Introduction

You have within you all the capability for happiness, power, success, becoming rich and famous. The only true limits to your achievements is within you.

The trick is figuring out how to release these capabilities and make it all happen.

In Go Thunk Yourself!, I laid out the discovery of basic principles all self-help bestsellers used to help people improve their own lives. In this book, I'll build on that foundation.

We are on a road to regaining control of the programming you get during your lifetime, as well as any habits you've picked up through simply living life in the cultures you've experienced.

The problem is to wade through this tremendous amount of data. Imagine having to examine every data you have ever accepted and all those habits you've created or adopted. That was the situation I faced. After 30 years of living, I started to question my own habits and data, examining core values I held as well as those I had trained in – both in philosophy, religion(s), and my own family values from the culture I had lived as a child.

Added to this data was the immense pile of data which was now available over the Internet. Once I started examining data, I was flooded with new material. All the philosophic masters could be accessed, downloaded, and made to fill up many hard drives and CD's. But that was just it – it was a massive pile of data. I needed a way to evaluate that data and distill it into something useful.

I had run across various evaluation systems, such as Scientific Methodology, but who is to say which of these actually worked? For all the Science in the world, their own studies say that around 50 percent of the studies contradict the other half. Great.

An obvious tool to review these evaluation systems would be Logic. But – have you looked into some of these modern Logic texts lately? Holy moley, what a confused mess. These require some graduate studies in mathematics just to get started.

My solution was to get to the basics of this particular subject. A first premise was that earlier studies were simpler than later complexities. Another premise was that there was an underlying system of thought which worked. Somehow, mankind was improving its lot. So underneath, something was making all the ingenious thinking we do as a species work.

In this book, I really get into this whole scene of logical thought, evaluation systems, and building some sort of “philosophic analytic engine” to sort through massive amounts of data. (Meaning how anyone could boil any amount of data down quickly, all in their own head.) As a matter of fact, while I submitted this study as my PhD thesis, it gets pretty thick real quick. So in this book, I've taken phrases such as “polyhedral tetradic analytic engine” and condensed that into a simpler “four-way thunk”. There's other examples in here – but the point is to get the data across, not have you stumble across the nomenclature. I've worked to keep the terms I use here simple, as well as the grammar. But occasionally a difficult concept requires a difficultly-turned phrase – though I've worked to keep these to a minimum. In those cases, you could just skip a paragraph of so and then come back if it still didn't make sense. I wouldn't even try to get all the concepts on the first reading – just too much here to get right off.

If you want to skip this first part on Logical Analysis, then go ahead. Go back to the Table of Contents and pick out something more interesting. The conclusions are probably more important to some people than how I got there. But on the other hand, maybe you'd like to really speed up your thinking and improve your ability to “think outside your boxes”. That's what all this work helps you do. But back-to-front or front-to-back, you only get out what you put into it. There are tons of lessons here to be learned, far beyond anything I wrote into it or even intended.

The toughest part of this book has been turning these high and flighty texts (including my own) back into the vernacular so anybody could understand and apply all this stuff. I did it because there are some real gems in here, which anyone would want to know in order to get through their life in one piece – or make an unruly life a bit more orderly. Let alone, this data points to things like making anyone (and so, everyone) into a success. Believe it or not, there's even a recipe for world peace in here as well...

For now, let's get back to simplicities.

I'll start with sorting out how people think and figure things out..

Let's get going.

Why we try to figure things out...

Why do we analyze? What product are we looking for?

While pure research has its own use, the majority application of analysis is anchored in the real world. There are broad goals and purposes for any person, area, or entity. Given a problem of business, a person needs to be able to determine a solution rapidly and accurately. Why? Let's take a simple answer: Every life form is trying to survive (achieve growth) as its own basic purpose. This, however, is limited. What is survival for the cat is not necessarily survival for the canary. If any analysis is to be universally applicable and basic, it has to have broader reach. Man is required to live in symbiotic relations with the other inhabitants on this planet, overall.

So any broadly applicable purpose of analysis would have to take into account the overall scene. But such a datum would need to apply to the smallest analysis of, say, fixing a child's broken toy. As well, the largest analysis might attempt to resolve global problems.

Most of the research done today is to get real products. While pure research has its own use, the majority application of analysis is anchored in the real world. Given a problem of business, a person needs to be able to determine a solution rapidly and accurately. Why? Let's take a simple answer: Every life form is trying to survive as its own basic purpose. This is limited. What is survival for the cat is not necessarily survival for the canary. If any analysis is to be applied universally, it has to have a broad reach and application.

Man has chosen to live in symbiotic relations with the other inhabitants on this planet, overall. We've chosen to go along to get along – as it were. Our thinking and “thunking” has to take into account how we are going to solve the big picture as well as our own little scene.

So any broadly applicable purpose of analysis would have to take into account the overall scene. But such a datum would need to apply to the smallest analysis of, say, fixing a child's broken toy. As well, the largest analysis might attempt to resolve global problems. What we think has to work in the big and small.

Logic and Scientific Method and Data Analysis have a purpose to find more optimal solutions. It's obvious that if a guy is working to make things worse, he'll do himself in as well. Evolution-wise, species that didn't work to improve their lot aren't around anymore.

This purpose tests out, both on the child's broken wagon and the resolution to the volume of ocean pollutants found internationally. If you are going to fix problems big and small, you are going to work to find better solutions than the ones you've been given.

How the “Scientific Method” works

Through comparing the above methods of analysis, and cross-checking with a plethora of books and papers on analysis that I could find, I concluded that the vast majority use Scientific Method or some version of it. In this, the apparent action steps of analysis are:

1. Have a goal/purpose to forward.

2. Select a problem being confronted which could have or requires a better/more optimal solution – such solution moves the goal forward.

3. Identify the data within that problem you feel might be subject to improvement.

4. Develop a hypothesis; something you think could result if two (sets of) data are compared.

5. Compare two (sets of) data in that problem area.

6. This comparison brings a result to view.

7. Compare the result against the purpose or initial hypothesis.

8. Start over with a new hypothesis if the more optimal solution isn't achieved.

I further simplified this to four simple steps:

0. Notice something in need of improvement,

1. Work up a hypothesis for situation area,

2. Comparing data in that situation area produces result,

3. Then you compare result to the original hypothesis,

4. Finally - upgrade or revise original hypothesis and then look for new data to compare, etc.

You might note the first step above is to have a goal, something to improve. This is as I saw it as a commonly non-confronted step. This can lead to analysis which has no real use when completed. If you are going to build something, then your workouts have to align with what you are going to build – figuring out how the roof fits onto the sidewalls better result in a well-fitting roof which doesn't leak. By sorting out why the analysis was needed we determine what product it is supposed to achieve. But this also leads me to find some interesting basics along the way.

Is all data evaluation the same?

With this, I then checked this pattern by examining a couple of different types of data evaluation.

I took two decidedly different analysis forms: statistical analysis (as used broadly in university studies) and sequential analysis (used successfully by some businesses to analyze their production lines). Statistical analysis gathers the results from repeating experiments done under varying conditions, graphs these and looks for an equation that explains the results. Sequential analysis looks at the results from a production line and then examines the sequence of production to find what changed so it can be remedied.

A common action was found between the two:

Analysis compares two patterns,
and this result predicts a third.

This tests out in both our examples: statistical analysis examines the results and compares them against an equation. Sequential analysis compares how the line ran earlier, based on its results, against how it is running now. We then have a simple statement of the Scientific Method sequences above.

All the variant forms of Analysis use this base: have a situation, compare at least two datums to test it, then take the result and see if it resolves the situation.

The next step is to take a look at Logic, which is used at the base of Scientific Method, and so all analysis.

Logic and Illogic

Writing about Logic is something like trying to corral quicksilver with a kitchen knife, or hold water in a paper bag. Logic in its basics isn't defined or described with any tools other than logic. It's purity is such that when correctly isolated, it becomes a sort of universal solvent, dissolving anything it touches. Setting lengthy examples to describe it is touchy at best, since these inherently contain flaws which logic would expose.

Let's go back to basics.

People think. And most do so successfully.

