NET Third Dimension

NET Third Dimension
-------------------

The third dimension of this ontology is that of imaginary quality. Negative values of this Z dimension refer to bad examples and positive values to good examples. The real plane consists of the X and Y dimensions.

Origins of the real plane whose coordinates are 0 are beings. There is the self and the other, and there is a female and a male variant of each. The real plane thus includes four origins.

The imaginary space includes eight origins. Their X and Y locations are the same as the locations of the real origins. For each real origin, there are two imaginary origins: good and bad.

Real origins:
Feminine  self
Feminine  other
Masculine self
Masculine other

Imaginary origins:
Good feminine  self
Bad  feminine  self
Good feminine  other
Bad  feminine  other
Good masculine self
Bad  masculine self
Good masuline  other
Bad  masculine other

When someone pays attention to an example they assign the example an imaginary origin.

For both genders, the good self of the opposite sex is introverted and the bad self of the opposite sex is extroverted.

Let our point of reference be the imaginary good masculine self so that its coordinates are (0,0,5). The Z coordinate is 5 because the resolution of this metaphysics is r = 4. The absolute value of the Z coordinate of the imaginary origins exceeds the resolution by 1. It could be interpreted as equal to the resolution if counting begins from 0, but then 0 may be counted only once even though all other values are counted twice.

Imaginary good masculine self 	= (0, 0, 5)
Real masculine self				= (0, 0, 0)
Imaginary bad masculine self 	= (0, 0,-5)

Since 2r + 1 = 9, the interesting question obviously is: what is there at (0,0,9) and (0,0,-9)?

Apparently the real plane is there again but so that the sign of the Z coordinate is different.

That is to say, real origins are signed according to the orientation of the imaginary spaces. In other words, the zero coordinate of all real origins is a signed zero. The default sign of that zero would be positive, I guess, but if a real origin were to refer to itself through the imaginary space then the Z coordinate of the real origin that refers to itself would be a positive zero whereas the Z coordinate of the real origin that is referred to would be a negative zero.

Real masculine self				 = (±0,±0,+0)
Real masculine self + (±0,±0,±9) = (±0,±0,-0)

It isn't well-known why would there be a need for a self to refer to itself through the imaginary plane. One such need may arise in relation to a culture.

Sometimes somebody seems like they always do the opposite of what others expect or want them to. Performance-wise, the optimal way to do this would be to change the sign of the Z coordinate. A parent could cause a child to do this by always approaching them from the "I'm Not OK" Life Position.

In any case the mother of Pekka-Eric told that he always did the opposite of what he was told. He must have done so pretty consistently because it isn't easy to define what's "the opposite" of some act, yet this person, whose mom probably knows him the best because he doesn't have any friends at all, manages to "always" do "the opposite" of what he was told.

So, to type Pekka-Eric, we may consider that:

* no friends
* does the opposite of what he's told

and infer:

* only a Ne lead wouldn't need to make an effort to always do the opposite of what he's told
* NeFe is more likely to have friends than NeTe
* NeFe is less able to consistently do the opposite of what he's told, especially ideologically
* Pekka-Eric did the opposite of what he was told also ideologically, causing his mom to read philosophy books by or about Aristotle and such, trying to understand their ideas.

The last item of list above is the most unsettling part, since he would've needed to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974) or On the Genealogy of Morality (1887) and he was even attending high school yet nobody could figure out he'd need to read these. That someone in their situation even tries Aristotle guarantees they have no idea what they're doing. Again my focus isn't on his mom but the school: there's no way to get away with knowing about Aristotle but not knowing about those.

You can't expect people to bring everything they need at school from home. You can't form a stable society so that all high school students already know everything they need to, like I did, and come to school only to show off because cultural norms require such behaviour. Pekka-Eric can't be blamed for having wanted to go to school to learn instead of participating in that Hobbesian natural state of war of every man against every man, which school was meant to prevent, not to cause.

Kids don't just magically turn into grown-ups once junior high school ends and high school or vocational school starts. They will have unrealistic ideas similar to what is shown in action movies, except that these ideas aren't about violence but integration into society. Without having read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pekka-Eric would've been poorly equipped to cope with the circumstance that other people are less intelligent and independent than him.

