Dad FaceBook Exchange

I added this to my book as the preface, as the circusmtances described are the circumstances this book was created from.

The following is a FB message exchange between my dad and myself regarding my book “Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True” that I sent him.  A little background information, in the last 5 years I’ve interacted with him on a handful of occasions and I don’t hear from him unless I contact him.  He is not interested in my material. After sending over 2000 solicitations for my book to different civically minded organizations and receiving no responses or any evidence to indicate any interest, I decided to send a copy of the book to my dad and shared the thoughts I had about my future as it relates to my circumstances.  Text after the heading commentary refers to text added for clarification not part of the original message exchange.   

Message Orion Simerl: 

My strategy is to give the book to attract attention and donations, but I’m  not trying to solicit donations from you.  

I sent it on the possibility that you would read it, and you not being significant, if anybody would this shit and have interest in understanding it and understanding what it means.  I’ve only recently begun sending solicitations so I don’t know that nobody isn’t, but I think about it in the broader context of my experience.  

Commentary:  In the book there is a page that features a link to my website to donate and I didn’t want him to think this was why I sent him the book.  Second, what I meant by him not being significant is that him reading the book because he is my dad is not important to me, but someone reading it is.  

Human problems reduce  to the inability to communicate.  This inability to communicate is the result of what I call Bias Induced Denial.  People are motivated by what causes them to feel good and avoid that which causes them to feel bad.  People avoid and refuse to acknowledge information that challenges their beliefs because there is a bad feeling associated with discovering what you thought was true is false or what you thought was good is bad.  The reason is what people believe to be true and good is considered as such based on the feelings the object produces. What information does that challenges this belief is threatens to reduce the value of the object, since the object even if only an idea, will no longer generate the good feelings for the individual because it is understood as being bad or false.  As I mentioned, generally people avoid information that challenges their beliefs to avoid the bad feeling, but even when they are unable to avoid it, they mentally reject the information to protect the value of the object. The other aspect of that bad feeling is the value of the object is associated with the value they have of themself, where decreasing the value of the object decreases the value they have of themselves, or lowers their self esteem.  

How do I know this?  Naturally from my own experiences, as I am much different now than I was at other times in my life, even if not outwardly so, but also through the behavior of others.  From my own experiences I remember how this used to feel and I also remember situations where I couldn’t comprehend something because of the value of my position. For some time now, I don’t get that feeling.  This is because I understand the value of the truth as it relates to liberty. An adjustment of understanding that restored an objective disposition towards information. I know why I used to be like people in this world and why today I am not.  In the behavior of others I observe it all the time. In person as well as through comment exchanges and correspondence. 5 years, the earlier portion of which I spent time attending activist organization meetings and participated in organizing for a few months with one group.  Despite there being no substantive flaws or rebuttals to my analysis or solutions, I’ve been unable to grow a market for my material or attract the interest of anyone. BID is observable and ever present among probably all human beings. In the Youtube Comments and debates section it’s documented. 

The book isn’t only about BID, BID is only understood through Sequencing and Comparison.  Sequencing and Comparison, identifies the subconscious functions of the mind that produce thought, by the fact that the mind is always set to an objective, and in comparing defined detail, there is cause and effect sequencing, and comparisons of value, truth, and morality. 

Value is the comparison of greater than less than.  Every object has a value that is greater than and less than all other objects.  

Moral comparison is understanding and feeling an object is either good or bad (morally)

True comparison consists of objects being either true, false, or uncertain with a leaning opinion towards true or towards false.  Everything has value; either inherent value based on the sensation it produces, or for the purpose of obtaining an object of inherent value.  True false thinking is activated by contradiction where information being received is inconsistent with what the individual knows or thinks they know about the subject.  True false is the basis for thinking, as what is regarded as true serves as the basis for all thinking: true cause and effect details in fulfillment of purposes towards valued objects, assigning the value to objects themselves, and the moral principles that determine how the individual perceives imposition.     

Moral thinking is triggered by perceived imposition.  The purpose of morality is to ensure individual liberty and promote cooperation.     

Feelings are categorized as valued or prohibitive, or good or bad.  

The human mind is always intent on a valued objective. 

These are the basic components of Seq Comp, and in understanding the components of thought production, it reveals basic facts about human behavior.  

I don’t expect you to understand SeqComp through a list of basic components, but it is one novel and significant discovery in understanding human behavior and human intelligence among other things.  Beyond the psychological elements in the book which are always present in subjects of human organization like economics, politics, and social systems the book strikes to the heart of the misconceptions the popular reality is based on.  As always, I propose sensible solutions to addressing issues. But I can’t attract any interest because people are only concerned with information that reinforces their bias, not information that challenges it, because it feels bad.    

