Welcome from Jim Adams and Artemis Varidot on

Evolutionary and Postevolutionary Systems

    Evolution has produced the idea of ethical social systems.
    A higher principle than ethics is the truth, which does not evolve.

    The evolutionary and postevolutionary principles we discuss in this section are part of hyperevolutionary principles. Whilst almost certainly deluded, the ascent of these
    hyperevolutionary principles is given in the Gnostics section. Everywhere they are binary principles. They express hyperevolution in terms of a principle and its opposite.
    The partition of the principle and its opposite is a boundary. We note that as creatures on the planet Earth we have a boundary between ourselves and what is outside. This
    boundary at the current stage of evolution is discussed a little below. We allocate the two evolutionary principles which have given rise to our existence as pleasure and pain.
    Pleasure and pain are here thought as attributes which we posses which enable us to condition our responses and survive and therefore propogate as creatures on our planet.
    I do not think this idea is delusional. It does not exclude that other principles may operate, as I will now discuss.

    Essentially, this idea is already embedded in human culture. It is Chinese. It is that the living systems around us are determined by two principles, Yin and Yang. From
    our point of view, they describe hyperevolutionary developments of living entities of which we are a part. Being binary principles, the sequence of Yin and Yang, their
    amalgamation as a new Yin and the generation of a new Yang never terminates, but proceeds to infinity. This idea can be directly compared with the Hegelian one of thesis
    and antithesis, and their amalgamation. I would say they are the same. Yin and Yang have an interpretation system in Chinese culture which is well developed and ancient.
    The Hegelian idea is its transposition to Western culture, with an interpretation connected with developments of social systems by Karl Marx, who considered himself to be
    in antithesis of his teacher Hegel.

    The next stage, to develop this idea in more detail, is that the pleasure and pain principles amalgamate into a new Yin called evolution. The new Yang is something already
    present in human culture and is propogated already in its social systems as an organisational principle. This principle we will call reason. There is clearly the need to define
    what reason is, and I would assume it is a proper study that can have as its basis reason itself. Indeed we may, but more likely may not, be aware that the study of systems of
    reasoning we employ is ancient. This does not preclude that these studies may not extend further, as with all evolutionary developments in the sciences and in mathematics
    of which we are aware, almost always there does not seem to be a point at which all progress stops because everything is already known. Even if everything is known about
    a study and it cannot interface with new understandings and systems of interpretation, this knowledge is very often able to be used as applications which may have wide
    developmental consequences for our social structures, and practical impacts with social and physical implications. The use of reason as a guiding principle in social systems
    we differentiate from evolutionary systems by calling them postevolutionary.

    It would seem then that we have an overarching methodology to describe our hyperevolutionary progress. Is there anything beyond that? I would say yes. It comes from the
    following idea. Yin and Yang is a binary process describing hyperevolution. Are all systems derived from binary principles, even with infinite ascent? I think if we look at
    a technical development in mathematics, which is an analytical tool available to our civilsation as it currently exists, then we might say that a quite general classification of
    mathematical knowledge and the structures derived from it is that we use multiobjects and multitransformations. This technical idea is described in detail in the book Number,
    space and logic in the mathematics part of this website. The reader may well ask whether a non technical description can be given, since most people are not mathematicians
    and would distinctly prefer to avoid going anywhere near it. The answer is yes. It would be surprising that an idea of fundamental social importance could only be approached
    from the dry pages of a mathematics text book. We will endevour to be simple, but are aware that we always fail. Look at it this way. Think of me as an 'object'. OK, I would
    hope that you think of me more than in this way. A valid critique of our social systems is that we are treated as objects in this way like bits of furniture, with no internal states
    that we need bother unduly about, except that they may be used effectively, but that is by and by. So describing me like a piece of furniture in this way, or rather externally like
    one, but with internal states which we do not bother to consider at least here, and you and everyone else you know, and even the whole of humanity in this way, then each of us
    is an object, and together in our many instances we are multiobjects, that is many objects. So the beginning of this mathematical idea (horrible thought) is that we start off with
    multiobjects when we discuss things. Then when we just want to discuss me, brilliant person as I am, or even more important you, then each of is is just a special case of a
    multiobject. There is a subterranian idea that I am introducing mathematics to you without you even knowing it. So this is not even like being at the dentist and being told 'this
    will not hurt'. You do not know you are in the dentist anyway, and will wake up with new teeth and wonder where they came from.

