Category Archives: Narrative Science

Mental Relativity Notes | God and Mental Relativity

July 11, 1994

When we carry mental relativity out into the real world, one of its impacts will be on religion, and it will show why it’s not religious. At the same time, when someone asks you about God in mental relativity and asks you are you a god, you say yes! (A quote from “Ghostbusters”)

Seriously, If somebody asks you if there is a God, you say maybe. You say yes and no. Regardless of personal belief, from a Mental Relativity perspective, when we talk about the essence of self-awareness — how do we know that we exist — a lateral concept of whether or not God exists emerges. As soon as we become aware of ourselves, we ask if there is something bigger, if there is something that knows more. The moment we define order by the way we understand things are, we want to know if there is a greater order that describes the chaotic nature of the environment and the universe around us, and indeed there is a greater order. The problem is you can’t get there from here.

We are trapped in our self-awareness meaning we only order things that we are capable of ordering and that means seeing only three dimensions when standing on four, but there are an infinite number of dimensions. The more we see, the more there are, because we create them as we embody them.

You could say that the closest thing we have to a concept of God in mental relativity would be whoever occupies the next dimension. They would stand in the fifth dimension and watch our four. They would not be bound by time. They could leap back and forth and change the state of things altering our current reality. Time becomes an object and it’s no longer something that flows. That means you could change the meaning of something now by changing something that happened earlier. Reality would then never have been the way it is because time is just another building block that would have to be played against the measuring stick of the fifth dimension which would then be the linearity. Something has to be the linearity, the single direction, the vector someplace, and if you don’t put it in the first four and control those, it will be in the fifth.

Someone once said if you had a four-dimensional surgeon, they could do surgery on the inside of the body without breaking the skin. Effectively, they would see the body everyplace that it is at all times, they would see all of our existences. Now look at how chaotic we are if you match us against space and time. If you look at us spatially, you say this is who I am, and in time, who I am here. But if you look at time not as something that is flowing but is at any point only one particular moment, then I am both here and two steps to my left and everywhere in between, and the longer I stay in one place the more intensely I exist.

You can find me in San Diego and in Mexico, and you’ll find me not as I am but in a slightly different state because I am constantly evolving within myself. Those are different fractal levels. If somebody moves across the room and time was seen as one moment, they would leave a vapor trail across the room. Instead of defining them spatially as an embodiment, they would be a streak, and they would exist more firmly where they stay for a longer duration in the space-time continuum. This is why we separate time and space in mental relativity. We don’t run into this paradox because time and space can change independent of each other.

When you take a look at the religious aspect of that and stand back and look at the whole thing, we take a bunch of fibers and turn it into a piece of twine that is one of these little spirals, which is one dimension. We’ve gone so far up that the first dimension is looking at a three-dimensional object. Now we take that and we coil the twine like a slinky while we know that there are spirals wrapping around the twine itself. So we have two spirals, one going laterally along the twine and another in the twine itself. That’s two dimensions. Now we take these two dimensions, this spiral made up of smaller spirals and spiral it into another coil. Now we have something that we can barely picture, but we can hold all of it in our mind. We can see the spirals going laterally at the same time that we see it going along the spiral as a shape at the same time that that makes another spiral. It’s the edges of the capacity of having all of these things going on in our minds at once. Now try to coil it one more time, and try to imagine it. You can’t do it. If you imagine a larger coil coiling the coil that coils the coil, as soon as you do that, you lose track of the first one that goes laterally along the twine. If you try to hold onto the spirals that go laterally along the twine, you’re going to lose going that one step higher to see that big coil that spirals the rest around. This is because that is the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension of processing, not the fourth dimension of existence.

You can look at dimensions in our traditional science as places, but they are only looking at it spatially — here’s this stake we call a dimension, now we’ll move into a higher plane of existence. We’ll go into another volume. They go into all these concepts that are only structural spatially-oriented concepts. However, if you look at processes as objects, then this little spiral is the only thing you can call a process. If you look at a slinky from the end, it looks like a circle, a particle. If you look at it sideways, you see a wave. So we look at photons and we say here’s a particle and here’s a wave. It has these two natures. It is a particle sometimes and a wave other times. It’s a particle and a wave depending on how you look at it. That’s a little closer to it, but what it really is is a spiral going one more dimension than we can perceive it in.

Light is not just a quantum, not just a packet of probabilities. Light is also a qualum. It contains both quantity and quality, so you have both a quantum and qualum aspect. Qualum mechanics is something we’re inventing here. Nobody knows that yet. When we look at light in quantum mechanics, we can look at quantity in two ways. We can describe its mass and we can describe its energy. But if we want to get at qualum mechanics, we have to look at it from a temporal sense, what’s going on in terms of process. When we look at process, we can look at the spiral. We can say this is an ongoing process because it’s not just a projection of repeating item in one dimension. It is now something that is going in your direction, and as you take this you can see in the spiral that if you have a certain length that you assign to it from the beginning of the spiral for maybe six or seven loops, so they end up being spiral and that is a slinky – type spiral, not a flat spiral — one that is actually coiled. Take that coil on the spring and there’s a certain amount of metal in the spring. If you squash it down, it widens out, if you pull it out, it’s going to narrow in. And so there’s a relationship between the breadth of these coils and the length of the coils.

So getting back to our original concept, what would God be, and in mental relativity–can we see there is a God? Well, the fact is that we are on this spiral, and we’re spiraling around, and all we can do is look to the future and to the past and see it as a particle. If we look to the present, and we look to progress, and see it as a wave, but we can’t see it as the spiral itself in real life, because we don’t have that view from all of the spiral; we have to stand out and look at from a 3/4 angle in order to see that. As a result, this thing spirals around while our lives are going around it. What are we circling around, well if you want a God there he is.

God is the force at the center that defines the spiral– how wide, how long. Essentially, we don’t have to have faith, but if you want to see it, you’re going to need it. That is the Tao that cannot be spoken. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao, the Tao that defines how wide it is going to be, how it undulates, if it gets wider loops or narrower loops, and how long the whole thing goes. Those are things that we cannot control, they appear to be chaotic to us, the effect is manipulating that. If there is a greater order, that is the only way we can sense it’s impact, is in the chaos of our lives.

So, you don’t sense God working in mental relativity in terms that are ordered to you. You see God working in terms of chaotic aspects of your life. Which of course is where they get the idea of miracles from. A miracle is something that violates order.

If you are killed by a bacteria, it is just as deadly as if you were killed by a car. We cannot hold all that in our minds 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 bandwidth of the mind in the sense then that becomes the size of mind constant as three dimensions. And no matter how far we move up in our considerations to a higher fractal levels or frictal levels, or no matter how far down we go to see greater detail, we cannot see any broader a scope than three dimensions.

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 Notes | Anti-Mass, Negative-Space, Disenergy, Reverse Time

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.

6/27/94 12:20 a.m.

I was just thinking some more about what came on the other side of this tape…that moment when mass strikes mass, when mass connects with mass, and at that point, the gravitational fields between them turn into one gravitational field. In other words, they are no longer being looked at as two separate masses, but as one single mass, therefore it’s crossed the limit line.

What happens when mass touches mass? Well, we say that there’s a straight line progression; some sort of a linearity that could chart the distance between them. And the distance between them would be a line of some sort or another — either an angled line, or a straight line, meaning that it’s horizontal, vertical or some angle that eventually would chart the distance down to zero. And as it gets down to zero ( of course, that would be at zero – zero on a graph) a change in angle would account for acceleration. It could follow some sort of a curve even, but the end point of that curve would be at zero – zero; meaning that there was no longer any acceleration between the two, no longer any speed between the two, no longer any distance between the two. They have in fact become a single entity.

Now, it occurred to me that this is true when you are looking from the perspective of seeing the gravitational field become nil between the two, at the point that the two masses become one. However, if you start looking at the masses at a different fractal level, and you realize that they get closer and closer, when do they actually touch? Well, that depends on how much mass you have. You are talking mathematically about a single point, well, eventually they arrive at the same point, and that’s true. But, in the physical world, you actually have masses that are made of collections of atoms. These collections of atoms get together, and the atoms eventually reach a point where two atoms, one from mass A and one from mass B, come into conjunction that is as close as the distance between two atoms within mass A or two atoms within mass B. At that point, when the distance between the closest atoms from mass A and mass B is equal or less than the distance between two atoms within mass A or within mass B, we can say that the two masses have joined as one. However, they really have never touched, because in fact, in order for them to reach a nil point, where they become a single mass, we would not be able to chart it spatially across the size of any given mass. Mass A, if it is not a single mathematical point, has distance within it between at least two atoms, sub-nuclear particles, or whatever (unless you cross the border into quantum mechanics.

Within a single atom, the distance between the protons or the neutrons within the nucleus, no matter how much we sub-divide it, until we get down to the elemental mathematical point, they never will really touch, which means we end up with another hyperbolic curve as we approach that point, but in this case, the hyperbolic curve is not reaching a limit line of gravitational attraction, but we are reaching a limit line of physical proximity. And suddenly there is no more linearity at that point; dropping through the fractal levels, we see that at the mathematical single point there is a linearity, but anything above that single mathematical essence there is only “approaching the limit line”.

Now, because the two masses are approaching the limit line again, that means that we must be turning into a linearity in terms of the gravitational field. In other words, at some point, gravitation has to cease looking at that fractal level. When we look at the masses as occupying space, as opposed to just being mass, then as soon as they occupy space, that means in that sense, there is a linearity, or binary state to gravitation; where it is either there or it is not between two objects.

That binary state then hypothesizes that in the real world, gravity will cease at some point in the universe as we see it. At some point, gravity will cease to exist. So, one of the predictions of Mental Relativity is that in a real world in which we see that every mass must occupy space, and cannot exist short of occupying space, gravity at some point will cease to exist between them when the two masses get within a certain distance of each other, and that will be a curve or linearity of some sort.

Because of the nature of two masses getting close together, and if they get mathematically close together to the point that they become a single point, then what happens to the force that drew them together? It can’t dissipate completely. In fact, if the straight line comes to the point of zero – zero, because it’s a vector it must continue past zero- zero. Now what happens if you have two masses that become so close that they not only connect and become a single entity, but then pass through each other, right through each other. Not through the open space, we are talking mathematical points now that exist only in theory. We have 2 mathematical points that occupy no space, but have space between them. They get closer and closer through some kind of measure of distance between them, meaning that they have energy, these vectors of energy that are working in opposite directions. They arrive at a point of zero – zero at which they actually become one — that is the only point at which they can touch is when they become one. Otherwise, it’s only gravitational forces that are working. And as soon as they become one, then what happens to the energy, well they have to pass through each other.

Now that means the energy will apparently dissipate. The energy will apparently cancel itself out. Inertia is the force we are looking at here. Forget about acceleration for a moment because acceleration will show itself in moving the single point that has created out of the two points coming into conjunction as moving that single point in one direction or another based on the combined vectors of the forces at work. But, what about inertia when two forces come together, one moving from the left to the right, one moving from the right to the left horizontally across a straight line, they arrive at a point where they coincide and occupy the same point, not space. They occupy the same point because they have no space, only mass.

At that point, what happens to those two energy vectors? Does energy just cease to exist? No, this is what they think may be going on in sub-nuclear physics, but what’s really happening is that you are creating something where they pass through each other and continue in their different directions. Well, why is it then that we don’t see this happening in the real universe. When two things merge, they stay merged. Because we are working at a different fractal level here, and we are not talking about two objects actually coming together to become one. This is only what we hypothesize happens when we are dealing with nuclear fusion. When you are dealing with nuclear fusion, we are saying that two entities come together and give off energy and form a new mass. That is the wrong way to be looking at it to get any sense out of it. Because what’s really happening is that they are passing through each other. They pass through each other and move past the line of spatial existence. They move past that line and become negative mass. Now, we’re not talking anti-matter here. We’re talking tendency theory where we say something exists, but how firmly does it exist? With how much vigor does it exist?

There are always volatile atmospheres into which things can be created out of sheer probability, out of sheer possibility. Potentiality exists, but has not become manifest in any tangible sense. This is the way that things come into creation, out of no place– whether it be thought or an object. When something passes that magic point, the magic point is going from not existing to existing. But, that state of existing when you look at it as a binary means that out of nothing comes something. Newton said that “science was the greatest of all endeavors because it may allow us to determine why there is something rather than nothing.” Well, the fact is there isn’t really something and there isn’t really nothing…there’s all kinds of potential to become, and things have always partially become, but never nothing actually is — things are only in the process of becoming and they never actually aren’t, either.

This sounds a little strange I’m sure, but what you really end up with is the concept of negative mass, not anti-matter, but negative mass. Negative mass is something that has less of a tendency to come into being than zero. In other words, if two masses come together under opposite forces in a theoretical mathematical sense — two points that represent mass come together, but they contain no space within them, they only have space between them, then when that space between them becomes zero, the forces that push them together, push them past each other into a situation of negative mass.

Now what does this mean? This means that one of them must have been negative mass to begin with, because on this chart that we are looking at, we are not looking at two objects in real space, we are looking at one in negative space, and one in positive space. A negative mass and a positive mass. What you end up with is a sense not of anti-matter, but a sense of negative space and anti-mass, and the compliments then would be dis-energy or disenergy and reverse time. On one side of this limit line, and on one side of the point zero – zero, the single point is the conjunction for four dimensions. It works in four axis, and all four come together and converge at this single point.

When you carry each one of these axis past that point into the other half of it’s dimension, then taking each dimension and tracing it’s linearity backwards, when all of them are in the negative, you end up with anti-mass, negative space, disenergy and reverse time. Now, how can we tell which universe is mass, energy, space and time, and which universe is anti-mass, negative space, disenergy, and reverse time? Well, you can’t. Whether you are in one or the other, you can’t see the other one, because that point of zero – zero is essentially the “big bang”. That’s exactly what we end up with in the “big bang”.

In other words, looking at the “big bang” as being the collapse of the universe from existence space is essentially half the equation. It appears to be like the top half of a sine wave. Now when we look at something like that, we say wait a minute, there’s the top half of the sine wave and then they say here’s the “big bang” and then everything stretches out and then it comes screaming back to center and there’s the collapse of the universe back to zero. Now, what they look at is then immediately it goes from back to zero and another “big bang” occurs. But, that would be a series of humps on the top of the line. What’s really happening is that cycle going back to the other side. And when it goes back to the other side, we end up with everything we have in this universe reaching that point of zero – zero where there’s no space, no time, no mass and no energy, but that is only momentarily. It’s only when everything cancels out, but it’s inertia carries it into the other side, into the negative universe where we have negative space, anti-mass, disenergy and reverse time. At that point, everything will continue to flower in the other direction in an expansion.