I have been isolated by Bias Induced Denial, isolated by bid and not having a job.  I’m not sure how I am going to proceed because there is value in the material I am producing, objectively, despite the human propensity to ignore it.  I’m not going to get a job and dedicate my time to some menial task. I don’t see any benefit in spending my time doing something that poorly utilizes my talents and abilities that I would rather not be doing for the occasional means of entertainment it afford me.  I’m not interested in that. I plan to keep pushing in promotion for a little while longer, and after that, I don’t know, maybe leave with a backpack full of shit, go somewhere with good homeless services, pick up a serious drug habit, and run myself down. If I am going to be ignored and unacknowledged by this self deceiving and self interest harming species, who shares variations of the same popular perception that is inconsistent with objective reality, it doesn’t make sense to do much of anything else.  

I either check out, or I go become a drug addict which is likely a roundabout to the same conclusion.  Sitting in the house feeling good because of the work I’m doing, but with no outlet for it, and understanding that I am blocked because of corrupted human thought processes, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to continue.  There is no loathing or emotion attached to this, it’s in consideration of what is true, cause and effect, and value. I acknowledge being trapped, understanding my circumstances, what I want, why I can’t have it, and realize it doesn’t make sense to endure for the sake of enduring when survival of life is impossible anyway.

Commentary: In the last sentence I’m stating that it doesn’t make sense to continue in life for the sake of being alive when I’m completely ignored by people who do not want their perception of reality challenged.  If this condition is going to remain, what difference does it make if I live another day or live another 30 to 40 years?  

Brian Simerl (Dad) Response:

Here are a few points I pulled out of your message but not in order.

Originally, the points were part of one message but I’m breaking them up since I addressed each point and there were responses in some situations.  

Brian Simerl  POINT 1: “The reason is what people believe to be true and good is considered as such based on the feelings the object produces.” Yes, this is basic neuroscience, people have a hard time making even a job change or become self employed, new relationship, etc…because it leads to “being uncomfortable” which equals “pain avoidance.

Orion Simerl Response to POINT 1: Neuroscience is a measurement of what.  What areas of the brain produce what function i.e thoughts, and feelings.  It is a tool that can be used to verify observations of thoughts and feelings or confirm a physiological basis for disorder, dysfunction, or abnormality, but does not furnish why explanations as it relates to why people think what they think.  Knowing that people are motivated by good feelings and the avoidance of negative feelings does not explain why people feel bad when they are confronted with information that challenges their beliefs. A good example of the deficiencies of neuroscience, since denial becomes a fact of the human condition when it is not a fact of the human condition, it is a byproduct of the dominant social order.  Something I know having been someone that once experienced those sensations when information challenged my beliefs and who now does not. Then understanding the reason is because my value of what is true is greater than my value of any other thing, because I understand the value of the truth as it relates to self interest and liberty. It is similar to psychology in the sense that everything it observes is a byproduct of this organization of human beings, and how human beings are molded the systems they participate in and consent.  Psychology is primarily imposing subjective causation for thoughts, feelings, and behavior, and survey analysis.

Orion Simerl Commentary: At the time I responded I was responding to a list of 5 point summaries and didn’t give enough attention to the assertion that people have a hard time with changing jobs, becoming self employed or entering into new relationships.  This was a missed opportunity to express the deficiencies of the modern study of human behavior. People are uncomfortable about these kind of changes because of the uncertainty involved in those prospects. In preparation for such a change the mind is comparing (value) between the current circumstances and the prospect of taking action to improve those circumstances.   The reason is the mind (cause and effect and truth) creates scenarios to position the individual to act to achieve the desired outcome if confronted by foreseeable circumstances.  

The thoughts appear as what if questions, if self employed if I can’t make sales, can’t pay my bills, and other questions concerning security that is lost when one becomes self employed as opposed to working a salary job.  In changing jobs the nature of the bad feeling is the same, it is uncertainties, how you will be received by new co-workers, whether you’re qualified for the job, concerns about management, and a number of other uncertainties.  I suppose the same can be said about people entering into new relationships, but I cannot provide any examples because I have not been a person who is intent on a relationship in a very long time. I’ll come back to that after I complete the point.

The point is this, denial and bias reinforcement behavior consists of a bad feeling based on the prospect of reducing value, and results from a misunderstanding of the value of the truth as it relates to an individual’s self interest.  Psychologists will take a survey they call research and say people avoid information that challenges their beliefs which shows people are afraid of change.  

Then they’ll take another survey that shows the prospect of a new job feels bad, here is another piece of evidence that people are afraid of change.  This reinforces the idea that people are afraid of change, and they are, but there are different causes, where denial and bias reinforcement is a product of protecting value, and the circumstantial changes are a product of uncertainty.  Uncertainty is the basis for fear.  