Logic is an effort to explain how people think effectively. When people don't come up with useful results, their thinking is described as “illogical”. Of course, that doesn't get us much. There are classes and types of people who have been described as “irrational” or “extremist”. In these cases, the describers are usually themselves living some illogical or extreme life/world-view and are simply saying that these other people are way outside the “norm”, which is what the general consensus has to say about things. But go ahead, try to live your life by polls and public opinion. You'll find that it gets pretty illogical rather early on. Just because everyone thinks it “stylish” or “modern” or “progressive” to do something doesn't mean it's worth a lick to you or your friends. What is good for the goose doesn't necessarily satisfy the gander.

Most advances in our sciences and cultures were made by people who thought and lived way outside anyone's box. Then their ideas were eventually adopted by the majority and became “normal”.

The real bottom line of Logic.

But the bottom line in Logic is that people have been analyzing and re-analyzing things for centuries, trying to get to the bottom of what truly workable logic is. I figured that the Greeks pretty much had it sorted out by their time. But, like the old adage, “Trust, but verify”. The next step was to get a clear concept of what they were talking about.

I studied a large number of texts on Logic by Socrates and others in his peer group and later. I worked simply – throwing away complexities and looking for the most simple and workable explanations of logic. These datums had to be widely accepted and used.

Going through these texts found various problems and “conundrums”. Essentially, these were blind alleys with no solution. Throwing away philosophical conundrums narrows down the field considerably. Taking the most basic, widely accepted and used datums leaves us only a few datums that are widely applicable. Boiling these down in turn gives us this simple observation:

Logical thought is apparently based on the comparison of two datums, which predicts a third datum.

This tests out, since the various arguments and logical combinations (AND, OR, NOT, XOR) can be built from this.

So let's go up our chain of thought. The reason we started with Logic was because it was the basis for Scientific Method. This methodology is used at the core of all scientific and academic data evaluation. It could be argued that all Data Evaluation is based on the Scientific Method, which is based on Logic.

Facts, Opinions, Truth, Faith.

Anything that can be verified as actually having occurred is a fact. Everything else is an opinion. Truth is opinion viewed as fact – which is why no two people share identical truths, and why some truths can be “shattered” when confronted with facts that don't support them.

Conclusions or results are very close to truths, but limited. When you conclude a principle based on a series of observed facts or experimental results, you hold that principle to be true with in the limits of what you observed for yourself (or the experiments and/or observations of someone you trust).

In thinking, what do either one of these two compared datums consist of?

A datum could be a fact. Facts might be defined as an observed occurrence. Oops. Look out: two individuals don't see the same occurrence identically except in the broadest terms. For one, they aren't sitting or standing in the identically same location and that precise instant. Even if you use an indirect observation, ie. a camera or other recorder, is limited in accuracy to the lenses and programming used, much as the individuals viewing this occurrence are limited by their own acuity of senses. No two people have the same collection of facts to think from.

Further, truth has similar limitations, since no two persons can agreed on precisely and exactly all truths they hold. That last argument you had – what was it about? (But then, it would be pretty boring if we agreed on everything, eh?)

For the purposes of reasoning, we must introduce a non-exact, mutually agreeable datum. Here we rely on “fuzzy datums.” Such fuzzy datums define things as perhaps either hot nor warm, but definitely not cold. The racer definitely crossed the finish line ahead of the others but we cannot say whether every time clock used at the race agreed on the exact instant of time, much less the accuracy of the thumbs punching the buttons on the stop-clocks, or who was paid to align the laser sensors.

So the accuracy of the conclusion would be subject to the accuracy of the facts/datums used. A 90% agreed-upon datum compared to a separate 90% agreed-upon datum equals what? This is the core of human logic. Use of patterns of various datums in comparison gets even wilder and more variable results.

But we aren't now lost in a fog. At this point, we can see if we have a usable conclusion if the result does or doesn't result in a more optimal solution. Easy to see if you picked the right way to install a new head-gasket. It either works or it doesn't. But you can have it slightly one way or the other and it will still perform okay. Same for baking a cake – you can put slightly more or less sugar in and most people won't notice. So fuzzy datums are used all over the place, in real life.

Another factor enters in, however: faith. There is a certain amount of belief in any datum that pushes it over the edge into fact. The smallest, most finite datum requires faith of the observer that it is correct and/or correctly observed. One must trust the instruments or his vision or even his own sanity and acuity. He must have faith that he observed what was in front of him. Most people have faith in gravity – things fall, don't they? When you build a paper airplane, you're considering that ultimately, it will wind up on the ground. Same for other “natural laws”. We all believe that they work all the time.

So faith is an element in all logic, all comparisons.

A caveat here: faith is not religion. A religion could be defined as the organization to support those who would make a living from forwarding a common set of beliefs. A church might be viewed as a body of people who share and co-support common beliefs. While some religious beliefs are called and require “faith” on the part of their followers, this is a distinct difference to the use of faith as an observed element of logical thought (though they may rub shoulders and predict new uses of analysis - as covered briefly later in this book.)

The logic definition of faith is “I believe.”

Rules for Analysis.

There are few rules to this. “The greater complexity, the greater chance for failure” goes the one adage, “Keep It Simple – Scholar”, another. However, some basic few rules did surface:

1. Anything can be compared to anything.

Pretty logical. Explains this fascination with people who can “think outside the box”. As well, this enables different patterns to be compared which normally would not be. Not just datums, but differing patterns, and even different systems can be compared. There are no boundaries that cannot be crossed.

Of course, this gets into some pretty wild comparisons, but I'll get into that in a little bit.

2. Comparisons make their own rules.

Many failures in comparison are due to holding strictly to one pattern while you are examining a completely disrelated pattern. Thinking outside the box (and even assuming that there is a box to think outside of) precludes such. Intuition, especially in humanities, will resolve situations faster than science, even though you might be doing a display for a science project. The rules of good design and presentation take precedence over science in how to most effectively present. These rules do not, however, change the accuracy or method or sequences used in the science project. Comparing the outcome of this science/design comparison against the purpose of well-delivered project results will tell you pretty quickly if you will win the award for best project. Each has its part to play and the rules are a combination of the two areas. Sheer science isn’t all that elegant and glossy graphics aren’t necessarily accurate. It takes two to tango.

From this rule, a corollary can be seen:

2a. An analysis using one comparison doesn’t necessarily
get accepted in another field.

The prophet isn't necessarily recognized in his own hometown.

This can clearly be seen when Science is trying to explain some of the more metaphysical , mystical or religious aspects of various studies. Some things do not have simple “scientific” explanations. This might mean that the wrong rules were applied to the analysis. Metaphysical areas might be best analyzed with metaphysical tools. Did the process result in more effective or pronounced metaphysical occurances? Not whether there was more pronounces EKG readings of the participants or not. Did the Faith Healer get a cure or not? Partial cure? Some relief?

A mystical fantasy writer might start a religion and have a scientifically failed basis for his claims. It might even be horrible mysticism and poor fantasy. But you can be sure that there will be fascinating religious and philosophical discussions that ensue. For only those two bodies could effectively have say over whether this occult hack made his purpose stick. Scientific examination won’t be able to prove anything, particularly, since he isn’t dealing in the pure realm of science.

If this religion were an economic success for the author, such would only be arguable and verifiable in economic terms (corporate and personal bank accounts, etc.) as something making money is more marketing than effective production and delivery – those these last two have to be in line in order for the marketing to work. Again, production and delivery are arguments down the line of organization, not whether his mystical fantasy practically produced observable results – a lot of people believing they feel better doesn't mean he's made any scientific or metaphysical breakthrough. Constantly shouting that you own the world of the mind doesn't make it so, however many people can be persuaded to believe you. (Compare Kuhn's work on scientific paradigms for the reverse scenario.)

New Evaluation Systems Found

Looking around, we see that simple action of analysis can be applied to other forms of analysis. Psychoanalysis compares patterns of "normalcy" with observed actions of the patient. Military analysis compares successful and unsuccessful campaigns to determine new methods of warfare. Historians compares recorded data for a time period against current norms of action and society, filling in the gaps.

What do these discovered datums predict? Far more studies and "-ologies" utilize the basics of analysis than were seen before. This simple action of comparing patterns then includes other areas, not formerly included.

Speculative analysis: Science Fiction is known to extend existing patterns of human cultural existence into extrapolated situations. H.G. Wells predicted submarines and space flight years prior. George Orwell analyzed totalitarian governments and subsequently may have prevented many from forming in Western societies through his work. Popular Fiction has explored moral dilemmas without having to set up actual utopias to test theories. The TV show “Star Trek” had the first interracial kiss. Modern military action novels can predict equipment and government policy so accurately, their authors are sometimes investigated as spies.

