PRODUCTION AND / OR AUTHORITY
DEMANDS > CHRISTMAS FESTIVAL < INFORMED BY CHRISTIANITY < BASED ON IDEAS
V
PRODUCTION AND AUTHORITY
DEMANDS > REGULATION OF INDUSTRY < INFORMED BY AUTHORITARIANISM < BASED ON EVIDENCE
V
AUTHORITY
DEMANDS > FASHION < CULTURE (INFORMAL AWARENESS) < ASSUMPTIONS
V
PRODUCTION
We interpret specific effect due to a self-interest, informed by false awareness in turn informed by resources. All resources for knowledge are ideas, assumptions or evidence. This understanding demands to be practiced with an authority upholding it. The specific understanding is practiced by production and demands further authority understandings.
Also, the likes of Das Kapital could not have been written in ancient Rome, so those with high humanity would have been in false awareness (attitudes to slavery etc). There were many in false awareness (primarily due to failure ) in the Soviet Union, and many didnt believe at all - meaning coercion was used to enforce the economic understanding (alternative coercive understanding - offensive). Humanity depreciation is catastrophic for an orthodox communist system (allocative efficiency depends on a report system).
Summary
Thinking is positive language arranged for a conditioned simplified effect.
As thoughts are positive, want realisation or interpretation of them (conditions). Value realisation or value interpretation.
Will thus conditions language. Thinking described as language for a CSE.
Knowledge (defined awareness) or subjective awareness implies definition of thoughts. Thinking thus described as language conditioned for simplified defined awareness (knowledge).
The condition depends on focus of effect (interpret) or focus on method (realise). Effective or profitable factor to knowledge. When surrendering effective knowledge for abstracts irrationally, then these are effective too. When forgone rationally, then they are profitable. That is goods, activities and knowledge are effective or profitable to the individual. Relationships are always irrational.
Relationships are where we are aware of each other around an irrational interaction. That is with relationships, when interpreting the factor, syntax, sense to a language between us - then its being understood. Interpreting the others language is being aware of their reasons ( the languages' sense is also the reason ). This is being aware of the other. This is thus a belief in an understanding, belief in an interpreted interaction effect that ultimately satisfys ( or so is believed ) our self-interests.
The individual is a conditioner ( rational or effective ) with goods, activities and relations.
THE INDIVIDUAL
/---------->>>ACTIVITIES ( VALUED )
/---------->>>GOODS ( VALUED )
INDIVIDUAL CONDITIONER ------->>>
\---------->>>RELATIONS ( BELIEVED )
\---------->>>KNOWLEDGE ( FORGONE )
There is the individual and the organisation (an organisation being a number of individuals bound by the decisions of a decision-maker). The organisation is an understanding we have. The individual adheres to an understanding out of rational or effective self-interest - individuals interpreting resources for the effect of an organisation, not realising anarchic profit.
There are two organisations we all adhere to in order to satisfy ourselves, the production and authority understandings.
(DEMANDS)
SELF > RELATIONS > PRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING > AUTHORITY UNDERSTANDING > BELIEVED RELATION-STATUS
Focus on effect means a preference for effective positive goods. This means a relationship ( an understanding - interpreted interaction effects ) to satisfy effective self-interest ( interpret resources for effective goods, rather than realise profitable ones ). This relationship builds a social condition ( an understanding of effect for society ) for production of effective goods and services. Individuals believe in relationship statuses for participation in the social condition.
EFFECT > PRO-EFFECTIVE RELATIONS > SOCIAL CONDITION > INSTITUTION / EFFECT AUTHORITY > MORALITY / EQUALITY
Focus on profit, means a preference for profitable positive goods. This means a relationship ( believed understanding ) to satisfy rational self-interest ( interpret resources for, and organize for, the production of profitable goods out of rational self interest ). This relationship builds an agency condition ( an understanding of profit to the individual) that engages in production of profitable goods and services. This means beliefs to satisfy rational demands for profit. Individuals believe in relationship statuses for participation in the agency condition.
PROFIT > PRO-RATIONAL RELATIONS > AGENCY CONDITION > INDEPENDENCE / PROHIBITION AUTHORITY > FREEDOM / ORDER
The agency or social understanding provide effective benefits to the individual. That is social conditions either providing individuals with effective value ( NHS ) or providing facilities for profitable value ( Infrastructure ) or agency conditions providing individuals with greater productivity of profitable value. Individuals have beliefs in a relationship status for the conditions.
These are beliefs in relationship understandings that satisfy. That is , irrational confidence in the truth of interpretd interaction statuses. These believed understanding statuses are morality (most humanity, then equality, freedom and order (least).
All interactions have an irrational element, that is the common understanding ( humanity ). The strength of the belief in the common understanding determines effective or rational self-interest. A high belief in humanity will mean effective self-interest which is satisfied by social conditions, and necessarily believed statuses, while a lower belief in the common understanding will mean rational self-interest satisfied through agency conditions.
