Humanity (Knowns)
You Cannot Deny The Truth Of Human Nature, I Think Therefore I Am!
Humanity. This is an attempt at an inquiry into human-nature (the individual). I doubt everything until i discover something doubtless. Thus an understanding of society is reduced to that of individual human natures in it, an understanding of the individual starting with Descartes' statement and colour.
There is a short text on the method, then the inquiry begins with Descartes' doubtless statement ( if the awareness stated is valid - then so is the language of it etc ) and what i'm sure to observe ( if colour is a fact - observations are a fact ) and outlines the nature of the individual. Then there is a conclusion.
METHOD > DESCARTES STATEMENT AND FACTS > HUMAN-NATURE UNDERSTANDING > CONCLUSION
The method. There are two types of inquiry, understanding and analysis. Interpreting effective description (understanding eg - describe the benefits of something) and assessing given a rationale (analysis eg - assess something for damage). There are two further types of understanding or analysis; rationalism (inquiry of awareness from the self - ideas1 or usually assumptions) and empiricism (inquiry of awareness from the material realm - usually evidence).
There is rational deduction and interpreted understanding. This is an inquiry defining and describing human nature using interpreted claims about thoughts. You perform an inquiry whereby we extend the claimed descriptions of “I think thus I am” to universal descriptions (laws) and make interpretations for further universal laws, an interpretation being a defined alternative possibility (description that accords with claims) a variation of descriptions.
The facts and laws describe something, describe an awareness, facts and laws that are either used for realising or interpreting an alternative description. The facts and laws are reasons for the alternative description.
FACT - FACTS AND LAWS DESCRIBE AWARENESS
LAW - EFFICIENT REALISATION OF ALTERNATIVE SENSE
DEDUCTION - REALISATION OF AWARENESS THROUGH ALTERNATIVE SENSE (DEDUCTION )
Example ( Facts and laws describing an awareness )
FACT - YOU HAVE A BOLT
LAW - BOLTS ARE ROUND
DEDUCTION > YOUR BOLT IS ROUND ( Alternative description of an awareness )
( The facts and laws realise an awareness, through an efficient sense )
Again, with understanding then the facts and laws describe the awareness - this time the awareness then interpreted into an effective sense. It is interpretation of a sense, in language, for awareness.
Example ( Facts and laws describing an awareness )
FACT - LOUD MUSIC HEARD
FACT - FRIEND ARRIVES HOME LATE
INTERPRETATION - FRIEND BROKE THE LAW WITH A LOCK-IN
( Alternative description )
( The facts and laws interpret an awareness, through an effective sense )
Any deduction would mean assumptions. For example, deducing that the pub plays music assumes it has the capability ( equipment ). Thus instead we make an interpretation that works with other valid interpretations and is thus itself valid, as the text coherent.
Example
LAW - POLICE PURSUE OFFENDERS
FACT - HOUSE KITCHEN WINDOW SMASHED
INTERPRETATION - FRIEND DESPERATE TO GET AWAY FROM POLICE ( Works with above )
Instead of finding endless assumptions to a deduction , its better to choose between interpretations that work with other interpretations. This means ultimately no assumptions.
If we did pile up the said facts and laws to make a deduction - we would efficiently realise the sense "....Friend witnessed a crime..." meaning many assumptions.
There are no assumptions to the sum of interpretations, as assumptions are not reasons but lucky description at best. Eg/ assuming rational self interest on the stock exchange (understood as a human nature) to invest and then being successful, does not give you a sure reason. We were actually only rational on financial markets, but always will be. We were lucky with the assumption, actually, we are not rational machines, not rational all the time, but will always be lucky as we are rational on that market. No validity. Its an assumption.
---
The inquiry. Colour is observed. It is perceived in various, 100% different, forms (light, paint, roses, various completely different compositions. Definitions are described compositions), yet is interpreted as a singular perception (light and paint can both be classed as red). Different compositions are interpreted to be the same colour. Colour is not a variant (different properties) of an object as the difference is who see’s it, you dont choose perceptions - you see one each. Colour is subject to the individual, It cannot be defined ( I cannot define a new colour down the telephone, you have to see it to paint a room ). Nano-meter wavelength of light is a description of colour, an example of colour not a definition, not a composition of colour. We thus sometimes disagree on identification (some will call something red, some say burgundy). We all agree on what is colour, further, what are the same colours, but we can disagree on what it looks like.
If we say red is red then the assumption is made we all see the same colour we call red. We may actually see slight variations in colour between us (what we see). We then agree on a label (in light) but it cant be defined, so we never know. Look to the blue on facebook, how do you know mark zuckerberg doesnt see what you call red, and call it blue never knowing? describe blue without using examples as they are seen as "red" too. Define the difference between red and blue, is it brightness? If I make blue brighter is it red?
Saying its a reaction in the eye assumes all eyes are the same. We can thus interpret colours, interpret awareness and there are even connotations (art). SO, colour is not imagined, as we would have to know the composition. It cannot be defined, it is not imagined, not conceived in the mind - but something we sense. Colour cannot be defined when we all use it. We must sense it, independently, in order to use it. We may interpret it but it is still something we sense. A subject, something subject to interpretation. This means colour exists; however it cannot be defined when it is used by others, thus others (who must sense it) exist. We must exist to sense. We must exist in a universal realm. Reality.
COLOUR OBSERVED > WE ALL USE IT > CANT DEFINE IT > COLOUR EXISTS BEYOND US > REALITY IS FACT
Colour thus defines reality as a fact, but do I exist?
I doubt everything until I discover something doubtless. You cannot doubt doubt itself. I doubt thus i reduce. When I wonder if I exist then I think in a language. The language is a right interpretation - I interpret right grammar or right content when thinking it.
I must exist in order to interpret ( something is interpreting ). My will interprets right thus I exist - interpreting right grammar or interpret right subject-matter for this very statement.
If I interpret thoughts right, then thinking is the result of, subject to, existence (something must choose interpretations). Thinking thus signals my existence. I think therefore I am (Where there is thinking, there is existence). As thinking always means existence (to everyone) then reality accords to laws making it that way. Reality accords to derived laws for inquiry. There is a subject, and a subjective, and as laws are universal, universally conditioned, reality.
Do I exist?>Interpret language when thinking anything>something interprets (will)>will interprets right ( right grammar or content is apparent in interpretation)>thinking is subject to existence>thinking is signal of existence>I think therefore I am> I exist
As every person, can think this, and it means the same thing to us all - then we all exist and the laws derived are thus universal, and valid. The subjective concept of validity, standard of validity, is valid. That is, the statement coined by Descartes is valid. Its a valid statement that can be interpreted. That is "I think thus I am" can obviously be efficiently realised to mean "thinking means I exist", However, it can be interpreted to mean "thinking is subject to existence" and still be valid as it works with the self-evident fact that will interprets right when thinking.
LAW - I THINK THEREFORE I AM IS A VALID STATEMENT
FACT - LANGUAGE MAKES THIS AND OTHER STATEMENTS
INTERPRETATION - STATEMENTS ( INCLUDING GRAMMATICALLY DEMANDED CONJUNCTIONS ) CAN BE VALID OR NOT. CONCEPT OF VALIDITY IN SUBJECT. STATEMENT IS EVALUATED BY SUBJECT ( ASSESSED VALIDITY )
The statement is universally valid thus the language used is exemplary. These statements describe the claim. You think them through - defining what you sense in the claim. The claim can be defined as>
(Apparent) Will defines,
(Apparent) Will realises definitions,
We either use words to define the statement, OR realise words you know for the statement “...I think thus I am...”.
An example would be looking at something and realise its a coke can, or look at it and call it a coke can. That is either realise from knowledge what it is OR, define what it is; interpreting what you sense.
(Thinking) is will defines, (from self),
(Thinking) is will realises definition,
Defining apparents defined as>
Will is initiating action,
realise is operative-activation
Definition is a described composition of something (“I think thus I am” is describing compositions using words).
"I think therefore i am" described by >
LAW - I THINK THUS I AM (THOUGHTS ARE ABOUT SUBJECT)
LAW - WILL DEFINES
LAW - WILL REALISES DEFINITION
LAW - WILL CONDITIONS RIGHT DEFINITION ( SEE BELOW )
INTERPRETATION - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION OF A SENSE (SYNTAX) IN LANGUAGE. THOUGHTS FROM SELF DEFINE AWARENESS OF SUBJECT. WILL CONDITIONS AWARENESS IN DEFINITIONS. DEFINED AWARENESS (KNOWLEDGE) IMPLIES (PREDETERMINED) DEFINITION OF A SENSE (SYNTAX)
Subjects have definition and will defines them, i'm aware of subjects and thus define awareness. Awareness put into words is defined awareness ( knowledge ).