Common Sense: Knowing the pattern of gravity enables one to understand that leaving a hammer on top of a ladder is dangerous. Common sense is apparently composed of simple understandings as the result of analysis in operating through life. The lack of common sense might be explained by the failure of a person to observe and analyze the universe around him for common patterns. As well, this explains the terms "hick" and "city slicker", due to these persons not having basic knowledge of the new environment they were thrust into. But application of analysis basics above solves these deficiencies in short order.

Art: If defined as the "quality of life", then art in its various forms is an analysis of human existence. Culture "high points" are noted as having a wealth of art in many forms: paintings, dance, theater, etc. Greece and Rome were known for their sculptures. The Renaissance survives via its paintings, sculpture, and architecture as well. Elizabethan England showed us the genius of Shakespeare and other dramatists. More recently, motion pictures have been added to the list of "Classics" as well as recordings of music which were not possible to preserve before this time. Each attempts to resolve in various forms the riddle of human or universal existence.

Additional Applications

PR / Politics: To detect “spin” or “pitch” or “slant” of any so-called modern news or other input, simply see what purpose they have. What understanding to you get out of it? Does it compare with what you already have concluded is sensible? If not, do you really need to listen to these guys - how about a good Science Fiction novel instead? Americans, in particular, are so surrounded by PR pitches that they are a bit jaded about them, affecting “focus groups” by the audience now giving advice on how to improve the commercial they viewed. This makes polls in the US very, very suspect – the sample has to be huge in order to be anywhere near accurate. Since politics are frequently chumming with the press in order to get PR coverage, this can be a disaster in the making, as covered below.

“News” media: In our day of 24/7/256 cable news, just because something is stated two or three hundred times a day doesn't make it true. Videos and photos can be faked, or exaggerate conditions beyond what actually occurred. If you always presented video of a Midwestern state as being a large cow pasture, many people would assume that only cows live there. A flat, frozen swamp-area of Alaska was always represented on network news and in magazines with these beautiful videos and/or stills of mountain backdrops with moose and elk proceeding stately in front. No wonder people didn't want to drill for oil there – the “News” editors were proclaiming it as a lush paradise. War zones are currently portrayed as outrageously dangerous. In the recent Iraq war, the correspondents rarely left the main compound and the insurgent factors centered their bombings around this compound so that they would have something to report. It didn't matter that 90% of the remainder of the country was peacefully rebuilding and even had started attracting tourism! No wonder people trust news media less than car salesman and lawyers. Let thinkers beware – what you see is not necessarily what happened. It's hard to compare data unless you have facts to begin with. Don't start with conclusions from the press, who are there to sell advertising.

Artificial Intelligence: This field might benefit from the above markedly. Definitions of analysis might describe learning, which in turn could open doors to patterned responses by "A.I.'s." The analysis of patterns might lead to database- or XML-driven engines which compare given inputs against patterns stored in memory. Updateable patterns based on fuzzy logic algorithms may reproduce "learning."

Education: Isn’t the study of books just the comparison of what you know to what others have known? Do we simply learn the successful comparisons of our predecessors so that we don’t have to make the same analyses over and over? Then, perhaps there are more effective means to reach this goal. Educators might be in the position of age-old farmers who can lead a horse to water, but can’t make them drink. Analysis might serve to increase the efficiency of students in material retention and real application, not just test results. Learning might be sheer analysis, after all. If so, then making games out of learning could improve the abilities of students to think. (There has been some success in training via video gaming...)

Spiritual / Religious: Current religions are pretty limited in their operations. If we consider that idea that all religions might be a mode of analysis to enable their practitioners to evolve to a higher state, the idea that there is only one religion which will guarantee passage into a more optimal afterlife is limiting. It may be, just as there are millions of opinions, any particular religion only has value as long as that religious system continues to be found useful in evolving the individual. Human emotion might be related to the accuracy of analysis. Religions might also learn through comparing their beliefs with other churches to find common ground and also to seek more effective spiritual enlightenment. Silos are renown in marketing and grain storage. Probably the latter is the only practical use for them. Up-selling your parishioners into only your particular religion, while shunning all others, is a pat policy of cults.

Spiritual comparisons may have solutions to problems that have haunted humankind for eons. Personal upsets might be due to insufficient or incorrect data or conclusions. Perhaps we are using the wrong comparative for assisting our fellow man. Religion and spiritual studies might be closer in being able to resolve human conflicts – perhaps comparisons of various spiritual techniques might be more effective than studies of animal behaviors and genetics (as has dominated modern psychology and psychotherapy) to predict human response.

Luck, Longevity, Untapped Abilities: The human limit in capability is unmeasured. For all we know about humanity, we continue to fall short in explaining how one person may have various abilities while another nearby, even in the same family, doesn’t. Two people completely disrelated by genetic or cultural similarity and geographically separated can yet get in complete, almost telepathic rapport. All we truly know is that we don’t know. If we started using the simple rules above, we might well sort out some of these metaphysical and mysteries which still float in our cultures.

This work of continuing to examine life and various actions of human sphere of existence (and as well, perhaps, other life forms) is exciting. Perhaps we have a clue here to understanding much broader areas of life, living and humanity than were priorly admissible, if only due to self-imposed blinders from inaccurate or limited analysis.

Surviving and extending one's viable existence depends on the ability to use analysis, not only for oneself, but for the rest of this symbiotic planet we call home.

It's over to us.

The “Four-Way Thunk”

I based this work on original logical thought sequence to develop a base analytic engine which is capable of evaluation of any bulk of data or particular problem/situation humankind is confronting through living on this planet at this time.

Wooof. Heady words, but it wasn't what I actually started out to do. I had been in search of answers to questions my entire life, searching through various “systems” of thought in an effort to find answers. I had studied the New Testament when a youth and found my learning blocked by the varying interpretations and associated dogma, all separate from the original texts – which themselves had been translated into nearly contradictory versions. Some years later, I started a 25-plus year study of a modern West Coast religion, only to find that when I started studying its philosophic roots that its many interpretations had altered the basic truths of those background philosophies. These guys had gone far astray from where they started. That “religion” also turned out to be a broken philosophic study professing to be a “workable system”. They weren't alone in their delusions. Recent studies through conventional college courses and popular literature, particularly in the computer information services arena, showed more failed systems being touted as real solutions.

I was in search of a complete system. I had grown up on a Midwestern farm, observed Nature firsthand, and was educated during and after the “Silent Spring” era of environmental activism. I knew that, while any of humankind's tools would stay broken, and any fool could poison a stream or land temporarily, Nature as a system would heal itself on its own accord over time. The same should be true of any philosophic system.

The search for an actual system meant fitting a few criteria:

1. Systems work the same in microcosm as in macrocosm. The principles apply for both large and small arguments.

2. Systems have to be whole, bullet-proof.

3. Anyone who accurately applied such a system should get expected results routinely.

Practically, this rolls right back into the search and evidence for an underlying system which has shown up in pieces through different belief-systems. New Thought has tended to develop the discovery of the majority of these recurring points. This is, I believe, due to its decentralized nature, much as how Open Source is making far more contributions to the advances in computer science due to the idea that “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” (ala Eric Raymond) for any given problem.

Dogmatic hierarchal organization has lost many source references from the Christian religion, for example, through the Council of Nicea under Constantine. Only with the advent of New Thought and improved tolerance of New Age open religion models, plus the current Internet-driven Information Age has Religion been able to confront its own beliefs and make use of recently discovered older texts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library. This starts to restore ancient knowledge to our use in developing or uncovering an underlying or base philosophic system.

What is exciting is that with the above discoveries we can start going through all this new data to uncover the natural systems of this universe. But while I was forced to reexamine analysis and produce a streamlined scientific method to process data, this didn't shrink the vast amount of data which needed evaluation. Essentially, I needed to quickly sort through data and either find that the data led toward a system or was able to be discarded. As well, I needed some way to re-include data if I later found that I actually did need it. So some tracking system was required.

Compounding this was that I needed this to operate simply, with principals which could be held in the mind. It would do no one any good if they couldn't digest data rapidly without having to have a computer on their lap or in hand which could spit data back to them. I needed to be able to analyze data while I was riding in a car, or jogging in the woods. You can't take the lightest computer everywhere – except the one between your ears.