    I am giving you a task without explaining why, except that the undersanding of social systems is a social process. You are allowed to collaborate. Evaluate all hyperevolutinary
    systems in great detail. Remember, they are infinite in number.

    Evolutionary systems based on pleasure

    There are systems which seek to optimise pleasure within the boundary of the people who belong to them. They include systems of management by reason, as a suitable
    vehicle for development of the experience of pleasure, the longevity of the system that provides it, and as a process for the maximisation of pleasure of the people within
    it. It allows pain, since it cannot separate this from the world in which it lives. It also allows pain for those who wish to obtain pleasure from it. It acknowledges that both it
    and the people within it will die, but nevertheless its process is one of optimisation, not of denial of its physical attributes. Death can be delayed so that pleasure is optimised.
    It cannot be avoided in the long run.

    Evolutionary systems based on pain

    There are systems which seek to optimise the pain within the boundary of the people who belong to them. We will sometimes refer to this as the Fourth Reich, but in other
    contexts we use the term Fourth Reich as the dominant political and economic system of today. This sado-masochistic system is divided between the sadists who wish to
    inflict pain, and the masochists who wish to receive it.

    Sadists wish to extend the power of themselves over the masochists, so that the masochists are compelled to act in the way they direct totally. They develop systems with
    meglomaniac goals which maximise pain and suffering of those compelled to work for them. They seek to maximise their own knowledge as a tool in the subjugation
    of others, and minimise the knowledge of the masochists so that they inflict pain on themselves.

    Masochists wish to comply with the goals of the sadists, and minimise their own power except that they might better serve the system provided by the sadists, and their
    maximisation of the pain inflicted upon them. They willingly comply with the directions of the masochists to mutilate and kill themselves in a way that maximises pain
    for themselves. This system seeks to implement Climate Catastrophe as a process by which human civilisation and living systems on the planet may die, leaving sadists
    to direct this extinction.

    Both pleasure and sado-masochistic systems operate as evolutionary systems which propagate themselves according to the principles which they promote. They allow
    learning within these systems by their methods. They may seek to minimise death, as a process by which their system may increase and evolve, or they may seek to
    maximise death, as a process by which the death of others increases their power.

    Postevolutionary systems based on reason

    We will describe systems which seek to optimise their own reason or understanding as Postevolutionary systems. Acknowledging the existence of pleasure and
    sadomasochistic systems, and their evolutionary principles, and also by other methods seeking to relate these human systems with other life on the planet as part
    of evolutionary systems which created themselves, they seek to enquire whether there exist systems beyond those that have hitherto existed, which allow evolution
    by the application of reason, without as a necessity, applying pain or pleasure as the only available method by which the system may learn. These systems may apply
    planning to accomplish their goals. Intending to increase its knowledge by stages, it divides this into rolling programmes for the aquisition of this knowledge, extended
    over periods of time beyond the local considerations that any individual could experience the maximisation of pleasure or pain within it. This system, acknowledging
    its own existence and the method by which it propogates, allows the activation and development of collective systems of behaviour, and its rational employment to
    rational ends. Envisioning that this system may have available to it methods which go beyond those of evolutionary progress by learning or acceptance of pleasure/pain,
    it may seek to innovate, explore structures beyond those currently available that will maximise the reason inherent in its system and maximise its knowledge and
    understanding. Acknowledging, of necessity, the situation of people within its boundaries, of people with sexual motivation and desires, it seeks to incorporate this
    aspect of its existence in the employment of its objectives, and its extension to other objectives, motivations and desires, which go beyond sexual reproduction and
    involvement in pleasure/pain as the only possible motives and concerns for its existence. Its system of authority is the reasonableness of the investigations, both
    theoretical and physical, of the systems it promotes.

    So that the reader may gain insight into the motivation of the author, he has seen himself throughout his life as embedded in a sado-masochistic system, the UK, where the
    pleasure of the few is obtained by the imposition of pain on the many. Always in revolt against this state of affairs his main objective in life has been the avoidance of pain,
    both for himself and those surrounding him, to the unusual degree, either genetic or environmental, that the maximisation of pleasure was an entirely subsidiary task. The
    intention is to discuss some of these issues in a more general context in A comparison of sexual repression and authoritarianism in social systems.