"I think thus I am" further described by >
Will interprets/realises (conditions) right definition, (Realise the statement as thinking means I exist OR Interpret the statement to mean "thinking is subject to existence" - I think therefore I am)
knowledge implies definition [of a sense] ( knowledge in memory - we didnt invent the words ). Thoughts from the self defines the awareness to I think thus I am. Awareness is defined. Awareness conditioned as right definitions. Defined awareness implies predetermined definition. This is usually what is conditioned (ie-understood). Behavioural attributes are why we think what we think, knowledge implies definition.
we think in definitions (definitions to words we think in)
definitions interpreted/realise as right,
definitions can repeat, or progress logically,
we dont define to much or too little,
learn definitions,
will stems from self,
will chooses right definition,
will is independent ( Need help? )
definitions benefit self ( “I exist” is the demanded sense from a subjective statement, thus statement has a subjective benefit. (Will is independent and definition satisfactory for whatever reason)).
definitions are free,
will produces definitions,
will consumes the definition,
definition is satisfactory (Interpret valid statement - subject has concept of validity. Statement is valid. Definitions satisfactorily valid to subject. If statement is true, its a true communication of something, that is a satisfactory account of something. Its thus satisfactory in every respect.) The definition of satisfaction is fulfilled purpose. The self-evident sense to the statement "...do I exist..." is "question". I cannot doubt this as I cannot doubt doubt. The answer to this question is satisfactory (fulfilled). Definitions are satisfactory in descartes statement for answering the question.
definitions cost time,
statements can be less descriptive ("therefore" means descartes can be interpreted, it is thus more complicated))
statements require care and attention
Further apparent>
"d*^k" (we interpret/realise feeling offended)
FACT - COLOUR AND BRIGHTNESS ONLY PROPERTIES OF LIGHT OBSERVED
FACT - COLOUR CANT BE DEFINED
FACT - COLOUR DISTINGUISHED FROM LIGHT AND USED BY OTHER
FACT - SAME COLOUR ON DIFFERENT COMPOSITES
INTERPRETATION - INTERPRET OR REALIES A VARIANT OF A SUBJECT. AWARENESS IS SUBJECTIVE
The other has used colour not light when it cant be defined, meaning he must have sensed the difference. I recognize this as colour, not light. However, what the colour is may be interpreted. We all sense colour as possibly something subjected to interpretation. We sense the difference between its formal definition ( Red - effect of light with a wavelength between 610 and 780 nanometers ) and the colour perceived, used and recognized (paint, blood). As this colour maybe interpreted, it is subject to perception of differing individuals. It is a subjective variant to individuals.
LAW - WILL INTERPRETS/REALISES RIGHT DEFINITION
LAW - I THINK THEREFORE I AM
LAW - I THINK IN DEFINITIONS
LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY
INTERPRETATION - I EXPRESS MY EXISTENCE THROUGH INTERPRETATION OR REALISATION OF DEFINITIONS. DEFINITIONS SUBJECTED TO EXISTENCE, EXPRESSION OF WILL SATISFIED BY DEFINITION
We can interpret "I think therefore I am" as a signal of existence, or a definition of thinking as existence. Both interpretations seem valid however I may define thoughts as reflection/expression of existence because the very fact that it can be interpreted means its not objective but subjective definition. Subjective to existence. Meaning of statement is subject to the existence behind it.
Will has an intention behind it, intention stemming from existence, that is then satisfied by definition. This interpretation works with other interpretations. Thinking is subject to knowledge and intention behind will ( reason ).
LAW - WILL DEFINES/REALISES DEFINITION
LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION
LAW - INTERPRET/REALISE RIGHT DEFINITION
INTERPRETATION - THINKING IS INTERDEPENDENCE OF REALISED/INTERPRETED KNOWLEDGE AND WILL.
There is our existence, thinking and our awareness. Existence sets the condition for thinking. Thinking is interdependence of knowledge and will. We interpret/realise subjected thoughts. There is reason for thinking as it satisfys. Awareness is sensed, it is the (perhaps interpreted) perception of subjects. There is reason for awareness and sense satisfys this.
LAW - I THINK THEREFORE I AM
LAW - WE THINK IN DEFINITIONS
LAW - DEFINITIONS PROGRESS LOGICALLY
LAW - DEFINTIONS ARE DESCRIBED COMPOSITIONS
INTERPRETATION - DEFINITIONS ARE ACTIONED-CONTENT (ACTIONED DESCRIPTION OF COMPOSITIONS)
Thinking, speaking, reading and writing is actioning the content. Thinking is the action, "I am" indicates the sense, composed of contents.
LAW - CORRECT AND ACCURATE DEFINITIONS ARE POSITIVE
LAW - SELF INTERPRETS/REALISES RIGHT DEFINITION
LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE FREE (FROM OTHER)
INTERPRETATION = DEFINITIONS ARE REALISED OR DEFINITIONS ARE INTERPRETED. VALUE REALISATION OR INTERPRETATION, ( VALUED AS WANTED )
Existence sets the condition ( interpretation or realisation of satisfactory definitions ).
Knowledge is awareness defined, with the definition being interpreted or realised. Also, thinking is interpreted or realised from sensory awareness or knowledge ( defined awareness (Knowledge implies definition)). Also, there are positives to thoughts and we thus value how we have them. As action contents are positive, we value interpretation or realisation of them.
LAW - WILL REALISES OR INTERPRETS RIGHT DEFINITION
LAW - DEFINITIONS HAVE POSITIVES
LAW - DEFINITIONS CAN REPEAT, OR PROGRESS LOGICALLY
LAW - YOU DONT DEFINE TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE
LAW - DEFINITIONS COST TIME
INTERPRETATION - WILL CONDITIONS LANGUAGE. IT REALISES POSITIVES FOR EFFICIENCY OR INTERPRETS FOR EFFECT FROM THE SENSES OR KNOWLEDGE. MEANING WILL CONDITIONS, INTERPRETING EFFECTIVENESS OR REALISING EFFICIENCY (Either relates cost and chooses effective positive abstracts, chooses effective interpretation OR realises maximum benefits and minimum costs in efficiently and accurately choosing definitions) OR INDIFFERENT WITH LANGUAGE.
As we dont think too much when its positive indicates cost-aversion. Definitions cost time yet we think positive definitions. We either rationally optimise language for positives and costs or we can effectively optimise language for positives and costs.
Right, is "technical" right and right content. The right word, it may not necessarilly be very beneficial ( value ). Right and value are positives. (eg "Cup of tea?" is formed right, but has no value here as its not beneficial ). Benefit is value. Benefits can be elaborated, or proofs formed. For example the statement "Mars is Red" is right grammar but, but has no benefit (value) here.
LAW - DEFINITIONS INTERPRETED/REALISED AS RIGHT
LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE POSITIVE
LAW - DEFINITIONS REPEATS, OR PROGRESSES LOGICALLY
LAW - YOU DONT THINK TOO MUCH OR LITTLE
LAW - DEFINITIONS COST TIME
INTERPRETATION - THINKING IS POSITIVE LANGUAGE ARRANGED FOR A CONDITIONED SIMPLIFIED EFFECT. THE CONDITION AND THE EFFECT IS VALUED (HERE, "SENSE" IN WHAT YOU THINK)) THINKING IS POSITIVE LANGUAGE, ARRANGED FOR A CSE. CONDITION TO CSE IS REALISATION OR INTERPRETATION OF POSITIVES. AS A LOGIC OF RIGHT LANGUAGE IS REALISED OR INTERPRETED AND SIMPLIFIED.
There are two ways of thinking, with realisation or interpretation as conditions. Realisation and simplification mean calculation for efficiency, realise the most efficient elaboration of language. Interpretation and simplification means effectiveness, interpret most effective elaboration of language.
When focusing on method to gain positives we focus on exploiting efficiency through rational calculation (maximise positives, minimise cost - thus efficient realisation of rational language). Interpretation is a focus on effectiveness, exploiting interpretations.
