Category Archives: Narrative Psychology

Mental Relativity Notes | Space, Time, and the Size of Mind Constant

Transcript from one of the tapes I recorded in 1994/1995 while expanding the Mental Relativity theory of narrative psychology I originally developed with Chris Huntley.

July 9, 1994

It occurs to me as we’re working towards the unified field theory we have a description in our model, what makes it unified is that it describes the way linearity relates to relativity. Relativity being holistic in nature, has no linear connection with anything because everything is holistically connected. Whereas in linearity there is no relative nature and the closest you can get is non-linearity, which creates fractals.

When you get fractals, that’s when you’re coming from linearity and creating space. When you’re trying to reach linearity from relativity, from a holism, you create frictals which are the dynamic record of the interaction of order and chaos. In effect, what it’s saying is that space and time, neither of those actually exist in the universe external.

The universe external only has mass and energy and when you look at it from a linear side, you can say that mass and energy then is turned into an appreciation, a perception that we call space and time through a linear process that generates those two non-linear and relativistic appreciations of space and time. But they can both be created out of linearity, requiring that there be no existing space nor existing time in the external universe. Only mass and energy and the interactions between the two create a linearity that generates the non-linear and the relativistic.

When you look at it from the other side, from the internal perspective, you look at the mind per se and say that only space and time exist. There is no such thing as mass and energy, discounting the entire external universe itself. The way that our appreciation of what is mass and what is energy, that there are such things and that they are external to ourselves is a natural process by the interaction of space and time. And when we take space and time through the relativistic, the interaction of the relativistic with the non-linear, we end up creating an approximation of linearity which requires both the point and the vector and that is what creates the appreciation of mass and energy external to ourselves.

So through that notion, clearly it can be seen that from the perspective of the mind, only the mind exists and the universe is a fabrication; from the perspective of the universe, only the universe exists and the mind is a fabrication which leads to the Taoist philosophy of all being nothing and nothing being all. It also leads to the concept of particle and wave because it means that we see something that exists that is a true paradox: from one perspective the second one doesn’t exist, and when we go to the second one, adopt that perspective, the first one doesn’t exist. That is one of those strange mathematical phenomena, strange loops which is making its way into Loop-theory and String-theory and Chaos-theory and in fact, as long as we try to resolve the strange loop, we’re missing the point. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. As soon as we define something, we have actually missed describing what it really is because we cannot describe the paradox as not really existing.

And so what we need to do is describe the paradox in terms of paradox to allow for paradox which is what current mathematical thinking does not allow for. That’s why when we have inverse functions in trigonometry we limit them to one cycle so they will not violate the definition of a function. We must violate the definition of a function in order to have a viable system that describes both sides. In fact from a mental perspective, there can be no such thing as a particle and no such thing as a wave. There has to be something inside, internal that generates a view as a particle when seen from our spatial perspective and as a wave when seen from out temporal perspective. The particle would be the mass and the wave would be the energy.

What we have created in Mental Relativity is such a model whereby we can not hold all of it in our minds at a single time. It is impossible. And when we hold as much as we can from a spatial perspective, we see it as a structure and we see particles. When we hold as much as we can from a temporal perspective we see energy and we see waves. So in fact we do not have any energy or any mass that exists in Mental Relativity, only an appreciation we call energy, an appreciation we call mass when we look at it from one side or the other. But, the paradox itself is now created in our model. That paradox is the internal equivalent of the external concept we call a photon. Externally a photon is the object we see as both being a particle and a wave. In fact it is not a particle and a wave. It is seen as a particle or a wave, but the reality of it is neither particle nor wave but something else of which one spatial slice looks like particles and one temporal slice looks like waves.

The Photon is a quantum. Inside the mind we have the equivalent of the quantum which we call a quallum. And a quallum, as opposed to being a quivering mass of probability externally is an equivalent quivering mass of potentiality inside. We’re dealing with the process equivalence of external quantum theory. And with quallum theory we look at an object called the thoton.

The thoton then is something that can neither be seen solely as space, nor as time — it can either be seen either as space or as time. You can either see it as a structure or you can see it as a mechanism. But whether you’re looking at it as state or process you’re really missing the boat because there’s something inside that is generating both of those views but is really neither of those views. So it is not that it is both space and time, but it is something else other than space and time, sitting at the middle. In fact what it is is Mass-Energy.

Just as externally we see energy and mass and space and time are created inside to project them externally, we create space-time as the space-time continuum. When we look inside and see the thoton at work, and see that it has a spatial side and a temporal side then we have to blend mass and energy and come up with Mass-Energy which is the existence internally of a constant. Space-time, externally generates the constant of the speed of light which is why e=mc squared, – we take that constant times itself, rather than dividing it into the two halves of space and time and seeing that it is really the spatial aspect of light times the temporal aspect of light, or wavelength times frequency–space times time.

