Awareness Logic

Jeff George and Awareness Logic, and what it's all about...

[awarenesslogic]

The Rules of the House

As in many other religions, gambling is forbidden (haram) in Islam. There are good reasons for this, of course, but all the same, some exposure to the inner workings of the gambling business can provide a useful allegory for certain aspects of human life.

So, for those of you with little experience in this area, consider the following a primer on the fundamentals. And for those of you who think you already know the game, this might be useful for you too.

In the world of gaming there are players, and then there is the House. The House runs the game. The players buy chips from the house to play. Some players may start off with more resources than others, but regardless, at the end of the game, the results are always the same. Those who do well cash in their winnings to be rewarded by the House. Those who lose the game lose their chips, and if they over extend themselves, may even end up in debt to the House.

Gambling, like all games depends on rules. The rules of each game apply specifically to that game, and there’s plenty of flexibility on what can be played. For just about any game, popular or otherwise, there is a way to gamble on its outcome, and for the House, gambling is a business. 

In addition to the rules of any given game, there are also always certain House rules common to every establishment. And while these rules may seem to be there for the sake of the players, they are mostly about protecting the interests of the House. The first and most important rule for the House is actually an unwritten one, but one every good player knows it: 

The House always wins.

This doesn’t mean that the game is rigged against the players, far from it. It’s always possible to win at any game, and if they’re good or just plain lucky, players can indeed win big. But, play long enough and eventually the odds always stack in the House’s favor.

This applies to any game in which the players play against the House, but there are also certain games which the House can’t guarantee the odds will always remain in their favor. For these, the House sets up tables and sponsors competition between players, always taking a cut of the winnings. Again, no matter what, the House always wins.

In order to ensure fairness, the Rules of the Game (every game) are always posted. And in order to protect the interests of the House, the Rules of the House are also always posted.

 As with any game in question, there is always some flexibility on the exact formula of the House rules, but the purpose of both types of rules is to ensure that everyone is playing the same game, and to outline what happens to those who fail to abide by the rules. 

The Rules of the Game define what constitutes fair play and what’s considered cheating. The Rules of the House mainly concern conduct under its roof, and in particular, how the House deals with cheaters. Details vary between establishments, but the number one rule of the House that’s always posted boils down to this:

The House reserves the right to remove any player from any game at any time for any violation of the rules, and to shut down any game compromised by cheating.

As a matter of standard practice, the House is required to provide three notices, and only three notices, before enforcing any penalties. The first notice is the posted rules themselves. The second is the notification that there is an infraction followed immediately by the subsequent removal of the player from the game. And the third is what we could call the “notice of consequences”. This occurs after a cheater’s removal at which time he or she is informed of the penalty that will be applied. 

Generally there are usually three possible penalties:

1) The first is that the House will (forcibly or otherwise) eject him or her from the establishment, and possibly ban that player for life.   

2) The second possibility occurs after the ejection if the cheater has not only violated the Rules of the Game, but also the law of the land. In these cases, he or she will then be turned over to the appropriate legal authorities.

3) The third possible penalty is that the cheater will be brought back before the Manager of the establishment who will decide on a course of action. This occurs when ejection is not sufficient, and when the law of the land may not provide sufficient redress for the interests of the House to be satisfied. At this point, it’s important to be clear: regardless of how shady or how above board the establishment may be, YOU NEVER WANT TO BE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THE MANAGER FOR BREAKING THE RULES. It will never go well for you. Ever.

There are so many options besides cheating. You can always play another game if the one your at isn’t working out for you. You can pull your resources with friends. Or, you can always just take your winnings or accept your losses at any moment and move on. But if you decide to violate the Rules of the Game or the Rules of the House, the last thing you want is the attention of the Management.

Different Managers have different styles. Some are quiet and reserved, and some have big oversized personalities. All of them, however, are all about one thing and one thing only: business. The interests of the House are their interests. And regardless of how friendly they may be, or how much time they spend mingling on the floor, most of their real work is done in back out of the sight of players in service of the House. Seasoned players know this, and even the biggest risk-takers among them know, when the Manager takes a keen interest in you, if your game is not 100% above board, you’re about to have a very bad day. Occasionally, there are soft-hearted Managers who may interject their attention to serve as a friendly warning, but in any betting game, tipping your hand too soon can cause problems later. 

So, you may be lucky enough to get a friendly extra warning, but don’t count on it. Usually the best outcome you can hope for if you get caught cheating is for someone from the House to come up to you immediately and quietly ask you to step away.

In particular, there is one incredibly dangerous scenario that every experienced player knows to avoid. That’s when the Manager of the establishment walks up to your table, and with a friendly smile says something to the effect of “That’s quite a game you got going there. Mind if I join you for a hand?”

This may seem flattering. It is not.

This may cause you to call into question the propriety of the Manager. Do not be fooled.

The Manager has no need to win or lose at any game. The Manager serves the House. There is no establishment that would ever be foolish enough to put anyone in a management position that could be easily swayed by personal pride or greed enough to jeopardize his or her own standing or the interests of the House.

Again, every experienced player knows that when a manager sits down at their table, the game is effectively over. They know the Manager is not there to play the game. The Manager is there to represent the House, and the House always wins. 

Good players know that when the stakes are high and there are too many factors out of their control, that’s the worst time to gamble. Anytime a Manager is at the table, that means the House is taking control, and the stakes are as high as they can possibly get.

Cheaters, however, by their very nature are almost always immune to such clear thing. Cheaters, no matter how they start, and no matter how noble they imagine their game to be, usually degenerate into nothing but greedy, self-serving liars with poor self-control. Yet they almost always consistently fool themselves into thinking that they are, in fact, always in control. To a degenerate cheater, going up against the House is an addictive thrill, and beating the Manager of the Establishment himself at his own game is the ultimate validation of their mastery of the game. But, of course, not every cheater is a complete degenerate, and when playing face to face against the Management, some might choose to let the Manager win. 

However, this is really just another form of cheating. The House is always the true master of every game, and always has ways of spotting irregularities that most players can’t even imagine.

So now the Manager has sat down at the table to play a hand. At this point, the cheater has three options:

1) Get up and walk away. Assuming the Manger lets this happen, there is a good chance the House already knows what he or she is up to, and at some point between the table and the door, security will show up to hopefully quietly escort him or her out. Maybe it’s to a permanent ban, or worse, into the hands of the law. Just as long as it’s not to the back room…

2) Stay at the table and play. If the cheater does this, he or she maybe get lucky enough to either win or lose a few hands honestly. However, the Manager is there for a reason, and will most likely keep the game going until either the cheater’s true character reveals itself, or until he or she loses everything. At which point, the cheater can hope that the House will view getting busted out as a sufficient punishment (or at least severe enough to go easy on them when it comes time to get shown to the door…)

3) Revert to type at some point, and try to break the rules. The cheater might decide that he or she is really that goo, and actually beat the Manger at a few hands, or use their tricks to allow the Manager to win. In either case, the game is over. 

When the cheater gets up to walk away under his or her own volition, they may very well have one last moment of elation as they savor the victory of beating the House at its own game. They may even make it to the door without consequences. They may never even see or hear who or what grabs them to drag them to them to the back, and very likely, no other player will ever see or hear from them ever again.

The House always wins. …

But hang on, now! 

We’ve all seen the brilliant heist movies where, against all odds, the plucky and charming good guy rouge plays a clever game, and scams the crooked bad guys running the house out of millions, right?  It’s happened in real life before too, right? The House can’t really always win, can they?

Well, even if we ignore loaded questions like who the “good guys” and “bad guys” might be in any gambling scenario, in the end, gambling is always about playing the odds, and sometimes long odds to do come up. 

What if a cheaters goes up against a Manager and actually manage to win big and beat the House with the Management either none the wiser, or at least unable to prove anything?

In such a case then the cheater walks away a winner, but then one of two things will likely happen: 

1) The Management either shuts down the table, or ends the entire game forever because it creates too much of a potential liability. 

2) The House decides to cut its losses, and shuts down the entire establishment. 

So maybe, just maybe, gamblers who cheat can beat the House and win, but the cost of not losing at the game is usually losing the entire game itself.

Now, when we’re talking about the business of gambling, that might seem like an acceptable loss. Of course, having to contend with all the other alienated players who are now also out of the game might actually be worse than dealing with the House itself, but still, there are certainly worse things that could happen. 

However, when we look at this all as allegory for human life itself, well, that’s a different matter…

[awarenesslogic]

On the 2016 Florida Primary

I will not be voting for Bernie Sanders in the Florida primary tomorrow.

In fact, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton either. I will be leaving the Democratic party and changing my registration back to no party affiliation. Here's why:

I've been in a bit of a malaise this weekend after reading The Obama Doctrine. Everyone who knows me knows that for the past 5 years I have been doing everything I can to call attention to the fact that the war in Syria is the most immediately critical issue this nation faces, and I believe its current course leads directly to a full scale global war.

Despite the fact that I am usually an advocate for diplomacy, I (like many life long diplomats in the US State Department and the UN such as John Kerry and Samantha Power) have been pushing for a more forceful US position on the removal Assad. So reading the Atlantic article was like a gut punch when I finally realized that President Obama had completely abandoned the internationalist "responsibility to protect” in favor a foreign policy that is more cynical and nationalistic than even that of the second Bush administration.

Syria is a crisis that demands America lead the way in international responsibility. Instead, Obama has deliberately been pursuing a policy that is every bit as narrow and self-serving as every other nation in the region. This is the inevitable course to World War I had always hoped we could avoid, but now I see the problem is not a lack of a clear US policy, but one that is completely wrongheaded and strategically blind.

