Essay Wow!

The following essay contains sexual connotations used within a theoretical argument in regards to the human species’ inherent desire for sexual satisfaction that may be inappropriate for minors. Parental guidance is suggested during the reading of this essay. ****

This essay is actually an excerpt from a book I am writing on the Third Reich (The Third Reich, A Revolution of Ideological Inhumanity) and introduces two self-formulated theories regarding perceptions. The reader may or may not agree with these theories, however they are presented here and in the book to compel the reader to contemplate the need for some form of voluntary or involuntary tyranny within any society. Such tyranny does not always need to exist in the form Hitler and his Third Reich displayed, nor does it necessarily need to be in the form of fascism, communism, or any other similar type of dictatorship. In fact, it is not necessary for the mere existence of tyranny to involve inhumane, or otherwise widely considered bad treatment of those it controls.

Therefore, this essay attempts to theoretically show that one; tyranny must exist among civilized human beings and two; tyranny can exist in both a humane and inhumane manner. Of course, as I said, you the reader may not agree with any or all of the contents of this essay, but it is presented to require the reader to think in terms of the necessity of some form of obligatorily logical set of rules and regulations based on preconceived ideologies that are designed to among other things thwart human anarchy, and give direction to the lives of human beings in a manner that is consistent with their own perceptions of their environment.

Main Premise: Anarchy Deductively Postulates Concomitant Human Tyranny.

I begin this argument for the necessity of the existence of tyranny within all civilized human societies with a very broad premise. The premise states that since anarchy is a very general term, the concept of which relating to a very broad physical and perceptual state concerning many individuals, the premise therefore deduces this broad concept to an individual basis. Upon doing so, the deductive conclusion obtained from the general state of anarchy in terms of individual human beings necessarily requires as a consequence of this anarchy, human tyranny.

Definition: Tyranny is a state of dominance obtained through the allocation of the threat of violence or punishment.

Definition: Anarchy is a state of lawlessness or disorder.

Definition: Perception is the basic component in the formation of a concept, or becoming aware of something via the senses.

Definitively, tyranny can certainly apply to many areas of human societies and consequently it applies to every human society that maintains a sense of law and order within its ranks or otherwise maintains a civil group of people. The method in which humans have acquired large civil societies is through the process of regulation, or the process of creating laws and rules predominantly or not so predominantly agreed upon by the masses of people these same rules and laws are designed to govern. This concept of enabling a set of laws and rules to govern a mass of people is equivalent and consistent among all civil societies.

Premise 1: In any region or territory containing a mass of people where there exists no signs of general or total anarchy, or otherwise where there exists some form of civil order within the cohabitation of all people contained in this region or territory, a particular set of laws or rules necessarily must have been previously established and agreed upon by the masses in order to create the aforementioned state of civil order.

To understand what this really means, specifically in terms of the bold-faced term ‘particular’, we must first consider our environment, and specifically the perception of that environment from an individual perspective.

Axiom 1: Since no two perceptual beings can occupy the same exact point within the universe at the same exact time, no two perceptual beings can therefore perceive the same thing in exactly the same manner at exactly the same time.

Simply put, the above axiom declares sensibly that no two perceptual beings can physically occupy the same spot at the same time. This should not need an explanation, for it is physically impossible for you and I to be standing in the exact same spot at the exact same time no matter how we conceive of vertically or horizontally superimposing ourselves in the spatial 3D world. While two individuals may succeed in positioning themselves to occupy the same horizontal space, this can only be done through the displacement of vertical space, and vice versa. Therefore, given the fact that no two individuals can occupy the same exact space simultaneously, neither can they perceive anything in their environment in precisely the same manner or from precisely the same perspective. This is true regardless of how minuscule the difference between the perspectives of two individuals happen to be based on the minuscule displacement of their physical bodies from one particular spatial spot.

Axiom 2: While no two perceptual beings can perceive any particular object(s) or event(s) within their environment in precisely the same manner, any two or more perceptual beings can nevertheless perceive any particular object(s) or event(s) in a similar manner given a relative perceptual proximity (i.e. viewing the same thing(s) or similar thing(s)) of their mutual spatial perceptions concerning that object(s) or event(s).

Axiom 3 indicates that the closer two individuals are positioned spatially in terms of perception (not necessarily physically close), or more simply put, perceiving the same thing(s) or similar thing(s), the more inclined are their perceptions apt to be concerning a particular object(s) or event(s). However, this axiom only indicates the possibility of this similar perception and does not draw upon its possible existence in a finite manner. This is important to remember, for although we as humans attempt to create environments conducive to a particular realm of perceptions, it does not always work since individuals can perceive similar things without perceiving these similar things in a similar fashion. Rather the axiom recognizes the preconceived possibility of such a similar perception between two individuals perceptually (not necessarily physically nor simultaneously) positioned within such perceptual spatial proximity, and equally recognizes the possibility of its direct opposite, that being dissimilar perceptions.

It is the result of the possibility as set forth in axiom 2 that enables large masses of people living and otherwise perceptually (not necessarily physically) existing in perceptual spatial proximity (which I will define in a moment) to one another to perceive things, specifically environmental circumstances in similar ways. This not only applies to the manner in which each individual feels they should be governed in a political sense, but it also applies to other areas of human existence to include that of the religious realm. Similar perceptiveness among individuals maintaining perceptual spatial proximity with one another becomes evident upon the realization that people within this perceptual proximity to one another typically speak the same languages, have shared common beliefs and values, desire the same economical and political environment, and in many cases speak the same language with the same accent or dialect. These examples are all representative of human perceptions to things within their environment.

Definition: Environment refers to the surroundings in which something exists or lives.

Definition: Perceptual Spatial Proximity refers to the act of perceiving by two or more beings the same or similar object(s) or event(s) without regard to time or the proximity of their respective physical spatial proximities.

Definition: Physical Environment refers to any physical surroundings capable of being perceived by perceptual beings.

So how close is proximity defined when referring to living beings maintaining perceptual spatial proximity to one another when a direct object or event is not encountered, but rather similar objects or events are encountered? Furthermore, how far does the realm of surroundings in the definition of physical environment extend in relation to any particular being or being(s)? After all, perceptual spatial proximity regarding the perception of one particular object or event would be conceived as perceptually spatially closer than when compared to the same concept regarding multiple objects or events. Since the definition of physical environment above is only valid perceptually if it contains things that can actually be perceived by beings (physical objects or events containing physical objects) within it then simply put, perceptual spatial proximity can also be defined by, and be relative to, the very environment in which it exists. Note, objects in this case refer also to other perceptual beings.