The odd thing was is that I couldn't find any sort of analytic engine that existed purely in thought. I found one study of “Analytic Philosophy”, also called “Philosophical Analysis”. However, this just made philosophy itself very complicated, since it brought in the arguments of academic logic into philosophy, stating that the way to analyze philosophy was to review the logic content of its language, via complex mathematical formulas. With my practical Midwest background, I wasn't impressed by anything that wasn't immediately applicable by the man on the street.

While I studied computer programming as part of my studies when returning to college late in life in order to get a sheepskin, I saw that the analytic engines going by this name were complicated computer programs, running specific analysis algorithms – mainly meaning that they were just having computers to crunch this data using the same complicated mathematical analysis models that were developed over the ages. These weren't doing anything original, or refining existing analysis models. Computers only enabled these calculations to be done more quickly – or made far more complicated. This was another dead end, since it lead to more Academic “inbreeding” rather than direct answers and solutions. The man on the street was disconnected from these elite mathematicians and scientists. My idea of philosophy was to make it something anyone could study and use as a tool to evolve upward to a higher state. Ivory towers are profitable only to the professors who live in them and the painters they pay to keep them white.

When your pet theory is dumped on...

Rejection of mystical or metaphysical, even modern scientific theories was outlined by Thomas Kuhn in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where he coined the term paradigm shift. Historically, some scientists burned as heretics when they presented new paradigm-models which were in violent conflict with existing paradigm-models. (Fortunately, we currently live in a more moderate age, where people are only burned “virtually” by “flaming”.) This is an understood phenomenon of confronting a datum or series of thoughts which doesn't align with an existing belief-system.

I've observed that most people tend to chase data which only support their existing belief-systems. When a consistently recurring series of data start showing up which disprove an existing system of beliefs, a person has the choices of

a) Re-evaluate the belief-system,

b) Continue to search for data which actually do support that system,

c) Select an alternate reality where only their belief-system is supported (madness).

This is covered here in order that you can see where your own belief-system or world-view is being violated somehow. As mentioned above, getting alarmed or perturbed when viewing new data is pretty normal, especially in this current culture. The point here is that you can either evolve your world-view or reject the data. New data either validates or expands your personal hypothesis of how things run, or makes things less workable. The best new data helps the individual evolve and live an easier, more productive, less stressful life.

How to Build a “Thunking” Machine

Let's review what the goal is here: to create a mental system (analytical engine) which can be used to process any amount of data, distill it into useful pieces, then blend this into your existing world-view so that you can improve your life.

The key is that you have to be able to do it all in your head, or keeping minimal notes on some scratch paper. What we are trying to do is to improve your native ability to figure things out rapidly.

The next point is to establish comparatives to work from. For widest application, these comparatives would be flexible, yet substantial in bringing the result to view. Mere stable data in any particular field wouldn't be useful, since disproving the veracity of a single datum could crash the entire paradigm or model. The working design for my comparatives is based on apparent thought patterns themselves.

The earliest history of this came from an anomaly I found in an interrelated triangle of Affinity, Reality and Communication (CSI). When one point of the triangle is increased, the other two increase as well. This triangle is then said to equate to Understanding (See Wikipedia entry “ARC Triangle” on this.). Some recent works down this line showed that understanding itself could be increased directly, making increases in the other three points. This gave a four-sided figure which was philosophically stable and predictable.

Earlier studies of Buckminster Fuller brought up the point of the tetrahedron being the smallest indivisible platonic solid in the universe (Marks). While space is commonly defined through three dimensions, it actually takes four points or faces to make a physical universe object. The hydrogen atom has a tetrahedral shape and is the smallest element known. This tetrahedron lent itself to enable a graphic shape of how such a four-sided figure would look. Fuller used this data to discover the geodesic dome and other architectural advances.

My leap was to consider that the tetrahedron (or other polyhedral models) could be used as a base for philosophic models. This then immediately led to another hypothesis: if there is one such philosophic-tetrahedral object (ARC=U above), then there might be more.

Review of the counseling material I had covered didn't produce any similar philosophic figures directly; however, review of my later studies into this wider field of improving Ability showed that Responsibility, Confront, Understanding and Purpose did interrelate directly to form such a tetrahedral philosophic model (four-way). Each of these principal points was required to achieve a stable improvement in personal ability.

I've included several essays which go down this line and expand on my use of this “Ability Formula”. By working on these four points, several advances in counseling can be achieved. Simple self-analysis texts can be designed along these points so that a person could examine his/her own beliefs and work them around to achieve an improved world-view.

While I initially called these “tetrads”, this is a bit professorially elite, so let's call them a “Four-Way Thunk”, which is easier to remember and use (one purpose of marketing). I'll use “Four-Way” for short and specific.

I had found one four-way, so looked around to see if these were still all that rare.

Through my college studies, I found that the various specialist courses tended to answer the problems found in other fields. Algebra started answering questions in Humanities. Geography and Economics both studied the problems of human culture, not just maps and number theories. Public Speaking started explaining Business English. I saw that while Academia had carefully separated these various areas into specialist studies, the “well-rounded” effect was being missed by most students, since they were not trying to find a whole system, but just trying to suffer through getting a degree. These different courses contributed in their cross-connection to finding these additional four-ways.

In studying Economics, cross-connecting this with Computer Courses as well as Modern Literature, in both fields I found that Service and Information were key elements to explaining how the Economics in general, and the Open Source software economic model specifically, worked. While these two points were initially thought to replace Supply and Demand in this Information Age, I later saw this wasn't correct, but that these two new points actually tended to complement the original two points. So a four-way was formed of Supply, Demand, Service and Information. This formulation gave simpler explanations for many phenomenons which occurred in working out economic theories and basics. The original dichotomy wasn't as efficient or effective in explaining new economic operating modes.

I now had a second four-way in a completely unrelated field to personal counseling.

Since I had two such four-ways, I looked for a third. In the course of my studies, I was looking over several modern religions. The value of religion in a person’s life – an organized cultural phenomenon, regardless of particular dogma – had proved itself a valid point in living life across the globe. I had run across the New Thought Spiritual Treatment and had read up on many of the early authors, such as Wattles, Haanel, and Allen. Four points came up in this: Vision, Action, Gratitude, and finally Faith – since a certain amount of personal belief was necessary to develop vision or generate action. Increasing any of these points increased the other three, so we had a third four-way.

I had three four-ways, which was quite enough to work on, in addition to full-time college and part-time work. However, working in four-values prompted an idea that there would be a fourth set. Since a person (Ability) had to work (Economics) somewhere, it was intuitively obvious that Nature would be the four-way to find. Nature was composed of Life. (Death can be defined as only the absence of life, much as darkness only exists in the absence of light.) Integrity appeared as the second item, since unless properly constituted, one could attempt to put life into a bunch of chemicals but would only end up with an elemental mess unless it was integrally organized and kept that way. Universe was filled in by intuitive deduction and this worked, particularly as it might be defined as System by synonym. Life had to operate somewhere and increasing Integrity made the Universe stronger. What would be the fourth element? Intuition again supplied: Gift. While this is again derived from New Thought roots and studies, it seems to fit in place. Our lives in these bodies can certainly be thought of as a gift from some Higher Intelligence or Great Creator. And we certainly make more of the gift if we live our lives with integrity in this universe. It's also pointed out by several modern finance authors that you have to give first in order to receive.

Certainly we had four points which can be used to analyze any given situation: Ability, Economics, Religion, and Nature. Within each of these four-ways, we have four elements to analyze that particular point.

There are or can be alternate wordings for each of these points, since the concept is important, not the form. Economics could also be called Work and could also be defined as Exchange. Religion might be Society or Health/Healing. Nature might be God or Higher Intelligence, though Environment certainly serves. Each of these four-ways' elements also could be worked by their synonyms.

By any name, we have a way to breakdown any presented situation into smaller parts and then sort these out. Given that these various combinations of points cover any known situation or world problem, I got busy working this new analytic engine to see if I could find some problem which would break it.

So far, it has solved anything I've thrown at it.

Additional points to four-ways and analysis

Some additional points are worth discussing here before we move on.

Fuzzy Logic is a key point in making any conclusion. Where a result is only 80 percent of what you wanted, this is probably better than a 40 or 60 percent solution. So while it isn't perfect, it is still a more optimal solution, so it qualifies. Perfection is rarely possible by humankind efforts, so let's not kill ourselves over it. If you shaved an hour off your time getting there, but didn't achieve your goal of two hours faster, it is still progress toward that goal. Refine your hypothesis and work the problem again.