So, on the Democratic side we have Hillary Clinton who has basically said she will continue Obama's policy. And then we have Bernie Sanders who has generally refused to address the issue, and offered only a vaguely idealistic benign version of isolationism as the basis for his foreign policy. On the Republican side, so far every candidate seems equally inept, mostly offered only foolhardy posturing on indiscriminate bombing and torture, and a general ignorance of international realities mixed with an even more extreme brand of isolationism.

The issue for for me is that not one single current Presidential candidate has either the foresight or the leadership ability to be the Commander in Chief of the United States of America during a world war, or to manage the peace in its aftermath. And unfortunately, I fear our current President has made that war inevitable.

So, no, I will not be voting for Bernie Sanders... or Hillary Clinton, or Ted Cruz, or Donald Trump. If this country really needs a political revolution, it's time to really start...

[awarenesslogic]

Awareness as Conscience

My regrets for the delay in the write up for Awareness Logic. Just when I thought I had it all figured out, I hit upon an unexpected implication which actually depend what I originally intended to present, but it’s taken me some time to work out. The next section should be up shortly. In the meantime, this goes along with  The parable of “The Three Roles of Humanity” present in section 2.  I’d been racking my brain literally for years to come up with a better word for Awareness in the social context, and talking with a friend the other day, it finally occurred to me: conscience. The diagram below neatly encapsulates the modern state of the three roles:

[awarenesslogic]

8 –Awareness Logic Waveforms

Converting the Awareness Logic square grid to a circular grid is fairly simple. Here the awareness point (أ) essentially expands with the circle to form the basis of a reference line (with the intersection at the radial still equal to 0∞1). The halfway points of 2 or 1/2 in each quadrant of the square grid become the 90° (1/2 π) radial points at the top and bottom halves of two separate circles. One circle is for values less than one (<1), and the other for those greater than one (>1). The radius is still derived from the base count value. The examples below show a circle with a radius of 4 with same appropriate fractional values from the square grid:

This works naturally for the <1 values, but is less intuitive for those >1. The ideal use for this arrangement actually is for wave forms in which the <1 values stand in for the period (T), and the >1 reciprocal values for frequency (f):

In this example, instead of fractions, we’re using decimal values (truncated at 3 places) for easier reference. The same fundamental relationships of Awareness Logic apply, but just using the fractions can force us into some unnatural or unintuitive numbers, particularly for the frequency.

In this diagram, we’re using the +/- variations of the frequency to represent the positive and negative peaks of each wave in the cycle, but this is not the only possible use of this variable (spin or orientation are examples of other possibilities.)

We’re using basic sine waves to represent our waveforms here, but keep in mind we’re just establishing a grid. How to represent more complex waveforms can be inferred from this.

Every number can be broken down in Awareness Logic into the three elements of base count, unit, and context . But generally speaking, the base count corresponds best to the amplitude of a wave, the unit to its period/frequency, and the context can best be used to represent the phase of a wave.

We can see from the diagram above how the amplitude and period/frequency are derived with the base count and unit, but in order to see how to define phase values, we need to first get a more thorough sense of exactly what we’re measuring with context…

[awarenesslogic]

7 – The Awareness Logic Matrix

In order to fully utilize the potential of Awareness Logic we need to be able to clearly express how the base count, context, and unit values relate to each other, and intersect at the aware point (أ). One way to begin to do this is with a handy mnemonic diagram called the Awareness Logic Circle.

If we recall back to Section 4 (Counting with Awareness Logic), we established that the best way to express base count values was a (more or less) standard numbers line with an origin of 0; the best way for unit values was a numbers line with an origin of 1; and for the context values a circle was better than a line. With the Awareness Logic circle, all we’re doing is combing the three.

The expanded diagram below shows how the Awareness Logic Circle works, and how it logical radiates outward:

For the base count we have a vertical axis centered on the radius of the circle that shows positive and negative numbers extending up and down respectively from 0.

The context value can be expressed around the circumference of the circle centered on the radius, and the cycle from 0 to 1 is completed by rotating (or revolving) around the circumference the full distance from any point along the circumference from 0 to 1 (or back). There are a potentially infinite number of fractional points anywhere around the circle.

We can picture (n) ∞ as creating circles that expand away from the radius of the circle, and (∞) n as shrinking towards it. However, the actual radius is not determined by the context, but by the base count, so this is more a handy visual reference.

For the unit values, we have a horizontal axis centered on the radius of the circle with an origin of 1. Values along the line greater than one (>1) are on the left, and values less than one (<1) on the right.

Note that we’ve replaced the x/1 and 1/x we’ve used previously with 2/1 and 1/2. There are a few reasons for this. The first is that 2 is the next natural whole number after 1, and logically denotes that progression.

The second reason has to do with the nature of the ratio of a circle to its circumference (π). 2π creates a complete circle. The 0 axis here is always at a 90° angle to the 1 axis centered at the radius of the circle. This is defined by the unit value 1/2, and 1/2π is equal to 90° around the circumference of a circle, and a full circle (360°) is 2π.

What this means is that along the numbers line that forms the one axis, the value on the left is always equal to 2/1, and the value on the right is always equal to 1/2. As the radius expands we can multiply the radius by 2 and 1 for the numerator and denominator for the 2/1 values, and by 1 for the numerator and 2 for the denominator for 1/2 values. This creates and expanding line, but all the fractions still simplify to 2 and 1/2 respectively.

On the Awareness Logic circle, we can then create additional fractions that occur between 0 and 1/2 with either positive or negative values (+/-) around the circumference on the right, along with their corresponding reciprocal values on the left. In the diagram of the expanded Awareness Logic circle above, we can see this expressed as (+/-) 1/4 on the right and (+/-) 4/1 on the left.

One of the most important aspects that the Awareness Logic circle demonstrates is the one to one relationship between the three elements of Awareness Logic; base count, context, and unit. The diagram above (and the subsequent examples) uses whole number fractions because this is the easiest way to illustrate this one to one relationship. However, it should be easy to infer how to use decimal (or any other number system) from these.

For example, on the expanded circle above, we show the positions for (+/-) 1/4 and 4/1 on the outer line with 4/2 and 2/4. For the inner circle with 2/1 and 1/2 we can infer that the same points along its radius would occur at (+/-) 2/0.5 0.5/2 respectively.

The purpose of the basic Awareness Logic circle is mainly to illustrate the relationships of 0, ∞, and 1 to أ. From this, we can begin to see how the Awareness Logic circle might be used as a circular or spherical special coordinate system. However, a few deficiencies with this basic configuration soon become apparent. Rather than detail the flaws now, let’s just skip over to demonstrating what actually does work.

There are two ways we can properly represent the full potential of an Awareness Logic matrix. The first is on a modified Cartesian grid square that expands upon the relationships of the Awareness Logic circle in a linear fashion, but doesn’t represent the correct radial angles and distances. The second is an expanded circular diagram that does include the correct angles and distances, and actually works perfectly as a grid for plotting wave functions.

Each representation has its advantages. The main advantage of the square matrix is that it more easily displays the relationship of all three elements together, and is more similar to what most people are accustomed to using. It is accurate enough for most digital type applications, whereas the circular matrix is more accurate for analog applications. As we’ll see, both are also fully compatible with each other, and can be used together or interchangeably. Which is preferable in any situation really just depends on the application.

Let’s start with the square matrix:

The key difference between this and a standard Cartesian grid is that what would normally be the x axis has an origin of 1 for the unit values, and the standard progression occurs as either the numerator (right) or denominator (left). The y axis for the base count values is more standard with an origin of 0 and positive (upper) and negative (lower) values.

The reference numbers for this grid have been displayed on the outside instead of in the center for easier reference of the 0 axis (vertical) values, and also because we can see the nonstandard progression for the 1 axis (horizontal).

The combined values for x and y are expressed horizontally along each 1 axis as fractions instead of as individual coordinates. This is carried out in the same way as with the expanded Awareness Logic circle above.

This matrix is also differs from a Cartesian grid in that the outermost right and left unit values are fixed so that the always simplify to 1/2 and 2/1.  This in turn fixes the horizontal radius of the line from the origin of this axis to the unit value itself which starts off on each side with double on the right, or the inverse of double the unit value on the left.

Because of this doubling, the figure presented here displays only even numbered unit values, but odd values occur at the halfway point between each whole number on the vertical grid. (For example, 3/1 and 1/3 occur at the 1.5 point vertically).

You may notice that for the unit values on display in each quadrant, the table above leaves off fractional values between 1/2 and 1 along with their reciprocal values of fractions between 1 and 2. These can easily be added.  

Notice the nice neat diagonal 45° line formed by the 2/1 to 1/2 horizontal lines on the grid. By in effect rotating the reference lines 90° (clockwise) for the additional range of values, we can make use of the empty space on the grid to continue the progression of these fractions vertically. This creates squares in each quadrant of the grid. The angles from the radius for this essentially work out too (with the same accuracy limits as the rest of the square grid).

One of the most important aspects of this matrix is how shifting through these four quadrants relates to the three elements of Awareness Logic. The center of the entire matrix is always equal the awareness point (أ) which is the intersection 0, ∞, 1. Anytime we shift values vertically, the horizontal reference line intersecting the center represents 0. For horizontal shifts, the vertical reference line represents 1. (Note, this is basically flipped for the second halves of the progressions, but the same principles apply.)