Therefore, before we can actually define perceptual spatial proximity in terms of defining an adequate perceptual proximity realm among perceptual beings, we must first define the perceptual finite boundaries of the environment in which both exist. Since we have concluded above that perceptual beings within perceptual spatial proximity of one another are certainly capable of perceiving object(s) or event(s) at any particular time in a similar manner, regardless if these same beings maintain close physical proximity or not, we could certainly conclude that those perceptual beings within perceptual spatial proximity of one another share the same environment. But wait just a minute; did we not just say above that perceptual spatial proximity among living beings was dependent and relative to the environment in which both exist? In addition, are we now not saying that that same environment is in turn dependent on the perceptual spatial proximity of perceptual beings? Does this mean that both the perceptual spatial proximity of living beings and the environment containing this perceptual spatial proximity of perceptual beings are both relative to each other? This would definetly mean that neither the concept of perceptual spatial proximity among perceptual beings nor the physical environment in which both exist are absolute, but rather they are relative to one another. It is this very concept that allows for the formulations of very good and yet very evil complex ideological thought, which I will discuss shortly.

Premise 2: Perceptual Spatial Proximity Existence (PSPE) of perceptual beings is defined by, and relative to, the Physical Environment in which both exist.

Premise 3: Physical Environment containing Perceptual Beings is defined by, and relative to, the Perceptual Spatial Proximity Existence (PSPE) of perceptual beings contained within it.

Therefore, from the definitions above we can produce the following premise.

Premise 4: A physical environment and the PSPE of perceptual beings contained in that physical environment are not absolute but are relative to one another.

As an example to the validity of premise 4, consider this example of perceiving one event. An individual in North Carolina views a sporting event while at precisely the same time another individual views the same sporting event nearly 3000 miles away in California, while the event itself is actually taking place somewhere in Texas. Physically speaking, referring to 3000 miles as close proximity is stretching the imagination just a tiny bit. This is true unless the close proximity of that 3000-mile distance, or lack thereof, is viewed as being relative to the particular perceptual environment in which both TV viewers exist. Since both TV viewers are involved simultaneously in a perceptual spatial proximity, that is in watching the sporting event, or simply put, sharing a perceptual spatial proximity, then they could conceivably be, as established earlier, perceiving the sporting event in a similar manner. This would in turn, per the two definitions preceding Premise 4, put both TV viewers in the exact same physical environment since both are perceiving the same physical event, as well as any other TV viewers watching the sporting event and those present at the stadium where the sporting event is taking place.

In fact, in terms of perception regarding this one sporting event, the PSPE of both TV viewers could be analogous to being in the same stadium at precisely the same time where the sporting event is taking place, thanks to the advancement of technology. Thus, the physical event that is the sporting event, contained in a particular physical environment is relative to the perceptual spatial proximity of all perceptual beings both participating in and viewing the sporting event. Therefore, not only is it not necessary for living beings to be within physical proximity of one another in order to perceive things in a similar manner and thus to share a physical environment, but it is more important and dependent upon their mutual perceptual proximity as a prerequisite to sharing this environment, and is furthermore referred to as a perceptual spatial proximity existence.

Though the two TV viewers above were definetly not within physical spatial proximity of one another, it is quite possible that both TV viewers could have perceived similar things outside of the sporting event on TV while watching the sporting event on TV. Example, both may have been sitting on their sofa, drinking a beer, and using the remote control to scan through TV channels during commercial breaks. While this may or may not be true, it is nevertheless highly possible. However, this introduces physical spatial proximities in a new light. Specifically, physical spatial proximities, while not necessary for a perceptual spatial proximity to exist, can nevertheless increase the probability of similar perceptions among perceptual beings within a perceptual spatial proximity.

Premise 5: Physical spatial proximities are not a required prerequisite for the existence of any perceptual spatial proximity, however the existence of a physical spatial proximity increases the probability of the existence of similar perceptions among perceptual beings within any particular perceptual spatial proximity.

To in part show the validity of premise 5, let us look at a more complicated example representing the validity of premise 4. Suppose if you will, that everyone present in a particular restaurant, both in the form of customers and employees are all perceiving similar physical objects or events. Thus, all people within this restaurant belong to one perceptual spatial proximity, and that PSP is contained within one particular environment. Suppose now that we hypothetically cut the restaurant in half and thus remove half of the perceptual spatial proximity in the process. This would result in also removing half of the environment in which the PSP resides. This occurs regardless of how many people are removed as a result of slicing the restaurant. Remember, a PSP does not regard time as a prerequisite for its existence. Therefore, if upon slicing the restaurant in half zero people are contained in the latter half, it is still an environment containing a PSP, since it has already been perceived by perceptual beings.

Additionally, if an outside perceptual being enters the latter half of the sliced restaurant who has never perceived either half of the restaurant, choosing to eat alone, that being now shares a PSP with all perceptual beings who were present in the first half of the restaurant before it was sliced, and all perceptual beings who ever visited the restaurant before it was sliced, but only in terms of the latter half. Furthermore, whether we slice the restaurant in halves, quarters, thirds, or what have you, both the PSP and the environment in which it is contained are likewise reduced by this amount, but only for perceptual beings not present, or who have never been present in the restaurant, before the split(s) occurred.

The above example considers a perceptual spatial proximity that just so happens to refer to a physical spatial proximity as well. However, as stated in premise 5, though a physical spatial proximity provides a higher probability of similar perceptions within a perceptual spatial proximity, its existence is not necessary. The fact that physical spatial proximities provide a higher probability for similar perceptions is due to the fact that perceptual beings within physical spatial proximity of one another perceive more similar things then those perceptual beings within a perceptual spatial proximity not within physical spatial proximity of one another. Remember, perceptual spatial proximity contains the perceptions of two or more perceptual beings perceiving one or more object(s) or event(s), regardless of their physical spatial proximities.

Example, suppose that thousands of people are listening to a national radio broadcast of the president’s state of the union address. Since this speech is being relayed live, or simply put, as it happens, then there are thousands of people without physical spatial proximity who are nevertheless sharing a perceptual spatial proximity. However, since the majority of those perceptual beings listening to the address are not sharing a physical spatial proximity, then quite possibly the only real similar perception they share is the address itself. This would be different if all of these people were contained in a large auditorium listening to the address where each perceptual being could in fact perceive more similar things contained within the auditorium, thus increasing the probability of perceiving similar things and thus increasing the probability of having similar perceptions. It is important to note here that the act of perceiving similar things and having similar perceptions of things are two very different concepts, and many times are very easily confused with one another. Nevertheless, this PSPE does create a particular environment containing every perceptual being listening to the president’s speech, and introduces yet another observation contained in the following premise.

Premise 6: Time is not a relative prerequisite for the existence of any perceptual spatial proximity, however the existence of a perceptual spatial proximity within the same context of time regarding each of its perceptual beings increases the probability of the existence of similar perceptions among each of its occupants.

Premise 6 basically states that while time does not prohibit the existence of a PSP, if a PSP exists within the same context of time for each of its occupants, the probability of each of these occupants perceiving things in a similar manner will be higher. Referring back to the restaurant example, suppose that 10 people were initially in the restaurant before the slice, or while the restaurant was whole. Suppose all 10 of these people left at the same time only to be replaced by 10 other people. Although all 20 people now share a PSP whose environment is the restaurant, each group of 10 people have condensed this particular PSP in terms of time and physical proximity. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the validity of premise 6 can merely lie in the fact that each group of 10 people are in fact perceiving one another in addition to the restaurant and its objects and activities, which is a perception the other group of 10 did not have the benefit of. This is true simply because the other group of 10 people only perceived themselves in addition to the restaurant and its accompanying events and objects.