When we look at wavelength times frequency, because of the fact that the two are blended together in the external universe, when one goes up the other goes down and in effect we’re just looking at the speed of light regardless of how we measure it spatially or temporally and square it.

Internally we end up with Mass-Energy where it doesn’t really matter if we look at mass going up or energy going down, the two seem tied together. The reason they’re tied together is because mass and energy generate dimension. And the dimensions of the mind that we’re talking about is how many different levels, fractal or frictal we can contain in our minds at one time. All we can actually hold are three, that’s why we see three dimensions and the fourth dimension is one that we can only synthesize. That’s the one that we stand on and we’re trying to figure out what it looks like under our feet when we look at the three dimensions externally.

So inside, since the two are tied together in Mass-Energy, the constant is not the speed of light as it is externally, it is the size of Mind. And as a demonstration of this you can imagine losing track of the fourth thing after you’ve seen the third. These experiments, when you look at how many things you can remember (7 plus or minus 2 single items in short term memory according to psychology) is not dealing with the proper number of dimensions the way dimensions really work. When we talk about creating a quad-helix in Mental Relativity as opposed to a double helix in DNA, we’re not talking about four things that exist in the same moment of space-time, we’re talking about one thing that is applied to the next, then another is applied to the product of those two and another is applied to the product of the third with the first two. So we end up with a progression where one thing is multiplied by another, is multiplied by another, is multiplied by another, and at the end we end up with our complete recursive cycle of going as far as we can before we have looped over the place we were in our original space-time, externally, or mass-energy, internally.

The way this works is by looking at a spiral, and to take the formula for a spiral which is a third dimensional appreciation that when seen from its end appears to be a circle and recursive; when seen from the side appears to be a sine-wave and open. Therefore it creates a particle from one view and a wave form from another. If we take this spiral and we look at it from a three quarter angle we can clearly see that it moves through an extra dimension that it is not sufficient to describe it as either a particle or a wave, in fact it is neither a particle nor wave but is something in between the two that generates those two perspectives. Now if we take that as our essential concept of the spiral and we take the formula for the spiral and multiply it by the formula for a spiral and multiply that by the formula for a spiral, and multiply that by the formula for a spiral we’ve gone through all four dimensions and we end up with something at the end that looks like exactly what we started with at the beginning. In other words, we take a spiral and while it’s spiraling we spiral the spiral, and then we spiral the spiral that spiraled the spiraled, and then we spiral the spiral that spiraled the spiral that spiraled the spiral.

Now we can only go through three dimensions of that which we can follow. And the example is to look at a piece of rope. If we take fibers that are going to make twine, and we see the fibers as creating a spiral, we can clearly see them spiraling along the linearity of the twine. Then if we take that linearity of the twine we’ve created and actually coil it, we can see that there is a spiral moving around the twine and at the same time we’ve created a coil which is another spiral, so there is a spiral within the spiral. Then if we take that spiral we’ve made of a coil and stretch it out like a slinky and then we spiral the entire slinky around, we can see that there’s a spiral on the linearity of the twine, then a spiral that is created by coiling that linearity, and then a spiral when we wrap the entire coil in a spiral fashion. Now, if we try and move one farther dimension and take that coil that’s moving in a spiral of the coil that was made of the twine that has a spiral going along its linearity and spiral that, we cannot hold all that in our mind at the same time. The minute we try to achieve an understanding of the larger spiral we lose track of the lower spiral. As a result, we can only see three dimensions at once, not four. And because of that, we have a three dimension band width of the mind in a sense that that becomes the size of mind constant is three dimensions.

No matter how far we move up in our considerations to look at higher fractal levels or frictal levels, or no matter how far down we go to see greater detail, we can not see any broader of scope than three dimensions of it at a time. But that little box-car moves up and down the track of thought describing the number of ties that our mind covers, which is three dimensions worth.

But we can move up and we can move down; we can move to greater detail, we can move to larger, broader perspective, but we’ll never see more than three dimensions at the same time and that is a psychological–well not exactly a proof, but kind of a proof of concept of the size of mind as appearing to be a constant. Therefore this would be true of those who were exceptional as well as those who were geniuses, it really doesn’t matter, you’re still going to see three dimensions or you can’t be self aware. The real question is how far can you move on the track upward and how far can you move on the track downward before you lose track.

Mental Relativity Notes | Justification and Genetic Memory

Transcript from one of the tapes I recorded in 1994/1995 while expanding the Mental Relativity theory of narrative psychology I originally developed with Chris Huntley.