 When working with base count values, we use addition (and subtraction). So if we shift horizontally from any value to its opposite across the vertical reference line, the sum of the two is always equal to 0.

When working with unit values, we use multiplication (and division). So if we shift vertically from any value to its reciprocal across the horizontal reference line, the product of the two is always equal to 1.

As for context, if we shift diagonally between any two opposing values across the center of the grid (أ), we reverse both the (+/-) value, and the reciprocal (1/x). Multiplied together, these always equal -1.

So what does this tell us about the context value?

First of all this means that context occurs around the radius of أ. Every possible radial line around أ indicates context, but unlike the horizontal and vertical axes that cross the 0 and 1 lines, the value for context in each quadrant remains constant.

This makes perfect sense if we think about how the number lines for Awareness Logic work. The lines for the base count and unit extend from an origin with a fixed value (0 and 1 respectively) that potentially progress to infinity in both directions. However, the line (or circle) for context has fixed points on either end, 0 and 1, with a potentially infinite progression between the two. 

We can best see this using the examples of the 45° lines that form the halfway points of 2/1 and 1/2 in the grid diagrams above.  Flattening these out, we get:

Notice that when the constant equivalent values that occur at all points on the lines in every quadrant are multiplied against their diagonal opposites, the product equals -1. The same is true of every radial line that cuts across the awareness point (أ). (This includes both reference lines too.)

This same principal is true for every line that can be drawn across the radius. For example, we can draw a 4/1 to 1/4 line across the radius (at 22.5°) angles with the following values:

Also notice how ∞ is used at the center of all these lines. Since the values are effectively constant equivalents on each side, the entire range between the two occurs at the center point in between.  

With this we can now clearly see how all three elements of Awareness Logic, 0, ∞, and 1, intersect to form the awareness point (أ). This square grid shows how every element and every potential value of Awareness Logic is related.

For the purposes of understanding basic digital logic applications, this arrangement is sufficient. However, the exact angles and distances of the radial lines that are better served on a circular grid. And as it so happens, such an arrangement of Awareness Logic is not only useful for digital application, it’s ideal for expressing analog waveforms as base count, unit, and context, can be translated to amplitude, and phase…

[awarenesslogic]

6 –Basic Awareness Logic Operations and Symmetry

Before we get to the Awareness Logic matrix, we need to first establish a little more about basic Awareness Logic operations. So far, we haven’t really done much that’s truly exceptional in terms of defining how to count and use balanced ternary to express Awareness Logic. The real unique worth of this system is in how it all comes together. In order to see how that happens, let’s begin by once again going back to the axiom of awareness. All values simultaneously reference zero (0), infinity (∞), and one (1), the unique intersection of which is equal to the Awareness Point (أ).

 0∞1 = أ

For Awareness Logic to function as a unique logic system, we need to look at the axiom of awareness as an operational equation. Since we are essentially using the ∞ symbol to represent specific context values, we can treat it for the purposes of Awareness Logic system as a number. So, as an equation the axiom of awareness becomes:

 (0 ∙ ∞ ∙ 1) = أ

This simple formula represents the actual value at the intersection of the awareness point itself (أ). This is always the starting point for any Awareness Logic operation.

To distinguish the range of potential values (variables) that can occur for the base count, context, and unit from the specifically stated values of 0, ∞, and 1, let’s introduce naming convention for each variable with the أ followed by 0, ∞, and 1 respectively in subscript. So the more general equation becomes:

(أ = (1أ ∙ ∞أ ∙ 0أ

Unless otherwise stated, for any Awareness Logic set, the base count is always assumed to be 0, the context is always assumed to be ∞, and the unit value is always assumed to be 1.

The numbers 0, 1, and ∞ (which again, for the purposes of Awareness Logic, we treat a number) each have certain unique multiplication properties.

- The product of any number (n) multiplied by 0 always equals 0.  (n ∙ 0 = 0)

- The product of any number (n) multiplied by 1 always equals that number. (n ∙ 1 = n)

- The product of any number (n) multiplied by ∞ equals ∞.  (n ∙ ∞ = ∞)

 For the function of the system of Awareness Logic, we are going to add three unique rules.

The first rule is established by the axiom of awareness itself, and the logical result of converting it into a formula.  0 multiplied by ∞ and by 1 together always equals the awareness point. (0 ∙ ∞ ∙ 1 = أ)

As per the axiom of awareness, أ is the unique result of the intersection of these three values together (in this case expressed as a product), and only these three values, equals أ. If any other number is plugged into the equation, normal operational rules generally apply.

However, within the specific system of Awareness Logic, there are a couple important caveats to this, and these form the basis of the second and third rules.

 The second rule is For the purpose of arriving at the product of any awareness logic set, any context value equal to ∞ is effectively canceled out UNLESS the base count is equal to 0 AND the unit value is equal to 1. In this case, as per the first rule, the product of that set is equal to أ.  

This simply means that anytime we encounter a context value of ∞, we can effectively assume that it is simply a place holder used in defining the order of sets. This, however, does not apply if the base count or unit value is equal to ∞, in which case, the normal operations for ∞ are carried out.

The third caveat is that In any series of awareness logic sets, anytime the product of an individual set is 0, that 0 value is not multiplied against the final overall product of all the sets together, but carried over as a separate set equal to 0 with its position in the series maintained by all applicable set parentheses.

This one sounds a bit more complicated than it actually is. The purpose here is to identify a set that has no relative value (0) but that is still specifically identified as a set in which operations are carried out. This is in contrast to a set that has a context of ∞, which effectively implies its existence is effectively ignored for the purpose of any final product of the Awareness Logic equation. This all becomes much clearer with a few practical examples.

If we are presented with a series of Awareness Logic values, the first thing we would do is start with our basic Awareness Logic formula of  0 ∙ ∞ ∙ 1 = أ (unless otherwise stated). We would then take each number defined as either a base count (أ0) or unit (أ1) value, and plug them into their respective places in the formula.

 Since the operation is included with the base count and unit values, we would immediately apply the stated operation and numeric value to the base count and unit positions of the formula. In effect this creates a parenthetical operation that establishes that base count and unit are potentially sets themselves. This is true because according to Awareness Logic every number and value can be broken down into constituent base count, context, and unit values.  

 As we’ll see with our examples below, anytime we are presented with a context (أ∞) value, we shift the set position to the concentric location defined by the ∞ symbol away from the current set position (which contains the current base count and unit values) implied by n. All we’re doing here is changing which set we’re applying the base count and unit values.

As an example, Let’s use the following series of Awareness Logic values which we’ll label A - I:

 A)     +2

B)      4/1

C)      -1

D)     ½

E)      (n)∞

F)      -2

G)     (((∞)))n

H)     ¼

I)        +3

Note that because the operation is included with each, we can always easily tell the difference between base count, unit, and context values. So, before we start plugging these values into the formula, we would start, as we always do, with awareness point:

(0 ∙ ∞ ∙ 1) = أ

Then we would carry out the operations for each value from the examples above in succession, so that the equation would change with each step as follows:

 A)     ( (0 +2= +2) ∙ ∞ ∙ 1) = 2

B)      (+2 ∙ ∞ ∙ (1 ∙ 4/1)) = 8

C)      ((+2 -1 = +1) ∙ ∞ ∙ 4/1) = 4

D)     (+1 ∙ ∞ ∙ (4/1 ∙ 1/2 = 2/1)) = 2

E)      (+1 ∙ ∞ ∙ 2/1) ∞ = 2

F)      ((0 -2 = -2) (+1 ∙ ∞ ∙ 2/1) 1) = 1

G)     (-2 (+1 ((∞)) 2/1) 1) = 1

H)     (-2 (+1 ((0(0 ∙ ∞ ∙ 1/4)1/4)) 2/1) 1) =  ((0)) 1

I)        (-2 (+1 (((0 +3 = 3) ∙ ∞ ∙ 1/4)1/4)) 2/1) 1) =  3/16 = 0.1875

Note that starting with example A, the context values of ∞ are canceled out for the final product. 

With examples E and G, we shifted the focus of the equation by adding an ∞ to a new set, but the final product did not change because as with each example, we continue to effectively ignore any context value = ∞. Then, in the subsequent examples of each, we applied the base count and unit values to the new set positions.

In example F, we applied a base count value of -2, and because there was no specifically stated unit value, we assumed أ1 was equal to 1.

In example H, we applied the unit value of 1/4, but because there was no specifically stated base count value yet for that set, we assumed base count was equal to 0. The product of that specific set was then 0, and we carried this 0 over with all the set specific parenthesis to the final product of the equation itself. 

With example I, the set with the value of 0 in H gains a numeric value other than 0 (in this case 3/4 or 0.75) for أ0, so all the attending set parentheses were canceled out as well.

The purpose of identifying the location of sets equal to 0 is that in Awareness Logic, a set equal to zero specifically calls attention to itself as an empty set that we are aware of. This is in contrast to a set with a context of infinity that we may be potential aware of, but because we can’t affix any finite value to it, is effectively ignored within our (finite) awareness. This is not to say that we cannot be aware of a potentially infinite value, however. This is why in Awareness Logic we apply the normal rules of using ∞ if it is applied to a base count or unit value.

This differentiation between 0 and ∞, and how these operate depending on if they are applied to the three elements of أ is an essential concept to the most fundamental principles of Awareness Logic. It’s an important part of what makes this system unique. Fully understanding the real value of this distinction depends a great deal on the specific practical application in which Awareness Logic is used. This will become clearer later as we explore some of the theoretical scientific applications of Awareness Logic.