Premise 7: Though any perceptual spatial proximity can transgress both space and time, the more any perceptual spatial proximity is condensed in respect to both space and time, the higher the probability will be that each of its occupants will perceive object(s) or event(s) in similar ways.

Mathematically this can be stated as: The limit of the probability of similar perceptions within any PSP approaches 100% as both space and time relative to its perceptual occupants approaches zero.

Again, referring back to the restaurant example, and specifically the sliced part of the restaurant containing the new individual who has never been to the restaurant and enters the unoccupied half. Suppose that as this individual is peering at a menu his arm nudges his fork onto the floor. Nearly every perceptual human being has seen a fork drop from a table and hit the floor. However, no other human being has perceived this particular fork hit the floor at this particular time. In order to see and hear this particular fork hit the floor at this particular time, you must necessarily be an occupant of a condensed PSP in terms of space and time within this restaurant environment. Simply put, you must be in closer physical proximity and within hearing and/or sight distance of the event at exactly the time the event of the fork falling from the table occurred. This process is known as condensing a PSP in terms of space and time.

By now you should have the idea or figured out that the relation between any PSPE and the corresponding physical environment in which it exists is merely a one-to-one ratio. Simply put, each PSPE must be contained within one physical environment, and a physical environment containing two or more perceptual beings must contain exactly one PSPE.

or

Premise 5: For each PSPE that exists, there must be a corresponding containing physical environment that also exists.

and

Premise 6: For each physical environment containing two or more perceptual beings, there must exist exactly one perceptual spatial proximity existence (PSPE) within that physical environment.

Naturally, a physical environment can exist without containing a PSPE and furthermore can exist while containing a maximum of one perceptual being. After all, per the definition of perceptual spatial proximity, there must be two or more perceptual beings within that proximity in order for the PSPE to exist. Simply put, two or more individuals must have perceived the object(s) or event(s) in their original forms to qualify to be a PSP. If no PSPE exists within a particular physical environment, then that physical environment cannot be defined as relative to any containing PSPE that does not exist. So how do we adequately define a physical environment in perceptual terms containing only one perceptual being?

First of all, it is practically impossible to define an environment containing only one perceptual being due to the fact that this type of environment would have great difficulties escaping the existence of a PSP. Remember, a PSP can exist without regards to time or the physical proximities of its perceptual members. For instance, suppose I went to the library, checked out a book, read it and returned it in 2 weeks. Furthermore, suppose that you also went to that same library, checked out the same book, read it and also returned it within two weeks. You and I now share a perceptual spatial proximity merely due to the fact that we both have perceived the same or similar object, regardless of when we perceived it. This thus creates an environment containing this PSP, which in turn contains both you and I and anyone else who has read that book. Simply put, we have all read that book, therefore we have all perceived that book, therefore everyone who has read that book are now members of a particular perceptual spatial proximity whose environment is now that particular book, wherein the PSP now exists.

There are however, certain ways in which to create a PSP free environment for one individual short of having to launch himself or herself to another planet. Some examples would be to read a book that has never been read, which by the way you would have had to have written, discover a physical object (not a perceptual life form) that has never been perceived, or discover a new mathematical theory never before perceived. In words, in order to create this rare environment, you must perceive something not within ordinary perceptual proximity to other perceptual beings. Thus, you could escape the PSP entirely. However, once you have shared these perceptions, the individual environment ceases to exist, simply because by sharing this perception automatically creates a new perceptual spatial proximity, and thus a new type of environment.

This brings to the argument an interesting human mental phenomenon known as imagination, which in turn virtually eliminates any possibility of a single perceptual being environment. In the above paragraph, I gave examples of a perceptual situation that might create such an environment, but in fact, it only does so partially. For instance, by writing a book that no one has yet read, at least partially you have created a single perceptual being environment, that being yourself, merely by creating a book that no other perceptual being has perceived in its entirety. However, in order to write that book you must first have perceived a certain language used to convey a message, perceived the existence of an object known as a book, perceived of the act of reading, etc, etc. In fact, there are many perceptions you would have first been required to perceive in order to fully conceptualize the mere idea of writing a book, not to mention the contents of the book itself.

Therefore, since you have created a general object never before perceived by other perceptual beings in its entirety, other perceptual beings have in fact perceived both the components that comprise the concept of a book as well as the components of the book itself. Hence, this fact of perceiving components of previously unperceived general objects or events applies to each of the above examples and nearly eliminates the one perceptual being environment entirely. But regardless of the fact that the components of a previously unperceived general object have been perceived by other perceptual beings, the general object itself as a whole has not been perceived by others, and that fact still stands. Therefore, we can effectively say that by creating a general, never before perceived object through thought processes or imagination, individual imaginations also fall within the realm of single perceptual being environments, but only after that imagination has created a previously never before perceived general object.

As an example of this, suppose that I imagine some weird looking creature in my mind that may or may not in fact exist, and furthermore may or may not have ever been imagined by any other perceptual being. Of course, I will probably never know whether or not either of these two conditions are true, but hypothetically let us say they are true. Therefore, I have just created a single perceptual being environment through my imagination, however I did so by using previously perceived objects as components for the construction of that imaginary general object, components that have in fact been previously perceived by others. The mere perception of this object being a living creature is a testament to the fact that its components have been previously perceived by myself and others. These ideas create two observations contained in the following three axioms.

Axiom 4: Through the process of imagination, a perceptual being can perceive a general never before perceived object(s) or event(s) the components of which must first necessarily have been perceived by that perceptual being in order to form that imagination.

Axiom 5: Imagination, like conceptualization, must necessarily be formed through previous perceptions.

-or-

If conceptualization and imagination are both dependent upon perceptions, then conceptualization = imagination.

Axiom 6: A single perceptual environment can be created through individual imaginations.

Axiom 4 is straightforward, in that it states that before anyone can imagine any particular object or event, the components that comprise such an object or event must first be perceived. This effectively eliminates the possibility of being inherently born with an ability to imagine things that have not been previously perceived. Rather the act of imagination, as stated in Axiom 5, is a process of conceptualization, which we have already seen is a direct result of perceptions. Simply put, the general results of imagination are obtained through a particular compilation and conceptualization of previous perceptions. Furthermore, the components of such a general object conceived or imagined must have been previously perceived by other perceptual beings, however the general result of those components can in fact, as stated in axiom 6, result in a general object or event that has never been perceived in its entirety.