June 29, 1994

We’ve talked frequently about the concept of justification and trying to get down to first level justification where we are dealing with thought, knowledge, ability and desire directly. In fact, it’s not really getting down to first level justification, because thought, knowledge, ability and desire are the intrinsics that we feel based on our genetic programming, so they can’t truly be accessed consciously.

Now, according to mental relativity theory, genetic programming occurs in the DNA. And it is mean average of all the experiential database of every creature that lived, up until the point that it procreated. In other words, our own genetic code is being altered by our own experience, changing the value of instinct, based upon the experience of the individual. However, the individual is averaged in with everything that came before meaning that we end up with a very heavy base of instinct that’s very hard to change.

Now, I’m sure there is a mechanism for that base of instinct to be balanced against current experience in such a way that experience does have an impact even in one life span of something of a great and catastrophic nature. It’s going to really offset the programming that’s already in there. For example, if someone leads a life which is very close to instinct, there’s not going to be much change in the genetic base. It’s not going to add anything to it, it’s not going to alter it.

However, if one leads a life that’s completely contrary to instinctual base, then in that case, it’s going to alter it considerably more. Still in all the weight is with the instinct, with the genetic code. And the change that occurs in it is not that great in the course of a life span. However, now we get to today’s society. And in today’s society, we have no direct connection with survival. We’ve gotten so many generations away from survival. We don’t have to farm, we don’t have to hunt. We don’t have to defend ourselves in general against wild animals or even against our own kind, because of society.

Now, as a result, all the instincts that we have are no longer applicable, in a very short time, because civilization has been around a lot shorter time than the DNA genetic memory of instinct. So, we find ourselves constantly having thoughts, abilities, knowledge, desire, all of these things that push us in directions that are not appropriate for our current society. Therefore, what we’re doing when we get our justifications in order is not getting down to first level justification, which would be purely operating in response to our genetic code, but rather we are balancing that genetic code, so that it’s completely counter balanced and then we can deal only on the basis of our current experience as individuals in society for making decisions, not just in response at all to the genetic code that drives us — that has been nullified or counterbalanced.

Mental Relativity Note | Peach Trees, Relationships, and Binary Switches

Transcript from one of the tapes I recorded in 1994/1995 while expanding the Mental Relativity theory of narrative psychology I originally developed with Chris Huntley.

June 28, 1994

O.K., I was thinking today of dealing with quads in terms of the forms that life can take. We look easily at the animal and the vegetable but what fills out that quad? Well, everyone always says animal, vegetable or mineral and they are looking at things in terms of three, which means that essentially it gives us the animal life, the vegetable life and chemical compounds. What is the other one? Well, the other one would be that elusive area where they are talking about viruses. Is it alive, is it not alive? What exactly is it?

Essentially, we’re talking about chemical compounds that are essentially little computers, they are little physical computers that re-configure their size, their shape, change and bend themselves around, splice themselves to other ones, mutate. As such, they mimic life, but they are not life as we know it. They are on the other side of that limit line. Two on one side which would be the chemical (or mineral) and viral, and two on the other side which would be plant and animal. So, just another perspective with which to classify things, looking at life is making up a quad of animal, vegetable, mineral and viral.

It’s the 28th of June, at about 10 minutes to 9 in the morning. I had a thought about when we are dealing with loss. I had a dream last night about my peach tree. I planted this tree three years ago, and had great hopes (because I love peaches) of being able to can the peaches and make peach pies, and just enjoy a fresh peach off the tree. That was something of a childhood dream. I always loved orchards and things. So, it goes way back into how much importance I put into having a peach tree. Now, there was a shift because when I planted that tree three years ago, it didn’t really matter which peach tree it was, any peach tree would have done, but I really wanted a peach tree.

So, I planted a tree, and the very first year that it came to bearing fruit, there were only four or five peaches that showed up on it, which was two years ago. And at that time, the dog came out and jumped up and knocked them all off the tree, because the dog liked to play with them, and the dog was still very puppyish. So, I said, O.K., well I’ve lost them this year, but there were only four or five – that’s fine. Well, the next year, I got about twenty peaches on the tree, and I said great. No matter what the dog does this year, the tree’s a little bit bigger, the dog’s a little less playful, more old….I’m going to have these peaches. And the dog didn’t knock them down, but, just as they were starting to get a little bit plump, the little neighborhood girl came over when Mindi was playing with her in the backyard here, while I was not around, and she picked all my peaches off the tree, because they were fun to throw around the yard. I was livid, I was enraged, because now, I had figured after the first year, that it was going to be a process of another year that I had to endure in order to get peaches off of my tree. And I couldn’t even go out and buy another peach tree and plant it and get fruit any earlier, that was the best I could do.