If it’s passing through and going that way, something from the other side must be collapsing through and coming the other way. If you have the sine, you have the co-sine to put it simply. So that’s what gives the appearance of having a hump, hump, hump is we see on one side, first the sine wave half cycle, then the co-sine wave half cycle, then the sine wave half cycle. That’s assuming we sit out here in the universe and watch. But, we can’t watch because we are going to be passing through.

When we try in a theoretical sense to put ourselves into objectivism and look at the universe as if we could stand in it, but not be affected by it, that’s when we see these series of humps. If indeed, we realize that we are subjective viewers, then because of the subjective viewing of it, then that’s why we think it’s going to be a series of humps. In reality it is a sine wave and a co-sine and all of the others. Remember, in Mental Relativity, there are two new trigonometric functions, that’s why we had to invent “quadronometery” instead of trigonometry. We have the sine, co-sine, secant, co-secant, tangent, co-tangent and dependent and co-dependent. Those two extra functions describe time as it is separated from space, rather than there being a space/time continuum.

So, now we look at our notion of the human mind dealing with change, dealing with moving from one binary state to another. Suddenly we have some tools to deal with that. We have tools to deal with going into negative thought. If we look at the same concepts where we have knowledge equals mass, thought equals energy, ability equals space, and desire equals time, we can see it much more clearly in a subjective sense when we look at ourselves and say we have knowledge of something or we have anti-knowledge. What would anti-knowledge be? What happens when you unlearn something? What happens when you have a certain amount knowledge, and that knowledge diminishes and diminishes until it reaches zero knowledge of something — Forgetfulness is at work. And then continues on past that to see patterns that could not be perceived when you had knowledge of it. In other words, to unlearn a subject so that you can see something fresh in it. That’s exactly what’s happening when you’re talking about mass and anti-mass. You are talking about the journey into the creation of something that cannot be as long as masses exist. And it’s a natural progression for something to destruct as well as construct itself.

This destruction, this force of destruction, we all see extropy and entropy. And when we are looking at extropy and entropy what we are really looking at is energy and disenergy. What we are ending up with is a force that builds up and a force that builds down. A force that builds up to complexity by stretching things out, by separating them away. And a force that builds down to entropy by pulling them all together towards that single point

Now, as a result of that, when you are looking at knowledge, what is it that takes knowledge of something and disintegrates it down to no knowledge so that it can become a knowledge of something that could not be perceived as long as the original knowledge had existed, (the anti-knowledge). Well, how does that anti-knowledge come into being because the process of disenergy decays the complexity of knowledge It is entropy of knowledge. It pulls it down, down and down until it gets to a single point and then that exact same force of disenergy passes the limit line and becomes energy to build it up into this new anti-knowledge.

So, in effect, what we end up with is energy is at work until you get to the point of zero – zero – zero and then disenergy is existing with anti-knowledge. But, remember if you take anti-knowledge and look at it in terms of disenergy, it just looks like energy and knowledge from the other side. But, if you look at it objectively, stand outside that and say what’s happening as it passes through that limit line, then you can see the process of disenergy working to un-build knowledge. And it crosses the line and it becomes energy coming out the other side, that is thought which is building up new knowledge. In other words, thought and anti-thought. Thought appears to build up knowledge, anti-thought appears to tear it down. When in reality, the real anti-thought (from an objective stand point) is once you’ve gotten knowledge down to zero and thought continues and builds up another knowledge that could not have existed until the first knowledge was eliminated because it blocked a point of view — it created a blind spot. It created a given, and until that given was removed, something in contradiction to that given could not be accepted.

Therefore, from an objective standpoint, thought can serve to build up knowledge, but it can also serve to build it down, and when thought has built knowledge down to the point that knowledge is zero, it becomes anti-thought or dis-thought and anti-knowledge. Now, again, if we are comparing space and ability, what is happening when we end up with negative space? Well, negative space is the equivalent of negative ability. In other words, if you have a situation in which ability is degrading, until it reaches zero – if you have no ability in a situation, what happens if you develop an ability to screw it up? Well, if you develop an ability to screw it up, that’s even worse than having no ability at all. Not only are you passive, or unable to accomplish something, but you cannot help but dis-accomplish it. You have a negative impact on your purposes by merely acting. The more you act, the more it becomes negative.

Chris once said to me, “sometimes you have to push something to make it come toward you.” This begins to jump around a lot of different fractal levels, a lot of different frictal levels. It begins to talk about the relationships between mass, energy, time and space. Pushing something to make it come towards you. Well, that’s what happens when negative ability is at play. Negative ability is at play the more you push. The faster you go, the behinder you get. There was a book called “On Stranger Tides” that I once read, a pirate story about magic and pirates. And the magic was that when they got to the fountain of youth, they could see it, but the more they walked towards it, the farther away it got. The faster they moved towards it, the more quickly it receded. In fact, they had to take this surreptitious route where they moved away from it in a particular direction in order to arrive at it.

This concept kind of boggles the mind. It deals very nicely however with warped space, black holes and quasars. What you end up with is sometimes your abilities not only degrade to the point that they become zero, but that they increase in a negative sense, so that everything you do works against your purposes — that’s negative ability. However, if it’s coupled with anti-knowledge and dis-thought, what you end up with is a positive ability, because now you are working to a new purpose of anti-knowledge. Dis-thought is there to help build anti-knowledge in a pattern of increasing negative ability.

Now, the final point is when you come to desire and reverse desire. You hear about attraction and repulsion. How can they both exist? You would think that if desire is the effective equivalent of time in the internal universe, then we would only have forward moving desire. In other words positive desire. If we only had forward moving desire where we only said I want this, I want this, I want this. I’m attracted to this. That would be something that was farther and farther in the future, more and more of a greater pull. You could end up with the equivalence of the time dilation effect, where things would go from apparently freezing at a zero point in which you have no desire at all. Or they were going so fast that you couldn’t see them at the opposite side of the scale, which would be maximum desire.

But, remember in external relativity (Einstein’s), you have the speed of light which appears to be a constant, because we are looking subjectively at an objective universe. And when we are looking inside ourselves, we are looking objectively at a subjective universe. And because of that, instead of being the time that can’t be exceeded, the speed of light… it’s the space that can’t be exceeded which is the size of mind. In other words, desire – the size of your desirability is going to be limited, it’s going to appear constant. In other words, you have a certain amount of desire, and that desire will always be constant, but it’s mitigated by anti-desire, reverse desire. Reverse desire is repulsion. You are repelled from something. When you are repelled from something, here’s the reason that this serves as a good way for looking at the real universe, the external universe….we’re talking about being able to see within ourselves, both sides of the scale; past the point, zero-zero / zero-zero; which is where all four dimensions come together.

Inside ourselves, we can see us reach the point of negative knowledge, and then have anti-knowledge pop out the other side; clearly remembering that we used to see it one way, hold a certain given, a certain point of view, a certain prejudice, a certain bias, and now we don’t. We clearly no longer hold it and yet at the same time, we’ve established a new point of view that we can see that now we hold. No matter how open-minded you are, you’ve got to hold something, or you have no mind at all. We can also see ourselves having a thought process that is tearing down knowledge and building up new knowledge once the old knowledge is torn down to zero. We can see our abilities getting to the point that when we try to deal with something we’re only screwing it up, and the harder we try, the more of a screw up we create. We can also see that sometimes we are attracted to things, and sometimes we are repelled to them. When you begin to look at that level, you’re starting to look at things like magnetism, gravity, electrical charges. In other words, the weak forces of the universe. When you look at the weak forces and the strong forces and you look at gravity and you start realizing that there are going to be four kinds of forces at work, you are talking unified field theory here.

Unfortunately, the exact math of it all eludes me, because I’m not a mathematician. I have a sense of pattern, and I have a sense of changing patterns and how they work. So, somebody more qualified in math than I is going to have to work out the specific math. But, clearly an analogy can be drawn between looking at the external universe, objectively, instead of subjectively, and looking at the internal universe objectively. So, we have the subjective view of the objective universe which is how Einstein looked at things, and we have the objective view of the subjective universe, which is how Mental Relativity looks at things inside. Now, we can turn them around and say, let’s take the subjective view of the subjective universe, apply Einstein’s rules to Mental Relativity, and see how we blend different dimensions within ourselves. Which dimensions are blended, just like space and time are blended externally? And we can also turn around and take Mental Relativity and say, “let’s separate things and take an objective view of objectivity, of the objective universe outside ourselves and split all the dimensions.”

Now, when we take Einstein’s and we look inside ourselves, we say, O.K., in Einstein’s universe, all of us, the entire species looks at space and time as being blended together. They become one space / time continuum. Inside, we end up with it now being the same way for all people. We look at men and we look at women, and we look at the spatial brain operating system and the temporal brain operating system.

What we end up with is inside we are blending different yardsticks. In other words, men are going to blend ability and desire, and women are going to blend knowledge and ability. Now, when they blend knowledge and ability together, knowledge and ability is essentially one thing. The more you know, the more you are able. To men those separate entities. But, they (men) blend ability and desire. If there’s no desire, there’s no ability, because they can’t motivate themselves. If there’s no ability, there’s no desire, because why want something you can’t do. They’ve locked those together.

So, what have we created now, between the external universe and the internal universe? We’ve created a triangle; a triangle which says here is everybody looking at the universe as a space/time continuum — we all share that view, that’s the intrinsic one to us. Remember, we can learn other ways of looking at it, but that’s the intrinsic one, the one that operates with our own brain operating systems. That’s the commonalty between male and female minds as we see space and time blended together. However, when we look at our own inner minds, we can clearly see that there are two separate species– the male mind or space operating system, or the female mind — temporal brain operating system. And as a result of these two minds, we’ve created a triangle now.

But, as we know in mental relativity, everything is in a quad. And what’s the missing piece? The missing piece is when we start applying Mental Relativity of the objective view of subjectivity, and use the objective view of objectivity in Einstein’s universe. And the moment we do that, is when we have to then split space and time; (on the other side of this tape) looking at wave length and frequency to see what’s really going on, realizing there’s the sine and the co-sine, realizing that there is anti-mass, and negative space and disenergy and reverse time and realizing that those things do not exist independently.

Mental Relativity Notes | Tendency and Probability

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.


A new insight into the difference between tendency and probability: We are looking at holistic systems. We would be looking at two concepts. Either a series of points that are connected by some kind of relationship or glue as it were, or a series of foci in which (like gravitational fields) a number of points exist at which gravitation is at a max but not one single point, many points spread about. And their influence is felt to some degree, holistically all the way across the space in between.

These two views – of gravitational pulls that focus at a particular point, or have their greatest intensity at a particular point, and then spread out at all directions, influencing with their ripples, as it were, all the way to the edges of the closed system, as opposed to a number of individual points that do not influence anything at all in their existence and are merely connected by some kind of relationship or process at work that involves both of them – these two views are both present.

The particulate view which would look at, for example, an asteroid, every speck of material as being something that exerts an influence on other pieces – an influence in terms of if one smashes into another, it can transmit some of it’s energy to the other one, which would then continue barreling off through space and smash into something else.

When we look at the aspect of interconnectedness and a holistic closed system, such as astrophysics, we would find that the particulate or spatial way of appreciating it would look at the billiard ball effect, of one thing ramming into another, and transferring force which is a vector containing both direction and degree. So, vector science is going to be a particulate appreciation.

However, the appreciation of the gravitational wells, as they were, the gravitational pools that exist within the universe, those are the tendency appreciation. Now, what’s the difference between tendency and probability in relationship to this? In terms of probability, we are looking at items that are particulate in nature: defined, spatial points, vectors, and we are saying that each one of these particular points, some of them will have an effect, and some of them won’t. Meaning that it’s a binary situation that exists, a digital situation, in which something is either a zero or a one, and we can say that a close call doesn’t mean anything.

The old expression that close is only good in horse shoes is equally applied to astrophysics when you are looking at a particulate or vector view, a spatial view. At that point, what is close has absolutely no effect, because even if an asteroid comes within fractions of an inch of another asteroid, but they do not actually touch, there’s going to be no interaction at the vector or particulate level, because no energy will be transmitted by that means, via direct contact. In other words, it’s still a zero until it touches, and then it’s a one.

Now the difference between the two, what bridges the gap between a zero and a one. How can we say that something is closer and ever closer and ever closer? Because there’s a second force at work, which is the tendency part of it. Rather than saying here’s a particulate view dealing with vectors and absolutely touching one piece to another as in billiard playing, we look at gravitational fields much more like magnets where you can say that the closer two magnets get to each other, the more of an influence they will have on each other, without actually touching. Now, the key to all this, is that both forces are at work at the same time.

Now, the error in the way that Einstein was looking at relativity was that he was combining the two and saying that they are intrinsically connected. In other words, whenever you see an item of mass in the Universe, it is producing a gravitational field that is warping space and that’s the second part of the same force. In other words, there is a single event that occurs which is the existence of an item. And by existing, it warps space, creating this gravitational force. That’s a very causal relationship, even if you look at it as being non-causal, more holistic and seeing the two exist simultaneously, there still connected in so far as Einstein’s theory would allow.

This is because he is looking at the universe from an inside perspective; a subjective view in which only three things are possible. You look at energy, you look at mass, and you look at Space/Time. You cannot see space and time as being independent. This is the same problem we have when we look at the speed of light as being a constant. It’s only a constant because the two aspects of the speed of light, speed being both space crossed and the time that it takes to cross it, those two items are held together, bounded together, locked together as a view saying that when one goes up, the other one goes down, and in direct proportion — meaning that it appears to be a constant.

In fact, it’s really wavelength vs. frequency. The wavelength of light times the frequency of light. Frequency is an estimation of speed based on time. It says how often you see a complete cycle. Whereas wavelength is an estimation of speed based on space. Where you are saying how long is this cycle? So, because space and time are bonded together in space/time in Einstein’s relativity, we end up unable to separate them, which then results naturally in the assumption that any particle that exists in nature, will be associated with a specific gravitational effect that is intrinsic to that item, but it’s really not intrinsic.

When we look at the difference in Mental Relativity between probability and tendency theory. In tendency, again, we’re going to say here is the gravitational part of the argument. The gravitational part says that when two asteroids pass close to each other, even if they are on opposite sides of the universe, they are going to be having an impact because of their gravitational effect, which is holistic, and as predicted by Mental Relativity, is not something that exists as waves that ripple out; at least not from a spatial perspective.