From these three axioms we can easily see that imagination is not only the same as conceptualization, but is also a form of conceptualization. Furthermore, imagination is not limited to objects or events, but presents itself in the same manner concerning ideas including linear and abstract thinking. But regardless of whether the imagination results in an object, event, or thought, the components of that object, event, or thought must have been previously perceived. But finally, the finality of the imaginative process can in fact create a never before perceived by other perceptual beings event, object, or idea. Thus,

Premise 7: Any physical environment containing a maximum of one perceptual being, and thus contains no perceptual spatial proximity, is perceptually defined by, and is relative to, the maximum perceptual area of the one perceptual being contained within it.

Premise 8: Any maximum of one perceptual being is defined by, and is relative to, the maximum perceptual area of the physical environment in which it is contained outside of any perceptual spatial proximity existence.

Both premise 7 and 8 define a physical environment and one perceptual being as being relative to one another if and only if there exists no perceptual spatial proximity. It must be defined in this manner since the very existence of any perceptual spatial proximity would infer that more than one perceptual being exists within the physical environment. Since a physical environment can only be defined perceptually in terms of one perceptual being, as being the total possible area of perceptibility concerning that one perceptual being, then that particular physical environment is thus relative to that one perceptual being. Likewise, the perceptual being must be defined in terms of, and be relative to, the physical environment containing the total possible area in which that perceptual being is capable of perceiving. Thus the perceptual being and the finite bounds of its corresponding physical environment are defined.

Premise 9: Any particular physical environment containing no perceptual beings is perceptually defined by, and is relative to, null.

A physical environment containing no perceptual beings can be perceptually defined as being null. Simply put, though a particular physical environment containing no perceptual beings is certainly capable of having its contents perceived if in fact it contained a perceptual being, the fact that no perceptual being resides within that particular physical environment, makes its perceptibility irrelevant and therefore null. Simply put, this is a physical environment capable of being perceived, but never having been perceived.

To this point, I have presented arguments that proclaim that a physical environment can perceptually exist in three different manners, and in each manner that same physical environment is both defined by, and is relative to its perceptual contents, and furthermore is regarded as an object(s) or event(s). However, since the entire intent of this essay is to attempt to present a theory to the reader that some form of tyranny must exist within any civil society, and therefore concentrates on two or more perceptual beings, only one of these forms of perceptually related physical environments will be used from this point on. The null perceptual physical environment and the individual perceptual physical environment are not needed for the remainder of this essay, and therefore are referred to only vaguely from this point on.

Since any physical environment has been perceptually defined in two different manners where perceptual beings exist within that environment, I now recall your attention again to Premise 1 near the beginning of this chapter. Specifically the word ‘particular’ as it is used to refer to a set of laws or rules governing a civil society. I will now proceed to show exactly why these particular set of laws or rules are necessary and why they in turn per the definition of tyranny in fact constitute tyranny.

Premise B1: The first basic desire, or need of all perceptual beings, including human beings, is that desire, or need for self-preservation.

This premise could nearly be presented as a full-fledged axiom, but I will merely present it here as a premise. One could argue that due to the fact that some humans commit suicide, the above premise cannot actually be a true axiom. However, this philosophy too is argued against below.

The validity of premise B1 can be shown in many ways from the basic instinct of animals avoiding perceived dangerous situations, to humans rushing off to work each day in order to provide for the sustenance of themselves and their families. The very item that is most sought after today happens to be the very instrument of survival in today’s civilized world, and that is money. People endlessly plan for retirement, invest their money to make more money in capitalistic societies, save for their children’s college education so that they may acquire further skills to enhance their ability to make money, and so forth and so on. In fact, one of the primary punishments issued in many nations to attempt forcing adherence to laws and regulations is the threat of stealing part of an individual’s survival methods in the form of fines paid by money. Therefore, it is very reasonable to premise that the number one or top basic desire of perceptual beings, specifically humans, is self-preservation.

Premise B2: The second basic desire, or need of all perceptual beings, including human beings, is that desire, or need for sexual satisfaction.

Have you taken a look lately at the astronomical sales of Viagra and other sexual enhancing drugs? Is your email inundated every day with this sort of Spam material? Do you ever type in a search term on the Internet only to be inundated with a list of pornographic sites? Furthermore, have you happened to notice the population explosion in nearly every nation in our modern day world? The constant need for sexual satisfaction has resulted in an explosion of nearly all kinds of sexual enhancement drugs and devices from sexual rejuvenation items to things that perform such tasks as enlarging the breasts and penis. If that is not enough to validate Premise B2, then consider the fact that the US population alone increases exponentially every year. If our nation’s roads and highways continue to look increasingly overcrowded year in and year out that is because they are. Are there more houses being built near where you live? Have you spent some time away from your town of origin, only to return to see that the population has nearly doubled or at least dramatically increased? All of this is due to the human species second largest desire, which is sexual satisfaction, which in turn many times leads to procreation.

The desire for sexual satisfaction supersedes only that of self-preservation. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing, but rather within the natural order of things, or just simply natural. This applies not only to humans, but also to every species, or perceptual beings. In fact, perceptually, all species share this common desire in a perceptual spatial proximity given the fact that all species, when performing sexual acts, perceive similar enjoyments or satisfactions from it. Furthermore, while performing sexual acts, all species, particularly those perceptual beings within any one species, are in fact perceiving a similar event, regardless of when and where it is done. Thus, this creates a perceptual spatial proximity, which in turn creates a sexual environment.

Premise B3: Self-preservation and sexual satisfaction comprise the only two basic desires that all species are inherently or naturally equipped with, without the need to have acquired these desires or instincts through perceptual means.

Premise B3 rather succinctly observes the fact that self-preservation and sexual satisfaction are both desires that do not need to be acquired or learned by any species through perceptual means, but rather they are inherent at birth, that become apparent later within the life of a subject of any species. While humans like to speak of teaching their children about the ‘birds and the bees’, this small speech is never necessary in terms of describing the need for sex or the manner in which one attains sexual satisfaction, as each child inherently possesses an adequate desire for sexual satisfaction subconsciously that in turn surfaces consciously once the child is of a mature age. This is not to say that we should not shield children from pornography or explicit graphical sexual encounters, but merely that the child will develop the need for sexual satisfaction, which is inherent at birth as that child matures both mentally and physically.

While the need for sexual satisfaction will inherently evolve within any child without the aid of environmental perceptions, other issues such as the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases will not. Therefore, it is certainly in the interest of everyone that every child receives proper education regarding the dangers of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle. Furthermore, such bizarre sexual fantasies as homosexuality, fetishes, transsexual alterations and other unorthodox means of attaining sexual satisfaction also must be learned from perceptions. The fact that every individual must learn these dangers and bizarre acts of sexuality puts these facets of sexuality within the realm of perceptual necessities, unlike the desire for sex itself.

I have presented the previous two instincts and desires of any species that are inherent to all species in order to officially disqualify them as being necessary perceptual items within the development of all subjects of any species. Simply put, with the exception of self-preservation and sexual satisfaction, all other desires of any species, to include methods used to obtain these desires, must first be perceived before any subject of any species can adequately apply the instinct or desire, or the methods used in which to obtain the desire.