Well, I said O.K., this next year, she’s not going in the backyard all summer long, the dog doesn’t really care anymore, we’ll see what happens. This year, I had about two hundred blossoms that turned into peaches; two hundred peaches on my tree. I think actually the first two years of having them picked off, helped it along, so that it ended up responding saying, “Oh, yeah, well I’ve got to survive, I’ve got to pro-create here, so I’m going to come out with all these peaches,” and in fact, all of those peaches are still there. But, I am so worried about something happening to them, either by birds coming down and devouring them all, or the gardeners coming in and trimming it back, or something. Any kind of chaotic event, that I can’t even imagine…I’ve been so worried that I had a dream about my peach tree last night. And in this dream, I dreamed that the other neighborhood kid, a little boy, who is the brother of the girl who pulled the peaches off, they were having a party over there — a birthday or something at their place which is two doors away. And the little kid came over when nobody was watching, and he pulled off all of my peaches. Now, in this dream, that was it. Once those peaches were pulled off, the tree would never try again, it wouldn’t bear fruit again, because it wasn’t worthwhile. I knew this in my dream.

The sense of loss was absolutely amazing. But, the point is that I went over to confront them at the party in a very nice way because the parents really had no hand in doing this, and the kid was just having fun. So, I went over to confront them at the party, and I wanted to come up with some way of having them compensate me for the loss of my peaches that would make me feel good again, that would make it all O.K. And I couldn’t think of one. At first, I thought, well what if they buy me four or five other trees to make up for it, and I said, well, yeah, but, I could buy four or five other trees, but when I put them in, there’s still going to be a waiting period and a lot of anxiety now that all of the fruit’s going to ruined, even though that’s unlikely. What if they bought me a bunch of peaches. Well, that doesn’t do it either, because I wanted to grow them on my own. What if they just bought me the best peach tree in the whole world from some special place. Well, no, because it’s not any peach tree, it’s this peach tree. And it occurred to me, why is it this peach tree? And how does that compare to when you lose a loved one in a long term relationship? If you have a relationship, and somebody jilts you for somebody else…that’s the same thing. If you have a marriage, and you lose somebody to death, that’s the same thing. Divorce must be very much like that.

In other words, a lot of the things that we are going to have to address, come down to this stupid peach tree. So, why is it that nothing else in the world, no combination of things can make it all right. Well, because the peach tree is not an object, it’s a process. And that process has defined itself uniquely, because it’s not a linear process, it’s a non-linear process. In other words, when you talk about the potholes in the road of life, there’s no way to expect where they are, but they do change the course you’ve taken. And when you look behind you and see that winding course, you can tell that this is familiar ground. In other words, it’s the one true path through chaos that you can actually understand, because you’ve been there. Now, naturally things may come into a different light, and you may put them into a different context. You realize that you were actually snaking your way through a bog, or a swamp instead of a desert. But, it doesn’t change the path you took, because that much remains certain. Now, of course, yes, memory fails, and you’ll look at things incorrectly, but only from an objective standpoint. Subjectively, you look at something, and you remember it exactly the way it was, subjectively. And therefore, even if it changes in your mind daily from what the path was you actually took, it always seems like the path you took.

And you still associate it with those items that you can see as milestones along the way. Now, for me, for this peach tree, it was an ongoing process of all the trials and tribulations which represented the only reason to go forward, the only reason to continue all the motivations I had for wanting a peach tree to begin with. But, they were all centered on nurturing this particular peach tree. Now, this is something that we are going to have to address. I don’t have the answers here, I just have some interesting questions as to why nothing else in the world, no combination of things …everything else taken together, can compensate for such a loss. It takes time for the mind to unwind the justifications. And nothing can balance it.

Here, we get right back into the notion of a binary switch — switching from looking at something and saying, I need it to survive, to saying, No, I can survive without. Looking to something and saying, I’m constantly hurt and nothing will make me happy again, to actually being happy again. And what happens to the hurt? You don’t ever completely lose it. It never is ever removed from you, rather it is merely downgraded continually, and other things become more essential. And yet, at the moment that something strikes that in your memory, it can well back up years later with as much sadness or as much joy as it originally generated. And so, there’s something to do with the relationship between the linearity of process and the interference pattern, holographically.