From a spatial perspective, it’s only going to be perceived as a force that is synchronously applied all throughout the universe. In other words, it doesn’t take any amount of time for gravity from a particle that comes into existence out of energy. For example, if we were to create fusion, and create a particle that’s heavier than the particle that existed before. When we do that, that new particle, that extra mass that has been added at a particular point in space is immediately going to have an impact on the far side of the universe. It doesn’t take a billion years to get over there. It seems instantaneous from a spatial perspective.

In reality, if we look at it from a temporal perspective, we are going to see that this particular effect does appear as waves, but only as waves in terms of time; in terms of frequency, not in terms of wave length, not in terms of space. So, when these two asteroids pass in space, even if they don’t connect directly and have a vector impact, or spatial impact on each other, they do have a gravitational impact, and that occurs all the time, not just when they get close. It accentuates when they get close, and if we look at the mathematical curve of this particular relationship, we are going to see that as they approach each other, the greatest distance is passed between them, with no appreciable increase, it’s very, very small. But, we end up with a hyperbolic approach of a limit line, when we get in closer proximity. And in fact, it gets to the point where the gravitational effect between the two particles reaches the point that when they actually connect and touch each other, they become a single particle as far as the gravitational field. The fields merge because they can no longer be identified as separate. That’s the magic moment, when it switches over from a gravitational effect in temporal universe to vector effect or linear effect in a spatial universe.

In other words, there’s no effect at all — zero effect of transmitting force from one particle to another as long as they are separate. But, as long as they are separate, there are separate gravitational effects they have upon each other in a sense of holism, of synchronous holism. As soon as they get close enough that this limit line is being approached, and they actually touch each other, then the limit line has been breached. They are now on the other side and essentially there’s a straight line coming down the middle, and from the left moving towards the middle, is a hyperbolic curve approaching that limit line, that vertical limit line from one particle.

On the other side, coming from the right towards the center is a gravitational effect approaching that limit line from the other side. And when the two actually touch, then at that point they actually reach the limit line, it becomes a straight line — straight line instead of a hyperbolic curve. And it describes then instead of a gravitational relationship between the two, there is a particulate relationship between the two, dealing with the transfer of energy or power from one to the other — a vector transfer. So, the two exist simultaneously in terms of their potential, but in terms of their actuality, only one of them can exist at a time, and it’s the switching back and forth between the temporal and spatial perspectives; between the tendency and the probability, that creates the flip of the binary switch; going from spectral appreciation, to analog appreciation.

Now, in terms of probability and tendency and the more common usage of looking at likelihood — likelihood, again blends two concepts. And these two concepts that we are talking about are when you say, “what’s the probability of any given interaction between a number of pieces and a number of other pieces?” You’re saying that some will be interacting, and some won’t be interacting. In other words, it’s definitely a binary situation, a zero or a one. You’re going to say out of one hundred pieces, 85 will be in a particular state. Well, that’s a probability. It’s saying it doesn’t matter which one, 85 will be in that state, and the other 15 of the hundred will not be in that state. And because of that you are saying essentially those 15 are not participants, because they are not in the state that you desired, they may be zeros. And the one’s would all be the 85, 85% probability — that would be a way of looking at those that actually are going to interact. But, there is no specificity as to which ones will interact, and which ones won’t. In fact, it really doesn’t matter, that appears to be the realm of chaos in a vector appreciation of things. We can’t tell which ones will interact, and which one’s won’t interact. That’s one way of looking at likelihood.

But, there’s a second way of looking at likelihood which is the temporal perspective. And in terms of that dealing with tendency theory, we’re saying that each one of these items has perhaps 85% of it’s force is attracted to something, and 15% of it’s force is repulsive to something. Meaning that overall, there is a tendency to try to become part of that one state out of the zero state that is 85 compared to 15 factors at force that are repelling or against transmuting it’s state. That is a little different view, because instead of saying that everything is either a zero or a one, this says that everything has a tendency to be a one, 85% of the time. So, looking at that view, we can say that every single particle out there has a tendency towards something, and a tendency away from something. And if you say the tendency of these items can be grouped as having the same tendency, then they can be classified as the same thing. If they have different tendencies, they are not the same thing.

So, likelihood and chaos in a temporal sense, have to move into a different place to hide, because we’re illuminating in a different area, by looking at this different appreciation of likelihood. In other words, we can’t just say that chaos is which ones will do what, because that is the spatial view. In this one, chaos, for this particular one — will it or won’t it? So, we move down to looking at the particulate nature because we are looking at the relationship of tendency; the gravitational field among all of them. Whereas, when we look at the particulate view of the holism then we are going to look at the temporal sense of how many within a given amount of time are going to be in one state or another at any given point in time. So, in other words, when we take a temporal view, we end up with spatial chaos. When we take a spatial view, we end up with temporal chaos.

Now, that leads us right back to the relativity again, meaning that in order to fully understand what’s going on in astrophysics, we have to look at wave length and frequency as separate, and we have to realize that the frequency can change, without affecting the wavelength. And for the frequency to change without affecting the wave length requires that the speed of light not be a constant. The only way the speed of light cannot be a constant, is if we separate the spatial and the temporal sides and say that energy and mass are also involved, so that when we are looking at energy and mass in relationship to space and time, when time goes up, if space does not change to go down, then the compensation must be made up elsewhere, in terms of energy and mass. In other words, energy and mass do not merely transmute one to another, as Einstein said, with the speed of light being a constant. But, in fact, time, space, mass, and energy all transmute between each other, but we are only going to be able to observe two of them, because we are standing on the other two to measure that, when we are looking at the universe from the inside.

Because of the way our species is made up, we share a commonalty of being able to look at space time as our measuring stick and watch what happens to energy and mass measured against space-time. Therefore, we are going to see changes in energy and mass, and we are not going to be able to watch the differing relationship between space and time, because one goes up and the other one appears to go down. They appear to be locked on a teeter-totter, and there is no way that both can go up or both can go down.

Mental Relativity Notes | August 26, 1994

This is a raw, unedited transcription of one 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.

Alas, there are misinterpreted words, misplaced punctuation and so on, though it was a horrible task to give someone and she did a magnificent job under the circumstances.

Here’s the transcript for the record:

August 26, 1994.  Some thoughts that go down to the variation level of working out personal problems.  In our early days of dealing with mental relativity, Chris and I, established a group of four concepts, that later became the first four variations and after that we then changed them completely by name.  We’ll probably be coming back to these variations, as being the central core for alter ego.  So –?– –?– and talk about how they become involved in the emotional side of personal problem solving.  These four variations are can, need, want, and should.  Originally we believed can was just what you were able to do, later we realized that can meant ability limited by outside concerns.  For example, permission other pressures from other people, rather than just saying here is my natural ability, we say we can, outside influences are considered rather than just inside potential.  When we look at need, need or everybody thinks we need something that’s it, you need it and there is no two ways about it.

                Need depends on what your motivations are.  For example, you would say, somebody needs air to breath, well if someone is trying to commit suicide by suffocating themselves, the last thing they need is air to breath.  It depends on what you need to do, as to what you need.  So even the needing food and water, that’s the last thing a person needs if they are trying to go on a hunger strike.  For example, when we talk about can, need, want; want we use to think was desire, but in fact want is the lacking form of desire.  Want means to lack, and so were as desire says things are great, but here is something that could be even better, want means things are terrible until I get this, I want to be able to enjoy myself.  That’s why want works very closely with need, and you end up with want need people, that say I need this because I want it and unless I get it I won’t be happy.                Then  you end up with the fourth aspect which is should, and just as want and need go together, can and should go together because can is one of the outside influences and should is the pressure that does the limiting; so you have, can and should, and want and need.  Other combinations are there too, like can need people and want should people, each one of these different relationships creates a different kind of pairing.  When you end up with can, need and  want, should, then you’re dealing with dynamic pairs essentially and when you end up with want, need and can, should , then you are dealing with dependent pare relationships and the other combinations of need should can want, that’s dealing with companion pair relationships.  When someone can do something and somebody else wants to do something, or somebody wants something and someone else can do it, well then you end up with a companion relationship, were they are working in tandem, the by product of each are beneficial to the other.  Need and should has the same kind of relationship,  those are positive aspects. 

                Now remember, we talked about when men and women look at the four kinds of pairs; dynamic, companion, dependent, and component.  When we look at those four kinds of relationships, men are going to say one is positive and one is negative of each of the pairs.  Now that is primarily because they are looking at the logical. rational side.  In fact, if women look at the rational side, look at the reasons why, they will also see that one is positive and one is negative.  So when you are using a reason to try and measure things, you’re going to want to find a way of evaluating the object of your concern, in terms of finding dynamic pairs and evaluating which pair is positive and which is negative.  So you can take any quad of items and say if these four things are what  is intrinsic to this particular object of our evaluation, then this dynamic pair seems positive that means this one is negative, or if I say this one as negative then this one would be positive if I could get it going, same thing for companion, dependent, or component pairs. 

                Now if you’re looking at it emotionally, which is were women intrinsically would look at evaluating, evaluate in terms of their emotions, or if men get to the point were they look at it rationally and then decide to look at it emotionally, then you are going to see where out of the four kinds of pairs, one of them is going to appear to be completely positive and one of , both pairs will appear to be completely negative, in one of them one will be positive and one will be negative, and in the other one the reverse pattern.  Now how do ;you  get reverse pattern, well quite simply everything in this –?– system is based on –?–, and as a result anything that emanates from the –?– position, is not only considered default position of positive, however just as likely it could be negative but that is not consistent with the culture in which we live.  However, regardless of whether it is seen as positive or negative there is a triumvered of pairs that animate through the K position, so that we have one of them comes as the dependent pair, one of them comes as the dynamic pair, one of them comes as the companion pair, all three of them splay out of the K position.  Meaning that if you say in one appreciation of a companion pair is positive and the other companion pair, the co-companion pair is negative, then if you say that another quad has the reverse relationship, that means that whatever the one that came out of the K was, of that companion pair, it was positive.  For example, then if you go into dynamic pairs and it is a reverse relationship, then the one that comes out of the K will be seen as negative.  Now this has to be drawn to be really appreciated, and once you’ve drawn it then it is quite easy to see.  So at this point, in document it would be nice if we could put in four little boxes with quads and I can just sketch in the relationships as I’ve described them here, with the dynamic, companion, dependent and component pairing.

                Now, I’m going to look at this system, we get into the –?– the one that should, and in fact, from the position I’m looking now which is the subjective one, I can line up can, need, want, and should, with the four kinds of pairing.  I can say that when I look at dynamic pairs, I’m dealing with can because can comes out of ability minus limitations and the dynamic pairs are dealing with battling heads against somebody else, battling against them.  One of the pairs measures, when the two of you come together you loose nothing of yourselves and yet create something greater outside of yourselves, that is synthesis, that’s the positive dynamic pair.  However, that is limited by the other dynamic pair which represents when the two of you but heads against each other, you eliminate your own potential, until no potential is left.  ————–?———————is wonderfully positive and wonderfully negative, but when you’re trying to consider what you can do, it’s the combination of these two forces, one that creates the synthesis outside yourself at no cost and one that is nothing but cost and as you put the two together ultimately it creates this can scenario, what can you do well it is the amount that you can create by pushing against somebody minus the cost you have to pay in lost potential.  So there is an equation here for Valentine to start working on, in terms of describing dynamic pair as being can, psychologically ——-?——-.  If that is the case, then want, where would you find want, in terms of the companion pairs we would find want because you see, in a companion pair I lack something and this companion provides this as a by product, or I do not want something and this companion pair provides it that I don’t want.  In other words companion pairs operate by having someone along on a particular course that does not directly intersect yours, but when you are near them you are to get positive or negative fall out.  If you get the positive fall out, they will provide things that they emanate or that they just don’t want, that they leave in a way that are useful to you.  I you are in a negative companion relationship, they keep dumping junk on you and you get stuck with it and you don’t really want it.  So the question of want is, I want or I don’t want, that means you are attracted or repelled from this relationship because it gives you positive fall out or negative fall out.  In other words, this is another way of assessing cost and dividends,  you look at cost and dividends as being attached to that.  I don’t know what attached to dynamic pairs out of our story terms, but certainly cost and dividends would be attached to the companion relationship.

                Now we go on to the, we’ve done the can and we’ve done the want, now lets do the need.  Need is when you go to dependent pairs and dependent pairs you need because either is a positive need, where if we are to do something that is outside of ourselves we can join forces to became greater than we are separately.  This is different for dynamic relationships that creates synthesis because in synthesis you are directly opposed to the person that you are synthesizing with and from that, it sparks some sideways lateral motion, you but heads and because of that it creates sparks light a positive fire or light a candle as it were.  In the negative dynamic relationship, you but heads to create sparks and burn yourself down. 

                When we go to the dependent relationship, that’s more like saying brain and braun, two come together and between them they act as a complimentary relationship and can more than either one could do separately.  Then we go to the negative dependent relationship, where each one is nothing without the other, meaning as matter of context always, each one of these are contextualy examples that would turn it positive or that would turn it negative. So when we look at the dependent pairs, we’re going to say or actually I’d guess you’d have to say, the greatest view of context, the greatest focus of context would be occurring at the dependent relationship even though context effects them all.  It is harder to see in dynamic pairs and companion ones, than it is to see in the dependent relationship were it seems more apparent, at least to me.  Now this may be culturally bias or a female perspective bias or a personal bias, but it seems that is were context would go in any event.  When we require each other or we are nothing, when for the task at hand or for our own happiness, we can not be happy unless the other person is with us, then we find ourselves in a negative dependent relationship, meaning that we are always at risk of becoming nothing because the other person may not always be there, that negative dependent relationship is always dealing with need, we have a negative need.  Now the concept of negative need and positive need is one that is pretty foreign to us, our culture, but the positive need is when you say, “Oh look wouldn’t it be nice if I went to Yosemite, well I have money for gas and I have a friend who has a car who has no money.  I will give this friend who has a car my money for gas, I’ll buy the gas, they’ll supply the car, the three of us will go off we’ll have a good time at Yosemite,” and that works.