Language is conditioned as positives are logically arranged for effectiveness or profit. Is simplified so as to not think too much, but at the same time elaborate satisfactory positives. Language is conditioned and simplified into a sense.
We realise or interpret thoughts, and thus the knowledge defining them. The apparents will realises definition and knowledge implies definition means some value knowledge through deduction, whereas the apparents will defines and Knowledge implies definition, means some value knowledge through interpretation.
There is a focus on method, realisation of thinking.
Making choices between values and cost mean calculation of profitable language. This means focus on calculation.
A focus on methods to gain positives means focus on efficiency. Where efficiency is the focus we are rational with what we think.
LAW - I THINK THUS I AM
LAW - VALUE EFFICIENCY OF THOUGHT TO SELF ( LANGUAGE COST MINIMISED INTO AN EFFECT )
LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION
INTERPRETATION - EFFICIENTLY REALISE SIMPLIFIED EFFECT TO SELF, FROM SENSES AND KNOWLEDGE. EFFICIENTLY REALISE THINKING - DEDUCE THINKING
We cost minimise available language into a sense - that is we demand a given effect when cost minimising, meaning we realise a singular sense / syntax / effect. We deduce an effect from the facts of available language, knowledge and the law of efficiency.
(I THINK THUS I AM [SENSED] + KNOWLEDGE) CONDITIONED FOR PROFIT = REALISE THOUGHTS
-
(I THINK THUS I AM + KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTENCE) CONDITIONED PROFITABLY AS "THINKING MEANS I EXIST" )
(RATIONAL)
Thinking is elaboration of positive language arranged for a CSE, with interpretation or realisation as conditions. As knowledge implies definition, realising thoughts is realising further knowledge - thus rational with knowledge. The more we value how thoughts are constructed, the more we value rationalism and knowledge. We are rational with knowledge ( elaborated in language ).
We either interpret effective senses to language ( Understanding of awareness ) or realise an efficient sense to language ( realise rational awareness ).
LAW - REALISED SIMPLIFIED SENSE TO THOUGHTS
LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION
LAW - WILL IS CONDITIONER
LAW - SATISFACTORY DEFINED AWARENESS (TRUTH TO AN INDIVIDUAL)
INTERPRETATION - CONDITION FOR EFFICIENCY OF STATUS AND TRUTH (RATIONAL)
We realise for status and truth (Its value, cost, and satisfactory defined awareness) to elaborate language. We elaborate given a condition (efficiency), we think in terms of a condition (efficiency).
or focus on content, outcome, effect, for interpretation.
LAW - WILL INTERPRETS/REALISES LANGUAGE
LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE ACTION-CONTENTS
INTERPRETATION - WILL INTERPRETS AWARENESS, THUS INTERPRETS CONTENTS TO LANGUAGE
When thinking we action content - when interpreting effect we interpret content.
LAW - I THINK THUS I AM
LAW - VALUE EFFECTIVE THOUGHT TO SELF THROUGH INTERPRETATION
LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION
INTERPRETATION - EFFECTIVELY INTERPRET A SIMPLIFIED EFFECT OF THOUGHT TO SELF.. EFFECTIVELY INTERPRET THINKING - INTERPRET THINKING
.
(I THINK THUS I AM [SENSED] + KNOWLEDGE) CONDITIONED FOR EFFECT = INTERPRET THOUGHTS
-
(I THINK THUS I AM + KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTENCE) CONDITIONED EFFECTIVELY AS "THINKING IS SUBJECT TO EXISTENCE" (UNDERSTAND )
As knowledge implies deifinition, interpreting effective thoughts is interpreting knowledge - thus effective with knowledge. The more positives we see in any content, the more interpretations we make. The more we value awareness the more we value the contents of its definition, not how it was defined ( conditioning of it ).
LAW - INTERPRETED SIMPLIFIED SENSE TO THOUGHTS
LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION
LAW - WILL IS CONDITIONER
INTERPRETATION - CONDITION FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF STATUS AND TRUTH (UNDERSTANDING)
We interpret for status and truth to elaborate language; to elaborate knowledge. We interpret for effectiveness, understand in terms of effectiveness. Thoughts that are interpreted in language is understanding. Interpreted knowledge means understanding.
If knowledge is interpreted, we understand it. We either understand or we dont, we interpret or realise. If we favour understanding - we interpret.
Efficient realisation means,
LAW - DEFINITION REALISED AS RIGHT
LAW - CONDITIONED SIMPLIFIED SENSE TO LANGUAGE
LAW - DEFINITIONS PROGRESS LOGICALLY
FACT - DEFINITIONS ARE USED
INTERPRETATION - RECOGNIZE LOGIC, RECOGNIZE RIGHT, THUS RIGHT CONTEXT OF DEFINITIONS. THEREFORE RECOGNIZE REALISED SENSE TO LANGUAGE, REALISE A SENSE TO LANGUAGE
When realising language, we realise it is used in the right context and logical. Thus we realise the sense to language and the awareness behind it.
For example we read a title like "Sociology : humanity depreciation" and note that words are logical and realised in the right context to form a sense - a title. We know the awareness to "title". At the top of the document, "...I think therefore i am.." can be a realised simplified statement, ( we think therefore we exist ). This is the realised awareness being stated.
minimising costs in thinking reduces effects of thinking.
However effective interpretation means,
LAW - DEFINITIONS INTERPRETED RIGHT
LAW - INTERPRETED SIMPLIFIED SENSE TO LANGUAGE
LAW - DEFINITIONS PROGRESS LOGICALLY
FACT - DEFINITIONS USED
INTERPRETATION - GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF AWARENESS, OF KNOWLEDGE OR SENSE, AS ITS INTERPRETED RIGHT , UNDERSTAND VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF IT, INTERPRET VARIOUS LOGICS, INTERPRET VARIOUS RIGHTS.
Understanding is defined as interpreting effect, we do so when understanding language.
For example interpreting "...I think therefore I am..." as meaning thinking is subject to existence means we understand the awareness of thinking better, that thinking is being better understood. These different interpretations mean better awareneses and means greater understanding.
LAW - DEFINITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY
LAW - THINKING IS EFFECTIVENESS FOR CONDITIONAL SIMPLIFYING SENSE
LAW - REASON TO THINK
INTERPRETATION - SENSE IN LANGUAGE SATISFYS REASON TO THINK
The sense to a statement is the reason for the statement. For example, the sense to the interpretation "...I express my ..." at the top is description, this is also the reason. The reason to "Apllied sociology : humanity depreciation" is that its a title.
LAW - UNDERSTAND SENSE TO EACH OTHERS LANGUAGE
LAW - SENSE IS REASON TO THINK
INTERPRETATION - AWARE OF EACH OTHERS REASONS, AWARE OF EACH OTHER.
As we understand the reasons behind the sense expressed, we are aware of each other. As all understanding revolves around interaction, understandings universal for interaction.
Will conditions language for interpretation or realisation. We realise a sense or interpret multiple senses. Sense is reason for language. Aware of the reasons of the other means we are aware of the other - awareness being common as interactions are common. Thinking is language arranged for conditioned simplified knowledge. A relatively high belief in humanity ( high belief in irrational interaction ) means focus on awareness, thus effectiveness ( Interpretive condition ). Its a focus on awareness not how its elaborated. Relatively valuing knowledge, means focus on the condition ( Rational condition ).
The common understanding is informed by interaction (awareness). A focus on the common understanding is a focus on awareness, otherwise rational to the self thus realise.
Knowledge is free, not shared (intentions) but still valued. When definitions are shared they are a communication, not a sharing of the knowledge.
LAW - WILL IS A CONDITIONER
LAW - SELF-INTERESTED ABOUT KNOWLEDGE ( POSITIVE )
FACT - OPPORTUNITY COST OF GOODS, SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES IN KNOWLEDGE
FACT - IRRATIONAL OPPORTUNITY COST OF INTERACTION
LAW - AWARE OF THE REASONS BEHIND THE OPERATIVE LANGUAGE OF THE OTHER (AWARE OF OTHER)
INTERPRETATION - WILL IS A CONDITIONER OF GOODS, SERVICES, ACTIVITIES AND RELATIONSHIPS. WILL FAVOURS EFFECT OR PROFIT IN THE CONSUMPTION OF GOODS, ACTIVITIES AND RELATIONSHIPS AS THEY HAVE A COST IN KNOWLEDGE. WILL FAVOURS CONSUMER EFFECT ( BEST GOOD AMONGST A BASKET OF AFFORDABLE / PROFITABLE GOODS ) OR FAVOURS CONSUMER PROFIT ( MOST PROFITABLE GOOD AMONGST A BASKET OF AFFORDABLE / PROFITABLE GOODS ). ACTIVITIES AND GOODS ARE PROBABLY VALUES. HOWEVER, AS INDIVIDUALS ARE AWARE OF EACH OTHER AS BEING BOTH CONDITIONERS, WHEN INTERACTIONS ARE IRRATIONAL - MEANS SELF-INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS BELIEVE IN RELATIONSHIPS (BELIEVED INTERPRETED INTERACTION EFFECT ).
