Poetry/Practice/Universal Language of Absolutes/Appendix

= A message. =

What humanity needs is not any individual approach but a governance powerful body of excellence that has modern technology, knowledge, and freedom they can use to disseminate clear information. Clear information about a new language structure of absolutes beneficial to an International forum, and eventually to reach a Universal status.Its benefits reach toward conceptual language on a planet that speaks more than 7,000 languages.

No matter the language spoken the concepts of:

Air - Food - Water are recognised.

The overall development of conceptual language can only be beneficial and will be as appropriate to Absolutes definitions.

Reaching for the Stars might show us the way.

Universal Language of Absolutes. "A very grand title but it took many years to explain its value"

= Our history. =

Born in Scotland in 1927 left school at 14 years of age. Married at 21 years of age and we had two children. We emigrated to New Zealand in 1953 and lived there for approximately thirty years. During our stay there I did a Liberal Studies Course at Canterbury University Christchurch and graduated. We have since had ten books published through Google books on the subject matter at hand and my wife Jean Caldwell McMillan is the co-author to most of the work presented here. My wife Jean was an avid reader of many works on philosophy and psychology. She was influenced by the works of Erich Fromm. Jean died 9th of January 2011.

To refresh the original purpose of  our  earlier writings my wife and I  went on an odyssey  looking for any data, ancient or otherwise, on human consciousness, specifically related to Alzheimer’s disease.

Now at 95 years of age (well past my used by date) it may well be that I am a candidate with a focus on my own pending dementia. If so, then the theory and the method I now write about is holding it at bay. To address the health of my mind in this way could be the catalyst that retains its own functional activity.

The creation of a  semantic template is well documented below.

No semantic definition of absolutes or principles can be ill-defined.

They are always interconnected, interdependent and infinite.

Each configuration constructed by anyone has meaning particular to them, although its value is universal. That  is why it is never personal property!



= The Beginning. =

"The road's half traveled when you know the way"

Oxford dictionary definitions:

Principle: "A fundamental truth used as a basis of reasoning".

Absolute: " Complete - Entire - Perfect - Pure.

These particular dictionary given definitions offers us guidelines to ‘existing conditions’ necessary for complementary understanding, and experience. We can only examine that which is real, basic evidence, that is fundamentally true, and we must ‘use’ it, to establish that which is reasonable.

The general consensus is that there are no Absolutes. The following material is set out to show the very reverse is true and that everything that is is Absolute.

Establish that there are no dichotomies that will leave the primary terms alone to create a semantic template.

There are no dichotomies. Mythical dichotomies distort Reality.

Everything is: The computer you use today has always existed, it is the arrangement of particles that have materialized it.

The subject matter "Universal Language of Absolutes' is promoted to provide a new understanding of spoken language. This understanding was initially constructed by the cognitive experiences of both my wife and myself many years ago.

Just like the principle of a jigsaw puzzle, meaning lies significantly in the fact that all pieces of the puzzle are interdependent and interconnected. When completed they provide a picture of the whole.

We have endeavoured to produce a picture of the evolutionary process of language in human history because the evolution of language prefixes all modes of thought in human culture. The material directs the reader towards a new view that all that evolves is in a vertical direction, not the linear direction commonly understood.

Human consciousness is of itself the phenomenon of evolution and to recognize its existence is part of the process. Shakespeare expressed this succinctly through the voice of Juliet who proclaimed, “a rose by any other name- would smell as sweet.”



= Who we are. =  It is notable that within the structure of Cartesian dualism, Descartes' personal address to innate knowledge he attributed to ‘thought’ which he identified as being distinct from his body. How different Western philosophy may have been if his attribution had been toward his brain and the existence and evidence of other physical entities that functioned every bit as efficiently as he did. The premise that Descartes operated from ‘never to accept anything as true’, was simply a wrong ended approach which brought him into conflict with his passing acceptance of innate knowledge, that the idea of God was innate to his being. To view the proposition that ‘everything is true’ allows reason to seek and identify that measure of truth. No quest can be productively based on cynicism or denial, nor adherence to belief systems that separate experience, knowledge, and Reality. We have the obligation to question whatever reality has placed before us, but if we constantly deny its existence and attempt to ‘disappear’ it from our experience, then we are in danger of never experiencing that reality for what it is..



For anyone to say that ‘everything is’ is a simple linguistic absolute that no amount of ‘more reasonable’ requests (above) can deny. Those requests only appear to be governed by the difficulties of ‘mental complexities’, and embedded ideologies. To accept that ‘everything is’ as an absolute, is a realistic basis to establish any reality, and comprises the basis for reason to be activated. If there is ‘nothing’, nothing can be achieved. Within that which is Absolute there are no dichotomies. Therefore there are no antagonistic positions available. Everything that is, is a measure of the Absolute. We are always in the present, everyone and everything. Instant elementary ‘knowledge’ which we all share, and must admit to. In being alive, we do not have the ability to not be here, and we do not have the ability to not know!

To have a problem in addressing what Truth and Knowledge are, to the point of denying their existence, then that problem exists well below the scale of Reality. To repeat knowledge is not the proprietary right of any individual, it is enshrined in the principle of agreement that we mutually exercise to establish its own reality.

The reality of experience is not, nor ever will be, a personal possession that we can have and hold. Its reality becomes more alive when we see the same activity being practised by others. Then we know we are sharing that reality, and that experience. We cannot "have" the principles that exist, but when we undrestand them then we are obliged to use them with integrity. That form of integrity in any language, is an added foundation stone to any belief system

Mechanistic ‘I’ has no concept or understanding of ‘pure knowledge’. Only when we break free of the myth that some clarity becomes apparent, and we have the opportunity to engage with what is real.



Philosophy it appears to me is constrained by individual ‘thought’ processes, which (without experience) cannot escape from that individuality. Those ‘thought’ processes conjure up a human history of inflexible, and impossible propositions which only serve to protect that individuality.

Descartes ‘cogito ergo sum’ has compounded the difficulties by strengthening the incorrect premise of a false individuality.

‘I’ is a phantom consciousness much like a phantom pain experienced after a limb is amputated. The brain registers the pain signifying that something should be there. Likewise our brain has that same relationship with Nature and Reality. It is analogous to our brain dealing with a ‘phantom reality’ knowing that something is missing but is continuing to evolve to establish the whole. There exists a ‘phantom chasm’ between our brain and Reality and an understanding of its properties. We are robbed of real meaning.

Evidence, recognition, and the truth are the principles it uses to reform.

Within their structure is the meaning of reforms.

Nature does not impose any morality on us, the principles implied in morality are there for us to understand and use. Our brain has the capacity, once reality is correctly examined, to recognize ‘that which is’.

Once realised it becomes embedded.

That ‘phantom consciousness’ is an experience removed from its proper environment. It takes its proper place when we experience reality for ‘what it is’, which provides the totality of meaning.

True experience allows us entry to the quality of knowledge that is a continuous eternal reality.



So long as anyone believes that human experience is based solely on indirect conscious interpretation (mechanical disposition), any ‘knowledge’ derived from that experience will be incomplete.

That form of philosophical negative conclusion can come down to not believing that Reality exists (a chair is not a chair, is not a chair etc,), or that our experience of ourselves and others is real, and discount any other form of knowledge that threatens that belief.

There is an intellectual dishonesty in denying the existence of principles.

Hostility towards the truth leads inevitably to negativity. Being here demands, not denial, but the right to be recognized.

We are the recipients of a ubiquitous communication system – making known. We can only understand that which we know. We make known all the time.

Knowledge of Reality – Truth – the Absolute is a collective inclusive experience of the principles we share, and never the property of any individual. To ‘know’ ‘who we are’ is an inclusive experience of the principles involved. Never ‘cogito ergo sum’.

Philosophers in investigating the nature of knowledge and the Universe, firmly established for themselves that the source of reason and logic was located in a mythical concept ‘the mind’. From the wrong basis evolved elaborate and metaphysical constructions which removed the investigations further, and further, from the truth.

To comprehend the material world, and give it credibility, the recognition of implicit principles is paramount. We need to construct a language that provides that form of recognition.

Any philosophical theory of ‘mind’ that will deny the evident structure of solid objects is misguided by the injection of a mythical entity (mind) that determines that seeing solid objects is a ‘perceptual illusion’. That form of determination is singularly narcissistic, empowered by the self-induced threat that venturing into a ‘materialistic’ world is a loss of that illusory self, and all the belief systems it has constructed to protect it.

That erroneous established view that not addressing ‘materialism’ as a profound Reality, and as only a ‘perceptual illusion, is compounded by the belief that that form of illusion is implicit in every human view available.

We cannot manufacture knowledge that leads to a mechanistic understanding of ‘what is’, nor the principles which are its properties – however much dogma is practised. We can only aspire to relate to ‘necessary factors’ that are the implicit fundamentals of existence.

For me to use a lever to open a crate is a form of communion with Archimedes through the principle he enunciated. It is now not ‘necessary’ for me to go through the same experience as Archimedes to establish that ‘necessary factor’ or ‘principle’. It is now common-place, and common-sense to utilise the principle.

The extract below provides some explanation of the brain processes in action Universally, and coincides with any reasoning on the observance of the leverage principle, and the actions of motorists conforming to the Road Code wherever traffic lights exist.

''The right-to-left shift of mental control looked increasingly like a universal phenomenon, capturing the essence of every learning process on every time scale, from hours to years. An individual faced with a truly novel situation or problem tackles it mostly with the right hemisphere. But once the situation becomes familiar and is mastered, the dominant role of the left hemisphere becomes evident. It looked like the empowering patterns capturing the essence of the situations (or rather the whole class of similar situations) were, once formed, stored in the left hemisphere. (The Wisdom Paradox. Professor Elkhonon Goldberg. P202) ''

= Limitations. =

However limited our view of connectedness is, or however tenuous the reality our experience is, ‘everything is’, and everything is connected.

Innate knowledge and the fundamental nature of Man is the prior source of knowledge that seeks and identifies that connectedness.

Attempting to address what we don’t know is that mythical infinite regress toward that parallel mythical ‘nothingness’.

To always address what we know establishes Reality. To establish knowledge of principles, start from ‘we are here’. The natural principles within the diversity of human culture and activity when recognized as mutual ‘necessary factors’ will have the effect of enhancing and directing vital energy toward the very process of  the communion we seek, and the gradual penetration of a reality that always exists.



Knowledge of Reality is not ‘different’ in other locales. The fundamental principles are the same.

Addressing ‘what is’ instead of denying ‘what is’ is the basic construction of real knowledge.

Within the structure of the Absolute we are all the same with a magnificent differential in our expression of the principles of necessity. That expression is our ongoing effort toward its own experience which gives it life and meaning.

That experience in turn exposes us to an immediate Reality that is in communion with the fundamental structure of our being.

All that we can ever contribute toward that is 50%, the other half is in our momentary relationship with Reality – then we know! That form of knowledge is always available through that form of experience, and it always comes in the form of confirmation which reforms.

Until that experience our prior condition appears mechanistic, without direction, or understanding.

Reality, life, is not mechanistic. We are the recipients of innate principles with the constant potential to experience those principles in action (Archimedes et al).

Dogmas, ideologies, are the restrictive practices used to blur the recognition of principles operating to a level that understanding of that common and constant activity is virtually denied. Our natural capital (principles) is degraded to the point that their factual evidence is reduced even to the point that they are categorised as a ‘perceptual illusion”.

We can trust facts 2+2=4. Simplicity has its own majesty.

Anything circumscribed by reason requires control of our emotions.

To comprehend the material world, bring it alive, and give it credibility, the recognition of its implicit principles is paramount. We need to construct the language that provides evidence of that Reality.

Any philosophical theory of ‘mind’ that will deny the evident structure of solid objects, is misinformed by the injection of that mythical entity (mind) that determines that seeing solid objects is a ‘perceptual illusion’. That form of determination is singularly narcissistic, empowered by the self-induced threat that venturing into a ‘materialistic’ world is a loss of that illusory self, and all the belief systems it has constructed to protect it.

The erroneous established view that not addressing ‘materialism’ as a profound reality, and as only a ‘perceptual illusion’, is paradoxically compounded by the belief that that form of illusion is implicit in every other human view available, thus it then makes its own sense, form and justification to the illusion! The evident question we must ask, ‘how does a ‘mind’ conclude that ‘immaterialism’ exists universally? Surely it is a simple but massive contradiction in terms. If there is nothing there but ‘perceptual illusion’, how can you attribute it to other ‘minds’.

The oxymoronic effect of narcissism is that it is the very denial of ‘who we are’. Man is not composed of an overwhelming self-love. That mythical embedded belief cannot consider the possibility of underlying principles that are the real life force of Man in his relationship with Reality.

The truth of that, is that humankind (in spite of itself), evolves towards its own Reality.

The only human values that exist, lie in Man’s recognition of the principles involved that provide human direction.



Our ‘material brain’ is a product of Nature's evolutionary process, and has innate within it the same principles that exist in all matter.

That ‘which is’, is the truth, and our brain evolves to process that at every level, and we constantly manifest that in every action we take – whether we like it or not.

The fundamental similarities between human beings is that we are not only evidently human, but that we also function and construct societies that we recognize as beneficial to our immediate well-being. All social function is determined by our brain capacity and its ability to postulate the relationship it has with Universal principles.

= Illusion. =

Considering that we can contradict things is an illusion. We can never contradict the truth.

We do not have the ability to create proprietary constructs of reality. That ‘which is’, can only make its basic properties transparent to us through direct experience. Imaginary concepts must in the end conform to a measurable construct that we can identify.

Within the structure of any philosophical theory of ‘knowledge’ it must contain the basic elements of truth at all times, or there is nothing!!

To say that ‘everything is’ is motivated by pure reason experience as an objective, and subjective reality and as an axiomatic grammatical premise that no amount of mental acrobatics can deny. We can only deal with ‘something’, whatever it may be. There is no metaphysical construct that can provide evidence that ‘nothing’ exists, outside a mythical mind.

Explaining experience beyond ‘thought’ processes requires a definitive language that deals with the reality itself.



We all Know. It is innate. The ‘difference’ between us is only the measure of the knowledge that is made manifest, and that knowledge continually proliferates.