                 Now the negative dependent relationship is when two people, or when a person feels they cannot live without the other one.  In that case, it is like in a marriage, where I can not get by without you, or it’s more of a, it’s beyond a symbiotic relationship.  A symbiotic relationship is one in which two friends help each other, but when you actually combine the two, so that without one the other can’t exist.  Much like I guess where people breathe out carbon dioxide and trees breathe out oxygen with out both of them co-existing, than neither one can exist, they are required to both to be providing something to the other one, for the other one to continue or for the other one to be whole.  In other words, some source of carbon dioxide needs to come out for trees to live, some source of oxygen needs to be out there for people to live.  And if you look at it as an open system, where there is unlimited oxygen and unlimited carbon dioxide, then certainly that isn’t a problem and that is the way society traditionally looked at it, but when you begin to look at the close environment of the earth’s atmosphere, when you have people who many of them able to do things like destroy the plankton, or missurface the ocean with oil slicks, and chop down the rain forest, all of  a sudden there is enough of an impact, that the relationship between people and plants, and this in terms of the oxygen – carbon dioxide relationship, becomes a dependent one. and that I think is what is happening in ecology, that they are missing the point, they are trying to say that this has always existed, we’ve always been dependent, we’ve always been interdependent in that sense co-dependent , that’s not really true. There were plenty and plenty of plants that ultimately we were dependent on them, but it never went the other way around were they dependent on us, they had enough carbon dioxide in the initial atmosphere of the young planet to be able to grow.  The plants could do just fine but there was no oxygen, when they provided oxygen that was what was needed  in order for human kind to come to exist.  However, once human kind comes time to exist because of the continued evolution of the plant, they say that seeds ——?—-, kind of like that concept of plants arranging ———?——— and the reason for this, is that they eventually would have used up all of the free carbon  dioxide and been in a –?– atmosphere of pure oxygen and they could not have existed.  However, human kind came through so in a sense by creating the oxygen they –?– a new species, an animal species that could then create the other resource and that was essentially the dependent relationship.  So they went from being completely independent until the resources ran out, to be co-dependent, and once they were co-dependent that means they could not exist without us and in truth because we were created out of that kind of made already closed system.  Initially there was an abundant, over abundance of oxygen of us to breathe that as we began to expand ourselves just like the trees and the plants expanded, we began to use up that limited supply on the earth.  At that point we need to reach an equilibrium between the two of us because anymore loss of plants begins to loose the oxygen we need to breath, we don’t want to tear down anymore plant life, we actually want to encourage and add a little more carbon dioxide to the system by our breathing, have them add a little more oxygen, we need to start the balance between the two.  So that is why the negative dependent relationship is, and so negative dependent relationship describe need of one sort or another.  If we want to so something –?– OK, than we will go on and we will say this is what I, how I can make a deal with somebody.  Say I’ll give you this, if you give me that and together we can both get what we want.  Sometimes it’s the same thing we both want and sometimes it’s different things, that is the nature of business.  The negative dependent relationship is to say I cannot survive without what you have, so if you have something and it is just a simple one sided negative dependent relationship than somebody can charge any price they want because it doesn’t matter if they sell it or not, they don’t need the money.  Therefore, they’re not in that position were they have to sell it and you have to by it and you strike a deal.  –?– in terms of business, in terms of a dependent relationship, that is were shysters and hustlers work, that is where they put their effort in, is to find people who’s needs are so negatively dependent that they must pay any price for what you want, or they must sell at whatever price they are willing to pay because they need whatever money they can get.  That is the nature of taking advantage of someone but for the moment let’s talk about a relationship were just it is equal on both sides, and both need what the other has or they will die.  A simple –?– in

–?– and that is called a win-win scenario. Another win-win scenario is when you have a positive dependent relationship in which each contributes part of what is there needed on the outside to create something greater, like brain and braun, that is now dealing in the area as we said of need. 

                We come to the final kind of pairing, which is the pairing correspondent to should, the concept of should.  Now what is should?  Should has the tendency to make us feel these –?– judgments, is where our conscious gets us.  Basically, if we do not fallow through on this particular path we will pay for it later or we will pay for it in other ways that are not directly related to not following that path, if we fallow a path we are not suppose too, it will create something that will come back to haunt us.  The reason we can look at this is because when we look at the component relationship there are either four individuals in a quad that are not related to each other, or there is an umbrella over them that defines them as a group.  When we get to male thinking , male thinking can go so far as to perceive that as being the elemental nature of things in the field in which they exist.  In other words, when a left minded science, K-based science comes down and looks into the universe as deeply as it can, it says these distinct particles that make it up that have no relationship directly between each other and an overall field that connects across them, connects them, and that field then, that magical field defines them as somehow being related.  So that when something happens to one, it correspondedly happens to another or perhaps the inverse happens to another.  In other words, if you push this one positively, the other will move negatively.  While in fact, that is how all of the pair relationship are created.  When  you push on a dynamic pair, the question is when you push one up does the other one go down, like a teeter-totter or a sew-saw.  Or does it work so that if one goes up the other one goes up, like two sides of a platform for a window washer, when one goes up the other one goes up, when one goes down the other one goes down.  Both work like when one goes up the other one could go up or down, it doesn’t matter, like two elevators side by side.  All of those are the three kinds of relationships, the dynamic pair of relationship is when one goes up the other one goes down.  The companion pair relationship is when one goes up the other one goes up, or when it goes down the other one goes down.  And the dependent relationship is, gosh I can’t even figure that one out, so the analogy that I have of the elevators, seems more like the component relationship of the independently views.  So there seems to be some missing areas there in the analogy, meaning that who ever is looking at this and reading it, can now supply those hopefully and use the elevator concept of when one goes up and down it doesn’t effect anything else, that’s the independent relationship of the component.  But  when you have the fact that they are all for moving people up and down, that’s kind of like the field, meaning that if one is going up because people at the top floor have determined that they need an elevator, then it is the people that are waiting at the bottom floor that are seeing that elevator go up that will perhaps call the other one up or down depending on it’s position, which would not have happened had the first one not gone up or down, because if the first one had come down then the people at bottom would wait for it. And so that kind of relationship I guess is describing the component relationship, then we end up with dependent relationship and I haven’t go an analogy for that one.  So use those analogies as marked and we’ll all of us try to come up with a class project with the interns, an analogy for the dependent relationship, positive and negative.  In any event, we –?– the component relationship and that is should because as we see, when an individual event  happens as in the elevator example, what that means is that there is no direct impact from one elevator on the other.  When you use one elevator it does not force the other one to go up or down directly, in fact it’s the calling of the people that are using the elevator that effect what happens on one and in response to what happens in the other.  The people the become the field, they become the over view and when we look at our model, if we are looking at elements for example a being four little elevators, then if we look at the variations that’s on top of them, that becomes the field that connects them all.  So when we’re dealing with should, which is if we do this thing, will it have an holistic impact that is positive or will it have a holistic impact that is negative.  That is the question that we are asking ourselves, are we going to have to pay a price later?  Or are we going to be able to say that it reflects back upon us from a field ultimately as being a positive thing?  So we are either going to do well or not do well, but because it is impossible for us to accurately predict what it is going to be like in terms of response, we can only go by our experiences, our knowledge of the interconnections of things, the interconnectedness, which is not the some thing as field.  That’s like saying, well ever time in the past at ten o’clock in the morning, whenever we saw this elevator go up this other one always came down because perhaps the night before the elevators were put in a resting position and in the morning certain conventions are going in and out, or people going to business or something and as a result of the patterns of the flow of people and business, you can anticipate that, that kind of impact you see, you don’t know why it happens, but you just know that at this time you always see this.  When this, also that, the two always occur together.  Then if one of the businesses goes out of the building it can upset the whole scheme, it can throw one event that you have anticipated out of –?– or throw all of them out of –?–or anything in-between. 

                That’s why it is always risky to deny something because we think it might have a negative impact, or risky to something because we think we can have a positive or get out of a negative impact, or we won’t be impacted by it.  That comes down to the phrase that I have written before that says, never count on inertia, never depend on change, meaning don’t ever put all of your, hang all of your, I guess what it really means is, don’t  ever become negatively dependent upon inertia or change because if you become negatively dependent on inertia or change, then if you assume things will always be the way they were, and you –?– on that, the rug can be pulled out from under your feet, when something completely unexpectedly happens out in left field, forces beyond your consideration which appear to be chaotic, they are only chaotic because you have not considered them. When you have the change don’t hang everything on the fact that things are going to change just because you see all the signs pointing to change, but every time you’ve seen these signs before change didn’t happen because there may be some extenuating circumstances that put a –?– on the whole thing and change –?–.  So that’s an interesting concept that has now occurred, I’ve taken the concept of a dependent relationship and applied it to a component relationship.  In other words, I’ve formed one of the initial steps of processing, which is to compare two kinds of pairs and from that has come essentially a proverbial phrase.  I think we’ll probably find if we take a penny saved is a penny earned , and such things as that we’ll find that all of these proverbs, probably re simply one kind of pairing applied to another kind of pairing.  Now this is important for Valentine and the work that he is doing, is that the pairing that we create by virtue of applying one pair to another, the relationship created has an impact that creates the synthesis.  So in a sense, we’re saying by using a dependent pair and applying it to a component set of pairs, we end up creating a dynamic pair or a companion pair but not both.  In other words, we’re going to stand on one of those and evaluate the others, we might be standing here on a, lets see we apply the dynamic pair of never count on inertia, never depend on change, we apply the dependent  pair relationship that we have here to the component, now what do we get, we get a dynamic pair relationship out of that.  So that means we are standing on a companion pair to view it and that is the way some of these equations are going to work conceptually on the –?– side, is that when we stand on one view point, one kind of pair, one kind of evaluation, to take another evaluation pull it against a third evaluation and synthesis a four evaluation, and that’s the way the system works subjectively.  Objectively, we always say, that what you do is we look at this –?–, we look down like the game of twister with these big dots and we see four dots that describe a –?– and we say here’s dot one, two, three, four, initially somebody is standing on dot one, they have one view of two, three, and four.  Then they jump to dot two and when they do, they now will get no more view of dot number two ——–?——-, they just have one view because now standing on it.  But then they see dot number one, where they were standing for the first time so there is a single view of that.  When they see a single view of that, then they are seeing a double view of dot three and four because they’ve seen that from one and also seen it from two and as a result they’ve created a parallax between their view of two and their view of four, each one has a parallax on it, so they get kind of a three dimensional triangulation.  In a sense, that is saying first we look at in from space then we look at it from time, and as we jump from space to time then we end up seeing the views of these two things and we create a good knowledge of dot two, a good knowledge of dot four but we only have one view of one, and a good knowledge of three and a good knowledge of dot four because each had two views, we only have one view of one and one view of two because we were standing on each on alternately and only had one opportunity to view.  Because of this, we then synthesis by blending those two views together and say let’s compare our one view of one to our one view of two and we will end up with looking at three things, we’ll look at four each with a double view then we’ll look at the synthesis of the single view of one and the single view of two.  This is how we blend things together to make something like E = MC (squared), were it is really energy equals mass times the speed of light, constant squared , the speed of light constant is really space times time.  Because our minds our setup that we jump between space and time and are thinking, the spatial sense and the temporal sense as a result of influence –?– or –?–, that the level of the ganglia that creates then a back and forth movement between space ant time were we jump from one to the other to evaluate mass and energy.  And as such we blend space and time together, into something we call space time continuum, who are not really tied together except by virtue of our own observation, that’s why we see things sometimes as particles and sometimes as waves is that for different context, we will be looking from space or looking from time at viewing what we are doing.  We can never look from them both at the same moment and depending on whether we are looking at something that is unchanging and we view it from space and from time, then we see it as a particle.  If during the time we’ve left between the two perspectives the sensory input has altered, then we see it as being two different things and when we get a difference between the two we see it as a wave.  So things that remain consistent during the scope of our observation, –?– the cycle of our observation appear to be particles and those things that are inconsistent during the cycle of our observation appear to be waves.  All that is generated, there are no particles, there are no waves they’re only when we jump between space and time, the conclusion we come to through synthesizing the single view of space, the single view of time and seeing if things have changed or not, that determines whether it stays at a particle or wave. 

                So all of these interconnected concepts are really beginning to gel in terms of the equations that we can draw by applying one pair to another, that objected view as we look down gives us a great understanding but there is also subjective view which is what we want more for alter ego.  Subjective view of jumping around and taking a look at things, when we jump around and take a look at things we simply see a three dimensional world, we don’t see that we are missing a part of a four dimensional world.  We see three dimensions and one of them is going to be a continuum, like space time continuum, when we’re looking outside.  When we are looking inside, we create a different kind of appreciation internally, in so far as, as we write these equations and applying one kind of pairing to another kind of pairing, we don’t consider the one we are standing on at all.  In other words, from an  internal perspective a more valid analogy would be to say, that we stand on one of the four points and see the other three, we don’t see ourselves as jumping around.  This is the old relativistic argument, that whether you are sitting on the train or whether you are standing at the station watching the train go by, it’s –?– observers –?–.  If you are looking at something from the outside, you can see the person jumping back and fourth, you can see them moving from place to place and arriving to a conclusion.  They themselves appear to be standing still because from the inside all they see is that they are looking at three different things and they don’t realize that they are standing  on another one, but even if they do, they only see themselves as standing on this, this is what I am evaluating by.  In other words, of the four character considerations with motivations, methodology, purposes, and evaluations, you can only see three of them at one time, only three of them will be visible at one time, only three of them will be visible and the fourth one will  not be visible.  You can only consider three at a time, if you try to think about your motivation, methodology, and purpose, you can grasp that but trying to think about your evaluations at the same time, you can’t because you’re are using your evaluations to consider those.  When you’re looking at how you evaluate things and the methodology that you use and your purposes and your questioning those, you’re questioning those from the stand point of your motivation, how motivated am I in terms of, to evaluate, how motivated am I to use this method, how motivated am I to achieve that purpose, you don’t see the motivations at the same time, they are what you are using as your standard of measurement.  So evaluation itself is not the only standard of measurement, that’s the standard by which you see how the other three work together but when you see how you feel about it, then anyone of the points is what you are evaluating from and you can even evaluate your evaluations.  You can have your evaluations evaluated from three different perspectives, from purpose, from motivation, and from methodology, each of those will be looking at evaluation as a part of the set, only when you are standing on your evaluation do you not see them.  So this creates two different patterns that can be seen within a quad,  one of the patterns is the splayed out vision that we talked about before, where you take K for example and have a dynamic pair that goes from upper left to lower right, a companion pair that goes from upper left to upper right, and a dependent pair that goes from upper left to lower left, those three kinds of pairs splay out and that’s an open system.  Then you have the view from the inside, when you are standing at one place looking at looking at three things, you stand on K and as you stand on K you look over and see the dynamic pair that goes from the upper right to the lower left, the dependent pair that goes from the upper right to the lower right and the companion pair that goes from the lower left to the lower right, now the difference is when you look at it from that way, there is no common emanating point, it creates a triangle and because it creates a triangle, there isn’t one single place from which all three things come out.  Each one of those corners that we are dealing with has two vectors that come out of it, when we are dealing with the view of K splaying out in three directions that is the objective view from the outside view of looking at things, looking at things externally and when we do we see them splaying out.  That splaying out position, that goes out one direction, out the other direction and out in another direction, that creates the essential pattern of were men are coming from, that leads to induction and it leads deduction because it either draws it all into a point in deduction or takes a point and it arranges it in all possible directions which is induction.  However, when you’re dealing from the female perspective that’s the intrinsic one, when you’re looking at it from the inside subjectively and you see a triangle, a closed system, a wholism in which there isn’t any particular point that is more important than any other, it’s the way the whole shebang hangs together.  That view is the emotional view and the rational view, logical view is the splayed out view.  The relationship between the two is a relationship between space and time, the spatial view is the one dealing with the K, the temporal view is the one dealing with the triangle.  The splayed, the spatial, and the triangle and the temporal, and as  a result of it the spatial view forms a –?– linearity, the linearity that is created by male thinking is to take the subjective view of seeing all these things connected to a  point and then find the best way to get from one point to another.  If you go from the K over to the A and then back to the K and then over to the P and then back to the K and then over to the D, you have to make six trips totally because you’re going up three lines in both directions,. and that forms a from of linearity always touching back to the same basic point.  Another type of logic that men use, which is the third of the fourth steps that they can get, is to take one short cut, the short cut they can take is to go from K over to A and since they’ve already seen K they assume it hasn’t changed, so they go from K to A and the go from A to down to P and then over to D, which forms a linearity ,and that linear form of logic which is different than induction or deduction then touching all those points assuming that K has not changed since you left.  The danger of course is, that if something has happened to K than you are not going to see it happen while you make this journey, but since men are dealing with them spatially, they deal with looking at things in the particle nature and therefore it is there assumption from that bias that K will not change  during the duration  from your jumping from point, to point, to point, that is why they believe linear logical is true, that only holds true depending on the duration it takes to make that journey and the longer it takes to get around that circle, the more dangers they run into because the more opportunity for chaos to strike and K to change.

