- Before the end of this paper, I wish to apologize.
I feel bad, in that it has taken this long, for the ability to reach fruition,
by which the publications during 2003 could be written.
During the Spring of 1993, after having spent seven months pouring over
test results of a circuit design, and attempting to find any possible way
in which the interpretation of the mathematics could be in error, I made
a self-aware decision to not concentrate on the main topic of the technology.
Curiosity, the result of a repeated void response from long-term memory,
can be a very stimulating experience, when one is curious about demonstrative
applications of a singular system.
During an intense period of time in May and early June of 1993, I wrote
many speculative papers on varied topics of potential for a model in which
the mathematics could be demonstrated. The single criteria for acceptance
of concentration was the universal applicability to a potential understanding.
The topic finally decided upon was the brain.
The brain, (human level), is a perfect architecture by which to start an
understanding of a universal system.
Everyone has one.
Everyone who would potentially understand would be capable of understanding.
-
- I spent 10 years (sporadically, as I was not able to
devote anymore than a cursory amount of time to the project) cranking out
absolutely true papers of different aspects of the brain.
Those papers, were not at all easily understandable and those were thrown
away, yet the papers of the second reincarnation of the topic remain on
this site, more as a reference for those willing to attempt to make sense
out of an amateur's ranting, than anything else.
The self-aware decision has been a problem as well as a benefit.
It was impossible to step up to the plate in any scientific forum, whether
it was as ridiculous as UseNet or as superlative as a mainstream science
publication.
How in the world was a person to mention a 'different' energy charge to
a science that had never seen one?
A few years back science finally saw one.
It got me back on track. The time had come where a new discovery (to science)
was in its true understanding-infancy, and no peer-groups had formed strong
enough around a single acceptable understanding of it, to cause much of
a resistance, to understanding what was to be understood, instead of what
could be understood.
The self-aware decision came back into play when in my enthusiasm, to dive
back in to the physics I love to swim in ,as it was still not time.
All of the writing and explaining done prior to 2002 regarding the brain,
was not understandable, and in most respects, was rather boring as my rather
obnoxious aural short-term dominant process, was getting in the way of
saying and drawing the right images at the same time.
It was not until I met Fred (not his real name), that the concept of saying
things in the way the listener will hear them, turned on a light in an
otherwise cobweb infested topic.
I spent a good deal of time on the phone with 'Fred', who is a short-term
visually dominant, long-term dominate male, describing the concepts I was
portraying, in a way he would be able to gain an image from, that matched
the concept I was trying to explain.
At first, it was quite frustrating for both of us.
But after a short period of time 'Fred' began to view my way of thinking,
and I began to view his way of thinking, from the other's perspective.
Our conversations became less and less cumbersome, and my ability to converse,
in a way reducible by visually dominated short-term thinkers, became not
only better, but easier as well.
It became so 'easier' that I let it get the best of me, which is covered
in a different paper and I do not have to go into those details again here.
Whew!
So, I began to set about the task of making right what was not wrong, but
was incorrectly worded all those years ago. If I had known then, that all
those years of frustration were not necessary, it is quite believable,
that I would have opted for the easy way out, and jumped straight to the
point, which science was not in a position to have taken seriously, let
alone accept. At that time.
Once again, like an iggit, I decided to cover the same topics covered in
the first round of papers but do so in an understandable manner. Of course,
there are knowledge issues in the other papers and some issues that contradict
accepted knowledge but those are for those papers.
When I realized that I had managed to duplicate the same topics I knew
there was something most important I was missing.
For the past week (as I write this piece), I have been laboring over the
curiosity of what that missing issue was.
In reading over the other papers of 2003 at this site one will find references
to many sub-topics inside of each main topic paper.
The sub topics do not deserve papers of their own.
I kept wondering, that of all of the topics covered, and all of the explanations
given time was going to be the largest culprit and if I had just thought
it all the way through 10 years ago then now, perhaps by now, a splattering
of the knowledge would be slowly sinking into the treatment of mental disorders
and psychiatrists would be doing their patients good instead of lip service
and pills.