The ‘individual perspective’, and the illusory ‘I’ which dominates, is the barrier to any relation to ‘what is’, and the malady of never experiencing the truth directly!

Truth, knowledge, agreement are the abundant and embedded Absolutes that form the structure of human evolution. That we constantly utilise and improve on their use is evidence of their reality, and the material transparency within every social structure. The survival and proliferation of such realities should be the evidence to establish that ‘that which is’ is Absolute.

When we focus our ‘perspective’, opinion, or a hypothetical consideration of a space, time, or identity to question a Universally accepted fact, it is hardly a categorical argument to dismiss that which is true as nonsensical. Any denial that 2+2=4 is a fundamental truth hardly takes into account that the reality of such basics are vital to the success of higher mathematics.

Unless the basics are continually correct, and evidently so, then no correct solutions could evolve. We know that within any basic structural ‘use’ that the calculation is correct. We commonly accept its correctness as an embedded reality.

All forms of lower or higher mathematics would have the axiomatic principle of ‘correctness’ as their basis to extend from. Also, they would have as an axiom that the reverse is true. The 2+2=4 is, in its reality, the epitome of balance and construction. The 2+2 reality forms its correct conclusion when the principles of mathematics are propounded and they conform to transparent truth and arrive at 4. Only when it ‘adds up’, does it become a truth that we all recognize. Our greatest ignorance is taking for granted the proliferation of such truths through an ideological blinkered perspective. Because truth takes a commonplace form it is no less fundamental. Unless there is correct knowledge as to the existence of fundamental truth, that ‘which is’, goes unrecognised. That form of truth must be applicable to all. Truth exists in everything – it is an evidential reality. Searching for an esoteric truth is chasing shadows. Every truth is a ‘necessary factor’, and fundamental to our existence.



Because of the imposed limited perspectives (via education, ideology, beliefs) that which is evidently true, and transparent, is delegated to a position of simple practicality with conditions placed on it which further deletes its substance, and we have the awful predilection of conforming to the attempted destruction of that which is true. Do we have a problem with seeing something, which is correct, as also being true?

All truths are fundamental. They are not subject to attempted denial because of any diminished realisation at any point in time. Where there is reasonable evidence of balance, equity, and agreement we can conclude that a truth exists. Once innate information of that truth becomes transparent, it becomes an embedded useful human utility that must have some measure of fundamental truth as their starting point.



From any common-sense, or ‘more reasonable’ position, it would be more productive to view reality as possessing at every level the same innate values or principles consistent with our ability to measure, or recognize them. To view reality as having ‘different’, or antagonistic properties, is simply a misguided view of ‘what is’. That form of perspective is counter productive when it attempts to establish mythical dichotomies as realities in their own right.

When the reality of principles are made transparent, we can then ‘more reasonably’ make use of them to further their basic existence. Here we use reason to exemplify their necessary function, and once established it becomes (if necessary), ‘more reasonable’ to locate them in all things.

The dematerialization of any object through the practice of ‘perceptual illusion’ is an attempt to deny the reality that exists. Where perceptual illusions are concerned, innate direct communion with that which is, suspends the effect of such illusions. All the properties in a chair are recognized as the reality that exists. That is materialism.

A chair does have the principles of form, design, structure, colour, substance etc. However it is analysed – it is a quantifiable reality.

When we understand the validity and existence of principles in all things, it is easy to understand that ideological dogmas are never the foundation for real knowledge, or that direct experience of ‘what is’. Our real perspective is not some individualistic experience that confines us, it is that expanse in which we exist that offers us the view of that expanse. Everyone has the potential to go beyond their ‘apparent’ human perspective limitations. Shifting our sense of perception toward that which is basic, paradoxically extends the experience of that which is true.

Let general knowledge be directed toward the performance that identifies the measure of principles that are enacted. Therein lies the production of knowledge that offers a sustainable growth of that vital universal aspect of knowledge, where, reason and truth, can prevail. Any correct definition is language itself, opening the door to that reality experience which is critical.

Only when we know and experience that the same reality (with all its principles intact) exists for all of us can we then recognize the mythical distinctions that are taken as being real.

The majestic experience of that reality goes well beyond historical beliefs.

Exploring simple ‘necessities’ is not based on any sacred text, but the privilege of recognizing a sensible evolutionary path through life. Whatever may be in the future, is implicit in the material world now, and it has always been so.

= Conceptual language. = My wife and I recognized how profound the extension of this observation would mean conceptually. Of all the languages spoken on this planet, it would be fair to say that all of them would contain the properties of, air, food, and water conceptually, etc. This is a form of consciousness equality that is available to us all. It points to the reality of our constant relation to each other and our existence.

We can never exist in a world of individuality, but only in relation to the consciousness of one another. Consequently, that exceptional experience can only be shared superficially. We cannot ‘know’ any other life experiences other than our own introspection.

" Albert Einstein 1921. We experience our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us."

Albert Einstein, in One Home, One Family, One Future,p.99

Einstein came very close. In reality, every human being has a backpack from the day they were conceived. In the backpack every experience in their mother’s womb is experienced. At birth and throughout their lives, everything that happens to them in life is registered and creates their personality.

That life with all its experiences can never be known to anyone else, consequently, we can never “know” another person. It creates equality of consciousness that we must understand. We can know details about a person, but that is all. That life is sacrosanct. Who we are really goes beyond normal human experience and into the realm of the Absolute.

Werner Karl Heisenberg (physicist).

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

As a young layman with no knowledge of Heisenberg but interested in principles it seemed to me that the Uncertainty Principle was just a contradiction in terms.

In later years I found that Heraclitus describes life as being in a state of flux a replica of the Uncertainty Principle which in fact can be defined as an absolute state.

Within the context of knowing who we are and the backpack we carry our life in, we can never know each individual life as that life experience is singularly their own and sacrosanct.

It now seems that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle can fall into the category of being an Absolute.

Evolution proceeds in advance of our need to evolve. In our pure active state, we are.There is no static end (an abomination) - only beginning. As we cannot know what tomorrow will bring, living with expectations is rather futile. Nature has its own agenda.

Zen Koan recorded 1228:

'An instant realization sees endless time.

Endless time is as one moment.

When one comprehends the endless moment

He, or she, realizes the person who is seeing it.' We do not own Space.

We do not own Time

We do not own Energy

We do not own Matter

"What we call the beginning is often the end

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

The end is where we start from

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time"

T.S Eliot

= Everything is in scale. = The present moment is the point in which Eternity has placed us – we all live in that moment, and whether we like it or not, we exist in it, experience it, have knowledge of it, and we all share it, measure by measure.

There are no dichotomies. Illusion is a measure of Reality, as Stupidity is a measure of Intelligence

If one keeps measuring illusion it is an attempted downward spiral to nothingness.There is no opposite to Reality – that illusion is a measure of Reality.

There is no such thing as ‘nothing’ in the elemental construction of Homo sapiens. All the innate ‘something’s’ are the fundamentals of our being human and all our experiences.

The correct use, and understanding of who we are, is an extension therefrom.

Does it require any interpretation on anyones part to say ‘we are? Any attempted denial of that statement would be perverse use of the language, and delusional.

Try saying ‘we are not”
‘We are’ is the foundation of all affirmation, and within that spectrum, we can know, and be.

‘We are’ is self-evident Truth.

We can neither know, nor experience what isn’t. Eternity is the here and now, that is why it is possible to explain the experience of Eternity. Nothing is ever lost in Time. We are located in a vast Universe.

‘twas a moment’s pause,-

All that took place within me came and went

As in a moment; yet with Time it dwells,

And grateful memory, as a thing divine.

Wordsworth Prelude, Book V111

We already know – the basic condition that must exist for us to re-cognise.

It is at that moment of pure affirmation, when all that is, is manifest.

Unless there was mutual identity we could not know anything. It is why we are urged to evacuate the Platonic cave. Sadly most prefer the shadows rather than confront who they are.

We already know – the basic condition that must exist for us to recognise.

It is at that moment of pure affirmation, when all that is, is manifest.

Lost Shadows
The shadows move

Lost in confusion

Lost in despair

Imagination shrouds the real

Looking back

Looking forward

Is this the Centre?

James Brines.

= Basic Principles. = We are all in the business of living and attempting to understand the principles involved in that human process up to the end of life. The implicit principles necessary for life eventually disappear and all measurable criteria pronounce a body to be devoid of life. Throughout historical agreement we know what that means, and we act accordingly on *common knowledge*. We know that dying is a necessary factor of life. It is a Natural law that if we live - we also die. Natural law is Universal, for us to *know* that a body lives; we also *know* that a body’s life will end. Albeit that reports tell us that today millions of people die of disease, starvation, wars, we of necessity accept that as the ongoing reality because again we are universally connected and know the results of such carnage. Because it is in our realm of common knowledge we have graveyards, crematoriums, undertakers, doctors who pronounce bodies to have died. We understand the consequences of leaving such bodies unburied, the diseases that would prevail. Again, please explore the definition of principle (Universal principle) and try to go to the limitations of the definition without using mythical dichotomies.

Principle: A fundamental truth used as a basis of reasoning.

All of these questions are based on singularity (the Cartesian dogma) If Descartes had only introduced inclusion into his musings (they were taken as conservative singularity) he may have realized the difficulty of addressing thought as reality. He then may have quite easily concluded that universally - *We are!!*

That pronouncement is inclusive, and conclusive in every way, *we are - and we know!!*

Because my knowledge is not a private, personal piece of property concerning principles, but Universal (Archimedes et al), then that innate knowledge has completeness we can share. Whatever identical resonance we may be able to share (concerning completeness), that can only be accomplished by understanding the principles involved and their constant relationship to each of us. Clearly the plethora of present and past discoveries establishes the existence of that which is fundamentally true, and the foundation for law.

The principles are established, and always have been, we are in the business of making them transparent and complete.

However tenuous the link we are all connected through communication, the air we breathe, the ground we walk on, the universe we live in, the common principles we live by. We all must have sustenance to survive, or we will not live. (See above)

There is nothing else to experience.*

When we actively explore the reality of anything, all principles involved in that exploration are complementary, and honest, and we understand the wasteful divisive mythology that people attempt to attach to them.

We cannot */partially know/* the truth, it must be complete. Dichotomies attempt to deny the existence of truth, and are misleading.

How do we more reasonably completely know anything?

The complexity of language systems with contemporary usage requires new and creative structures to provide clear information. Internal and external reasoning capacities can only develop in concert with Man’s recognition of the principles that essentially form our lives.

The inevitability of human consciousness rising beyond its historical beginnings posits a future outside our normal perceptions, and  a factual reality that points to the existence of new perceptions that are infinite.

It is natural to know when we are no longer trapped in any mythical ideologies that gives credence to dichotomies that stifle the recognition of simple principles.

There was no cause for knowledge to be established - it has always existed.*

Ask yourself - ‘how do you know to ask any questions at all?’

There is no hidden dimension or mystical world. The only philosophical reality is ‘that which is’. To access that we need a new structure to explore ‘knowledge’, a new transformational language. Real knowledge is not amassed information, nor is it the establishment of dogmas, isms, or mythical belief systems.



Basic principles are the source and foundation of all /*knowledge*/. Until that is recognized, extension from mythical sources only leads to a denial of one’s own senses. Trying to conceive of a contemporary world without principles is to posit a world without reason, or intelligence.

The principle of pure knowledge (Truth) could be said to exist in another dimension given the present state of human understanding. To progress that mistaken belief there would be strong support in the need for a comparative reality.

Curiously it seems that philosophy (the seeking of knowledge) constantly discounts any knowledge that does not come within the sphere of established philosophy, and the comparative reality dictum. That consequence profoundly distils the purity of any experience and alienates the observer in their confrontation of that which is real. The measure of that ‘comparative reality’ knowledge bounded by dichotomies is so restrictive that it lies in a mythical dimension where denial of its very purpose is the order of the day. Evidently it will not allow doubt to undermine its own denials.

A basic principle of Nature is /*knowledge*/ and it constantly communicates innately in every living structure. How to grow, develop, and disseminate.

Knowledge is reciprocal truth that depends on our relationship and the recognition of principles operating. Knowledge (unlike information) is not stored in an individual box; it is ubiquitously manifest in everything we do. Knowledge is the experience of a positive reality, and its true construction is a dependable source of secure information (not to be misused). We daily have the opportunity of witnessing ‘knowledge’ in action as expressed by the ‘the principles of knowledge’, namely the principles themselves.

The questions lie in a continuing mythical belief in a mystical unknown (the Cartesian stance) which because of its non-existence can never be known. It is a belief that is detrimental (because it attempts to deny all existing factual knowledge) to dealing with Nature and Reality and the fundamental necessity of our relationship with them.

Making that relationship transparent is our basic obligation and the ongoing evolutionary activity.

Although there is an obvious avoidance to address the definition of principle itself, it is a factor that must be paid attention to, to realize that ‘common knowledge’ is the only reality that exists. Amazingly although there is avoidance of principles - truth - reason etc, there is acceptance of the Cartesian dogma,. Paradoxically this determined acceptance of Descartes supports the reality of innate knowledge existing (I think - therefore I am) which establishes for him innate knowledge; however mistaken he is concerning the interpretation of his experience.

Long before I read of Archimedes and his various principle discoveries I was using the principle of leverage in a variety of ways, prying lids off boxes, moving articles with a lever well beyond my physical strength to do so without said lever, and I knew how to do it. Transferring that knowledge to a student or apprentice is relatively easy because innately they also /*know*/ how to do it.

Every aspect of human industry uses the principle in a myriad of ways because it is our obligation to constantly progress the principle and confirm the constant utilization of knowledge. We wholeheartedly adopted Archimedes principles (et al) because we recognized their fundamental utility. It is preposterous to question the widespread /*factual knowledge*/ of all principles, more especially so when we cannot escape their ubiquitous daily existence in all our lives - Nature and Reality do not lie.

One may abstain from admitting their existence. To do so is simply attempting the impossible, and is devoid of all reason.

Real knowledge has been put into the realm of the mystical unknowable even to the point that knowledge practitioners go to the outer extremes and deny the gift of their natural senses. With their adherence to what they consider is knowledge they become captive automatons to any prescription for life that is expressed in that ’knowledge medium’, which then becomes the authority. When ’knowledge’ is addressed as having a collective source in Universal principles then we have the potential to experience its complete reality (microcosm - macrocosm) without any imaginary, or divisive comparative content. There is then a re-orientation process toward our true being and recognition of our own reality in relation to the natural processes we share. Real knowledge is elementary and Natural.