I want to return to the point where I wasn’t able to address examples of uncertainty as it relates to relationships.  I don’t seek relationships because the value of attachment is in the idea the individual has of attachment. Human beings are wholly self interested, where even selfless acts are only undertaken because the feeling derived from the idea of the sacrifice, is greater than the feeling one could obtain from the substance itself, or is greater than what one would feel for having not sacrificed the substance.  This means all human interaction is the exchange of value for value. I interact with people based on the value they have to my purposes, which isn’t all material, as there are people who have value to me based on their behavior. The purest relationship is exchange of valued behavior for valued behavior. The point being, I don’t look at people and think about the long term outlook of association with them, I interact with people based on the immediate purposes they serve, which sometimes is social, and doesn’t differ from the casual appearance of social circles, only in how I understand and perceive it.  

Despite knowing this I’m pleasant in manner, hold doors, frequently help, among many other acts considered kind.  For example, two days ago I stopped at a gas station and as I left I held the door open for two people on their way to the entry.  The woman hurried and I thought about how my well intended action may have created the opposite effect for her momentarily, where I was trying to make her life easier and may have made it harder because she felt rushed as to not leave me holding the door too long.  Something I’ve experienced when people have held the door for me from a distance, where I judged the good intent and the negative result. Of course her accelerating after seeing me holding the door could have also been intent on another purpose to limit the duration of the door being open, but it seems more likely that the act of acceleration was intent on my benefit.    

As I drove away and turned right onto Greenfield from hwy 100, I said people would see that and associate that with altruistic behavior, when in reality I’m serving my self interest through the sensations of the act.  That isn’t conscious in the decision, where I see two people heading towards the door, I recognize the small amount of time and effort involved in making their lives marginally easier, and choose to hold the door. This is a recent example and I’m not trying to sensationalize common courtesy, I’m only saying that in understanding that all people are using one another for selfish valued purposes, I’m not calculating that value as I interact with the world around me, still I recognize the subconscious basis for thought and action as it relates to ideas understood as being true and the feelings they produce.  

I don’t have apprehension about relationships friendly or romantic because people will prove valuable towards some utility or they will not.  If they have utility, even if it is only social utility, or physical utility, this will create recurring interaction that will create familiarity and have the characteristics of a relationship or it will not.  Relationships form as needed or as desired, but I do not have a desire to create relationships, which means I’m not thinking about what a person thinks about me or what I think about them as it relates to the prospect of a friendship or romantic attachment.                         

Brian Simerl POINT 2. “I can’t attract any interest because people are only concerned with information that reinforces their bias”. Your book is 791 pages long, most  people read headlines and have the attention span of a gnat. Who is your target audience that is going to read 791 pages and make a decision. To say you can’t attract interest based on a person’s bias is probably one aspect out of a 1000 reasons.

Orion Simerl POINT 2 Response: Sending book sollicitations is not my exclusive avenue of promotion, it is one element in the broader 5 year context of promotion, and the sollicitations are not being sent to the general public whose interest in social problems and civics is superficial.  There are not a 1000 reasons for anything, there are a few motivators at most and all are rooted in bias. Value directs attention. If the information generally is valued by the person (for example the person’s has an interest in social justice evident by their group affiliation and they are presented with information relating to advancing that cause) the information should be given at least superficial attention.  Whether that attention continues is either a matter of the quality of that information in regard to whether it is true, it’s utility, and whether it is perceived as being moral. If the information is true, moral, and has utility, then it is left unacknowledged or ignored because it offends some greater value, which is either internal in that it will take away the good feelings derived from ideas that are untrue or can shown to be bad, or external as is the case with publishers or nonprofits where the ability to sell advertising, subscriptions, or attract donations, requires the reinforcement of bias; therefore any information that challenges these biases no matter how true it is, or the utility of it, is ignored or suppressed because money is of greater value than truth or utility.  You can offer any one of your assumed 1000 reasons, and I can show how it reduces to value.  

Orion Simerl Commentary: The last sentence where I stated I can show how the decision to ignore reduces to value is intent not on the interpretation that everything reduces to value which it does, but is to say that it is an effect of bias as offending some pleasure producing idea, or it is against the interest, usually the financial interest of the person to keep the lie going.  That was the counter point, that there is not 1000 reasons why people don’t read it, there are at most several, which reduce to bias induced denial, or refusal based on protecting a financial interest. This ultimately stems from people not being committed to the causes they claim to represent, otherwise they would welcome true information as it requires a true understanding not only of the problem, but the circumstances that produce the problem, as well as the functioning of systems, to create and implement a solution.    

Brian Simerl (dad) POINT 3 “I acknowledge being trapped, understanding my circumstances, what I want, ” Are you black? Are you a non-citizen? Are you a Trump hated group? Are you mentally deficient? Are you a multiple amputee? …how bad are your circumstances?

