TOE&LIT Excerpts 6

Sequencing and Comparison Excerpt

People’s value of subjects, what they like, is largely the product of associations.  For example. When I was about 8 years old near the time of the presidential elections I asked my dad why he was a democrat?  He said because his dad told him the democrats are the party of the working people. Which was probably certainly truer when his dad told him than it was when he told me, but not because of the principles of the party, it was based on the fact there was greater union participation, more money, and more influence in a government where the representation of an interest is equal to the money behind it, verses the money behind an interest the represented interest harms.  The point is, his value of the democratic party was tied to the value of his dad and is tied to his value of himself. It wasn’t based on any understanding of actual policy. This gave value to anything associated with democrats, and his understanding of politics was largely based on what they said. His understanding essentially consisted of what value they ascribed to subjects he had a minimal understanding of.  

This is why Trump doesn’t have to say much more than it’s very bad or it’s very good because his supporters value of him, is based on other values, and the value he attributes to subjects give value to subjects for his supporters.  Trump is the best example of this in the sheer volume of these kind of statements, but associative value is the basis of the American public’s political understanding, and is an individual’s general basis for value across all subjects.  Other associated value is only slightly deeper, the value of statements, or the illusion of knowledge based on statistics with limited context.  

Sometimes value forms or is reinforced through mistaken causation.  My dad injured his back working and was out of work for a few years as  a result. He benefited from a computer skills class that allowed him to reenter the workforce after being on AFDC for probably 3 years, if not longer.  The Clinton Administration through The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which was largely the product of Republican efforts, gave states greater control over welfare implementation, among other provisions reducing benefits and the duration with which one could receive benefits.  The class he participated in that led to a career in IT work, was actually the work of the republican governor Tommy Thompson, and even if the Act may have provided the funds for the program, it was largely a republican creation Clinton signed after vetoing two previous efforts at such reform. Meaning had he vetoed a third it could have been construed as Clinton not being serious about welfare reform.

This isn’t an effort to praise the republicans, I can assure you, I am confident that both parties almost equally do not represent the interests of most people in this country, with some “small differences that impact the lives of some people”.  The reason I mentioned the event is to highlight the creation of value based on subjective conditions and false causation. Clinton is a democrat which gives him value to my dad based on the associative value of democrats to his dad, and the identification as working class with the idea that the democrats represent the working people.  Of course Clinton was very articulate and accrued value based on what he said, as well as through personality characteristics people value in leaders. Because Clinton was in office and my dad was consuming his speeches, he credits Clinton for contributing to his success and it is his gauge of Clintons overall performance as president. If you ask him why he doesn’t like Reagan he mentions that he knows how hard it was to find a job under Reagan.  His position in life reinforces his political views, despite the fact that his situation in the 80s would likely have been the same under Carter or Mondale, and his situation in the 90s the same under H.W. Bush, or Bob Dole.  

Before I understood anything about politics I identified as a democrat, and I would say things I had no understanding of to defend or assert the value of the party.  Among those things I can remember, I would say Clinton presided over the greatest economic expansion in US history, the boom between 1990 and 2000. Of course this boom would have taken place regardless of whether or not Clinton was in office because it was largely the result of the emergence of the tech industry through the commercialization of computers and other innovation related to telecommunications and the microprocessor.  Or I would bring up budget surpluses under Clinton, ignorant of the fact that the budget surpluses were the result of a surplus in the social security balance of payments which are then used to purchase treasury bonds. Of course the surplus is the result of general economic conditions described in cause in the aforementioned, verses the number of people being paid benefits.  

I didn’t understand anything about these issues, those were go to lines to promote my value of the party which began through the association of the value of my dad, his dad, and myself.  My political understanding was largely the product of speeches from politicians and my preferred mainstream media interpretations. I didn’t know enough to have a political conversation, but in the right setting I could say one of those lines and seem like I possessed an understanding to other people who also didn’t possess an understanding, which is most of the population. 

I imagine there are studies that confirm this kind of associative value, and if not, research can be conducted to gauge this kind of associative value, but more importantly, associative value in general.  Suggestive evidence that political understanding and affiliation is largely inherited is attributable to the fact that most areas vote for the same party in every election, most notably in presidential elections.  This can be ascribed to other causes, mainly the collective values of the geographical area are more consistent with one party or the other, but under any kind of examination those values can be shown to be associative, with the great majority of people having no understanding of how policy will effect their lives, and they are unable to provide any explanation beyond something they are parroting from a pundit or politician.

