Spiritual taxes and conspiracy theories

[tvaeli]

I mentioned that while conspiracy theories were written in goal-based logic, I mean exactly some of the ones critizised:

- They were not criminal accusitions, but actual honour-based qualifications to *not be sure whether they belong to our society in the future*.

- At that point, by actual law, to understand the criminal aspects meant to wait: let's say they are not *honour-based members of our court* if they do not qualify in the end.

This initial statement sets: variable A, to measure whether we need to collectionize our social basis and guarantees in way which can fall back to people with higher honour. It's the safety of our childhood: this was not the *only* principle we knew, the flat account of "goodness" provided, which was seen as conspiratoric - if it talks about criminal law, it reduces the actual responsibility of *our own government*. They said not to make claims.

They took part of our spiritual discussions: people who took part, made claims and took actions, where *financial and political questions were established based on these spiritual view*.

Variable A now is evaluated: our claims that we cannot trust those people on honour and responsibility in our own governing systems, where we are equals, is based that *spirituality did not become equal way to be cityzen*, but we can see: heavy accusations.

I have now seen it was *physical exclusion*, because we are not honour and responsibility members of their societies to guarantee every investment of us is in our own tax system, streams back to our own innovation and creation, and definitely, no better account takes over the whole cycle of any spiritual project in terms of it's income: this means the society lives, and there is responsibility and honour in our own governors and tax system.

Now: if spiritual people were accused in actual wrong accusing that many people do not follow their values to survive and live better themselves, but based on very values, have *actually excluded the voice*. It's not honourable in courts: which means that based on initial scientific discussions, where honour was *explicit* that this allows speak in every metaphor or real language and resolves spiritual discussions and studies their sciences. Classes which do not provide full honour to us are criminals if:

- They succeed to remove money, jobs, reputation etc. from others in way that it affects our own society and it's life, and our personal lives.

- In such case, any "doubts" in spirituality and our theories or claim that they are not based, is not studied that way: if not based on their own proof means excluded from their own honour, we can *not* give them honour to talk of their authorities and responsibility in terms of our own society, cycles and finances and taxes - rather, it's our own responsibility to create the long-term success network to invest the money back exactly where it came from: into ourselves, not others, to survive as our own society, where our rules hold. To say "we did not scientifically reach the same result with strength": it seems one can legally say that, but considering it means exclusion, *statements that they do not have 100% guarantee our statements hold take criminal degree, because their meaning is deduced only from actions: if based on this, someone is fired, they are fired based on "we do not know", and in case they want to establish this in whole society - they are fired from whole society*. Legally, if people get fired from whole society: we must see that we must establish civilized, real society and base our actual incomes, taxes and long-term support in a way that we ourselves are responsible of our past income, our plans, and taking away our own investments from the ones they belong to.

[tvaeli]

Here is:

• Spiritual people accounted that Spiritual laws hold, and miracles possibly exist; some miracle-like definitions definitely exist.
• Material people claimed there is not enough evidence for miracles, and some went to extreme: there are not much evidence for spiritual laws, such as that which we know as life: a cognitive momentum.

To be based on legal claims, to attack other side by financial, political, scientific or other cooperation:

• Spiritual people should prove 100% that spiritual laws exist. This is what I have done with my public framework - the rest is personal, up to personal proof, a silent realm where personal honour holds, but no law. This is like spectacle of speech and votations for free government - ones which are personal, as long as every parliament member can agree with 100% - otherwise, for example power of 51% is democratic minority in regards to effective law production of 49%, by which they might not qualify the internal fruits.
• Laws hold by thermodynamic laws. Police and government estimate laws.
  • Thermodynamic process breaks the wrong law estimation - this is a natural revolution, one that humans won't stop.
  • Physical laws hold in 2nd degree for humans: 0th degree is linear energy, 1st degree integral is the accelerative energy - equilibrum, which you see in 1st integral function; 2nd integral is homeostasis - mutations, which *keep equilibrae*, muliple of them, instead of single balances stage - the essential, definition-by form continues unaffected, while several equilibrae in basic natural term are formed.
  • This means wu wei: we estimate capital as spirits, and estimate laws; we function as stock market - the price of honour is outcome of repeated game, which finally makes the 2nd integral balanced and continues upwards; while it breaks by any instability in 0th for long range. Capitalism is evolution: who estimates wrong is touched; who estimates right - altough we can be many times in dead branches of proper capitalism or it stands apart from the constitutional country and law; basically the right estimate is spiritual, inside cognition we do not enforce by will: but by waiting proper thermodynamic law. This is why we do not enforce conspiracy theories, but we do invest in balanced players and state in honour law, who we trust.

In every case where spiritual people are materially left off of condition:

• We need to establish stable governing laws, choose the right government and keep our taxes in our own circulation:
  • If the income was spiritual, in it's circulation the fundamental source of that income is which receives that part of circulation, not the outsider with their own opportunities - the society definitely does that with that specific person and the income from it's dreams, to support his.
• We need to define our society as one which:
  • Supports our spiritual ideas and succeeds in reality of long term investments, being the initial investor of long term goal or off from that interest market. They do not hallucinate about their incomes outside their egoist constructs very well, because for our own income, they need to reason about our interest first, and demonstrate every loss by proofs and continued proofs, because we have some freedoms to fail - but not an estimation, because estimations are their personal problems, which are not here to affect our worlds and remain yet at their will and actual measurement of well-being. The society itself guarantees our well-being from our shared efforts, not the shadow purposes, goals out of our realms.
  • The positive account is only created by analyzing their own actual realms - what keeps their initial statement unconditioned by ours?

[Ziran]

On 8/10/2026 at 9:47 AM, tvaeli said:

The positive account is only created by analyzing their own actual realms

yes...

On 8/10/2026 at 9:47 AM, tvaeli said:

what keeps their initial statement unconditioned by ours?

Their own actual realms are ... "their own".  By definition.  Their statements are governed by their own actual will, which includes ( but is not limited to ) the will-to-deceive, both for help and/or for harm.

On 8/10/2026 at 6:53 AM, tvaeli said:

actual honour-based qualifications

Question:  ?  How do you propose to evaluate this ?

Suppose that all communication is inherently deceptive to a degree.  How so?  In the translation of thought into words, the phonics act as a veil cloaking and packaging the speaker's thoughts.  

 

If so; then, any attempt to evaluate the **actual** honor-based qualifications will fail, lacking consent to share their unfiltered thoughts.  Attempts which lack consent are a violation of privacy.

 

Further, if all communication is inherently deceptive to a degree, then, even if the intention is truthful, the mind is already neglecting its own deceptive capabilities.  It's a redoubled deception.  Because of this, it's easy to slip into deception, because the mind is already cloaking and veiling for the purpose of abstracting and relating the thoughts into words.

 

thoughts << abstraction >> words

 

The abstraction is inherently deceptive.

 

If the speaker intends to speak honestly; then, they'll need to ignore this inherent abstraction.  The neglect is a type of deception.  The abstraction is a type of deception.  That's a re-doubled deception, which is why it's so easy for people to lie to themselves and others.

 

 

 

Edited August 11 by Ziran

[tvaeli]

On 11/8/2026 at 6:04 PM, Ziran said:

yes...

Their own actual realms are ... "their own".  By definition.  Their statements are governed by their own actual will, which includes ( but is not limited to ) the will-to-deceive, both for help and/or for harm.

Question:  ?  How do you propose to evaluate this ?

Suppose that all communication is inherently deceptive to a degree.  How so?  In the translation of thought into words, the phonics act as a veil cloaking and packaging the speaker's thoughts.  

 

If so; then, any attempt to evaluate the **actual** honor-based qualifications will fail, lacking consent to share their unfiltered thoughts.  Attempts which lack consent are a violation of privacy.

 

Further, if all communication is inherently deceptive to a degree, then, even if the intention is truthful, the mind is already neglecting its own deceptive capabilities.  It's a redoubled deception.  Because of this, it's easy to slip into deception, because the mind is already cloaking and veiling for the purpose of abstracting and relating the thoughts into words.

 

thoughts << abstraction >> words

 

The abstraction is inherently deceptive.

 

If the speaker intends to speak honestly; then, they'll need to ignore this inherent abstraction.  The neglect is a type of deception.  The abstraction is a type of deception.  That's a re-doubled deception, which is why it's so easy for people to lie to themselves and others.

 

 

 

Well here is something simple:

- Either don't be idiot: *never* come to tell me world is only stupid people and so my theory does not hold.

- Or don't be genius: if I tell about you that based on your narratives and statistics, you belong to only stupid people *to be removed from application of this theory*; just go away.

 

Being both two verbally:

- You try to tell me things good. I said: things good in this context are about belonging to my party.

- You try to tell me my party fails identifying it's members and you do it on ethical basis. Make your own.

 

Don't tell me related topics one cannot conclude from my words, imagining in your head, your antithesis for things going on in your own life - this is reinterpretative reality, tell your friends to not understand me wrong: don't tell me to not tell *to my friends* things which make you pain at night, because it's not your problem to belong to me where I cannot choose people or acts. Do your own things - science, religion, atheism, conspiracy, whatewer it is: but to your friends.

[tvaeli]

Just now, tvaeli said:

Well here is something simple:

- Either don't be idiot: *never* come to tell me world is only stupid people and so my theory does not hold.

- Or don't be genius: if I tell about you that based on your narratives and statistics, you belong to only stupid people *to be removed from application of this theory*; just go away.

 

Being both two verbally:

- You try to tell me things good. I said: things good in this context are about belonging to my party.

- You try to tell me my party fails identifying it's members and you do it on ethical basis. Make your own.