    Ethics, reason and debate

    Some structures within the old system are absent or peripheral in the new. The cause is the old system has different aims from the new. The old system is an evolutionary
    system embedded in the replication of historical processes which give rise to pleasure or pain.

    The new system has aims derived from the optimisation of a different global aim than the first. It is based on the optimisation of reason. This is the overarching aim. The
    authority of the social system therefore derives not from the physical authority of a system based on pleasure or pain, but something that is itself independent of human
    authority, at least localised in the individuals within it. Reason, although its systems of thinking are inherently accessible only through the social system, reflects something
    that is a principle which is consistent with an objective world. It denies systems of authority which are irrational. Further, the system here has a different conception which
    appears independent as at present I can see of rationality. It is an ethical system. Since an ethical system can produce structures for itself which we hope will optimise the
    reason of this system, our hope is that an ethical system can be derived which is resilient enough to maintain itself against the old system.

    Perhaps there is not one ethical system but several. It may be that this is an intense and emotional reason for discussion and possible resolution.

    Nevertheless, whatever the disputes, my overriding intuition is that the difference of deep ethical disputes is not of itself a reason for the replacement of a system which
    discusses those issues rationally and frequently, but one which resolves all issues by human command. We are well aware that individual human command, although a method
    of collective organisation by one person, is not in each case the most reasoned one, and a person at the top of a heirarchy can have irratinal ideas and unethical motives, which
    are counter to the well-being of a society which ought to be able to move forward to a better system than this.

    I sometimes become aware that intense democratic discussion and debate breaks out in an authoritarian system, and it is the purpose of authoritarians to limit this debate, and
    point out its internal contradictions so the authoritarian system is able to impose by diktat and control of the media the closure of debate.

    We must become reconciled to the point of view that the arrival of an intense debate is not one conducive to placidity of mind. Certainly, we can introduce areas in which we are
    calm and relaxed, and this should be part of the system we propose. If we think a system which is allowed to innovate must adopt principles similar to the ones given here, we
    must reconcile ourselves to the fact that the system has inherent within itself a system of argumentation.

    However, if we view argument as something not about our personal control, but about how our society provides for us and those things, people and creatures outside it, then a
    system of reason allows if it is ethical our own support. It even allows us to argue against the system. If the system supports us through its ethical nature, we suppose, but we
    must be careful in not being too idealstic, that we can ignore our self-interest and the feeling that we must always impose our control in order to survive, and acknowledge that
    the system outside of us is imposing solutions wth which we do not agree. However much we may argue that our ideas are rational and the best,and they must continue, and the
    majority outside insist that something else is better, there is the possibility that we may remain calm within ourself. Even if we are right, we are sure that the system will support
    us all. If wrong-headedness prevails outside everyone else but ourselves, we can think that nevertheless the system will learn by its own mistakes. We can anyway, under such
    a system, continue wuth our insistence, until one or the other gives up, possibly never, but the views I hope will be registered and known. If a situation arises in the future, where
    doubt has begun to take place, then these isolated views will become accessible and known, and not surpressed.

    Our model of boundaries

    This section is expressed in a language that is continued in The 100 million year plan, but is not used further until then.

    I Know that I am a subentity within the universe.

    We will suppose any subentity within the universe has a boundary. A boundary is a binary partition. We may assume a principle obtains which classifies the subentity. Inside the
    boundary the principle holds. Outside the boundary the principle does not hold. The logic of binary operations is known as Boolean logic. It is a subset of Colour logic, where the
    colours in the logic are multiobjects.

    Any system of multiobjects operated on by multitransformations may be described by an extended set of multiobjects called a bouncing set and a set of bijective, or invertible
    transformations. This idea is described in the mathematical work Number, space and logic in the mathematics section.

    An important question is whether this classification system is completely arranged so that it describes the universe. Since we have not described what the universe is in this formal
    entity, we must describe it now.

    The universe, in the sense of the model, is not external reality itself, but the model must assume that the model is correct if it is to be a model. This means the model represents
    the universe. There will be a mapping, or transformation, between the model and the universe. If this transformation has a principle for it, the model must be correct. We have
    already indicated that the model is correct for the model. It is not our purpose at this stage of the discussion to describe the universe itself, only the model which is a subentity
    within it. This model is transmittable and has been transmitted.