                I’ve done the male model for moving around and creating a linear logic out of a splayed view.  However, I haven’t worked out the one for the female model yet, which is not surprising because that’s my own operating system and as a result of it, I cannot see it clearly because that’s exactly were I live.  So perhaps another job for Valentine, is to take the concepts that have been developed in terms of the logic, or the representation, or the analogy of how male problem solving works and turn around and apply that to the triangular shaped appreciation of the female perspective from the internal view.  because again that is going to be something that is highly important to the alter ego program, that is understanding how that view develops from the just as the male view develops into the linear logical display position.  Where do we go from starting at a holistic triangular view from the female position, how do we turn that into something?  What is it that we turn it into?  That ruins the risk of inaccuracy, again it’s too close to home, so I can’t see it.

                Anyway that’s it for today, at least for now, and well I’ll play out some more later.

                A little later the same day, a few minutes later.  There is a concept that when you get married, you become one, the couple is no longer a couple they are one.  What that is looking at is the dependency, and essentially saying, that no longer are you independent, you are now co-dependent and as a result of becoming co-dependent you have become one.  Neither one exists without the other, each exists in the other.  The problem with that is that if one of them leaves or the other one dies, the one that is remaining is now nothing.  In other words, you’ve given up the opportunity to be a unique individual, self-sustaining individual because now you have said that I am now dependent on this person to define my existence.  And if the relationship breaks then the person left can no longer define themselves as anything, they have become nothing.  So they have given up their oneness for a greater oneness of which they are only a part, now that greater oneness falls apart they are left being nothing because they are not self-sustaining in and of themselves.  This particular understanding has got to be pretty good if you can apply it to broken relationships and the alter ego program. 

                And speaking of relationships there is the concept of when you are trying to meet somebody new, as I am going through right now, do you do something like sign up on a computer bulletin board?  Or go off to a place where singles gather and try and meet somebody?  In that case, what you’re really looking for, forget the dynamic relationship that is out of the question because you’re not looking for butting heads with anybody.  In fact, what you’re looking for is a dependent  relationship because your going to a place where you are trying to find someone who is needy, essentially either they need you to accomplish something else, like women might go to great expectations to look for a doctor or a lawyer so that they would have secure future.  Men might go to that same place looking for someone to provide them with emotional meaning in their lives.  And so each one is trying to provide some sense of the other, but in a dependent relationship were they are hoping it’s not a work relationship.  A work relationship would be were you are hiring somebody from a newspaper ad and saying anybody wants to come to work for us, should come to work for us and come out and apply, and if this person has appropriate skills that we can use we’ll hire them, but it has nothing to do with whether that person is going to be emotionally compatible with the company, that is usually ignored.  One of the things that I always do when I’m hiring is, I first look at the emotional compatibility and if that matches, I would rather have someone trained in the skills and start with the emotional capacity, then have somebody that already has the skills but can not change there emotions.  Because in our society, emotions the way you feel about things are very hard to change predictably because of our cultural biases.  However, getting back to the dating scene, if you go into a bar, if go to a computer bulletin board, if you go to a singles group, if you go to a dating service, your actually primarily looking for someone to become dependent with, either emotionally dependent or logistically dependent and the logistic side is business oriented, or like with women trying to feather their nest and for men in general are looking for the emotional support or it’s the personal level.  Those kinds of things then presuppose that if these two people come together and they depend on each other, they will grown to love each other in time, by finding common interest, developing new common interest, discovering new things  that they both like to do, things in which when one does one thing there is –?– to fall on to the other, so they will become companions over time.  But first they find love, well that’s what they said in Shannon –?–, it’s a war movie with Jimmy Stuart, as he said when a young man came to ask for his daughter’s hand, “when I married her mother I didn’t love her, I liked her but I didn’t love her.  However one morning after twenty years, I woke up and realized I loved her.”  Now that’s just the reverse of the way we’ve gotten in our society, where we say let’s love somebody first, love is so all important that we want to love them, then we will learn to be similar.  Which is what’s actually alluding to the incredible divorce rate that we have and the break up of couples, and the fact that marriage is no longer really an institution.  It’s not so much that society it’s self has changed, in terms of what it’s demands are upon us, but our societal perspective has changed to say that love is so fulfilling that it should be the initial bases for getting involved with someone and then find out if you have any compatibility.  Well obviously compatibility’s that existed before a marriage, more than likely came from some intrinsic in the people that were involved, so if you have certain interest of your own before you get into a relationship they probably won’t go away because you quote un quote “all consuming”.  In fact they will begin to grate on the other person, if you don’t like to go to bed at the same time, if you don’t like to listen to the same music, if you don’t enjoy the same comedians, if you don’t like to keep the house at a similar degree of cleanliness, all those things will grate because there is no compatibility but by God you found love, and yet after awhile, love is not enough.  And then you end up with incredible pain because you have to disassociate yourself from what in a long time goes from being a positive dependent relationship, where you create something were you both work together and have a working relationship within your home to a relationship in which you really care about the other person and because you define yourself in terms of them and without them you can’t understand who you are, and then you have to break that or suffer the fact that you are really incompatible at the companion level.  A much better way to go about that is to first approach the compatibility and say let me become involved in the Sierra Club and an outdoorsy person, then meet somebody else who is outdoorsy, let me become involved in doing charitable work because I’m into charity and I’ll meet somebody else who has that kind of heart. So you look for areas in which you are companions, positive companions relationships and then you go and try to form a dependency that is a positive one.  If that is the nature, you can be true to yourself  by still enjoying your interest and also finding that you are interested in what the other person is interested in, and from that you begin to grow together until you merger interests into one overall interest because as a matter of degree.  As we talk about the stories concerned and we see the difference between concern and goal is, when you talk about goal everybody that is their focus, this is the goal everybody concerned with the goal is saying that this is the most important thing out of all of their concerns; but when you are talking about the concern you are saying that this is something that we all share in common.  When you are looking at a relationship in terms of companion pairs, you are going to want to say is this something that is paramount to both of us, or is this something that I have an interest in that’s a minor interest but there’s is highly focused on that and that is not a problem unless their focus becomes so all consuming, in other words, they are so single purpose oriented that their interest takes over their entire life and they have no other interest.  Then unless you show that interest as being the primary one that you are interested in, you run into trouble and that is the nature of saying that the positive dependent relationship is when you are actually sharing the exact same interest as being the primary focus of your lives as couples who come together, who are a  preaching team husband and wife, or they are both archeologist or something, they focus themselves on a positive dependent relationship with a single interest. On the other hand, unless the degree of concern is nearly equal and one becomes all consuming in that concern then the other person feels all left out, like when the sea captain goes off to sea, the football widow and so on.  A wife may be mildly interested in football compared to her husband who is infatic about it, of course the reverse could be true but not as often in this culture.  Still under those conditions it is the degree of interest, not the fact that there is an interest.  The negative companion relationships are when there is a differing interest, where what is positive to one person is actually negative to the other one in terms of companion relationships.  Now the real  question arises is it negative because they actually are repelled by it, or the other kind of negativity where it’s that I don’t like your interest because even though I like that, I don’t like that much of it and it takes away attention and resources from where I would like them spent.  If you look at these four different ways of dealing with, first the positive and negative dependent relationships or the companion relationships, in terms of when somebody is focused verses when somebody has something in a more compatible level, when you both share a focus verses when one has a focus and the other does not and whether that is seen as positive or negative depending on whether there is positive or negative fall out because there is a negative interest or a positive interest.  Couples never hang together if somebody’s interest becomes all consuming, all focused in a particular object and the other person finds that to be a negative, in other words, they are repelled by the same thing.  You don’t have anything to talk about, you don’t have anything to communicate because what interest one person is absolutely bores to tears the other person.  If the other person shares a minor interest in it, then that minor interest tends to save things for awhile and the more the interest levels match not just what you’re interested in  but how interested you are in it, when those things match then you have great compatibility.  And so these test that are just asking about are you interested in this, that, and the other, that’s not good, when they start saying how important to you is this that’s better.  But the real question for getting together should be, do not try to go out and randomly form a dependent relationship, instead form a companion relationship that is a positive relationship in which your interest are of similar intensities, in similar areas and then you will find a lot to talk about and to do together and to enjoy each other company.                  Because when you are motivated through your own energy to go out and get a new book on the subject, the other person is thrilled because as soon as you’re finished with it they’ll want to read it.  If you’re motivated to decide to buy a new piece of equipment around the house, like a new television set or something, and the other person is really into watching television on go quality equipment, then they will benefit by virtue of  something you’ve been wanting to do.  There motivations do look for you to provide you with pleasure that you didn’t have to go out and get, and your motivations drive you to do things that you enjoy doing or you enjoy enough or are motivated enough to go out and do that will then bring benefit to the other person, so rather then saying let me see what do they like, they like this I will go out and make an effort to get this thing that they like that I don’t particularly like.  If you are cooking a meal that you could both enjoy eating it a lot, you would make it for yourself, if they weren’t enjoying it because you were enjoying it and yet you make that meal for the two of you because they enjoy it as well, there is much more fulfillment there for you because you put the effort into it and you would put it in just for yourself and then when there is also their –?– there it even adds to the pleasure of enjoying the meal and making it, and for them they get a meal made that they like to enjoy, that they get to enjoy and they don’t have to put that effort in to do it.  Another thing that happens is when somebody enjoys something and not enough to put in the motivation to go out and do it themselves, that if the person that they are married with enjoys it enough for them to put the effort into and do it then the other person gets to partake without having to actually put in the effort. And so since there is no catalyst there to help them over come the entropy of not wanting to do it because the cost are to great for them compared to the benefits, but they really like the benefits.  Then in that case, then the other person perhaps finds that the cost are pleasurable and aren’t cost at all and are dividends, then that person enjoys the dividends of doing the item, gets it accomplished and once it’s accomplished the other person shares the benefits without having to pay the cost.  This kind of relationship is a very good one.  But when you get into a should relationships in terms of components you begin thinking about the fact that, well if I do this thing that has cost associated to me by paying that price, it’s worth it because even though I wouldn’t pay that price to get this item because it’s not of big enough interest to me to warrant those cost.  The pleasure that the other person has at getting it, will be such that it will make me happier to see them happy, and therefore I will quote un quote “sacrifice” and put in these cost that are really not called for just on the bases of my own interest.  That sort of thing once and awhile will not really be detrimental but the more of it one does the more one finds themselves paying cost to make somebody else happy, and then you get into some very serious situations under which a relationship, if you find yourself co-dependent and that you require them for identifying yourself you cant break out of it even though you are now trapped into a routine of adding more and more cost to your life or sustaining cost.  And if you try to limit those cost and say I’m not going to this anymore, the other person comes to expect it as part of their dependency upon you and as such they feel that you are taking something away from them by no longer continuing to pay a cost to make them happy.