Orion Simerl Response to POINT 3: Being black is not a measure of disadvantage or being trapped.  Are black people denied educational, employment, housing or service opportunities based on race? Is it socially acceptable to be racist?  No it is not. Any person born black and into money benefits from all the same advantages of being white and born into money. Any person who is white and born poor faces as many obstacles and disadvantages as any person of color born or beginning poor.  The fact you would associate race with disadvantage is a product of the overemphasis of racial inequality, which is a product of the promotion of a few different interests.  

Commentary: 1st is keeping in line with the national indoctrination where disadvantages are not systematic but racially motivated: the reason poor and middle class white people are not doing better is because immigrants are taking jobs and burdening our social services, and black people are leaching off the state and are criminals.  Which expresses the narrative of the right. And then, black, brown, or any other people of color are disadvantaged because of racism. Which is the narrative of the left.  

Neither interpretation is correct as disadvantage is not caused by the offenses of people of color mentioned above, people of color are not disadvantaged based on race, but all races face disadvantage based on class, first in stress  resulting from uncertainties regarding money, which not only imposes on adults thoughts, feelings, and behavior, but affects the development of children and it is physiologically measurable (citations available). Second, in a nation where the ability to create an opportunity relies on the money an individual has those without money cannot create their own opportunities.  This relates to productive purposes as far as the ability to earn money is concerned as well as opportunities for leisure activities. The point is that class is an issue affecting all people and it is more determative of liberty and disadvantage than is race, religion, gender, or sexuality.  

–   Commentary end return to message.  

People who have adopted racism as their cause must make every event that can be perceived as racial motivated as being racially motivated, as well as exaggerate the frequency and impact of racism to justify the existence of their cause.  On the other side of it, Trump and more subtly other republicans use issues of race and ethnicity to advance their political aspirations but much less so by being attractive to racists. I believe the appeal stems much more from people being tired of the overemphasis of race, gender, sexuality discrimination, and the promotion of non-sensical causes like gun control, than it has to do with people voting based on their racial bias.  In other words, people don’t hate people of color, they hate people who exaggerate disadvantages based on race, gender, and sexuality, because they are lying and attempting to direct a disproportionate amount of attention, time, energy, and resources to issues that are not actually issues. I’ve written more extensively on this topic in Poor White Sasquatch, If I Was Black, Sequencing and Comparison as well as other areas in the book.

Obviously I’m not a non-citizen or an amputee which in this country are legitimate characteristics of disadvantage but a person can still be circumstantially trapped without being an amputee or a non-citizen.  As far as being a member of a “Trump hated group” I could answer this in the affirmative in that Trump as well as most other politicians although not overtly, hate poor people. I understand you don’t mean it in the literal context of the words themselves, but more broadly as in am I a member of a group that experiences discrimination either through Trumps policies or by elements of the general population echoing Trump’s rhetoric or similar misconceptions.  Outside of seeking asylum or opportunities limited by travel bans being a “Trump hated group” doesn’t carry with it any tangible disadvantage and in fact carries with it probably more advantages than detriment for people belonging to “Trump hated groups,” Trump hated groups” have advocates and benefit from special treatment from the public based on the perceived hatred against them.                                                                      

Being trapped by circumstances means your circumstances are not conducive to doing what you want to do.  What a person wants to do is determined by what they value. Your general efforts to cause me to realize that my circumstances may be comparatively better than others is how it relates to what you value, not what I value. (commentary: or the absence of the disadvantage does not cause my circumstances to be non-trapping)  My points of being trapped relate first and foremost to communication. I can only communicate superficially with people because when their biases are compromised they ignore or refuse to acknowledge what I am saying. They refuse to acknowledge by becoming silent, usually after they attempt to insert information unrelated to the controversy, and I show how what they said does not relate to the controversy, and this is in person, as well as written communication.  It is living in objective reality while others are living in a popularly impressed reality that they prefer based on the sensations produced by maintaining self deception, which is the root of human dysfunction. This has broader implications as it relates to my ambition in life, in recognizing how and why human beings are how they are, have been where they have been and are at where they are at.  

You asked if I have a mental disability, and the answer to that question is no, but imagine you lived on a planet where every person had a mental disability to varying degrees, how would that circumstance impact your quality life and opportunities?  It could be argued that the one asserting that everyone else has the disability is the one with the disability, except for the fact that my participation in this world highlights and documents that fact, which becomes fact because no one is able to make an objective point against any point I make in the many instances where truth can be known and is not a difference of opinion resulting from value.  The other aspects of being trapped are financial, where to improve my situation financially, I’m required to dedicate most of my time to doing things I prefer not to be doing which leaves me inadequate time to the valuable research and analysis I prefer to be doing, and also dulls my ability as so much of my attention is dedicated to menial tasks. Yes, my circumstances are that bad.                                                                    

The circumstances I face are trapping, and to show me they are not trapping is to show me how my analysis and ideas are false, which requires addressing the content of the book, not isolating components of my message from the broader context and inserting subjective reasons why I should adjust my perspective.  This is the general function of psychology, to bring an individual’s values in line with the dominant values of society, which creates more opportunities for positive sensations in interaction as society functions to produce these sensations which are a product of dominant values. (Commentary: Dominant values are primarily inherited and reinforced because they produce a great benefit for some, which means the dominant values do not necessarily represent popular interest, but are impressed through promotion as those values serve dominant interests.)   There is more on this in Sequencing and Comparison, the Mongol Analogy.  

