« Home | Final Exam - Soulless » | In Response Part 2 - Soulless » | Everything: EVERYTHING » | In Response Part 1 - DJB » | Pushing the Pause Button Briefly » | Re-Grouping, Feedback and Self-Doubt Allayed » | The System State at an 'is' Decision Point » | The Power of Uncertainty » | The Selfish Gene - Modifying Theories » | The Mexican-Iraq Border »

The Pattern of Four

(future blogs, not yet written, or not yet linked):
In Response Part 3 - Dave
In Response Part 4 - Gary
Chart of 'is' Possibilities Within BAT
String Bead Analogy
Global Bill of Rights
Letter Shapes and 'is' Systems
The Koch Curve and Pi
Examples of Practical Applications of 'is' Theory
(this one is an example)

Introduced by my quote:

"True meaning, in the sense of making sense of truth, lies somewhere between three and four. It is a wondrous space in which to be suspended, suspenseful, solved and resolved. It is the magic threshold where meetings take place: science meets philosophy, chaos meets calm, order meets oneness, uniqueness meets difference...all in this one place, the difference between 3 and 4 is ONE." - me

Hmmm... Seem to be getting a little mystical and wacky here, yes/no? Hang with me! I figured I've been living in the theory world part of 'is' for two long, and so now I'll switch over to the other two for a bit and examine the practical application side.

One of the primary practical uses of 'is' will be to employ the Binary Agreement Theory, a subset of 'is' theory, to make decisions that will always yield optimized answers, regardless of the question. Optimized, yes, but will they be right? Depends on how you define 'optimize'. By its usual English definition, BAT will yield 'right' results all the time (universally) when the constructs of 'is' are applied.

Let's examine an everyday example, but first some 'is'-ALGEBRA to extrapolate the generalized case from it.

In order for any decision to be made, there need to be four options available, which I'll refer to as DA, SA, DB, SB (representing respectively, DOMINANT-A, SUBORDINATE-A, DOMINANT-B, SUBORDINATE-B).

(To map these onto the diagram here, Let DA=Quadrant I (+,+), Let SA=Quadrant IV (+,-), Let DB=Quadrant II (-,+), and Let SB=Quadrant III (-,-),

so (Subordinate -- > Dominant) is represented on the x-axis (positive meaning Dominant, negative meaning Subordinate), and discrete entities (A, B) are represented along the y-axis (alphabetically, since A is (+) and B is (-)) [ignore the labelling of the dots on the graph...they do not refer to this application].

[LETTER-SHAPE will play a difference here when we discuss that component of 'is'].

Step 1) One {party, entity, person, anything...EVERYTHING} in the transaction selects one of the four positions on the grid, unbeknownst to anyone else. So does the other entity simultaneously.

Step 2) One entity lays claim to one of the empty two positions on the grid by formulating two questions for that quadrant (a 'good' one and a NOT-good one), but only prepares to ask one of them. So does the other entity simultaneously.

[Note: the questions will be similar to those in the famous puzzle about the explorer who came to a fork in a road. There were two tribes on the island, one always told the truth, the other always lied. The explorer knew that if he ended up in the village of the liars, he'd be eaten for supper, but if he ended up in the village of the truth-tellers, he'd be showered with gifts and treasures, and helped to find his future. There is a single native standing at the fork in the road. The explorer also knows that neither tribe has any time for idle chit chat, and will only allow him a single yes/no type question. He is allowed exactly one question, and from it he must determine which path to take. What question does he ask of the native?

That's it! That's all there is to it. Guaranteed results in every possible combination imaginable. [I'll attempt to summarize all possible combinations in a chart in my next blog entry].


The task is to select the grid location which, no matter what grid location(s) the {opposing, compromising, helpful, ...} entity took, the resulting interaction will be {maximized, minimized, neutralized, 'is'}. That means, for each of the four choices, you must have a consistent, patterned, universal scenario already worked out, accurate to the next step, that you will follow depending on which location and which action your {NOT-ENTITY} pursued.

Depending on which approach you take, (the long one or the short one, working both ends towards the middle; as things expand, so they shrink), you'll have to make up 16 (i.e. 4x4) possible questions, or just one.

Okay. That's the theory in a nutshell. Let me illustrate it with a personal example from yesterday.

Facts (first level):
1) I have a cat
2) I like having my cat
3) The cat has a lump on its back
4) Using BAT, should I get the lump removed, yes or no?


The default answer is always 'YES', all else being equal.

THE SHORT METHOD: ONE-QUESTION APPROACH (Do what is right, follow the five basic tenets in determining what is right. The default answer is always 'YES').


The possible outcomes stemming from the decision:

1) unexpected, good. (i.e. {NOT-GOOD,GOOD} -or- simplified, {GOOD})
2) expected, good (i.e. {GOOD,GOOD} -or- simplified, {GOOD})
3) unexpected, not good (i.e. {NOT-GOOD,NOT-GOOD} -or- simplified, {NOT-GOOD})
4) expected, not good (i.e. {GOOD,NOT-GOOD} -or- simplified, {NOT-GOOD})

The simplified versions merely reflect the outcomes, it is immaterial whether the outcomes were expected or not, it's reality we need to deal with. What 'is'-CURRENT = {CURRENT, CURRENT-MOMENT, CURRENT-STATE, CURRENT-PRICE, CURRENT-LUMP... NOT-CURRENT}

LUMP REMOVED. (justification: In my judgement, a cat which is my responsibility (I'm DA and she is SA) without a lump on its back, and which I didn't know if it was cancerous or not is 'better' than a cat with a lump, all else being equal).
Choices 1 and 2 yield {GOOD} results, which is in accord with the tenets. There's no risk in option 3, at worst, status quo is maintained. So, worst-case scenario is option 4, the other three offering me at least a 50-50 chance of being successful (i.e. making the right choice).

