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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cognitive disorder in the context of the socalisation of behaviour
Sex is the middle bits.
Love covers your whole body.
It may extend to Outer Space.
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.
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.
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.
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.