Brian Simerl: His response to assertion of over emphasis of race, gender, and sexuality discrimination:

I’m still trying to get through your other messages and have not gotten to the book enough to comment on it. I”ll say this, how do you get your opinion of Trump voters as it relates to your belief that  people being tired of the overemphasis of race, gender, sexuality discrimination. Most believe that mexicans are lazy, drug smugglers, murderers and rapists, ..blacks are jobless welfare recipients, Muslims are terroists and against all american values, transgender  people are a danger to using a woman’s bathroom, ..50 million voters believe this and hide behind your statement of overemphasis. According to this “group”, there is nothing racist about thinking that way. Categorize this as you want. For me, I hate political correctness, I hate the over exaggeration of the me 2 movement as many twitter groups take on a gang mentality. Anyway…i thank you for the jeep, but holy shit, never buy one again, because if i paid money for it, i would go and beat the guy who sold it to me, lol. In other words, it’s my weekly “replace something” on the jeep, like the radiator that just decided to leak on it’s own. talk with you soon..i’m sure i’m way behind on your messages.

Orion Simerl response to his response to Trump voters.   

I’m not saying that some Trump supporters don’t believe the things supplied by fox news as you’ve listed, but it isn’t correct to project these things onto 50 million people, because I think a very small minority of that group would agree with everything you’ve mentioned with only slightly more agreeing with anything that you’ve mentioned.  1st Trump represents a perceived class interest, where people in the top 20% of income earners if they vote according to the only perceivable benefit they gain from policy is the tax rate (not including marginal earners and corporate entities who decide policy through investment politics). They don’t care if Trump’s overemphasis of border security includes building a wall, or if he thinks Mexicans are criminals, Arabs are terrorists, or anything about men using women’s bathrooms, they only care about what a few percentage points means in thousands or millions dollars personally.  

A guy named Jeff from Political Talk in the San Fernando Valley said he voted for Trump because he thought his foreign policy would be less aggressive, and that has proven to be a correct presumption with the exception of Israel Palestine. (Commentary: proven correct if we measure the use of force of the Trump administration compared to Obama, George W, Clinton, HW Bush, Reagan, etc)  There are other voters who are not that interested in politics but who hate the left, for valid and varying reasons, some of which is the overemphasis of minority causes where disadvantage is asserted either disproportionate to the disadvantage that exists, or when no disadvantages actually exists. Even in the absence of recognizing that these interests are overemphasized by the party, the overemphasis itself implies indifference or deference to white interests, which is offensive to poor white people where class is a greater disadvantage than those overemphasized causes.  There are many Trump supporters who hate the left, do not adhere to the stereotypes of people mentioned in your message, and enjoy seeing Trump antagonizing them. A vote for Trump isn’t necessarily a vote for Trump, it is a vote against the otherside which is why it isn’t accurate to characterize all Trump voters as even supporters. Many others support based on various misconceptions with Trump, where I overheard one person tell another that Trumps an asshole but you have to admit he’s good with the economy. Statements like these reveal the individual has no understanding about the economy or the government’s relationship to it which only marginally if not negligibly, has an impact on its trajectory.  I’ve written more about the impacts of the overemphasis in the book as I mentioned previously so I’m not going to rehash all those points since you are going to read them.

Brian Simerl POINT 4. “I don’t see any benefit in spending my time doing something that poorly utilizes my talents and abilities “.  I keep rushing trying to be a stock and commodities day trading guru “god of wall street”. Now, i know i keep rushing and not practicing out of fear, i will lose money, making me be an average to below average trader and maybe, just maybe, it is not my thing anymore. This is hard for me to admit as i used to love it. So, what is your talent? Is it advocating for the poor and educating the “uneducated”.? For 20 years, you have been learning the judicial system, you seem to have amassed so much knowledge on this subject you walked from a 100% conviction in florida, and you did it representing yourself and you didn’t seem worried. What was the worst that could have happened in that scenario to an uneducated white or black man. Could they have gotten years in jail for that offense? Do you know the majority of states in the US allow you to have felonies and still be a lawyer. Did you know that you can forego school and become an apprentice to a law firm? No, i’m not going to suggest shit. But, get a paper or your computer. Write down how many times you beat the legal system representing yourself, all your successes and defeats. Then, write down your successes and defeats for advocating for the poor with the Centers for economic planning. So, decide what your talents really are.