For now, there is another general concept of Awareness Logic that is essential to grasp when considering basic operations. That is the principle of symmetry inherently implied by the existence of the awareness point (أ) itself. 

0, ∞, and 1 together are always equal to the awareness point (أ). This implies that أ itself has an inherent value that can be expressed relative to these. If the axiom of awareness holds true in that “all values simultaneously reference zero (0), infinity (∞), and one (1)” than this means that أ has a value that can relative to all numbers, and by logical extension anything that can be expressed by numbers.

So then, how do we define the value of أ against numbers other than 0, ∞, and 1?

If we consider the examples above, all we’re doing with Awareness Logic is taking the potential of that infinite, universal series endless 0s ∞s and 1s, breaking it down into concentric sets, and then collapsing these sets further into usable chunks by applying finite numeric values. 

For the purpose of Awareness Logic, every set can be assigned an order of operation (implied by the use of the parentheses) regardless of it is defined by finite or potentially infinite values. No matter how we define with numbers or break down these set with operations, the implication of the axiom of awareness is that at the heart of it all is the awareness point (أ).

So, if we apply أ to the operations that we have so far defined for Awareness Logic, what we can logically infer is that its value and function of أ is symmetrical based on how the formula (0 ∙ ∞ ∙ 1) operates.

So far we’ve established the concept that 0 and 1 are the complimentary (opposite) values that define all finite values. We’ve also established that the concepts of finite and infinite (∞) are complimentary opposites essential to defining each other in the same way.  On the numbers lines we’ve created, we’ve seen that if the center value is either 0 or 1, the line goes off in a potentially boundless progression (∞) in both directions. If the boundaries of the line are defined as 0 and 1, however, then the boundless range (∞) is between the two.

So essentially, we can say that on a numbers line, infinity (∞) is the transition or pivot point between two complimentary finite values (0 and 1, for example); and that any finite value ( again 0 or 1 for example) is the transition or pivot point between two potentially infinite (∞) or boundless ranges of values.

The finite relative limits of 0 and 1 contrast each other against infinity (∞), and infinity is at the boundary of every 0 and 1. This is a fundamental symmetry.

Therefore, as the awareness point (أ) is the intersection of 0, ∞, 1, أ logically applies as a transition or pivot point between any given number or value and a symmetrically defined complimentary value based on the relationship of the awareness point’s essential elements of 0, ∞, and 1.

To fully understand how these symmetrical complimentary values can logically be determined, we need to plot everything we’ve so far defined onto a common grid: the Awareness Logic matrix… Note: there is a problem on this page with html reversing a subscript combined with the Arabic letter  أ at seemingly random times. The correct annotations for base count, context, and unit are found in this formula:

(أ = (1أ ∙ ∞أ ∙ 0أ

[awarenesslogic]

5 –Awareness Logic Trits

Now it’s time to forget about binary.

Awareness Logic is essentially a form of balanced ternary that generally conforms to Kleene’s Logic.  Balanced Ternary is typically expressed in terms of trits (trinary digits) which have three possible values:  -1, 0, and 1. Balanced ternary can also be used to express the logical statements of false (-1), unknown or indeterminate (0), and true (1).

Awareness Logic makes use of these standard balanced ternary values (relative to the base count as we’ll see), but the basic elements of Awareness Logic are 0, ∞, and 1 (which correspond to -1, 0, and 1 respectively). From this point forward, we’ll use 0, ∞, and 1 to distinguish Awareness Logic from other systems of balanced ternary.

Okay, so let’s create some trit tables.

Awareness Logic is a base 3 system which means that a single trit yields 31 possible values (3). As this represents the most fundamental range of values, the basic 0, ∞, and 1, we’ll denote the first column of any trit table with the symbol for the Awareness point (أ) which, of course, this also conveniently represents the intersection of these three elements.

Two trits yields 32 possible values (9). With this we begin to add the range of possible base count (0), unit (1), and context (∞) values. Trit tables are read from smallest numbers to largest from right to left, so we’ll add the second column to the left and denote it with 1.

For the base count, the values we gain with the 1 column are -1 and +1. It’s worth noting that the operators – and + are both explicated shown to illustrate that, for base count values, the addition (and subtraction) function is always carried out in Awareness Logic (as we’ll see later).

For the unit values, the 1 column creates 1/x and x/1, with x here representing any number. This follows the precedent set by the modified numbers line for the unit values we created in the last section. 

Once again, whole number values are stated as improper fractions to make the relationship to 1 more explicit, and also because multiplication (and division) operations are always carried out with unit values. To prevent redundancy, we can understand that 1 means the value is 1. 1/x is the option to create a reciprocal value, and x/1 simply means dividing x by 1 (which normally leaves the value the same). This brings us to the context values.  If we think back to our Awareness Logic stream, the way we utilized the ∞ symbols was to replace them with parentheses to denote concentric sets. So, what we’re doing here is essentially the same. First we establish where in the stream the numeric values (n) are. These are defined by the base count and unit. Then we establish where the context value (∞) being defined is placed relative to n.

(∞) n indicates that ∞ occupies a “smaller” set that is concentrically inside of n. 

(n) ∞ indicates that ∞ is in a “larger” set that is concentrically outside of n.

We can picture the concentric progression of Awareness Logic sets like ripples growing infinitely “larger” away from the center point of 0 towards an eventual 1. We could say that with (∞) n, the set (∞) is “smaller” than the set that contains n. The 0 trit value that falls in the 1 column for the context values indicates the sets are infinitely regressing towards the 0 point, implying smaller and smaller sets. With (n) ∞, the ∞ is in a “larger” than the concentric set that contains (n).

The 0 trit value that falls in the 1 column for the context values indicates the sets are infinitely regressing towards the 0 point, implying “smaller” and “smaller” sets. The 1 trit value in the 1 column for context indicates the sets are infinitely progressing towards some eventual 1 point, in effect creating increasingly “larger” sets.

However, physical size and even numeric value can be largely independent of this concentric progression in Awareness Logic. This is why instead of assigning a numeric value to context, we’re illustrating it here with just parentheses, because the actual values of the sets themselves may be independent of the concentric order in which they occur. We’re mainly just concerned with the relative position of the sets here. We’ll look at how to value these sets in more detail in the next section.

Three trits yields 33 possible values (27). As with the 1 and 2 trit tables, the first column establishes the Awareness Logic element is being defined. The second is the 1 column, and the third is 3.

There are a number of possible ways we could designate this range of values depending on the application, but the most intuitive way is to simply continue the progression of values for each Awareness Logic element.

For the base count, this creates a range with a low of -4 through 0 to a high of +4.

For the unit values, we have a range to 1/4 through 1 to 4/1. 

For the context values, we can see that the progression places the ∞ position further and further away from the n (defined by the base count and unit) into “smaller” or “larger” sets depending on if the value in the second (left-most) column is 0 or 1 respectively.

It’s easy to deduce the progression of additional trit values from here. Adding more trits yields 3n possible values, so the additional columns added after 1 and 3 would be 9, 27, 81, 243, etc. 

We can also calculate the range of possible values for each of the three Awareness Logic elements for any number of trits by calculating 3n divided by 3. We can also determine the numeric range on either side of the 0, ∞, or 1 by subtracting one from that, and dividing the remainder by half. So for example, we’ve seen that 3 trits (33) creates a numeric range of 4 on each side of the 0, ∞, and 1 values. 4 trits (34) would make for a range of 13 values on each side; 5 trits (35) creates 40 on each side, 6 trits (36) creates 122, etc.  

Looking at these tables, it soon becomes apparent that there is a range of potential digital logic applications for Awareness Logic. But, before we can get to those, we need to see how these values all function together. We can do this by constructing an Awareness Logic matrix that takes full advantage of the system’s unique features…

[awarenesslogic]

4 – Counting with Awareness Logic

So far, you might have observed that the stream of numbers for Awareness Logic basically looks just like a binary series, but with ∞ inserted between the 1s and 0s. “What’s the big deal?” you may ask.

 To properly answer that question, we need to spend a little more time considering not just the potential value of infinity (∞), but also how we tend to be aware of it.

With the Awareness Logic stream, we’re basically establishing that between each 0 and 1, there is a potentially infinite number of additional 0s and 1s that are undefined. Now when our brains encounter ∞ in this type of context, we don’t normally stop what we’re doing, and try to calculate the entire infinite progression like some poor robot from a bad 20th from a bad century sci-fi show. We accept that this potential exists as a concept, and simply move on from there. 

In essence what we’re doing is deciding that ∞ represents a finite transition that occurs at some potential point in the infinite series of 0s and 1s that allows us to move forward. Again, we can intellectually grasp that there’s infinite potential to some degree, but what we’re generally more concerned with overall is that, somewhere in that infinite progression, there’s a transition that we can understand in practical terms.

That transition provides the context necessary to differentiate 0 values from 1 values. Otherwise it would all just be an infinite indefinable blob. Or, alternatively, we might see it as an endless series of 0s and 1s with no common context or transition point between them, thus making it forever impossible to get from one to the other. So, Awareness Logic begins by actually representing that context as ∞.

“Great,” you might reply, “so how do we count with it?”

Well, that depends on where we start. If we imagine our endless stream of  0, ∞, and 1, we can just designate any 0, ∞, or 1 as the point to begin counting. To illustrate this, let’s keep it simple, and begin our first example of counting by starting with 0.  