                So all of these intertwining relationships are going on, this only accounts for the relationships in our discussion today that were both people are looking at the relationship as being a companion relationship, or a dynamic relationship, or a dependent relationship. But it is quite clear that one person could see the relationship as a positive dynamic, while the other person sees it as a negative, and so that you actually have one person viewing it as a positive aspect of their life and the other person sees it as negative.  That is when you get people who are hangers on, they come to you because they not in dynamic pairs but in companion pairs because they like the fall out that you are creating, but they create negative fall out for you and so the impact of one person on the other is not the same in the reverse.  On  person creates a positive fall out for the second person, the second person creates negative fall out for the first, and as a result you end up with a relationships that cant exist but somebody is hounded by somebody else.  Then there’s even the more complex kind of relationship, where one sees it as companion and one sees it as dependent.  For example, the big brother trying to take his girl out on a date and the little brother that wants to tag along.  The little brother sees them as companions and the big brother sees the little brother as being dependent.  And as a result of that the concept of get a life comes from that, without me you are nothing, get a life of your own, I don’t want to provide that rule for you.  The other person says I have a life, it’s just I like being near you, okay they’re seeing it as companion.  Well if you actually look at the quad and you map a dependent relationship, and you map a companion relationship, no matter which way you map it, you create two sides of the square.  And the one thing that will connect that is the vector that goes from one open end to the other open end and creates the triangle, or that completes the pattern by going form the same nexus point and splaying out, either way you create a dynamic.  The dynamic that you create out of that is going to be positive or negative and essentially you have a relationship that has it’s internal logistics between the people, described by the vector that connects the two rays that they say the relationship.  If they both see the relationship as a positive companion one, then the relationship that exists between them is a positive companion relationship.  If they both see it as a negative companion, then the vector that connects the two goes along the exactly same line and its a negative companion relationship.  However, if you see it as different kinds of relationships, where as one sees it as dependent and one sees it as companion, then you end up creating a dynamic relationship between the two of them which could be positive or negative.  If you have one see it as a positive dependent relationship and one as a positive companion relationship, you end up with a positive dynamic relationship.  If you  have a negative companion relationship coupled with a negative dependent relationship that  turns into a positive dynamic relationship.  That is why two wrongs can make a right in a sense, the relationship between the people can be positive, even though each one sees it as negative.  Similarly if you have one see it as positive and one see it as negative it does not matter which is which, the result will be negative.  This can easily be plotted on a trigametric function just looking at which quadrants are seen as positive or negative.  And when we talk about the relationship between relationship, the analogy that the dynamic and companion and dependent pairs all represent the trigametric functions what there being, sine, cosine, tangent, cotangent, secant and cosecant.  And that would be that sine, cosine would be the dynamic pair, positive and negative one direction and the other direction and tangent, cotangent would be companion pair relationship; and the dependent would be the  secant, cosecant and we have this other one that we need two new trigametric functions to create quadranomictry to describe where something is holistically connected in that field verses relativisticly connected verses completely independent as a definable unit.  Those functions also have quadrants in which the appear to be positive or negative and those relationships of positive or negative quadrants actually are going to be what determine the kind of relationship created between positive or negative just as if you have in the first quadrant in trigonometry, the sign is going to be positive and in the second quadrant it is going to be negative, so you end up with changing the polarity of the signal depending on the quadrant in which it is found.  So these kind of vector relationships or matrix can be directly translated to trigonometry partly by function and partly by the polarity of the sign in the quadrant in which they occur.  So with that thought for now, for valinteen to consider as well is, how to describe, how to translate the relationships that we see or in at least the first three, the dynamic, dependent and companion?  And talk about the relationships that are created by vectors, so that if one sees it as a positive and the other sees it as a negative, it is always going to be as a negative relationship, but if they both see it as a negative or if both see it as positive, it is going to be a positive relationship.  Which shows why two people that are constantly bickering at each others back, bickering at each other and stabbing each other in the back all the time can stay together for twenty years arguing, is because they both see a relationship as negative which creates a positive relationship between them, from an objective stand point, fills in that last leg of the connecting vector from the first two that are created as their independent appraisals.

                One last thought that has occurred to me, before I can let this go and get on with my day.  The thought is that we should not forget that we’ve been looking at relationships here as if they were fixed quantities.  In other words, that someone sees it this way, someone else sees it as that way and between them they create this particular kind of relationship.  That is actually looking at a frozen moment in time and saying in any given moment you can say, if somebody sees it as positive or negative which of course we have a matter of degree and that degree may depend on how wide spread the evaluation is.  For example, it may be that there are five, or ten, or twenty major areas in a relationship that are of concern to somebody at a given moment, how many of them are on the positive side and how strongly?  How many are on the negative side and how strongly?  When they group them all together and look at the relationship, then they day is this positive or negative and that would be were you would judge them at that moment.  And if you have two positive appraisals, it would be positive; two negative appraisals it would be positive in a relationship and so on.  However, when you look at it rather than being particulate, you look at it at the wave form, you can see that these evaluations in the relationship changes over time and they change in a couple of different ways.  One of them is that they change from going from positive to negative in terms of polarity, as someone becomes more attentive, perhaps someone had obligations of the job that were beyond their ability to walk away from, they have to spend a lot of time there, those are over they come home, they spend more time there, it turns out positive because they do more positive things when they are there.  When they are away they do fewer positive things, and so the negative things that they do that are consistent take the reign and it goes negative.  Therefore, someone’s appraisal of the relationship can –?– between the positive and the negative over time and that can either be a repeating pattern or not a repeating pattern. That can be something appears completely chaotic because it is outside the scope of predictability, or it can be something that has to do with seasonal changes, it can be something to do with a sporting event, it could be something to do with pay periods, with PMS.  A lot of the things of that nature can cause these wave forms, some of them regular, some of them irregular and new ones can be added, new instances can be added and taken away at all times.  However, that’s even looking at it in terms of what kind of relationship you would see it as.  Are you evaluating it in terms of being a companion relationship or a dynamic relationship, as saying this is what you define it as.  In fact, the wave form way would be to look at them as drifting from one kind of relationship to another, this couple between them has a dependent relationship, now it’s edging over and finally it moves out of there and into a dynamic relationship.  So things could be moving between positive and negative at the same time that there a moving from being identifying as being primarily one kind of relationship, to primarily another kind, acting as kind of a subcarrier and signal imposed upon it, depending on which is the longer wave and which is the shorter.  And as you create these, the differences instead of just like the subcarriers it’s like moving ninety degrees to it because one of the evaluations is, is it going positive and negative, up and down, and the other one is, is it am or PM, by moving from one kind of relationship to another.  In fact, from the holistic relativisitc sense all of these relationships exist among all people at all times.  So if you take any two people at each one is going to be evaluating in terms of how compatible are in companionships, how dependent am I upon this person, is that positive or negative, how often are we butting heads over things, does that have a good result, does something good come out of it or do we only tear each other down?  They are going to be making these evaluations, they ultimately going to evaluate the final one, saying am I really in a relationship with this person or do we have no relationship at all.  Those will be the considerations, how often those considerations occur is looking at it particularly, looking at it in wave form is how often those considerations reach a cycle at which they rise to conscious consideration.  These evaluations should be made throughout the levels of the mind at all times, but they only peak into our consciousness when there is enough to drive them up there.  So depending on the number of evaluations that may have a positive or negative value to them at any given moments.  It creates these complex patterns of waves in which the combined syntheses of several wave forms can lead to a negative appraisal, when one is looking at things from a particular point of view at a particular time and a moment later it can be made completely positive.  I found out myself, when I has somebody that I absolutely hated that I was working with about three years ago,  who was an absolute jerk and then at one time someone called on the phone.  This guy never did favors for anybody and always wanted to get something, just did something for the guy because he liked him and out of the goodness of his heart he wanted to help him. And for that one brief moment suddenly I loved this guy and I thought he was the most wonderful person in the world, until he opened his mouth again and went right back to the old system.  So that you can have these big binary changes that can occur because something can effect so many of these wave forms because they share a common impact, or are commonly impacted by a single event or process that it occurs, that it can turn them all around and make them all show positive or all show negative for a moment.  And unless that is sustained however then it will continue in the pattern that it was at and even if it is sustained you’re talking about bringing a bunch of waves that have cycles up to a peak at which two people who would normally never give each other the time of day, end up making love for a moment.  There was an episode of MASH in which that happened where Hulahan and Hawkeye were trapped out in this place under enemy fire and they made love that night, and then as soon as they were rescued from that context  then everything went back down to it’s usual sparing.  But there was still something left, the residual because the wave forms between them had been slightly altered by the relationship and even though  they still were not compatible at least they had a better understanding of where each others hearts was and little more respect came out of it.  These are the kinds of things that happens when you have these complex wave forms undulating, peaking for but a moment and then the bottom falls out and slowly erodes, falls out all at once depending on how quickly it goes compared to the baseline of your measurement.  That’s going to determine whether it seems to be a binary switch, flipping from one thing to another or whether it seems to be a gradual erosion or build up in intensity. 

A couple of quick proverbs for alter ego.

Before you can be one with another, you must be one with yourself.   Or if you get it really confusing, before one can be one with another, one must become one with oneself,

that’s attributed to Melanie Phillips. 

Then there’s I’m waiting for someone to have it, attributed to Melanie Phillips.

And attributed to my son Keith, I’ve got to find something to take my mind off these distractions.

Crying and Punishment

Practical Narrative Psychology

Melanie Anne Phillips

In the classes I teach on story structure we often point to Clarice Starling (Jody Foster) in “Silence of the Lambs” as a great example of a Success/Bad story in which the goal (save the senator’s daughter from Buffalo Bill) is achieved, but the personal angst of not being able to save that spring lamb remains, as evidenced by Lecter’s final conversation with Starling over the phone in which he asks, “Are the lambs still screaming?”

Her silence in response (plus the somber soundtrack music even though this he graduation from the academy) both indicate she is still holding on to that angst.

We usually leave it there, having served our purpose of illustrating what Success/Bad means. Sometimes we go on to say that the reason she is trying to save all these people today – the reason she got into law enforcement (besides the fact her father was a sheriff) was because she can’t let go of that one lamb she couldn’t save and keeps trying to make up for it.

But now I’m thinking that while that may be true in an objective sense, nobody would carry that weight in their heart and act out that way for those reasons alone. You’d see it, you’d understand it and move on.

Rather, I think the reason she does what she does is not to make up for that lamb but to avoid having to carry another similar sense of loss.

So every extraordinary effort – even to the extent of putting herself at risk of death – is to keep from adding one more victim to the pain or failure she already carries.

It would seem, then, counter-intuitive to put oneself in a profession where the risk of failure in the exact same subject matter area as your angst.

But consider – most of us need to pay penance when we feel we have screwed up. The risk of hurting herself emotionally even more by her choice of profession, therefore, is penance for the first lamb she lost, while the extra-human effort she puts into each case is the attempt to avoid adding another instance to the pain she already carries.

Pretty screwed up, really, but in actuality the only way a mind, a heart, can make up for failing another in a way that can’t be fixed is to try to help others in a similar way. But then the risk of failure is omnipresent, so we give up a life of our own to excel enough to avoid another failure.

It is a never ending cycle of emotional self-flagellation: trying to make up for the failure by putting oneself in the situation most likely to create a repeat, then devoting one’s life to trying to avoid the failure and thereby punishing oneself for the original failure.

That’s how we think and how we feel. Of course, the only way out of this vicious circle is to accept the original failure, call it a clean slate, and move on. But who can easily do that, and how?

On Building An Artificial Self-Awareness

I’ve been reading about the advent of the new programming language, GPT-3.  Very interesting.  But, of course, it continues down the wrong path to create an artificial true self-awareness, and merely approximates human thinking through increasing levels of finer and finer detail.

The point is, the as long as  you see everything in a system as binary, there will be no self-awareness, no matter how fine the details are.  It is only when the details blend together so that they move as a wave, rather than interact as particles, that you get the second have of the Artificial Mind which requires both binary and analog – particle and wave.

This essential relationship is at the heart of the quad – one side blend and the other is discrete.

This same relationship is seen at the core of all constructs that have achieved the perfect balance:

Mass, Energy, Space, Time

Knowledge, Thought, Ability, Desire

Noun, Verb, Adjective, Adverb

Strong forces, Weak forces, Electromagnetism, Gravity

Earth, Water, Wind, Fire

Each of these quads exhibits the exact same interrelationships among the four components, and each set of four will have three that seem like the others, and one that seem the odd man out.

But more important, each set of four divides into two pairs – one part at a given fractal level and a second pair at another fractal level.  Or, more accurately, one pair that creates fractals and a second pair that creates frictals.

More basically, as described at the beginning, one seeing discrete particles and one seeing homogeneous influences.  Translate as digital vs. analog.

In fact, the basic functioning circuit of self-awareness would require no more than to be comprised of one transistor and one tube.  The transistor represents the neural network and the tube represents the biochemistry.

These two aspects of the brain generate, in tandem, the mind.

The neural network sets pathways – obstacles and riverbeds – through which the information energy of the biochemistry  is channeled.  The energy of the biochemistry erodes obstacles and builds up the material of thought to divert channels, block them completely, or carve new ones in the fabric of experience.

Each system informs the other, alters the other, and each operates at a level a magnitude away from the other so that when one sees one system as made of  particles, one sees the other as functioning as a wave.

Could we look deeply enough into the wave media (the biochemistry of the brain) to see the particles (individual ions and neurotransmitters).  Surely.  But from that level of perspective the neuro network will appear as chaos.  Similarly, if we step back far enough so that the digital nature of the synapses blends together to create a wave form, the function of the biochemistry will no longer be visible and will appear to be chaos as well.  Chaos from above, or chaos from below.

But even if we move  up or down in perspective, in the end, we will find there two inter-affecting systems: one digital and one analog.  And one will channel the other, and the other will influence the one.

So, building a self-aware system will never be achieved simply with increasing detail.

However, just as the minimal circuit of self awareness  that I described earlier – a transistor and a tube, can easily be ratchetted up to a supercomputer and a quantum computer, not running in parallel, but sharing the same processing space so that every calculation of the supercomputer is influenced by the tendencies of the quantum computer, and every tendency of the quantum computer is channeled by the supercomputer.

Such a system would not only rival our own intensity of self-awareness, but might very well exceed it, which is, actually, rather disturbing.

But, for a practical example of such a system that already exists, consider the binary connections and neural network patterns of social media as the digital, and consider the direct human interactions of people in the real world as the analog.

An even happens, people report it on social media.  Social media digests it and points of view are formed regarding it.  These points of view channel human energy by organizing protests and gatherings, which grow their own energy, which is then covered in social media, and so on.

Social media channels, and the people in the streets influence.  And so, with billions of people, might not one wonder if we have not now already created a self-awareness a magnitude above our own – one that cannot see us any more than our minds can directly perceive our brains, and one that we cannot see any more than our brains can perceive our minds?

Something to think about.

Mental Relativity Notes Transcription | February 13, 1995

The following is a rough transcription of audio notes I recorded about story structure and narrative psychology after having completed my work on Dramatica.

Though I have completed a rough edit of this material for typos, misunderstood words and grammatical inconsistencies, I am sure many errors remain.

Use this transcription more as a guide than a gospel, and refer to the original audio recordings if possible.


It’s Monday morning, February 13, 1995. 

I had a dream last night and when I woke up I knew a lot more about the pair relationships, dynamic, companion, dependent, and component.

For a long time, we have known that men and women perceive them differently in terms of positive and negative.  Men will see each kind of relationship as having a positive one and a negative one and they are completely bipolar, so that you end up with a positive dynamic relationship and a negative dynamic relationship in a quad; each of those is represented in a diagonal. 

For example, companion relationships, dependent and component each one will appear to be positive or negative.  However in the first three pairs dynamic, companion, and dependent, from a male stand point, each one of those  relationships can very clearly be described as to which one is positive and which one is negative by nature. 