Orion Simerl response to POINT 4: This is pretty much my first legal victory, which isn’t to say I don’t have skills that translate into law, mainly understanding words and their function which is the basis of applying law.  If I invested 4 years into becoming an attorney how does this position me to do what I want to do? It puts me in a position to make more money than I can make without the degree but it doesn’t position me to address the popular misconceptions and issues that serve as the basis of humanity’s dysfunction, which puts me no closer to a world worth living in.                                                                                                             

My goals are not related to being a poor people’s advocate, the poor are prioritized because prioritization is need based and being poor is the greatest disadvantage as it relates to liberty which determines (opportunities for) happiness.  Creating opportunities which is not exclusively accomplished through Centers for Economic Planning which is more a solution to address political representation in a system where representation is determined by political investment. The Balance Stimulus which is an idea I intend to promote through a lawsuit for systemic damages that may receive some media attention, as well as the Just Law Amendment, and other remedies for poor issues that if addressed have rippling implications for people of other classes.                                                    

The lack of results in promoting my material or in achieving progress towards my cause as I mentioned is a product of bias, where people are threatened by my abilities, or people are in denial because of what they have invested in positions as it relates to their financial goals or as it relates to eliminating something that is source of good feelings to them.  You cannot reference the result without also referencing the cause of the result. I understand the cause of my results and now the goal shifts to helping people understand the cause of these results where if understood, people will understand how their self deception is detrimental to their own self interest (stupidity=choice of value, objectively qualified, and not based off of innate disadvantage), and to the collective interest (evil=harms everyone).                                                                               

I’ll provide you an example from the book, and although the book furnishes a plethora of examples I’ve chosen this one because it is something you have evidence of through your life experiences meaning you can verify this example through your own observations.  Take the article A Crisis of Demand for example. It challenges the notion that the opioid crisis as it has been labeled was caused by pharmaceutical companies misleading doctors about the danger of addiction in opioid prescription pain medications. The preferred narrative is the misrepresentation of the product caused doctors to unknowingly over prescribe the medication to a public who was unaware of the dangers, took the medication as prescribed and became addicted to it.  

The reality is that profit motivated doctors prescribed opiates because they were sought after by the public either by people interested in the feelings the medication produced to cope with their circumstances in life, or by people with limited quality of opportunity to sell them.  These assertions are more thoroughly qualified in the article. Now why is this important? It is important because 1: it reinforces the national indoctrination that opportunity is equal and if not for the bad intentions of a few advantaged entities (in this case pharmaceutical companies) the United States wouldn’t have any problems.  It is an element of covering systemicly produced disadvantage. 2: You cannot address the issue of drug abuse through false causation, which boils down to the idea that the problem exists through the promotion of supply, and not the systemic creation of demand.                                    

Why was this article rejected by every publisher it was submitted to without explanation?  Because people consume information that reinforces their biases and a publisher exists to earn money through subscriptions, advertising, and donations.  Since people will cease to consume information from a publisher that challenges their biases, the publisher cannot publish information that although true and valuable, challenges the publications bias.

Orion Simerl Commentary: To add to the last paragraph, people want to believe that an evil corporation caused the opioid crisis through deceptive marketing, both left to reinforce the idea that corporations and greed are the problem, as well as the right who can use the corporation as a scapegoat for a nation whose systems and culture probably turns out more drug addicts per capita than any other nation on the planet.  No one cares about a Crisis of Demand because it doesn’t reinforce their biases, despite being true, and the acknowledgement of the points required in addressing drug dependency when it becomes a problem.     

This is one example, if you want to talk tax policy I can show based on research from leading economists like Emmanual Saez how the popular positions on tax policy “taxing the rich”, or reducing taxes on the job creators is irrelevant to causes these positions claim to be associated with, as well as how these popular positions fail to accomplish what it is implied they will accomplish, and yet these positions constitute the entire spectrum of positions on the subject.                                                                                                  

We can talk immigration or any other subject of popular significance.  What people think exists within the manufactured limits of controversy and all the positions within those limits are incorrect.  This is beneficial to those who benefit from this organization of human beings because it means nothing changes. Not a conscious conspiracy, but an unconscious result as interests form around the pretexts, the pretexts become the subjects of promotion and associatively valued bias, and bias is immovable without understanding the value of the truth in how it relates to an individual’s and the collective self interest.  No one has been able to express that but I do. This is why my material offends all biases, is denied, and why I haven’t been more successful in my causes.