Strength of the common understanding determined by individual, social and family success and offence. Where rational to the self - then believe in order or freedom. Where effective then moral or egalitarian. False awareness is beliefs independent of conditioning values.
1 We make descriptive claims of "...I think thus I am...." for interpretation of a further alternative description. It is interpretation of a sense, in language, for awareness.
Claims describe awareness - describe I think thus I am
WILL DEFINES (I effectively call it "I think thus I am")
WILL REALISES DEFINITIONS (I realise what it means)
DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY (Interpret a value to the self according to will)
DEFINITIONS BENEFIT THE SELF
DEFINITIONS COST TIME
DEFINITIONS PROGRESS LOGICALLY
DONT DEFINE TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE
WILL REALISES OR INTERPRETS THE RIGHT DEFINITIONS (Realise "thinking means I exist". Interpret "thinking is subject to existence" ( I think therefore I am))
I THINK THUS I AM ( DEFINITIONS OF AWARENESS )
WILL DEFINES
WILL REALISES DEFINITION
DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY
WILL REALISES OR INTERPRETS ( CONDITION ) RIGHT DEFINITION
INTERPRETATION - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION OF AN EFFECT / SENSE. DEFINITIONS FROM THE SELF SATISFACTORILY CONDITIONED RIGHT - THUS PREDETERMINED. KNOWLEDGE ( DEFINED AWARENESS ).IS A PRECONDITION TO THINKING.
Language is arranged right or there is no awareness. I think thus I am is arranged right for the awareness of existence (As, "...therefore I think am I..." would have no legible awareness to it). "....I think thus I am..." is preconditioned right, thus the awareness stated is preconditioned right. I think thus I am is predetermined by a defined awareness, or it wouldnt be right - it would be wrong. Knowledge implies definition of thoughts.
I THINK THUS I AM
WILL DEFINES OR REALISES DEFINITIONS TO THE VALID STATEMENT
KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION OF THE SENSE
INTERPRETATION - WILL INTERPRETS OR DEDUCES A SENSE / SYNTAX FROM THE SENSES AND KNOWLEDGE. WILL INTERPRETS I THINK THUS I AM (THE SENSE - THINKING IS SUBJECT TO EXISTENCE) OR REALISES I THINK THUS I AM (THE SENSE - THINKING MEANS I EXIST)
Will can interpret a syntax that thinking is subject to existence - the interpretation defined by knowledge (defined awareness) that is thinking depends on existence. However, we can activate definitions for a syntax that is most efficient - knowledge implying definition.
(I THINK THUS I AM [SENSED] + KNOWLEDGE) WHEN CONDITIONED FOR EFFECT = INTERPRETATION OF A SYNTAX
"THINKING IS SUBJECT TO EXISTENCE"
(I THINK THUS I AM [SENSED] + KNOWLEDGE) WHEN CONDITIONED FOR PROFIT = DEDUCTION OF A SYNTAX
"THINKING MEANS I EXIST"
I either interpret an effective effect, or realise a profitable effect. They are different effects, values, one rational the other effective. Profit is surplus benefit, effectiveness is an interpretation of a higher but less profitable value than what would be realised. Profit or effect are the two conditions to thought.
Definitions, thus language have various positives to it. We dont think too much when thinking is positive - indicating cost aversion. When arranging a logic of positive language (either realising it (rational) or interpreting it (understanding) then as knowledge implies definition, then rational or understanding of knowledge.
DONT DEFINE TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE
DEFINITIONS BENEFIT THE SELF
DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY
DEFINITIONS ARE INTERPRETED / REALISED AS RIGHT
DEFINITIONS PROGRESS LOGICALLY
DEFINITIONS COST TIME
KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION
INTERPRETATION - THINKING IS POSITIVE LANGUAGE CONDITIONED FOR A SIMPLIFIED DEFINED AWARENESS. A LOGIC OF LANGUAGE IS CONDITIONED POSITIVE, WHILE COST AVERSE. FOCUS ON METHOD ( REALISE ) OR FOCUS ON EFFECT ( INTERPRET ) WHEN THINKING. THINKING IS POSITIVE LANGUAGE, ARRANGED FOR A CONDITIONED (REALISED OR INTERPRETED ) SIMPLIFIED EFFECT. WILL CONDITIONS LANGUAGE FOR EFFECT OR CONDITIONS FOR PROFIT, THUS WILL CONDITIONS LANGUAGE FOR EFFECTIVE OR PROFITABLE KNOWLEDGE. WILL RATIONAL OR EFFECTIVE WITH KNOWLEDGE. WILL MAXIMISES SURPLUS BENEFIT TO KNOWLEDGE THROUGH REALISATION, OR MAXIMISES EFFECT TO KNOWLEDGE THROUGH INTERPRETATION.