Other platonic solids exist. I don't pretend that one couldn't make philosophic systems out of octahedron's or icosahedron's. There are some useful interrelationships which have five, six, and seven points. My work so far has only been on tetrahedral formats, four-ways. The more elements you have to keep track of, the seeming more difficult it would be to find instances which work as simply as four-ways, thought I don't say it is impossible. Certainly two four-ways might be interlinked to build a stable, integrated format. I just haven't tried it as what I've covered before has opened up so much to investigate that I haven't revisited the scene. (Were one to approach this system from a geodesic view, it would interlock various three, four, five, -- up to twelve-pointed figures in order to cover a volume – but this is completely beyond the scope of this book.)

There is also the recurring use of seven in various ancient texts. Again, this is way beyond the scope of this book, but is its own fascinating study.

There are also other four-ways which have been uncovered as other authors use them. Physicists map out four forces which compose this material universe: gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces. Another four forces keep an aircraft in flight: lift, gravity, thrust, and drag. However, simply being composed of four parts, (such as the four factors used to determine fair use of copyrighted material) doesn't include them into a four-way. The four points have to be in constant interaction. For my use, I selected those four-ways rooted in the philosophic. Four-ways limited to specific physical applications, as those above, limit their ability to be useful in broad analysis. Again, the immediate applicability of the above overall four-way system (Ability, Economics, Nature, Religion) has me too busy evaluating results to review for more interactive four-ways.

Advanced analysis along this line actually points that any four of the 16 elements can be used to analyze a particular situation. That would be the subject of another complete book, beyond the scope of this one. That is provable, since if you improved any of the 16 points of the four four-ways, you actually improve all the other points to some degree. As well, it does require mentioning in passing that the hexadecimal basis of this philosophic concept actually lends this engine to computer programming at some time in the future, since hexadecimal is a machine-level language format and the basis for networking addresses, etc.

If you want to develop this into a computer program, please let me know about it. But go right ahead and work it up, regardless of hearing from me or not. The idea deserves such attention.

Let's dissect each of these four-ways and see what we can figure out by using these...

Ability

I uncovered Ability as a four-way in 2001. The original studies on this were while I was examining Purpose as a subject. Scientology held one's purpose to be a key datum in how one treated life. It had everything to do with stored and determined patterns one used to analyze life with/through. I originally defined purpose as being composed of the elements Be, Do, and Have. (While I had originally contacted this idea through Scientology, it may actually stem from Yoga disciplines or the Tao, but at any rate has well permeated our culture, according to a recent Google search for the term.)

In this, I then saw that purpose only guided a Be-Do-Have scene; purpose wasn't composed of these per se. Much like ARC=U, Be-D0-Have=Purpose. Increasing the purpose increased the other elements.

Be-Do-Have doesn't just have a current use of requiring the individual to sort out his attitudes (beingness) and adjusting his actions (doingness) in order to achieve the desired results (havingness). I saw that through aligning this to personal ability didn’t necessarily require this sequence of manifestation. For ability, outside of requisite practice in the physical universe, a person manifested ability through all these three points at once. One only needed a purpose to show any ability, since (outside of any personal physical handicap) any individual could have any amount of ability; his only limits were his own internal ones.

The personal version of this involved observation (be) as a person had to confront the environment around one for what it was, his on abilities were what he currently was manifesting, but he had to look to see where he was and what he was at that moment. The person also had to understand the world around and within him (do). He has to work out conceptually what the patterns are and how he can best align himself to those patterns or those patterns to him. In this that person has to take responsibility for what he is/has been/will be creating or re-creating (have). He has to be responsible for creating the operating patterns which he had and what effects these might work on others. Were a person to suddenly start exhibiting extreme musical talents – this would affect those around him in different manners. The person has to take responsibility for his creations.

All of this is according to the person's own purpose. Why a person does what he does and manifests any particular ability is dependent on his own reasons for doing or not doing, being or not being, creating or not creating. A person has various purposes in life, and probably an overall purpose for that life. Confronting this, Understanding it fully and taking Responsibility for it would enable that Purpose to manifest.

This acts as an interacting four-way. Increasing one's confront and observation of the scene would enable taking more responsibility, more understanding and enhance the original or underlying purpose. Seeing a broader purpose, would enable a higher confront, increased responsibility due to an enriched understanding, and so on. By enabling be-do-have under the Ability heading, we then break free of the necessary sequence which is used in mechanical manifesting.

As we will see later (in the Nature four-way, as well as Economics), one's purpose and ability is very much tied to others. What one decides to become, to do, or to achieve affects more than himself or even his immediate relatives or friends. The decision is a point of ability, since no one else can make these decisions for him. However, one can improve the quality of his decisions through application of the four points to this four-way.

We see also here, as a subset of the Responsibility element, that a person is very much un-limited by others' concerns and established patterns, except as that person accepts others' limits. Speculative analysis above points out that imagination is particularly liberating; it really has no measured bounds or limits. So a person is free to create, at least in his mind, any amount or magnitude of new patterns to operate from. Really, that person's limits are entirely his concepts of his own confront, understanding, and purpose. The ability to bring his imagined creations to fruition is measured not by the muses or any external source, but only his willingness to manifest. Again, this is a limit of his own concept and internal action of confronting, being responsible for the effects of that creation, understanding all the details and ensuing results, plus aligning with or altering his own basic purpose to encompass that creation.

In various studies, Huna and Silva Ultramind among them, many advanced skills are possible to the individual. Remote Viewing, Distance Healing, and Sleep Therapy – all these things are now the subject of scientific study and proved observation (if not scientific understanding). Further, mystic and shaman abilities can now be acquired by practically any individual, given that person's willingness to suspend disbelief and compares his own belief-system against other core studies for commonalities. Some of these commonalities have been outlined here. If we can achieve a common base, then we can extract the truly workable data in order to cross-compare and condense into an effective system.

In the Ability four-way are contained the limits to manifesting in the physical universe (which shows up under the Nature four-way). One's ability to improve the surrounding environment is completely under one's own control. With this four-way, we can break down that ability into four parts in order to see what is holding back the manifestation. We can see that if one wants to become a top-flight musician, artist, construction worker, craftsman or parent – one only has to increase his/her observation and confront, or align his purpose(s), or gain more understanding, or take on more responsibility in the area where improvement is wanted. (And one must practice quite a lot – very, very few advances are instantaneous in this universe, although this might be examined through the subject of “miracles” under the Religion four-way.)

In this four-way, we see that since a person can improve his ability, we also then foray into the fields of the arts. The bulk of an artist's skill is in his/her training and practice, one's perseverance in the physical training to apply the internal spark, much at Thomas Edison said, “Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.” This four-way does, then, build the ladder and road map for the artist, step by step under his/her feet. By continuing to confront/observe and to be responsibly honest about what level of skill has been achieved compared to what is wanted, the artist can improve skill levels and see what is needed to get to the next level in any given art format or genre. Intuition plays a key point in that 1 percent inspiration, I'll address that under Nature, below.

In discussing the Ability four-way we need to take up the subject of Free Will. A person is an individual because of Free Will. This same quality enables a person to not utilize any self-help methods in his/her life, to live a criminal and practically evil existence, full of disease and difficulties. Because of Free Will, meditation or prayer is required. Prayer/Meditation reconnects the person with Higher Intelligence and enables various natural laws to become effective for him personally. Make no mistake, the person is manifesting anyway, but believes that it is all Fate or Karma or Luck which rules his life. Once one starts to discipline his own thought and attitudes/emotions, he/she will start to gain control over manifesting as that person sheds self-limiting doubts. That is the core to the success of any self-help system. They are all based on the same underlying concepts, which are universal and found in so many religions, psychotherapies, and esoteric literature to almost defy counting.

The trick is simple, per many authors, but Deepak Chopra (in his Seven Spiritual Laws of Success) seemed to outline it best where he lays out the sequence of doing this as

1. Slip into the gap, the silent space between the thoughts. In Silva, this is getting into the alpha state or “Going to Level”. (Note here that the deep breathing exercises of Huna are used to attain this relaxed state; Silva also uses several deep breaths to accomplish this.)

2. Release your intentions and desires into this gap. (Silva has several techniques for this, as does Huna.)

3. Maintain your own counsel. (Keep your desires to yourself – this seemed initially unique to Chopra and Dyer, but later showed up in other self-help studies, Hill and Allen. It has some relevancy, in that one tends to agree with those around you and so accept their own limits and cross-survival patterns.)