Brian Simerl POINT 5, LOL…” go somewhere with good homeless services, pick up a serious drug habit, and run myself down ” Ok, i said 4 points. There is something very satisfying to being part of this group, I’ve been there , surviving day to day with everyone else surviving day to day. As I did for awhile in chicago. You are part of a group which you feel right now  you do not have. That is your neuroscience comfort zone. I was introduced to this neuroscience when I signed up for a course back in 2014, and it is way interesting, many audiobooks i do listen too. Sorry, it sounded like Yoda for a second. I listen to Vantharp, a boring psychologist, but i was able to get his stuff on pirate bay. so, one other part, and maybe i mentioned this before. People’s brains and i mean everyone has their beliefs physically hardwired in their brain. For example, the whole “taking a knee” during the anthem. No matter how many times you tell someone with proof that it was not protesting the flag, they can not see anything else. Their brain can not interpret anything else. That’s why I have been trying to rewire my brain but it takes months to do.

Orion Simerl Response to POINT 5: I’m going to address these points out of order primarily because I’m most offended by the neuroscience comfort zone assertion, the nature of the offense being the false implications that a comfort zone is a fact of neural pathways, and not the effect of the observed human proclivity to consume information that reinforces bias and creates familiar habits of thought.  What is neuroscience measuring? The frequency of use neural pathways, and an area in the brain responsible for confusion and discomfort lights up when a person is moved into pathways that extend outside of the frequently used pathways? Neuroscience and psychology is not furnishing people with objective information about the function of the brain or the mind, rather they are measuring the effects of the environment on the brain and the mind.  What I am doing is providing the causation for some of what they observe.                                     

1: The mind is set to objective. 2: The objective is a valued purpose.  3: The purpose is valued based on the sensations it produces directly or indirectly through associations with objects that produce sensations directly.                             

This is where human thought, perception and feeling begin from and it builds from there.  All thoughts are related to cause and effect, functions as it relates to fulfilling a desired purpose, value, truth, and morality which is the governor of desire and the preserver of non-immediate self interest, as the function of morality is to ensure liberty and cooperation within the species which is beneficial to individual self interest.  Everything is built on these purposes, and everything that is produced from this in terms of thoughts, perception, feelings, and behavior, is an effect of the environment and the tendencies it produces.

On the becoming homeless and picking up a drug habit there was an underlying purpose to that act, which has yielded a significant truth about myself that I understood in reason but not in function.  In sharing that thought with you I discovered a fact of functioning about myself. I’ve written this on a few other occasions that the reason I haven’t killed myself is because I understand the implications of my success and the great waste of what I’ve accumulated in terms of understanding and development.  This is true but they are explanations, not a law of function. I knew this to be true in terms of value comparatively, but not in value as an explanation of function.  

True comparatively means it was true my value of the possibility of success and the value of myself was greater than the hardship I was enduring, and the trapped prospect of never being able to advance the material due to bias.  I also know how mood influences decision making. Mood is cyclical, your thoughts and perception (perception mentioned separately as it relates to subconscious processing of the environment) determine how you feel, and how you feel influences the production of thoughts based on those feelings.  Although the comparative reason for not killing myself was true, that explanation failed to provide me with the reason why mood hadn’t flipped the comparative value at one point or another. I had to consider the possibility that I was being a pussy about not killing myself, and explanation had turned into a rationalization to preserve value of myself. Value of myself was still being affected because I couldn’t solve for a negative mood not pushing me to suicide, and so the prospect that I was afraid of killing myself was causing me to feel worse.    

What I realized today is that for me, the sensational value of knowing what I know, and the implications if other people knew this, and knowing they are capable of knowing it, prevents me from killing myself, or doing anything other than working for the advancement of it.

Orion Simerl Commentary:  What I am saying there is it is difficult to kill myself because those ideas change my mood which forces me to lean towards the possiblity of liberation as opposed to the relief of suffering.  This is also why it is difficult to fuck myself off because of the value of those ideas.  

The idea to become homeless and pick up a drug habit, aside from being the most efficient way to achieve intense stimulation, I felt would also eventually produce mood enough to influence value towards killing myself, especially after having given up on everything that is important to me (advancing knowledge, human liberation and preservation, and Ava) as to eliminate my purposes from giving value to my life.  It’s a perfectly logical solution to what I thought my problem was which was 1: value of purposes and my experience, eliminated by giving up. or 2: a fear of killing myself. As I mentioned, the sensations of knowing, and the ease with which I am able to advance that knowing and engage in acts that while ineffective do hold some prospect in promotion, prevent me from killing myself as a mode of function, despite waking up everyday feeling horrible about the prospects of that day, or the prospects of my life more generally.  I know it isn’t because of fear which is good because if I think it is because of fear, then I might kill myself based on the weight of the evidence in some assembly of perponderance. Now I understand it as a function of value immediately rather than as a function of value comparatively, which may not be the best way to describe the distinction.