I feel bad that it has taken this long. I named my programming web site
after what I was. Iggit.com . I do not feel bad that it will undoubtedly
take far longer for science to drop its illusions and come to its senses.
I have no responsibility for that.
Then, just a couple of days ago ( as I write this piece), I received an
email from a man looking for a specific programming product similar to
one I had managed to crank out earlier.
In that email conversation, where I found him to be quite kind and intelligent
he referenced the domain the software would be used at and I checked it
out. It dawned on me then, that what was missing was what could do the
most good.
But, I didn't have a reference point.
Then, I did.
MSNBC did the right thing, one thing too late.
Michael Savage is not a very smart man. I judge 'smart' on how much control
over output the short-term process has over the long-term process and Savage's
remarks, hastily excused as 'not intended to be on the air' proved his
instant response was long-term based, and it continued, according to the
news reports. Trent Lott knows that problem as well.
Not only did Savage resort to long-term based slurs in an attack he apparently
did not have the short-term intellect to deal with, he kept it up, meaning
it was not only long-term it was his anger venting with his perception
of the truth.
From his own web site: "It was not meant to reflect my views of the
terrible tragedy and suffering associated with AIDS."
[The incident that resulted in his firing began innocently enough. Savage
was taking viewer phone calls about airline horror stories, and a male
caller began talking about smoking in the bathroom.
(Experienced helpful hint: delay processing delays both voices, MSNBC cut
off the caller's voice only.)
"Half an hour into the flight, I need to suggest that Don and Mike
take your ..." the caller said, before he was cut off and his words
became unintelligible.
-
- "So you're one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?"
Savage asked.
-
- The caller replied: "Yes, I am."
-
- "Oh, you're one of the sodomites," Savage said.
"You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't
you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put
me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat
a sausage and choke on it."
-
- He asked for another phone caller who "didn't have
a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today."
-
- These bums "mean nothing to me," he said.]
MSNBC Referenced Above.
- I tend to believe the source with the tape in stock.
But as much as I trust the tape, I distrust the typical radio stunt this
whole situation really was. It was one radio show against another one using
MSNBC as its battleground just as it has done with Fox News, Larry King,
CNN and many others. Savage knew it immediately, but instead of addressing
the topic, which was Don & Mike's radio flunky, Savage addressed his
ignorance.
Click HERE to hear the tape as long as it is there.
Click Bob Foster Shrills For Don And Mike and Don & Mike talk about
their favorite 'talent'. (as long as they are available since Bob Foster's
site is missing quite a bit of previously linked audio stunts.)
Also in the tape, Don And Mike identify who the caller is, that he is advertising
their radio show and that they claimed MSNBC had changed their calling
acceptance policies and procedures to stop that caller, yet he got through?
MSNBC may have set it up, knowing who the caller was by his phone number
but one would have to believe Don & Mike's claim MSNBC was ready for
Bob Foster. The truth? I don't know.
What I do know is, it is a very old radio scam and the very old (sorry,
I can say that) Savage did not fall for it. He caught the caller the moment
the Don and Mike names were said (it just happened to have been the moment
after it was said). His problem started when he unleashed his true feelings
of ignorance on a person who was calling for a different reason, and he
knew it.
And he kept it up.
Anger is based in something. In this case in listening to the tape it appeared
Savage's ego got the best of him and his 'id' won out.
Try as I might I cannot find the reference to the audio I heard on the
radio today about this topic.
Neil Boortz is the only speaking human being on the air in Charleston,
South Carolina during the early mid-day and my car radio wound up where
the signal was human.
During his program he discussed the Michael Savage issue, completely ignoring
the radio stunt 'angle' (which is exactly what it was) and in response
to a male caller referred to something he had heard Savage say earlier.
(Which means this is hear-say of hear-say, but good enough of a reference
point excuse for a paper as I've ever seen.)