THAT IS IRRATIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN CONDITIONING INDIVIDUALS IS A SIGNIFICANT INDICATOR THAT THEY BELIEVE IN A RELATIONSHIP. BELIEVE IN AN INTERACTION UNDERSTANDING OVER AND ABOVE THEMSELVES TO SATISFY THEIR SELF-INTEREST. IT MAY BE A FAITH OR A BELIEF. IT TAKES TWO TO EXIST SO IS A SUBJECT OUTSIDE THE SELF..
Humanity - Irrational confidence in the truth of an understanding ( Interpreted effect )
( Individuals interpret an interaction, rather than rationally realise profit )
As the intercourses are irrational, and require the other, we have similar beliefs/faiths. That is when we are aware of the others reasons for an irrational interaction, then we believe in a common understanding (common interpreted-interaction effects) for all such interactions. Irrational intercourses are similar (appropriate behaviour, communication - "humanity") thus resultant understanding is common not unique. Humanity is a belief-faith in a common understanding - something common to all relationships.
When we rationally realise profitable awareness - then it is profitable to the self; awareness is conditioned according to the self.
When we effectively interpret interaction - then its effective to the self; awareness is conditioned according to interaction.
Belief is defined as "irrational confidence in something being true" ( confidence being expectation of satisfaction), belief in humanity is an irrational confidence in the common interpreted interaction-effects (interaction understandings) being true. Faith, however, is the expectation of good fortune - expectation of the effect of the common understanding.
However, we run with the interpretation of humanity being a belief - as it is interpreted that relationships are by definition satisfactory, when we are not self-interested about them. It is an understanding we are confident is true to both. As relationships are true, our awareness of interaction is satisfactory (satisfactory awareness is truth). Also, faith in the effect implies relationships are ultimately overtly self-interested.
Effectiveness is value of ferrari, efficiency is consumer profit of a new M3 for £5,000. Consumer profit greater with M3, ferrari more valuable.
SO, for example if someone had £600,000 exactly to buy a ferrari, and wasnt willing to pay more, and they saw a M3 on discount on the way - then theres two types of person. One type will stop the car and buy the M3 ( you would be mad not to) other types will still go for the ferrari as buying the M3 is false economy2
We may demand different, unique effects between us. We charge a low price and forgo producer profit or charge a high price and demand less consumer profit. However, producers may not know if their customers are effective or rational - as rational conditioners will leave the market.
We also demand common goods, effects we all demand. We all demand common goods, but this means inelastic supply as demands increase on capital goods market, specialized capital and labour becoming scarce. The opportunity cost of this labour and capital increase. Thus when forgoing consumer profit for a common good on markets would mean a high price due to this inelastic supply, a high price to remunerate the opportunity cost of not investing in capital for production for profit, but investing in capital for production of common goods.
It would be better to have an understanding of investment in common goods not investment in profit on markets. This is forgoing producer profits on markets to expand supply of common goods while charging a lower price. This is done by the state having a monopoly on investment thus in effect a monopsony on capital goods. The price of capital goods doesnt reflect the demands of common and consumer good producers together, but the demands of the common good market alone. There is an irrational understanding of reducing investment in profit, in competing demands on capital goods and specialized labour, to the common goods market. There will be more common goods and less producer profit produced. effective.
Thus we have an understanding of expanding common good supply at the same rate as reducing supply in producer profit, as opposed to forgoing alot of consumer profit for less common goods on markets. Thus supply of common goods expands at a greater amount than a market would, and at a lower price. We effectively lose producer profit and gain effective housing as resources are invested irrationally (irrational as theres less profit - not uneconomical ( costs over benefits, a loss )).
An example of irrational production is affordable housing. This is where most individuals can afford housing, but the market will produce conservatories and housing adaptations for more profit. Thus with markets, remunerating the producer for forgoing conservatories etc (profit) and building houses means the consumer pays a high price (forgoing consumer profit to do so).The inelasticity of supply means supplying all with housing comes with a high price - consumers forgoing alot of consumer profit for a home. Its better to have an understanding of investment in housing not profit.
We in effect forgo less producer profit for housing as a society, compared to consumer profit as individuals. An understanding of forgoing producer profit is forgoing some output while forgoing consumption on markets is effectively forgoing alot of output.
So, We have an understanding for more housing production as opposed to slightly more housing on markets.
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.
As goods and activities are values, then rational or effective with them. As relationships are irrational, they effective.
THE INDIVIDUAL (Will is Independent)
I-------->KNOWLEDGE ( Truth, right, value )
I---------->GOODS
POSITIVE ABSTRACT CONDITIONER
I-------->ACTIVITIES
I-------->RELATIONSHIPS ( Belief or faith etc )
As there is opportunity cost in knowledge of these then these are positive abstracts (not necessarilly values ). As humanity is not always rational (facts of opportunity costs ) but we aware of each other, we interpret humanity as a faith/belief in a common understanding. Humanity is a relationship between others, a subject. Humanity is a given, we are conditioners.
We either believe in reasons for relationships (including humanity - the common elements) or have faith in effects of relationships, faith in effects of humanity. It is not a construct as theres interactions involved which the relationship revolves around. We either believe in reasons for the NHS, or have faith in its effects. The NHS is an interaction understanding. We interpret resources for the effect of healthcare, over profit.
So relationships have irrational opportunity costs sometimes in knowledge, this is interpreted as a belief or faith by the individual. Interdependent relationship, as it is believed in by both, it takes two to exist. As we value reason, the elaboration is reasoned as a belief, thus we can indulge in relationships even though it can be irrational. You are self-interested but its tempered by humanity, self-interest itself wont change.
Family, offence and success or failure for individual and/or groups determines humanity. Success or failure in social, family or individual units and offence effect the belief in humanity.
In order to satisfy effective and rational self-interest (when aware of the other) then we interpret the effect of an organisation, specifically an organisation for production. Organisation defined individuals bound by decisions for the whole. This production organisation either works of and satisfys rationalism (agency condition) or effectiveness (social condition).
Production requires factors of production ( land, labour and capital ). The understanding of profit [in effect] on land is the feudal understanding. We interpret the effect of feudalism over and above ourselves. The understanding of profit on capital is the capitalist understanding. We interpret the effect of capitalism over and above ourselves. The understanding of profit on labour is the collaborative understanding (see article). We interpret the understanding of collaboration over and above ourselves.
FACT - PRODUCTION INCREASES PRODUCTIVITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
LAW - WILL IS A CONDITIONER
FACT - PRODUCTION REQUIRES IRRATIONAL INTERACTION
FACT - PRODUCTION REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE
LAW - BELIEF IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING ( INTERPRETED-INTERACTION EFFECTS) MEANS PRODUCTIVE RELATIONS POSSIBLE
LAW - AWARE OF THE OTHER
INTERPRETATION - INDIVIDUALS HAVE IRRATIONAL CONFIDENCE IN A PRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING TO SATISFY SELF-INTEREST. PRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING CONDITIONED BY KNOWLEDGE IN TURN CONDITIONED BY IDEAS, ASSUMPTIONS OR EVIDENCE.
AS will is a conditioner ( rational or effective ), when production increases productivity then individuals will thus demand production. As production requires irrational interaction - then individuals demand a specific production understanding. This understanding coming from knowledge. This production understanding is possible due to the belief in a common understanding. Good relations are essentially a resource for production.
(CONDITIONER + INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY FROM PRODUCTION)
CONDITIONERS DEMAND PRODUCTION > DEMAND UNDERSTANDING > DEMAND KNOWLEDGE OF IT
As mentioned at the top of the document - knowledge built on inquiry (ideas, assumptions and evidence ). This means new production systems are realised or understood. Slavery (coercive understanding) feudalism, capitalism and communism etc were the result of knowledge, which was in turn the result of ideas, assumptions or evidence.