Orion Simerl Commentary: What I mean when I say value comparatively is that the value of success and the value of myself versus trapped circumstances and prospect for improvement.  If it holds on the front I’m alive and trying to advance, if it goes the other way, I’m killing myself. What I was saying is, mood should have eventually caused it to fall on suicide, which isn’t a law necessarily, but was something I was considering.  What I mean by understanding this is as a function is, I haven’t been able to get to that place because mood driven thinking is interrupted by ideas of knowledge and its advancement, which change mood.   

As I explained in reference to neuroscience comfort zone, hardwired is an observation of an environmental effect, the sensational value of maintaining bias versus confronting it, and this isn’t the tendency of the brain as a physiological constraint, rather a function of value comparatively, between the negative sensation of confronting bias and understanding the value of truth as it relates to self and human interest.                                                                             

Taking a knee during the national anthem was specifically about the claim that law enforcement uses excessive force based on race.  On a deeper level the claim that this is true, in itself, associates something bad with the country, not individual’s but the systems themselves, and the flag is the symbolic representation of the country.  On a more superficial level, the act is calling the country bad, people associate the country with the flag, and these people have a high value of their country: the ideas that are associated with it, and the people who are associated with bringing these ideas to their attention who presumably have value for other purposes.  The country is also associated with their identity as elements of their truth, value, and morality. You cannot tell a person that it is about the police and not about the flag, when it is about the police which is a product of this country, which is associated with the flag, and in doing so you are implying it’s bad, effecting untold number of value associations for that individual.  It is about the flag because it is about their police, an agency of this country, and that is why people are offended.  

Orion Simerl Commentary:  I didn’t address the use authority and this is largely because it requires a long explanation regarding the formation of authority based thinking, beginning with the parents, family, teachers, clergy, etc.  As it applies in this context, it is accepting the conclusions of others based on credentials without understanding why that conclusion is true. People build on often incomplete, unsure, or erroneous conclusions, taking a conclusion as fact and using that fact as the basis for other conclusions.  Bringing up neuroscience and the name of a psychologist is an effort to weight assertions with an authority. I don’t know the legitimacy of those sources or the recognized bias of these researchers within their field. I do have enough of an understanding of the subjects to know what they can measure, how what they are measuring is the interaction between the individual and the environment, not innate or objective facts regarding the function of the brain or the mind.  It is frustrating when people attempt to cite a person or a subject thinking they have established some fact that contradicts something, in this case it is an effort to insert the idea that people are the way they are, which I provide explanation for, but more importantly, it is not a physiological obstacle or innate rule of human function, rather it is a product of misvaluing the truth.     

Final Commentary: I want to make it abundantly clear that this is not a product of someone’s son seeking their father’s approval or interest as I’m sure some would read into it.  At this point the frustration and claustrophobia of this invisible box has me reaching in all possible directions. I needed someone to seriously read what I’m writing, and although the party has no interest in me and my material, I thought interest could be generated based on his perceived responsibility for my shared intentions.  Intentions that were authentic at the time, and I understand better now why I haven’t or may not be able to carry them out. Having the intentions, I used them the only place where I thought they could serve a purpose to me, reasoning that if Ava sent me anything like I wrote my dad, I would read it intently.  

This is not what happend, instead he skimmed a few pages and tried to comment on it which showed in his responses.  The effort to deceive me was offending and unnecessary. Unnecessary because he could have just not commented and I would have thought he was reading the book.  I’m going to do what I’m going to do based on my value of the action not whether or not he reads or responds to my request.    

Deception is imposition albeit sometimes justifiable, and adding to the imposition is my time spent addressing comments that reflect the book has not been read in its entirety to have context for the skimmed portion, and that what was viewed wasn’t read but skimmed.  This moral offense was also amplified through imposing on my value of myself, which although subtle, is perceivable in recognition that his perception of me is that of a crank looking for someone to argue with. It’s subtle because I know he doesn’t understand much of anything so opinion doesn’t carry much weight, but there is some general social weight attached to someone trying to insult your intelligence depending on the implications and their perceived motive.  There is an element of frustration as well, frustration is the byproduct of imposition, literally the inability to do something, and that something I’m trying to do is create enough interest for someone to understand very basic things, an understanding that is lacking in this species for easily identifiable reasons.    

I know that all things reduce to the assembly of basic details and because basic details can be understood by all people, all people can understand all things.  What they know is a byproduct of what they like which directs attention and is required for interest. Understanding this adds to the frustration.  

The general point of this commentary is to say this exchange has nothing to do with it being my dad, there is no underlying need of approval or desire to reestablish a closer relationship.  Which isn’t to say I don’t appreciate what my dad has done for me throughout my life and I believe he performed to the best of his abilities. He has come through for me in some very crucial situations and to describe my disposition towards my dad in a word, it would be appreciative.  We have different values and so there isn’t much need for interaction, I’m just at a place where I’m trying to find a way to have someone read my material, and this seemed like an opportunity considering my circumstances.