And just as we’ve been talking about getting into the Fourier equations, I believe his name was George. He worked in the forties and came up with equations that translated wave forms into interference patterns, and interference patterns back into wave forms. Something in those equations is going to give us the key again to the binary switch. Because the binary switch says you flip from state A to state B and process C begins. What’s the D? The D is that interference pattern between structure and dynamics, because there’s going to be that fourth one. But, we look at it as, we take state A, we move it to state B and process C begins. The force that’s applied to switch it from state A to state B, that indeed is D …that’s the interference pattern, that’s aptly named D in this example, because it deals with desire, it deals with that D of the KTAD [Knowledge, Thought, Ability, Desire, grouped together in a “quad”].

Now, the reverse of that, or inverse of that is also true, meaning that you could have state A, could be created, let me see, how do I want to phrase this. You apply a force to state A and it changes to state B and allows a process to go, whereas theoretically, a process could act upon state A, changing it to state B, which actually causes the process D. So, the question as to whether it’s a causal relationship which would be more of a linear way or typical, left-minded way of looking at it is that you apply a force to A, switch it over to B, which then causes C. And the force you apply could be called D, or the other way of looking at it is you apply a force to A, switches it to B, and that allows a process of C to go on, and you still applied force D.

So, the question as to whether something is just opened like a gate is opened, or whether something actually acts as a catalyst to begin something is getting back to the idea of whether it is merely a gravitational type thing, or whether it actually comes into contact, and has a physical reaction between the two. Does a process begin because you lower a resistance to something and allow it to go on, or because you raise the resistance to something else that is an inhibitor, that prevents something from going on. Or, does a process go on because you create a potential, or because you diminish a potential which is going to upset equilibrium. Or because you apply a current, or because you shut off a current, which starts getting to the magnetic effect of things – an electrical attraction. Or because you have power and apply power or you withhold power.

Now, this obviously grows into a pretty big spiral, because if you take the concept of each of these – we’ve looked at a binary state of PRCP or PRCO [Potential, Resistance, Current, Power of Potential, Resistance, Current, Outcome]. When we’ve looked at that binary state on each of those, we can then see that we can create a causal or non-causal situation with each one. Causal is when you apply something and it makes something happen, non-causal is when you withhold something and it happens because of the holism of the system, minus what you’ve taken out. And yet, even that’s a binary state. You see, we begin to use binaries to build quads, and we move backward from that and we can always spiral and spiral and spiral farther backward. But, until we get to the point where we have spiraled backward so far that there is no functional difference between where we are and where we began, we have not completed a formula for the unified field theory.

So, keep in mind those four different universes that we talked about. The existence and negative existence and the left and right minded views of things – the spatial view and the temporal view. Those four make up the essential building blocks we’re going to grow from. That’s gotten us up to 16. We originally only had four- time, space, mass and energy. Mental relativity added thought, knowledge, ability, and desire. Mental relativity split thought, knowledge, ability, and desire. Not by creating four new elements, but by saying the way in which those elements arrange themselves became two different ways, temporal and spatial, giving you left minded and right minded. And so, the first part of the work is to define exactly what happened there mathematically, when we have these different equations that are applied to one and applied to the other.

Let’s see what that translation effect is to go from one to the other. Because one will appear to be a wave form, one will appear to be an interference pattern, in terms of left minded and right minded equations. So, if we have these equations, one wave form, one interference pattern, and can describe them as such, then the Fourier equations should allow us to be able to figure out what kind of mechanism is at work, that translates one to the other, that causes it to shift from one place to the other. And when we do that then we can come up with the mathematics that creates the shift among all of them, by transmuting it.

In other words, the shift that occurs is going to change around the quad. You will go from a K and create a T by applying a potential for example. Or then you will go from a T to an A, you might apply a current. The operation that is going to included to translate from one to the other, is going to be a different operation in which each case – it will probably be a different operation moving in different directions. It will probably be a different operation, moving in left minded Z patterns [through the quad], or right minded circles [around the quad].

But, the point is we have all the building blocks. We have all the pieces now, and back when we were creating Dramatica, one of the big things we were doing is sitting on the floor with all of the names we knew existed, trying to figure out how the elements went together at the bottom of each Class. Rearranging them in all kinds of different patterns. We didn’t know if they were individually arranged, if they were arranged by pairs, if they were rearranged by quads. If they shifted their position all over the 64 or just within a quad or the quads within a set, or what happened. And finally we realized that it was actually rearranging the pairs within the sets that occurred from class to class to class. Now, that rearrangement gives us exactly that feeling of one thing coming out of left field, because it goes from the K class to the A class to the T class and they have this arrangement each of which allows for archetypal characters to be created. However, when we move to the D class and use the same permutation, the last step of the permutation, we end up with archetypal characters not being allowed to be created. They violate that rule of not having the same two elements out of the same quad.