 

Don't tell me related topics one cannot conclude from my words, imagining in your head, your antithesis for things going on in your own life - this is reinterpretative reality, tell your friends to not understand me wrong: don't tell me to not tell *to my friends* things which make you pain at night, because it's not your problem to belong to me where I cannot choose people or acts. Do your own things - science, religion, atheism, conspiracy, whatewer it is: but to your friends.

 

On 11/8/2026 at 6:04 PM, Ziran said:

yes...

Their own actual realms are ... "their own".  By definition.  Their statements are governed by their own actual will, which includes ( but is not limited to ) the will-to-deceive, both for help and/or for harm.

Question:  ?  How do you propose to evaluate this ?

Suppose that all communication is inherently deceptive to a degree.  How so?  In the translation of thought into words, the phonics act as a veil cloaking and packaging the speaker's thoughts.  

 

If so; then, any attempt to evaluate the **actual** honor-based qualifications will fail, lacking consent to share their unfiltered thoughts.  Attempts which lack consent are a violation of privacy.

 

Further, if all communication is inherently deceptive to a degree, then, even if the intention is truthful, the mind is already neglecting its own deceptive capabilities.  It's a redoubled deception.  Because of this, it's easy to slip into deception, because the mind is already cloaking and veiling for the purpose of abstracting and relating the thoughts into words.

 

thoughts << abstraction >> words

 

The abstraction is inherently deceptive.

 

If the speaker intends to speak honestly; then, they'll need to ignore this inherent abstraction.  The neglect is a type of deception.  The abstraction is a type of deception.  That's a re-doubled deception, which is why it's so easy for people to lie to themselves and others.

 

 

 

Basically I want to understand where my topic is gone:

- I said people are idiots compared to my terms, especially criticising me.

- I said they, thus, cannot belong to me.

 

You come with your "general ethics", about proving about people "this ethics" - undefined criterion; as if all ethics must hold. I want to see that you first repeat my message *exactly*, not explain me your friend circle's imaginary meanings based on what *you just spark like dog telling nothing*. If you tell anything: I said, don't quote me but take the part *wholly* and make sure everybody understands from your answer I was talking about honour court and goal logic - in every case, you implicitly replaced the thing and then started to project me, illegally, the things I did not say and your criticism. I want to hear my words back, not your talking about invisible ghost your friends summonized by their karmic forces. Goal, honour - if you don't understand the semantics, causalities etc., *do not* tell about me: tell the unrelated topic of your own.

[tvaeli]

On 11/8/2026 at 6:04 PM, Ziran said:

yes...

Their own actual realms are ... "their own".  By definition.  Their statements are governed by their own actual will, which includes ( but is not limited to ) the will-to-deceive, both for help and/or for harm.

Question:  ?  How do you propose to evaluate this ?

Suppose that all communication is inherently deceptive to a degree.  How so?  In the translation of thought into words, the phonics act as a veil cloaking and packaging the speaker's thoughts.  

 

If so; then, any attempt to evaluate the **actual** honor-based qualifications will fail, lacking consent to share their unfiltered thoughts.  Attempts which lack consent are a violation of privacy.

 

Further, if all communication is inherently deceptive to a degree, then, even if the intention is truthful, the mind is already neglecting its own deceptive capabilities.  It's a redoubled deception.  Because of this, it's easy to slip into deception, because the mind is already cloaking and veiling for the purpose of abstracting and relating the thoughts into words.

 

thoughts << abstraction >> words

 

The abstraction is inherently deceptive.

 

If the speaker intends to speak honestly; then, they'll need to ignore this inherent abstraction.  The neglect is a type of deception.  The abstraction is a type of deception.  That's a re-doubled deception, which is why it's so easy for people to lie to themselves and others.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, tvaeli said:

Well here is something simple:

- Either don't be idiot: *never* come to tell me world is only stupid people and so my theory does not hold.

- Or don't be genius: if I tell about you that based on your narratives and statistics, you belong to only stupid people *to be removed from application of this theory*; just go away.

 

Being both two verbally:

- You try to tell me things good. I said: things good in this context are about belonging to my party.

- You try to tell me my party fails identifying it's members and you do it on ethical basis. Make your own.

 

Don't tell me related topics one cannot conclude from my words, imagining in your head, your antithesis for things going on in your own life - this is reinterpretative reality, tell your friends to not understand me wrong: don't tell me to not tell *to my friends* things which make you pain at night, because it's not your problem to belong to me where I cannot choose people or acts. Do your own things - science, religion, atheism, conspiracy, whatewer it is: but to your friends.

Your answer:

- I do not reference to broken goal based frameworks you are trying to present.

- Your intention to tell fools do not physically intervene in attempts to my business are fatally absurd. I do not understand how you assume your basic rights.

[Ziran]

14 hours ago, tvaeli said:

tell your friends to not understand me wrong:

Jeremiah 5:3-6

יהוה עיניך הלוא לאמונה הכיתה אתם ולא־חלו כליתם מאנו קחת מוסר חזקו פניהם מסלע מאנו לשוב׃
O Lord, are not your eyes upon the truth? you have stricken them, but they have not grieved; you have consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction; they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return.

ואני אמרתי אך־דלים הם נואלו כי לא ידעו דרך יהוה משפט אלהיהם׃
Therefore I said, Surely these are poor; they are foolish; for they know not the way of the Lord, nor the judgment of their God.

אלכה־לי אל־הגדלים ואדברה אותם כי המה ידעו דרך יהוה משפט אלהיהם אך המה יחדו שברו על נתקו מוסרות׃
I will go to the great men, and will speak to them; for they have known the way of the Lord, and the judgment of their God; but they all alike have broken the yoke, and burst the bonds.

על־כן הכם אריה מיער זאב ערבות ישדדם נמר שקד על־עריהם כל־היוצא מהנה יטרף כי רבו פשעיהם עצמו משבותיהם׃
Therefore a lion from the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the deserts shall destroy them, a leopard shall watch over their cities; every one who goes out there shall be torn in pieces; because their transgressions are many, and their apostasies are great.

[tvaeli]

8 hours ago, Ziran said:

Jeremiah 5:3-6

יהוה עיניך הלוא לאמונה הכיתה אתם ולא־חלו כליתם מאנו קחת מוסר חזקו פניהם מסלע מאנו לשוב׃
O Lord, are not your eyes upon the truth? you have stricken them, but they have not grieved; you have consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction; they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return.

ואני אמרתי אך־דלים הם נואלו כי לא ידעו דרך יהוה משפט אלהיהם׃
Therefore I said, Surely these are poor; they are foolish; for they know not the way of the Lord, nor the judgment of their God.

אלכה־לי אל־הגדלים ואדברה אותם כי המה ידעו דרך יהוה משפט אלהיהם אך המה יחדו שברו על נתקו מוסרות׃
I will go to the great men, and will speak to them; for they have known the way of the Lord, and the judgment of their God; but they all alike have broken the yoke, and burst the bonds.

על־כן הכם אריה מיער זאב ערבות ישדדם נמר שקד על־עריהם כל־היוצא מהנה יטרף כי רבו פשעיהם עצמו משבותיהם׃
Therefore a lion from the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the deserts shall destroy them, a leopard shall watch over their cities; every one who goes out there shall be torn in pieces; because their transgressions are many, and their apostasies are great.

Here are a few points:

- This is goal logic shit that you come with your own honour mistakes and tell we also fail seeing this. Real goal logic is way more simple and basic on Capitalist law: we establish our honour in where the belonging is; we choose people by *our* honour. You choose yours - with your honour maybe, for example, a Christian club would do.

- Second, my conspiracy theories are what I told in the beginning, not your blah-blah shit as if you were the topic-setter here to compete your own shit and pervert mind; I said definite sure that I wrote correct, legal, and traditional stories of Idiots such as people who like to get things into Nash algorithm. You are nashing here - you are not answering what I actually said; instead of honour, you say you don't know how to do honour - you count pennies in way smaller game. This is nash.

- People reach your solutions very often. I said them sometimes, that so what if we criticize your plans inside our movements and parties - we are selfish and we want our own spiritual and material gain and go on, and easily exclude your "I don't know how to do honour" from the shit part that "because of this, others cannot exclude me from their honour". They said: I do not know all the background of what my words would actually do, but actually it will become violence for reasons I do not see. I do see violence in my story - I have not denied, if they just physically attack us, maybe we are not up to letting them with their scientific impressions.

 

I said they were in our science-spirit club; I said they have been excluding people based on they are spiritual, or even based on they are material:

- The centrum was able to discuss.

- Honour rule was not some kind of shit little mind like you invents: it was not the most low-class honour rule that "nobody knows a shit about honour". It was not the little nasty rule that "everybody is nash, so we fail it anyway" - the atheist went with this. This was heavy honour rule: based on these scientific discussions, *nobody is getting to be attacked*.

 

I said that if, based on these scientific discussions, people got attacked; real calculations of honour were pervertized to lower form by nash:

- First, people got attacked. You say this is your private information and definitely, if we talk about nash games of attacker: somebody there, is the *personal nash*, the one personally disqualified by stories here. As I told, I do not understand why you are talking about your indirect constitutional or ethical causes - what kind of rights you told? You told some people have rights, because all people have rights? I mean about the attacker who has the private attack? Heart attacks are private and I've seen they are shared with these people, along with insults - how many of this class has passed away in last years, naturally for terms associated with stressors, is so funny thing in Spain; I can see sometimes it's easy to judge - not me but God.

- Second, honour clubs and associations decide their own honour and regime where it holds. For example, in these discussions honour about scientific debates was explicit.