Not limited to marketing, not limited to politics, not limited to being from family, but most of the value people attribute to subjects has nothing to do with the inherent value of the subject in regard to the sensations it produces, or understanding its value in purpose.  Most of what people like, which focuses their attention, is on subjects they probably wouldn’t like if they understood the true value of these subjects in adequate context, and it has profound effects on producing the world we live in as well implications for states of mind on an individual basis. 

9 Points Excerpt

The fear, authority, and superstitions preserved in the gods of religions is intellectually destructive.  God is a tyrant or god is liberty, and presuming on the survival of consciousness after death, god will not be one but many.  Liberty is the absence of imposition and any being who does not impose, is on equal moral footing with all others. Any single god’s only advantage would be in knowledge, but god is prevented from imposing on beings who do not impose, and is prevented from circumstantially imposing on other beings by denying them the means to do so long as they do not intend imposition.  You have to prove liberty wrong, to open a hole in this reasoning.      

I theorize that the universe is an egg where conditions exist for life to evolve into conscious and intelligent beings, and the purpose of the universe is to populate dimensions occupied by consciousness, dimensions of liberty, and dimensions of tyranny.  Each consciousness is unique based on its values, and freedom from imposition allows each to explore, accumulate knowledge, and create according to those values. 

 It isn’t an idea I promote, but it makes the most sense to me, since as far as we know, the universe’s sole purpose is to produce life, some of which has an opportunity to develop into intelligent life.  Imagine a non-material existence, something you experience maybe during a dream. How do you populate that space to ensure enough diversity where existence and creative endeavor’s don’t become stale? Maybe they drop an egg into a vacuum, a big bang, that they monitor, study, and produces conscious beings.  Looking at the universe, it isn’t something that exists for some other purpose and the byproduct of that purpose is life, it is intentionally designed to produce life, consciousness.        

The main purpose of me addressing god or gods as an authority, is the role it plays in prioritizing the mind.  People need to expand their reasoning, where dictates are based on the personal interest of the one being directed, whether by parent, pastor, teacher, boss, or peers.  Where things are not accepted as being true simply because they are in line with what a person believes to be true, or accepted as being true without an adequate understanding of the subject to determine if said thing is true or false.  Where the morality of liberty is considered in policy, institutional structures, and conduct. Where people consider the full relevant sequence of cause and effect when judging the results they see, and the anticipated results of actions moving forward.           

Nothing is complicated, everything is the assembly of basic details in cause and effect relationships, and anyone with an interest in a subject can understand their subject of interest.  People have to get smarter for this species to survive and be free, and it isn’t an issue of varying ability, it is an issue of application, and the organization, inclusive of social systems.


Is there any room for optimism?  I’ll tell you what makes me feel optimistic or when I feel optimistic.  When I’m reading what I’ve written I feel optimistic, because I know the beginning of something seriously impactful could result by people understanding what I’ve put on these pages, that we’ve produced.  We being all those whose work and the impressions they’ve left has led to me understanding these things, that go unrealized. If not for the purity of my motivation, these things go unrealized. So it’s a lot of people and it’s me, and whatever is despite other people, it’s still led me here, a contribution in that respect, but may all those who had ill-intents, operating out tyranny, still operating out of tyranny, get what’s due according their understanding and application.  Tyranny for the tyrant as he has chosen.    

My optimism is a product of knowing that all things reduce down to basic details, an assembly of components, and therefore, with the right amount of interest, all things can be understood by all people.  Meaning if the right people read this book, who exercise influence over others, and reach the conclusion that this information is important, which it is, then the history is irrelevant and change becomes possible.  It begins by understanding that what is true should determine what you like, not what you like determining what is true. It’s truth over everything.


I am not who I am today without my daughter Ava Kali Simerl.  As a father, for all my shortcomings which are unperceivable through my daughter, my approach prioritized honesty above all else, which included not only telling her the best truth I knew about a subject, but included objectively considering facts, including circumstantial facts when she disputed a decision.  Everything is open to debate. If she thought something was wrong, she was free to make her case, and when she was correct, she got the outcome she wanted, not because she wanted it, but because she was right. If I wanted her to do something or I was trying to correct her behavior, she didn’t do it or change the behavior because I was bigger and could impose a punishment, she did it because she understood it to be correct.  At 7 years old she was able to use premises explained to her as a governor of correct behavior, and recognize when her mother or I were contradicting it. If it was right when we said it to her, it was right when she said it to us so long as the context was the same. I trace my roots of objectivity to this relationship, which eventually I began to apply in my relationship to study, my relationship to others, and every aspect of my life.  Without Ava the concept of truth over everything, and the merit of the concept, is likely never discovered.