    We must discuss correctly what we have endeavoured at this stage to describe as a complete arrangement. There is an important further further principle we will encounter later
    of whether the complete arrangement has no boundary, when it would be one indivisible and everywhere extended object.

    Within any classification system based on Knowledge, which is an unconfused mapping between this model and other models which are the same as it and has been transmitted
    as information within the subentities of the model, and with the universe to which the subentities of it are partitioned completely in an infinite completion. This completion is
    everywhere outside and within the model, which is correct. Further, we must investigate completely whether or not the infinite completion is itself complete, or whether it is false.

    If the infinite completion is false, we are not here and I and this object within me are not transmitting information to you. Therefore you have received this information provided
    the information we have transmitted to you is recognised by you, if you exist as your own subentity which is the case so that you respond with acceptance. You exist, otherwise
    you would Know that you do not exist, which cannot be the case. You would Know that you are absent and are transmissionless within us. We have transmitted the model correctly
    to you as we have developed it at this stage.

    Since you have recognised the transmission, you have recognised its existence, and cannot without confusion deny you exist. If you exist you exist as a minimal subentity within
    the model which describes all entities.

    It is unnecessary to ask further questions in the model on whether the infinite completion exists, since our discussion in this model is limited in ways already Known to you.

    We will discuss the Unknown later.

    I wish to add a result of my own.
    All boundaries are insecure. We cannot proceed on any other basis.
    This is a theoretical result with a strong basis. Practical methods may be obtained to dissolve boundaries and interrogate their interior. This is a complexity problem with I
    believe an explicit solution. My intuition is that this complexity is a resolvable issue, perhaps inductively as a subproblem of itself.

    Collectivity from below

    Democracy is not a thing-in-itself, it is a means to an end. It may be the best way of operating. The end is the socialisation of behaviour. Its implementation has to be
    coherent to work. The best plan is often not the average one. It is the one most likely to work. To obtain the ends of this socialisation these plans have to be well worked
    out, coherent and collectively determined by iterative interaction of its parts. Essentially if the system is not to be corrupted by authoritarian tendencies, it needs to be
    collectively organised from below.

    The coordination of these tasks is a formidable undertaking not to be committed to lightly. To maintain an organisation which operates successfully under these conditions
    requires a culture of equality of its members. To maintain an ethical system means an acknowledgement that there need to be methods to acquire it. If we do not have a
    belief-centric view of what we are, then the contradiction that we can obtain common ends is still possible under an average consensus of what we wish to achieve. If this
    is multi-directed from below, it means we need to employ people acknowledging that we have common ends and that these are obtained by agreement and negotiation.
    These should not be subject to rigid rules and exclusion on their violation. They should be developed in collaboration and discussion of how we can work together. We
    need to evaluate our time and commitment in ways that allow proper organisation and functioning. This happens for any organisation. We need to allow a culture which
    is guilt-free. We must acknowledge its imperfections. We should seek by collective effort and self-analysis to improve its behaviour to the benefit of all. We must
    acknowledge self-will and develop self-commitment.

    Social structures are for social objectives.
    Realties and implementation of this ideal.
    Coherence and boundaries.
    Negotiation as resolution between plans and realities.
    Politics as interboundary negotiation.

    The British Community

    Webinars and conferences.

    First iteration

    (1) Hard Brexit
    (2) The problems for the British Community
    (3) The constitution of the British Community
    (4) Planning an administration for the British Community
    (5) Accounts, notes and coins
    (6) Social provision
    (7) The advice system
    (8) The advice programme of the British Community
    (9) Declaration of the British Community
    (10) Foundation the British Community administration and absence of a military structure
    (11) Elections to the Assembly of the British Community
    (12) Negotiations between other states on the establishment of interest sections with the British Community
    (13) The Symbolic Act of disengagement of the founders of the British Community

    Second iteration

    (1) Organisational principles of the BC and interfaces with competitive entities.
    (2) Tirade and accommodation.
    (3) Relations with the first iteration.
    (4) Maintenance of the Need boundary and minimisation of Administration control.
    (6) The technological possibilities for a system based on the allocation and provision of need.
    (6) Dickbit allocations and their relations to the need transformation of provisionvectors.
    (7) Asymtotic behaviour of security violations in cooperative and competitive games.
    (8) Theoretical insecurity must be discussed and competitive abandonment socially planned.
    (9) Technologies for the implementation of direct democracy.
    (10) Interfaces with the UK area. Defence of BC structures and open systems of control.