- Finally: you say it's very hard to count honour of people who fire others. You say it's very hard to count honour of people who moved spiritual tax income to materialist and affected outcome of their own. You say I cannot ethically decide *where money belongs*: you are wrong. This topic is mainly about spiritual money, altough you, as in my example story before in this answer, are already on weapons as if people were fighting, little picker aborigenes about a nature-grown tree. Not really, what I say is that we are going to play thermodynamic game of full business strategy to close this money circle - about this "we don't know", the funniest thing is that thermodynamic law will close it explicitly, not as in your naive demagogy as if two sides have to decide who is right - not at all. Capitalism is not about this. Capitalism is that we create our honour club, our pirates take our own money, and we do what the fuck we want about you.

 

Last: that someone does not belong to our club and does not control our taxes is not their personal information. Every failure they do with those two, or other, our things, is our public topic; starting from honour degree: names are also not so secret. Things peole have told in those "scientific debates", if they were mistakes, are not their secret mistakes - secret mistakes, at your home, on your own responsibility, under whatever laws hold on you I don't even ask. Haha.

 

Notice the topic of me is about I said in the main title. That conspirators won't run with our money, as if in belonging.

- And War of the Lord: specifically fucks the nash, leaving the fool unimpressed, unconscious, undirected - as foolish as they wanted to be. You jump around as if you belong to me: you don't.

 

Notice you say Leopards catch me - you try to say it's because you deserve my money. You thing you told it all - I am foolish, I don't know honour, so you come here and take my money, in form of taxes, and talk bullshit about you, because *abstract Nash games are not theory modern civilization must know, but rather a personal insult to entities you know about*.

 

God is a calculation. It's well-playable. He said in the end, we know our nash and carry our cross.

[tvaeli]

Thermodynamics:

- Honour is usually catched when high-rank system runs out of energy.

[tvaeli]

Notize Ziran you failed goal logic:

- I said in honour games we play positive games - rather than Leopards attacking you, you fail rules.

- Leopards play the low game - negative game. Here your presumption of innocence holds way better.

 

If we have established honour in our own, so that our games run on honour:

- We do not want the entry of people who say "nobody knows honour so I want to be here and act for you".

- We do not accept this ethical baseline that "everybody is nash so we do only this one game": I said this rank of honour is automatically off-game.

- Your statement which starts to compare off-games with leopordines is solely a sensory desire.

[tvaeli]

Ziran, not what you said but what you left unsaid:

- You are talking about low minds, not knowing about honour etc.

- You are protecting people who said "these your games are impossible as our life basis, because we are all nash and only capitalism works". I said only cap. works for them and they are this and that honour offgame in ours; I was building theoretical framework of Nash and if you call it "naming the people", it's a second-degree logic - *others* already name.

- *Others*, who are? The ones who don't know our game? They precisely need to understand if they don't have honour, they must take our accusation immediately known that they do not play our games because: we do not want them back with infinity-rank-oriented direction tilted to human goals and personal goals, artefact factors in system which appear to be strong and critical.

 

You take my goal based game, say "there is something behind": this not knowing you say. This not knowing is your own game.

 

Goal based logic states:

- Nobody knows their shit. This is trivial - it's abstract, empty, future oriented. This is not negative statement: entities and operations in goal logic do not work on particulars. So does not work their mathematical doctrine: goal logic is well-established mathematical doctrine and it's axiomatic nobody knows their shit. Only materialist with bible gets confused.

- Thermodynamic, capitalist and wu wei states: we run downstream, and the stream builds up. This is solution to goal logic - altough we don't know, but we remain doing; doing rather than knowing or being is where goal logic runs so that we *do not know* is not important: knowing is about causes and effects, goal logic is about goals and their causes: indeed, doing runs on dao and void and particulars of philosophy are not about knowing, but setting goals. In each game: players separate the games which do not fit; it's not a win-win thinking if you want to stand on "common ground" again, and "count money": statement that if you don't know how much you have, you have infinite gain of infinity - that's what they said.

- Goal logic is computable, well-established, strict mathematical claim with axioms, thesis and theories.

 

Solution:

- We learn the nash games, all types of players, *and the legal framework*. You say we fail the legal framework because you don't know any particular basis, and thus with experience of other domains you need to control our game: ego based gaim in goal logic because nobody knows goal logic, but not all are guilty. But outside the game: why we are just "nobody"? What is the particular possibility of honour when whole team is "nobodys", and "everybody who does not know goal logic" is "playing the game just on what they know": this is a *definition of nash*. Laws make sure we win our game if we are capable, and laws know the solutions to goal logic - action, rather than truth. Every situation, game by game: thermodynamic all above, in form of Holy Spirit, the Goddess Freya, the Mother Nature rather than your unknowns: they settle down and prune.

- We make sure all the laws hold, rather than telling "fundamentally lost the game"; we ensure laws, transparency, and constantly go on about all types of conspiracy theories and other things, building the legal ground for transparency of such games. Statements that this is particularly offending to many, and they must secretly play the correct game which is ensured, are self-destructive, internal decoherence.

- We choose our teams and parties positively, rather than telling it's all single party, we form thermodynamic networks and channel the energy. Statement of "no" is not like presumption of innocence - in money, party right, distribution of power, anti-monopolistic green ocean strategies and long-short equilibria, statement of no comes easy. Ask my money: I say no. I don't reason, but I judge you on goal based logic - not worth this particular penny at my hand unless it's a probabilistic metaphor of money.

[tvaeli]

2 minutes ago, tvaeli said:

Ziran, not what you said but what you left unsaid:

- You are talking about low minds, not knowing about honour etc.

- You are protecting people who said "these your games are impossible as our life basis, because we are all nash and only capitalism works". I said only cap. works for them and they are this and that honour offgame in ours; I was building theoretical framework of Nash and if you call it "naming the people", it's a second-degree logic - *others* already name.

- *Others*, who are? The ones who don't know our game? They precisely need to understand if they don't have honour, they must take our accusation immediately known that they do not play our games because: we do not want them back with infinity-rank-oriented direction tilted to human goals and personal goals, artefact factors in system which appear to be strong and critical.

 

You take my goal based game, say "there is something behind": this not knowing you say. This not knowing is your own game.

 

Goal based logic states:

- Nobody knows their shit. This is trivial - it's abstract, empty, future oriented. This is not negative statement: entities and operations in goal logic do not work on particulars. So does not work their mathematical doctrine: goal logic is well-established mathematical doctrine and it's axiomatic nobody knows their shit. Only materialist with bible gets confused.

- Thermodynamic, capitalist and wu wei states: we run downstream, and the stream builds up. This is solution to goal logic - altough we don't know, but we remain doing; doing rather than knowing or being is where goal logic runs so that we *do not know* is not important: knowing is about causes and effects, goal logic is about goals and their causes: indeed, doing runs on dao and void and particulars of philosophy are not about knowing, but setting goals. In each game: players separate the games which do not fit; it's not a win-win thinking if you want to stand on "common ground" again, and "count money": statement that if you don't know how much you have, you have infinite gain of infinity - that's what they said.

- Goal logic is computable, well-established, strict mathematical claim with axioms, thesis and theories.

 

Solution:

- We learn the nash games, all types of players, *and the legal framework*. You say we fail the legal framework because you don't know any particular basis, and thus with experience of other domains you need to control our game: ego based gaim in goal logic because nobody knows goal logic, but not all are guilty. But outside the game: why we are just "nobody"? What is the particular possibility of honour when whole team is "nobodys", and "everybody who does not know goal logic" is "playing the game just on what they know": this is a *definition of nash*. Laws make sure we win our game if we are capable, and laws know the solutions to goal logic - action, rather than truth. Every situation, game by game: thermodynamic all above, in form of Holy Spirit, the Goddess Freya, the Mother Nature rather than your unknowns: they settle down and prune.

- We make sure all the laws hold, rather than telling "fundamentally lost the game"; we ensure laws, transparency, and constantly go on about all types of conspiracy theories and other things, building the legal ground for transparency of such games. Statements that this is particularly offending to many, and they must secretly play the correct game which is ensured, are self-destructive, internal decoherence.

- We choose our teams and parties positively, rather than telling it's all single party, we form thermodynamic networks and channel the energy. Statement of "no" is not like presumption of innocence - in money, party right, distribution of power, anti-monopolistic green ocean strategies and long-short equilibria, statement of no comes easy. Ask my money: I say no. I don't reason, but I judge you on goal based logic - not worth this particular penny at my hand unless it's a probabilistic metaphor of money.

CoPilot to complete my statement into an f-up article:

 

Ziran: Not What You Said, But What You Left Unsaid

The disagreement is not primarily about particular people, personalities, or accusations.

The disagreement is about the nature of games, goals, knowledge, and honour.

What was left unsaid is that many criticisms of goal-oriented thinking operate from assumptions that are themselves products of a particular game. They treat their game as universal, and every alternative as either impossible or incoherent.

Yet this assumption itself requires examination.

---

Low-Mind Assumptions and Honour

When some claim:

"Only capitalism works."

"Everyone is fundamentally playing Nash strategies."

"Human systems must operate this way."

they are not making neutral observations.

They are already describing a particular class of player.

A player who assumes every interaction reduces to immediate incentives, strategic positioning, and local optimization is already inside a specific game.

The argument was never that all people are evil.

The argument was that different players play different games.

If honour exists, then honour itself represents an alternative game structure.

If long-term commitment exists, it represents another game structure.

If loyalty exists, it represents another game structure.

If civilization builds institutions that transcend individual gain, it represents yet another game structure.

Therefore the statement:

"Everyone is Nash."

describes only those unable to see beyond Nash.

It does not invalidate the existence of higher-order frameworks.

---

The Problem of Second-Degree Logic

A frequent criticism appears in the following form:

"You are naming people."

But often this is second-degree logic.

Others have already defined themselves through their own statements.