Premise B4: Since there are two basic desires that all species are inherently born with, and furthermore, since these two desires are greater than any other desires, all perceptions made by any species are ultimately regarded in terms of these two desires only.

If Premise B4 sounds almost plausible but yet a bit far-fetched in reality, then pay close attention. It should be obvious to any adult or at least those of adolescent years that every species acquires the knowledge to sustain itself. For instance, deer constantly hunt for food, and even leap in front of your automobile on the highway in an effort to do so. In fact, cows, dogs, cats, mice, etc, etc, all know the basic necessity for maintaining self-preservation. Furthermore, if you approach a deer, that deer is most likely to run in fear of you, why? Because it has an inherent desire to self-preserve itself, and consequently, instinctively anything it is inherently unfamiliar with is inherently seen as a danger to that self-preservation. It is only upon the deer’s perception of you presenting yourself in a friendly manner, albeit several times, when the deer is finally convinced through his perceptions of you, that you are harmless to him.

But by using any species other than the human species, it is rather simple to understand the conformity to Premise B4. But what about humans? We certainly have a higher capacity for intellectual thought than other species and furthermore, we are in fact able to compile very complex concepts from our own perceptions, which is what I am attempting to do now. But does every little thing that we do or conceive of necessarily have to be in terms of satisfying our two greatest natural demands? You bet! Of course, before I even began to give this a great deal of thought, I myself was skeptical of answering yes to this question. Simply because unlike many other species who mainly live to fulfill these two greatest desires only, humans have a higher level of intelligence and thus can become quite a bit more sophisticated than other species. But think if you will for a moment about a woman who admires a beautiful flower or painting. Furthermore, what about the guy who just loves his brand new sports car? What can these items possibly have to do with either the need for self-preservation or sexual satisfaction? Read on.

Remembering that the number one desire of any species is self-preservation, we need only to identify those things that are absolutely necessary to fulfill this desire on a continuous basis. Naturally, food, water, shelter, hygiene, etc, are all basic necessities that ensure the self-preservation of most species, and some species do not even require shelter, though shelter is of course a relative term. But all of these items in terms of the human species are considered raw physical items. By raw, I mean that they need to be used or consumed by the human species directly physically in order to maintain a state of self-preservation.

Conversely, there are non-physical or intangible things that are indirectly necessary for the human species, as well as many other species, to self-preserve itself. Many of these include happiness, love, emotional stability, and regarding humans, intellectual stimulation and religious fulfillment. You may at this point begin to ponder the idea that these intangibles are in fact inherent in every unborn child at birth. This would be a very good educated guess based on your own perceptions. However, I will now explain why these intangible items are not inherent within the human species or any other species.

Imagine if you will, that you were suddenly placed here on earth without any other species currently existing on earth. Simply put, you have suddenly appeared on this planet with no clothes, no shelter, no means of transportation except by foot, and furthermore, you have no idea where you are. Additionally, you have never seen a full image or reflection of yourself, and certainly have seen no other species of your kind. While you may see forms of food and water around you, you have no concept of what these items are or what they are for. Suddenly, you have a pain in your abdomen, though you are not aware of what the abdomen is, only that there is a pain that feels abominable and you must rid yourself of it. Furthermore, your throat is dry and scratchy, and that also results in an irritating pain. You think to yourself inherently, not knowing any structural language that something must be done to quench the pain in your stomach and throat. Something must go in there, but what? Instinctively you attempt to scratch your throat with your fingers, but this has a very nasty effect.

Therefore, you begin to reason instinctively that what was needed was some form of object to be inserted into your throat that would not cause you to choke profusely while your body attempts to regurgitate, while simultaneously relieving you of that awful dryness and scratchiness. Finally, you happen upon a very soft, agile type of material that tends to move by itself, similar to the way you do. This substance of course is called water, but to you it feels soft, clammy, yet soothing and you inherently reason that it might just do the trick. So you begin to gulp handfuls of this water, so much in fact the pain in your stomach has now begun to subside. At this point you have learned several things strictly through perceptions. All of these things were learned in fact, through your persistent attempts of dispatching the pain in both your throat and your abdomen. Of course, all of this was done instinctively due to the fact that you inherently desired to self-preserve yourself through your quest to feel comfortable and squelching your pain. This of course leads to happiness, which is now a desire that you have just perceptually learned.

Suddenly, if you are a male you begin to experience a pleasant feeling between your legs that is not the result of any outside influence or perception, rather it merely exists. You are experiencing the physical phenomena of sexual desire. You are obviously unaware of the fact that others like you could exist, but you have not yet begun to reason in this manner. Therefore, naturally that insatiable desire is than automatically directed at yourself in the form of some form of masturbation. The more you play with it, the better it feels, and so forth and so on. The fact that you have learned to satisfy your sexual desires through perceptions was the result of a pre-existing desire that did not in fact need to be perceived in order to exist.

Likewise, at this point you have no concept of what love or loneliness is simply because you have not learned these emotional traits, simply because you have no idea that others like you could exist. Before you can love someone, they must first exist, and then you must perceive their existence, which would compose a component of the general event of love. Otherwise, without the knowledge that others like you may exist, you can neither feel love for others nor feel lonely due to a lack of being with others, until you have actually perceived others. In fact, the only component of love you have at this point perceived is yourself. Have you ever tried to love someone, or feel lonely without someone you did not know existed? Rather difficult. Therefore, you are not inherently born with a need for love or fear of loneliness; rather these emotions must first be perceived and thus learned. Certainly, you could imagine a specific person, their appearance, personality, age, etc, and thus feel lonely for this imaginary person. However, without first perceiving the components of that person, specifically hair and its color, eyes and their color, race, etc, etc; it is impossible to imagine or conceive of such a person.

This same line of thinking also involves intellectual stimulation and religious fulfillment. You cannot very well practice a religion if you do not first perceive of its existence and subsequently learn its doctrine. You are not inherently born with either this desire or ability. Furthermore, the benefits and satisfactions drawn from intellectual stimulation are in fact acquired after the benefits of stimulating the mind have been perceived and subsequently felt. Before this occurs however, there is no manner in which you can acquire the knowledge of these benefits, and thus these benefits are not inherent to you at birth. Humans do not have the ability of clairvoyance, ESP, or any other prophetic abilities, otherwise historical catastrophes could have been foreseen and most likely avoided.

A newly born child, contrary to popular belief, does not stop crying merely because his mother holds him. This may occur, but not for reasons we adults love to allude to. We like to think that the child stops crying due to the fact that he inherently knows his mother is holding him, however this is not true. A newly born child is equally apt to stop crying whether he is in the arms of his mother or a total stranger, sorry mothers. This is due to the fact that a newly born child has not acquired the mental resources to identify his five senses in a sufficiently satisfactory manner as to form a concept relative to what he perceives, not to mention the entire concept of mother itself. What does a newly born child normally do when he first enters the world? He cries. Why does he cry? Crying is the only self-preservation mechanism a newly born child has, simply because he has not had time to perceive any other. He is in pain, he is hungry, disillusioned simply because he does not know how to orient anything, and all of these new perceptions are exactly that to a newborn child, new. Therefore, the only defense to this sudden influx of thousands of perceptions at once in terms of his inherent need for self-preservation is to cry. You may think at this point that the child is thus born with an inherent ability to cry. After all, the child certainly has not perceived any one else crying and therefore could not have learned this emotional act through any type of perception. But is it in fact an emotional act demonstrated by the child?