He would've envisioned a future in which he's stuck in the University with these people he can't respect. You should've given him pension or even therapy if you would've wanted him to think you aren't going to starve him unless he goes there. But you didn't and then you got all surprised about some people actually caring about what's going to happen next. He did and you didn't and now you feel like he did something wrong? Anyone who'd be like him and believe there's NOTHING ELSE TO DO AROUND HERE THAN WHAT YOU DO would've done what he did. I know what it feels like not to know of anything else.

The young aspiring intellectual frequently entertains the University Hypothesis in his mind as an explanation of reality. According to this hypothesis, he cannot obtain an appropriate social standing without a high school degree. The University Hypothesis is so deeply ingrained into this contemporary culture that it takes human lives to verify this hypothesis is false. These lives have already been taken from Bob's family line and nobody told Pekka-Eric even that? Even a Christian would care about that, only an animal wouldn't.

Even when one knows what to look for it can still be hard to find that. But I could read from a book what to look for. He couldn't because nobody found the right book for him in time.

furthermore:

* witness of the school shooting reported Pekka-Eric to have had a "stinging" gaze which suggests he was using the Super-Id instead of the Meta-Id

And type Pekka-Eric as NeTe with no evidence of active circuits beyond the Super-Id which is the Socio-Sexual Domestication Circuit. So he apparently found no option to be domestic in his society and culture without doing a school shooting first, but didn't find any such opportunity after that, either.

As for the imaginary locations whose X and Y coordinates are 0 but whose Z coordinate equals neither 0 nor ±5, these appear to be imaginary quality independent of ontology and epistemology. For masculine selves the value of these locations is 0. For feminine selves, it makes sense to presume the value of each location to include ±5 points of imaginary value. Whether these locations also include real value is unclear.

The real value of the feminine self is 5 on the real plane, so the model would be more elegant if the real part of imaginary feminine locations would be 5. If the real part isn't 5 then the real part needs to be omitted on grounds of some unknown principle. In this case the feminine self could easily have more positive real value than negative imaginary value even when a woman is setting a bad example.

This could grant women a degree of cultural freedom that is both unaccessible and mostly incomprehensible for men. But masculine cultural freedom appears to be equally unaccessible and incomprehensible for women. Indeed women seem to have difficulty understanding even why there are wars.

Apparently, Pekka-Eric would've needed to approve of some philosophy in order not to go to war, but his mom only needed philosophy when trying to understand what's going on with him. Pekka-Eric's philosophy of himself being a "natural selector" doesn't differentiate him from academic values in the sense that he would've arrived at such a philosophy by some other epistemological method than that which is openly condoned by the academia. That is, the philosophy of being a "natural selector" is just a conclusion of an inductive argument.

The fallibility of inductive reasoning is openly accepted by the academic community as a necessary hindrance. Being a "natural selector" is more essentially a quantitative than a qualitative difference when compared with academic values. The philosophy of being a "natural selector" involves harder competition, apparently as a response to competition that already was preposterously hard.

Even though the philosophy of being a "natural selector" is a philosophy, it isn't exactly proper metaphysics because it doesn't declare the existence of anything else than the material world.

As a probable consequence of the theological defect of trinity, Western people conflate association with various forms of causation. That is, upon identifying a correlation they prefer to divide into two schools, coerce the correlation as causation of the opposite direction and then debate with each other. Any possible conclusion of such a debate can be postponed indefinitely by willpower, so that any conclusion unfavourable to anyone can be postponed indefinitely.

This results in hard competition that causes intellectual stagnation. The academic culture considers said intellectual stagnation as an indicator of intellectual maturity so that any enthusiasm towards scientific work will initiate spontaneous acts of disrespect from academics. This disrespect is considered a normal part of dealing with feelings of envy and fear of losing funding and it is beautified as funny humour.