But when you get to the component relationship at the end, that one – all bets are off. That is the one that has to be the flexible one, that’s the one in their blind spot where they can’t see which one is positive and which one is negative because it changes by context. 

The component relationship is where you’re either seeing all as one group like a family or a team, or whether you are seen as an individual, and trying to determine what’s best for the individual verses what is best for the team is the component relationship.  That is why it is difficult to determine what is positive or negative, by saying it is always better to be an individual or always better to be one of the team, you really can’t look at it that way.

However, women don’t appreciate pair relationships at all like men do, women appreciate them completely differently.  For a long time, we felt that women saw the relationships; one theory that we had was that women would see the relationships, one of them the same way as men, with one being positive and one being negative.  Then they would see another one exactly the opposite of men.  Then another one they would, the other two remaining ones, they would be like the reverse of men because they would see one of them all positive and one of them all negative.

So basically, we would see one, like the dynamic pair for example, I don’t know which pair would be which cause we haven’t calculated out that far, but the dynamic pairs would be see as positive and negative to both men and women. 

Then, the companion pair relationship, what men see as positive, women would see as negative and vice versa. 

Then in the dependent pair relationships women would see that as perhaps all positive and the component pair relationship as all negative.       Well actually I think that is the way women appear to men, remember we’re dealing with four things here; how men see themselves, how men see women, how women see themselves, and how women see men. 

In terms of the relationships we’ve lined out so far, all of that is consistent male bias, where it is how men see themselves.  And when we have women appear in the model, it is always from the perspective of how men see women.  How women see women, is not at all represented in anything we do in Dramatica, as of this point.  We know it is out there and we are trying to document it but since there are all kinds of tools out there for understanding how men see men, and how men see women, but nothing has ever been devised, very little for how women see men, and hardly anything at all for how women see women. 

Those examples are just not there, the tools are just not there, so we have to construct a whole framework of understanding before we can even explore the theory.  Well, the first aspect of this framework came to me last night, after this dream I had and it occurred to me that in looking at the companion and dependent pairs, women see those as favorable relationships, when you have a favorable relationship because those are the ones that they can control, those are the ones that are stretchy, they are the ones that are sliding scale. 

In other words, rather than seeing as two pairs you see two separate areas, the positive ones and the negative ones, you see it as a single relationship, women blend that together – what men would see as a positive and negative companion , and then they –?– separately, in a separate group the positive and negative dependent relationship, so that women are constantly looking at a range and saying well it is a love hate relationship. 

Well that doesn’t mean that it’s got love in it and hate in it, it means that it cycles or oscillates between love and hate, between good and bad.  And the relationships are not judged as being positive and negative, they are being judged as favorable or unfavorable kinds of relationships and then the nature of whether they are more positive or more negative, is what you have to get a feel for. 

This causes women to get into relationship in which they are abused but not want to leave them because they see the relationship as this sliding scale that it’s much better to be in an overall negative relationship as a dependent one or overall relationship as a companion one, then it is to be dealing at all with dynamic relationships or component relationships. 

Now this is the natural tendency of women. Assertiveness training tries to bring women to the point where they can do the dynamic relationship and argue with somebody, and stand up for their rights, and go head to head against them.

This is what happens when women become masculinized in assertiveness training and the other opportunity is to leave, which is what ultimately women need to do in battered relationships, to get out and leave through the component. 

The dynamic relationship is really not the women’s way, that is really not what is going on in their heart.  A women who is constantly in a dynamic relationship with people if she works and functions and has relationships in terms of dynamic relationships, has missed the boat.  That is the exclusive male domain, is that kind of direct conflict.  It is not appropriate to one’s fulfillment, you can do it if you want, it doesn’t mean any women can’t do that, it just means that I guarantee that any women who is living her life in dynamic relationships, is a women who’s not going to be fulfilled no matter what she says.  That is a pretty bold statement, but that is what the theory predicts.  And I believe in the theory because it hasn’t let me down so far.

Now in terms of the component relationships that is the place that women have sort of a major blind spot; the option that you can step out of it, the option that you can stop being a family, the option that you can stop being in a relationship with a guy.  We use it all the time, we do it all the time because we are not looking there, we step on people in those areas, we form little cliques and little groups, we reject men who feel like they aren’t part of our circle, we do it all the time with the flick of the finger because we never even aware we’re doing it. 

It’s not that we are intentionally locking into that, it’s just that, that intrinsically is not an area that we consider.  We step on the flowers as we pass by without realizing that they are under feet, in that area. 

Now the interesting thing about that is because we see two kinds of relationships as being favorable or attractive relationships; and two as being repulsive relationships, not in an “ooh grody” sense but in a “no we are pushed away from those” even if we find ourselves drifting towards them on our own, we’re pushed away from them which are the dynamic and the component. 

Those are areas we don’t wish to tamper in, that are not comfortable for us.  Completely unlike men, who basically have the range of all three of them but they don’t look into the component generally at all.  For women, women have the range of two of them as being favorable, the dynamic as being unfavorable and the component being a shared area of not looking, which is also unfavorable.  So men don’t think in terms are what are favorable and unfavorable relationships, they look at each relationship as having the opportunity as being unfavorable or unfavorable depending upon whether it is positive or negative.  Women never look at the positive or negative nature of a relationship they look at the kind of relationship and try to gravitate towards those that are more favorable, which are the companion and the dependent. 

Now in looking at that, you will notice that the relationship that guys have with women and the relationship that women have with guys  are quite different, because we are using different standards of measurement.  And where as a guy may say, ” Oh, well she depends on me, I am the bread winner, therefore I am in a positive relationship because I have someone dependent upon me.” 

For a man to be dependent upon someone else is not a comfortable thing.  For there to be a unity of opposites, that is a dependent relationship where men realize the value of working together – Brain and brawn, for example – a partnership, learn that they will watch each other’s back, and together they can accomplish something and so in that nature there is a mutual need that is going on.  

But in a dependent relationship for women, women are not looking at it as a mutual need, women are looking at it as providing something that is of assistance and in return they get something that they desire.  It is more of a transactional relationship, which essentially is the difference in the way men and women view prostitution, is that women see it as a transaction and men see it as this is something that someone will do to fulfill their needs for money. 

It’s different  – the concept of fulfilling one’s needs for money as supposed to as the concept of it being a transaction because then a transaction is two people involved  in something in which two people provide something the other wants.

In a need kind of situation is where I, you are fulfilling what I want for a price.  The aspect of what the price does for the other person is really not considered, it’s just a requirement rather then a balanced trade off.

That is why it is usually a win / lose situation when dealing with men, is women try to go for the win-win in negotiations. 

Beyond this you end up with the companion relationships being quite different for men and women as well.  Men are looking at it as saying, what are the cost of having this relationship verses the benefits that I get, the positive things verses the negative things and women are just saying, oh we’re close to each other. 

That is what leads to the grouping mentality, is just to be close to the action, just to be close to somebody, just to be near it.  Is quite different than looking at as being part of the family or just being an independent unit. 

Men might have trouble blending those two things in the companion and the component.  If they were to look at women, when they see women they say oh they are trying to be part of the group. 

No, they are not trying to be part of the group, they are trying to be close to the center, so that there is more fall out, more positive fall out.  And this is what also leads women, when they are dealing with companion pair relationships, to look at things in terms of the warmth of an atmosphere.  To look at things in terms of being around friends who do interesting things, that’s a very positive attractive kind of relationship for women and even being around friends who do negative things because then in effect you are participating without being a participant.  You are not dealing with the companion relationship, yes this is how you are yourself, you’re part of the group, you’re responsible for things, from the female perspective.  Instead, you can say I can be there and enjoy all this negative, evil, terrible stuff that is going on without really being the one who is doing it, just because I happen to be in an area where I can pick up that signal and resonate with it. 

Well, that’s quite different then it is for men, men are dealing with it more in terms of logistics.  But this again is an interesting situation.  I said that women were looking at relationships as being favorable kinds of relationships whether or not they were positive or negative overall.  Women of course are going to be looking at the relationship as being favorable, they are going to take a momentary value and say it’s favorable and right now it is also positive.  But then if it is negative, they’ll say it is a favorable relationship but it’s negative and they will feel that just have to get through things until they get better again, sensing intuitively the cyclic nature of relationships. 

What they do not see in their blind spot, is that these relationships may be overall to the point that the bad far out weighs the good, and yet women are always looking at there being an up swing, that it is always going to be better because the relationship itself is favorable, so how can it ever turn out to be negative? 

Well, favorable and negative are two different things.  A favorable relationship just means, the kind in which you are comfortable with the relationship nature, but it doesn’t mean that the relationship itself, this particular relationship, is a positive one of that kind. 

This is an important thing for both men and women to remember is, just because there is a relationship that is positive for men, does not mean that it is a favorable relationship, that is where they get into trouble. And for women, just because the relationship is favorable doesn’t necessarily mean it is positive, this is where women get into trouble.  Interesting thing about that, is that the same kind of thing that’s going on in terms of looking at the relationships as being favorable because men don’t consider the favorable, and women don’t consider the positive or negative. 

Look again at how men or women pick out cars and things.  It’s funny that men are always complaining that women are the one’s who go off and do things frivolously, and yet then they have women coming out and picking out cars because they’ve got the right number of doors for the family and good trunk space.  And guys are out there picking out cars because they’re fast and sleek and all kinds of things that aren’t, what’s the word, practical. 

Women are more practical, but how can men be more analytical and logistic and women be more practical?  Because the relationship of practicality to logic, is the same as the relationship of favorable to positive and negative.

When men are dealing with being logical, logical has nothing to do with practicality.  See practicality is looking at things holistically, it’s saying what will cover most of the needs for all of the different things that are going on, it’s very non-linear.  Whereas men are dealing with logistics, they’re dealing with, if this is a particular need this is what I need to get there, these are the steps I have to take, these are the resources I’m going to have to have.  But that is a linear approach, a straight line approach and for men it is appropriate. 

For women the practical approach is more appropriate, to say how can I cover as many bases as possible so that the overall situation is as positive as possible or as favorable as possible.  And men will be looking, plotting the path way that they have between where they are and what they need for their goal, trying to come up with a path way that is as positive as possible.  So a positive path way would be the most efficient path way, whereas a favorable situation would be the one that creates the least problems, fulfills the most needs even if they are not tied into a specific purpose even if they have no relationship to what’s going on, immediately in the for front. 

This is why men and women in business get into arguments all the time, is because of that nature that men are looking for, here is what we are trying to accomplish and here is the fastest way to go to it and once we’ve set ourselves a goal than we are saying that this takes priority over everything else.  In other words, not only does this take priority but everything else is shut out of the picture. 

Once you define the scope of your goal and –?– you can define a goal as being a pleasant environment or a pleasant working environment but once you’ve defined a goal, anything that falls outside the scope of that goal id no longer considered. 

Men throw themselves, then into creating the most efficient path to get to that goal and arrive at it.  That kind of approach is very satisfying to them, but it’s not very fulfilling to women. 

Women are not concerned with just having one particular thing you’ve achieved going through life in a linear pattern, one foot in front of another, one step after another, that is not what has fulfillment and meaning for women, but it does for men.  But when you have women in life, looking towards what will make them happy, they want to create a holistic environment, where everything within the range of their perception is balanced as positively as possible or as favorable as possible.  And so, women are constantly fine tuning things, moving furniture, trying on new clothes, joining new social organizations, watching new programs on television, exploring these areas.  Whereas men will usually find a new direction they like to go, one particular hobby, one particular approach, one particular activity and they will go with it a long time, until it stops doing it’s job for them and then they will select something else. 

Women are usually apt to bounce around a lot of different things and balance them off.  When they become single-minded that’s when they find that they are not being as fulfilled as they would like to be, because all the other things they are not considering are slowly detuning through the effects of chaos. 

Of course, they might not detune, in which case we end up with women being very fortunate because they are lucky, they’re simply lucky.  They go off and follow a single-minded purpose and everything else around their life just gets in order by itself, that’s great.  That’s like having a house you don’t have to dust, but the point is, when most of us focus on one thing and leave the infrastructure to itself it begins to crumble around us. 

In the end, if we had any kind of order in our life, that order will react with chaos to form an equilibrium between –?– and –?–, and we’ll end up with something that is neither good or bad, neither favorable or unfavorable rather neutral.  So then we have to put all our eggs in one basket and fallow this linear path that means nothing as women in terms of fulfillment and when we are all said and done we accomplish our goal, and we’re left with what neutrality.  It’s as if we got no reward because we’ve worked all our lives and gotten back to zero, of course for some people getting back to zero can be an improvement. 

Anyway all these things not withstanding we are able to look briefly at the difference between those relationships.   We talked about heterosexuals looking at homosexual relationships.  Relationships that are of a homosexual nature are different for men and women. The relationship between lesbians is different then the relationship between gays. 

It’s going to be a very hard thing for men to try and understand because men are going to be looking at the relationships in terms of maybe being in a companion relationship with somebody, or maybe in a dependent relationship with somebody and if it’s a positive one or a negative one. 

But women are going to be gravitating towards a certain kind of relationship and in fact, when women get into relationships with men or with women as being straight women or gay women, lesbians, than the relationship shifts between the dependent and companion.  It’s the type of favorable relationship that is the difference, in that kind of sexuality. 

It’s very, very interesting, you have women who are just good friends, have no sexual interest in other women between them, they give themselves hugs, they hold each other tight and have feelings for each other, and those feelings are feelings of proximity, feelings of being close to someone else, that’s the companion relationship that is doing that.  The companion relationship has a closeness, and there’s really when you have a lesbian relationship that is based on love, it’s a companion relationship.  It’s where the women have become so close to each other that they share everything, that is a positive lesbian relationship, if you would look at it completely positive. 

But if you have a lesbian relationship that is a dependent relationship, that is negative lesbian relationship, where each one is dealing from the female perspective in terms of their needs.  And because they are dealing in terms of their needs, then you end up with each other not being able to trust each other one, constantly checking your security, constantly being insecure, constantly wondering what the other person is up to, where you are trying to divide up territory, where you are trying to separate yourselves one from the other, and so that would be a negative lesbian relationship. 

You see when women are dealing with other women, in a straight sense, they are dealing with companion relationships and when they are dealing with men they are dealing with a dependent relationship, they are not companions with men.  But because companion and dependent are both favorable relationships, women can empathize with either men or women, because men will fall into the dependent category in all of relationships and women will fall into the companion relationship in all relationships that are of a favorable nature. 