We know, because that which is knowable is constantly expressed by the principles involved. We all share those principles and can correctly infer the most simple and obvious truths. All social life functions by our adherence to the implicit laws operating within them. Seeking experimental contradiction to a fact of life offers us nothing but proof which is the establishing of ‘complete knowledge’ however ‘more reasonably’ one wishes to extend the exercise.

The construction of new philosophies must seek a mandate to fully explore the relationship between experience and innate knowledge as the foundation for pure knowledge to emerge. To repeat, knowledge or truth do not reside in any individual domain, nor are they the private possession of any human being.

We know, because ’knowledge’ is an innate natural possession that we constantly share - otherwise civilization could not exist.

New definition of knowledgeː

"Evident facts about mutual standards that provide us with security."

We do not become human beings because we can ‘think’; we become more human because we learn to conform to the implicit principles in Nature and Reality. Denying them - denies our being.

It is natural to know. There was no cause for knowledge to be established - it has always existed.

Knowledge is an evolutionary process. Human beings developed from primitive innate instinctual knowledge to contemporary cultures. Some know more than others through experience, and make that knowledge transparent.

Insistence on how we can ’completely’ know is an ephemeral philosophical question that attempts to deny that we can have ’knowledge’ at all, as you understand it. Knowing that we ’know’ the inherent completeness of everything through the existence of principles, is the natural catalyst to make ’that which is’ transparent.

Heraclitus:

"No man steps in the same river twice "

He believed in the "Unity of Opposites (Absolutes).

He cried for the needless unconsciousness of mankind..

“Exploration of a mythical dichotomy below for the purpose of establishing principles. Principles that are not a 'mind' construct, but the very essence of our being. Independence, is the curious and dangerous malady where humanity has lionized negative mythology in denial of its own reality.

The human fundamental reality has at its base the simple natural law that we are dependent beings. From conception, the human embryo is entirely dependent on the health and well-being of its mother to provide it adequate healthy sustenance to enable its entry into the world. That form of innate dependability the human species carries with it throughout its spectrum of life.

Every aspect of human activity is premised on the availability of air, food, and water without which the organism cannot survive (this would be an incontrovertible 'more reasonable' truism or an Absolute).

In a perverse way, that which is our natural state has become the target for what appears to be open defiance of the laws that govern our behavior.

When a basic premise is either used mistakenly, or deliberately, its consequences can be socially far reaching, for any deviation however far it is extended is a distortion of the truth, and a denial of who we are.

The erroneous conclusion through exercising responsibility that we can confer independence to our actions has gained a distorting and ubiquitous influence which paradoxically undermines the very responsibility practiced.

Within the context of being dependent we can correctly be responsible for our own actions but with the surety of knowledge that that responsibility is contingent on the measure of life giving forces available that we are dependent on.

The mythical dichotomy 'independence' connotes with the myth of separateness, division, alienation, and the force of these particular myths is expressed in wars, genocide, criminality. Alarmingly the mythological term has become a residual in our lexicon and is used more widely with acclaim than its true counterpart.

To uphold delusional 'independence' as a value to strive for erodes our human heritage by diverting useless energy toward a dubious goal, and consequences that leave us questioning our means of arrival. Sadly it is a loss of being with the paradoxical view that the energy expended will deliver up a personal reality.

The cult of independent individuality with its mythical ideology based on personal intimacy is now taken for granted, which then passes into the acceptance of the spurious dichotomy as a tangible reality. This in turn disposes the adherents to discredit the very essence of their being, and in the process dehumanizes many cultures. The presumption of independent individuality leading hopefully to a superior future is in fact counter-productive to the purpose, and leads eventually to corrupt power, and subsequently the invention of immoral policies that continue the negative spiral, which in the end has no ethical base to extend from.

The alienation from our substantial being creates inevitable tension anxiety, and the need to somehow relieve that anxiety with any artificial means available.

Responsibility.Being responsible for any social activity would best be enacted with regard to the effect it will have (directly or indirectly) on the lives of those who are dependent on a beneficial outcome.To recognize with some significance the basic structure of our being in turn significantly increases the measure of our understanding of human relationships.Being dependent is not a mental construct choice - it is a state of being, and there can be no being-ness without at least one other being, there is then the possibility that the principle of true egalitarianism becomes the manifest reality.

Being-ness can only be identified and expressed in relationship.



This is why the cult of 'independence' is eventually so socially destructive, as it creates that alienation which attempts to deny each real human need, and leads to a depravation of honesty. Human relationships between children and adults where independence is the accepted norm is severely undermined when the educational process predominantly teaches an unnatural form of living (either intentionally or unintentionally). The educational process is then reduced to the adoption of a fiction, which in turn puts at risk any educational program.

The effect of interpreting mythical dichotomies as described here is symptomatically ascribed to the existence of all other principles that govern life.

The construction of any ethological debate should not be premised on comparative perspectives, based on human thought, but rather on the issues that we can recognize as being universally compatible, therein lies the common denominator point of extension.

The focus of attention on comparative perspectives denies justice to 'what is'. To contemplate the 'right or wrong' of any circumstance is a deviation from the truth. The correctness of any debate (however minute the finding), is the justifiable extension, and the only true trajectory we are morally obliged to travel. Truth is not defined, nor experienced by comparison, but by 'what we are'. An orange is to an orange, what an orange is to an orange.

To define correctly there should be careful and disciplined action toward establishing 'true factors' that we constantly use to promote reasonable standards.

= Time =

In any moment of time, we have the potential to merge on an equal basis with the reality that exists, and to know what true interaction is. That is the point of 'direct experience'.

It is then that we know the truth about ourselves and the beauty of this Universe which also reveals to us the folly of our present conditioning. In that experience, it becomes very clear that all so called cerebral activity has nothing to do with reality. The fundamental repository of our knowledge and relationship with life is our being-ness, which is not located inside a mental box to be analyzed, accepted, or discarded at will, but the very privileged natural gift of being.



.

What some scholars deal with is the appearance of life prescribed by the illusion of comparative perspective which functions on the basis of dichotomous ideology. It is in effect a denial of our humanity to conclude that all things that exist [from our perspective] exist only in the mind, that is, they are purely notional.

It compounds the denial of 'what is', and an extraordinary refusal to observe transparent life. It should be noted that there is ample contemporary exposure to the Cartesian doctrine, and in this regard, I would refer you to the works of Professor Gilbert Ryle, notably his publication The Concept of Mind.

The heuristic principle applies throughout when establishing our connectedness with reality. It is only through our contact with reality that we can discover, and equate with the mutual structure of the principles that govern all existence.

Have already noted that it is also a peculiar form of arrogance that presumes that life is only a notional existence beyond the boundaries of the 'mind in a box' assertion. It would be foolish of anyone to assert that ice cream has a cold smooth satisfying texture and taste on a warm summers day unless they had actually experienced it, preferably on more than one occasion. For anyone who has never enjoyed that experience, it would be foolish of them to discount the very numerous accounts of such an experience that is available just because they had not been party to that event.

From a logical point of view, given the avowed experiences of ice cream eaters, we could reasonably ascertain the validity of each experience by documenting their separate opinions. Each participant would have 'direct experience' in the consumption of ice cream, which at that point in time has the potential for that participant to experience the full measure of that factual reality. We have the natural capacity to experience coldness, smoothness, which equates with the reality that exists, and the potential for those realities to unify.

It is not a question of how to get outside of our minds (mind in a box position); we are constantly outside our so-called minds performing acts of transparency throughout our entire existence. The belief that our constant engagement with reality can never be based on a rational acceptance of 'what is', is at the least, very sad.

The Platonic Cave shadows are a metaphor for the (mind in a box) syndrome.



The need to reach simple, and obvious conclusions and accept them for the reality they are provides the opportunity to engage the complete reality of the moment. It is indeed going too far beyond the reality of the moment searching for philosophical profoundness which does not exist, that fails to establish the constant principles that always operate. Pure principles are not amorphous shadowy ideals; they are represented in everything that exists. The only way we can equate our inner knowledge of reality is through direct experience of its truth. Within that context then, life cannot take on a notional existence but is an existence that is very real, and that we continually share through our innate knowledge. That our so-called minds are defined by comparison - incompleteness - dualism would have extreme difficulty in pursuing the proposition that we are defined by our direct relationship with reality which is expressed in our innate ability to directly interact with 'what is'. The reality of interconnection, and interaction, are not idealistic concepts of a notional nature, but actual and consistent transparent realities. We do not live in a shadowy world that is hidden from our direct experience, but we are constantly engaged in the process of life, and we do not have the right, nor the choice, to deny it.

''It is then that we know the truth about ourselves and the beauty of this Universe which also reveals to us the folly of our present conditioning. In that experience, it becomes very clear that all so called cerebral activity has nothing to do with reality. The fundamental repository of our knowledge and relationship with life is our being-ness, which is not located inside a mental box to be analyzed, accepted, or discarded at will, but the very privileged natural gift of being''

Semantic template.
The creation of your own semantic template.

That will consist of an alphabetical list of Absolutes that are all interdependent and interconnected. Their unifying construction creates a ‘new’ consciousness meaning.

That ‘meaning’ is yours specifically.

The greatest knowledge you can ever have is your own!



That meaning also creates its own moral construction that cannot be misused. The semantic template is available to everyone, and its dissemination is our responsibility.

Consider that the language structure, concepts, and definitions now in use no longer always deliver, accurate, reasonable, and responsible information. Indeed at times, they can be quite ambiguous.

The statement ‘mutual agreement’, and its physical manifestation in whatever form, is its own dialectic, and will carry within it all other principles necessary for the activity to proceed. Given the Socratic assertion that if something is true then it cannot lead to false consequences no matter how circular any argument may be.

Then extrapolating the statement into extended definitions must only lead to a better understanding of the inherent truths available. This can promote recognition of the underlying essence of all things, which can become more real than our conventional understanding of Reality.

There is a contemporary need to find new definitions, new paradigms to explore the concepts that govern our existence.



Examples of principles below and how to define them without dichotomies, just add conjunctions to create any sentence.

Communication. Truth. Standard. Proof. Express. Contribute. Mutual. Direction. Advance. Comfort. Organize. Certain. Immediate. Interest. Improve. Present. Constructive. Gain. Trust. Progress. Source. Knowledge.Basic. Original Reality. Awareness.Freedom. Purpose. Connect. Understand.

Support. Peace. Cause. Unity. Ability. Rights. Honest. Discover. Positive. Energy. Balance. Good. Courage. Willing. Control. Use. Association. Observe.Reason. Easy. Wealth. Simple. Law. Increase. Order. Flow.Co-operation. Exact.Quality. Accuracy. Strength. Responsible. Operating. Creative. Measure. Recognition. Accept. Constant. Obligation. Include. Dependence. Relationship. Value. Success. Principle. Equality. Stable. Share. Love.Sustenance. Action. Identity. Intelligence. Education. Secure. Facts. Agreement. Information. For. Rules.Clear. Yield.

Example:

"Success = Securing facts through responsible co-operation and using constructive knowledge to develop your success"

There are no dichotomies!

Any principle is correctly defined by any two other principles. You create a new language. Using conjunctions you can write your own book.

Where a circular argument is based on an untruth, then it cannot lead to a truth. The reverse of that is that when the truth is established, it cannot be denied.

Establishing ‘mutual agreement’ as a center from which we can reach out for extended knowledge in its ever-evolving radius, is not a limitation, or a stop, it is only a beginning!

When any concept is truly established the superficial exemplification ceases to dominate, and we can truly experience the apparent essence of ‘what is’.

Paradoxically to resource innate knowledge, we must recognize our profound ignorance of Nature, and Reality.

Completeness does not lie in individuality. This is an extreme form of monastic expectation. There can be no individuality (or completeness) unless there is at least one other individual. This is the true foundation of completeness.

Whenever we are privileged to experience that instantaneous essence of one other, then we know in that moment that we experience ourselves. It is complete complementation with the knowledge paradoxically that it is an endless process. There are many paradoxes we live within that strain our conventional views of what is ‘more reasonable’. Any true relationship experience is not based on a causality premise, but on an experience that is necessarily complementation.

Individuality in terms of completeness is a fundamental circular argument back to one, which in its form of denial excludes any form of reasonable argument to the contrary. It is a non sequitur, which denies the pressure of facts that are in abundance, despite the evidence of their reality.

To observe ‘mutual agreement’ is looking at things as they are.

True observation of ‘mutual agreement’ in action is observing essence transparency – it is knowing ‘who we are’. That form of recognition is essence duplication.

The proposition that we can observe the Truth may well be the highest attainment of Realities properties, for Truth is knowledge.

Consider the hypothesis of a human entity (an individual) being born in a black space with no other form of life in that environment.

How could there be Agreement?

How could there be Intelligence?

How could there be Understanding?

How could there be Recognition?

How could there be Love?

How could there be Law?

How could there be Reason?



All of the above principles are the transparent manifestation of Nature and Realities properties that are constantly evolving. They are ethical imperatives, and we have developed the positive properties of language to establish them for our use.

We can only be defined through relationship principles for they offer us the best hope to recognize the factors that lead to complementation.

There is a fundamental need to grasp simple common-sense essentials.

The Here and Now is not a temporary transitional time phase that we move in and out of. It is a constant certainty that is essential to recognize, so that our focus of attention has a foundation.

Centrism can imply a fixation, which also implies vulnerability, which can be perfectly true if it does not lead to extension.

To understand who we are, it is essential that we recognize and become aware of the very principles that we operate from. They encapsulate all the measure of any human societies ethics, morals, and laws, which is a continuous evolutionary educational process within which the realization of its total essence is always available.

To use the doctrine that reason is a reliable tool to discover Truth – therefore ‘mutual agreement’ in the context ‘correct information’ translates to the Truth to reason!

Evolution is a constant dynamic process.

The human phenomena of ‘who we are’ is only understood in our union with each other, and ‘what is’. The paradox again is that there never is any separation. Separation is a mythical non-existent.

The principles that are our necessities have continuous expansion properties that as humans we are privileged to assist their propagation.