I have pondered this problem casually from time to time since the birth of my second son Jordan in 1992. I was present during his birth, and as his mother delivered him via a C-section I watched as the doctor pulled Jordan from his mother’s womb, held him up and shook him, whereupon Jordan began to cry. However, he did not cry initially, that is he did not cry until he perceived of slight pain induced by the doctor shaking him, which of course is normal procedure to ensure the child is alive and aware of its surroundings. Jordan’s crying in my mind closely resembles the innate ability at birth to use his eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, nerves for feeling physical stimuli, and so on. All of these things of course are natural and operate without the aid of the conscious perceptive mind controlling these things, but rather the perceptive mind receiving what these things sense.

Therefore, I have concluded that the crying of an unborn child is not in fact an emotional outburst at all, but rather merely an innate ability to react to its environment, much in the same manner its eyes, ears, nose, and nerves react in a physical manner to its environment. An ability induced of course through the inherent need for self-preservation, from which reactions to its environment are predicated. Certainly, after several weeks whereupon the child gains some control over the conscious nature of what his senses are perceiving, he can then emulate his parents who constantly smile and laugh while holding him or while in his presence. Thus the child’s ability to laugh or giggle within a few short weeks is a direct result of his perception of the very same act committed by others. Never will you see a newborn child smile or laugh until he is capable of adequately perceiving others do it.

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, you may or may not agree with my arguments presented at any time within this chapter. However, my attempt to this point has been to show that there are in fact two basic desires inherent in every newborn subject of every species, and they are consequently self-preservation and sexual satisfaction. Furthermore, it is dependent on that subject to perceive its environment and subsequently learn from those perceptions in regards to efficiently satisfying both of these inherent desires. Additionally, the manner in which this subject perceives and learns from his environment is primarily exclusively through perceptual spatial proximities, where the subject is subjected to the same or similar object(s) or event(s) as many other subjects similar to him, and together, through these perceptual spatial proximities, create individual environments that are relative to each PSP. Aside from perceptual spatial proximities, there are in fact two other types of physical environments capable of being perceived without containing a PSP. However, neither of these additional environments, one of which is perceptually null, have a very good opportunity to exist in such a highly populated perceptual being world where nearly every form of physical environments are perceived by more than one perceptual being over the course of time.

Since it is nearly impossible to maintain a perceptually individual environment, and given the fact that a perceptually null environment is irrelative to perceptual beings, it is in fact true that primarily through perceptual spatial proximities perceptive beings perceive things in their environment. Given this fact therefore, it is highly possible that many people can in fact perceive things in very similar manners, including very large populations of people. Furthermore, since very large populations of people can and do perceive things in similar manners, they therefore are quite capable of conceptualizing in a similar manner what they have previously perceived. This directly leads to similar behaviors among these groups of people among many population groups. In fact, the more a perceptual spatial proximity is condensed in respect to space and time, the higher the probability the PSP will in fact contain a predominate number of similar perceptions among its occupants.

Though perceptual spatial proximities can certainly tell us why many groups of people think in similar ways based on similar perceptions, it cannot tell us why certain people think a particular way. For instance, though five people go to the theater to see a movie, and thus share a perceptual spatial proximity, and the movie, theater and surrounding people and objects as its corresponding environment, all five of these people may very well each rate the movie differently on a scale of 1 to 10. Additionally, they may all rate the movie with the same number, or furthermore only two or three may rate the movie with the same number. These subtle dissimilarities in the conceptualizations of these five people are a direct result of subtle dissimilarities in their perceptions of the movie. Furthermore, it is my theory that each individual’s perception of the movie is directly related to previous perceptions of similar events, be they real or unreal, that are inherently related to the movie. Remember, we can never conceptualize something until we first perceive it, simply because we are not inherently born with this knowledge.

I truly believe that all conceptualizations arising from perceived object(s) or event(s), are always dependent on previously perceived objects and events, but only certain objects and events and also in the particular order in which we have perceived these objects and events. Simply put, I believe the manner in which we conceive things and conceptualize our environment to benefit our own self-preservation is directly dependent on a certain perceptual permutation, or order of certain perceived objects and events contained within all perceived objects and events.

Definition: The Pragmatic Perceptual Permutation Theory states that of all perceptions perceived by any perceptive being, there is always a significant sample of these perceptions the order of which directly influences any perceptual being’s future perceptions and subsequent conceptualizations of that perceptual being’s environment in terms of that perceptual being’s desire for self-preservation and/or sexual satisfaction.

This theory in simple terms indicates that the order in which we perceive the most significant perceptions in the course of our lifetime directly affects future perceptions of things and therefore directly affects our conceptualization of these things, specifically in terms of our two biggest desires self-preservation and sexual satisfaction. I can already hear every psychologist in the world saying either this guy is a nut or simply, so what? Well, to be sure the former certainly applies more so than the latter. However, the latter is what is most relevant and important. In addition, you may feel that this is merely obvious given the fact that what we are subjected to, especially during our childhood years, greatly influences the type of person we become as adults, both characteristically and intellectually. But I present this theory as an alternative to this rather inexact notion on the basis that not every child becomes intellectually and characteristically reflective of what that child was exposed to perceptually. Many would refer to this deviation as a result of genetics or some other mental deficiencies such as mental diseases, and that may be true. However, have you ever seen a two-year-old schizophrenic? The fact that you would have to answer no to this suggests that such mental diseases are acquired rather than genetically encoded through birth, or merely exist at birth.

To acquire any mental disease requires that the mind be subjected to certain perceptions that in fact lead the mind to conceptualize in an otherwise demented, crazy or unorthodox manner. Specifically put, conceptualizing per the three adjectives above in a manner that severely restricts one’s ability to efficiently self-preserve themselves as a result of bizarre, over-indulgence in an activity in a particular area(s), leads to self-destruction. In words, this is an acquired behavioral trait through a certain order of significant preconceived perceptions. A very good example of this type of behavior, better known as mental addictions, is gambling. There have been many accounts of individuals destroying their lives and the lives of others through the mentally addictive nature of gambling. The need for gambling initially arises in individuals due to its effective nature in many times falsely assuring the would-be gambler of a state of self-preservation through the acquisition of large sums of money. However, other aspects of gambling may also be involved such as the need for competition to enhance and individual’s happiness through pleasure. Nevertheless, the act of an individual perpetually giving more money to an activity than the individual is receiving from it results in an individual locking himself or herself into a catatonic schizophrenic state as a result of that individual’s acquired demented view of the proper method in which to self-preserve. Simply put, in an effort to self-preserve through the acquisition of money and the emotion of happiness associated with self-preservation and created through the act of competition, that individual has acquired a form of schizophrenia, or mental sickness that many times leads to self-destruction.