Boortz claimed that Savage said (sounds like a grade school discussion)
[recalled, paraphrased] 'until the time came that someone showed him that
homosexuals were born that way he would consider them to be.' [lack of
recall, unable to paraphrase] some form of expletive slur.
Hello Mr. Savage.
Let me introduce you to the brain and the way it thinks.
Normally, (which means the majority) of human brains are indicative of
their gender. Females, 'normally' are visual long-term creatures, with
either aural or visual short-term processing. Males, 'normally' are aural
long-term creatures with either aural or visual short-term processing.
The 'masculine' traits all stem from aural dominated long-term while the
'alpha' male dominant, head of the gang, born leader is the aural dominant
short-term male with aural dominant long-term memory. The slower the short-term
processing is in that instance the more 'macho' they are.
The 'feminine' traits all stem from the visual dominated long-term while
the very feminine submissive, born victim is the visually dominant short-term
female with visually dominant long-term memory. The slower the short-term
processing is in that instance the more 'valley-girl' they are.
Just as it is possible for the aural and visual to vary in short-term of
'normal' gender 'specific' persons, so it is possible, and in fact the
cause of the opposite mental 'preference'.
'Normal' means the most accurate fit to the architecture.
Females are visual long-term, as their evolutionary role of the 'gatherer'
and 'child-bearer' require a visual interaction, where the conceptual aural
long-term female, would never suffice. If females were not visual, the
species would not exist today. Visual receives in order to create.
Males are aural long-term, as their evolutionary role of the 'hunter' and
'protector' require an aural interaction, where the visually controlled
long-term male, would never suffice. If males were not aural the species
would not exist today. Aural creates in order to see.
Every aspect of the brain is a balancing act. Each teeter ,causes a totter
(whatever that might be, it sounds good), for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction, and so forth, and so on.
Female is balanced with the male, where female is the default state of
all potential humans.
Aural is balanced with the visual, where female is visual default and male
is aural default.
There are variations in all cases.
Variations are not bad. Variations are not evil. Variations are normal
BECAUSE variations balance OTHER variations.
If 'Fred' can be long-term aural and short-term visual then another male
can be long-term visual and short-term aural.
Those other males will feel feminine but act masculine. (Visual short-term
would be acting feminine).
The same applies in the other gender.
If 'Freda' can be long-term visual and short-term aural then another female
can be long-term aural and short-term visual.
Those other females will feel masculine but act feminine. (Aural short-term
would be acting masculine).
A normal short-term process compared to a normal long-term process, will
depend for control over which process is first to reach maturity and become
the 'self' the person perceives as 'I'.
If the person has not managed to find the 'trigger' or the importance of
'self' the amplitudes generated by short-term processing will be just above
the 'non-zero' value past equal. The result will be 'consciousness' but
not 'self-awareness'.
Those persons make up the majority of humans. True 'self-awareness' has
been the target and subject of mysticism for thousands of years when it
is really just a normal human trait that we have neglected to teach the
use thereof, because we have not understood the brain at all.
There is nothing bad about a person who finds the mental desire to feel
'normal' internally, with 'normal' being different for them than it is
for you.
The sexual reproductive process of humans has been considered a bad topic
as it causes embarrassment to those who view it with a special sense of
purpose.
-
- That is not the topic of sexual preference.
The topic of sexual preference is for the contentment and feeling of 'normal',
that matches the image or concept the 'self' has arrived at, through repetition
of input.
If the input being repeated is the long-term memory (self-awareness is
very low), then the image or concept of 'self', will need to match the
dominance of the processing type. If that processing dominant type is contrary
to the gender's default condition, the 'self', will not feel like the right
,'self'.
Admitting the short-term's perception of self is based in the long-term's
perception of self, is a good starting point to finding out if the feeling
of 'normal', expected from what memory says should be 'normal', is based
in a condition of birth or a condition of confusion.
If the person is female and their long-term memory is male the 'self' they
will perceive will feel fulfilled as a lesbian. They are born that way.