The way we can indicate the chosen 0 is by replacing the ∞ symbols on either side of it with brackets [0], which denotes that we are defining it as the basis of a set. We would then continue to replace all the surrounding ∞ symbols with brackets so that the initial 0 set is the center of a series of concentric sets radiating outward. For example:  

In essence all we’ve done is simply replace the ∞ symbols with defined transitions between sets that center on a particular 0. What we end up with looks like a binary series that goes off in two directions. In other words, we’ve just (more or less) created a basic numbers line:

This number line illustrates how we derive the 0 (“base count”) values of Awareness Logic.

This number line is also annotated with the binary value for each numeral, but since binary is base 2, an additional binary digit must be added to differentiate between the -/+ values, which we haven’t done in the example above. As Awareness Logic uses balanced ternary, it’s base 3, so this extra position is not necessary. We’ll illustrate how the coding for that works later.

But first, let’s consider what happens if we pick a 1 in our stream as the initial point to start counting:

This modified number line illustrates the basic concept of how we derive the 1 (“unit”) values of Awareness Logic. You’ll notice that there are a few differences here from the line for the base count (0) values number line. First of all, instead of brackets, we’re using parenthesis to indicate a mathematical order of operation for these sets. This is the standard for Awareness Logic for here on out.

There are also numbers on both the top and bottom of the number line. This is done to indicate fractions. The top numbers are the numerators, and the bottom the denominators. If we establish 1 as our basic unit for counting, instead of having numbers less than 0 (-n) on one side, and greater than zero on the other (+n), we have numbers less than one (n<1) and greater than one on the other (n>1). Since numbers are normally read from lowest to highest from right to left, the numbers less than one (<1) are on the right, and the numbers greater than one (>1) are on the left.

So from right to left, starting with the numbers on the right of the line, we have 1/7, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2. One (1) is in the center. Then the numbers to the left are 2/1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1.

Once again equivalent binary values for the numerals are also displayed. But as with the -/+ values of the previous line, we would again need additional binary digits to denote the fractional operations. This is where binary really starts to fail us, and balanced ternary becomes an even more attractive option.

If we multiply the values from the right and left of 1 from any set, the product of all these sets equals 1. (For example, 1/2 ∙ 2/1 = 1). As we’ll soon see, this is standard operation for Awareness Logic.

It’s important to note, however, that the example above of the number line based on 1 is less than ideal because it displays a one to one symmetry for the distance and order of the numbers on both the right and left of 1 that doesn’t actually exist. This is for illustration purposes only. There is a legitimate way to maintain a similar symmetry that’s useful for Awareness Logic which we’ll see later, but for right now, this is sufficient to get the basic idea across.

So what happens if we pick an ∞ symbol from the stream as the point to start counting? 

Once again, we’re using parentheses instead of brackets. However, as the central value that starts our counting is ∞, replacing the next two immediate ∞ values to the right and left creates an innermost set of (0 ∞ 1). Note that the rest of the sets are then contrasting 0s and 1s indicating that there are potentially two different types of progressions: the first starting from 0, and the second starting from 1.

Also note that instead of using an arrow to designate the starting point, this time we used أ, the symbol for the awareness point.  What this means is that the designated starting point for counting on this stream is not simply ∞, or 0 or 1, but 0 ∞ 1 together: the awareness point. This represents a common point where all three intersect together. This is the foundation of Awareness Logic (0∞1 = أ).

“But,” you may ask, “How does that work exactly? How can we conceive of all three values, 0, ∞, and 1, as occupying the same point?”

If we picture these three elemental values as separate points on a number line (∞←0-∞-1→∞), it is difficult to understand them as simultaneously occupying a single point together. However, the trick to Awareness Logic is that it’s not just about lines, it’s also about circles.

   This circle illustrates how we define the ∞ (“context”) values of Awareness Logic. With a circle, we start at 0, and then make one full revolution around the circle to 1. We could then continue around in an infinite number of revolutions (in either direction). Also, any starting point we pick is one of an infinite potential number of such points around the circumference (regardless of the diameter). So now we’ve established that in Awareness Logic we have a more or less standard number line for our 0 (base count) values; a modified numbers line for our 1 (unit) values; and a circle of infinity for our ∞ (context) values. What we’ll soon see is that when combined, these form a unique matrix that allows for the triangulation of all three values. This can create some surprising insights into the very foundation of numbers theory, and opens the door to a number of exciting practical applications. But, in order to see how these three elements work together, we need to first continue our exploration of counting by defining how to code Awareness Logic using balance ternary…

[awarenesslogic]

3 - The Trouble with Binary

The genesis in my head of what eventually became Awareness Logic started as a thought experiment. I was trying to imagine how to define in the most fundamental terms a data matrix that could theoretically express all the information in the universe. A tall order to be sure!

The first logical choice was binary, but I quickly realized there were some real problems with this. Now, there’s a whole group of people (many of them programmers) operating on the more or less unexamined assumption that the entire universe can be expressed in binary terms. Binary is simply a two position number system consisting of 0 and 1, and, of course, has proven perfectly useful for countless digital applications. However, when the challenge is to map everything into a singular database, there are at least two important concepts that cannot be expressed exclusively in binary terms. The first is infinity, and the second is the role of the observer to any given observation expressed in binary.

First of all, how do you express infinity in binary? As all the 1s and 0s possible in the universe? I can write the word and conceive the concept of infinity, but how does infinity as a value get expressed using only 1s and 0s?

This brings us to the problem of expressing the role of an observer with binary. Suppose you establish as an observation a digital binary switch that has an output of 1 or 0. What is the value of the switch itself? How do we establish its basic function? You need a set of more 1s and 0s to explain that the switch is part of a lager set, and to define how it works.

 Okay, so then what is the value of an observer or operator in this equation? Why, another set of 1s and 0s of course! And the world around me is more 1s and 0s, etc.

 But how do we ultimately make the distinction between all those 1s and 0s? In order to differentiate this multitude of sets and functions, the concept of set and subset itself is essential. Without a higher order language to translate these values into distinct sets, it’s all just a meaningless endless series of 1s and 0s.

With Awareness Logic we have three fundamental values to work with instead of two. It is a system of balanced ternary. However, instead of using the standard values of  -1, 0, and 1 for balanced ternary (which will come into play later),  in  Awareness Logic 0 and 1 are the complimentary values instead of -1 an 1 (as in binary), and both are related to ∞ as the third value (instead of the standard balanced ternary 0). This structure not only creates an automatic distinction between finite and infinite values, it also establishes a basic set structure with the set of 0 and 1 as a subset of ∞.

Now before we go any further, let’s establish some clear definitions for the terms of the Axiom of Awareness.

 All values simultaneously reference zero (0), infinity (∞), and one (1), the unique intersection of which is equal to the Awareness Point (أ).

 0∞1 = أ

So, we have four values here: 0, 1, and ∞ plus  أ (the Arabic letter alif) as the symbol for the awareness point. The fourth one is a new concept that will take some explaining, but the first three are relatively simple to define.

 Zero (0) here is simply a unit of no relative value.

 One (1) is a unit of relative value.

Establishing the relative nature of both 0 and 1 is essential because in Awareness Logic these are contrasted to infinity (∞) as distinctly finite values, not absolutes.

Infinity (∞) is understood simply as a value without bounds; a value that is not finite.

 Some mathematicians hate the very concept of infinity itself because by its very nature, it does not fit neatly into any finitely definable system. So, clearly defining ∞ in this, its most basically accepted mathematical terms is essential.

∞ is not properly considered a number, but in Awareness Logic it is mostly used like a number. When working with the value of ∞ in Awareness Logic it is important to generally disregard any philosophical or cosmological implications inherent to the concept of infinity, and stick to its most commonly accepted usage as a value without bounds.

One of the most routine usages of ∞ is to represent an increase without boundaries, and understanding exactly what progression of values ∞ represents is generally context dependent. We can note how this works in three common examples:

 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, → ∞

 333.3333→ ∞

 0→ ∞ →1

In the first example, we understand that ∞ represents the endless continuation of the series of numbers from 0 to 9 with 10, 11, 12, etc. In the second example, we understand that the decimal value is an endless series of 3s. The third example is a bit different because in this case, the 0 and 1 represent clear boundaries, however we can infer from this that there is a potentially infinite series of values between the two. This usage is particularly relevant to Awareness Logic.

0 and 1 define each other’s existence. As is expressed with binary, these are the two essential finite values. As 0 and 1 work together establish the range of finite values, 0 and 1 as a pair contrast with ∞ to establish the dynamic of finite and infinite. The differentiation between finite values and infinite potential is necessary to express any set function.

The fourth essential to define from the axiom of awareness is the awareness point (أ). 

The first letter of the Arabic alphabet, alif, is used here as the symbol for the awareness point. This letter was chosen to represent the awareness point because not only is it associated with some appropriate symbolism in Islamic culture, it also implies an association with its linguistic cousin in Hebrew, the aleph (א), which is used to represent the transfinite numbers of set theory. The mathematical concepts behind أ and א are similarly related by this usage as well.

 (Note: The alif-hamza form (أ) was chosen instead of the stand-alone form (ا) because of the latter’s similar appearance to the character “1”.)

The awareness point (أ) is a unique value and essentially a new number that expresses an implied but previously undefined value. Because it represents the intersection of both infinite and finite characteristics, أ can be understood as the essential reference for our awareness of all numbers and values, hence the use of the word “awareness” in Awareness Logic.