The human constellation in its evolutionary march must use these fundamental principles to ensure continuity.

To maintain coherence and consistency our source is centered in the principles and factors that we have interpreted from our association with Nature, and Reality.

Whatever we write that is of any consequence, or at any other time, is written with the hope that stronger interpreters than us overtake what we present.

To ‘see’ Reality as we have seen, and be intoxicated by it, as we have been, will ensure its progression.

Discovery
The consciousness whole is the sum of all its parts and experiences. As we are all on an evolutionary path, our life and knowledge hopefully develop in the right direction.

The exploration took us through a plethora of data and opinions about reality from authorities on science, religion, philosophy and metaphysics. Nowhere could we find a definitive conclusive argument, or agreement, that met our needs.

For us, the question came down to “Is there anything at all that provides some form of construction, and certainty?” Something that has its own inherent ethical standards.

The alternative proposition to that is a nihilistic “nothingness”. A pathological proposition that makes no sense.

Heraclitus’s “unity of opposites” seemed the most promising. Our understanding of that now made dichotomies a semantic illusion. If achieved in a mindful way it is the act of uniting them, providing a conscious correct experience of ‘what is’.

We live our lives with secondary knowledge that everything that is – is always interconnected and interdependent. Yet our illusory experience belies that form of knowledge.

It is here that we understood Heraclitus and his “unity of opposites”. Mentally uniting opposites replaces the existing illusion of their existence – there are no dichotomies!

Once the illusion is gone a new solution manifests that is peculiar to the mindfulness operator, and belongs to a higher form of consciousness.

Heraclitus was known as “The Weeping Philosopher”.

He wept for the needless unconsciousness of mankind when the ‘unity of opposites” was always available.

He was also known as Heraclitus The Obscure.

A title we suspect that came about because the successful conclusion to uniting opposites and replacing the illusion, opened a door to a new dimension.

Semantic description at this time may not have been available.

This brings us to the ancient Yin and Yang symbol of the ‘unity of opposites’. As separate entities in Chinese philosophy, they are complementary, and in fusion they represent the whole. So as dichotomies they don’t exist.



The whole is the elemental answer to any fusion of opposites, whatever that may be.

Symbolize a line as being infinite in the sense that any line can be categorised as being infinite. Apply an infinite number of points in any line. Intersect any line through any point by another line then we have a specific identifiable point at the intersection, which at that point in time has an infinite quality, yet constant and complete.

Any such point has Matter, Energy, Space, and Time, the epitome of the microcosm.

We may locate a Reality point that establishes the Truth. Conventional mechanical ‘thought processes’ deal with dichotomies that are based on a comparative perspective ideology, and consequently, skew any real experience of that which is real.

We must use correct ‘measuring sticks’ to secure proper standards, but from the point of view that there is a belief in dichotomies, it will always be a compelling argument that aspects of reality can be contradictory. The element of denial within human historical memory accumulates to establishing dichotomies as being real.

We are defined not by how ‘different’ we are, but by our commonality of existence. When we locate that Reality point we will then know that the definition in itself has a whole, and complete explanation of ‘reason” in all possible senses.

All the reality we can deal with is here, and now. There is no possibility that ‘infinite regress’ (an imagined reality) is any part of our immediate experience. Infinite regress through thought processes, deals with questionable imponderables. It is a descending spiral, which further removes one from reality, which only produces illusion, and correct meanings are always deferred. It is making a holy virtue out of complexity. The epitome of completeness is the active realization of the operational principle.

Conclusion: A brick – a house. Each complete in themselves. A house is not composed of one single brick, but each brick in its composition is complete, and whole in itself in that it has matter, energy, space, and time. In that context, it is a microscopic whole which has implicit within it the macrocosmic whole, a house.

We cannot define that which isn’t. We constantly use negative dichotomous terms in language, which are in essence factually indefinable, and therefore non-existent, but they are used as though we can support a view as to their existence. At this time we constantly use mythical concepts as though they had real substance. That erroneous belief in turn diminishes that which is real and compounds the problem of recognition of Reality. The flat earth society no doubt had to be persuaded of the mythical nature of their beliefs. This dictates that we must research ‘that which is” to achieve an understanding that supports that reality.

Separation is the mythical measure we use in an attempt to justify the real identity of either ‘relationship’ or ‘completion’, but it has no substance in fact.That we are connected, that we are related, that we are communicating, that we agree that ‘mutual agreement’ exists, all of these factors fall into the category of ‘that which is. There is nothing that is real that is not immediately available to us, there is ‘mutual agreement’.

Attempting to view true relationships as having a necessary separation link, or dichotomy is a clear misunderstanding of the nature and completeness of all that we are related to.

Connectedness.
A relationship is defined as we are by the measure of contact (especially homo sapiens) that is apparent. It would be true to say that I have a measure of relationship with everyone who reads this material. No matter how tenuous the link we have a measure of relationship with all life – we are related! Depending on the strength of that relationship defines ‘who we are’.

‘Who we are’ is not defined by any spurious separation from life, quite simply because we cannot be separated from it, we are engaged in it at every moment in time. Any attempt to establish ‘separation’ as a reality is an attempt to deny ‘who we are’, and another exercise in futility! Again artificial interioralisation of concepts or principles leads only to a denial of their external reality.

We are all connected by the very simple fact that we all exist on this planet. It is a very simple axiom that all life on this planet is supported by the conditional properties this planet provides. It is also a very simple, and more reasonable axiom to conclude that no matter how tenuous the link that all life in this regard has very concrete and definitive forms of relationship. We all must breathe, we all must eat, and we all must drink, and if you need any further certainty of ‘completion’ relationships, we certainly, all must die!



To set in qualifications from the premise that there is a ‘separate mind’ (a kind of Platonic cave) to get outside of. This premise precludes either in part or in whole the evidence and experience of Nature, and Reality, within which our beingness is located. It would all be beyond our grasp if indeed our conventional concepts of consciousness was adhered to, which in effect attempts to deny us that direct ‘relationship’ to ‘what is’, and the completeness of that experience.

Knowing or being and solipsistic theories advise that we cannot truly know each others experience, nor can we penetrate others experience, but in the democratic recognition that we know and have our being in relationship, and the mutual, and natural convergence of everything there is. Homo sapiens (race, color, or creed aside) necessarily conduct themselves in ways that extend recognition, and understanding at every level, without the constant need of ‘completion’ recognition that is inherent in all our interrelated actions.

The flat earth society eventually moved on to a realization that their visionary scope was shrunken, and severely limited. They were deprived of a planetary (never mind a universal) relationship that one can only imagine severely curtailed the very expansion of consciousness necessary for humanity to progress. We have evolved some little way because of our understanding of the natural relationship.

The centered in the mind condition - which connotes with the separation ideology - screams to be released from that mythology, and engage itself directly in real relationship with everything that is.

= Relationship. =

Separation is the mythical tool we attempt to use to maintain a false continuity of an imaginary individuality that does not exist.

The taking for granted conditional mythologies (the flat earth society) engage the victims in what can best be described as serious problems in recognizing the very limitations that restrict their development.

We must learn to view wholes, which equates with viewing ‘completeness’. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but the parts are not necessarily separate conceptual parts. We can ‘see’ the whole when we are able to identify the factors that constitute their existence as a complete reality.

That which is complete in Law = Agreements that produce secure and dependent outcomes.

We know in essence the concept of ‘completeness’, and we demonstrate the evidence in myriad ways. Each act is a microcosm of the whole – view from the other end of the telescope!

In the traffic analogy the driver, and all other drivers, conform to the law by driving off when the light turns green. There is an implicit agreement about the value of traffic laws, and traffic lights that control the flow of traffic. At that moment there is a complete relationship understanding of those values. The ‘complete’ or ‘wholesome’ activity of motorists waiting at traffic lights for the green signal to go, and they then move off, validates all the factors implicit within the properties of ‘mutual agreement’.



Whatever we communicate for the benefit of future generations should not be based on mythical assumptions, but should be based on necessary factors.It is ordinary life that portrays all the dignity, honor, and the complementary wonder of the human species.

We are here – we are present – we are communicating.

We have an obligation (which we necessarily fulfill) to make transparent the basic principles that govern our existence.

That, which is factual, provides us with a correct motive for behavior, and we do a disservice to Reality when we attempt to deny it. We exist and live in a world where acts of ‘completeness’ expressed in one form as ‘mutual agreement’, are continually enacted.

It is the form of expression, and continuance of processes that we constantly use to arrive at reasonable solutions, and we employ factors that are necessary to provide us with a clear, and unambiguous understanding. They motivate reasonable behavior toward activity that we can accept as being a logical process.

Natural Experience:
No form of life can exist in and of itself, it is brought into existence through a relationship with its own environment, or its species. The obvious egotistical monistic nature of oneness (if there was such an entity) could not leave any room for the realization of anything that might disturb its comfort zone. There is no real knowledge where any concentration is on the “I am” syndrome.

"No man is an island, entire of itself;

Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main."

- John Donne, 'No Man Is An Island, Meditation XVII - Devotion Upon Emergent Occasion. “We are’ is an inclusive affirmation that deals with “what is’. There is no constructive dialogue, no real understanding, without a relationship.

Based on personal experience, we are a distinct, and unique species born of Nature and Reality that has combined to provide us with the innate ability to recognize the very properties that created us, and utilize them through an evolutionary process toward ever-increasing transparency. That transparency can only become available through a matching process between innate knowledge, and the reality we share, a reality that is our heritage.

We like all other forms of life are the product of Nature, and subject to its laws, and principles. Necessity created a language that evaluated Reality, and provided us with guidelines to emulate its constant properties. The measure, and quality of knowledge is dependent on the realization of ‘what is’. The crux of correct knowledge is to know the base that we function from. The principles that are implicit within Nature, and Reality we have now translated through the evolved language systems with symbols and definitions that we now use to share the experience. When principles are fundamentally true and recognized for what they are, misguided belief systems will evaporate.

To ask what is the source of the principles we present is ipso facto to ask what is the source of Nature, and Reality, and we repeat, that is an exercise in futility, but that does not mean that we cannot recognize that which is natural to us, and express it, as best we can through language.

The experience of ‘who we are’ is the Ultimate transparency that transcends all doubt, or denial.

We can know with an understanding that is pure and indisputable, that is the motivational drive for evolutionary continuance.

To understand who we are we must address Nature, and Reality, and ask ‘what is’ Here, and Now, with an understanding of the dichotomies that exist in language.

The ‘Eureka’ moments, epiphanies, enlightenments, etc, are all evolutionary evidence of who we are, and when we can translate them into principles, and concepts, then the assertions of an Archimedes (and many others) are recognized, and properly used. Through Nature, and Reality we can establish what Truth is! Is it true to say that most people conform to the rules of the road? It would be more reasonable to assert that the answer is yes! Consequently, we can say that we have ‘Mutual agreement’, and ‘Co-operative Understanding’ as observable realities.

There is no conceptual source through Time, or history where there is an end. There is only ‘beginning’. Here and Now is always the ‘beginning’, and a more reasonable platform to explore than any exploration into the past concerning our true identity.



Contemporary terms like Absolute, Complete, Positive we use to match our conditional understanding of ‘what is’. When we use contemporary conditional language to address concepts like Truth, Knowledge, Understanding, they are limited by the measure of our progression, but we use them all as stepping-stones. Language is a constantly evolving process.

When we agree that there is ‘some certainty’ and ‘limited knowledge’ you have agreed to the concepts of certainty and knowledge as factors that are part of our natural reality. All of us function within the framework of certainty, and knowledge, to some degree. Given that we agree to their existence, these are the factors that can lead us to the experience of ‘who we are’. They are a part of us that can lead us to recognition of ‘what is’, and make a transparent reality of the very things we do on a daily basis. We do not need absolute and certain knowledge to perform everyday tasks, but those performances are structured contemporarily because of our advanced understanding of the things we do, based on our own innate reality.

To honestly perceive the consistency of ‘what is’ (to be interdependent, and mutually connected) in interaction, can and does promote the visible reality of ‘who we are’. That visible evidence translates into the knowledge of our complete presence. We know with certainty that our beingness is of pure essence, and from that experience, we are obliged to formulate, as best we can, the structures that are responsible for making that transparent (witness the explosion of human progression, without the necessity in Time of experiencing fully ‘who we are’). To take a more reasonable stand please observe the multiplicity of human action where interdependence, and connection naturally proliferate. To realize that we are ‘interdependent, and mutually connected’ is the realization of a consistent fundamental truth – ‘what is’. Through identifying ‘what is’ as an internal reality we can make transparent the factors that are our natural construct. It is only through sharing this reality that we recognize it!

These factors are not based on any ideology, belief systems, or opinions; they are composed of the Reality that is available to us all. We are unique in that we have the opportunity to be able to use their value in the manner that is implicit within their structure. That use is evidence of our understanding of Reality. What could have happened without the assertion that traffic lights are a safe way to control crossroads, or the assertion that the rules of the road are beneficial for our safety?

Any true experience, epiphany, enlightenment, etc, of ‘who we are’ provides fundamental, and indisputable knowledge of that Reality. Applying the recognized principles provided by Nature, and Reality consistently advances the evolutionary process, hence we have Science, Philosophy, Religion, Education, Art, and Law.

When there is a Pure Realization of who ‘we are’ through relationship recognition, it is unquestionably the recognition of the encapsulated, and innate principles we all share, and there is no place for the dissolving of another Real identity through that recognition. Indeed it is a privileged insight into the epitome of purity.



Nature and Reality can give us direction and guidance to our human existence, and we repeat, it is an exercise in futility to seek any cause to their beginnings.

We have proffered the concept of two as a basis from which human reality can be ‘experienced’. To recognize through, and equate with the true substance, and essence of one other is to automatically experience the totality of ‘who we are’ in full measure. This does not mean that the terms ‘totality’ and ‘full measure’ convey an ‘end’ to ‘what is’.

We have consistently offered recognizable facts (not assertions) that are part of our natural human activity, and give correct direction and meaning to our basic essence. We do function within the structure of ‘mutual agreement’, and we do communicate and ‘make known’ – basic obligations. These are evident simple examples of innate knowledge, and our understanding of ‘what is’ made transparent. To repeat we could not recognize anything without innate knowledge. All knowledge is a continual matching process 1 + 1 = 2. toward the realization of ‘who we are’ the development of language structures that correctly establish basic reality as it is, provides continuous knowledge that makes transparent the very nature of that reality.