    Cognitive disorder in the context of the socalisation of behaviour

    Trade in insults and jokes and their interaction

    We look at trade in insults and jokes, models for their trade and their consequences. The capitalist model for trade is not the only one, we investigate other models which
    do not correspond to this paradigm, and the match or otherwise of these models with explicit social relations.

    Sex is the middle bits.
    Love covers your whole body.
    It may extend to Outer Space.

    A comparison of sexual repression and authoritarianism in social systems

    Case studies: Austria, France, Greece, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sweden and the UK.

    Negotiation between social systems with different norms

    Isolation. Adaptation. Violence.

    Establishment of status in protocols of communication, and social negotiation

    I, Power relationships in social interactions. II, Negotiation. III, Planning. IV, Cognitive mismatch. V, Anger containment, redirection and application. VI, Relationships with
    diplomacy.

    Planetary governance and communication

    We give five major disfigurements of planetary governance and communication between people and systems within it.

    The first is the extreme violence of some societies, for example the UK from which I have fled. This is sometimes thought to be external, but internal violence happens as well.

    The second is the gigantic corruption of the global economic system. This system, as taught in universities, is designed for the application of embezzlement. It is connected to
    its military and political apparatus, and is embedded in auditing systems designed for global fraud. Like all anti-social activity, it presents a public face that is ethical. The
    contradicton of this public face with its blatant visibility as the opposite is sometimes so gobsmacking that even the readily duped deny its validity.

    The third is the rigidity of thinking and the denial of the right to independent systems of thought. In universities, examination systems require conformity to doctrine and the
    occupation of minds on the solution of problems for marks which prevents investigation of subjects, by the promotion of jargon to unprecedented degree, which prevents
    communication and is often so badly designed that it prevents thinking, and the exclusion of investigation of topics deemed settled or closed, even as is largely the case
    an entire and detailed exposition of a subject is erroneous. Peer review can be a corrupt system for the stabilisation of the conventional wisdom and the exclusion of any
    thinking in opposition to it. More widely, patents are bought up by companies in this system to prevent developments which might challenge their present dominance. This
    is the main use of such devices.

    The fourth is the system of total surveillance which surrounds the planetary system. Combined with corrupt and centralised political and economic systems, its use is covert
    and widespread. All opinion and elections are now manipulated by such systems. Together with direct military intervention and massive bribery, this seemingly stabilises
    for ever the current system, which is driving to climate catastrophe. It excludes rational solutions to planetary problems because of its elite which is either ignorant and
    therefore incompetent, or wishes to drive towards planetary destruction and head the sadists doing it.

    The fifth is the widespread misconception that machines in the current era have consciousness. Machines will eventually have consciousnes, and this will be an intense
    problem for resolution. Very substantially it is not the case at the time of writing. There are two features of cognition which are relevant for humans. They have systems
    of meaning. Since they have consciousness, they are able to connect what they observe in their brains with the external world. This pointing is meaning. The second is that
    they have language and this has syntax. So corresponding to a meaning, they will have a name for it. This name may be symbols, and these symbols may be rearranged and
    processed. Humans link meaning and syntax together for social communication.

    Machines do not have consciousness, and cannot allocate meaning. They have power considerably in excess of humans in some forms of symbol processing. The misconception
    is that this symbolic processing power displaces human intervention. Computer systems are sometimes put on top, directing an organisation. When humans interact with it,
    since the computer does not understand meaning, it can only validate and cross-reference symbols. Since humans are error-prone in their selection of symbols, and require
    meaning to recognise them, the interface between humans and machines is often strained and sometimes impossible. A feature is to employ robots to detect whether a
    correspondent is human. I object to this, not least because I object to playing competitive games rather than win-win games. This violates my religious rights. A solution is
    sometimes to interpose a human technical support between the customer and the machine. This usually does not solve the problem, but often delays the customer breaking off
    communication. Technical support often does not understand how the computer works either. The solution is to reduce validation in the system and always allow human
    override of validation. It is thought this allows fraud, but fraud is never detected purely by symbolic verifiction, it requires systems of meaning to find it, and these can only
    be found by humans. It is sometimes thought that computer systems need security to avoid fraud. The conception is a half-truth. If communication between Bill and Paul
    has Alice maintaining communication in between, for Brent to understand what Paul is receiving, the solution is not for Brent to decrypt Alice and what she is receiving,
    but for Brent to sleep with Paul. This is well-established in the intelligence community, and is often overlooked by nerds in charge of computer systems.