As long as even one academic fails to understand the irrelevance of an individual act of bickering said bickering is treated as wisdom. Since anyone can choose not to understand a hypothesis personally unfavourable to him, it is obvious that these people pull the entire community down so that they will end up being surprised by someone who's right, doesn't belong to the community and isn't understood by any member of the community. This causes a standstill in which the challenger must be ignored because he doesn't have friends and outcast if he tries to get any.

By the time such a standstill can happen, academic progress has become so minimal that there are no methods for verifying its decline. Each method was silently abandoned when it began producing inconvenient answers to questions. They cannot be reinstated later because they weren't abandoned officially. So these indicators of academic progress remain modified to indicate progress where there is none while academics insist the new discovery to be measured solely according to these compromised indicators. Because the indicators are compromised, any argument in favour of the discovery must be fabricated according to the compromised indicators so that the argument has no other application than to appeal to the indicator.

Western culture is implicitly based on objective philosophy of the most literal kind: reality consists of objects. When notified of the kind of a problem that affects indicators of academic progress the default Western response would be: "Let us found an institution that shall supervise indicators! We will also create new jobs."

This will complicate the system and make it inefficient. The real problem is that there's no official way to secretly deactivate an indicator when it produces inconvenient results. Indicators that are secretly and unofficially deactivated could as well have been destroyed and replaced with something completely different.

In order to deactivate an indicator a peer-reviewed journal needs to publish only one scientific article that shouldn't have been published. But there's less than one important philosophical result per year. And if somebody got a winning streak the journals should only publish articles written by him but then nobody else would want to read them. But can the academics keep always sacrificing science in favour of getting along with everyone else than scientists?

Because any indicator may have been arbitrarily and secretly modified to fulfil some transient and poorly documented instrumental need, there's no guarantee that the indicators even facilitate verification of original statements that are true. In this case one needs to be in a position in which he can further modify the compromised indicators. It can be difficult to be a productive researcher while acquiring such a position and studying the indicators to figure out how to modify them. A "James Bond" style secret agent approach of course sounds like an exciting way to modify indicators but in practice academics tend to be emotionally intimidated by such suggestions so the "James Bond" would really need to stay undercover and probably couldn't be the scientist. But this means one already needs three people to modify indicators.

It's so demanding to appeal to compromised academic indicators that an alternative source of funding must already be secured before expecting success in that venture. But if there's already enough funding for that there's no longer a reason to try to appeal to compromised indicators. Any alternative source of funding that would make it possible to satisfy several compromised indicators would probably be superior to the short-term grants that can be applied for after being approved by the indicators.

Despite being an inferior source of research funding, short-term grants sustain the compromised indicators because academics keep applying for them. Also the private sector hires some philosophers as rhetoricians. These compromised indicators are so mighty that an academic can become wealthy by making an outstanding appeal to them even though he's still required to compete and he still doesn't contribute scientifically.

Apparently it's okay to merely try if one doesn't even have a chance to innovate. If he does have a chance then trying obviously isn't enough. But in this case even innovation isn't enough. The innovation is merely passed on to a successor who, like his predecessor, then gets an opportunity to use the innovation for quelling academic resistance either by way of direct confrontation or by ignoring the academia.

If the academia hasn't yet approved of some discovery, it's possible to gain initiative by disrespecting the academia as to create the impression that the disrespect causes the academia to ignore the discovery even though it would ignore that anyway. The academia won't differentiate such disrespect from its usual internal affairs and will try to silently take credit for setting an example. But ordinary people aren't used to such behaviour and this will surprise the academia later.

It might be possible to choke the academia by publishing original research in a format whose copyright status is ambiguous. The threat of being accused of plagiarism would discourage individual academics from using the research. What would the academics do if the majority of original research of some academic discipline were rendered inaccessible this way?

They'd probably do nothing about it until they'd have nothing else to do, but what would they do then? Wait for copyrights to expire? But what if new research would be produced faster than the copyrights expire?

One department of the University would apparently have to challenge the copyright and attribution conventions of the entire University or be discontinued. But it could be difficult to discontinue the philosophy department because that's apparently responsible for maintaining some standards about the scientific method.