When someone openly states:

"Your framework cannot work because humans only maximize personal gain."

they are already identifying the game they are playing.

Recognizing that game is not naming the person.

It is identifying the game.

There is a profound difference.

Goal logic studies games and directions.

It studies orientations toward futures.

It does not require personal attacks.

It requires recognition of structures.

---

Nobody Knows Their Shit

One of the most misunderstood axioms of goal-based logic is simple:

Nobody knows their shit.

This sounds offensive only when interpreted as a statement about intelligence.

It is not.

It is a mathematical statement.

Goals concern futures.

Futures do not yet exist.

Therefore complete knowledge is impossible by definition.

Goal systems operate in the domain of uncertainty.

Actions precede knowledge.

Movement precedes proof.

Exploration precedes certainty.

The statement therefore becomes almost trivial:

No finite entity possesses complete knowledge of the future.

Goal logic does not consider this failure.

Goal logic considers it the normal operating condition.

---

Doing Versus Knowing

Thermodynamic systems do not wait for complete information.

Rivers flow.

Forests grow.

Civilizations develop.

Markets move.

People act.

The future is generated through action.

This relation appears in Daoist thinking, Wu Wei traditions, thermodynamics, evolutionary systems, and practical economics alike.

We do not know completely.

Yet we continue.

The river flows despite uncertainty.

In this sense, doing becomes prior to knowing.

Knowledge concerns causes and effects.

Goal logic concerns goals and the generation of causes.

Action becomes the bridge.

The unknown is not a flaw.

The unknown is the environment in which goals operate.

---

Goal Logic as Formal Doctrine

Goal logic is not merely psychology.

It is not merely philosophy.

It proposes itself as a computable framework.

Like any mathematical system, it begins with axioms.

From axioms emerge propositions.

From propositions emerge theories.

Whether every theorem survives examination is a separate question.

But the structure itself is not destroyed merely because the future cannot be fully known.

In fact, future uncertainty is one of its starting assumptions.

---

The Practical Solution

The practical response is not outrage.

The practical response is competence.

1. Learn Nash Games

Learn incentives.

Learn strategy.

Learn institutions.

Learn every player type.

Learn legal systems.

Learn economics.

Learn negotiation.

Learn the games completely.

Not because all games are Nash.

But because understanding Nash prevents becoming trapped inside it.

2. Preserve the Legal Framework

Claims that a game is hopeless are rarely useful.

Transparency is useful.

Law is useful.

Consistency is useful.

Open systems are useful.

The solution is not secret knowledge.

The solution is building structures where rules can be observed and evaluated.

A coherent system should survive inspection.

3. Build Positive Teams

Reality is not one giant party.

Reality is a network.

People align around goals.

Communities form.

Institutions emerge.

Energy flows through these structures.

Thermodynamic organization appears naturally.

Rather than assuming universal enemies, goal logic seeks compatible paths and compatible partners.

---

The Meaning of "No"

Within goal logic, "no" is not primarily a statement of hostility.

It is selection.

A finite entity has finite energy.

Finite attention.

Finite time.

Finite resources.

Therefore rejection is unavoidable.

Someone asks for money.

The answer may be no.

Someone asks for participation.

The answer may be no.

Someone asks for influence.

The answer may be no.

This refusal does not require infinite justification.

Goal-oriented systems continuously allocate energy toward chosen futures.

The question is not whether something is objectively true.

The question is whether it advances the selected direction.

---

Conclusion

The core disagreement is not between knowledge and ignorance.

It is between two ways of viewing reality.

One treats truth as primary and goals as secondary.

The other treats goals as primary and accepts uncertainty as fundamental.

Under the first view, certainty is the ideal.

Under the second view, action is the ideal.

The future is never fully known.

Games are never fully mapped.

Players are never fully understood.

Yet rivers continue flowing, civilizations continue forming, and decisions continue being made.

Goal logic begins precisely there:

not with certainty,

but with direction.

[Ziran]

On 10/15/2026 at 0:41 AM, tvaeli said:

This is goal logic shit that you come with your own honour mistakes and tell we also fail seeing this.

You asked me to:  "tell your friends to not understand me wrong."  That's what I did.

On 10/15/2026 at 0:41 AM, tvaeli said:

my conspiracy theories are what I told in the beginning, not your blah-blah shit as if you were the topic-setter here

See above.  You asked me to:  "tell your friends to not understand me wrong."  If that's not what you want, then, I can revoke it.  Just tell me what you want, and I will try to help.

On 10/15/2026 at 0:41 AM, tvaeli said:

if we criticize your plans inside our movements and parties - we are selfish and we want our own spiritual and material gain and go on

That's not my impression.  To this reader, I'm seeing a "knee-jerk-reaction" when challenged.  It's natural and normal.  Everyone does it. 

On 10/15/2026 at 1:23 AM, tvaeli said:

Nobody knows their shit. This is trivial - it's abstract, empty, future oriented. This is not negative statement: entities and operations in goal logic do not work on particulars. So does not work their mathematical doctrine: goal logic is well-established mathematical doctrine and it's axiomatic nobody knows their shit. Only materialist with bible gets confused.

Agreed, with at least one exception:  When the future goal is trying to explain "why is it so?" and attempts to show it, regardless of how much evidence is provided, the questioning "why?" is necessarily casting one's awareness backwards into the past, not forward into the future. 

I hope you know with confidence, you are not conversating with a materialist.

I have an appointment starting soon.  I endeavor to review the remaining comments later today.  If not, by Sunday PST at the latest.

Blessings and best wishes, Sincerely,

Ziran

[tvaeli]

18 hours ago, Ziran said:

You asked me to:  "tell your friends to not understand me wrong."  That's what I did.

See above.  You asked me to:  "tell your friends to not understand me wrong."  If that's not what you want, then, I can revoke it.  Just tell me what you want, and I will try to help.

That's not my impression.  To this reader, I'm seeing a "knee-jerk-reaction" when challenged.  It's natural and normal.  Everyone does it. 

Agreed, with at least one exception:  When the future goal is trying to explain "why is it so?" and attempts to show it, regardless of how much evidence is provided, the questioning "why?" is necessarily casting one's awareness backwards into the past, not forward into the future. 

I hope you know with confidence, you are not conversating with a materialist.

I have an appointment starting soon.  I endeavor to review the remaining comments later today.  If not, by Sunday PST at the latest.

Blessings and best wishes, Sincerely,

Ziran

If business fails, sometimes it just fails:

- Nobody could explain me.

 

In normal theory, going on each with their own lives, and looking at new horizons. Buddhism.

 

LaegnaPhysics/ProgrammingMatters/AlgorithmConsciousness.md at main · tambetvali/LaegnaPhysics - just randomly, I was also working on flower of life these days:

- It's quite relevantly visible in my math, as wave phase 1.5 as I call it - 1.5 in classic math cannot show it so clearly.

- Altough it's not very related to jewish mysticism.

- So much about the jeopordism. If mythically, God always presents this image: then I had to see God in four-digit numbers.

 

Just to show I am actually doing better things than looking for conspiracies.

[tvaeli]

LaGOS-Physics-Laegna/Lagenesis at main · tambetvali/LaGOS-Physics-Laegna - this is the flower of life.

- Notice I use base-4 system but I show how the phase 2 would look like flower of life *externally*.

Edited Saturday at 10:36 AM by tvaeli

[Ziran]

9 hours ago, tvaeli said:

If business fails, sometimes it just fails:

- Nobody could explain me.

Well, if it "just fails", that's due to chaos which is inherent and woven tightly within the material construct.  Nothing here is perfect, with one and only one exception:  The one which is distinguishing between perfect-and-not.

It's a simple concept.  I would be very much surprised if it's not easily understood.  Perhaps you disagree, but at this point, I hope we agree, it would be false to claim that "Nobody could explain it to you."  

9 hours ago, tvaeli said:

In normal theory, going on each with their own lives, and looking at new horizons. Buddhism.

Buddhism in a nutshell:  "The journey is the destination."  "The question is the answer."

Do we agree?

9 hours ago, tvaeli said:

LaegnaPhysics/ProgrammingMatters/AlgorithmConsciousness.md at main · tambetvali/LaegnaPhysics - just randomly, I was also working on flower of life these days:

Beautiful.  As an aside, if "random", as a concept is included within your awareness, perhaps apply that to the circumstances where a business "just fails" without any other obvious causes?

Another analogy which fits, imo, is a fractal, which is "blossoming".  

9 hours ago, tvaeli said:

Altough it's not very related to jewish mysticism.

- So much about the jeopordism. If mythically, God always presents this image: then I had to see God in four-digit numbers.

Friend, with the highest respect and genuine affection.  Fours ARE infinite within Jewish mysticism.  It was discussed at last night's Sabbath meal.  I could go on and on about it, but, there's no need.  Because.  The patterns which were discovered by the Jewish mystics were discovered by many others, cross cultures, and geo-independent.  Just as they have been "discovered" by yourself, in your own research.

"Discovered" is in quotes because, eternal truths are not discovered... they are remembered.  Because.  An eternal truth exists beyond the material, beyond any beginnings, and beyond any endings.  They are neither limited by time nor space.  Therefore, their truth within your consciousness also has no beginnings and no endings.  And this explains the profound and unique satisfaction within the heart and mind when they, the eternal truths, are brought forward within the "mind's eye", for lack of better words. 

It's remembering that-which-has-always-been-known.  Even if, on this timeline, in this material realm, the learning of it may happen in the distant future.  The knowing of it precedes that future event in the material timeline.

This is known as "scholastic magic" in Jewish mysticism, very few pay attention to it, but, almost everyone will experience it sooner or later.

9 hours ago, tvaeli said:

Just to show I am actually doing better things than looking for conspiracies.