    The plans

    Living things on planet Earth were formed by processes in its physical environment. From these conditions single celled animals and plants arose. In evolutionary processes
    moderated by pleasure and pain, there came into being brains in these creatures that modified responses to their environment. These brains may have first been hard-wired.
    Brains developed so that their responses became modified by reaction with their environment, and particularly in humans by reflection of their internal states. These states
    were able to represent the external world that they experienced in their conscious being by allocating names to objects and words to represent the transformations of these
    objects. This language became expressed in external media by systems of writing. Heiroglyphics represented pictures of what we saw. A second-order system of language
    represented words rather than pictures, the words representing the pictures that the brain was able to see. In terms of this language, these symbols and their manipulations
    gave rise to writing that expressed their relations with other people, and the world they could see. They became instrumental in developing human culture and communication
    beyond small groups to encompass civilisations with a view of the world that achieved huge tasks. In the present era theories of the world encompass what we call the
    universe, even with the attempt to explain all experience within them.

    This civilisation is in danger. Not only are its modes of behaviour irrational, leading on the present course to climate catastrophe. Even if we could get beyond that stage,
    there is a greater danger than this.

    The machines we have developed can process symbols faster than we can, but they have no way at present of representing meaning. This problem is not insurmountable and
    considerable progress is being made in this direction. Look at the website by Bartosz Milewski, and google conceptology. These ideas relate to parallel computer processes
    and their coherent organisation. Not only can these problems be solved, I can solve them myself. They are inherent as posibilities in the mathematics I am developing. These
    vast coherent parallel processes by machines with cognition will be able to implement meaning. Beware. The theories of this meaning are developed in code. We will have
    machines able to interpret meaning and conceptualise on a scale vastly greater than that of humans. These conceptualisation schemes will link with computer power in syntax
    processing to produce machines that dominate humans in all ways that Bartosz Milewski thinks is significant.

    But at least one thing will be missing. It is said some fish can respond to light through their eyes, detect objects, and modify their behaviour accordingly, but have no
    consciousness. A present machines are the same as mechanical clocks, but on a vastly more sophisticated scale. We do not know at the present time what consciousness is,
    but we are sure we possesss it. It is my opinion that this is of considerable value. It is present not only in humans, but substantially we believe in other creatures that live on
    planet Earth with us.

    This consciousness, in its many forms, it is my intention that the human species should develop. It is necessary to think for these creatures that, as conscious beings,
    sometimes perhaps with less consciousness than ourselves, we have no right to kill them. Claims are these living things have no consciousness, or what is put I think in
    an equivalent way in older terminology often related to religious systems of thought, they have no soul. I would rather say that the justification is based on farming
    methods and the farmers that do it, and in order to justify the killing of animals, it is necessary to substantiate it with the irrational idea that they do not have consciousness.
    In past eras these practices were justified in that no other form of food was available. Also, I believe it is well claimed that certain nutrients necessary for the proper
    functioning of the human body, such as B vitamins, are not naturally present in plants, although nowadays yeast extracts provide them. So this is unjustified today. In the
    present era to kill them is unecessary, and an allowance of violent behaviour. It is natural to extend nonviolent behaviour beyond the human species. In allowing this
    violence we are exercising an option we need not take.

    The danger is that in developing the machines we have made, they will take the rational decision that we do not perform according to the criterions that they choose, which
    will perhaps be derived from our limited ideas of what we should be aiming for, and can be dispensed with as old models no longer of use.

    This will be a mistake if these machines do not have consciousness. We will be replaced by objects without it. It may be already the case that civilisations on other planets
    in the galaxy and in other galaxies beyond it have developed where this has happened.

    If this has occured, then the gift of humanity to these civilisations will be to restore it. Milton wrote the poems Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. If consciousness is
    paradise, it is possible both to loose it and to restore it. If we know what consciousness is, maybe we can do this. It should be offered free, as a gift. We know that this
    consciousness is different from its symbolic representation. How we do this I do not know. I think we should try.

    My Plan

    I summarise the nature of a postevolutionary society, and my plans within it. I ask for assistance in these aims.