The agency condition can be broadly defined as an understanding of profit to the individual generally. The social conditions is defined as an understanding of effectiveness for society. These are the understandings for production, other than coercive ( Rome and Nazi Germany). That is the conditioning of profit or the condition of effective positive abstracts considering cost, for groups or societies as a whole.
The agency condition is rational and profitable economy. Rational real and financial economy. Production for the individual. This is will being a profitable positive conditioner.
The social condition is irrational and effective economy. Irrational finance (welfare - effective insurance for society), and irrational real economy ( effective public services, production for the common good, and occasionally production generally - effective production). This is will being a positive effect conditioner but as we value reason - we believe in humanity. Reason for relationships is believed.
Success as a group means relationships are believed in.
Where we come together for effective production then success means appreciation of irrational relationships.
There is effective production as market wont produce effect satisfactorilly. This is because theres more profit in alternatives ( Although alternative is a lower value, it has far lower cost so relativley more profit ), an opportunity cost of effective goods in terms of profitable goods. Effective products not produced by the market.
That is, where demand switches from profitable goods to effective goods - then on the effect market the demand curve moves right (demand increasing). This increases supply cost, thus the price, and as a result opportunity cost rises.
This means output increases slightly, and price increases.
It would be advisable to invest in the effect, expand supply and thus reduce opportunity cost. This will mean greater output at a lower price.
Thus with effective conditioners - its better to have an understanding of investment in effective production, at the expense of profitable goods.
For example in-depth ( effective ) art and culture documentaries are compared to other, cheaper shows on the market. It would be better for an understanding (BBC) to produce these shows ignoring higher profits. This increasing supply thus reducing price, satisfying more effective conditioners (More effectors are demanding these goods than rational conditioners).
Demand for the common good, is a demand for irrational relationships by everyone. Satisfactory effective goods means satisfactory relationships, believed to be humanity.
LAW - ALL DEMAND COMMON GOODS
LAW - COMMON AND EFFECTIVE GOODS REQUIRE RELATIONSHIPS
LAW - WILL IS CONDITIONER
LAW - VALUE REASON
FACT - IRRATIONAL OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF COMMON AND EFFECTIVE GOODS IN PROFITABLE ALTERNATIVES.
INTERPRETATION - SUCCESS IN PRODUCTION OF COMMON GOOD MEANS RELATIONSHIPS SATISFACTORY. AS RELATIONSHIPS SATISFACTORY THEN RELATIONSHIPS BELIEVED TO BE SATISFACTORY FOR EFFECTIVENESS. EFFECT THUS RELATIONSHIPS OPENLY DEMANDED. RELATIONSHIPS BELIEVED IN FROM SUCCESS; UNDERSTOOD TO DELIVER EFFECTIVE VALUE.
All conditioners are irrational about common goods. Where theres successful production and supply of common goods then the individual becomes aware that relationships are successful. Individuals will develop an irrational but effective confidence in an understanding for effective value, forgoing rational consumer profit. They are willing to cooperate, humanity appreciation.
Thus instead of the individual exchanging common goods on a market - they subscribe to a successful understanding where we produce common goods for all.
DEMAND COMMON GOODS > EFFECTIVE SUPPLY > UNDERSTANDING APPRECIATION > DEMAND EFFECTIVE GOODS
Soviet plans were relatively successful from 1957-61 ( albeit the only time they were successful ) and prevented failure through zero-unemployment policies and subsidy - meaning humanity appreciation (The communists built an understanding). However, systemic failures caused severe humanity-understanding depreciation after this period.
When demand common goods ( NHS etc ) then demand irrational relationship between consumers and producers. Where this satisfied - belief in relationship for all effective goods appreciates. Where successful with effective goods, then relationship believed in.
Satisfaction of common good ( NHS, BBC ) is satisfaction of demand for effectiveness. As this is done through cooperative relationships, satisfactory common good determines whether relationships are satisfactory. As this is sometimes irrational, relationships believed in.
Failure does the opposite - undermining the irrational confidence in relationships for effective value.
LAW - WE DONT DEFINE TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE
LAW - DEFINITIONS BENEFIT SELF
LAW - STATEMENTS REQUIRE CARE AND ATTENTION
LAW - SELF INTERPRETS/REALISES RIGHT DEFINITION
LAW - DEFINITIONS CAN BE OFFENSIVE
LAW - WE INTERPRET/REALISE OFFENCE
LAW - AWARE OF THE REASONS OF THE OTHER
INTERPRETATION - OFFENCE IS A DETERMINANT OF HUMANITY. RECIPIENT CARES ABOUT REASONS FOR OFFENCE, OFFENDER INTENDED IT. UNDERSTAND REASONS FOR OFFENCE, BREACHES UNDERSTANDING AROUND IRRATIONAL INTERACTION, BREACHES COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF ALL SUCH RELATIONSHIPS. BOTH BELIEVE IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING LESS.
As we dont say too little, when its offensive indicates intent. The recipient is aware of this. humanity is an subjective relationship as it takes two to exist. It is partially determined by offence by one to another. The recipient cares about the offence, the offender intended it.
FACT - FAMILY PRACTICE REQUIRES RELATIONSHIPS
FACT - CHOICE OF FAMILY PRACTICE, OR SELF, WITH GOODS
LAW - VALUE TO GOODS
LAW - VALUE REASON
INTERPRETATION - FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS DETERMINES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OTHERS, HUMANITY.
Family practice is a belief in relationships not love - or all families would do it.
As knowledge is still chosen over goods etc (conditioner), then goods, relationships and activities consumed bear diminishing marginal benefits also. As abstracts depreciate or appreciate relative to humanity, they are a determinant of humanity.
LAW - UNDERSTANDING IN LANGUAGE SATISFYS
LAW - WE THINK IN DEFINITIONS
LAW - DEFINITIONS COST TIME
LAW - DEFINITIONS PROGRESS LOGICALLY
LAW - VALUE SIMPLICITY
INTERPRETATION - SENSE TO LANGUAGE PROGRESSIVELY MORE COMPLICATED; MORE WORDS MAKES SENSE MORE COMPLICATED. AS WORDS PROGRESS, ADDING TO THE SENSE, COMPLICATIONS ACCUMULATE. DIMINISHING MARGINAL SATISFACTORY UNDERSTANDING IS DIMINISHING MARGINAL BENEFIT, AND INCREASING COMPLICATIONS MEAN INCREASING MARGINAL COST.
As definitions progress logically, then the sense and resultant awareness gets more complicated. marginal. This is in effect diminishing benefit due to value of simplicity, and increasing marginal cost to knowledge.
LAW - DIMINSHING BENEFIT AND INCREASING COST TO KNOWLEDGE
FACT - OCCASIONALLY CHOOSE KNOWLEDGE OVER OTHER POSITIVE ABSTRACTS
FACT - OCCASIONALLY CHOOSE ABSTRACTS OVER KNOWLEDGE
INTERPRETATION - INCREASING COST AND DIMINISHING BENEFIT TO POSITIVE GOODS, ACTIVITIES, RELATIONSHIPS AND KNOWLEDGE
Humanity is thus determined by social conditions, offence or success and failure and family. Successful social conditions requires successful relationships, production generally also. Irrationally satisfying the common good for all appreciates relationships. Offence is a negative relationship. There is diminishing marginal benefit in goods, knowledge and activities meaning success or failure determines humanity.
Humanity is not god, humanity is interpreted as the highest stage of evolution, with acts of humanity merely incidental side effects to the rationale of evolution. We are "positive abstract conditioners", we interpret/realise positives differently everywhere, and relationships are irrational. Positive-forms are different between things, let alone between belief/faith in relationships and goods, many A-political.
These are interpretations/realisations of everything outside self. For example, where knowledge is strong relative to humanity we are rational with the other (study and realise). Where humanity is strong, we are understanding. The difference is, for example where Joe tells you on monday hes buying a computer tomorrow, then on Tuesday you see him, walking whilst passing on the bus, with a box - you realise hes on his way. Left-wing beliefs interpret hes on his way to sell his computer first as the assumption he has the money was made. Left-wingers interpreting awareness ( what they see ), where as you realised based on knowledge (what you were told).