But see if you flip, where you put men and women, and you start putting men into a companion relationship, that is a very negative relationship for women.  And so if you have a heterosexual relationship that falls into the companion relationship area that is not really very favorable for women to put it that way.  You see the interesting thing about it is that these relationships for women, depend on whether it’s men or women in terms of what is favorable and what is not favorable.  And it turns out that the favorable relationships, the most favored relationship for men is the dependent pairs for a women, and the most favorable relationship with a women is a companion pair.  And that is why you end up with having a relationship between women either as friends or intimately as a lesbian relationship.  Or with men, the concept of having a male friend it just doesn’t quite work out well, there has to be a dependency in there some where, in order for it to be a favorable relationship. 

Now a lot of women have men as friends and the men come to them and ask for advice, they talk to them about this and that, that is the relationship that women have with their male children is a dependent one and the dependency turns around. 

And that’s the problem that a lot of mothers have is, their children grow up, is that it starts out with the man being dependent upon the women so there is a love hate relationship between the child and the mother when they are younger.  And at that point though the mother is there, is always providing positive if she is a good mother, and therefore the young man grows to love his mother, because even though he doesn’t want to be dependent from the get go his reliance on her is not violated, is never violated, or is seldom violated and therefore he comes to trust her. 

But when it turns around the other way, then here is a dependent relationship that he has with her, and in having that relationship with her then, now she is dependent upon him.  And in being dependent upon him, she just becomes a drain, and he has this terrible conflict psychologically with in himself because, he loves her because when he was dependent upon her, she never violated that. 

He now feels an obligation to her because she is dependent upon him, but she is not providing anything to him anymore, she is merely a drain.  That is the kind of relationship with a man that he would sever immediately, but  he can’t sever it with his mother because of an obligation and love turns to obligation. 

The best thing a mother could do is set up her own little nest egg, so that when she is older, she is in the position where she can take care of herself.  But she doesn’t want to move into a position where she seems completely independent because the component relationship will bite her son on the ears, and when that happens he will feel that she no longer needs him at all and if she no longer needs him, then he has no function or purpose with her because he certainly doesn’t want to have to need her, which is the only other kind of relationship he can have with her. 

So generally the dependent relationship is the one where men will always place women, and men will always strive for the companion relationship with men, but dependent and companion are the types of things that (end of side A)

            OK, I only have a few minutes here, I was losing track of what I was saying at the end of  that because I got interrupted by running cats through the living room, it disturbed my train of thought.  It is time I have to get ready for work anyway, it’s nine o’clock, I’ve got to get in and get some stuff done.  But anyway just to put a –?– on that thought, clearly the relationships that men and women have with their same sex or the other sex, in a intimate and non-intimate sense can be catalogue in a way, as long as we change the meaning of the terms we are looking at.  So we have to look at terms of practicality verses logic, because logic has no meaning, linear logic has no meaning to women, practicality does. 

Linear logic is something that, yes we can do but if we do it, it brings us no fulfillment, which is very important to us, although it would bring us satisfaction but satisfaction is not important to us, but that is important to men.  So the differences between how we break down, what relationships are attractive or not, well men don’t even use the concept of what relationships are attractive they look at all relationships at which are positive and which are negative within each kind of relati0onship and categorize them according to which kind. 

Women basically categorize them according to kind for determining what is favorable relationship, regardless of whether it is positive or negative.  This kind of differential is going to lead, what does lead to all that confusion between the sexes because we are not looking at the same things at all, from the same perspective. 

When we look at our inner selves, when we try to find out what is really going on inside the first thing we do, is we perceive relationships differently and then we measure them differently on top of it.  Meaning that what we are looking at, and where we are looking from, both of those things are at odds. 

This is the area in which the paradox exists, this is the area in which men and women are one-hundred and eighty degrees opposed, even though in the process of creating these evaluations of relationships, they are really only ninety degrees out of phase at any given point.  But since they’re ninety degrees out of phase on how they look at relationship, and ninety degrees out of phase in how they measure relationships or where they are looking from, it comes to an entire one-hundred and eighty degrees out of phase in terms of relationships in general. 

It’s a combination of the two ninety degrees movements out of phase and they don’t cancel out, that’s the thing of it they don’t cancel out.  It always works around the clock in the direction to go one-hundred and eighty degrees out of phase.  If they could cancel out, that would be a wonderful thing and we can find in real life these kinds of relationships and they cancel out through training, but if you train yourself to get to the point where you undo or adopt the opposite –?– for half the equation, wither how you look at the relationships, the way you evaluate relationships, the way you see them being, or the way you evaluate them, if you move one of those one-hundred and eighty degrees out of phase, then you could cancel out the way men are looking at it and be more in tune with them, which is what happens to a lot of business women but you’re never going to find fulfillment because you’re putting yourself out of phase with yourself. 

So the real key is to be true to yourself, and find something that accommodates both.  Much as you would look at a photon of light and say it has a particle and a wave nature, so it doesn’t matter whether you look at it as a particle or a wave, you might not be able to do some things when you look at it as a wave that you could do when you look at it as particle and vice versa.  But if you only have need for looking at it, or desire for looking at it as a wave than that is fine for you.  But if somebody else wants to look at is at a particle they can do that and it works fine for them.  So it doesn’t matter that it has a duel nature, if you’re using only half of that nature, then it only appears to have on nature to you.  And as long as you’re dealing with the same object, it’s equally useful to both parties.

Same thing for men and women in relationships, whether they are same sex or opposite sex.  Is that you have to come up with something that is both positive for men and favorable for women.  In other words, if you had a relationship with a man, you would want  to look for a dependent relationship, where he would look at it and say, is it a positive or negative dependent relationship?   And if he sees the relationship as a positive dependent relationship, than in that case he is able to get more with you than he would get without you, but not in the sense of just saying it adds a little bit.  Saying that he has to supply you with his resources, and in supplying you with his resources then because of what you contribute, he ends up getting more than if he had used those resources for himself alone.  So that is where you end up with, with buying flowers and candy, after all tomorrow is Valentines Day.  That is the concept behind it, is by putting in something that is of X amount of value to him, he gets something much more in value even if it is intangible.  He should recognize that there is much more of value coming for the amount spent, it’s got to be a situation where he is feeling that his needs are being fulfilled, that he is coming out a winner. 

I had a teacher once in economics.  She talked about the concept of economic profit.  One of the most intelligent ladies I’ve ever met in my life.   She had been all over the world, she written a number of books, she was incredible.  And she taught about economic profit, she said if you go to a, she used this example because she was trained in the male mystique, she said if you go to a football game, it’s a hot summer day, you’re thirsty, you’d gladly pay a dollar for a lemonade.  So a vender comes by and sells it to you for fifty cents, you’ve made fifty cents economic profit because that is the money you didn’t spend that you would have in order to get that satisfaction.  That’s how you come out a head of the game. 

She said if you have five dollars?  How do you spend your five dollars?  Do you buy five used paperback books, or buy one new paperback book?  Do you go to a movie with it?  Do you rent a videotape?   What do you do?  When you have five dollars, how you spend it should be determined on bases of economic profit.  Meaning, do you get how the difference between how much pleasure it gives you and how much you’re willing to spend for it?  Meaning, it’s not always this is the thing that will bring me the most pleasure at the moment, but sometimes it’s saying that this is the thing that will bring me the most pleasure for the buck.  Because it may turn out that with five dollars you’re able to get something that would normally cost a huge amount but is only five dollars and  that huge amount that it would cost that you would be willing to pay if you had the money, is something that you don’t have to pay now because it’s on sale. 

This is where the whole sale mentality comes from, especially with women, is that when something is marked down in terms of saying well it’s normal price is X and it’s now selling for this.  Well even if it is something that will not bring you as much pleasure, as spending the money on something else immediately, you want to get this because it is a fleeting opportunity to make that kind of economic profit. 

That is when you’re diluting yourself and misusing it because you’re doing something that you didn’t have a preestablished need for now, but you anticipate a need for later or something that actually doesn’t give you the greatest amount of pleasure because it is something that gives you the greatest amount of economic profit.  So those two concepts of what will make me happiest and what will make me feel like I have the biggest bargain, are two different concepts.

Men want the biggest bargain all the time, in terms of relationships.  Women want the biggest bargain all the time, in terms of material things.  Men want the things that make them happiest immediately, in material things.  Women want the things that make them happiest immediately, in relationships, so in the end there seems to be an opposite in there. 

But the whole nature in all of this is the different ways we look at relationships.  So if we come up with a dependent relationship between men and women, and we have it as a positive dependent relationship, then that is the one in which both the man and the women will be satisfied with the relationship and fulfilled, because the women will find that she can rely on the man and he will take care of her needs and the man will look at that relationship and say that in it the women is supplying something that is of great value to him, greater than the value of the money that he is spending, the emotional money that he is spending on her.

And therefore he comes out with a tremendous whopping profit out of the deal just by being in an association with her, in a relationship with her.  Whereas if you are looking for, as a women, a lesbian relationship, you’re going to want to get into a companion relationship because in a companion, you will both be looking at that as a favorable relationship.  And if you can make it a positive companion relationship, then two of you could make that work. 

But if you put yourself into a dependent relationship, then that is not going to work as a true lesbian relationship.  Now if you put yourself into a dependent relationship that is positive, well then you end up in a relationship that is essentially a male-female relationship between two women, which is not going to be fulfilling, it may be satisfying but it won’t be fulfilling. 

So women who put themselves into relationships as lesbians that have a dependent relationship, have one of the parties depending upon the other one to fill their needs.  And when that one fills their needs, the one who is doing the need feeling has to perceive the relationship as being one that brings them more out of life, then they would have had by using those resources else where, that is what makes it worth will.  If that is not happening, then it appears negative to one side, and positive to the other side. 

I’ll close in a moment here by saying, this has led into the concept of positive and negative, not by looking at the relationship between of two people, but by looking at  how each one sees the relationship  because relationships can be seen as positive or negative from either side. 

Relationships can be seen as favorable or unfavorable from either side, and depending on whether you are dealing with relationships between women or relationships between men is going to create a very complex algorithm of finding out if they are seen as favorable from one side and negative from one side, favorable from one side and unfavorable from the other side, unfavorable from one side and positive or negative from the other side, or unfavorable from one side and favorable from the other side, so all of these combinations create the wealth and variety of relationships. 

Keep in mind that many of us, most of us have relationships that don’t just focus on one particular kind. That, in other words, when we get closer to people, we are not just operating at one level of relationship, we are actually beginning to stretch into other areas.  So we begin in one of them, perhaps dynamic are arguing and fighting all the time, and maybe that turns into companionship and then dependency and then into a component where you become the same thing.

The journey that we take through these dynamics is one in which we expand our context of relationships and so very often, we’ll find that certain aspects of our relationships are positive and certain aspects are negative, or certain are favorable and unfavorable depending upon the area that we are talking about.  Which is ultimately why men might have a workshop out in the garage and women would have the kitchen as their domain.  It’s a place in which they can turn the tables on other kinds of relationship issues that are less favorable or more negative to be able to define the scope in which contexts carrying a given beyond this instead of just talking about all these four different kinds of relationships that can be rated differently and create the complexity between men and women, women and women, and men and men.  T

Then you end up with the notion that each one of those relationships can be functional or dysfunctional in a different context.  So that when you are talking about relationships outside the house, verses relationships inside of the house, verses relationships when you’re dealing with economic matters, verses relationships that you’re dealing with when planning for vacation, verses relationships in raising the kids; each thing that is identified by the parties in the relationship as a context that is separate can create a completely different kind of pair relationship that is involved in that area and it can also change it’s favorable and unfavorable, and positive-negative nature. 

Then, of course, you run into the relationships where each one is defining context differently, and that is where most disagreements come from.  That’s when you are dealing with apples and oranges, where it is context itself that you see things as different, what is included what is not included in this part of the relationship, in this scope of our discussion here. 

So you add all that together and end up with the different ways men and women see relationships, in terms of being favorable primarily and then seeing what is positive and negative, and seeing that as spot judgments for women.  Or in terms of seeing the relationship as being positive or negative  one across the board, and then seeing what’s favorable or not, out of the most favorable relationships which is a more flexible thing for men.  And then determining whether it’s a relationship between a man and a women, and then determining whether both are seeing the relationship in the same light.  So that one is seeing favorable, the other is seeing positive, for example, or one is seeing unfavorable and the other is seeing negative.  Or if they don’t match up exactly and you end up with one seeing it one way and the other seeing it another, even from their different points of view, then you deal with the terms of context as to what context these relationships are taking place in?  What scope that you have them in?  If they are already –?– on the scope, and seeing how all those views of the relationship change it? 

Then you look at in terms of having different views of the context, so that is how things change.  And finally you end up with the most complex issue of all, which is, how context changes over time, so that nature of the relationships changes over time.  What is seen as favorable and unfavorable, will change for men.  What is seen as positive and negative, will change for women, over time.  The context in which we place things, will change overtime, sometimes in a repeating way were it comes full circle, sometimes in a non-repeating way where it goes off on a tangent.  That’s how relationships sometimes grow together, and sometimes grow apart.  Anyway all of this is material that can easily be put into algorithms.  I think most of them have been described here and from those algorithms, we can create an entire new dynamic engine, that can be used for Alter-Ego and also for Dramatica. 

The terms that we put on these dynamics, once we understand the mechanism of how they all go together are going to be the terms like:  greed, and love, and lust, and hate, and happiness, and sadness; and all of these things are the terms that are going to be hung on this particular model.  But I think, in looking at this dynamic model that’s building with all of these pieces to it, this flexible, fluid dynamic model which deals with things in a frictal sense, that is the other side of Dramatica.  It is the emotional side of story telling, it is the heart side or the heart of Alter-Ego.

The structural elements currently in Dramatica would be perfect for business oriented decisions because that is what you would be looking at, is the logistics and it is a logistics based system.  But in terms of dynamic model, it is not going to be based on logistics, or in terms of practicality women would also look at that structure in terms of practicality. 

But in terms of this dynamic model that we are creating right now, it would be seen as what is favorable, what is emotional aside of the argument to see what is positive or a negative emotional context.  And also what is favorable, as opposed to, I guess favorable and satisfying.  Fulfilling and satisfying is what you get over here on this side, and on the other side of the structural model, you get practical and logistic. 

So in any event, I guess it is about time for me to go take my shower because I’m going to be late for work.  But it is important to have documented this and this tape particularly is going to be the heart of future development in a practical sense.