It is vitally important to recognize that we have active communal agreements concerning the existence of basic principles and concepts that form the very foundation of our lives.

Constant change and movement in Space-Time - Energy - Matter are applicable absolutes to be recognised, which equates to evolution. There never will be a static property involved in the evolution advance. Evolution encompasses its own absolute properties to provide cognitive connection confirmation.

The evolution of conceptual language exists to provide natural equality and to promote cognition between language states. No matter the languages spoken the concepts of air - food- water is the same and can provide a gateway to explore the future dynamics of human relationships.

Knowing.
Knowing what all the truth is is not some miraculous state of perception. Nor is it a high academic achievement of amassed information. It is simply an objective common-sense view of ‘what is” and in reality what must be. It is what must be for life to function within the principles that exist that are its natural foundation.

We are always of necessity the living expression of a reality that must be experienced in the whole. Our recognition of the same principles operating universally is also our recognition of who we are. That proliferate ‘sameness’ is an evident easily recognizable identity.

When a child is afraid of an imaginary monster in the dark, we generally do not accuse them of being absurd, or that they are lying. Appeasement comes with an explanation of reality at that level which is truthful. An explanation, which the child can grow up with, and find comfort. It is simply introducing a child to a level of truth that is more real to them. In every instance, the only reality that ever exists is truth. However, distorted it may be expressed. One of the major distortions as the result of thought processes is to consider that we can manufacture something other than the reality that exists. The ‘fact’ that you recognize contradictory or absurd statements is that behind them there is a measure of truth. The habitual liar lives in a world in which he or she imagines that truth is something they can manufacture. Where human ‘thought’ constructs its reality in terms of dichotomies it can never deal with the truth because it continually makes those comparative perception judgments. Those judgments are always in question because again they cannot deal with reality as it is.

No matter how absurd or contradictory any statement is, that is the measure of truth expressed. Ergo whatever it is that is expressed, or made manifest, is the truth to some degree. Ergo everything that is, is the truth. It is our responsibility to recognize it for what it is.

It may be appropriate to review previous observations on dichotomies and gradient scale. Consistently we have contended that there are no dichotomies, which then properly puts each principle into the category of an absolute. To identify ‘truth’ as an absolute in that category then everything that is must have a measure of truth. It is a very simple and sensible approach to establish ‘what is’. It is the means of identifying a reality that must have truth as a base – whatever it is, and however nonsensical it may appear. All principles have an elementary gradient scale that we must use to identify knowledge that is honest.

That gradation scale knows no dichotomies. Dichotomies are always the imaginary properties of pseudo subjective reasoning. Necessary factors establish that gradient scale where only objective realities exist to furnish a healthy subjective reason with truth, and so we learn to apply the conjunction to address reality for what it is. Truth comes in an abundant variety of ways in its commonality – and therein lays its overall ‘complete’ power, despite any denial to the contrary.

Embedded knowledge as we see it is neither experience nor knowledge without principle content. A person may be well educated in all aspects of the geography of a beautiful South Sea island, but have no practical experience at all of its beauty. Being clever about a subject does not necessarily equate to an understanding of the subject. Nor should it lend itself to posing as adjudicators on a proposition preset we imagine by the same adjudicators, or essentially the same school of embedded thought processes.

Long before human evolution, the principle of leverage has always existed in all Nature (as have all other principles, wherever there is space – time – energy – matter). Our adaptation to the existence of principles has added to the sum total of ‘knowledge’ as we know it, including the concept of knowledge itself. That form of ‘knowledge’, and our ‘knowing’ is natural and not any personal or esoteric acquisition. Just as a fish knows what its natural habitat is, or a bird to fly in the air, the human species uses all available principles it recognizes to add to its knowledge.

Any valid theory of knowledge must have as its base constructive definitive principles to support it, and it is evident that our accumulated common knowledge equates to our common experience. No matter how erudite or convoluted any argument may be, if in the end it is reduced to inane observations that have no factual basis in principle, then it is time to abandon them. Do try to consider the sort of ‘mind’ processes that offers us up a world that knows nothing but separation.

How can we possibly evaluate what ‘wholesomeness’ really is?

How can we possibly evaluate ‘who we are’?

How can there be any theory of knowledge without addressing Nature or our innate and biological relationship with it?

Any attempt to debate ‘who we are’ and the completeness of that concept must have some sense of reality on the real meaning of ‘completeness’, and some understanding of the principles that are the nucleus of human society. To wrap any argument around a non-existent concept that can never be realized is apropos to attaching oneself to a system of belief in things that do not exist. One can make ponderous and convoluted statements about those beliefs but in reality, they are morally and ethically misguided.

The ability to correlate correct definitions to the reality of life offers up that direct link to the truths that are common to us all. It corrects the presumptive notion that there can be ‘different’ perspectives on the same reality. There can be ‘differences’ but there can not be ‘different’ measuring sticks for the same reality. No matter the multiplicity of perspectives, they can never alter the core principle of ‘what is’.

Historically evolutionary progress can best be measured by the adoption of recognized principles. Reality at whatever level we find it can only be understood by addressing ‘what is’. Nothing can be understood by attempting to relegate it to a non-entity through questionable theories of ‘knowledge’, which in essence negate the very content of knowledge itself. The perpetuation of any theory of knowledge, which cannot recognize the principles that are its foundation, can only be a shadow of its own reality. Construct the ‘necessary factors’ around the skeleton and a body will take form



If any particular theory of knowledge cannot identify simple truths, how can we possibly question how anyone ‘knows’?

A dichotomy is the human attempt to deny the existence of a whole reality of a principle. We have the principle of leverage and its necessary gradient scale.

Mutual agreements of a consistent reality, at a communal level, are a passive form of the Eureka moment, which recognizes fundamental principles that relates to truth. In every social structure, there are varying degrees of recognition, which determine social use. The mosaics of differences, which make up the rich pattern of life, are a testament to human creativity.

Principles offer up a form of predictability in which our brain forms knowledge through the process of interaction. The experience accumulated through each moment, forms exponentially in use, or becomes transparent immediately in a Eureka moment, in which we know. Real knowledge is through the constant interaction with natural principles, much more than the transference of divided embedded information. The problem we face is that ‘knowing’ or ‘how we know” is never a personal possession.

Any theory of knowledge no matter how in that respect, is true interaction. Peeling a potato and ‘knowing’ it, is rewarding enough!

All principles are the repository of pure erudite knowledge. We recognize Universal principles in play at all times in Nature and its by-product – human societies. The correlation between determined interdependence to objective reality requires our intellect to ‘honestly observe ‘what is’, and assimilate that subjectively. Then the equality of the external and the internal becomes a reality and we ‘know’.

Knowledge is the process of natural action, reaction, and interaction. It is nonsensical to ask how do we ‘know’.Every moment in time is complete because it must contain all the principles that form its nucleus. It can only be like that to facilitate the immediate experience of Eternity, or the wholesomeness of any of its principles. On the gradient scale of experience, we all exist somewhere on that scale. It is called life.

Relevant:
That which is relevant can be consistent with interconnectedness and a gradient scale of knowledge.

What it cannot do is confuse the relationship that correct gradient scales of principles have in reality.

.

Hot and cold would be on a temperature scale.

Leverage could only be measured by its own scale.

The domestic cat is the same animal species as a wild lion.

The domestic dog is the same animal species as a wolf.

Gradient scales are the natural human mechanisms used to recognize constant principles. They ensure the human perspective is aligned correctly to identify ‘what is’. The distorted human perspective is the result of human thought processes unable to establish constants that must exist in each moment of time.

The problem with embedded information is that it becomes stultified and it can stifle healthy reaction. The injection of recognizable principles invigorates and brings new life that offers countless avenues for human energy to be released. More importantly, those energies are used to enhance the evolutionary process.

We are collectively gifted with the potential to elevate life itself. We can correctly use such information by transforming its content so that its inherent truth is made recognizable.

It would be impossible for life to function if it was composed of ‘different’ opposite realities.

All theories of knowledge are in essence interconnected and can only contain validity when the principles that are the coalescent mechanisms are recognized. The unification of the truth that must exist in any theory needs to be harvested and used to offer up a body of ‘knowledge’ that has commonality of meaning. The identification of principles, truth, knowledge, and their subsequent establishment can only be achieved through direct interaction with Nature and life.

Gifted with life we have an obligation to demonstrate its capacity to use every resource to sustain and nourish its own environment.

We all know through the constant natural process of action – re-action – interaction. Depending on the quality of that process, knowledge will take its appropriate place on the gradient scale. That we ‘know’ is natural. It is not some extraordinary esoteric attainment, posited by a body of theories that, by their very nature, look for difficulties where none exists.

Universal belief systems based on mythologies can have an entrenched view of good principles being established because of their beliefs. Indeed the perpetuation of the beliefs throughout history offers a dynamic that is counterproductive to the ‘realization’ of principles that are necessarily true. Principles used in this approximate way, paradoxically hold no real meaning, and in fact, impose unhealthy dysfunctionality.

When there is a critical change toward establishing correct principles, it is axiomatic that the diffusion of mythologies becomes an automatic process.

True interaction lies in the knowledge that correct action is its own reward

Any other interpretation is less than tangible.

The accuracy in interpreting basic principles, and the alternate knowledge implicit in the interpretation, will always establish the primary principle sought. Archimedes et al.

Truth can be found in the oddest places.



Archimedes cognition on how to weigh metals in water through displacement.

Truth.
Language is the construct of human action and the word “truth” seems to hold pride of place by the power of its usage and the meanings it evokes. It is preferable if we could turn our attention to the unity of principles (including truth) that are the construct of every language we use. By uniting the principal terms we can elevate the meanings we desire. Reasonable constructs and the correct duality of established principles always lead toward meaning. It is the only form of meaning that leads to its own extension.

All principles have reciprocal value one to the other. No foundation principle can stand alone. They can only exist in a union, one with the other, the source of reciprocity.

All absolutes are universal. There is no hierarchy beyond the meanings they evoke in their joint construction. The binary connotations, however, one may express them, provide a constant reality beyond conventional consciousness. That experience is the immediate reward through disciplined application of their use. That discipline takes the form in all human action (such as the bathing scene above) disposed toward the correct functionality of basic principles. The daily connections we make always include the distinct possibility of their recognition, when we make those connections in a mindful state. From any common sense, or ‘more reasonable’ position, it would be more productive to view reality as possessing at every level the same innate values or principles consistent with our ability to measure, or recognize them. To view reality as having ‘different’, or antagonistic properties, is simply a misguided view of ‘what is’. That form of perspective is counter productive when it attempts to establish mythical dichotomies as realities in their own right. When the realities of principles are made transparent, we can then ‘more reasonably’ make use of them to further their basic existence. Here we use reason to exemplify their necessary function, and once established it becomes (if necessary), ‘more reasonable’ to locate them in all things.

‘More reasonable’ seems to have the particular philosophical motivation, not toward simple, sensible, and reasonable evidence, but more likely toward that ‘immaterialism’ ideology, and continually seeking for an elusive protracted answer is hardly ‘more reasonable'. Since we are apparently confined to a human perspective, we must settle with the latter position: the apparent state of representation of the world. The de-materializing of any object through the practice of ‘perceptual illusion’ is an attempt to deny the reality that exists. Where perceptual illusions are concerned, innate direct communion with that which is, suspends the effect of such illusions. All the properties in a chair are recognized as the reality that exists. That is materialism. A chair does have the principles of form, design, structure, colour, substance, etc. However it is analysed – it is a quantifiable reality.



The reason could easily be defined, and validated, as the correct application of common sense. More expressions of common sense can only endorse the completeness of any concept. A true experience of reality does not require endless explanations as to its ‘wholeness’. It just is.

Truth is in reality a network of implicit principles in which it is the predominant energy in each of them. They are identifiable by their interdependent nature (see network below) not the least of which is common sense. Dictionary given definitions of ‘truth’ place it in a very common sense acceptable category. One of which is ‘accuracy of representation’. Note how the two definitions in this paragraph coalesce.

The human drive toward recognizing and understanding the place of principles (constants) correlates to the energy we expend on questioning ‘who we are". The constant principles of action, reaction, interaction, are the automated natural impulse toward ‘establishing’ a human reality, and human identity. The process of evolving within that process has an egalitarian dynamic that powers it. In essence, it is a natural gift that we must accept. Each life and its identity contains all its personal experiences which can never be known to anyone else. In a sense, we can never “know” another person. Their life is sacrosanct. We can know a lot about them, and there it ends.

Truth is at the top of the gradient scale that measures the veracity of all things that are complete and related and paradoxically all reality is the truth. It gets back squarely to ‘who we are” and where we exist on that scale. To view gradient scales as having no truth to their structures is denying truth itself.

For the entire interconnected, interdependent network of principles, each of them has a gradient scale whereby each measure expresses truth in its own manner. All forms of leverage, from the minuscule to the lever that will move the world, are in of themselves, true and exact at that point. It is the only way we can recognize their existence, and use that complete truth at that time, to move up the scale. Time is the relative measuring stick that determines the amount of knowledge we can absorb. Consider the advanced extensions to the Archimedes principle of leverage throughout time.

All interdependent, and interconnected with all other principles and absolutes.

No ‘thought processes’ or ‘mind’ constructs can create reality.

All we can ever do to gain knowledge is ‘act’ react’ and ‘interact’ within the confines of our immediate reality. The quality of that action is determined by the nature of available information. When there is freedom from embedded thought processes, there is a natural human ability to relate to the existence of truth as it is expressed in reality, and our brain records it accordingly. Thus, the principles of civilized societies evolve. Where there are predominant belief systems, the implicit energy will naturally direct itself toward human standards that blend all ethics together. That implicit energy will find its true home in the principles it seeks. The connected strength of those principles offers sanctity of experience that demands no sacrifice.

Everything that is, must of necessity, have a true comparative value (not a distorted dichotomy value) for honest recognition to be realized. which is to ‘know’. All things are relative but only within their own true scale. It is the process by which we can identify reality, as it is. Principles cannot operate on any scale practicing negative discrimination.