I therefore choose to select quadrant 4 (SA,SB) from which to act, and the action I will take is dependent upon which quadrant the cat 'chose'. Since I don't know which quadrant she chose, I must assume she chose any one of them. For disaster planning (the all-comprehensive solution) I'll assume she chose worse case scenario from her point of view. Since that could be "I don't want to live here anymore, please let me die", to "I don't want to have cancer, please let me die", to "I'm getting too old to groom these hair clumps out of my fur, please let me die", I have no way of knowing which quadrant she picked as her "worst case scenario", so I'll have to allow for her picking any single one of them.

CONCLUSION: It doesn't matter at this cycle which quadrant she picked as her worst-case scenario, because she has no way of communicating it to me.
I'm back to original problem, SHORT-METHOD, ONE QUESTION, LUMP REMOVED.


This can go on iteratively for all possibilities, each of them receding to the original, single-question first approach. After all, that is the solution you seek. "Solve the problem of the bump on the cat"Yes/no -or- "Cut the bump off the cat" Yes/no.

By solving using the SHORT-METHOD ONE-QUESTION approach FIRST, it SEEDS the LONG-METHOD with the correct value to be consistent in arriving at the same answer. After all, you're starting out at the same answer, doesn't it make sense that you should eventually end up there no matter how you arrive, if that is the answer which you are seeking? Since most of us know what we're "looking for" (from our glasses, to our purpose in life, to where the next pay cheque will be coming from), this technique will make it happen. I know, it sounds like a late-night infomercial for wonder-knife or something, but follow through with me, and spot the flaws in reasoning, if there are any.

THE LONG METHOD: 16-QUESTION APPROACH (Do what is right, follow the five basic tenets in determining what is right. The default answer is always 'YES')

[Note: for me, factors were as follows:

1) Cost involved, both financial and emotional.

A) I'm on limited disability pension.
B) The vet charges $50 just for a consultation, surgery would be on top of that, and there are lots of things I could use $50+ for.
C) I've had the cat for 9 years, and she's my 'buddy'; I live alone and she's good company, although she is usually somewhat aloof, preferring to sleep by herself in the basement most of the time.
D) The"lump" may be nothing more than a persistent tangle of matted hair in her fur, but it's been there for six weeks, seems to have a fleshy part but I'm not sure, it doesn't bother her in the least (as far as I can tell...i.e. no licking, biting, scratching at it).
E) A friend of mine who works at a vet clinic told me it was unusual for cats to grow lesion-type growths as dogs do when they get older. She suggested it might be a blocked urinary tract backing up and I should watch for urinary problems. I saw none.
F) She saved my life once.
G) I could go on forever with factors which might come in to play, but that makes it an open-ended, ever-expanding question, and I want closure. Same problem as with the response to Soulless yesterday. It was so long, it might have scared her off for good!
H)Always other...

I will be able to PROVE that the longest list of questions ever needed to answer any single question is a list of THREE. (one that will guarantee the right answer, one that will guarantee the wrong answer, and one that will be ambiguous or indeterminate). Further, from that list, and applying the tenets of 'is', the one guaranteeing the right answer can always be identified with certainty.

Cycle back to:

Factors involved for me were: costs involved, both financial and emotional.


Pick one: 1)financial cost is more manageable than emotional one
2)emotional is greater than financial.

NOTE: At this level I'm not dealing with POTENTIAL (ENTROPY) costs; so far I know it's 50 bucks to have what may end up being a clump of hair removed, -or-
it's hundreds of dollars for cancer surgery which may not be successful.

Here's the key part. NEITHER of those scenarios has ANY impact on the decision at hand.
"Do I get the lump removed?" Yes/No.
"Do I get the lump removed for a maximum of $50." Yes/No
"Do I get the lump removed for $50, and they find out it's a clump of hair?" yes/no
"Do I get the lump removed for $50 and they find out it's cancerous?" yes/no

I have worded 4 questions, all of which will default answer 'yes', which is the answer I want (or am prepared to live with, worst case scenario). In other words, I determined that my emotional peace of mind in knowing my cat had a furball instead of cancer was $50.

What is the cost of worst case scenario? Are you willing to pay that cost?
It starts at $50, it may be more. Yes/no? ---YES (default)

Working from the answer backwards, according to 'is' methodology, the lump gets removed for $50,


it doesn't.


Another rather obtuse discussion and line of reasoning, but it leads to this one indisputable conclusion:

'is' provides a guaranteed methodology for arriving at a single 'YES' answer.
Every 'YES' answer leads at least to another 'YES' answer.

(Note to Soulless: If you're still wondering about postulates, would you consider this to be one worthy of note, and further inquiry?)
(Note to anybody else: ditto)

bonus assignment question: you are considering moving from where you are to where you're not. {HERE...NOT-HERE}
What is the one biggest advantage to staying where you are right now?
What is the one biggest disadvantage to staying where you are right now?
Which is bigger {ADVANTAGE...NOT-ADVANTAGE}?

Is it logically, morally, responsibly valid to base your final decision on this single criteria comparison? Can you demonstrate that to be so?

Demonstrate that to be so, using 'is'.


Links to this post

Create a Link

  • I'm Evydense
  • From Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • And I'm tired of living in the shadow of narrow-mindedness and ignorance. So here's the fax, Jack! "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred and sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." - Lynne Lavner*** I'm confused; curious; satisfied; realistically resigned to being a frustrated idealist; usually at peace with myself, but not always. Amazed at how little I know, and wondering how much I need to understand.
More of Me