... You're doing the Lord's work. Just keep going.  It's written, in the episode where Jacob is dreaming of the heavenly ladder, the angels are going -up, then down, up then down.  Their nexus is the lowest, for the purpose of ascension.   From this it's taught:  "The highest ladder, necessarily, descends into the lowest-of-the-low."  Just keep going.  Be encouraged.  You can and will succeed.  

9 hours ago, tvaeli said:

Notice I use base-4 system but I show how the phase 2 would look like flower of life *externally*.

The math is beyond this-reader's comprehension.  Which is not a flaw, it's a feature!  ... for bringing out heartfelt awe in conjunction with intellectual wonder.  And with those metaphorical wings, we can soar together.  Not in unison, instead in harmony.

Blessings and best wishes,

Edited Saturday at 07:42 PM by Ziran
... typos

[tvaeli]

Here are some facts about worldwide conspiracies.

Neutral discussion around worldwide conspiracies makes people jump up and down and go mad as if everyone was discussing it madly; looking at calm people who count their own money, and the ones which come with *answers*, there is conspiracy behind.

Looking how I discuss science, spirituality, *with Zen calm*

- Absolutely always, days later it's even hard to discuss it because people are panicking, asking whether this one is now about money and instant free riches. All the AI's have finished discussing math and science - is this 2+2=4 gives answer that this money is not there. I REPEAT THIS IS A MATH QUESTION I tell to AI as pure Zen logic: it explain me that the money which is near this solution, really is not so fast and free. I SAID I WANT ANSWER NOT MONEY and it tells that do not go mad, don't run around talking nonsense about money to people. I say I specifically have this disclaimer in my text; but the pattern has that people should not think about this money and sex so much.

This is *proof* of international conspiracy of idiots.

For example, hot and important topics are immortality and truth, and mental relations and so on.
- I am absolutely calm. I am calmer than ice if I am offered immortality, or not. I like to study this, science as any other - spending the same effort and time there as all other topics, and it goes on;
- I must admit there is conspiracy of fools because I cannot write quite the same way. Idiots come telling "give these riches to me now I don't leave them to you taken away from me"; united cooperation for money - I write it down and a man comes telling he wants that earning part, but others (supposed to cooperate and make it) will not come any; he expresses also that this kind of discoveries are his, telling the version of his own money and looking me with heavy pressure to stop me associating my thing with my name. It's *impossible* to get the topic to actual good things people can do to raise their incomes - instead, an angry man who thinks I am 99% club idiot tells me about no money, while I am not speaking in money but that these things would definitely make this and that more efficient.

 

The global conspiracy:

- Not very visible most directly in this sense;

- but rather, that simple topics make people come back, tell you offered something etc.

 

For example if immortality would exist with probability 1%:
- For me it would be very nice to study it.

- For most people would crazily accuse me in crimes they saw in people who heard that; crimes not related to me.

- For the last group I deliberately want to exclude; *that I mentioned this possibility* already *is* - the "example 1%" is already where they start lurking here and "associating" me with immortality <=> 1%; they want to hide what could be got, very intensely ask whether "that" is there, and pressure people with telling the estimations and unknowns, or their own story back.

For example this post did not say anything about immortality, at all:
- The conspiracy is proven by case that most people *do see* argument about immortality.

Finally there does not exist implication immortality => your hard work and suicide. There does not exist relation I am sensitive => others get fast easy money. There exist interesting topics, matters, paradigms:
- The case of idiot conspiracy is that with only science, only interest, no promise - I promise nothing but pressured people *want to know again whether I promised*, they want to be disappointed again if not. For example - I see trivially, this message said nothing about immortality, but the fear expectation I have already points there are people who would like to densely stand here, with their tought feelings in these matters.

---

I asked ChatGPT for BBCode follow-up; which is a rewrite of my post again:

 

The International Conspiracy of Idiots: When Scientific Curiosity Becomes a Social Projection

I want to clarify a distinction that seems surprisingly difficult to maintain in discussions of mathematics, science, and hypothetical possibilities.

1. Scientific interest is not a promise

A person can study immortality, mathematical relations, mental phenomena, or potentially useful discoveries without promising that any particular result exists or will become practical.

For example, suppose immortality had a hypothetical probability of 1%. I would find that possibility interesting to study. I would not conclude that immortality exists, that anyone should change their life around it, or that anyone owes me anything because I mentioned it.

The same principle applies to mathematics and technology. A result can be interesting because of its implications for efficiency, understanding, or further research. That does not mean it produces instant riches or guarantees any particular outcome.

2. The distinction between a question and its imagined consequences

Consider the elementary mathematical statement 2 + 2 = 4. Discussing its correctness does not require a discussion about money. Similarly, studying a mathematical relationship that might have practical applications does not automatically make those applications the subject of the discussion.

Yet I repeatedly encounter reactions in which the original subject becomes secondary to imagined rewards, fears, accusations, or demands.

I may explicitly state that I am discussing mathematics rather than promising money. Nevertheless, the conversation can return to whether money is available, whether someone will get rich, or whether a discovery must be hidden or claimed by someone else.

This is a failure to distinguish the actual statement from the expectations attached to it.

3. Cooperation requires more than wanting the benefits

There is another problem when a potentially useful idea is discussed.

Someone may become interested in the benefits, claim an entitlement to the profitable part, or pressure the original researcher to stop associating the work with their own name. Yet the people demanding the benefits may contribute neither the work nor the resources required to develop the idea.

That is not productive cooperation.

If an idea has practical value, the appropriate questions concern its validity, limitations, implementation, evidence, attribution, and fair collaboration. The possibility of benefit does not establish ownership, and enthusiasm about a potential reward does not substitute for doing the work.

4. The social pattern I am criticizing

I use the expression “conspiracy of idiots” to describe a perceived social pattern, not to claim that I have established the existence of a coordinated international organization.

The pattern is that people repeatedly project their own fears, desires, and expectations onto discussions that do not actually contain the promises they attribute to them.

A simple topic can attract attention precisely because people imagine that something extraordinary is hidden behind it. They return to ask whether the extraordinary possibility is real, become dissatisfied when no promise is made, and sometimes treat the absence of a promise as though a promise had been broken.

This can happen without any actual conspiracy. Similar reactions may arise independently through shared assumptions, incentives, social imitation, or misunderstandings.

The distinction matters: observing a recurring reaction is evidence of a social phenomenon worth investigating, but it does not, by itself, prove deliberate coordination.

5. Calmness is not evidence of a hidden agenda

My approach to these subjects is deliberately calm. I can study immortality, truth, mathematics, spirituality, or potentially useful mental relations with the same scientific curiosity I bring to ordinary subjects.

I do not need to become excited, frightened, or financially motivated simply because a topic has extraordinary implications.

Nor does mentioning a possibility establish that I am promising it, pursuing it at any cost, or asking other people to organize their lives around it.

A person's emotional reaction to a hypothesis is not evidence that the hypothesis is true. Equally, another person's calmness does not prove that they are concealing something.

The appropriate response is to examine what was actually stated.

6. Do not confuse the subject with the audience's expectations

There is no general implication that immortality requires abandoning ordinary work, that scientific curiosity requires self-destruction, or that someone's sensitivity automatically means others will obtain quick and effortless money.

These are separate propositions. Each requires its own argument and evidence.

When I discuss a scientific possibility, I want to discuss the possibility itself: the assumptions, the mathematics, the uncertainties, and the possible implications. I do not want the conversation to be replaced by an imagined story about wealth, sex, fear, crime, or personal entitlement.

If a text does not promise immortality, its author should not be treated as though such a promise had been made. If a text discusses mathematics, it should not automatically be interpreted as a coded financial offer.

7. A principle for future discussions

Let us distinguish three things:

• [] What is stated: the actual mathematical, scientific, or philosophical claim.
  [] What follows: the conclusions that can logically be derived from the claim, given its assumptions.
• What is imagined: the expectations, fears, accusations, and personal interests that readers attach to it.
  

These categories can overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

I welcome criticism, counterarguments, mathematical verification, scientific evidence, and honest discussion of practical applications. I do not require anyone to believe an extraordinary hypothesis merely because I am willing to study it.

My position is simple: a possibility is a subject for investigation, not a promise; an implication is something to demonstrate, not something to assume; and an imagined consequence is not a fact about the person discussing the subject.

Let us return to the actual question instead of repeatedly inventing a different one.

[tvaeli]

For example:

 

1. In medievial times, sensitives told their work is useful to others.

This raised matters that others believed it was useful.

Today, science has figured out it was not useful for those people at all.

Therefore, I only talk such things emphasizing that they are not necessarily useful.

Problem: people pretend I was talking of such usefulness in terms of such relations, such as neuroflexibility to develop more sensitive brain patterns.
Maximum problem: other people think I asked money, and associate this with older tradition where payment was normal.
Reality: me, and everybody with me, declines to give any spiritual promise or help to people who have not worked to realistic assessment of benefit, and we naturally exclude any person who wants to ask whether it helps them to survive.

2. In medievial times, sensitives asked money for their work.

Problem: it's very hard to talk without people pretending you ask money.

Me, and my friends, decline all such money clearly as a crime. It's criminal activity to think such money must move here.

No person has no right to offer or give me any money without having the precise, clear basin.

The tradition is not that sensitives get money, or people like me who study many things related to this;

- The tradition is that as this money has been penaltized, we reject all such people who come to buy their soul free if this is not scientific and clear.

Maximum problem:
- People still project that they provide decent help, and talk about theories as if such things were actually supported with real money from 3rd parties.

This is highly illegal, proof of conspiracy of fools, to associate yourself with money-giver parties which do not exist, and run with their historic failures.