 In order to define exactly what the awareness point (أ) is, and how it’s used, the first thing we need to establish the absolute basics. That is how to count using 0, 1 and ∞.  And by adding ∞, we’ll transcend the limitations imposed by binary, and begin to define that data matrix I imagined that can potentially express all the information in the universe... 

[awarenesslogic]

2- The Three Roles of Humanity

A long, long time ago, sometime after humans became humans, but before we even thought to call this development history, people lived simply in tribes. The organization of these tribes extended naturally from human families, and we could say that there were three basic roles. 

The first role was simply that an individual member of the tribe itself, the base from which all of the members of the tribe were counted. The second was the role of the chief or elders that provided the leadership of the tribe for it to function as a social unit. The third role was that of the shaman or storyteller. His or her role was essentially that of truth-teller, he or she provided the essential context of the story of who the tribe was, and made them all aware of how they fit into the world around them. For countless millennia and thousands of generations, these three roles existing in every human tribe in one form or another, and there was always an inherent harmony maintained in the balance between them. The individuals of the tribes mostly looked after themselves, and when the need arose for them to act collectively, or to settle disputes between them, the chiefs and elders took over, and their judgment held sway. And whenever there was a question of who the tribe was, why they existed as such, or what their role was in the larger world, the shaman and storytellers used their knowledge to keep everyone aware. But along the way, something interesting began to happen. Over the ages, humans began to develop the knowledge of how to control the world around them. They created more and more complex tools, and from these basic technologies such as counting, writing, calendars and agriculture began to emerge.

With these technologies the structure of human society began to change and grow. Humans built towns and cities, and these in turn were soon organized into city-states and eventually incorporated into nations. With this growth the nature of the roles also began to transform.

The people were still the base of this society, but they were no longer bound simply by family ties, and they began to organize themselves based more on their professional roles in these nations. They were now farmer or traders, workers or craftsman. As the domains of their social units increased, tribal elders and chieftains became kings and queens, and pharaohs and emperors. And finally, the storytellers and shaman of old were replaced by a more organized system of keeping the awareness of their respective societies in context, and the third role became known as religion.

Now regardless of if we’re aware of it or not, the basic organization of humanity in these three roles persists to this very day. In our global modern society, we still organize ourselves primarily as nations, but the base roles of the people have become more complex as laborers and engineers, businessmen and bankers find that their professional roles often allow them to interact with each other around the world to transcend national boundaries.

The tribal chiefs that became kings and queens of old have mostly given way now to presidents and prime ministers. But, their essential role of keeping their nations functioning as a unit remains the same, even if the methods for choosing them and holding them accountable have changed.

And what of the role of the shaman and storytellers that kept the human story in context? Well, this is where it gets really interesting! The ever-increasing knowledge that was gained from the development of new technologies never really stopped. As tribes became nations, human knowledge and awareness of how to control the world around them continued to grow. The simple stories of the ancient shamans were no longer adequate to explain how everything worked based on this new knowledge. Early on, many religions effectively controlled this knowledge, but it soon grew beyond them. 

New specializations in knowledge began to appear. Storytelling grew more complex and varied, and artist, writers, and performers of all sorts began to dominate these mediums away from the religious roots of their arts. New technologies demanded more technical knowledge, craftsman and engineers developed specializations that in turn informed their worldviews. Teachers and schools, and then scholars and universities came into being to preserve and teach increasingly complex fields of specialized knowledge. And somewhere along the way, a form of knowledge came into being that existed specifically to differentiate mere stories about how the world worked into information that could be verified as “facts,” and thus science was born.

And with science, the pace of human development accelerated to such a rapid pace, it often seemed the rest of the world could barely keep up. The religious structures of old in particular often seemed to have a particularly difficult time, and the more invested these religions became in preserving their dominance by denying this new knowledge, the more they failed.

The concept of facts also brought about a new type of storyteller, the journalist, dedicated to objectively reporting the story of humanity in its most factual terms. New information technologies created mass media, radio, movies, television, video games, and the Internet. Eventually, the third role of officially telling the story of humanity and how it fit into the world was not simply the domain of one type of truth-teller, but a number of different specializations who often didn’t even recognize they were all essentially fulfilling the same role.

It seemed like every specialization that had grown out from the ancient storytellers had their own version based on their own context. Furthermore, many of them seem invested in claiming that their truth was somehow exclusive to everyone else’s. Artists told their stories from their own excited perspective, and claimed that this was humanity as it really was. Many scientists and scholars taught that their version was the only verifiable truth. The journalists tried to make sense of it all, but often seemed hopelessly overwhelmed as the cacophony of voices new media forms made available to everyone caused everyone to question the very notion of objectivity itself. 

And all the while religion, continued to struggle to adapt. With varying degrees of success, many formal institutions of religions tried to maintain some semblance of their old power structures by adapting to new knowledge. Some religious institutions doubled down on old now factually disproven stories, and the dissonance this created caused great division within human society, even as it brought scorn upon the very concept of religion itself. And throughout the ages, as formal religious structure began to show their limits, informal religious schools came into being. Some managed to preserve various forms of real knowledge for a time, while others degenerated into complete absurdity.  

So, where does all this leave us today?

Well first of all, keep in mind this story about the three roles of humanity is exactly that, a story. Certainly there are some elements of historical truth, but if we get bogged down in trying to say exactly what is factual or not, or try to develop more specific details of real life examples, we may end up getting way off track. The point of this story is that it functions more as a parable, a way of illuminating a simple universal truth that might get lost in a more nuanced telling of human history. One lesson that we can draw from this parable is that today’s human society can still be understood as divided between three roles. The first role is still that of the base of our society that originated in the earliest human tribes: the people. And today as always, the people are still mostly concerned with their own individual lives. The second role is that of the government. Even though the forms and ideologies of government have grown more complex, its basic purpose is still organizing people collectively into functioning units of society. Most people are familiar enough with these two roles, and in fact it could be said that many of the biggest problems of human society today seem to be because of the dichotomy of the power struggle between private institutions (such as corporations, unions, and activists) that advocate for the supremacy of the individual versus public institutions (governments both democratic and otherwise) that maintain that their version of the collective good and the general welfare of society must come first.

And as for the third role…

Well, if this little parable reflects any problem in modern society, it’s the confusion over the third role.

The essential function of providing the context for human existence has become fragmented among various disciplines of arts, science, scholarship, and religion, and spread out across a variety of mediums. The specialization of knowledge can certainly be viewed as a positive development, and not really a problem at all. The real issue is that all these groups have lost sight of the common unity of purpose between them.

In reality, all of these separate forms of specialized knowledge, each of which may have real value in and of itself, is each also part of a greater whole that forms the truth of our existence in this universe. And, this truth is always greater than the sum of its parts.

What may be even worse than the fact that people aren’t generally aware that all these separate forms of knowledge and information are one, is that whereas once there was a steady tripod of balance maintained between separating the three roles of humanity, control of the third role has largely be taken over by the first two. Now, truth-telling, which was once recognized as a separate domain from public and private interests, has mostly been coopted by one or the other. Control of the mediums of information is now largely dominated by either government institutions, which have a vested interest in preserving their own power, or private corporations that tend to put financial and business interests above the truth itself. It seems that almost every specialization of knowledge and information, be it scientific research, journalism, the arts, or religion, is caught up between the fearful binary of the fight for or control between public and private power. So again, if this parable (which is really just a story of human progress so far) accurately reflects a problem, then for it to be of any real value, it should also imply a solution.  If human society is to develop and advance, a harmonious relationship between the three roles must be redefined.

If the base of our society is the people looking after their private interests as individuals, this must also be balanced with a public sector charged with maintaining the public good of society as a functioning unit, and for the good of both the public and private sectors, the most essential context of knowledge and information, the awareness of truth, must be maintained as a separate institution free of the dominance of both.  Collectively we could call this institution charged with maintaining  knowledge and information the “awareness” sector.  

But, all of this really does seem like quite a bit to take away from some story that’s supposed to just be a parable. A bit too on the nose, you might say. And, wasn’t this whole thing supposed to be about something called Awareness Logic. You might be asking how that fits in. Well, I’m glad (I imagined) you asked. Here’s the Axiom of Awareness again: All values simultaneously reference zero (0), infinity (∞), and one (1), the unique intersection of which is equal to the Awareness Point (أ).

0∞1 = أ

For awareness logic, we can assign the following names to each of the four values in the above equation:

values relating to zero (0) can be referred to as “base” (or “base count”) values;

values relating to one (1) can be identified as “unit” values;

values relating to infinity (∞) can be called “context” values;

and, the awareness point (أ) is the reference at which these three types of values come together.

From our parable of The Three Roles of Humanity:

individual people from tribes to the modern private sector are of the “base” (0) of humanity;

governments from tribal chiefs to the modern public sector are the “units” (1) of humanity society;

the keepers of truth from shaman to scientists, to artists, scholars, journalists, and religious leaders provide the “context” (∞) of understanding for human development;

and the function of all three of these roles come together at a singular awareness point (أ) we can define collectively simply as humanity.

So, I hope this makes the fundamentals of Awareness Logic a little clearer. Of course, the math and the science (as well as a more exact understanding of how all the various forms of information and knowledge exist as a unified whole) is a bit more complex, and we’ll delve into that over the next few days.

The next post in this series will deal with an important point that we might be able to infer from this parable. That is that there’s a problem with binary…

[awarenesslogic]

1 - What is Awareness Logic?

You might have noticed the name of this account is “Awareness Logic”. I use it everywhere.  So, “What” you may ask “is Awareness Logic?”