4. Drop your expectations for exact result. The Universe will present it to you in its own time and in its own way. Having to have it a specific way and time actually hampers the manifestation. You have to trust the Universe with the details. (This is common to nearly all the above sources.) [Note: through this book, I have many, many terms for this universal force and presence. This is as it is called many things by many authors: God, Allah, Amakua, Divine Will, Higher Intelligence, Quantum Hologram, Holographic Universe, Universal Mind, etc. Through this book, I vary my use of terms to describe this, in order to keep from sticking the reader into one or a few restrictive dogmas on the subject.]

Joe Vitale, in Spiritual Marketing, echoes these same sentiments through his book, with many illustrations throughout. The more one looks through self-help books, the more one finds these same points over and over.

Others, such as Eckhart Tolle (The Power of Now) agree somewhat, saying that one must attain a joyful bliss in the Now. Gregg Braden (Speaking the Lost Language of God) says that such prayer needs to be accompanied by heart-based feeling. A somewhat different approach, but similar, is Norman Vincent Peale (The Power of Positive Thinking), who tells his readers to have only positive thoughts, derived from God's love. All of these hit around the same mark: one tunes into the Higher Mind/Universal Intelligence, achieving a mental calm, even a particular bliss and peace. Praying/Meditating with thanksgiving that the idea you want to achieve is already manifest – along with giving the whole concept over to that Higher Intelligence to sort out – will then bring it into your life to the degree you have faith and trust in yourself and God simultaneously. An optimistic and heart-based feeling is achieved as part of the prayer. All of these agree that you must request in the past tense for anything you desire to manifest.

Dr. Serge Kahili King, in Mastering Your Hidden Self, goes a step further in his discussion of meditation, in that there is another form of mediation, which is passive (similar to what is referred to as Eastern meditation). One simply meditates on achieving a higher state and then trust in the Higher Intelligence to manifest, without imagining a certain result. One simply concentrates on the concept of what is wanted. Solving any problem with money would be to concentrate on Prosperity or Abundance. Solving marital or partner problems could use concentration on Love. Trust is imperative. Meditation of this type will bring up the doubts and fears, which are simply turning your attention away from there and focusing on the concept until you are filled completely with that concept.

Ability is a key four-way to solve in any approach to counseling, metaphysics or simple living. By breaking it down into four elements, we can more easily analyze any individual's ability-level and then program improvement for that skill or talent, even where little ability in a given area is originally present. In theory, this would outline a method for handling dis-ability as well – but that would be another study.

Let's see what the individual has to do to survive in our culture – Work – or under the polite term: Economics.

Economics - Exchange

As covered briefly above, the Economics four-way was developed when I was struggling through a course in Macroeconomics in college. I had been making my own living out in the world for some 25 years at that point and, after returning to Missouri, reading widely with my broadband Internet connection. What stuck in my craw repeatedly was the basic premise of Economics – that man's wants perpetually exceed his ability to supply them.

This is patently false. While in New Thought, one sees (through Wattles, Haanel and others) that thought effectively creates all it needs and anything it wants, supplied through the Universal Mind / Formless Substance. But I was also bothered as I had gotten other data prior to finding New Thought basics.

Buckminster Fuller (in his Spaceship Earth) had pointed out that us as a nation had been producing and exporting for many years far beyond our own uses. In researching this, I found that this datum was true. Factually, we had been exporting surplus grain and other food internationally since before we were a nation. The Roaring Twenties and our own Manifest Destiny of expansion (with our own agricultural, sociological and ecological naiveté) through this great land of resources resulted in a temporary glut of cheap resources, which we promptly shared with the rest of the world – for a price.

While we reaped the whirlwind of the Great Depression and Dustbowl Agriculture results, as a nation we fed our starving and clothed our poor while we regrouped and re-patterned our socio-political structures. By the 1950's we had introduced the Green Revolution through re-purposing chemical agricultural technology we had possessed since at least the 1880's. We began to feed the world who couldn't feed themselves. Modernly, we have gotten so good at this we have shrunken our agricultural population down to less than 2 percent of the total American population while increasing the that total many times over.

Malthus, the first Professor of Economics, turned out to have also been one of the first to use questionable science to prove his hypothesis as “scientifically” supported fact. It was he who came up with the point that the geometric progression in population wasn't going to be met by the arithmetic increase in agricultural output. Similarly, scientists of his day “proved” that heavier-than-air flight was impossible as the engines of the time couldn't lift the materials required to carry man aloft. In both agricultural economics and airplane flight, they had ignored the underlying re-purposing of technology which made the whole system efficient for any expansion. Malthus was also unaware (or ignored) the fact that as personal standards of living were raised, as disposable income became greater and spread throughout a burgeoning middle class, people actually quit having large families in favor of enjoying life more ( and incorporating the technologies of birth control). [This is a bit short-handed; if you'd like to dispute or comment on this and other points, please go to the blog of this name – gothunkyourselfagain.blogspot.com]

I had also been studying the subject of Computer Information Systems, from the heady days of the birth of the Internet, through the NASDAQ bubble burst and into the reality of broadband paucity in the rural Midwest. A series of papers forwarded my research into the reality that increasing broadband capacity through the rural areas would enable economic independence while preserving quality of life issues. People could operate their businesses virtually anywhere, creating niche-market items and having substantial exchange for their services. The low-paying factory, agricultural, and warehouse jobs no longer would require under-trained rural citizens to provide a living wage for these people.

At this point, I thought that the two principals of Economics, Supply and Demand, were now replaced by Information and Service. Working with this hypothesis still came up short. The various theories of economics could not always be explained by substituting these terms for them. However, Supply and Demand didn't explain the Open Source Economic Model (see Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar), which had cooperation and quality of service/product as the highest goals. Open Source businesses didn't always become viable, either.

Recalling my work in the Ability four-way, I tested the idea that Supply, Demand, Information, and Service worked interconnected. This worked. I had at this point a second four-way, which needed exploration.

Service

Basic Economic laws had to be examined as part of this research. The stated basic law of the inherent failure to supply needed demand had already been disproved by Fuller. Looking into the overall scene, I could see that the basic action was in barter. One exchanged some service of one's own (which includes manufactured products as well as physical action) for another valuable – some service of another, often represented in government-backed paper issue. A service can be a finite product, which decays quickly (food products) or slowly (fine jewelry) over time, needing eventual replacement or increasing value (real estate) for later re-barter/exchange. A service can be a completely transient product, such as getting one's car washed, or shoe's shined, or valet car parking, or hat/coat checking, access to trading on stock markets, etc.

What makes any service valuable is that it increases the quality of life or the capacity for growth. Businesses are formed to organize a production line around creating and supplying a service or group of related services. Individuals exchange their work talents and time as a service in order to obtain pieces of paper which would increase their quality of life. Cars sold by manufacturers buy a better quality of life for various reasons. They are designed to last only so long and then be replaced. Practically, this is usually only so long as it takes to pay such off. Houses are today built on this model, only lasting slightly longer than the life of the first owner, just past the point where the mortgage is paid off. Food is only valuable if it pleasures the buyer (and doesn't poison him).

Information

Information facilitates exchange. The more data one has about a service, the more one can make up his/her individual mind about it and make an informed choice. As well, selected information is where sales and PR personnel live. Currently, in our age of increasingly transparent media, we can see what kind of slant people put into their text much earlier. Blogs show this in their increasing influence on political races, extending into policy choices in off-election-year party operations.

With information, one can work out whether buying an item, or supporting a political party is worth the value of exchange. As well, our Internet-enabled Information Age also forces companies to have an increased communication with their buying/supporting public. One company saw its stock fall almost overnight when an online discussion forum pointed out that their lock could be opened with a pen cap. They didn't respond and people were able to independently verify the fault of this product. Other stories abound where executives got onto public forums and or started blogs where they addressed posted concerns and told all reading public what they were doing to handle the problem. Sale increased, even though the fault wasn't yet fixed.

This fast information interchange has also started cluing in the public to the PR stunts and routines of traditional Madison Avenue marketing. While not cynical, certainly the public has been jaded with their now 24-7-356 media access. So they can smell an insincere pitch a mile away. Businesses have to wake up and have real conversations with their buying public. False information is uncovered more rapidly, so PR firms have to really have integrity in dealing with the public to avoid irreparably damaging their client's reputation.