Thus a healthy individual can be at the top of the scale and someone with various health issues can be near the bottom of the scale. But that is how healthy they are.

There can be no relativity when ‘mind’ or ‘thought processes’ believe in mythical dichotomies. When human perception is distorted by such beliefs, they create a false reality and deny access to the true state.

Where there is a network of connected basic standards that are universal, then it is possible to use them and be nourished accordingly. The scale of natural human progression provides recognizable evidence that we are constantly developing. Reality is the direct and conclusive evidence of possibilities realized. Therefore, the reality is always the source of all possibilities where truth exists. When the truth is used as the universal measure of ‘what is" there can be no discord as to its accuracy. It can only measure the principles that are implicit in everything there is, its natural milieu! Truth can only deal with ‘something’, it cannot measure an imaginative negative counterpart. Truth is the constant implicit property in every universal scale of principles. Thus, reality becomes transparent.

Have writ large on the value of distorted comparative perception judgments.

The standard of correct knowledge always carries with it, its own appraisal.



Where principles are concerned there is an obvious scale of identification (e.g., leverage and the numerous references) that is all-inclusive and provides us with evidence of its existence. We could say with some truth, that the industrial crane has more leverage than a child’s see-saw, but we cannot deny the truth at the lower level or the reason applied. Where principles are concerned, truth is not a possibility, it is a constant reality (e.g., leverage).

When mythological dichotomies are recognized and established for what they are, the process of ‘ironing’ them out and experiencing their constant reality will translate into the reality, which they are, and used accordingly. To evoke that new sense of reality, the mechanisms of ‘selective immaterialism’ need to be dismantled. Where human experience is presented with something it does not understand and is unable to appreciate the principles involved, the reaction can invoke a sense of fear. That condition can be a primary breeding ground to establish a language of dichotomies and put a selective name to something it does not deserve.

The diffusion of a false singular dichotomy into the natural healthy state of the common good puts responsibility into its proper place. Within the process of diffusion, there is the natural and equal absorption of our true reality. The transition between separation and inclusion will be a seamless process because it is our natural state.

Objectivity and Commonsense: Explore the plethora of principles - truths - constants that are the mark and phenomena of Homo sapiens.

We cannot have any doubt about our existence in this present reality.

The truth of reality is and can be experienced wholly and completely by anyone at any point in time. All human progress is the result of such experiences, manifest in principles throughout time and their subsequent ‘use’ evolves exponentially. The overwhelming evidence is our reality, now.

A simple analogy of objectivity and commonsense. Somewhere in our early development, someone put the ingredients of a loaf of bread together, somehow baked it, and hey presto, the first experience of a loaf of bread. It is now a form of sustenance, which feeds billions of people. We no longer need to experience that ‘truth’ that ‘knowledge’. It is unnecessary because it is subjective assimilation and the act of external and internal activity.



Because ‘our’ brain functions in a manner that can identify the natural elements it exists in –space, time, energy, matter, we learn to ‘know’ and recognize ‘completely’ a child’s see-saw. Knowing is a natural evolutionary function. The quality of ‘knowing’ has its own natural determinants which of necessity contain the measure of principles required for universal recognition. An Archimedes insight (or anyone else’s) could not become a universal reality unless those determinants were in play. I know the very same way we all know – by experience via action, reaction, and interaction. Truth persists and what Archimedes experienced was true and complete. Any experience of any truth, principle, or constant can be as ‘complete’ within a grain of sand, or knowledge of a pyramid.

All experience of that nature is an experience in ‘time’, and when it is the truth, we use it accordingly.

There is no mechanical translation, or opinion of ‘necessary factors’ as they are constant universals. That, which is ‘complete’, is transparent universal knowledge e.g., the principle of leverage.

The precision of terms must include ‘necessary factors’. Necessary factors translate into a common universal language so there is no loss of meaning.



All truth – principles-constants – absolutes, that stands the test of time we use accordingly. Thus, human societies evolve, and we evolve without the necessity of having to re-experience any of the principles we recognize and establish. That simply would not be a ‘natural’ commonsense proposition and an entire waste of unnecessary energy. The truth of any principle at any point in time, and at that point in time, can be experienced completely by anyone. Whatever it may be if the principle is established – from then on, it will evolve. There are some misguided notions that ‘truth’ ‘knowledge’ and ‘experience’ have some secret value that is unattainable by ordinary experience. It is a ‘natural’ evolutionary reality that what we ‘know’ becomes useful. We have a mutual responsibility to recognize, use and honor the principles, which are the common property we share.

= Human consciousness. =





 We do not own Space 

 We do not own Time 

 We do not own Energy 

 We do not own Matter 

The human capacity to understand the question of sovereignty or ownership of Space - Time - Energy - or Matter can only be accepted when any basis of dispute includes two dispositions - human and spiritual indigenous ties throughtout history.

With the evolutionary appearance of indigenous peoples throughout this planet, their way of life should make it paramount that their existence be recognised as a natural law that has providence!

Their culture and way of life has its own identity in which Space - Time - Energy - Matter is expressed as they experience it.

That proof also lies in the existence of caves thousands of years old, and the existence of their art and culture.

So the constructs defined below are a new approach to understanding the concept of ‘knowledge’ and its proper place in an evolutionary expanding universe.

Knowledge acquisition requires appropriate recognition through action, reaction, interaction, in which proper perception and comsciousness values are applied. That form of construction requires the dismantling of previously embedded information. This requires a new direction to formulate a sound basis from which to extend.

Construction of an analytical methodology to establish a form of ‘knowledge’ that is best suited to distinguish in a contemporary reality. A reality that adequately conforms to common notions of that which is true, and can only exist without any false relation to that which does not exist.

All science needs the certainty that established absolutes provide.

A pragmatic construction of real knowledge would propose that all reality expresses a form of evidence or proof and that the observer and the observed contain innate properties necessary to establish a foundational agreement. That form of agreement would necessarily function on the basis that everything that is – is truth.

Any other interpretation would be a disconnect from reality, and the interdependent correspondence that must exist for true recognition of any absolute. Controversy will always emerge when the discourse on bifurcation and the introduction of non-existent dichotomies are used as arguments to be explored.



Pragmatism would say that the human species would need basic properties to formulate any form of reliable epistemological analysis to explain and simplify the reality that forms their existence. That reality could well be recognized initially as the absolutes of space-time - energy-matter, through innate perceptual data that corresponds to an outward structure that is constantly evolving.

That which is absolute is the determinative factor in establishing the existence of truth. When a chair, is a chair, is a chair, its recognition is established when we ‘commonly’ apply subjective and objective measures to that which is truly external to that which is truly internal. That which does exist becomes ‘common’ knowledge, and accepted as being true. Thus, the distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge no longer exists.

Where there is true consensus, everything is.

The formulation of absolute criteria that offers ‘simplicity’ as a tool to measure all and everything, dispenses with the confusion of ‘difficulties’ historical philosophies engage in. It also offers an observable synthesis that clarifies the confusion.

Within the combined properties of those absolutes then everything potentially would be. Everything that is by that definition is original, ipso facto, everything that has no false relationship, and therefore true (no dichotomies).

Given contemporary human development, it would be ‘common’ pragmatism to accept the proposition that we exist within the absolutes of space-time – energy-matter. Within those absolutes and their innate properties, it would also be pragmatic to assert that ‘everything then is’ (whatever everything may be). Pragmatism would also dictate that ‘everything that is, is its own form of truth, and must contain available constructs of meaning. Therefore knowledge and understanding would be obtainable to that common experience, and at whatever level that experience is activated it is in interdependent unison with the source.

The continuing establishment of basic absolute principles (their generalities and their specifics) forms our reason. 1+1= 2 is a ‘simple’ but true universal constant generality. That form of generality is used because we recognize the specific principles of a balanced equation that adds up and makes sense. Simple generalities with their inclusive specifics form the foundation of human reason and its constant evolution. Simplicity is the bane of a ‘mind’ that must have difficulties.

= Availability. = The unifying feature that makes ‘knowledge’ available to us all, are the innate universal principles in all things. Archimedes established the principle of leverage. To paraphrase - ‘give me a lever, and I will move the world’. Once the law is established it can then be put to good use.

The principle of leverage is manifest in countless ways, and put to good use! The principle of leverage is a constant available to us all, and always has been.

Through his application Archimedes conveyed his insight in practical terms, and made aware of the principle and the laws governing it. We now use those laws. We no longer need to philosophise on its existence as a truth. Similarly whenever 2+2 = 4. Whatever we use to make the equation – apples, oranges, bricks, the mathematical equation is a constant, and the principle of correctness applies. Here 2+2 =4 is empirical proof that the principle of correctness and agreement exist.

Principle, or law: ‘a fundamental truth used as a basis of reasoning’.

If it were otherwise we could not measure anything. That which appears abstract then, requires no implausible argument as to its non-existence.

Such is the nature of all universal principles, they exist whether the notion of a ‘mind’ can perceive their existence, or not. Because ‘thought’ does not create the reality of principles – universals- truth, it cannot from its mythical standpoint understand the simplicity of a Reality where ‘everything is’, nor the simple and factual conclusion – how could it be otherwise!

Where ‘everything is’ evidently encompasses the whole evolutionary dimension. It is not an ideological enclosed static that stultifies expansion of an unfolding Reality

Any pure knowledge experience that ‘everything is’ (quite apart from the common-sense truth of the statement) is to experience the Absolute in any immediate part of anything that exists, which establishes its own truth forever.

To examine a road code of law with that knowledge, and view the actions of drivers at traffic lights, it is more than reasonable to conclude with some conviction that there is  to some degree, Agreement – Knowledge – Understanding, and Conformity to that code of law. It becomes a ‘more reasonable’ proposition within Reality to understand that that code of law is multiplied exponentially, and the principles practised,  wherever drivers, motorcars, and traffic lights exist.

It is the nature of the type of knowledge we are measuring that determines the measure of reason that can be applied to any given form of Reality. We can conclude that 2+2 = 4 is a reasonable mathematical calculation that contains the principles of Agreement – Understanding – Conformity. Given the accepted knowledge of these innate principles we can with more reason apply such a calculation Universally. Knowing is agreement with ‘what is’. Knowledge is not the attempted denial of any existing reality. That is a contradiction in terms.

Mechanistic observation is akin to viewing from the outside, a straw in a glass of water. The straw always looks bent, but when removed from the glass we realise it is straight.

To claim an experience of that which is Absolute, is not a claim of an experience from a higher domain, or an  isolated incident – it is common-place, numbered by just how many we are. Attempting to denigrate such experience is denying the everyday actions that contain the innate principles of a constant Reality. All life functions within the constraints of the laws that are the constructs of Nature and Reality. All life is an expression of the Absolute. It is when that expression is realised, not only in an instinctive sense, but in a real sense, that we penetrate reality beyond a comparative framework of mythology. To claim that you ‘know’ intrinsically what the principle of leverage is, or the principle behind the mathematical equation 2+2=4 is to claim experience of the Absolute.

The Absolute is not some abstract esoteric truth – it is that which is immediate. Whether in awareness or not, we constantly comply, to some degree, with the laws of a constant reality.

Therein lies the difficulty for a comparative framework mythology – the Absolute is everything!

= Basic Equation. =

However much the simplicity of the equation is, it contains the properties of correctness – balance – equality – mutual identity – meaning, which in its ‘simplicity’ presages all future mathematical equations. In that universal meaning, there is particular knowledge of consistent truth. That form of ‘simple’ consistency, creates its own natural equilibrium, and its ‘usefulness’ evolves exponentially up the reality scale. Here is where we need to give proper credence to ‘that which is’.

All generalities have profound and specific principles as their ‘common’ identity, which are absolute. Unless those components are recognized, both objectively and subjectively, they are reduced to a comparative value spectrum (using dichotomies) as a misguided ‘simplistic’ factor. Deductive reasoning is then deprived of all value, and leads to the inevitable spurious question ‘how do we know?

Given the above criteria to establish a correct basis for knowledge that is recognizable, and of a kind that can be used universally, ‘simplicity’ can be recognized as a tool that promotes its own established formula. That which we constantly use



Everything is the truth with regard to the methodology. How that truth or generality is expressed denotes the measure of the principle that is at its core, and forms that measure of reasoning we enjoy. Fortunately, although the truth is an innate property, it is not a ‘personal’ property per se, nor is the ‘experience’ of its reality. Its natural evolution is progressive. In that progression we are in common, the beneficent recipients that ‘evidently’ conform to its constant existence.

Philosophical dissertations have become a monopolistic form of opinions that always seem to presume the ‘rightness’ of difficulties in establishing the source of our being, and are unable to put in ‘simple’ terms the question of ‘who we are’. There comes with that the denial of evidence that permeates human history, which establishes the principles of our ‘common’ reality. Those opinions carry with them a colossal library of questionable erudition that becomes embedded, using questionable values to support their argument.

The most distinguished opponent of such arguments (Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889-1951 ) proposed that language logic was a necessary tool to dismantle the convoluted ‘mind’ propositions that have permeated the philosophical hierarchy. Those ‘mind’ propositions only served to construct meaningless concepts as to ‘who we are’. Although he gained prominence in philosophical circles, his work was directed more toward academia.

In his Tractatus Logico – Philosophies he quotes: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world - What cannot be shown cannot be said”, and “There can be no representation of the logic of facts”.

Having a belief in mystical truths that were inexpressible, his statements above are indicative of the embedded language of dichotomies. His form of ‘knowledge’ ‘philosophy’ gave (without question) the concept of ‘mind’ credence to formulate its own logic to clarify its own form of reasoning.

Wittgenstein, by not recognizing within the language the distortion that dichotomies create, was unable to approach the evident constructs of true meaning that lie within the interdependent relationship of absolutes, and their constant existence. Evidential reality is all there ever is. The ‘meaning’ or ‘knowledge’ that becomes evident in reality is ‘commonly’ accepted and used accordingly.

To repeat, the evidential reality is all there ever is. In that regard, the exponential drive toward ‘difficulties’ amassed a historical discourse of misinformation, which is used to address the very ‘difficulties’ created by spurious value systems. In effect, dealing with ‘nothingness’.

We have managed to turn ‘truth’ into a problem, into a difficulty, when the truth is simplicity itself. An oxymoron of gargantuan proportions.