So, obviously we have the process under lock and key; it’s at work, we’ve already created it in a matrix. But, we don’t understand mathematically what’s happening. The point is the processes used to go among those are all the same. The shift that occurs from a K to an A to a D to a T; all of those things no matter which direction you go, is all a logical progression and it makes sense. But, the thing that’s changing that doesn’t make sense, is the way that we are putting confines on it. In other words, if we have three things that work one way, we’ve got one thing that works another way. And we are always going to end up with three one way, and one another way. And because of that, all we have to do is follow the natural progression of going from wherever we are through a second one, a third one and to the fourth one. And when we’ve gone through that progression, which is quite natural, suddenly we find we’ve flipped a binary state somewhere else, that exists automatically.

In other words, there’s no direct connection, no hard material connection between one binary state and the other, because it’s already hardwired in, and de facto, when you go through three of anything and get to the fourth one, the one that comes out of left field, it doesn’t come out of left field when you come to it with the process you’ve been using, but something else in an area you haven’t been looking has changed. And that aspect that has changed is the same on the first three and different on the one that’s changed.

So, in fact, it really hasn’t changed at all. All you’ve done is moved to a place where some new rules apply. And this means that the laws of physics as we know them are not constants at all. They do not apply everywhere, they have to fall apart when you take that final step. It’s not that they fall apart, it’s that something else applies and they don’t. So, moving from class to class to class to class when you take steps in a progression, you end up with that fourth step. Watch the fourth step, it’s a doozy.

Mental Relativity Theory | Point and Context

Transcript from one of the tapes I recorded in 1994/1995 while expanding the Mental Relativity theory of narrative psychology I originally developed with Chris Huntley.


“Point and Context”

When we stick a pin to our finger, the surrounding nerves become deadened to accentuate the location of the pin through contrast. There is a real impact on those things most closely associated with events. When we focus on a concept, our minds actually suppress the concepts most closely associated with that concept as a means of defining it (providing edges or limits to its extent).

This is the essential step if we are to see things as particles: first we must negate or make invisible their holistic relationship to surrounding items.

So, in focusing our minds on a topic, we also “defocus” on associated items. If we have properly selected the scope of our considerations, we create a closed system by defining the edges of it through focus, and all “practical” purposes we hope to achieve are accommodated within it. However, if we have improperly selected the scope of our consideration, we may be limiting out essential relationships we will not consider because they have been suppressed. (Of course we may err by selecting too broad a scope in which the variables become unmanageable).

However, the impact of proximity occurs not only spatially, but temporally as well. And in fact, when we consider a topic, considerations that are most similar to the MEANS or PROCESS of consideration we employ at the moment are the least likely to proceed or follow the consideration in question.

In other words, manners of thinking run a full spectrum and can be seen as separate mental techniques only if differences in processing are identified. To see a process at all in the mind requires defining a process to be seen. This infers a linearity. Linearity in the mind is only a slice of the holism of self-awareness, therefore, it eliminates most of what is going on in order to see most clearly a part of what is going on. The function becomes clear, its purpose, obscure.

But once we have defined a process, those processes most similar to the one we have selected to observe (in ourselves or others) will become suppressed or de-enhanced. So that the processes we are least likely to employ immediately preceding or following a given process are those that are most similar to it.

As a result, if our “fine tuning” is a even a bit off in the process which we “leap” to and select to use in considering an issue, it becomes much more difficult to make small changes in the pattern of our thoughts than big ones. It is much easier to embrace an entire new paradigm than to slightly alter the one we are currently embracing.

This leads to an inertia of thought, wherein our minds ride in “ruts”, leaping from rut to rut in parallel, never changing the course of the rut we are in, but just adopting another. In this manner, we focus on the ruts, follow their preset courses and the ridges between the ruts become our temporal blind spots. We never see the tracks that guide us, only the paths we take.

When we think in waves, we see linearity. When we think in linearity, we see waves. But this is only half the picture. This is the methodology of the spatially oriented mind – the male mind. All understanding of process is divided into waves or lines (lines describing the paths taken by particles). This is because a true spatial view cannot be employed consciously in the male mind for it forms the foundation of the male mind itself.

Women have learned to adapt to this perspective (for women are able to jump between a male or female view of time, but cannot see the male perspective of space. Whereas, men can see the male perspectives of space or time, but cannot see the female perspective of time.)

A third appreciation of our environments and ourselves is available through the female mind’s appreciation of time, which sees time as objects, but not defined in the male sense, rather as gravitational pools of time in which all things are related not by their natures but their contexts. This is the view from which we determine that a slap in the face followed by a scream is not the same as a scream followed by a slap in the face.

