The human mind is responsible for human will over time.

This fact was even at the heart of a metaphor men generally do not understand, the mark of the beast on the forehead and hands, how well we think, determines how well we do.

So, my approach has always been to attempt to reveal my plans for the future and see if someone wants to join me.

So, these are my projects.

To do as many audio-books on the different translations of the Platonic dialogs that I can. It would be nice to have, some day, one website dedicated to it.

Plato used a sophisticated method of writing the dialogs that none have yet suspected, and quite frankly, no one seems to have duplicated. Imagine taking a principle of reasoning, or a principle of dialectic as an outline, or one can say the form of the piece. One fills the dialog with examples-both pro and con of the idea, and the reader has to abstract the notion themselves. It will test if the principle is a resident part of how the reader processes information.
Hell, normal people see Plato's republic as a Utopia, even though in the text as stated he was out to create the worst hell he could imagine. To put the best of man in the worst of circumstances. The text demonstrates where justice is by how the reader comprehends the text.

I have scanned and did the ebooks of the entire Harvard Classics, they have had over 6,000 downloads. I want to also do them in an entire audio-book presentation.

I spent 10 years on the Delian Problem just to learn a little geometry, however, I discovered a lot more than I bargained for. Why was the Delian Problem given? Again it is judgment. We learn in set theory, that is just one of many places, that definition determines class inclusion and class exclusion--What is wrong with setting geometry upon "straight edge and compass"? The foundation of geometry was enumerated--i.e. it was set on the wrong foundation. It should have been set upon definition. Definition is always the starting point. Definition "A geometric tool is that tool that give us one, and only one difference between two points." I.e. just like we do in Arithmetic, setting it upon the "unit." This gives us, the straight edge, the compass, and the ellipse. The figure I developed early on gives everything needed to simply lay in the ellipse to do cube roots. i.e. the figure complies with the demands of an exact science.

So, on those grounds, although I solved the immediate problem, geometry needs to be rewritten from the ground up. What complicates things is I have discovered also a new branch of geometry. Now I can do a figure and write it up in Algebraic formula, and I can take an algebraic formula and write it in a geometric figure. There is a ton of work to be done on that. I can do arithmetic progressions with the figure, and it appears that geometric progressions are based on the same idea, but I have not had time to get into it.

Anyone who gets into these things knows that one has to literally soak themselves in it like a madman to make progress, and when left for a time, we loose ability. So many things tie together it is hard to keep them all in mind.

Then there is the grammar project, in order to "soak" in, I have to do more audio-books on how grammar is and has been conceived in order to rewrite the ideas based on the Two-Element Metaphysics Plato was working with.

The most dangerous project of all is the one involving the lucid dream state. In what I have posted on the Internet Archive I have given hints. I don't know if I will make any progress in it, however, I will try.

So there it is, more than a life-times worth of projects and I seek a helpmate.

To change the condition of mankind, the only path is to help him learn to think. In order to do that, one must learn themselves.

I just got word from YouTube.

I am now a "select" member and can upload any length of video. God help the world!

What I am saying refers back to the definition.

It is what Plato called virtue, and if you would like a very nice dialog on the stance I am defending, it would be Plato's Gorgias,

The human mind, like every environmental acquisition system of our body is responsible for a product.

If it makes something other than its designed product, it does not do so because it is functional, but dysfunctional. In that case, it is not a "this" but a "broken this." The same as the human mind.

Most importantly though, emotion is an analogic-meaning it is a material difference over which one must apply form (form of behavior) in order to render a product.

The human mind is linguistically based, language cannot contradict language, it simply is not possible. Contradiction happens when we violate the principles of language, not when we are linguistic.

This is why, doing what we please, and doing what we will is not the same thing.

No one in their right mind would consider a broken TV or other appliance the same as a functional one. Nor would they say that a TV or radio that only puts out static, as an out put of a TV or radio, but as a broken radio, and no radio at all.

Mankind is still so young, a person often asks, why were they born, what is their purpose. They do not see themselves as a system like several systems of a living organism--as something that has a well defined job to perform.

Egocentricity is a sign of lack of awareness. What I am advacating is a psychological shift to being craft-centric. Or as once stated in Scripture, if one is to rule over all, one must be a servant of all.

There is no end to being able to place blame for human conflict and confusion--where it does not belong.

We, each and every one of us, are a mind in a body, we are not the body in which we are the mind of.

As such, mind has one and only one definition. We are, by definition, one. That definition does not change due to the resources a particular mind has to construct a life with. The first line of resources is one's body.

I suppose that is as good a way of saying "is not is" as any I have heard.