Claimed descriptions interpreted for an alternative description of awareness ( alternative description of I think thus I am)). This is using I think thus I am to interpret effective description of language ( as it means language is valid ) and thus ultimately knowledge.
WILL IS A CONDITIONER OF KNOWLEDGE
OPPORTUNITY COST OF GOODS AND ACTIVITIES IN KNOWLEDGE
UNDERSTAND OPERATIVE LANGUAGE OF THE OTHER (INTERPRET I THINK THUS I AM)
THINKING IS EFFECTIVE KNOWLEDGE FOR A CONDITIONED SIMPLIFIED SENSE
(OCCASIONAL) IRRATIONAL OPPORTUNITY COST OF ALL INTERACTIONS
INTERPRETATION - INDIVIDUALS BELIEVE IN A COMMON UNDERSTANDING (HUMANITY). WE UNDERSTAND EACH OTHERS OPERATIVE LANGUAGE (INTERPRET "I THINK THUS I AM") AROUND AN INTERACTION, AND THUS ARE AWARE OF EACH OTHERS REASONS, THUS AWARE OF EACH OTHER FULL-STOP. WE ARE AWARE OF EACH OTHER WHEN BOTH RATIONAL OR UNDERSTANDING - MEANING WE BELIEVE IN AN UNDERSTANDING (HUMANITY) OVER AND ABOVE OURSELVES TO ULTIMATELY SATISFY THIS SELF-INTEREST (ALTHOUGH UNDERSTANDING IS OCCASIONALLY IRRATIONAL). BELIEF IS IRRATIONAL CONFIDENCE. HUMANITY IS AN IRRATIONAL CONFIDENCE IN AN UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE.
There is the individual and the organisation. There is the society organisation and specific organisations in it - we intertret the effect of an organisation ( pool team, political party ) rather than independently rationally realise profit. The organisation is an understanding we have.
For us all, there are two understandings, that is production understandings ( occasionally irrational production organisations ) and necessarilly demanded authority understandings.
As we are rational or effective, and condition that production increases productivity - individuals enter a [specific] production understanding. This understanding based on relationships. Individuals believe the understanding is the best productive system , even though its occasionally irrational. Production is the processing of raw materials into a good or service as defined by the consumer (consumer demand). The most effective production possible whilst fundamentally profitable is rational - the most efficient / profitable production whilst fundamentally effective, is, effective.
PRODUCTION INCREASES PRODUCTIVITY
UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER AS CONDITIONERS
BELIEF IN RELATIONSHIPS GENERALLY
INTERPRETATION - INTERPRET RESOURCES FOR SPECIFIC ORGANISED SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION, AND AUTHORITY UPHOLDING IT. WE ADHERE TO A PRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING TO SATISFY SELF-INTEREST, AND THUS AN AUTHORITY UNDERSTANDING TO UPHOLD IT. WE INTERPRET THE EFFECT OF THE AGENCY OR SOCIAL CONDITIONS (INTERPRET ORGANISATION OF PRODUCTION) AND FURTHER SOCIAL CONDITIONS TO UPHOLD. INDIVIDUALS HAVE AN IRRATIONAL CONFIDENCE IN THE TRUTH THAT A PRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING (BASED ON RELATIONSHIPS (HUMANITY)) OVER AND ABOVE THEMSELVES, WILL BETTER SATISFY SELF-INTEREST THROUGH GREATER PRODUCTIVITY. WE BELIEVE THAT THE OTHER WILL SUBSCRIBE TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT WILL SATISFY RATIONAL OR EFFECTIVE SELF-INTEREST.
Production is occasionally irrational to any participating individual. That is on any given day - the boss may prefer to be on holiday, the groundskeeper would prefer to be in a pub. The individual is forgoing irrational opportunity cost when participating in production. However, if approached completely rationally then the business cannot function, certainly on a market. We believe in relationships. The organisation is an understanding we have.
2 There have been a number of production understandings, articulated and justified in knowledge and false knowledge (feudalism). This knowledge is rooted in ideas, assumptions or evidence.
3 The Nazis didnt really believe in anything, but were self-interested. They merely claimed "...survival of the fittest..." as they hated each other and it apparently suited them most of the time. Their humanity and understanding was so low that they didnt care to much about what they did (outcome), but rather they sorted out the way they did it (method). They were entirely about methods not outcomes - they sorted out their crimes, auschwitz being clean and tidy. Their understanding was so poor that it was based on what they saw. Whilst trying to be objective, rationalism without humanity is evil. The Nazis robbing the jews and enslaving them for economic gain before murdering them out of a psychopathic ideology (Psychopaths dont understand anything at all).
Interpret the effect of "sorted-out" - as they condition (realise) what they see
(They honestly agreed things should look sorted, but that was about it - sort it out!).