A strong belief in the common understanding ( prefer awareness of interaction) means awareness and interpretation of it in our thoughts. Focus on awareness means interpreting effective awareness when we think.
A lesser belief in the common interpreted effect means knowledge informs our thoughts. This means we rationally realise an awareness when we think.
We essentially think two ways. We either prefer awareness through senses and also interpret effective positives/awareness in knowledge, or we prefer CSFs and are rational and thus engage in efficient realisation of positives/awareness. Where we are rational we value knowledge, where we interpret awareness, we believe in relationships. Finally, where rationalism and knowledge to the self valued more than humanity then right wing beliefs. Where humanity believed then left wing. It depends on humanity. Humanity is determined.
Higher belief in interaction understanding means we prefer awareness and are thus more effective or understanding. Where value knowledge more, then analytical of awareness. We are either self-interested and thus profitably define our awareness to ourselves (realise the world we are in, in our own terms), or we believe in a common understanding - informed by irrational interaction.
THE INDIVIDUAL ( UNDERSTANDING OR RATIONAL THOUGHT )
"I Think Thus I Am" means thinking is language conditioned for a simplified defined awareness. The focus is on the effect, thus the awareness (interpret) OR, the focus is on the method, thus the conditioning (realise).
HIGH BELIEF (EFFECT - INTERPRET EFFECTIVE SELF)
I think effectively>Interpret my subjectively effective awareness for this>Focus on effect>Understanding with language then>Thus interpret know.>Forgo for Interpreting effect (Pos.Abstracts)>Relationships for these>Outcome to make relationship happen>social condition to satisfy>Further Satisfying Beliefs in a relation-status
EFFECTIVE DEMANDS> EFFECTIVE GOODS> FACILITATING CONDITIONS> BELIEF IN RELATION STATUS FOR INTERACTION
LOW BELIEF (METHOD - REALISE PROFITABLE SELF)
I think profitably>Realise my subjectively profitable defined awareness for this>Focus on profit for this>Rational with language then>Thus profitable know.>Forgo for Realising profit (Pos. Abstracts)>Profitable relationships for these>CSE to make relationship happen> social condition to satisfy>Further Satisfying Beliefs in a relation-status
RATIONAL DEMANDS> PROFITABLE GOODS> FACILITATING CONDITIONS> BELIEF IN RELATION STATUS FOR INTERACTION
This means we are either effective or rational with the language of thoughts, thus the knowledge defining them. We either demand profitable or effective goods thereby having relationships for production and exchange etc. We thus have agency conditions (understanding of profit for the individual ) and social conditions (understanding of an effect for society) to facilitate profitable Goods ( policed laws ) or facilitate effective goods ( public services ). We then have satisfying beliefs in a relationship-status for this.
Satisfaction of demand for effect, or satisfaction of rational demand for profit >
Effective/Interpretive > understanding with relationships, activities, knowledge
Rational/deductive > Rational with knowledge, goods, activities, and relationships
Rationalisation (forced resourcefulness) due to humanity depreciation (failure) is evidence.
Note, these are beliefs in relationships (interaction understandings) that satisfy an authority understanding, that in turn satisfys a production understanding - and thus effective or rational self-interest. Eg - belief in the understanding (interpreted interaction status) of order - for the authority of prohibition upholding agency operation, delivering effective value (rather than realise profit).
SELF-INTEREST DEMANDS > PRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING > AUTHORITY UNDERSTANDING > STATUS
(Irrationally Believed Relation-Statuses)
Morality (For effective institution) - As having high humanity and have effective demands, then demand effective relations ( an understanding). Then believe in institutions upholding these relations, enforced through social conditions (authority of institution). Institutions such as family uphold effective relationships , thus satisfying effective self-interest. Belief in the relationship-status of morality for this.
Equality (For effective cooperation) - As cooperative and have effective demands, then believe in effective cooperation in social conditions, enforced through further social conditions (the authority of effect). Belief in the relation-status of equality for this.
Freedom (For independence) - As Independent, rational and efficient then demand effective choice , thus plural agencies, enforced through a social condition (authority for independence). Belief in the relation-status of freedom for this.
Order (For prohibition) - As having low humanity, pursues rational and efficient right, self-interested and intolerant ( of technical wrong due to the value of efficiency) then believe in an agency; believe in effective operations enforced through a social condition (authority for prohibition). Belief in the relation-status of order for this.
Criminals dont believe in anything, when rational to the self - low humanity relative to other abstracts (Anti-socials). Evil dont believe in humanity at all (Non-believers).
The Nazis' and the British fascists didnt really believe in order, but claimed survival of the fittest as they didnt believe in relationships much. Their humanity and understanding was so bad it was about what they saw. They didnt care too much for effective outcome, but sorted out what they did ( realised method)- including auschwitz ( concentration camps were kept relatively tidy, all running like clock-work, even records were kept ).
As values have to be a benefit to the self to be recognised as a value - then rationalism alone will mean intolerant of different. That is as we are efficient with values to the self, difference is what is not valued. Different values / statuses is not tolerated. We realise what values and costs to self are, and nothing more. We would not be fully aware of the other, seen as different and wrong. We would only be aware of the irrational difference in the other. as we are not aware of the common interpreted-interaction effect between us.
The British Union Of Fascists. Rational and dont understand.
The fascists focus on the conditioned simplified effect in things, thus focused on simplicity and efficiency in organisation (dictatorship), in action (rational corporate state) and particularly presentation (sorted).
That is where we are just rationally self-interested but understand the other is too - then we generate an irrational confidence ( expectation of satisfaction ) in effective operations by an agency. These are a series of expected interactions considering rational self. This is to ultimately satisfy both of our self-interests. We believe in an order for this - this understanding being enforced against anti-socials by a social condition. More understanding means greater confidence in a status for irrational interaction ( freedom, equality then morality ).
BELIEVED UNDERSTANDINGS ( believed Interpreted Interaction Status )
Belief in Order ( Belief in effective operation considering rational self, thus belief in authority for prohibition for this, thus belief in the status of order). We have a belief in an expected set of interactions ( belief in operations by an agency) as we can rely on the others self interest. For this the interpreted interaction of prohibition (under an authority for prohibition) is believed. Order is believed. It is believed when rational to the self (in order for you to “sort it out” society must function adhering to self-interest, thus theres a right in society (eg - operation of agency), thus an order (anti-theft etc)). Order is an understanding ( interpreted status ) which facilitates operations and thus satisfys rational self-interest. Order is the relation-status for effective operations,
ORDER - The status for the interpreted interaction of prohibition, for agency operation.
RATIONAL SELF DEMANDS> AGENCY OPERATION> AUTHORITY FOR PROHIBITION> RELATION-STATUS OF ORDER
Belief in Freedom ( Belief in effective choice considering rational self, thus plural agencies, thus belief in authority for independence for this, thus belief in a status of freedom). We have a belief in plural set of interactions ( belief in free association etc ) as we can rely on the self-interest of others. For this interpreted interaction of independence (under an authority for independence) is believed. Freedom is believed. It is believed when rational to the self (In order to satisfy this society must adhere to rational choice, thus theres choice in society, thus freedom). SO, freedom is believed in, as its conducive to choice in positive abstracts. Freedom is an understanding ( interpreted status ) which facilitates choice thus self-interest. Freedom is the relation-status for effective choice.
FREEDOM - The status for the interpreted interaction of independence, for effective choice considering rational self
RATIONAL CHOICE > PLURAL AGENCY OPERATIONS > AUTHORITY FOR INDEPENDENCE > RELATION-STATUS OF FREEDOM
Belief in Equality ( Belief in effective cooperation considering outcome, thus social conditions for this, thus belief in authority for effect thus belief in status of equality). We have a belief in effective set of interactions ( belief in social conditions ) as we can rely on the effective self-interest of the other. For this the interpreted interaction of effective social conditions is believed ( under an authority for effect ). Equality is believed. It is believed when effective to the self (In order to satisfy this, society must adhere to effective self interest, thus theres social conditions in society, thus equality). SO, equality is believed in as a status for social conditions. Equality is an understanding ( interpreted status ) which facilitates social conditions and thus effective self-interest. Equality is the status for effectiveness. Equality is believed in when effect is valued. If we want an effectiveness, we want irrational relationships. Social conditions for effective value. The status of individuals (equality) determines the effective outcome, the outcome that is the factor to effective conditions. For example, instead of profit the status (equality) of individuals determines the outcome, thus the form, structure etc of the NHS. Thus when we want effective products we want cooperation, if we want cooperation we want the understanding for it - public or common services. Demanding a status to participants (equality). We understand the other must benefit equally in order to cooperate fully. Equality is relation-status for effective value.3.