Our view in traditional male models of priority tends to create recipes for what components are included in a phenomenon and how they are arranged. This would be like a recipe for a cake. This is so intrinsic to male thinking, however, that it is seldom looked at as a process at all that one must bake the cake BEFORE putting on the frosting. In other words, pillage THEN burn!

This comes so naturally to male thinking that it is not considered as intrinsic to the process itself. However, the oft-touted “female intuition” is nothing more than a series of seemingly unrelated events that indicate a temporal order of process by which the forces that precipitate a paradigm-shift leave a signature trail.

Women intuitively respond to the temporal relationships between these signatures, continually reevaluating the holistic meaning of the order in which processes are applied. As a real-life example, look at how women respond differently to a husband or boyfriend remembering her birthday without being reminded vs. WITH being reminded. It is the notion that a process needed to be applied as a catalyst (the temporal process signature) that changes the context of the process of receiving flowers or a gift.

To a woman, that difference is binary. To a man, it is a matter of degree. And therein lies the essential differences in evaluation – particle vs. wave.

Remember, of the three things men and women can see between them, one is uniquely male, one uniquely female and the other common ground. The fourth part of the quad is chaos itself. This is the subjective view. In the objective view, chaos is cut out of the picture, since we can know nothing about it. We then divide our information into fourths instead of thirds. In this view, one domain is wholly male, one wholly female. A third domain is seen as particle (or binary) by men and wave (or spectral) by women. The fourth is the reverse, wave to men and particle to women.

It is this “objective” view, which is really a pseudo objectivity taking three perspectives and dividing them into four places, that is the male view. It shows men and women as being completely opposite.

The “subjective” view, which is only subjective because we cannot see more than this, ignores chaos and sees only three perspectives existing. This is the female view for it does not allow for randomness but only holism, and sees men and women as having one unique place to be and one place of shared common ground.

These views are reflected in our determination of sympathy or empathy for a Main Character in a story due to (for men) male or female, and due to (for women) timelock or optionlock. Two different standards of measurement for the same topic of consideration.

In closing, think about the two standards of measurement for the same topic, versus the alternative of the same standard being applied to different topics. Men and women may agree on the same thing, but they will be seeing it in two completely different ways. Or, they may look at an item the same way and see two completely different things. From a spatial perspective, men and women will never fully line up and see eye to eye. From a temporal perspective, men and women can agree part of the time.

Mental Relativity Theory Notes

These are raw, unedited transcriptions of some of the tapes I recorded to document the progress of my work in continuing to expand the Mental Relativity theory of narrative psychology originally developed by myself and my friend and partner, Chris Huntley.

There are many more tapes and many more transcripts – dozens of hours – but as they were recorded and transcribed a quarter of a century ago, they are scattered in many places.  So, for the sake of creating a permanent record of them lest they become lost forever, I’ll publish each collection as I find them.

Alas, there are misinterpreted words, misplaced punctuation and so on, but I feel it is more important to protect the information than to spend any time at this juncture trying to edit the material.  Still, the transcription was a horrible task to give someone and she did a magnificent job under the circumstances back in the day, which is why we have them at all.

Here, then, is this group of transcripts for the record in PDF format:

Click to Download PDF

Occam’s Failure

I saw a meme today that suggested that since only Republicans in DC are getting Coronavirus, perhaps it is a plot by Democrats to spread Covid among the Republicans.

Of course the more likely explanation is that since the Republicans at these events weren’t wearing masks and didn’t practice social distancing, there was a lot of virus in the air. And that’s why they got sick at Republican gatherings where there were no Democrats in attendance.

Though it is kind of funny for that meme to say, “No Dems got it, therefore they must be behind it,” there’s a danger that some people will actually believe it, and that’s how a conspiracy theory starts.

The people who believe such things don’t accept the simple explanation because they don’t like that explanation. It disagrees with their views, which might make them look foolish because they publicly touted the views that are now in question.

So, they look for another explanation that is more to their liking. And when they find one, no matter how off the beaten track it is, they’ll believe it because it doesn’t contradict their existing beliefs, and they won’t look foolish in their own eyes (or the eyes of others).

It is called Confirmation Bias – rejecting information that doesn’t fit a person’s pre-existing view.

But if you reject the obvious explanation, there’s a big hole – a gap – something that requires an explanation, and these kind of folks have rejected the simple and obvious one.

People want the world to make sense. And they want to be right. Even more, they don’t want to be wrong.

So if you put that all together with Confirmation Bias rejection of the simple truth, folks will go to all kinds of lengths to spin tall tales, no matter how absurd and convoluted to fill that gap with an explanation -just like this meme.