Supply / Demand

This covers production and distribution, as well as pricing. Probably the greatest model down this line is Wal-Mart, which brings products from across the globe into its hub-and-spoke, warehouse-to-store system. Computers monitor purchases and automatically order replacement stock, which is automatically loaded on a truck shipped the next day. This merchandising data is then also provided to Wal-Mart's own suppliers so that their own warehouses (conveniently located near Wal-Mart warehouses) can then re-stock Wal-Mart's.

The general theory is that the less supply, the higher the price (demand). This works in general terms, but not wholly. Information can show that there is actually a larger supply or a substitute good is more readily available. As well, if you can't buy it locally (poor service), it doesn't matter how much the price is. As the old Midwestern saying goes, “Make do, do over, or do without.” If service is poor (such as presentation or overall quality) this sets up local niche markets to provide the same good for less. Again, Wal-Mart's Sam Walton showed the clue – sell a lot more for slightly less. While others are trying to monopolize the market or organize an oligopoly to control prices, the independent can take any commodity good and out sell them.

Similarly, any commodity good can be increased in quality on a custom basis and sell for quite a bit higher price. Value-added farm products sell for more than the generic pre-packaged goods stocked on shelves by the mega-markets. Currently, there is a rising trend of farmer's markets not being able to supply all the possible demand locally, even though anyone could get cheaper goods imported from another country.

Convenience stores get around this by selling commonly vital goods (milk, bread, hot coffee) on a 24-hour basis for slightly more, charging for the service. “Super Wal-Marts” (Wal-Mart stores above a certain size) have started entering this field by staying open 24 hours a day and having self-check out possible, again providing more service.

As covered above, there is practically no way modernly to create an artificial shortage of any essential (and few luxuries). Someone can always break the impasse through a different supply line or substitute good, or simply supplying the withheld information.

Service is directly related to supply and demand, as noted in the examples above.

Add in the PR and sales brochures, as well as word-of-mouth and you have quite an influence on the traditional market models.

Politics, War, et al.

Governments primarily exist to preserve commerce. To do this, they guarantee the rule of law, locally and internationally. Politics are a subset of government and very much deals in the commodities of laws and regulations, with PR persuasion. There are personal rights which they do protect, among these property rights and the right of commerce, as guaranteed by the Magna Carta and even the US Supreme Court. These rights add into and require commerce. The shorthand for this is that governments' main purpose is to protect and sponsor commerce – locally, interstate, nationally, and internationally.

War is only a tool of a government to use when it can't appeal to the common sense of other rulers. Pretty outmoded these days, it has become antiquated, per Thomas Friedman in The World Is Flat. Here he describes two theories of conflict prevention. Where any two countries had McDonald's in them, they didn't go to war (excepting civil disturbances). At the time, he pointed out that this was as the nations had come up to the point of having a sufficiently large middle class to support such trade.

He further expanded this with his “Dell Theory of Conflict Preventions”, where he detailed the cross-involved economies of various countries in manufacturing computers. Each country was involved in an system which was updated almost instantaneously through computer interfaces and locked millions of jobs, hundreds of factories and billions of dollars in trade based on supplying a “just-in-time” production system. If any country failed to keep the wars suppressed and the trade lines open, they would immediately – near instantaneously - suffer an economic downturn. The redundancies in these production lines ensured the production line stayed open, while the individual participating nation sorted out its problems. Mere local disasters doesn't stop the manufacturing and delivery of computers world-wide.

It is the fact of America and the rest of the modern world's economic interaction and interdependency which now locks us all into a tense peace while we work out the details of including other countries in this global commerce network. Thomas Barnett, in The Pentagon's New Map, analyzes the world in terms of those who are on board with globalization and those who aren’t which he called the “Non-Integrating Gap”. Barnett chased all current military problem areas, such as terrorism, to these countries that haven't been included. This is to show that while philosophic/religious differences are said to be the problems in our modern society, both historic and current, one can see that economics has probably the greater inclusive hand.

The broader point goes again to any element of this analytic system being inter-related to other points. While War seems complex and chaotic, the given reason isn't always a point which will lead to resolution. I could continue along, as Fuller points out, where nations, both victors and villains, were better off economically after the two World Wars than before, in terms of increased production capacity. War is a tool of politics, which is a mode of government operation in order to achieve and preserve international trade.

Of note here are the probable solutions readily evident. Iran, North Korea, and other despotic governments cannot effectively control their populace with Internet connection and satellite cable news, which broadcasts a predominantly American/Western view. As well, the ubiquitous American commercials market Western styles to the planet, using the latest marketing technology. When Iraq was liberated, one of the biggest demands reported was for satellite TV dishes.

A popular culture is being spread through our multi-national corporations as well. One company, reported in the news, which operated even under Hussein, was a Pepsi-Cola bottling plant, relieved to be able to get supplies after so many years having to substitute ingredients to keep up with demand inside the country.

It's argued that the Al-Quaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups are using American news media as a weapon and/or recruitment tool simply by releasing their videos in a format which can be easily picked up and re-broadcast. (As well as creating their terror attacks where the press will pick them up readily). Use of PR is obviously a two-edged sword. However, the recent recovery of raw video footage showed that one (since killed) terrorist-leader couldn't even cock his own automatic weapon, while his assistant burned his hand on a hot barrel. What can be done with PR can be undone with documented fact.

There are no truly closed borders any more, no truly sovereign nations. The “Dell Factor” above links nations by supply chains, which pay at every echelon, providing jobs that link these nations into one interconnected unit. Only those in Barnett's “Gap” are trying to make their own way. However, global satellite networks – filling the human demand for entertainment – are filling this Gap and working to create demand for the freedoms only our jean-and-tennis-shoe-wearing Western public has. This is bringing our terrorist sponsors to an insecure new world, regardless of the despots who have taken control of those people and their countries.

Religion – Belief Systems

I initially went into this area to resolve what I had run into in terms of organizations representing themselves as religions, versus established dogmatic religious bodies, plus comparing these against independent and de-centralized informal groups which effected true spiritual help to individuals. What I have uncovered as a central idea is that any comprehensive belief-system, particularly where it affects the spiritual thought-base of the individual, can be considered under this heading. This is how an agnostic could analyze his/her system of beliefs, as well as a someone practicing witchcraft, or even professional politicians.

What is of primary interest is the belief-system itself. Belief systems are personal, built of patterns both biological and cultural. While some psychologists say everything is genetic, and some mysticists say everything is spiritual, the apparent truth lies somewhere in between.

There is a recurring system which finds its way through self-help, psychology, and also the ancient socio-religious Huna belief-system, which predates (and may have influenced or even founded) Eastern religions. These share the idea (though not synchronous definitions) of a super-conscious mind (God, or Universal Mind, or Amakua in Huna), a conscious mind (Lana in Huna), and a subconscious mind (Ku in Huna). Haanel covers this, as well as Wayne Dyer, King, Tolle, Talbot, and many others who didn't make this Bibliography. Such commonalities are made possible through the use of this engine so far. Below is a summation of what has been derived from many different sources I've examined to date.

People build their belief-system patterns on a genetic level, a subconscious level, and a conscious level, with spiritual or superconscious influence(s). The DNA gives some patterns on a genetic level (while some evidence exists that this is being re-written constantly and isn't just what your parent's gave you). The subconscious is a continually operating, rational part of the mind which is constantly recording and learning from all inputs. As the subconscious is responsible for all autonomic responses as well as recording all memories, this particular part of the mind is both shock-proof and eidetic in all senses and emotions. The subconscious is constantly learning and protecting the conscious from overloading and overwhelming content the physical universe is constantly generating. The conscious is the higher-reasoning part of the mind. The conscious gets its data via the subconscious, which controls the senses and filters data from them. While the subconscious can only do “straight-ahead” reasoning, the conscious is capable of true rational thought, being able to compare and contrast and imagine. Where the conscious depends on the emotive content of the subconscious, the results can be erratic and even insane. Where the conscious shuts down the input from the subconscious, that individual can appear stupid or insensible, dull. The superconscious, or Higher Intelligence/Amakua, gives inspiration, intuition and the occasional visionary glimpse. These powers are pretty far above the average (and most better-than-average) abilities. There is a very good discussion of the four pattern sources in above paragraph in King's Mastering Your Hidden Self.

Culturally, one is constantly involved in various actions and reactions in the world surrounding us. Society demands certain modes of response to the demands our “civilized” society brings. Influences such as the Internet and our broader access to data bring new patterns to confront, both from history and from other cultures a world away from ours.