However, gambling is not the only area in which such schizophrenic type behavior occurs. Other areas include such mental addictions as video games, eating, pornography and sex (especially the bizarre type), and even fanatical religious beliefs. These types of mental addictions can be taken to such extremes that not only do they destroy important personal relationships, but they are quite capable of destroying the individual inflicted with such mental dements as well. When certain mental addictions affect an individual’s ability to act in a responsible nature such as neglecting work, relationships, and ultimately their own self-preservation, the individual inflicted with such mental diseases should seek help from a qualified therapist. Furthermore, there should be no shame or sense of guilt placed upon the individual by themselves or others, simply because that individual has become a victim of a particular nasty perceptual permutation that has resulted in demented conceptualizations. Remember, self-preservation is inherently each individual’s greatest desire, and when any individual deviates from behavior consistent with that desire, that individual has been inflicted with a mental sickness, even when that behavior is perceived as falsely satisfying the demands of either self-preservation or sexual satisfaction.

Such things as gambling, bizarre sex, eating, religious beliefs, etc, are in themselves not inherently dangerous to individuals unless they are irresponsibly engaged in. The casual gambler who merely indulges in the activity for enjoyment or entertainment and furthermore does so well within a responsible budget, can certainly not be considered mentally deranged or disillusioned in terms of the activity of gambling. In fact, many gambling establishments and casinos contribute a great deal of money to worthy causes each year. The same can be said of participants in such activities as bizarre sex, eating, and religious conformities. Even such acts as undergoing a sex change cannot necessarily qualify the individual undergoing such an extreme physical transformation, as being mentally demented unless such a transformation directly affects that individual’s ability to self-preserve or sexually satisfy in a negative way. This includes that individual’s subsequent ability to act and otherwise interact with their environment in a responsible manner. Many may claim that such a physical transformation is a result of a demented mind or otherwise crazy individual, however such conceptions are extracted from moral ideals, which are also a result of a certain perceptual permutation, and not in terms of a perceptual being’s two inherent desires.

Another important conceptualization that many individuals unfortunately acquire through a certain order of significant perceptions during the course of their lives is racism. There may in fact be thousands upon thousands of perceptive reasons as to why a certain individual acquires a feeling of discontent or hatred toward people of different races from his or her own. However, theoretically speaking, this discontent and hatred is directly bred from a particular perceptual permutation and the conceptualization of discontent and hatred itself can in fact be formed through several different perceptual permutations. This is true because there certainly exists more than one person in our modern world who could be classified as racists, however there is necessarily only one unique perceptual permutation to each individual. Therefore, this implies that racism, like the mental addictions of gambling, bizarre sex, eating disorders, and fanatical religious beliefs, is a learned through perception behavioral disorder.

Many human perceptions leading to mental or behavioral disorders such as racism, stem from perceptions of incorrect generalizations regarding other humans. For instance, if one particular individual acts in a rude manner toward you or otherwise mistreats you, you may tend to generalize that conduct about that individual’s entire race, which would in effect be an incorrect generalization. Furthermore, future perceptions of individuals of that particular race conducting themselves in such a manner, may in fact enhance that generalization concerning that particular race. Nevertheless, it is theoretically the order in which these perceptions and consequently generalizations occur that in fact instills racism in an individual.

The entire theory of perceptual permutations is of course just that, a theory and therefore has not been proven. However, it is my belief that this theory cannot be disproved either. I have become convinced over the years that the manner in which we conduct ourselves within our environment is a direct result of our perceptions within that environment, and specifically within the many perceptual spatial proximities we are involved in on a daily basis. This I feel precludes the notion that such conduct is controlled through genetics or any inherent physical makeup, but rather shapes any future physical makeup development within any individual that entices the individual to act in a particular manner. Simply put, a particular perceptual permutation over the course of time can in fact create changes in our internal physical makeup, especially within the brain.

It is a known fact that perceptual experiences can have physical impacts on individuals. An example of this is an individual’s perception of things that cause mental stress, such as excessive worrying over a perceived event(s), and that same mental stress can cause physical health issues. Furthermore, though depression is now recognized as being a result of a certain chemical imbalance, I am convinced that this chemical imbalance is not inherent at birth, but rather develops over the course of time through an individual’s perceptions within his or her environment, specifically the order in which the most significant of these perceptions occur. Depression of course can, and sometimes does lead to an individual committing suicide, which by its very nature is considered a demented mindset since it is directly contrary to the individual’s physical self-preservation. However, such an act is theoretically conducive to an individual’s mental self-preservation in the fact that by physically destroying their physical state they in essence relieve their mentally unhappy state, happiness of course, also being a trait of self-preservation. I have not presented this in order to suggest that suicide is a legitimate alternative to a depressive mental state, only to point out that the human being has the capacity to physically destroy itself in order to rid itself of a mental state that is inconsistent with its largest inherent desire, self-preservation.

The preceding paragraph introduces a certain distinction between two types of self-preservation, mental and physical. However, the distinction and therefore the difference, is by and large miniscule at best. While physically self-preserving oneself is an obvious concept, the concept of mental self-preservation is not so obvious but nevertheless is closely kindred with its physical counterpart. In fact, the need to mentally self-preserve is directly predicated from the need to physically preserve, and contains such self-preserving traits as happiness, love, joy, intellectual stimulation, religious fulfillment, and so forth and so on. Since physically self-preserving oneself necessarily requires an individual to undertake this task through mental capacities, before one can physically self-preserve they must first mentally self-preserve. Therefore, if one is unable to mentally self-preserve, then their capacity to physically self-preserve is dissolved, and many times this directly leads to the act of suicide.

At this point you may be thinking that all of this theoretical talk about PSPs, perceptual permutations, and self-preservation is all interesting, or maybe you feel that is nothing more than a lot of theoretical nonsense. But regardless of how you feel about it, and certainly it all deserves a book of its own, you may be wandering what it all has to do with Hitler and the Third Reich. Succinctly put, it has everything to do with Hitler and the nazi party, specifically regarding its highly disillusioned ideological phenomenon.

To begin looking at these theories in terms of nazi Germany we must first start with the perceptual spatial proximity concerning Germany after the end of WWI. The demands made upon Germany as a result of the Versailles treaty affected everyone in Germany, especially in an economic way. However, one must also remember that as a result of the outcome of the war, Germany had to face the fact of being militarily defeated, having large amounts of territory taken from it, and additionally being penalized by colossal war reparations demands. All of these events, including the economic devastations were perceived events by the people of Germany. Furthermore, these events, safe to say, were perceived by the majority of Germans in similar ways, specifically in a negative light. Add to this fact that well before this time the people of Germany actually perceived themselves as such, Germans that is. This particular PSP resulted in certain similar conceptualizations among many people of Germany, specifically in the need to formulate a plan to stand up to what was similarly perceived as iniquitous treatment from the victors of WWI.

