“almost tears as I imagine what he must have felt every day.”
Bro I know exactly what u mean. I cry almost every time i come to ILP.
After some more thoughts concerning just this much I tried to just continue with the next segment of James’ Physics of Psychology thread but thoughts about the possibilities of what has been said so far kept coming and coming. The applications of just this much seems endless - and very very relevant. Now I can’t even remember all of the thoughts that have crossed my mind.
Just in the field of public policies - perhaps concerning drug use - precise calculations of benefit could be made to predict the outcome of one policy over another. And with accurate statistical data (hard to obtain for reasons also associated to this subject) they probably wouldn’t even need a computer to do it - despite having hardcore equations involved. But the issue would still be - as always - the “benefit to whom” question. I already know that James addressed that in his governing methods analysis - finalized with his CRH proposal with MIJOT being the mandated priority. And trying to compute policies in that environment could probably be done without computer as well - as long as the leaders in the small - extremely small - groups were reasonably competent.
Even on this board it is easy for everyone to see behaviors that lead them to speculate the character of the people they are reading but most of their speculations are very charge related - biased, speculative, and presumptuous. Most people today make very poor observers for that reason (yet don’t realize how bad they are - how many clues they miss because of the over charged concern for other clues). But with an elementary understanding of just this much physics of psychology - I can’t image their observation skills not improving. They (we) would be inclined to realize our own charged attitudes while we were trying to assess those of others (more so than currently being displayed). It would be like a self-realized psychologist more carefully and skeptically analyzing other people.
And then when public policies are accurately calculated - international policies would instantly become far easier to precisely calculate. And again with public understanding of how these calculations are being made (much like in science) the public would be far less suspicious of maleficence. The entire world would become trustable and that means much happier people and far less impulse to violence (socialists would hate it).
It is sad to think that the state of the world could be so dramatically improved merely by public education on what has been discussed so far. Perhaps the globalists are leaving far too much calculation up to Google and Microsoft.
James - in his governing methods analysis - predicted that “even if a global socialist government got established - it would soon fall apart”. He was obviously using this kind of analysis to discern that (which is answering one of my early questions about - “how did James know what he knew” - it is appearing that he merely calculated it based on his RM:AO - what would have to happen because of the basic way everything works.
But he had more to say -
He then goes into a review of the physics pertaining to why it is that electrons don’t crash into the nucleus that they orbit - an "exclusion barrier " due to the “impedance mismatching”.
That bit seems to be about how contrary devotions or priorities (stemming from PHT attitudes) can develop an impenetrable wall of impedance mismatch between them - analogous to the physics principles.
Zookers - I feel like I am getting an overload of realizations and revelations pertaining to the history of social conflicts, conquerings, mergers, and dissolutions - allowing for a precise calculation of at what point any of those events could and would occur. And since those things are currently still happening - applicable to current international events (James would have already known all of this).
This is going to take a lot of digesting. It involves the entire history of mankind and current events - as well as the formation of political news items.
It’s hard to search, copy, and paste from a book. 
books.google.com/books/about/Ra … yeDwAAQBAJ - go to… Table of Contents link, on the left.
…you’re welcome ; )
I didn’t find the “Search” button that allows me to search for word use.
My effort isn’t to just read what James said about things but to deeply scrutinize it for credibility. I have to look for any contradictory claims - for intended word use - for intention for the entire effort. Try just reading a book on quantum physics and see how comfortable you feel about your understanding of it. Could you testify to it as fact? To understand it - you have to get into the minute details of the intentions - look for contradictions - work out whether you understand what was really being said. It takes a LOT of searching and thinking extemporaneously - imagining examples - seeking out whether it all really makes sense and is consistent throughout.
So far - it all seems consistent, legitimate - and a little scary.
I have to point out that this is messing with my MIJOT.
I feel torn between the concern of what could be done - and isn’t likely to happen - and the temptation to just largely ignore it all and enjoy the ride. Do I climb over this mountain - or just leisurely stroll around it in the shade.
I am just going to write something freely - not really get logical about anything for the moment.
Meh, this is just a forum man.
I don’t know what your world outside of this forum is like but I do know that trying to change the world from within the world of a philosophy forum won’t happen. Most of us just come here to bounce ideas off of each other. Philosophers are the worst in that they mostly just disagree about everything. Philosophers are influenced by the world like anyone else and that just makes the disagreements even more intense when the world outside any conversation is already an awful place. I appreciate why some people here want some really awesome debating - they want their enemy to be as strong as them. One of the first things James said to me was “welcome to the acid bath” - I knew from that point I would like him - he jumped in my threads really early - I miss his acid testing. As you know though, the outside world has made it into this little world of ILP and diluted its appearance of being anything serious.