This contemporary malady solidifies a diversion that discounts the reality of continuous progression. Progression in which ‘common sense’ is a motivating principle that promotes human evolution. The consistency of specific principles allows us to achieve correspondence.

Real knowledge is not a fabrication of convoluted prescriptions. It is the ‘coalescence’ of ‘what is’ to internal reality. That established, evolutionary progress is assured, and reality factors are recognized for what they are.

True meaning can best be attained by the interaction and interdependence of natural principles and so recognized as such. That meaning which contains all the specific components of reality is experienced as ‘true knowledge’, measure by measure by anyone.

That form of ‘experience’ is not a ‘mind’ process, but a very natural state of realization consistent with our level of action, reaction, and interaction.

A correct and pragmatically form of knowledge-seeking foundational answers to perennial questions would seek a direct passage to our ‘commonality’, the beacon that offers guidance. Consider the quantity and quality of knowledge we all pursue that has meaning and usefulness.

To posit the notion that there are no dichotomies is a cataclysmic proposition that seems nonsensical to established embedded constructs of knowledge. Constructs of knowledge that offer only confusion, and continually pose impossible questions, whose absence would provide clarity.

That absence of confusion would dispel and dismantle a reality of ‘mind’, which functions on its own selection of problems.

To address reality as having only absolute constructs dispels the confusion of duality and its inability to ‘use’ relativism in its proper fashion.

All general absolutes contain specific principles representing facts; the essential properties that confirm reality. This reference directs the observer to observe, and go beyond the restrictions of a ‘mind’ governed by dualism, monism, or any other spurious form of philosophy that distorts the very reality it exists in.

Where there are no dichotomies, all we can deal with is ‘what is’, and the logic of ‘necessary factors’ thus destroying the possible inclusion of anything described as a “paradox”.

= Pure Experience. = To design a chair our brain requires to exercise the qualities and properties necessary for its manifestation e.g., strength, balance, design, functionality etc, etc.

A chair, is a chair, is a chair, the product of innate knowledge.



Our contention, as always, has been that ’I think - therefore I am’ by Descartes is the greater fiction for reasons already explained.

To consider to whatever degree that we can function on the basis of a fictional ’I’ precludes any attempt to honestly address ’who we are’.

Saying that ‘conscious perspectives’ are limited and inconsistent with apparent reality are quite correct. It then brings into question the validity of ‘conscious perspectives’ to guide us toward ‘what is’.

The entangled fictional relationship between ‘mind’ ‘I’ ‘thought’ ‘consciousness’ impose formidable barriers to that which is evident.

Base observations on the construct and interpretation of what ‘knowledge’ is.

Human experience is limited by its mechanical interpretation of Reality, especially ‘cogito ergo sum’.

If everything that is, is its own measure of Reality (the differences) then everything must be measured, at whatever level, as being that part of the whole with all principles intact, making that measure available to be experienced as the Absolute. With absolutes there is no antagonism.

We cannot exist or experience anything without a Universal complementary source of identification.



It is notable that within the structure of Cartesian dualism, Descartes' personal address to innate knowledge he attributed to ‘thought’ which he identified as being distinct from his body. How different Western philosophy may have been if his attribution had been toward his brain and the existence and evidence of other physical entities that functioned every bit as efficiently as he did. The premise that Descartes operated from ‘never to accept anything as true’, was simply a wrong ended approach which brought him into conflict with his passing acceptance of innate knowledge, that the idea of God was innate to his being. To view the proposition that ‘everything is true’ allows reason to seek and identify that measure of truth. No quest can be productively based on cynicism or denial, nor adherence to belief systems that separate experience, knowledge, and Reality. We have the obligation to question whatever reality has placed before us, but if we constantly deny its existence and attempt to ‘disappear’ it from our experience, then we are in danger of never experiencing that reality.

Not experiencing Reality as it is, is equivalent to not experiencing ‘who we are’, and is indeed the only human source and validity of truth, although Descartes held the erroneous belief that such knowledge was independent of any experience. That belief we suspect was some form of impetus toward his ’cogito ergo sum’.

Knowledge and experience are co-existing ‘necessary factors’

So long as anyone believes that human experience is based solely on indirect conscious interpretation (mechanical disposition), therefore any ‘knowledge’ derived from experience will be incomplete.

Clearly it is the quality of ‘knowledge’ that one experiences (e.g., Archimedes) that leads to a common certainty of evidence realised through direct experience.

That quality of knowledge can be available when we observe directly the activity of drivers at traffic lights with the knowledge that it is a very common activity recognized internationally. In every case we can logically pronounce the premises to be true, therefore we have a conclusion that is also true - whether that conclusion is defined as Mutual Agreement, or Common Acceptance, it does not matter - they are mutual principles.

It is this form of logical knowledge of innate principles that is the precursor to knowledge of the Absolute logically defined within all reason for ‘what it is’.

Where the basic premise is true that there is ‘Mutual Agreement’ between a multiplicity of drivers at traffic lights then we can with certainty conclude that the same principles exist Universally.

We can also draw concrete conclusions, and establish knowledge, that it is not ‘absolutely necessary’ to experience by observation the multiplicity of drivers conforming to their particular road code. We have already established that knowledge.

Knowledge and experience are not separate philosophical theories. One cannot be without the other..



Everyone has the potential to experience the Absolute paradoxically, in part or in whole.

Everything that is, must contain the properties of the Absolute, otherwise nothing could be.

To ask questions about human experience based solely and inevitably on our interpretation of ‘knowledge’, and co-existing with that, its particular meaning in human existence.

So long as we can only deal with our conscious interpretation as representing Reality then we derive functionally less meaning than we are entitled to.

When we see other humans consistently using levers to open crates then we can recognize a ‘social intelligence’ operating which equates to understanding that is not based on opinion, but is a clear expression of human activity that has correspondence.

All of the principles involved in that experience can coalesce to provide that form of Reality that requires no interpretation. It becomes recognizable knowledge. How we understand that knowledge is through the realisation and identification of the principles involved, which become immediately transparent.

The Absolute could be categorised as a knowledge experience that encompasses all and everything. Whatever is manifest is that measure (complete in itself) of the Whole with all its principles intact.

Where there are at least two actions that are identical we can reach a common-sense conclusion that a definitive principle is operating. When that corresponds with innate knowledge then we have the complete cycle.

The definition itself is language opening the door to an experience of Reality. No one can know in isolation. An imaginary ‘I’ restricts any experience of who “we are”,  and is not a necessary part of human experience.

Explaining experience beyond imaginary thought processes requires a definitive language that deals with the principles of Reality itself.

Pure experience.

The world-wide disposition that has no grounding in Nature and Reality becomes captive to any mythical fear that  offers a target to give some form of direction or stability.

There is nothing more simple than to make Reality transparent - its evidence abounds. We can pronounce the principle properties that provide guidelines to its existence whereby the reality is made apparent.

= Expansion. =

To address concerns on ‘negativity’.

Negativity is in essence the inability to establish a measure of Reality.

Mechanistic processes of denial are the attempt to understand and make transparent that which is apparently unexplainable, and resolve a condition whose energy is driven toward finding that core of affirmation.

The evolutionary principle from all available evidence is that human beings as a species progress. This seems a paradoxical contradiction to the embedded proposition that we can never know the ‘truth’.

The consequence of such a traditional premise is that denial and negativity both hold paramount positions.

We are conditioned to accept the premise that there is in fact no premise that will enable us to go beyond presently accepted norms of experience.

We are conditioned to accept that the ‘truth’ is inexpressible.

The evolution of the human species is constantly subject to contemporary ingrained social habits, which give some kind of credence to that particular point of existence. Indirect conscious interpretation classifies itself as a solid perspective to govern and justify human activity, which in many historical ways has proved disastrous.

Our continued intention is to expose detrimental barriers to the realisation of ‘who we are’, and in that process establish a smoother, more realistic approach to ‘who we are’.

The Archimedes legacy.



When we establish knowledge of something that exists through a multiplicity of experience and evidence, then from every reasonable standard we can establish that it is true, ergo that which is true is Absolute.

The principle of leverage is well grounded in social intelligence, and our natural knowledge of that does not need erudite explanations of its presence, nor any ‘conscious interpretation’ to realise its existence, or its practice. Evolution eventually removes restrictive passages to direct experience, the very purpose of evolution.

The principle of leverage is not a matter of opinion, it is the realisation of actuality and our continued ‘more reasonable’ response each time the principle is applied.

Children learn to speak their language primarily through experience without any direct, or indirect conscious interpretation, and so, universally we ‘know’ the most powerful means to communicate. Were we to move 50 miles in any compass direction from the town we live in, there is a certain predictability that we will meet others who speak the same English language that we do. If in that experience we find that these premises we have drawn about our travels were true, then the conclusion we would come to in particular, is that when we communicate we make known.

Please note the date:

Oct 2005.

We are offering up this older material below to provide insight as to the progression of this work. There may well be some duplication to date. During this period my wife and I worked in collaboration to ensure an equality of experience. My wife Jean died in 2011.

To date we have the benefit of media images which are very convenient.

= Stepping Stones 1. = There is nothing other than what is – there is no hidden Reality that we need to seek, it embraces us at every turn.

The Archimedes experience is the pure experience of Ultimate Reality, which provides indisputable knowledge. Reality is the source of complete knowledge, it is the constant source that has provided us with all human development, from the writings of William Shakespeare, to the development of computer technology. What has been produced is now an evident part of our reality that we can engage in. We can experience ‘mutual agreement’ through epiphanies, insights, enlightenment, understanding, Eureka moments etc, they are all one and the same.



Implicit within the macrocosm is the microcosm – it cannot be otherwise. The more we conform within the microcosm the more we begin to appreciate that Reality contains everything, and that we can realise through experience its manifestation. Each Eureka moment is that personal point of experience that connects us with the Truth. The principle of leverage was always available, it took an Archimedes to explain it to us.

Each Eureka moment necessarily engages with the reality of complete knowledge, and utilises its share at that time. When we have complete knowledge of who we are in that personal moment, then we understand that these, egalitarian properties, are rightfully shared by everyone and that we have experienced that which is infinite. It does not mean that the process of evolution is over – it has only just begun. It does mean that we can no longer continue coasting through this existence in a near comatose state.

If there is a hypnotic fixation in holding the principles of Reality as being separate, and different, then the potential realisation of their immediate unity, and communion, becomes problematic. Knowledge, and experience are one and the same – they are not different!!

Experience = Immediate knowledge of basic reality that is factually correct, and that we can reasonably use.

Knowledge = Immediate experience of secure, and accurate information that is constantly stable, and sustains principles.

Reality = Complete Knowledge.

As the microcosmic part of the total macrocosm we are immersed in reality. The real question should be, ‘how can one not know Reality, or ‘who we are’.

Mutual agreement is evident when we know we can go to the bank, and deal with money transactions.

Mutual agreement is evident when we know we can go to the supermarket and exchange money for goods.

Mutual agreement is evident when we know we can send our children to school to enhance their education.

Evident proof is validation of what is – it is not a matter of anyone’s opinion, nor is it an assumption of ours.



Neither do we assume, or offer any opinion, on the Universal Reality that there is ‘mutual agreement’ that we need air, food, and water to sustain us.

Evident proof is also the basis for the mechanics toward realisation of ‘complete knowledge ‘ of who we are. Reality can be realised through concentration on its basic principles.

We use language to express our understanding of who we are.It is relatively easy, it is reasonable, and it is responsible.

We convey through language our measure of intelligence, and to the best of our ability conform to the basic rule of communication – ‘we make known’.

Implicit within that exercise is ‘mutual agreement’. We may differ in some specifics, but we meet the basic obligation of communication – ‘we make known’, and always we progress to some degree.

Simultaneity is one of the constant principles that we all share and they come from Here, Now, the Present, where they have always been. Everything is. Our being is always engaged in the present, and we each have an obligation to understand our relationship to what is.



The present is the only point of contact we can ever have with Reality.

To some degree or another, each one of us is directly connected to Reality (we do not have any choice in the matter), and we can potentially evaluate ‘what is’ through the utilisation, and examination of factual reality.

We are the microcosmic part of that Universal Macrocosm, and because we already have that innate information it is a matching process when we have a Eureka moment, an epiphany, an understanding beyond question. Nothing enters our minds - we already know! Everyone has innate knowledge of the principle of leverage. It requires correct examination of ‘what is’ for realisation to occur. It is then a relief to have ‘mutual agreement’ on the things we would wish to make transparent to others.

To use a traffic analogy, it is evident that there is ‘en masse’ mutual agreement when we know to drive off when the traffic light turns green. Mutual agreement is translated into people obeying traffic rules (otherwise chaos).

Two cars, two drivers, sitting directly alongside each other at traffic lights, discuss their understanding of their Road Code in this particular position, and what they should do.

When the light turns green there are a myriad of principles that apply when they drive off simultaneously. They have both demonstrated their ‘complete knowledge’ of the significance of the green light from this perspective.

There is Mutual Agreement.

There is Predictable Conformity.

There is Common Ground.

Each one complements the other.

They are both right.

One more remove:

From an outsider’s point of view – they both know! The green light could be categorised as a Eureka moment, it sets in play all the above principles, whether the drivers are aware of it or not. From the perspective of two outside objective observers who know the traffic rules, if asked, did the two drivers at the lights obey the rules – the answer would be yes, there would be mutual agreement. They have complete knowledge of this particular circumstance concerning drivers, and green lights.

Could it be that certain schools of thought are curtailed by a questionable refusal to recognize what is, and have a preference for creating a difficulty where none exists! No one can examine what isn’t! There is no such thing as ‘nothing’. Something is – what is it?

A Scottish engineer functions on the same principles as an Italian Pope. Because Archimedes was prominent as a mathematician, his realisation of the principle of leverage, and his understanding of the difference in water displacement between silver and gold was widely reported. This does not mean that realisation of ‘what is’ is an exclusive experience. As said previously Archimedes did not realise something new – it has always existed, and all forms of life would have utilised the leverage principle to some degree or another (watch a bird build a nest). At that time there were probably many thousands of people who had some understanding of the principle, but Archimedes was the one who made statements about it.

As in any Eureka moment, we can experience infinity and who we are. It is mutual agreement (an understanding) between the part, and the whole. It is when the principles are in unison Eureka!