If the person is male and their long-term memory is female the 'self '
they will perceive will feel fulfilled as a gay. They are born that way.
Where Mr. Savage and most other sexual bigots miss their mark is in the
simple act of sex.
Sex, is a reproductive act. It is, luckily, pleasurable or the species
would not be here today.
Just about all brain containing creatures find 'pleasure' to be a good
thing and seek it out.
The sex act has nothing to do with the preference of the sexual preference
since sexual preference is mental gender preference. The sex act is the
only physical manner in which love or lust (either extreme of pleasure)
are able to share in that emotion or that misjudgment.
Not only are 'true' gays born that way, Mr. Savage; so are talk show hosts.
I know, I've tried it.
One single show at one single station in Phoenix, Arizona. All set to take
on the callers only to find out the previous four million weeks of that
time slot were covered by local high school basketball (which no one ever
listens to) and my impromptu 'fill in' was not only unannounced, it was
a 'secret'.
I was prepared. I was ready to fill the entire show with me talking. just
in case no one found me interesting, while I took the chance to examine
the, then current events , in a manner of pure logic. I had no calls. I
struggled through the first 20 minutes of the show, into the first commercial
break, when it dawned on me that long-term thinkers make good talk show
hosts.
Talk show hosts these days are not at all about their topic, or their 'cause'.
They are about sensationalism, getting the calls by exciting whatever emotion
they can manage. The point matters, not the consequences or the victims
of it.
When the commercial block was complete and my 'bumper' music started I
began to play with the producer and stopped looking over my notes, and
let the long-term take over with occasional disagreements from short-term.
I have the tapes.
The one call I did receive during that show was from the assistant producer
pretending to be a caller from another room in the station. I think he
felt sorrow for me. I didn't like that when I found out about it after
the show, which is probably why I never fit in that industry. Don and Mike
treasure the deception. It makes me sick.
So as simple as the explanation is of what causes the mental 'state' to
exist of an internal feeling of needing the 'self' to not be a lie, and
as much as religion preaches against lies it is amazing how many will read
this paper, find out about what they think it says and still come to the
conclusion that it is worth ignoring.
There is a cause of sexual preference, and it is active in every condition
of the brain. It is 'normal' for the gender if the long-term processing
is normal for the gender. It is 'normal' for the person whether it matches
the gender or not.
Radio talk show hosts need to be long-term thinkers, with slightly advanced
short-term, and should be aural long-term and visual short -term. They
can paint a picture from a long held belief and listeners will 'see' that
picture while listeners who cannot 'see' the 'picture' will relate to the
'concept'. It is what makes the hardcore, shock-jock fan what he is.
If a radio show host is far advanced short-term and is visually short-term
dominant, male or female, they will not only make great radio salesmen
but they will advance into management, which is why radio as an entertainment
medium these days has about as much quality, innovation and entertainment
value as a sewer's sludge.
If a radio show host is far advanced short-term and is aurally short-term
dominant, male or female, they will not only make great on air talents
that require thinking to listen to (therefore they will be entertaining
to the intelligent and qualified target listener) but they will make great
program directors and horrible talk show hosts, unless they know how to
let go of the self. They will make it into station management only if a
natural disaster suddenly kills the general manager., and no one else is
in the building.
There is no difference between what causes a radio talk show host's talent
and what causes a gay male's internal feeling of not being who they know
they are until they admit it.
Now, you know.
Find another target for your sensationalistic searching consultant to embrace.
As for my apology: It still applies. But now, not with as much remorse.
It took a long time to reach the point where explaining it at all, was
possible. For that, and any part I played in hampering the event, I am
sorry.
If only people would know and learn. Perhaps it might not take another
ten years to start easing the emotional pain of confused brains.
-
- Knowledge is only knowledge, if it is known.
-
- ----
- If you believe knowledge is more important than ignorance
pass this on to a friend by clicking HERE.
- http://www.enticypress.com/
|