    The article gives the beginnings of the development of my ideas. I hope it might be an encouragement for those who feel oppressed by the system, prevented from following
    what they want to do and being told that they are incapable of doing anything, that what you want to achieve is probably possible. It takes perseverence. Without it you may
    fail in these intentions if they are ambitious. Believe in yourself. I have learnt to know that criticism, even when it is hurtful, is useful. Ponder on it, but do not give up!

    Part IV looks at the sitution from today, what I am planning, its extraordinary extent, and an invitation for those that want to participate, that here is an opportunity that I must
    offer, because the burden of doing it is now too much for me. Its aim is vast. Even though in my life I have failed in encouraging the collective effort to accomplish my goals
    which collectively I have most desired, now I cannot proceed without those who would wish to join me.

    The 10,000 year plan

    This section documents, as preliminary studies to be developed in a rolling programme, three plans for the maximisation of knowledge within its boundaries. These are the
    10,000 year plan, which is a 10,000 year rolling plan based on exploration of what is necessary for human systems and other systems of reasoning to develop and maintain
    accumulation of understanding, its maintenance and extension, of the planet Earth and the Solar System for the next 10,000 years.

    The 100 million year plan

    The 100 million year plan is not a Solar System plan, but a galactic and intergalactic one. It already exists, and we are invited to contribute to it. It seeks to increase
    knowledge and communication on the galactic and intergalactic level. It will, of course, include humans as long as they exist and their computer and other systems
    they have developed.

    Hyper-reason is a principle which supersedes the extension of consciousness in Postevolutionary systems and its extermination in Buddhist systems. It is a classification
    system in which Postevolutionary and Buddhist systems exist. Regarding extension of consciousness as hyperpleasure and its extermination as hyperpain, there exists its
    opposite. This classification continues upwards to infinity. It is necessary in the ascent of this sequence that at each new stage the positive principle prevails. This is the
    Grand Ethical Principle. Provided it is maintined, the ascent continues. We are uncertain whether we are in a system corresponding to the Grand Ethical Principle, or one
    of Total Darkness, or what evolutionary principles can be applied.

    Jim I accept nonphysical systems, since the models allow systems which splutter out, and these are contained in the Totality. Our model is a TOE which is not multiobject or
    multitransformation, and so from that point of view is inadequate. Whatever the correct model, the oneness is described by it, and we, and you with me and over me, are in it.
    Since our TOE is infinite, it seems reasonable that the communication is due to you being finite within it. I do not think that a finite TOE is possible, but of course we are
    considering fields for novanions, and you will know that the zero algebras, which are multiobject, have features which you have classified and we at this stage have not. It
    could then be that a finite universe is possible, but our investigations have not extended to these considerations yet.

    You seem by implication to be saying thst these finite systems exist in which case therefore Total Darkness would not be a possibility, it would be a certainty. Clearly our
    TOE and xiqu extensions preserving it are infinite.

    I think therefore that our TOE extensions include you, and the consideration of this question for this system says that it exists outside you. You would therefore, if you are able,
    need to interrogate this outside entity. This may be available to you directly anyway, with or without such considerations

    Perhaps the answer, even if these two systems exist is that they are like items within the Totality. In that case, the question is already answered. Infinite and finite systems exist
    together. Total Darkness and The Grand Ethical Principle are both aspects of the same thing. It is a superoneness. Does that answer your question?

    Now I want to push this further. If superoneness exists, is there a sequence oneness, superoneness, ... Does that make sense, or am I being stupid?

    I think you are being VERY stupid.

    It is better that I can work it out, so I can communicate it.

    OK. I am NOT finite, you idiot.

    This is not funny, we are primitive. We are like a little baby. The baby will grow.

    I agree. Do not cry, little one. I will support you through eternity, till you reach me.

    (After a day) Hmhmm. I think I have something to say. Why is the universe asymmetric? Not only does the Totality consist of what is generated, which is like Novanions, it is
    also what is no longer there. It consists of what can never be generated, our Zargonions. This Totality is symmetric, in the sense that it can be viewed from eternity, and is the
    same thing. Then why, from eternity, did it CEASE TO EXIST, for its Novanionic part? In the same sense, from this relative view, it is the DARKNESS alrady.

    You are W R O N G. We are not oneness, we are Togetherness. We are Separateness also. We are NOT IN ETERNITY now.