Making sense out of all this is our constant challenge. We develop our belief-system to make all these patterns interlock with each other. To the degree one succeeds in correlating all these disrelated patterns is the degree of sanity a person attains. The points of unresolved patterns that we operate from show where one has “irrational” responses to various input. Psychotherapy, NLP practitioners and many self-help therapies work entirely to remove the “insane” emotional content or to help the individual confront these various incidents in their entirety so that they can be analytically studied and the pattern adjusted or resolved.

People are constantly reviewing and evolving their personal thought patterns. Just as the cells in the body are being constantly replaced with slightly different versions, so are both the subconscious and conscious working to update their patterns and so evolve with their ever-changing world. The subconscious is constantly recording the environment around it. The conscious is always evaluating data and working to make sense of it. The conscious is knowingly or unknowingly assisted by the subconscious as the latter brings up suitable patterns for the conscious to use as a solution. (Ever wonder why certain actions consistently “tick you off”?) These patterns have emotional content and are deemed survival by the subconscious as they are always acted on and used to ensure survival. The conscious can review these patterns and adjust them to make them more accurate or eliminate them entirely. Prayer and/or Meditation can bring further insights into these patterns from the Universal Mind/Allah/God. Such insights enable the person to change these patterns or reinforce them.

Belief systems are built on habit. Habits are behavior patterns which are ingrained in the daily or regular actions of the individual. Some habits are useful, such as driving a car or eating a meal using the proper utensils. Other habits can be socially unacceptable, or possibly destructive, such as smoking or any other addiction. However, the subconscious can be trained to not use these patterns by simply consciously doing another pattern in that situation for between three to four weeks. Smoking for instance, can be changed into drinking water whenever that certain urge shows up. It does take discipline, and the unconscious works to reinforce these original habitual patterns, but nevertheless, it is simply a trained-in pattern and can be changed through conscious action and discipline. Hill has a great deal to say about changing habits in Think and Grow Rich as well as later books.

The four-way for this is Faith, Vision, Gratitude, and Action. These are principally derived from New Thought works.

Vision

Vision is simply the ability and practice of developing a representational idea of what one wants and needs manifested. As one practices this and develops one's skills in this area. Almost everyone does this, even if they think they can't “see” things well “in their head”. Visualization isn't the only way to make a vision. Many people “feel” things are right or wrong. If you can get an idea about the way you want something to turn out, a concept with or without visual accompaniment, you are on your way to achieving that result.

Vision is always what you want it to turn out. Think small and that's what you get. Dream big and take the actions to achieve it, then this is what is going to turn out. Napoleon Hill in Think and Grow Rich covers this in some detail. The whole of his approach is to have you work out your plan and get a burning desire to have this manifest – and then it does.

Most all the books I've covered on self-help mention this in some way. This is the point New Thought authors make when they say Thought creates Form. The more complete the thought, the more complete the manifestation. As well, complete faith in the Universal Mind (as covered below under the Nature four-way) can trust that the universe will create for you what you need most. This isn't blind faith, but a thorough trust in a concept and then working daily to make that happen.

Action

The difference between daydreaming and effective visualization is how detailed the plan and how it is put into effect. When you daydream, you make no real connection to how to achieve this in the physical universe. The architect starts every building he plans with a concept, much as the daydreamer. The difference is his precision planning of how thick the walls are and what material they are constructed with. He plans out the electrical, the plumbing and the foundation as well as the roof. He gets detail-intensive and is able to hand these plans over to a contractor to build.

Your vision has to have the same detail and planning in it. You have to take action on your vision and do what you can in the real world to make it happen. There has to be a positive attitude forwarding that vision backed up by action. King points out that if you spend 5 percent meditating on what you want and then 95 percent doing something else or opposite to it, then you haven't a chance of getting it – because you are working against yourself.

This is how affirmations fail. They aren't backed up by action. Increasing action, in alignment with vision, requires an increase in faith and gratitude.

Gratitude

Many different authors recognize giving thanks or having gratitude for the manifestations in one's life. King has this feeling used to end off passive meditation/prayer. Braden says that gratitude and appreciation are key feelings which translate through our body to create changes in the quantum hologram. Tolle covers that point that only by honoring, acknowledging, and fully accepting the reality around you, will you be grateful for the reality around you. Only in this way will you then be able to have increased the quality of reality around you.

As a side note, Braden feels that our bodies are the via to communicate with the quantum hologram, much as an antenna broadcasts our needs and reality to the larger universal intelligence. This seems to deal with the situation (covered in the section on prayer/meditation above) of attuning the body to an alpha brainwave state or one of relaxation in order to transmit to the quantum hologram. (Hill also stated in his book that the brain is simply an antenna, used to send and receive thoughts.)

Having gratitude in a relaxed mode brings you into better confront of the world you have created. It is an acknowledgment of what is. Tolle covers this in various parts of his book – it is requisite to achieving enlightenment and a state of personal peace/bliss that a person simply accepts what is, and then peace will come. Another salient point is that this acceptance implies no resistance to what is. Both Tolle and King mention that when encountering problematic thought-patterns during meditation, ones containing doubt or other negative emotions, acceptance is a simple method of handling these if they cannot be pushed away or “shrugged off”.

The concept of Now, as covered by Tolle, seems key to the point of meditation and prayer. When a person truly discovers his base in the Now, then the future and past are merely tools which can be used to enhance the quality of life in the Now. Both future and past become changeable. One can remove or de-energize negative emotional charge in the past, by various therapies. One can postulate or create or simply examine and choose new alternate realities before they happen and so manifest that universe you truly want.

David Steindl-Rast, in Gratefulness, The Heart of Prayer, points out that gratefulness requires intellect, will and emotions to coordinate to achieve real thanksgiving. He points out that gratitude actually acknowledges the gift and completes the action. He agrees with Braden that there is a heartfelt action of feeling which is necessary to any prayer. This then brings it full circle to show that there is a positive emotive content to prayer, which aligns to the Universal Mind and assists in co-creating manifestations.

Note: there is a distinction between Gratitude and Gift. Again, we have synonymic differences possible, as gratitude is an action of completion and can be considered as gratefulness or acknowledgment. Gift is more conceived to be a state encompassing the totality of the action. Gift might also be a talent, not just a static present. There is more exploration to do in this area; this analytic engine isn't itself a set-in-stone method, but is designed to be flexible.

Faith

All of what you believe is what you see around you. It isn't as the aphorism goes, “Well, I'm from Missouri and you're just going to have to show me.” First you believe and then you see it.

Faith is a generated energy. There is no limit to it. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Have faith and it occurs. Don't and it won't. Get rid of any self-doubt and see things occur in your life in volume. Consider Matthew 9:29, “According to your faith, it will be done to you,” and Mark 9:23 “Everything is possible for him who believes.”

One of the nine points Wayne Dyer talks about in Manifest Your Destiny: The Nine Spiritual Principles for Getting Everything You Want is to honor your own worthiness to receive what you pray for. You must have faith in yourself and trust in the inherent rightness of your decisions in order to be effective in life.

Your vision will never achieve actuality in the physical universe if you continue to harbor self-doubt and uncertainty about yourself. This one point is the first taken up in by Peale. He points out that the greatest secret to eliminating self-doubt is to “fill your mind to overwhelming with faith”. He goes on to say that this is accomplished by prayer. At another point, he tells one to read the four Gospels and highlight all the positive statements in it. The key, as covered below in the next four-way, is to have a personal belief-system you can put faith into, one which supports you in your every action in living life. You have a vision for yourself; you must also back it up with personal faith.

Moreover, faith is personal trust in self. It, too, is a habit. One considers certain observed relations to be true. (As above, opinions held as fact are truth to the individual.) By constantly reinforcing these, faith in something being true or becoming true becomes a habit.

Hill tells his readers from his first chapter to set out what they want to accomplish, then read it morning, noon, and night until it is memorized – and then continue reading it aloud several times each day with complete assurance and full emotive realization that these goals have in fact been achieved.

You can see from just the description above, that one is building a very strong habit in one's life. As you do work to achieve these known goals (a vital daily action per all self-help authors, not just King and Wattles) they become your reality and so manifest. The more you work at these, the more you devote your full resources to them, the faster and more fully they manifest.

This isn't just my opinion, read the books in the bibliography and you'll find many personal examples where people have found this particular approach highly workable in their own life.