No one is useless in this world who lightens the burden of another - Charles Dickens.
We need perhaps in ourselves to find pain to heal it. It should not and I think ought never to be a voice of violence, but a
voice stilled with the caress of its own peace.
I am now 69. Given the inevitable decay of the human condition, I think it would be inappropriate if I continued the website
beyond the age of 80.
The site is now 'transcivilisational', and societies are many people, not one. It is thus a necessity that others are involved
in this civilisational aspiration of the human spirit, and continue it after me, independently of me, and occasionally in
opposition to it.
The author hopes to persist in the evening of his life to a declaimed and sometimes ignored or derided delusion amounting
to the study of postevoluionary maths, ancient mythologies, and a detailed solution of our knowledge of the Milky Way
galaxy, the stars of which our sun is one. The galactic collision of our galaxy with the Andromeda galaxy in four billion
years time and other apparent trivia, which those who know will show it can never happen to us, interests this isolated soul.
Together there is a beautiful and ugly idea combined. The love of ugliness brings the greatest truth of Love. It must then
follow that Love hurts.
Laing the psychiatrist said insanity is relative. I think he meant between the true social mind and its other body forgotten
for its destitution, their coexistence is as mutual as mind in life is linked to its opposite in death. For a long time I thought
he was deeply wrong. I see this insanity of the mind with obedience to a deranged social system is evidently recuperating,
as Laing wished. It is a great healing from a denial of Truth to a different idea towards a concept of Love.
In an absolute sense, Laing is right and so am I.
The idea that information is split up into small bits so people can understand it is a good one. This website has been sliced
in two to make each part smaller. Separately these parts are easy to digest. Some sections have been taken out and others
where development was incomplete have been removed. This website is now more able to meet its original intention for
translation into the major world languages of Spanish, Arabic and Chinese. The ideas in this website are advanced. Even
more advanced material will be contained in the companion website www.theloveoftruth.ie. This is not yet set up. The
subjects in this new website are bizarre. They contain advanced theory and applications that people can understand, but
nobody else feels they ought to be.
1. The Qur'an can be found in translations, the best of which I know is the version which was first published in 2004 by
M.A.S. Abdel Haleem.
2. Jim Adams: email@example.com.
3. John Baez has made accessible a wide area of technical mathematics to a huge audience. It is deservedly popular. He is
deeply aware of the contours of the subject, and what is significant. I do not think he has been the critic of some results in
the way I have. This has resulted from different aims and personalities. I have time available by being outside the system.
If you have not already done so, please look at his site. Here is a comment on John Baez's blog dated 28-29 June 2017.
4. BEC The Brighton Energy Co-operative website.
5. The Assayer A free scientific and other eBook website.
Scheduled start of the translation of the English website to Spanish: December 2019.
de Penguinne's law for bureaucratic action: In a total bureaucracy you have to ask calmly ten times for something to be
de Penguinne's Acceptance principle: The reason the system is insane, is that people are taught it happens that way.
Imprecise and very deep theorem of deep mathematics:
Triviality Up is the Best Strategy for all Problems when we solve a problem by splitting it up into bits and doing one thing
after another. What does this mean? Establish an Aim. For each action towards the Aim go down a 'triviality tree' to get the
most trivial action, and clear it. Clear all trivial problems until there are no more to clear. Then ascend upwards to a less
trivial level. Every trivial event must be cleared to get to the Aim. If you come across a more trivial item you had not noticed
was there, clear it now. This is a very pleasant way to solve problems best. It only needs peanut brains to determine which of
two options is the most pleasant. Suck it and see.
The worst way unless you can solve everything all at once, when it is the best, is Problem Descent. Don't use it. You have to
work everything out before you start. If you see a peanut you hadn't noticed, it may be relevant, and you have to work it out
all over again. It fails if your computation power is merely Galactic Supercomputers and Donald Trump. It is unpleasant and
will except for picking up a teaspoon to stir tea, fail.
Hofstadter's rule: it always takes longer than you think, including factoring in Hofstadter's rule.
de Penguinne's first rule of delay: It always takes precisely three and a half times as long as a reasonable estimate, unless
there is gratuitous help, when the reasonable estimate is correct. This is obviously strange folly, indecisively obtained. It is
remarkably correct in my experience.
The main reason for the apparent difference between Hofstader's rule and the partially researched de Penguinne's first rule
is that Hofstadter's rule does not factor in distractions. We have used distractions here, but these are the same as trivia, and
in the discussion of Trivility Up we have seen these are important! These can be cognitive (thinking) or physical (real).
Our communications can be with computers. Computer systems seem considerably more badly designed than they were 40
years ago. We interact with people. Faced with incompetent social systems, we are confronted with managers selected by
a class system. Pupils at Eton are taught day-to-day movements of Roman Emperors. Often they are unable to know what
a plug does, much less how to fix one (I can't do the latter either). So technical decisions are decided on fascist principles
applied to technology amounting to technological lunacy. Concerns at Universities to teach management of social systems
from the point of view of maximisation of wealth rather than services result in decisions to protect embezzlements via global
accountancy fraud which have little relation to services except that they should be reduced to save money. We have worse
services than we should. That may increase the time we spend unnecessarily on them.
Changing the order of distractions only improves these estimates by 5%.
de Penguinne's second rule of delay: In a successful day you complete 50% of your ambitions. You attempt 20% of them
unsuccessfully. I have used less than four examples.
de Penguinne's Invalidity rule: If you have an opinion and you cannot locate any valid reason for it, an opposite opinion
is the case.
de Penguinne's Global Incompetence rule: Not only do you not know what you are doing, nor does anyone else.
de Penguinne's Viability rule: You do not know what you are doing, but you know you are doing it.
We end with
de Penguinne's Immersion principle: The more practice in doing what you don't know what you are doing happens, the
better and better it gets, until finally you do it perfectly without realising it.