Many great times have happened here over the past but it is like a shell of what it used to be. These days it seems the religious talk is the most interesting. The political talk always sees some action too…but…well, what do I say about that? The political realm is something that made me tired over fifteen years ago, so not much I guess. I am only surprised now how degraded that atmosphere has become - people throwing labels and not really getting into the heart of anything. Such a shallow seascape in that regard. I spend no time worrying about this place - we are who we are. I don’t really want to hurt anyone’s feelings by anything I say but sometimes that is outside my control when people invest too much of their own heart in an online community. I just don’t do that - invest my heart in this place - I did to an extent with James because his connection to the world was older than a lot of people here with the exception of maybe one or two people that is - I mean, I don’t know anyone here - there could be fifteen older people - but I knew for sure James was older. That deeper connection to the past gives older people who are still alive an advantage over the younger people - not that the younger people respect that much anymore - I was brought up to have the utmost respect in my elders so perhaps it is a cultural thing for me - this is not to say that there are not any bad older people, just that their experience does count for something…
…I could go on but the post would become quite long…so I will close this post with this - this is just a forum…yep, just a forum…hardly any of us really know each other.
It is not really worth investing too much of your heart around here…not gonna lie though - Meno_ is really cool, so yeah, I still have a favorite or two here.
What would satisfy me more is knowing that people are happy outside this place but I mind my own business so I don’t really get into that too much - I don’t really know how happy anyone here is.
I can certainly understand all of that - but I was referring to the mountain of things that are going to be done - things that actually could be done - and things that actually should be done - across the entire world - not at the microscopic realm of this little discussion board.
.
Yes, and you will notice a kernel of that in what I said.
.
We’re in a time when people who haven’t learned to take care of themselves against the onslaught James, myself and others have been discussing between 2006 and 2012, are simply not capable anymore of autonomous consciousness. The sheer affectance employed to trigger degenerative valuations is incomparably stronger in voltage our own EM systems, i.e. minds.
James was always adamant about the lack of time, spurring me on to translate value ontology into forms allowing for widespread methodical pragmatic use, as he desired to see, before the shit hit the fan.
I think at this point all of this psycho-physics can be reduced to the realization that animals and people are walking talking bundles of massive amounts of subtle attitudes fluidly mulling, gestating, and propelling animation toward seeking and manipulating in the effort to acquire that anitropic harmony required to maintain - as misguided as it may be.
A trainer is someone who helps to mold some of those subtle responses to more efficiency - reorganizing the positive and negative attitudes and their associations - including everything from simply throwing a ball more accurately to total fanatical brainwashing into loving one thing and absolutely hating another.
While watching society - this kind of thing can be seen playing out as advocates of every type do everything they can to saturate and align their group’s attitudes to love one thing and hate another - brainwashing their subjects - independent of factual information - not teaching but molding the mental jam to suppress certain responses and amplify other behaviors - creating triggers and obsessions. And they are doing that simply because of their own bundle of attitude alignments - seeking the same as all the others - manipulating just as all the others.
And looking across the world - there appears to be nothing else - the total sum of life on Earth - a self-feeding and festering stew of microscopic anima just playing out its psycho-chemical interactions.
Precisely, and it is only philosophy which can elevate this into something which could be called exalted, divine, excellent, even just merely ‘good’;
And as much as philosophy is largely a technical question, a fundamental part of it is its capacity for boldness beyond common sense;
it isn’t common sense that makes us create magnificence beyond ourselves, it’s a form of pride, which in a cynical light could be called presumptuousness;
the question of valuing, again, ad nauseam - to set standards beyond this mesh of psychochemistry, one has to simply decide to elevate ones values, and that doesn’t follow from anything, there is no objective logical ground for it; it is a choice. It is a choice to elevate oneself, not a necessity. Unless ones character makes this choice a necessity but that is not a universal given.
Not to deviate from the topic too far - but what attitudes determine what is an “elevated value”?
This issue switches from what is - to what should be.
Not wanting to butt in but perhaps a small exploration of Axiology may answer some of your questions unless of course, I am misdirected by what you guys are saying.
I think that would just change who I asked - not anything toward getting an answer. 
Perhaps! I will butt back out then…with a bow…and watch from afar…far afar.
I think I interacted with James S Saint only once or twice because it seemed clear to me that he was interested in developing a metaphysical system and I was a metaphysical skeptic who wasn’t interested in arguing with him. Since I have been on ILP I have yet to see anyone receive as much appreciation as he is now receiving here.
I have to confess a degree of obsession about James (more really about the things he brought out that I know I would never have thought about) 
. From the beginning the points he would raise in debates with people just struck me as so clear - I can’t imagine why I (and so many others) never thought about those things (like to define what being a “god” means before arguing whether one exists - I think the first thing I noted). And he just kept pilling them on - and he maintained coherence throughout so so many normally unrelated topics. I haven’t studied philosophy (at all really) but to get into so many things - from the very reason why the universe exists (without deflecting to “God did it”) - to what it means to be a god - to why physics works the way it does - to why people do what they do - eventually to a totally new way to structure a government without ever ignoring or separating one reasoning from another - everything related to basic - apparently universal - principles. He actually explained how every topic is actually the same thing - if you understand any one - you already have an understanding of the others - just “get your words straight” he said (the consummate reductionist).
And speaking of that issue - it occurred to me to ask myself how James would answer that question -
And immediately I could see that James (I’m sure) would simply say - “MIJOT” — of course.
The necessary attitudes to promote a conscious realization and incentive to pursue the aim of MIJOT would establish an “elevated value” guide - because it would align all of the massive tiny attitude associations with what everyone is innately born already trying to do - making everyone more “whole” - sane - civil - harmonious within and out (what religion is supposed to do).