The philosophy department supervises other departments but has no supervisor of its own. Academic philosophers are permitted to simply refuse to evaluate deductive proofs about philosophy on grounds of being "busy". If even deduction is rejected as a method of inquiry then academic philosophy is, in fact, arbitrary and probably predestined towards nepotism, chauvinism or totalitarianism.

The current scientific method is to divide and contest - just like in politics. The problem with this is that if just a few members of the academic community do this, they get so much attention as to prevent all other academic work in favour of forcing everyone else to also divide and contest. Academics think this is safe because the correlation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the Second World War has made them afraid of deduction. Indeed, even though the general public doesn't even know what's deduction, there's an "intellectual middle class" of academics and artists who will actively persecute people who speak approvingly of deduction in public places.

Pekka-Eric had no friends so he probably didn't want to speak of anything else than deduction and the conclusions of deduction. If this was consistently rejected by his culture in any other context than mathematics then he would've needed to only talk about mathematics. Apparently he wanted to talk about something else, too.

He wasn't allowed to talk about anything else because he was expected to debate for deduction instead of using deduction for something else. Had he been allowed to reason deductively he would've outperformed other students in a way the teachers weren't trained to comprehend. Since it was possible to waste all of his effort by questioning deduction as a method of inquiry this was also done in order to crush the evolutionary competition that manifested in him. Indeed he was no genius so he had a predictable chance of starting a family instead of living a life of work. Now there's no risk of him attracting women because he's dead. But so are some others and he also appears to have set an example for another spree killing.

To state anything original about Pekka-Eric appears to be associated with a risk of violence whose symbolic purpose is to sarcastically mock the principle of explosion to entail that violence is okay. Such violence is yet another futile attempt to end the practice of deduction in favour of ineptitude, merry-making and frivolous guessing. The perpetrators are incapable of discussing their motives because they conflate circumstances with motives. They don't even consider violence to have any motive but feel like innocent teachers who should be rewarded for violence because they consider any original statement about Pekka-Eric to be intended as a reward for violent behaviour.

The way they see it, the attention Pekka-Eric got by performing a spree killing would've been better spent on them. It's annoying to have a discussion with such a fucking dumbass because there's nothing else to do than to wait for him to stop talking and then end the discussion. Nothing else than hard compulsion will improve them in the art of remaining silent but the risk isn't worth taking. Instead, before it even occurs to them to express their thoughts, it should be established that they don't get a chance to do that and if they try they'll merely be given a fake chance. They should be acutely aware that the fact that they're talking doesn't mean they're taken seriously as anything else than a problem.

Any natural responses to their acts of violence could reinforce their belief that you reward people specifically for violence. Then they might start fighting with you in an attempt to do you a favour. If you reacted by telling them how you feel about them they could be surprised that you feel the opposite of what they wish. This could make them panic, go berserk, or talk incessantly in a way that's dangerous for both of you unless you're capable of waiting until they're done acting out.

It isn't possible to recognise these people at a glance so it's better to give all strangers the treatment that's intended to make them pay attention to something else. That is, to stay out of the academia, to let them have it and to let them pull down everyone who stays with them.

When they set out to defend conventionalism they are, in effect, telling you: "If I were who I believe you to be and I said that, I'd be crazy." It infuriates them to notice this message to bore you. But if you're bored, at least you probably haven't depleted all of your energy when they learn they've started a conflict.

It's effective to tire them by always starting your defence when they've began to feel like the issue is resolved. This way you will also ensure you have maximum contempt for them. They will think your intention in paying attention to them is to express approval towards them just like they think your intention in paying attention to a school shooter is to express approval towards him. It will shock them to realise that your appreciation of them decreases the more attention you pay to them.

But he'll never apologise for being who he is so you'll need to either wear out each other or wear out your mutual contacts. There's no way to end this kind of a conflict because he'll always be able to obtain inconsiderate validation from some pompous academic who doesn't even think about what he's saying yet whose words could weigh as much to him as those of yours.

He doesn't have bad intentions. He just wants to be perfect while you think you don't need to be perfect to be better than him, yet you don't even want to be better than him although he thinks you do.

Suomen polvesta Venäjän mafiaan vai määränpäänä Wounded Knee? Jos et tee mitään se on Los Angeles -vitsi.