To be honest, I really don't know what "race" is.

I agree with many professionals who view it correctly, that is of sociopathic origins and has no validity. Under the principles of reasoning, man = man. People use many terms to place themselves as being different, better, or even worse than their neighbor, but this is not functional behavior.

Complements are not opposites.

I would dry them out and smoke them, if I had the time. I have been too busy with one project after another my whole life to give it any thought at all.

If you can define the human mind, as I did, and show how it is different from itself, you win that point, however, I don't think you can.

I don't think misbehavior and behavior are the same thing.

Definition determines class membership and class exclusion, it also determines the principles of predication, what can and cannot be asserted of and denied of a thing.

And so, instead of my having to clarify what I said, it was up to you to refer back to the definition.

Well, I see I do have to clarify.


I never said that all of human behavior is will. Gorgias by Plato.


Will, as even Confucius stated in his statement about the rectification of names, is a product of language, analogic, like emotion, and logic, like reason. It is not the product of errant reason, which is not reason at all. It is typical to only think of reason as the branch of logics, like common grammar, arithmetic, algebra, however analogics are also a branch of reasoning, like geometry, chemistry, wood working, etc.

My use of the term "language" includes both branches, logics and analogics, unlike what one will find in most works on reason.

Will is the product of the human mind, not all human action can be said to be human will. This is why it was also stated that people who do wrong, do so unwillingly. In other words, a dysfunctional mind cannot put out the product it was designed to.

I have really never tried to dry my hair in a microwave over before.

An environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of an organism which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism.


1) The digestive system.
2) The respiratory system.
3) The ocular system.
4) The vestibular system.
5) The manipulative system.
6) The procreative system.
7) The judgmental system.

As some early Greeks discovered, these are divided into two classes. One class are those that abstract a things form, and disregards that things material difference, and the other abstracts a things material difference and discards its form. Each must then supply the missing element to construct something that maintains and promotes the life of that organism.

Two-Element Metaphysics.

It is really quite simple. Every environmental acquisition system of a living organism is responsible for a product.

We do not say that the processes used to render that product is the product that it is to render. Not pleasure, not pain, but a product that maintains and promotes life, or what a wise man once said, "to have life and to have it more abundantly."

The human mind is responsible for the product of human action that maintains and promotes the life of the body. If love is a good, and I am sure it is, then it is not possible for it to be emotion, We choose what we do with emotion, we do not do it for emotion.

Therefore, love is not what you feel, but what you do.

Simply put, every environmental acquisition system is craft based.

Man, because we are not fully developed yet, imagines that his body serves him, he does not see himself as a working member of a life form with a job to do towards the life of his own body.

A great deal of what you are implying is that a less functional mind is more capable of love than a more functional mind. That is not even close to being rational.

You have missed so much of my argument and the implications that you would have to be led step by step. Your predication to make statements and judgments about thing you know nothing about certainly slows down your process to reason at all.

You might try reading some history. The greatest and most rational minds in history have demonstrated a far greater capacity to love than anyone.

I keep getting advertisements for bra's for some reason. I am looking for someone to tell me how I can order one pre-filled.

A rock is not aware it is part of nature, nor is a blade of grass, nor is it possible for anyone to love themselves. Relation to self is inadmissible.

A rock is not aware it is part of nature, nor is a blade of grass, nor is it possible for anyone to love themselves. Relation to self is inadmissible.

When you said that most are not in balance with nature, you implied then that nature is not in balance with nature. That a thing is different from itself.

I will admit, I do not know if you view "nature" in an anthropomorphic sense or simply as causality.

Are you saying that nature is not nature, by saying that man is not a part of nature?

Virtue is a measure.

Objective Epistemology does not fall short of the truth of things, but those who try to express it do.

In the final analysis, when you clarify the one, then you clarify the many and there is no real distinction. Man = man. The same definition of the one is inclusive of the many. Study Plato.

Since it is the same definition that applies to one, as to all, Objective Epistemolgy, as expressed by many is gravely in error.

When you infer that we do what we do for pleasure, and not to fulfill our definition as a biological entity, you are not expressing objective epistemology at all.

i.e. it was once said by a very wise man, "to have life and to have it more abundantly.

Ayn Rand tried very hard to become a true philosopher, however her own character defects got in the way.

When you think you can use the same definition of man, to distinguish man from man, you have failed to reason at all.

So as I said, Objective Epistemology does not fail, it is those who speak non-sense in its name.

Or to put it in plain English, We always do unto others as we would have them do to ourselves, and we always do to ourselves as we would do to others. By definition of man, there is no getting around it.