The answer to that question pretty much defines the framework of my entire worldview. And, if Awareness Logic itself is sound, it is also the foundation of a framework for a more comprehensive understanding of the universe itself. Awareness Logic begins with a mathematic axiom, the Axiom of Awareness, and extends into a system of logic that utilizes the axiom, as well as a series of potential theoretical and practical scientific and engineering applications. It also lends itself to a more comprehensive worldview that could be useful in overcoming some of the current barriers to human development. All of these applications flow naturally from a universal formula so simple and elegant, in hindsight it may seem almost absurd that it ever needed to be pointed out in the first place.

We could begin by simply presenting the Axiom of Awareness:

All values simultaneously reference zero (0), infinity (∞), and one (1), the unique intersection of which is equal to the Awareness Point (أ).

0∞1 = أ

 I said we could begin here, but really the math and scientific implications of this require a fair bit of exploration and digestion before the more intuitive functions implied by this axiom becomes clear.

So, before we begin a series of posts explaining the more technical side of how it all works, let’s step back with the next post and begin with a simple parable.

 We’ll call it “The Three Roles of Humanity”…

[awarenesslogic]

Preventing the Vienna Talks from Inviting WW III

At the G20 meeting in Turkey on Monday, President Obama challenged the critics of his current Syria strategy to “present a specific plan.”  That is my intention. However, before we can begin to plan and discuss operational details, it is critical that we establish the single most important strategic element that the US and its allies currently need to embrace: We must be willing to commit to directly confronting the Assad regime, and to removing it by force if necessary.  Until we are willing to do so, our current course is not only doomed to fail, the crisis will almost certainly continue to deteriorate until it leads us all into a full scale global conflagration. On November 14th, the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), which included the US, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran (but no Syrians), met in Vienna to hammer out the broad framework for a political settlement for Syria. As it stands right now, this plan is completely unworkable, and its failure may very well end up being the event that triggers World War III. 

I’ll explain.

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris, Beirut, and elsewhere by the Islamic State outside of Syria and Iraq demonstrate that this war cannot be contained. There is a broad consensus now that in order to effectively deal with the Islamic State and other Islamist extremist terror groups operating in the warzone, there must be a political settlement to the Syrian civil war. The brutality of the regime of Bashar al-Assad against its own population is at the root of crisis. Assad is responsible for numerous war crimes and atrocities, and it is clear that the opposition will never stop fighting until he is out of power.

The ouster of Assad is the essential condition to any political settlement. It is the key demand of the Syrian opposition and its Arab allies, along with the US, France, Turkey and the rest of NATO.  It is also the key sticking point of any peace plan, because Assad has made clear he has no intention of leaving power. He is backed by Russia and Iran along with Hezbollah. They have all provided direct military support, and expended considerable resources to prop up his regime.

Virtually every nation with the exception of Russia and Iran agrees that Assad must go, but no one is willing to deploy the forces necessary to get the job done. Furthermore, everyone seems to agree that ground troops are necessary to stabilize the region, but nobody except Russia and Iran (again with Hezbollah) have yet been willing to put boots on the ground. President Obama has specifically made it clear he will not send in significant ground forces until there is a workable political settlement. Instead, the US and allies are depending almost exclusively on airpower focused almost exclusively on the Islamic State, and on arming local militias. Without creating a viable alternative to the brutal tyranny of either the Assad regime or the Islamic State, airstrikes alone and militias are further inflaming sectarian and ethnic tensions, and worsening the chaos and humanitarian crisis on the ground. This in turn is fueling extremism and causing a flood of refugees to pour from the region. At first glance, the ISSG proposal resulting from the talks in Vienna seems like a plan that could lead to a political settlement. But as conditions currently stand, it is fundamentally unrealistic and unworkable. This is primarily because it depends on establishing a consensus with Iran and Russian on a transition away from the Assad regime, and as long as the US and its allies refuse to directly challenge Assad, his backers have no real motivation to give up support for the regime as long as it serves their interests. The first step of the Vienna plan depends upon reaching a ceasefire. However, this ceasefire does not include any groups that either side considers terrorists such as the Islamic State and the Al Nusra Front. Not only does no one have any interest in including these groups in a ceasefire, all sides will essentially be free to continue to attack any group they agree to designate as terrorists, which is of course how the Assad regime defines any group that opposes them. So, if anyone can explain to me how a ceasefire will work that essentially excludes almost all the principle combatants from operations against each other, I’m all ears. The second component is that all sides agree to the terms of a political transition away from the Assad regime, as well as the terms for Bashar al-Assad’s departure from power. Now let’s be optimistic and say that Russia and Iran to agree to this in principle in a relatively reasonable timeframe, say, six months. I guarantee that such an agreement will be full of conditions and loopholes to removing Assad, otherwise Russia and Iran will simply not agree to it. Most likely any agreement will be contingent upon the effectiveness of the ceasefire which is never going to work as long as the Islamist extremists are still active, even if the regime, the numerous opposition groups, and the regional and international forces somehow managed to stop trying to kill each other. This means that when the six months are up, Russia and Iran will simply point out that the conditions are still not be ripe for a political transition. Assad will have every excuse not to leave power, or Russia and Iran will offer a minor facelift to the regime, and used any continued opposition as an excuse to justify their continued dominance. 

And, based on past behavior, what can Russia and Iran currently expect the US and its allies to most likely do about it?

 Effectively nothing.

 Assad, Iran, and Russia know that the only way to secure the region is with ground forces, something that the nations opposed to Assad are unwilling to commit to unless there is some ideal political plan in place. They also know that the US and NATO are trying to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia at all costs. Furthermore they know they have the superior firepower against the local opposition forces in the main areas Assad is attempting to recapture, and all they need is time.

The goal of Russia and Iran in the ISSG talks therefore seems to be twofold. The first is to buy more time to bolster the Assad regime against its opposition. The second is to get NATO to focus its forces against the Islamic State so they don’t have to. This eliminates their other major opponents on the ground, and effectively leaves them in charge in both Syria and Iraq.  

As long as we are unwilling to directly confront Assad, there is no reason for Russia, and Iran to deviate from this strategy. As long as we are unwilling to commit ground forces to stabilize the region, Russia and Iran have every reason to believe can keep on stringing the West along forever. Unfortunately, this strategy will not lead to peace, because the opposition will continue to fight, and the chaos caused by the Islamist extremists will continue in the absence of any viable security settlement. Once it becomes clear that whatever absurdly idealistic deal comes out of the Vienna talks is going to fail, it will take the wind out of any further diplomatic efforts for some time.  

The crisis will continue to get worse. There will be more refugees and more international terrorist attacks. Regional and international tensions will continue to worsen until some event triggers a confrontation that nobody can control. NATO and its regional allies will end up locked into an inescapable war against Russia and Iran along with any other countries they might possibly rally to their side in the meantime.

It doesn’t have to be this way. If the US, NATO, and its Allies firmly commit now to directly removing Assad from power, either the course of negotiations will go better, or Russia and Iran will face a direct confrontation in the region before they have time to consolidate their holdings and firmly entrench their forces.  

It is extremely unlikely that Russia and Iran will resort to full scale war to protect Assad once they realize the other side is committed to this possibility. This is particularly true if we hold out a genuine and sincere willingness to include them in reconstruction and recovery, and recognize there legitimate national interests in the process. The region will explode if Iran and Russia try to hold onto exclusive influence in Syria and Iraq, but all the same they have every right to be part of a broader coalition. In fact, lasting regional peace depends on it.  

But none of this will happen as long as Assad, Russia, and Iran know they can continue to game the diplomatic process without fear of any serious challenge on the ground. That’s why, before anything else, it is imperative that the US in particular stop hedging its role in the region by refusing to commit ground forces. This is essential to back up its clearly stated goal of removing the Assad regime from power in order to establish security and peace for the region. I understand that committing to removing Assad by force if necessary also means committing to deploying ground forces to the region with a potentially less than ideal political solution in place.  Concern over establishing another unpopular occupation has been a barrier to effective policy in Syria since the beginning of this crisis, and while such concerns are legitimate, the potential for an actual lasting settlement can only be increased if we’re willing to take the risk. If we do not, the failure of our current course seems certain.

If Russia and Iran grudgingly agree to a deal, but continue to practically oppose it on the ground, it could be a problem. This could lead to a sustained insurgency even after the Islamic State and other Islamist extremist factions are dealt with. But, if there is a genuine, closely monitored effort at political reconciliation that respects all regional sides interests, over the long term there should be ample opportunity to work these issues out. In the meantime, the more immediate threat of global terror and world war will be significantly defused.

This plan is by no means perfect, but never has the saying “perfect is the enemy of good” been more true than in regard to the Obama administration’s reluctant Syria policy. And, if President Obama wants to know on what I base my assessment on over that of his “closest advisors,” I can simply point to the virtue of having been right so far. I have a verifiable record dating back to the beginning of this crisis in which I have consistently anticipated just about every window of opportunity, and every major turn of events in the course of both the Syrian civil war and Russia’s renewed aggression. This is something which the President’s closest advisors seem to have constantly failed to do.

The reality is that I am certainly not alone in this. There are plenty of others who hold the same point view. Where we’ve been correct when the President’s advisors have been wrong, it’s been largely because we are the ones who have actually been listening to the people on the ground whose voices somehow seem to get lost up the chain to the President’s ear.

If President Obama is serious about developing a truly effective strategy for Syria and the region, then he will put politics aside, and live up to the challenge he himself issued, meet with us, and bring us into the discussion at the level necessary to accomplish our mutual goals. 