Anybody who does not have scientific, clear basin about what we are doing, what costs, how much and why, or who cannot guarantee full responsibility on their input, is naturally excluded.
> We can see common idiot *still* managed to be kind of with us, imagining their payments and losses and dreams they could not fulfill, while we blocked it all - the gift, the premise, the promise from our side.

3. In medievial times, spirituality was distributed money - one went to meditate in forest, not as part of traditional organization, and people helped them.

Many people associate.

Logic is more simple:
- Sensitive money is considered bad: that people gave them money seems to these people as offence.
- This means we have conspired against people who started to move to look like helpers, and made sure all their money is rechanneled back to their own streams, for whatever reason they want to build illusion of payment.

Notice:
- Every self-couraged monetary input is heavily illegal in case you are working on giving it importance and wanting proofs, in any sector which has not openly provided proof in real, scientific form.

- For every reasoned payment, the science can measure the general tracks, not necessarily the same matter.

- For every blind protected by others, it's illegal to assume others make grand plans when they just look, little like this: a spying for good things. They can have good things in their own paradigm - you won't. It's bad also if eyes even look.

- The people who learnt historic stereotype lessons about why such money was lost; must not come to join the seeming innovation wave with support to sensitives. What relation to me where sensitive = person who studies spiritual material, uses it; I do not want to hear their nice plans from the past we seem to fulfill - they have no right to expect. They were told they are losers who won nothing so they must not come to learn this from science - winner can only be the realist, who can learn and read, but not fear and hope. People who want to inject fears and hopes, also inject our illegal conditions.

This is a conspiracy. Conspiracy of looking into eyes, trying to see things related to good and bad, your well-being, while others do things which exist - not good and bad, but each thing on the way.

---

 

The Inherited Contract That Never Existed: Spiritual Authority, Scientific Evidence, and Imaginary Payments

The problem is not merely that people misunderstand scientific discussions. A deeper problem arises when historical expectations are silently imported into a modern investigation, as if the researcher had agreed to an old social contract simply by studying a related subject.

I want to distinguish three things that are repeatedly confused: the historical role of sensitive or spiritual people, the scientific assessment of what their practices actually accomplish, and the expectations that other people attach to someone who studies similar subjects today.

1. Historical usefulness is not scientific usefulness

In earlier societies, people sometimes believed that spiritual practitioners, healers, mystics, or other sensitive individuals provided benefits to their communities. Such beliefs could influence how those individuals were treated, supported, or rewarded.

But a historical belief that something was useful does not establish that it was useful in the claimed way.

Modern scientific inquiry asks different questions. What was actually accomplished? What can be measured? Which effects can be reproduced? What alternative explanations exist? Which benefits, if any, are supported by evidence?

Consider a hypothetical claim about practices that might influence neuroplasticity, attention, or the development of different patterns of mental activity. The scientific question is whether a particular practice produces a measurable effect, under what conditions, and with what limitations.

The answer cannot be established merely by calling somebody sensitive, invoking an old tradition, or assuming that a practice must help its participants.

My position is therefore deliberately limited: I can study these matters without claiming that they are necessarily useful to anyone.

2. Studying a possibility does not establish a duty to help

There is a significant difference between investigating a practice and offering it as a service.

A researcher may investigate meditation, mental flexibility, spirituality, or unusual human experiences without promising that these subjects will improve another person's life.

In particular, a hypothesis about a possible mental effect does not establish that a practice can help someone survive, overcome a serious problem, or achieve a particular personal outcome.

Those are separate claims that require appropriate evidence.

I do not want readers to infer a promise of help from my willingness to investigate a possibility. Nor should anybody be encouraged to depend on an unverified practice when making important decisions about their welfare.

3. The imaginary payment problem

Historical traditions also included arrangements in which practitioners received money, gifts, or other forms of support. The existence of such arrangements tells us something about historical societies; it does not create an obligation for a modern researcher to reproduce them.

Nevertheless, discussing subjects associated with those traditions can lead readers to assume that a payment is expected, that somebody is offering a service, or that a financial arrangement exists behind the discussion.

This confuses historical association with present consent.

A person discussing spirituality is not thereby requesting money. A person investigating a potentially useful idea is not thereby selling a treatment. A person describing a mathematical or scientific possibility is not thereby promising financial benefits.

My position is that no financial arrangement should be presumed. Any legitimate arrangement must be explicit, voluntary, lawful, and based on a clear understanding of what is being provided, what it costs, and what is actually supported by evidence.

There is no invisible contract created by a topic, a tradition, or another person's expectations.

4. Neither a gift nor a promise should be invented on my behalf

Money can create expectations even when no payment has been requested. Someone may imagine that they are supporting a promising project, that they are entitled to a future benefit, or that their contribution establishes a personal relationship with the researcher.

Those expectations must not be confused with an actual agreement.

A gift is not automatically an investment. An investment is not automatically a donation. A donation does not establish ownership of someone else's work. And none of these arrangements should be invented after the fact.

Likewise, a person cannot manufacture a promise by repeatedly asking whether one was made.

If a financial relationship exists, it should be documented honestly. If it does not exist, nobody should be represented as a financial supporter, beneficiary, partner, or creditor merely because the subject appears promising.

I reject the assumption that studying a subject creates a financial obligation or entitlement.

5. The difference between support and scientific evidence

There is another important distinction: the difference between a person who genuinely supports research and a person who merely imagines that support, or its consequences, exist.

Scientific claims need evidence appropriate to the claims being made. Financial claims need evidence of the actual financial arrangement. Claims about collaboration need evidence of actual participation and agreed responsibilities.

These forms of evidence are not interchangeable.

Someone's enthusiasm does not demonstrate a scientific effect. A historical account of donations does not establish a present financial relationship. An imagined sponsor does not become a real sponsor because somebody describes the project as though it were funded.

If an arrangement exists, it can be examined on its own terms. If it does not, there is nothing legitimate to infer from it.

The same principle applies to allegations of hidden coordination. Repeated misunderstandings, shared assumptions, and similar reactions can be investigated as social phenomena, but they do not by themselves prove an organized conspiracy.

6. The observer is not automatically a participant

People may observe a project, read about an idea, or become interested in its possible implications. None of those actions automatically makes them a collaborator, financial supporter, beneficiary, or authority over the work.

Observation is not ownership. Interest is not participation. Reading is not an agreement. And being reminded of a historical tradition does not establish that the present researcher is fulfilling that tradition.

The same distinction applies to people who approach an emerging field with their own fears and hopes. They may have understandable reasons for being interested, but their expectations do not define the researcher's intentions.

A person can investigate spirituality without becoming somebody else's spiritual authority. A person can study mental phenomena without offering treatment. A person can investigate economic implications without soliciting money.

7. Why the old stereotype can obstruct new knowledge

Historical stereotypes can influence how people interpret new ideas. Some may expect a spiritual practitioner to offer healing, guidance, or reassurance. Others may expect such a practitioner to demand payment. Still others may believe that a promising discovery must produce extraordinary rewards.

When these expectations are imported into a scientific discussion, the original question can disappear.

Instead of examining a hypothesis, people argue about an imagined service. Instead of testing a mathematical relationship, they discuss an assumed reward. Instead of asking what evidence exists, they ask whether the researcher has fulfilled a role that the researcher never accepted.

This makes it harder to distinguish a genuine discovery from a traditional belief, a useful technique from an ineffective one, and an actual agreement from an imagined obligation.

New research should be allowed to answer these questions rather than being forced into predetermined historical roles.

8. Realism is neither fear nor hope

A realistic approach does not require assuming that every unusual idea is worthless. Nor does it require assuming that every interesting possibility will succeed.

It requires keeping possibilities, probabilities, evidence, and conclusions separate.

A person may study a hypothesis because it is intellectually interesting. They may investigate whether it has practical applications. They may discover that it works, that it works only under limited conditions, or that the original hypothesis was incorrect.

All three outcomes can be legitimate results of research.

The scientific process does not become less valuable because a possibility fails. Equally, the mere possibility of success does not justify promising benefits in advance.

I would rather investigate a question honestly than offer somebody an emotionally satisfying answer that the evidence cannot support.

9. My position on participation and responsibility

Anyone who wants to participate in a project should be able to understand the actual work, the proposed contribution, the relevant costs, the limits of the evidence, and the responsibilities involved.

Financial arrangements must be real and transparent. Scientific claims must be open to examination. Collaboration must be based on actual contributions and clear agreements. Nobody should be pressured into accepting an unsupported promise, and nobody should be permitted to invent an obligation on another person's behalf.

Where these conditions cannot be met, it is reasonable to decline the proposed arrangement or exclude it from the project.

That is not a rejection of scientific curiosity, nor is it a declaration that every person with different expectations is acting maliciously. It is a refusal to substitute assumptions for explicit agreements and evidence.

10. The broader principle: no inherited contract

The central problem across both of my earlier discussions is the same.

First, people may associate an interesting scientific possibility with an extraordinary promise. Then they may associate the promise with a historical tradition. Finally, they may treat the imagined promise as the basis for financial expectations, personal demands, accusations, or claims of entitlement.

But every step requires independent justification.

Studying immortality does not promise immortality. Studying spirituality does not promise spiritual assistance. Investigating neuroplasticity does not establish that a practice will improve somebody's mental abilities. Studying economic efficiency does not guarantee anyone a profit. And discussing any of these subjects does not, by itself, establish a financial relationship.

Conclusion

I am interested in investigating ideas, examining relationships, and understanding what can be established through mathematics, science, and careful reasoning.

I do not need to promise extraordinary results to justify that interest. I do not need to reproduce historical arrangements to investigate historically associated subjects. And I do not accept an invisible contract created by somebody else's interpretation of my work.