Reality is there to be examined, and experienced, it is not separate from us, nor should we try to make it so.

= Stepping stones 2. = Knowledge is not conditional by the activities of what may be called ‘thought’ or ‘consciousness processes’. Real knowledge is that which is available to all, and to be shared by all. It cannot be contained by the ‘experiencer’ and then not ‘known’ by the accident of experience. It is the actual innate experience itself which conclusively establishes the truth. It can only deal in the truth which is its modus operandi of dissemination. For me to say that ‘everything is’, is a statement of fact which cannot be denied, and an intellectual dishonesty to attempt to deny the evidence by philosophical machinations. Hostility toward the truth leads inevitably toward attempted negation - looking for nothingness!

‘Being here’ demands its own recognition - attempting to deny it is simply perverse. Knowledge is the realisation of ‘what is’. Rene Descartes ‘I think - therefore I am ‘did no service to human evolution, or education. It established in Western societies especially, the culture of individualism, with the precursor that so-called ‘thought’ was the inward evidence for existence, and for the following unfortunate claim that we have a ‘mind’, or to use the euphemism, a soul!

Experience is true knowledge. When that experience marries up with its innate counterpart then recognition is realised (cognition). In simple terms, a light goes on in the brain.



There can be no real knowledge without truth. All thought qualifies experience and attempts to reduce truth to near nothingness which is a widespread conditional activity. We cannot manufacture knowledge, or the principles which are its properties. No matter the amount of correct information anyone can ingest, it does not become knowledge until there is tripartite coalescence between inherent knowledge - ingested correct information - and ‘what is’. Then we truly recognize that which is Absolute. Within Nature we have the distinct privilege of evolving in a Universe that can only recognize the attributes of social cohesion. Knowledge is not anyone’s personal possession. Whatever measure of experience we may have of it, it is only available as a Universal sharing experience to be beneficially used.

Human activity whereby we witness people using tools for leverage, or drivers at traffic lights obeying the rules of the road, are observable markers that contain the properties for understanding our own reality. Unless seen for what they are, they are only mechanical platitudes with an equally mechanical response. We could rightly claim that that at least is some response, but of no real value.

The natural process that operates when we see that which is innate, overrides any erudite explanation from an academic base however intellectual its original source. ‘Thinking’ for oneself cannot make judgments about a ‘natural’ experience.

When we see human duplicate functions in operation then we are in communion, and at another level we recognize who we are.

When we actively see the activities of the human brain in action we are not dealing with any internal ‘will - o’ - the wisp’ that no one can ever experience. We exercise that prerogative (human activity) at every moment in time, but quite apparently without that focus of attention that denotes realistic recognition.

To seek identity in sectarian, or secular belief systems to overcome the contemporary feeling of loss of identity leads to the acceptance of anything that offers some form of stability. That is then used to strengthen that which is euphemistically addressed as the ’self’. To retain that security the acceptance of information transmitted throughout generations, is absorbed into the culture, and defended to the death against those who would question that belief system.

The greatest knowledge we can ever have is our own and it has the potential to transcend all else and provide insight into infinity.

The most tragic human condition is the lack of experience of identity in a multiplicity of identities in which we all share. The real problem is not one of ‘identity’, but a lack of ’communion’.

Whether we like it or not, whether we are aware of it or not, the principle of ’communion’ must always exist to some degree for evolution to proceed.

It is within the experience of that principle that we understand the fallaciousness of that much heralded ‘self’ which draws down so much energy in an attempt to establish itself as a reality.

Within positive language structure possibilities (no dichotomies), there should be the disposition toward the realisation that our relationships to cognize into ‘communion’ must be addressed as specifically dependent. Social attempts to be ‘independent’ are the very remove from reality and signify reduction attempts toward nothingness.

Adherence to, and the cultivation of faith and belief systems give little elbow room for any factual occurrence to be anything other than a comparison to the myths that are held.

The cultural and educational socialisation of generations of children must carry with it, its historical belief systems that overwhelm the natural instincts.

Observe an animal out of its natural habitat and locked in a cage for its entire life.

It would be a salutary exercise if we could dispense with the term ‘mind’ from our vocabulary and magnify the use of the word brain to promote a realistic discussion on ‘who we are’.

My action of levering open a wooden crate and knowledge of it is one and the same. Our remarkable brain functions like that, the purpose of a brain, the natural repository of innate knowledge.

The assertion of principles is critical to avoid all activity being submerged by questioning their very existence, and being unable to see directly.



It would be a rarity today, if anyone using a lever to pry open a wooden crate would have the same enormity of experience that Archimedes had, nor the need to make pronouncements about it. It has all been done prior to our awareness of its value with the accompanying data attached. Our brain knows the value of a lever and activates our body accordingly when needed.

It could be categorised as evolutionary transmission.

The observance of someone prying open a crate with a lever, or drivers conforming to the road code at traffic lights, is a function of the brain in action, not a mythical entity in a singular locality that denies its own senses. When the brain is not burdened by distorted belief systems it then has the potential to experience ’that which is’, which is always constant.

When we understand the function of a lever, or the presence of traffic lights, then we can activate the principles involved because we already know how!

The negative impact in the use of dichotomies in language lies in their distraction from the truth, as our brain processes the words we use in relation to Reality. The tendency to attempt to separate inherent truths through the words we use disrupts that natural correspondence necessary for identification.

A chair, is a chair, is a chair.

= Stepping stones 3. = Where principles are concerned the constituent linkages in language are identity markers to that which is real - reference points. Without dichotomies there is no separation, or ambiguity between what we experience, and ‘what is’.

Philosophy in its attempt to address something through denial is an elementary confusion. To say that that is a chair, and then attempt to deny it invoking philosophical theorems concerning the human ability to experience it, is a severe contradiction on the existence of the object, and the observer.

When this form of contradiction is then taken as a constant, it then precludes any common-sense and definitive answer to the existence of a chair.

For philosophers, George Orwell’s ’to see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle’ would be apt.

Even though there were telescopes available.

Real concepts cannot exist in any mythology, therefore all that we experience is inevitably the truth that is there to be properly categorised for what it is. The proper use of language in this context will identify whatever it is to correspond with present reality. Misuse of language (dichotomies and mythologies) leads only to the acceptance of a fractured state where nothing is whole and represents confusion. The dissipation of the supposed problem is never realised.

Fiction has been elevated to the status of an accepted reality. Very early evolutionary physical dangers allowed the development of fictions that offered some form of imaginary protection beyond limited physical ability. That contemporary humanity endorses the mythology of ‘I’ is testament to the psychological fear that still exists and requires its proper recognition.

Emphasis must be placed in the relationship between language and reality for understanding to proceed. The persistence of dichotomies has their own persistent confusion which then promotes a false reality through misleading information.



Microcosm and macrocosm are one and the same in a Universe where ‘everything is’. Isolated viewpoints are exactly that, and are unable to view the expanse in which we are encompassed.

We must learn to view reality through both ends of the same telescope. When we understand the extensive scope of ‘truth’, then we know that its values and properties do not change - which relates to ‘completeness’. Philosophical, ideological, and intellectual endeavour, try to shape the structure of ‘what is’ based on pre-dispositional knowledge, which can only ask the same questions, and look for the same answers.

Not to experience that which is absolute or whole is the normal result of the confusion of language which has no correspondence to that which is real.

To discuss with a philosopher the possibility that ’mind’ per se does not exist, and to dissolve it as a concept would place them in a realistic position, would indeed be a difficult proposition. The strength of that difficulty lies in another imaginary concept, that that ‘mind’ represents ’I’, and it is anathema to that fiction to consider its own demise!

= Stepping stones 4. = There are no dichotomies.

Everything is, and everything that is, is complete, everything is an Absolute complete Reality. You are experiencing your measure of that reality. It cannot be otherwise that you are experiencing that measure of completeness. When we come to terms with it we have the innate capacity to see the Absolute in a grain of sand. That is knowledge. Belief in dichotomies is the mythical barrier to that particular experience - which is only denial, supported by erudite protestations that human construct dichotomies exist.

At a mechanical level Intelligence and Stupidity appear to be separate identifiable conditions, and they appear to be antagonistic. Stupidity is in Reality a measure of the Intelligence which is always constant. If someone was in a state of mythical utter and complete stupidity we would not attempt any form of emancipation from that condition.

As that is not the case the so called stupid person is at the bottom of the scale and in reality that is how intelligent they are.



We can now proceed proceed with techniques to advance intelligence.

Consider the proposition that there are no dichotomies, and within that possibility all questions become irrelevant. Presuming that there are no dichotomies allows the process of establishing ‘necessary factors’ to proceed, and allows each measure of wholesomeness to be realised.

Experience is the criteria for knowledge.

Some Reality experiences were simply transposed into particular belief systems and elevated into a pseudo spiritual dimension, or a philosophical conundrum.

Where there is a belief in a divisive fiction (dichotomies) there is automatic mechanistic restriction to that which is Real.

There is a capacity beyond ego and intellect which can commune with ‘what is’, and recognize its properties. Reality is constant.

Within the accepted comparative framework there is the view of principles as having different divisive categories e.g., as above, Intelligence and Stupidity, and classify them within ‘thought’ structure as dichotomies and give credence to them as being an antagonistic reality.

The consequence of that, is, that one is always a remove from recognizing the structural properties of immediate existence.

Any construct of knowledge necessary to evaluate ’what is’ will address the properties (principles) that are the constituent constant markers available in that which is the microcosm and the macrocosm. That identity (the Absolute) is found in any sphere of Reality.Everything is - and everything that is, must be experienced for what it is, and not for what anyone denies it to be.

There is no mythical human construction that can deny ’what is”.

Everything is - without dichotomies. To repeat, we do not have the ability to create ‘nothingness’ - ‘that which is’ has no imaginary comparative human construct. To attempt to deal with such constructs, and give credence to them is always the denial of ‘what is’, and adherence to ‘thought’ processes whose only purpose is to cement that activity. Indeed realising that the concepts of dichotomies are human mythical constructs, denying true perspective, is the beginning of insight.

The dissipation of such processes through addressing the principles of Reality allows us the potential to experience directly ‘what is’, in simple terms -the truth!

Intelligence is a ‘necessary factor’. Addressing stupidity is a denial of reality at whatever level we find it.

Intelligence and Stupidity are not antagonistic, they are one and the same principle with measurable degrees of existence. Only from a comparative framework standpoint is credence given to any mythical form.

The above observation is not negating the process, it is questioning the markers which evolve into imaginary separation (trapped in a comparative framework mythology). That particular process can and does create a false mythical reality that appears divisive. We cannot exist within a divisive reality! Reality must be complete for us to recognize its existence.

Where there are no dichotomies within the premise that ‘everything is’, there exists no antagonistic position. The distinction between human constructs of positive and negative are matters of mythical perspective wherein no experience of the Absolute is available. It is because the human ’mind’ per se places its own construction on its immediate experience, and must have its particular interpretation based on what it considers ’knowledge’. There is a difference between ’mechanical knowledge’, and ’pure knowledge’.

From the mechanical knowledge standpoint which can only deal ‘in indirect conscious interpretation’, it is quite correct to say that that form of knowledge is incomplete, and it always will be.



Pure knowledge experienced via our brain knows no separation, nor antagonism, and is responsible for our ability to recognize the actions of others who may pry open wooden crates with a lever, or drive off uniformly at traffic lights. Within that cohesive activity it precludes ’a matter of opinion’ and by themselves can become subjects of a pure knowledge experience. To repeat, it is a form of ’communion’ with ’what is’, and available to all.

Where drivers at traffic lights universally conform to their particular road code, and where universally there is a language which identifies their activity as Mutual Agreement, or any other logical definition, we can concur with the common-sense conclusion that we have universally established that within language and common activity, there is indeed a truth formed.

The coalescence between universal language and universal activity are the logical constructs that create civilizations. There is a vast social network of common activity that solidifies the logic into an honest and persuasive conclusion that confirms innate common principles –knowledge.

= Stepping stones 5. =

The Art of making sense of everything.

How to understand principles.


 * 1) Principle. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
 * 2) All principles are interdependent, interconnected, and infinite.
 * 3) Each one is dependent on the other two.

Examples of a principles template and how to define them without dichotomies.

Communication. Truth. Standard. Proof. Express. Contribute. Mutual. Direction. Advance. Comfort. Organize. Certain. Immediate. Interest.

Improve. Present. Constructive. Gain. Trust. Progress. Source. Knowledge.

Basic. Original Reality. Awareness.Freedom. Purpose. Connect. Understand.

Support. Peace. Cause. Unity. Ability. Rights. Honest. Discover. Positive. Energy. Balance. Good. Courage. Willing. Control. Use. Association. Observe.

Reason. Easy. Wealth. Simple. Law. Increase. Order. Flow.Co-operation. Exact.

Quality. Accuracy. Strength. Responsible. Operating. Creative. Measure. Recognition. Accept. Constant. Obligation. Include. Dependence. Relationship. Value. Success. Principle. Equality. Stable. Share. Love.

Sustenance. Action. Identity. Intelligence. Education. Secure. Facts. Agreement. Information. For. Rules.Clear. Yield.

Example:

Success = Securing facts

= Responsible co-operation

= Constructive knowledge

So success by definition is : Securing facts through constructive knowledge and cooperating  responsibly.

All definitions of success from your template are infinite. You will find your own suitable definition.

There are no dichotomies!
Any principle is correctly defined by any two other principles. You create a new language of Absolutes. Using conjunctions you can write your own book.



Through the invitation from Wikiversity to write on the subject of "Universal Language of Absolutes" its introduction is now complete and through the courtesy of Wikiversity it is now available for general dissemination.

''The man whose book is filled with quotations has been said to creep along the shore of authors as if he were afraid to trust himself to the free compass of reasoning. I would rather defend such authors by a different allusion and ask whether honey is the worse for being gathered from many flowers. Anonymous, quoted in Tryon Edwards (1853) The World’s Laconics: Or, The Best Thoughts of the Best Authors. p. 232''

Amen to that!

"We experience ourselves our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us".

Albert Einstein, in One Home, One Family, One Future.

( The Stepping Stones entries may help to review all the material above). &lt;nowiki&gt;[categoryːcompleted reources]&lt;/nowiki&gt;