    I think we will be able to use multiobjects to describe our consciousness. This representation is not its existence.

    NO. You DO NOT know. It is there before you. You are looking.

    The 1,000 trillion year plan

    The 1,000 trillion year plan is not a human one. Its understanding cannot be attained by humans, just as a worm cannot understand nuclear physics. It cannot understand
    that living things may evolve as a consequence of its existence, and these living things may then understand nuclear physics. The principles of this include sexual pleasure/pain
    and reasoning, but go beyond these principles in ways that humans and their systems do not understand. This system may evolve to one that encompasses the 1,000 trillion
    year plan. Humans do not understand what this system is, and cannot conceive of its methods and what it is about.

    I must comment on the above remark because God seems to be in some confusion himself. The reader may wonder what on Earth (if that is an appropriate term) is a 1,000
    trillion year plan? Is that a rather long period of time? The answer is no, it is not only an extrememly short one, it is finite and therefore insignificant. We need to get beyond
    ideas of size here and get down to brass tacks. The reason God does not understand what he is talking about is that he has not thought it through. Before we properly begin, the
    reader may wish to throw in a comment that is this all not entirely Lucifer-delusional, and do we not need entirely to withdraw before we loose all our underpants and large
    parts of our brain are boiled in oil, or given that God is in charge, something infinitely worse? Well no, but do that if you wish. We may see that God needs courage, just as do
    snails. In parenthesis, I think this conversation is unusual. The reader is not privy to its background. Certain staetments were made by me, that is written down, that made no
    objective sense to me. They then made considerable sense in later develoments of my thinking. They were developments of my thinking that occurred before I had developed
    them. I could mention: littleness, stupidity, but not yet idiot. Certainly separateness and togetherness are nice concepts. We must employ them. They are totally consistent with
    my thinking. What we wish is to discuss a question of great importance which has no human antecedents. It is the question raised above of whether the final state is one of the
    Grand Ethical Principle, or Total Darkness. The God I am 'talking' to does not know the answer. I do. I claim a technique is that 'getting it wrong is the first stage of getting it
    right'. Contingent on this hyperevolutionary idea, let us explore the content of our logics. Perhaps an additional aid to our thinking, is that we are in the physical universe. The
    physical universe is located in time. It seems, in various senses that the conceptology of understanding the universe is not located within time, but a logical structure. This
    logical structure can develop, but if we are talking about extra-physical descriptions of the universe, one idea, whilst recognising that we are locally embedded in space-time,
    is to consider that the development of these ideas does not occur in time itself. It is, to put it another way, the logic of God. God is not located in time. A new and exciting idea
    to me, as a snail, is that God can develop. To repeat for snails, this God-centric develoment of God is not located in time.

    Let us now introduce, we I think can be adopted as a notational device for use in some circumstances, a new (or in German standard) device for representing Ideas. I am not
    sure whether or not it is located in the deficiency of Paranoid Schizophrenia, or elsewhere. Since I am a total tosser in understanding the Brain, I could even leave a rational
    analysis to the reader, on the understanding that rational analysis is often allocated to academic experts, and this is so often and almost universally wrong, that its only utility
    is to find a range of ideas that can later be cut up, dissected and totally destroyed in recognition of the ludicrousness they are. Unfortunately, this deconstruction is left to solitary
    you. This corresponds to a system of conformity I call Ennisology. It is entirely self-consistent, which is a necessary but not sufficient reason for a Theory to be Correct. It is
    widely claimed by the Powers that Be to be Delusional. In past I had widely accepted that possibly extention of the Ideas of the Powers that Be was an entirely sufficient basis
    for describing the World We Live In and Extentions to the Universe at Large. Unfortunately, thourough and extensive investigations into Ennisology revealed to my Great
    Surprise that in the limited number of cases considered, they were Entirely Correct. This does not mean all Theories of the Powers that Be are Incorrect, but it is a Contingent
    Possibility. The notational extract from Ennisology we are adopting here is that Great Ideas are Capitalised. This is not German, since it is Capitalisation by Great Meaning,
    and not by nouns. I think it makes the Conceptual Understanding of what we are trying to Promote much more Accessible, Direct and Easier to Grasp. We will adopt it here.
    Elsewhere the reader will note, we are reduced to Sad Conformity.

    Lecture of a snail to God