Despite strongly disagreeing with President Obama on his current strategy, I still have faith in both our American process, and the abilities of the President as a leader to do the right thing. If he’s serious about being willing to bring those of us who propose a different strategy to the table, I personally will do everything possible to ensure that there is a realistic, effective, and detailed plan of action for the United States on Syria and the region.

 In other words, I accept President Obama’s challenge to present a specific plan for Syria. I may not be General or a Senator, but, give me a time and place to begin the process towards a meeting, and I will guarantee that a plan will be presented that is backed by credible authorities, and that it will fulfill whatever criteria the situation demands.

Beyond that, all I can say is the next step is up to you, Mr. President.

[awarenesslogic]

Three Crises in 2016: An Open Letter

It can be said that one of the most essential qualities of leadership is foresight. Plunging headlong from one crisis to another is a heedless existence, and it is certainly no way for a nation to conduct its affairs.  With that in mind, there are three major crises looming in 2016 that are likely to have a profound effect on both the future of the United States of America, and the course of events for all of humanity.  As an American, I am sending this open letter to the current U.S. executive and legislative leaders to share whatever insight into the future I might have to offer in the hopes that it may serve as a warning to better prepare for the year ahead.

I) 2016 Global Recession The first problem that will probably soon become apparent is another global recession. The economic realities behind this are generally well known, and due to a number of factors, most notably the economic slowdown in China, and the anemic recovery in Europe and North America from the so-called Great Recession. By itself, a recession can be managed as a cyclical issue, but there are additional factors in 2016 that can both complicate a strong recovery, and contribute directly to the problem.

Perhaps the greatest threat to global financial security is the growing inequity between the extremely wealthy, who benefit disproportionately from the modern economy, and everyone else. The economic reasons for this are complex, and have to do in no small measure with changing technology and global development. This growing inequity is also largely due to systemic issues of corruption created by the unprecedented access to the political process afforded to the wealthiest individuals and corporations.   This is particularly problematic here in the United States due to a system a campaign financing that depends on unprecedented donations for media access that fuels an ever increasingly bitter partisan divide. This corruption of the democratic process also perpetuates a lack of fiscal accountability that ensures the wealthiest donors remain effectively above the laws they themselves sponsor.   What is particularly dangerous for the looming recession in 2016 is that there have been far too few regulatory corrections to the riskiest behavior on the financial sector that directly contributed to the last Great Recession. And while enacting such regulations is complicated by the complex interrelation of the 21st global market, the profound lack of leadership in this area from the world’s largest economy is going to come back around to harm us all.  

 II) Global War

While economic hardships can certainly take a toll, the single greatest threat in the coming year is the almost certain probability that the worsening regional conflicts around the globe will metastasize into a full scale global war.  Given the nature of these conflicts, it is not hyperbole to suggest that the historic legacy of the current government may be World War III.

The post-WW II international order best embodied by the United Nations has all but collapsed as both nation-states and non-state players increasingly view warfare as a viable means of advancing their interests. Once again, there has been a profound failure of leadership from the United States in this area. Our aggressive disregard for international law in response to the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and our invasion of Iraq in 2003 set a dangerous precedent. More recently our failure to directly address regional crises in Middle East and North Africa as well as Easter Europe has contributed to a growing lack of faith in the inherent security of democracy and human rights. This coupled with a growing awareness of the inequities caused by the corruption of our financial system has in turn lead to growing disregard for international cooperation,  as well as an epidemic of self-serving tribalism and nationalism around the world.

 Not since the run-up to the First World War has there been such a seemingly inevitable slide to global conflict. Currently the greatest risks are occurring along three fronts: East Asia (in the South China Sea as well as the long simmering threat on the Korean peninsula), Eastern Europe (due to renewed Russian aggression), and by far the most dangerous situation, the Middle East (and the expanding conflict emanating from the Syrian Civil war).  As much as we would all like to believe that there is a potential diplomatic solution to prevent the outbreak of global war, I fear that the tenor of the intractable positions staked by current global leadership now makes diplomacy all but impossible.

Any notion that these regional conflicts can be mitigated by a renewed cold war ignores the reality that there are no longer two distinct power blocks with their own separate societies and economies, but rather a single interconnected global system. Furthermore, the clock of history is now running against us all in the form of increased global pressures from climate change, economic uncertainty, and the proliferation of non-state terror organizations willing to exploit chaotic conditions to further their own destructive agendas. By analyzing the current regional conflicts carefully, I have been able to forecast events over the past few years fairly accurately. I project with a high degree of certainty that full scale hostilities may very well break out before fall of 2016. The most likely flashpoint is the Middle East, but a significant escalation on either the Eastern European or East Asian fronts that triggers a wider war may also occur.

I expect that the initial full scale elements of the conflict will be relatively brief. Tragically, there will be be millions of casualties, and millions more displace by the war. Major disruptions to the global infrastructure should also be expected. We should also expect that consequences of the war will keep us embroiled in conflict for most of the rest of the decade. Given the current trajectory of events, I also foresee at least the limited use of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction. This war will truly be an unprecedented, horrible event in the history of humanity. However, the most important point to take from the possibility to foresee it happening is that, even if war truly is inevitable, this will not be the end of us all. Humanity will endure. The purpose of this open letter is not to predict some inevitable apocalyptic doom, but as a reminder to us all that we can still take charge of our own future if we are willing to take responsibility for our situation, no matter how dire the circumstances may seem.

The United States of America can continue to have an important role to play in the world if we are brave enough to not only face what may be about to happen, but also to live up to our nation’s full potential. What will ultimately make the real difference in the outcome of the war is not just how well we fight, but how we focus our priorities for recovery and shaping the new post war world.  

We need to once again renew our commitment to global human rights, equal representation, the clear separation of commerce, religion, and state, and a healthy respect for the rule of law, but with a deeper commitment to equality and justice for all people around the world, not just a privileged few. We need to develop and strengthen international institutions to ensure that humanity never backslides to our current state again, and that we will be able to more effectively approach global challenges such as climate change and uneven global development together. 

More immediately, we need to begin planning now for fostering international support among our allies around the world for possible large scale conventional military operations, and full investment in long term counter-insurgency efforts. In the Middle East in particular, we need to prepare ourselves and our allies now for the permanent cooperation necessary to forge a coalition of hundreds of thousands of international and regional troops for a long term security and stabilization. The only real lasting solution for the region must avoid appealing to sectarian, ethnic, and national interests. We need to end once and for all the false choice between tyranny and terrorism. Only a long term comprehensive regional commitment to both security and development that presents a better case for democracy and human rights while appealing to the regions longing for greater unity and prosperity will have a chance.

I sincerely hope it does not take a full scale global war to shock us out of our current course of self-absorbed complacency, but at this juncture I do not realistically see the necessary course corrections being made in time. I realize that at the moment, this letter may seem insignificant, but when the hour of full scale war is at hand, perhaps these words may come back to you. At that moment, remember this is not the end, we can take responsibility for our circumstances, and God willing, the full context of our options may become clear.

  III) 2016 Election Crisis

The last crisis this letter will address is one I suspect few even realize may be coming. If these projections for global recession and war are correct, these factors combined with the current levels of frustration with both the Democratic and Republican parties are likely to throw the already unpredictable 2016 Election cycle into unprecedented chaos, particularly in regard to the Presidential race.  This could precipitate a genuine constitutional crisis.  

In many respects our electoral process is antiquated in the 21st century. It has been so hopeless been corrupted by special interest money, vicious personal attacks, partisan bickering, and endless campaigning that the popular backlash against the current leadership in both the White House and Congress is entirely predictable. I don’t imagine I could spare those of you in office from the popular wrath that you have brought upon yourselves, but I do not wish to see such collective heedlessness destroy the union that generations of Americans have fought so hard to build and preserve.

Ultimately, we need at least one constitutional amendment to address the better regulation of political campaigning and financing, but I am not so naïve to expect that this will happen within the next year. So instead, I offer a solution to the particular crisis we will likely face next November should everything else predicted in this letter come to pass.  

As the crisis unfolds, there will be bitter contention over how to resolve it, but what we will really need is a simple constitution amendment: If in the general election, no Presidential candidate has a majority of the popular vote, a runoff will occur in 30 days between the two candidates with the highest number of votes to determine the winner.  

This is a simple, elegant constitutional solution that will not greatly alter the framework of our election system, and it will resolve a particular problem that has already occurred once this century. I predict that the current seemingly impossible odds of passing a constitutional amendment in the current Congress will be overcome by a sudden, overwhelming desire for political self-preservation. There is, of course, some refinement for the exact language of the amendment. It should also likely include a defined margin of error, or it can specify another period of time for the runoff, so long as it is before inaugural day. I am realistic. I do not expect most of you who will receive this letter to read it in full, or take its contents seriously. Yet I feel I have a duty to share whatever insight I may have to offer in the hopes that it may contribute in some small way to fulfilling your own duties in office. Regardless of how you may or may not receive this letter, however, I do expect you to understand one thing: You have now been duly warned of what may come to pass. From this point on, let no one hide behind the shortsighted conceit that no one could’ve seen any of this coming. The burden of responsibility to heed these warnings is now on you, and you can expect to be held fully accountable for any failure to do so. For the sake of the American people, and indeed all of humanity, I wish you only success.

With kind regards, Jeffrey P. George

Written on the 8th day of November, 2015.

[awarenesslogic]

The Whirlwind

[awarenesslogic]

Daylight Moon