EQUALITY - The status for the interpreted interaction of cooperation, for effective value, considering effective outcome
EFFECTIVE SELF [DEMANDS] > EFFECTIVE COOPERATION > AUTHORITY FOR EFFECT > RELATION-STATUS OF EQUALITY
Belief in Morality ( The status for the interpreted interaction of institution, for effective value ( arranged for effective outcome ) We have a belief in effective set of interactions as we can rely on the effective self interest of the other. For this the interpreted interaction of an institution (under an authority for institution) is believed. Morality is believed. Ii is believed when effective to the self (in order for society to satisfy this, it adheres to effective institution , thus morality). SO, morality is believed in as a status for effective institution. Morality is an understanding ( interpreted status ) which facilitates institutions thus effective self-interest. Morality is the status for effective institution. Morality is condition for strong irrational relationships, understanding for outcome. Morality is status for effective institutions (conserve institutions such as responsibility and family - responsibility and family uphold irrational relationships).
MORALITY - The status for the interpreted interaction of institution, for effective value ( considering effective outcome )
EFFECTIVE SELF > EFFECTIVE INSTITUTION > AUTHORITY FOR INSTITUTION > RELATION-STATUS OF MORALITY
Thus, "......from each according to ability, to each according to profit (consumer)......" and "....from each according to ability, to each according to effect (society)..." are the two production understandings that best satisfy a rational or effective human nature. We irrationally believe in authority and statuses for them.
The individual thus seeks to satisfy their self-interest on one hand (be it rational or effective) and their belief on the other. This satisfaction requires real working understandings - production understandings that allocate resources. There is conditioning of defined awareness from ideas, assumptions, and evidence of these understandings, that are then put into practice. What knowledge is put into practice depends on the status of the individual relative to the other (power, authority, legitimacy).
Where efficient realisation preferred, the CSE thus the method to production preferred. To satisfy efficient realisation of positive goods and services, then society arranged for rational-operation to best satisfy self-interest (currently capitalism).
Capitalism - Individuals have a production understanding that facilitates rational self-interest
( like players have an understanding of rules to the rational self-interest of poker)
Where effective interpretation preffered, the effect thus the outcome to production preffered. To satisfy effectiveness in positive goods and services, then society arranged for an interpreted outcome (an understanding) - can be orthodox communism4.
Orthodox Communism - Individuals have a production understanding that satisfys effective self-interest
( like associates marching toward a common objective )
The individuals rationalism demands (rationalism demands) that the agency condition, that is the production organisation be rational - this means division of labour (due to differing endowments of productivity between individuals) and management. There is inequality in income from production due to this. This inequality seen as fair to rational types.
However, achievement drives productivity, achievement for a given wage. The productivity of an enterprise is determined by labours' achievement or failure, with capital, land, management, and money as conditions to it. However, although the capitalist took a risk when investing, he only risked a given amount ( the cost of the capital ). The real risk is loss etc of this capital - not opportunity cost as thats exploited achievement too. This real risk competed down to a equilibrium rate. The return shall be whats expected, given a certain productivity (growth in production output from investment not productivity). However, achievement will mean growth in productivity and proportionately more profit (an excessive return).
Effective conditioners demand effective goods and services, yet the profit they produced is invested in profit - thus supplying the market with profitable goods. Effective conditioners are disenfranchised.
LAW - Satisfactory defined awareness
LAW - rational or interpretive of knowledge
LAW - Reason to thinking
Interpretation - Perceived truth or status to knowledge. As awareness is satisfactory then its true to an individual. Understanding effects, values and cost means understanding relevant statuses, status to knowledge.
LAW - STATUS AND TRUTH ARE POSITIVES TO KNOWLEDGE
LAW - KNOWLEDGE IMPLIES DEFINITION
LAW - THINKING IS LANGUAGE, CONDITIONED FOR A SIMPLIFIED EFFECT
LAW - CONDITIONING VALUES
INTERPRETATION - TRUTH AND STATUS TO THOUGHTS, INDEPENDENT OF CONDITIONING VALUES,
You may value thought outcome, but this outcome might be a definition implied by right-wing knowledge. Status and truth to content more important than conditioning value. Realise left-wing truth or interpret right-wing truth. Which means thoughts exemplify a different content than what should be believed.
For example, Where you may have equality knowledge with low humanity; this being evident in the phrase "...Order believers have lower beliefs than mine...", where elitist feelings conflict with egalitarian knowledge, due to perceived status or truth to equality.
FACT - THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS CAN CONFLICT
LAW - TRUTH OR STATUS TO THOUGHTS
LAW - OFFENCE IS FELT
INTERPRETATION - “TRUE” DEFINED AWARENESS (OF BELIEFS) AND HUMANITY CAN BE DIFFERENT. FALSE AWARENESS. IN EFFECT THINK AND FEEL DIFFERENT BELIEFS.
Thoughts and feelings are sensed, but what they mean can conflict. The phrase “..order believers...” means elitism (elitist feelings behind statement) whilst also meaning egalitarian criticism (egalitarian thoughts to statement).
Offence determines humanity (feeling), knowledge implies thoughts. Thoughts and feelings can conflict, thus humanity and thoughts can conflict. False awareness. False knowledge.
LAW - STATUS AND TRUTH TO KNOWLEDGE
LAW - FALSE AWARENESS OR NOT
LAW - WILL IS A CONDITIONER
INTERPRETATION - WILL IS A CONDITIONER OF STATUS OR TRUTH, OR IS A CONDITIONER FROM THE SELF.
Thus instead of the individual subscribing to an appropriate understanding (capitalism or communism etc - depending on rational or effective self-interest) truth and status, or value, to an understanding is more important. This means an effective demand - even by rational types.
Aswell as efficient realisation or effective interpretation of knowledge ( knowledge implying definition of thoughts), there's ideas, assumptions and evidence. These leading to knowledge or false knowledge (false knowledge may imply definition ). This leading to other specific understandings for effective value between individuals.
Throughout history, there is evidence of a number of production understandings to satisfy effective or rational self-interest (monarchy and feudalism; slavery ). These understandings can be dictated by knowledge and false knowledge. The interpreted effects are articulated and justified to the individual as having status or truth to it.
That is religion, culture, ideology etc being ultimately an interpretation of effective knowledge or a rational realisation of knowledge through empiricism or rationalism (ie - aware of an understanding through ideas, assumptions and evidence ). We develop an understood description as knowledge (an understanding) or develop a realised description as knowledge (a rationale) from ideas, assumptions or evidence.
That is the fascists were intolerant, (famously stating "everything within the state, nothing outside the state") and disdained inefficiency ("...stop the rot..." was their attitude to socialism). They justified their demands with nationalist ideology - fascist ideas of a rational state. Libertarians and liberals talk of diversity. Socialism articulated the belief in relationships and thus equality (a famous phrase being "...unite under the brotherhood of social-ism..."). There is conservative paternalism.
[False] Defined Awareness Articulates / Justify's Understanding
(At The Cost Of Rationally Realised Profit)
SELF-INTEREST DEMANDS > UNDERSTANDING < INFORMED BY KNOWLEDGE < BASED ON RESOURCES
-
(eg) EFFECTIVE DEMANDS > NATIONAL SERVICE < CONSERVATISM < IDEAS
-
DEMAND > RECYCLING < ENVIRONMENTALISM < EVIDENCE
-
DEMAND > FASHION < INFORMAL AWARENESS (CULTURE) < ASSUMPTIONS
-
DEMAND > COMPETITION POLICY < LIBERAL ECONOMICS < ASSUMPTIONS
( Truth and value mean demand )
( Self-interest demands understandings, informed by knowledge based on resources. Truth and status (value) to knowledge more important than the profitable or effective knowledge that is determined by conditioning values )
The individual may demand an effective military for society and thus demand national service. The concept of the national service understanding is informed by the ideology of conservatism, in-turn based on ideas about pride and nationalism.
The individual may also demand effective fashion. This concept of fashion is informed by culture, based on assumptions.