The appropriate questions remain straightforward:

• [] What exactly is being claimed?
  [] What evidence supports the claim?
  [] What remains uncertain?
  [] What has actually been offered or agreed upon?
• Who has actually contributed, and what responsibilities have they accepted?
  

These questions apply equally to science, spirituality, money, and collaboration.

No promise should be inferred from a possibility. No payment should be presumed from a discussion. No benefit should be claimed without appropriate evidence. And no historical stereotype should be allowed to replace an actual agreement.

The purpose of research is to find out what is true, not to make other people's hopes, fears, or imagined contracts come true.

[tvaeli]

There is another measure for conspiracy of fools:

The number of people which make me feel pressured, if article which starts from mention that it's a "draft work", uncompleted or open;

- Then the number of people who get disappointed because it contains a biased or possibly biased statement or fact.
- Especially the number which knows this only from my own mood or statements.
- The number of people which complain about things missing or open in my work, which are mentioned in docs or even the very same intro.

For example I made clear notice that my audience indeed, is my own; that I am not selling a product; that it contains spiritual and scientific data:
- The number of people who read hypothesis which is claimed to be hypothesis, and start a standard, emotional, arguing tone telling it's a hypothesis, as if their world was broken. They are especially conspirators where they tend to topics which provide for their fears and hopes, projecting those two and trying to reload the topic.
- The people who are telling me this and that reason why they don't read me. I say I am not a sales office and I do not expect them to read. They are as accusative about that they don't read, don't understand, i.e.
- My work openly constains spiritual and scientific data. It presents hypothesis like hypothesis, gives the historic background, different positions. The idiot conspirators (conspiration: discussing it to others, i.e. mathforum org told me they *all* decided not to read me, angrily: conspiration was the *expectation that I am obligued that they read and understood*). The part which in my work is documented, confirmed, and repeated to be spiritual; and which also contains and mentions the scientific doubts and histories - is then attacked telling this is spiritual, not scientific, and there are doubts and histories. This kind of double-idiot, behaving like protecting other idiots who come with *fears and hopes*, in anti-zen, are somehow *social with me*, somehow *belonging*. I cannot explain a man who is angry and pissed off for not reading me, and complaining on not understanding, that he is not welcome to my club: as if I was a salesman, or as if I got anything more than zero euros and pissed off statements, almost like client who already paid - doing some moves and sounds of their grand-grand-grand-grandmother who probably brought rice to a praying monk or something: they move like this, point at this money, and angrily tell I could not sell it.

I am not salesman. I am nobody for them. I only want friends and I NEVER want to hope a man who is pissed off, in first place, at first moment, that I did not help them. YET they come and AGAIN, it's like in our lives something depends on each other: people who yell that this spiritual thing is not making them unpaid rich and immortal; people when explained that it's a mental work and symbolic system YELL AGAIN it's not 1000€ and their material work would be worth more ..telling them again they have to do their material work, nobody hired them and nobody found an ultimate solution they are even more angry telling it's not sold to them, the final right thing and it's not even 1000€.

These are people with their survival problems, coming to others and somehow ..it looks like they did something, like something was planned for them, like something had to be somehow better, like they are asked for things they cannot do and not provided what is..

..this is the conspiracy of fools. It's not so necessarily cooperation but rather:
- It's conscious cooperation in this sense: one must clearly and consciously separate and discriminate this thing for others, who just want to have some fun, discuss interesting ideas, and who do not necessarily end up in prison because in story of immortality, it for example turned out that really, the given medicament would reduce stress or something.

It's the low box nash people:
- We do big things, like talking about science. No gain, just talk.
- Others come, they catch these topics, make insults, appear needy, appear belonging, lonely, unloved; yet proud, angry and aggressive. Slowly it turns out what they want, what they did not get; then it becomes evident that they were kind of promised this, that they were understood and *now* the thing, again, needs to be available - after numerous explanations that most probably, either it does not exists or it costs a lot, or it would be funny that not everybody already has it. If they had cheap, material and reliable immortality, which does not also mess it all up - it would be cheap. If it's not, it's not cheap just because one, other, man also came to learn about it.

---

 

The Draft Is Not a Contract: Open Research, Imaginary Audiences, and the Low-Box Nash Trap

There is another way to measure what I call the “conspiracy of fools”: observe how people react when a work explicitly identifies itself as a draft, an open investigation, an incomplete document, or a collection of hypotheses.

The relevant measure is not simply how many people disagree with the author. Disagreement is a normal and often productive part of research.

The measure is how many people react as though the author had broken an obligation that was never made.

1. The draft disclaimer test

Suppose an article begins by explaining that it is unfinished, that its hypotheses may be biased, or that some conclusions remain uncertain.

Now consider several reactions:

• [] People become angry because the article contains a hypothesis rather than an established fact.
  [] People become disappointed because a draft does not contain a complete answer.
  [] People complain that something is missing even though the introduction explicitly identifies the work as incomplete.
  [] People infer promises, intentions, or expectations from the author's mood rather than from what the author actually wrote.
• People criticize the author for failing to provide material that the documentation already identifies as available elsewhere.
  

None of these reactions automatically proves bad faith. Readers can miss disclaimers, disagree about the quality of a draft, or reasonably criticize unclear writing.

The important distinction is whether criticism addresses an actual deficiency or invents an obligation that the work never accepted.

A draft can be incomplete without being dishonest. A hypothesis can be uncertain without being deceptive. An open research project can contain mistakes without promising that every mistake has already been eliminated.

2. A hypothesis is not a broken promise

One of the most revealing reactions occurs when a reader encounters a statement explicitly labeled as a hypothesis and responds emotionally by announcing that it is only a hypothesis.

That observation may be correct, but it does not refute the work.

If I write that something is a hypothesis, and a reader responds that it has not been established as fact, we have not necessarily disagreed. The reader may simply be repeating the qualification already present in the text.

A substantive objection would explain why the hypothesis is implausible, identify an unsupported assumption, provide a counterexample, or propose a better model.

The difference is between evaluating an idea and reacting to the mere existence of uncertainty.

Science depends on that difference. A hypothesis is a proposition to investigate, not a guarantee that the investigation has already succeeded.

3. The author defines the scope of the work

My work openly combines scientific, mathematical, historical, philosophical, and spiritual material. It may describe established results, historical beliefs, speculative hypotheses, symbolic interpretations, and scientific objections within the same broader project.

These categories should not be confused.

A spiritual interpretation does not become an established scientific result merely because it appears beside mathematical material. Conversely, the presence of spiritual material does not automatically invalidate a mathematical argument that can be evaluated independently.

A responsible reading distinguishes the type of statement being made, the evidence offered for it, and the limits explicitly acknowledged by the author.

If a document says that a section is spiritual, it is not a discovery to announce that the section is spiritual. If it identifies scientific doubts, those doubts are not proof that the author concealed uncertainty. If it labels a proposition as hypothetical, its hypothetical status is not evidence of deception.

The actual question is whether the distinctions are clear and whether the claims are justified within their stated scope.

4. The imaginary customer

I am not running a sales office for people who have not chosen to become my audience.

My work is available for people who find it interesting. It is not an individualized promise that every reader will receive an answer, obtain a benefit, or discover a solution to a personal problem.

Yet a peculiar social role can emerge when people approach an open project as though they were customers.

They complain that they have not received an adequate result. They announce that they do not read the work, do not understand it, or do not accept its conclusions, while treating these facts as accusations against the author. They demand answers to questions that the documentation already identifies as unresolved, or expect a speculative project to deliver a finished practical outcome.

The implied relationship is strange: someone declines to participate in the work but behaves as if the author had already accepted responsibility for satisfying them.

A person who has not purchased anything is not automatically a customer. More importantly, even a paying customer is entitled only to what was actually agreed upon, not to every result they can imagine.

5. The audience that insists it is not an audience

There is a difference between declining to read something and demanding that the author answer for what it contains.

Nobody is obliged to read my work. Nobody has to join my community, accept my hypotheses, or share my interests.

But this freedom works in both directions.

If someone chooses not to read a document, that choice does not establish that the author failed to communicate every detail to that person. If someone does not understand an argument, the appropriate next step is to identify the relevant passage, request clarification, or offer a substantive objection.

A person may criticize a publicly available work without reading every page. However, claims about what the entire work contains should be proportionate to what the person has actually examined.

The contradiction arises when someone insists on not participating while simultaneously treating their nonparticipation as a debt owed by the author.

6. The historical ghost of the unpaid service

Some of these expectations may be influenced by older social arrangements in which religious or spiritual practitioners received donations, offered guidance, or were expected to perform community roles.

But a historical association does not establish a modern agreement.

Someone who studies meditation is not automatically a spiritual adviser. Someone who investigates a mental technique does not automatically offer treatment. Someone who discusses immortality as a hypothetical scientific problem does not promise to provide it.

The fact that a historical practitioner might have received food, money, or support does not establish that a modern researcher has requested anything similar.

Nor does the appearance of a topic create a duty to solve the reader's personal problems.

If somebody wants a service, the actual service must be identified. If payment is involved, the terms must be clear. If a scientific benefit is claimed, the evidence must be appropriate to that claim.

Without those distinctions, the reader is not responding to an agreement. They are importing one from their own expectations.

7. The survival expectation

The pattern becomes especially difficult when an abstract discussion is interpreted through someone's urgent personal needs.

Imagine a discussion about immortality, stress reduction, mental flexibility, or an unconventional scientific hypothesis. A reader may become interested because they hope the subject will help them overcome a difficult situation.

That interest is understandable.

The problem begins when interest silently becomes expectation, and expectation becomes an accusation that the author failed to deliver.