Unfortunately, anyone who sees the meme who has rejected the obvious truth because it flies in the face of what they believe (and want to believe), and if they haven’t come up with their own satisfactory explanation yet, they might well latch onto the meme because it fills that hole and, from their perspective, the world makes sense once again, and they were right all along.

Confirmation Bias complete.

We train our minds every day to either let the facts drive our beliefs, or let our beliefs filter the facts.

Our minds are only truly free when we let them follow all the information and choose that which makes the most sense, regardless of whether or not it matches our pre-existing believes.


I was once covering a union strike at Lockheed for the company.
My only job was to video tape any illegal actions by the strikers.
If they didn’t break the law, no problem. If the did, it would be documented.

At first, the strikers thought we were a TV crew and made pleasant conversation with us. Then, someone from management came over to give us some additional instructions.

As soon as that happened, the strikers turned angry and surrounded us. One guy in particular – a very BIG and red-faced guy, started shouting at us, wouldn’t let me get a word in side-ways, and moved forward to me with a raised baseball bat.

I tried to tell him we weren’t there to entrap them – just to make sure everyone obeyed the law so nobody got in trouble and nobody got hurt.

But he just shouted me down, wouldn’t let me talk, wouldn’t listen to anything I said, and kept advancing. That’s when my crew pulled me away before things got out of hand.

And from that, I learned a lesson that has served me well: You can’t reason with a man brandishing a baseball bat.

This fellow wasn’t interested in reason. He didn’t care about what made sense, or even about preventing trouble or keeping his people safe.

He was angry, plain and simple. He needed a target – a surrogate for the group he was mad at, and I was it.

But, he did have a function for his group of strikers. He protected them. He protected them from any and all threats from management, and they could get behind him and stand behind him – “Stand back and stand by.”

It is guys like him to enabled unions to form in the 1930s. They were the ones powerful enough and unafraid enough to confront management and drive them back – to keep the rank and file committed and motivated.

So, good can come from that when the guy with the bat is fighting for justice and fairness and equity. But when that guy is fighting for injustice, unfairness, and inequity, like the Brown Shirts in early Nazi Germany, then they are the ones disrupting law and order for their own purposes against what is best for the nation as a whole.

Did Germany become a great world power? It truly did! Did the they make Germany Great Again? Absolutely? Did they compensate for all the wrongs done to them by the treaty at Versailles? Absolutely. All goo so far.

But they did it by blaming a huge segment of their nation as being the cause of their troubles, rather than blaming the real causes, including their own war-like nature that was part of the trigger for WWI.

And beyond that, they not only compensated, but over-compensated. They used Blitzkrieg – literally, “Lighting War,” to roll over their perceived enemies before they could even respond.

They never gave those enemies a chance to respond. They weren’t interested in negotiation or compromise. They weren’t interested in debating the relative value of their ideas vs. those of other nations. All they wanted was a target upon which to express their anger so they could feel strong, and not perceive themselves any longer as victims.

Just like my guy with the bat.

And so, when a group is being wronged, those kinds of people are heroes as they protect the group and stand up against tyranny.

But when those guys overcompensate and attack others who are not the enemy, declare, “My way or the highway,” demeaning them, disrespecting them, and even refusing to let those others speak to defend themselves, much less share their ideas for peaceful progress – well, then that might-have-been hero becomes a villain, a trouble maker, a rabble rouser, a loose cannon.

He is no longer interested in what is best for his group, much less the others he is targeting. He is only interested in his own power, in the sound of his own voice, in bashing heads, in marveling at the blood on his hands.

Some people enjoy being mean, whether it be because of their upbringing, their genetic code, or just the luck of the draw. But for whatever reason, they enjoy being mean, being the center of attention, hearing themselves speak and on one else, interrupting, disrupting, creating chaos, lying with reckless abandon, blaming others for their own faults, refusing to abide by agreed upon rules, refusing to take responsibility, and on and on.

In short, they are bullies. They only feel “up” when putting someone else down. They need the spotlight, they need to be in control and so they shout down anyone else so the light remains on them, trying to get enough illumination to counter the darkness in their hearts.

One could say disruption is a tactic. And it is an effective one. But to what purpose?

If you have good ideas to share, disruption is the last thing you’d want. If you believe your ideas are stronger than the other guy, you’d relish the opportunity to prove it. If you believe in fairness, respect, honoring ground rules, finding common ground, uniting factions, fostering peace to support the pursuit of happiness, then you don’t disrupt.

But when are mean-spirited, don’t believe in the strength of your ideas or, worse, have none, and want all attention on you, and absolutely power to do as you please, then disruption is your game.