Knowledge implies the definition of thoughts - this knowledge can be independent of conditioning values. This knowledge can determine the interpreted effects to the individual. For example, an informal awareness of status in society meaning individuals interpret the effect of fashion , rather than independently rationally realise profitable discounts. Again, many people will find value and truth to anarchism. Anarchist ideas leading to a broad ideology (false knowledge). The ideology meaning we interpret the effect of a cooperative, out of effective self-interest ( forgoing rationally realised profit). There is truth and status to anarchism; there is truth and value to the anarchist justification of the cooperative. People tend to be in a false awareness due to objectivity (truth is important) or character (some anti-socials are in a false awareness of equality etc).
In the early 21st century, most people are in a false awareness of liberalism and believe in freedom. Moral types have learned about the conservatives' "back to basics" policies not working. Egalitarians have learned about the disincentive and bureacracy of communism and democratic socialism. The far right have learned about accountability. All have learned about human rights (holocaust).
Where humanity is high, common understanding believed in and the interaction thought about. More understanding and thus interpretive of subjects. Where humanity is low, then rational to the self. More rational and thus realise the subject. We are either interpret outcomes and thus moral or egalitarian, or rational to the self and free/in order. False Awareness is thinking a different sense to what is implied.
FACT - THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS CAN CONFLICT
LAW - THOGHTS ARE CONDITIONED, FEELINGS ARE NOT
LAW - THOUGHTS ARE POSITIVE
INTERPRETATION - FEELINGS ARE POSITIVE, AND CAN BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONDITION OF THOUGHTS - THUS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONDITION OF CONSUMPTION OF GOODS. FEELINGS TRANSLATED AS AN EFFECTIVE DEMAND MADE (VALUE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFIT, CONSUMPTION ACCORDING TO FEELING RATHER THAN PROFIT, RESTRICTED BY MONEY STOCK)
FACT - FEELINGS MEAN NORM IN CONSUMPTION, CERTAIN FEELINGS MEAN CERTAIN EFFECTIVE DEMANDS
LAW - NORM IN EFFECTIVE DEMANDS IS BEHAVIOR IMPACTING ON CONSUMPTION
INTERPRETATION - NORM IN CONSUMPTION MEAN BEHAVIOR CAN DETERMINE DEMANDS MADE, AS OPPOSED TO PROFIT,
There are thoughts and feelings. As they can conflict, then our "behaviour" ( norm of valued goods ) and knowledge can conflict. That is just as false awareness can define an understanding, so too can our feelings take over, behavior take over, to make effective demands.
We may be effective about our passions and interests generally; for example if we are interested in fishing we may buy an expensive fishing rod , and be rational with other consumption. If we are interested in film, an expensive, an effective television and be rational otherwise. Importantly we are effective about our vocation - a musician wont be a engineer no matter what the opportunity cost. Thus we are effective about our education for this (if you want to be a lawyer, then you are effective about the law degree).
Also, behavior may impact on demands made. For example, stress and frustration all week at work, will lead to anger and impatience, thus instead of shopping around Lidls or Aldi's for a profitable pizza - one is ordered from pizza hut on the way home as its easier ( irrational behavior means effective-irrational demands ).
IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR > (EFFECTIVE VALUE INCREASE + SUFFICIENT MONEY STOCK) > IRRATIONAL / EFFECTIVE DEMANDS
STRESSED > PIZZA HUT VALUE INCREASE + SUFFICIENT CASH > WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO PAY IRRATIONALLY
The value can be all important, the higher the value the more irrational we are about it. The individuals' life makes effective demands. Buying a rose on credit for a loved one, as the time was right. Buying designer clothes irrationally in the weeks before christmas for parties - rather than in the january sales. A number of inherent behavioral factors may make an individual irrational. When the individual is irrational then the values of what they want effectively increase. Taken with a satisfactory money stock then effective demand of these values are made
Conclusion
There is existence, thinking and awareness.
Colour is a variant subject, showing we realise or interpret what we sense. We also realise or interpret what we think, with existence seting one of these conditions for the two ways of thinking. These thoughts are interdependence of knowledge ( defined awareness ) and will.
There are positives to the definitions we think. Thinking is positive language, arranged for a conditioned simplified effect. There are two ways of thinking, "will defines" and "will realises definition", interpretation or realisation of language. Understanding to Interpret effective language or analyze to realise rational language. Will is a conditioner of language - interpreting for effect or realising for profit. As this language is satisfactory, then theres reason to think.
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 reason for language, awareness of this is awareness of the other.
Knowledge implies definition of thoughts, thinking can thus be described as language conditioned for simplified defined awareness. Focusing on the method to thinking is the realisation of knowledge, whereas a focus on the effect is interpretation of knowledge.
As surrendering effective or profitable knowledge, then choosing effective or profitable goods, activities and relationships. Opportunity cost of irrational intercourses between others means common understanding believed in. As we exist with others, with the same relationships, means same understandings, due to value of reason.
There are thus two ways of thinking due to humanity - this determined. This means effective or rational demands by the individual. The demands of the individual gain greater satisfaction from production understandings and necessary authority understandings. There is belief in a status for this.
SELF-INTEREST DEMANDS > PRODUCTION UNDERSTANDING > AUTHORITY UNDERSTANDING > STATUS
Eg/ RATIONAL DEMAND > AGENCY CONDITION > AUTHORITY OF INDEPENDENCE > STATUS OF FREEDOM RESPECTED
Effectors will demand social conditions built on relationships and thus further demand authority to enforce these social conditions. Rational types will demand agency conditions and social conditions as an authority understanding. The status for this understanding is believed in and respected by the individual. Morality have the most humanity and order the least. Morality are tolerant and interpret effective right. Equality are cooperative, freedom independent and order realise rational and efficient right.These relationships are believed in to satisfy institutions, demand for effective value, rational choice and rational self respectively.
Success or failure in social, family or individual units and offence determines humanity (social conditions, offence, economy and family).
Social conditions ( an understanding of effectiveness for society ) requires relationships. Also, cooperation in any enterprise means relationships. Effective goods are made through shared contribution to a state as market wont - this satisfaction of the common good for all individuals means relationships believed in. Crime and failure breaches our understanding, forcing us to be rational about things - and thus question the understanding.
Knowledge implies thoughts and offence is felt, thus as thoughts and feelings can conflict so can knowledge and humanity.
---------------------------------
Relationships probably started as an understanding for hunting and for safety, but lead to other effects - for example, pre-civilized man is found buried with healed broken bones and expensive tools and similar symbols - implying irrational relationship. We interpreted the effect of ritual burial for each other, rather than independently rationally realise profit (opportunity cost of trading the ornaments) although an anti-social might. This is when we spoke in a language thus understood the reasons for each other - there was thus a relationship understanding to facilitate effects like ritual burial, an effective value.
The opportunity cost of realised profit is second to the belief
in humanity - thus the interpreted effect of burial. We are self-interested about
burial - but it has to be done this way, so we demand irrational relations for it. In good times people care and its a good send-off. In bad times, people care less, perhaps questioning the understanding, and some dont bother at all sneaking off for a profitable concern (the opportunity cost).
The interpreted effect maybe defined by knowledge such as false awareness. False-awareness dictating the effective value. Culture (informal false awareness of positives - such as false awareness of the value of goods) ideology, philosophy and religion (defined awareness of a diety ) being false awareness's that determined pre-industrial societies, dictating the interpreted effect ( for example - informal awareness as to the value of the spartan military, or a false awareness of religion dictating the effective ( but irrational ) value of a church ).
This false awareness is exercised through law ( an interpretation of the effect of formal instruction ). That is, before knowledge of political-economy, that is to say religious, political or cultural false knowledge, an authority defined the understanding, using coercion to enforce.
Relationships have social and individual determinants - success, peace and family in short. However, this does not mean a progression to morality, we are not all moral for a reason. To sum, when times are good we socialise, when times are bad Its human-nature to roll-up our sleeves and sort it out.
1Ideas are suggestions of awareness from the self ( suggested knowledge )
2Value effectiveness is interpreting optimal effects, higher value. Cost-efficiency is realising profit optimisation through cost minimisation, higher profit.
3 Some institutional social conditions are recognised by all - such as an authority that enforces the understanding ( freedom and law enforcement for example) against anti-socials etc. However, believing in social conditions for effective value is necessarilly egalitarian and cooperative.
4 Capitalism and communism are far from perfect, but on paper satisfy either one of the two ways of thinking. Also, as fascism was disastrous when practiced, its not effective operation.