There is no logical implication that a discussion of immortality promises immortality, that a discussion of stress guarantees relief, or that a mathematical model provides an immediately available solution to someone's material difficulties.

If a medicine is being considered, its safety and efficacy must be assessed. If a technique is being considered, its actual effects must be investigated. If a theoretical model has no demonstrated application, that limitation must remain visible.

A person's need does not turn an unverified possibility into a reliable service.

The more important the potential outcome, the more important it becomes to distinguish hope from evidence.

8. The low-box Nash trap

I use “low-box Nash” as a name for a particular interaction pattern, not as a formal theorem in game theory.

In this pattern, one group engages in intellectual exploration without promising a reward. Another group enters the discussion with expectations that have not been agreed upon.

The interaction may develop as follows:

• [] The researchers explore difficult ideas, mathematics, science, or philosophy.
  [] Other people encounter the subjects and associate them with possible benefits.
  [] Some of those people become emotionally invested in the imagined benefits without contributing to the research.
  [] Their expectations become personal demands, complaints, or accusations.
• The original researchers are pressured to answer for promises they never made.
  

The resulting interaction can be costly even when no money changes hands. It consumes attention, creates conflict, and diverts effort from the actual investigation.

In game-theoretic terms, it is useful to examine the incentives and strategies of the participants. But calling this a Nash equilibrium would require specifying the players, their available strategies, their payoffs, and the conditions under which no player benefits from changing strategy unilaterally.

The label is therefore a conceptual shorthand for a social trap, not a mathematical proof that every participant behaves this way.

The essential asymmetry is that one party contributes work while another treats the possible outcome as though it were already owed.

9. Why the disclaimers must remain meaningful

A disclaimer is not an excuse for every possible error. Authors remain responsible for presenting their work honestly, correcting known mistakes, and avoiding misleading claims.

However, a disclaimer must also be interpreted honestly by readers.

If a work is identified as unfinished, its incompleteness should be assessed in that context. If a claim is explicitly hypothetical, it should be evaluated as a hypothesis. If an outcome is uncertain, uncertainty should not be rewritten as a guarantee.

There are legitimate reasons to challenge a disclaimer: perhaps it is too vague, contradicts the main text, or fails to qualify a claim that is presented as established elsewhere.

Those objections can be discussed directly.

What is not productive is treating the disclaimer as if it never existed, then accusing the author of failing to satisfy the expectations that the disclaimer was intended to prevent.

10. Distinguishing the curious from the demanding

I welcome people who want to discuss interesting ideas, ask questions, test mathematical relationships, examine scientific evidence, or explore philosophical possibilities.

They do not have to agree with me. They do not have to be experts. They do not have to promise to contribute anything.

Curiosity is enough.

But a different relationship emerges when someone insists that an open project must solve their personal problems, provide a guaranteed result, justify their imagined investment, or fulfill expectations based on historical stereotypes.

That relationship is not created merely by reading an article.

I want to distinguish people who are interested in exploring an idea from people who treat the idea as an unpaid entitlement. I also want to distinguish genuine criticism from demands that the author accept a role they never agreed to occupy.

This is a boundary around participation, not a declaration that everyone who misunderstands a text is malicious.

11. Is it a conspiracy? The evidential distinction

I use “conspiracy of fools” to describe the recurring appearance of this pattern: people independently or collectively reproduce the same assumptions, misunderstandings, and expectations, sometimes reinforcing one another's reactions.

But similar behavior does not, by itself, prove that people have secretly coordinated their actions.

There are several possible explanations: shared cultural assumptions, emotional projection, poor reading, social imitation, conflicting incentives, or deliberate coordination in particular cases.

These explanations should be distinguished rather than treated as interchangeable.

Evidence of a coordinated conspiracy would require more than the fact that several people react similarly. Evidence of a social pattern, however, can be gathered by documenting what was written, what was explicitly disclaimed, what responses followed, and whether those responses accurately represented the original work.

The distinction strengthens the argument because it makes the criticism testable.

12. The principle of intellectual independence

A person may create a project because the questions are interesting, not because a market has been identified.

A person may publish a hypothesis because it is worth investigating, not because a final answer has been established.

A person may discuss spirituality because it forms part of their intellectual interests, not because they are offering spiritual services.

And a person may leave a question open because it genuinely remains open, not because they are withholding a promised solution.

None of these choices establishes an obligation to satisfy somebody else's hopes.

Conclusion: The draft is an invitation to think, not an invisible contract

The measure I propose is not how many people disagree with an author. It is how often a clearly stated scope, limitation, or disclaimer is replaced by an imagined obligation—and how often the resulting misunderstanding becomes a demand directed at the author.

A draft can be criticized. A hypothesis can be challenged. An article can be incomplete. A scientific claim can be wrong. All of these are ordinary possibilities in intellectual work.

The decisive distinction is whether people engage with what is actually present or demand what they have imagined should be present.

I do not promise immortality, guaranteed mental improvement, instant wealth, or a complete solution to every problem simply by discussing related ideas. I do not require people to read my work, and I do not owe a personal service to people who have not entered such an agreement with me.

I want to explore ideas, make friends, discuss evidence, and develop understanding.

The work is open; the conclusions are conditional; participation is voluntary; and no promise should be invented on behalf of the person who wrote it.

That is the difference between intellectual cooperation and an imaginary contract.

[tvaeli]

@Ziran

I explain you the conspiracy in business terms. I was told jews think business is sacred, so I want to tell you something what is specifically not sacred, namely the business of fools..

---

Long time ago, when I was 17, I used to do IT projects.

I offered to a client a project plan with exact established details. It also contained the follow-up.

I said IT projects are never finished, so it can go on.

When project was finished, initial contract covered:

• Client stated the follow-up details are not there, therefore it's not finished.
• They stated they have to see the result to tell what they need, they cannot do it in plan
• They could not pay, because with additional requests it went on.

Basically telling they are stupid. Then, many such people gathered: they should have stopped any kind of business attempt with me immediately. I was fooled quite a few times.

Now I deliberately know the client has to be professional as a client, and who cannot understand a contract is legally not very right person to sign it: it's their own responsibility to understand it in beginning.

---

The current case:

I went for free, to help this organization here.

I made up with AI, what helps the poor help organization:

- I found 5 areas which could bring money in, and made AI estimation which was, out of their yearly 5 millions which flow through, 1-2 millions per year would be kept.

I presented this:
- I told it's an estimation.
- I made my own establishment that with 3000€ as input for computer, with this estimation we hardly get less than this 3000€ back - this was my actual claim.

Panicking people:

• Maybe it's not 1-2 millions; that this is big, unbelievable money.
• That indirectly, I get credits and something if I finish it; panicking people trying to establish what they get.
  • I did not establish income in straight terms, so it was just a social elevation and CV items, or what will be decided by them later.
• That I insulted a woman whose "aura went dark" as I mentioned this ..well I saw myself her aura went dark as she did not support us earlier or then, but was basically in position of accounting to count it as work at least. I was silent but I saw positive expressions someone had told, officially told to me - which became all negative.
  • 3000€ computer was offered to me by my boss as personal computer. I decided it has to be public, and beyond my given project I would add these things.
    • Funnily it was all OK until I found these potential revenue sources: from that point, somehow, it went in *reverse*, because everybody refantasized this like *they were giving me 1-2 millions* or that *I made this estimation to steal 3000€* - all such arguments mixed.
• That I would do something evil with this and the project would fail:
  • I said it is transparent offer, with means that my written initial analysis will be used directly, and I cannot secretly add pages there.
  • I said every step of the project means the new papers will be produced, code produced, my boss is strong enough to analyze the result even if they cannot code themselves.
  • I could not disagree completely that 20%-40% would be earned by having proper, AI-supported logistics etc.;
    • But I said *estimation is mere estimation* and *it's not possible to legally or logically decide now whether these numbers are right* and that *indeed I gave them the CoPilot estimation, but my original document already analyzed not that money, but that this estimation simply means there will be some income*.
  • Transparent processing does not leave any "dangers".
  • This happened:
    • Both my boss and directriss of this organization, who had to decide, were left out;
      • completely incompetent people took it over, told it's democracy, told I have got some position and lied it all, and do something evil secretly;
      • all of them very concerned *about an idea which most looked like someone of them, and of them, has to get single 1-2 million euros right in their hands, somehow right now*. Some complete nonsense I could not understand at all.
      • I was left full of blame, and they told the panick is so big that I cannot talk with my boss any more, because with this money I would attack the girl.
        • While I am poor here, did not have any hope to get such money - I did not expect such panick, but I evidently expected they would fail to pay me and I have to do it with my CV.
        • They were very hopeful to get their money, but absolutely cynically suspicious that *I won't get my money and this 20-40% gain*; rather it seemed the panick ran away looking for 1-2 million euros, *until it was ruined to idea level*; my next responses were such that I started to avoid this project myself.

This is a global conspiracy:

- Goal based logic does not measure conspiracy by how people actively engaged in common, coordinated unit - such thing is not important.

- Goal based logic estabished that if overcoming such obstacle means that people's interactions need to be managed and anticipiated *as if* they were cooperating; because goal based logic needs *fact* for positive, while cause logic needs *fact* for negative - goal based logic *does not need fact* for negative (i.e. not getting awarded, not getting raised) while cause based logic *does need fact for positive* (i.e. presumption of innocence).

True and false tables for goal and cause logic, simplified:

Cause logic:
- Value False: needs proof.
- Value True: default.

Goal logic:
- Value True: needs proof.
- Value False: default.

I measure this difference in number acceleration levels.

---

For goal based logic, percentage 99% is enough to *ban completely* the word "conspiracy":

- Because the *answer*, the *goal* looks at not coordinated, but aligned scenarios.

To avoid goal based logic is to avoid progress.