What these similar conceptualizations, formed from a particular PSP resulted in was an abundance of new political parties forming in the composition of left, right, and center idealisms. The differences that arose as a result of the miniscule differences in the original PSP, resulted in that original PSP being chopped into smaller pieces that resulted in different conceptualizations that ultimately divided the people of the original PSP into smaller political party PSPs, or separate political parties. However, not only does the original PSP remain in existence comprising its initial participants, but the composition of the new, smaller PSPs were then comprised of individuals based on their own ordering of perceptions prior to the original PSP. Simply put, the perceptual permutation of each individual ultimately mandated how best to conceptually confront the German problem following WWI, and thus also mandated to what political affiliation these individuals would thus attach themselves to.

When I speak of previous perceptions and specifically the ordering of these perceptions, I am referring primarily to the perceptions of historical events, learned doctrines, and perceptions within the very life of the individual. All perceptual permutations are unique to each individual, however many perceptual permutations can in fact be similar and thus result in similar conceptualizations within any current PSP, which directly results in similar ideological formations. In essence, when this occurs among a group of people, that same group of people become involved with a particular ideological movement or in this case, a particular political party having a particular ideology contained therein. As a result of this, a great abundance of political parties appeared within Germany following WWI, not the least of which the German Worker’s or eventually known as the nazi party.

All of these new parties in Germany arose as a result of previous perceptual permutations and enhanced by the iniquitous demands of the Versailles treaty, which itself was derived through previous perceptual permutations by other individuals. It now becomes clear how perceptual permutations, while not one is exactly alike, can nevertheless be similar enough through their mere existence within certain perceptual spatial proximities over the course of time, to induce many people into thinking or conceptualizing in similar ways that can in effect have detrimental effects on other groups of people that think or conceptualize in a different manner through the same process. It is all about perceptions, and specifically the ordering of these perceptions within perceptual spatial proximities contained in a corresponding environment that transgress the very essence of time and space that enables ideologies of the degree of atrociousness and maliciousness as that ideology formulated by Adolf Hitler himself.

To conclude this essay, I would like to first reiterate that everything I have presented in this essay is theoretical in nature, and none of it has been proven with the exception of a few items. The theories of PSPs and perceptual permutations are exactly that, theories that have not been proven. Furthermore, if these theories do happen to be correct, it would be nearly impossible to use the knowledge presented by these theories in a practical manner as to prevent any one individual from following a doomed perceptual permutation, simply because the knowledge of what constitutes a doomed perceptual permutation regarding even one individual is unknown, not to mention all individuals. In fact if we knew this, then it would be quite possible to wipe out things such as hate and crime entirely.

However, these theories do call our attention to the importance of teaching children both directly and indirectly through our own actions and conduct, the proper manner in which each individual should conduct himself or herself. For children perceive our actions and reactions to things in our PSP environment and furthermore they many times attempt to duplicate them, and in the process of engaging in these perceptual spatial proximities form their own unique perceptual permutation that may in fact determine their eventual character and mental stability. Furthermore, since perceptual spatial proximities transgress both space and time to include anything that is perceivable to the human mind, children and young people must be prevented from perceiving, at least to a large extent, such mind-altering events and objects such as violence, pornography, drugs, smoking, alcohol, and the list is almost endless. Things such as smoking and alcoholism are in fact physical addictions, however the existence of such detrimental habits must first be perceived by an individual before that individual can be adequately addicted to them. Perceptions can be attained from any number of sources such as the Internet, TV, radio, video games, books, magazines, and anything remotely perceivable by a child that occurs presently, or occurred many years in the past. Whether it occurs within physical proximity of the child or thousands of miles away, it directly affects the child’s perceptual permutation and thus his or her conceptualization of how they should conduct themselves including the treatment of others.

If you are concerned about your own child or children and the effects of detrimental perceptions that threaten the safety and well-being of your child, you should consult a qualified psychologist, or for information on how such perceptions alter the physical nature of a child please consult a qualified psychiatrist. To enable us to create a more safe, sane environment in which to live, we must first create safe and sane perceptual spatial proximities, and in that manner perhaps we can avoid future acts of inhumanity.

So, what is the best manner in which to accomplish all of this? You guessed it; by using the same manner that Hitler himself attempted to use, tyranny itself. Before you jump up angrily, or send me a nasty gram, please read carefully. Remember, that all conceptualizations to include the manner in which we think people should conduct themselves, are theoretically based on a unique perceptual permutation that occurs over the course of a lifetime. Once the permutation begins, its initial ordering can never be changed. However, fortunately that is the worst of it, and with proper help people can actually change the effects of a doomed perceptual permutation that leads them down a path of self-destructing mental addictions, and live a safe and fulfilling life. Many religious people, including the great Dr Charles Stanley may direct your attention to God in correcting this problem, or convince you must return to your religious source. However, regardless of how you deal with such problems, they do in fact need to be confronted, or you will definetly live your life at the very least in frustration, if not in a more unpleasant state. Unfortunately, Hitler did not seek help or guidance with his particular doomed perceptual permutation, and the result of that unique permutation was not only devastating, but he subsequently paid the ultimate price for it.

But tyranny does not need to be this way. In fact, tyranny can be a very good thing if used in a proper manner. A good example of this is the United States constitution, which in fact was created on the basis of several unique perceptual permutations that resulted in several similar yet unique conceptualizations concerning just how a population of people should conduct themselves. Yes that is right, I have called the US constitution, which I love dearly, a form of tyranny. But think if you will for a moment of the perceptual human beings contained within the United States as being also contained in a perceptual spatial proximity. Naturally, not all of us agree with every law that we must abide by. I for one disagree with seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws, simply because the danger to whomever breaks these laws is self-absorbed. I do agree however, that children should be securely restrained within a moving vehicle and furthermore, both children and adult backseat passengers should be securely restrained to prevent them from being thrown forward in an accident and injuring persons in the front seat.

However, all of this is a result of my own unique perceptual permutation, and the very fact that there are others who have perceived these laws constitutes a very broad perceptual spatial proximity whose environment constitutes each of these two laws. But that is the necessary process of formulating any law or regulation. We must first perceive of a problem within our society that threatens self-preservation in particular, and then we must conceive of an appropriate manner in which to correct the problem, all done of course in the name of self-preservation. If we extend this process to an entire realm of laws and regulations contained within one civil society, then we get an entire set of rules and regulations that govern that society, which by and large the majority agree with and are willing to abide by whether they do so or not.

Remember however, that a perceptual spatial proximity whose environment refers to several object(s) or event(s) will necessarily contain a lower probability or percentage of similar perceptions than a PSP whose environment refers to merely one object or event. This very fact alone can explain the ever expanding rules and regulations within our presupposed free US society and furthermore the constant bickering between politicians and citizens alike over this rule and that law. It also reveals the fact that it is practically impossible to please everyone with laws and regulations that are designed to govern and maintain civil order, simply because not everyone will have a similar perception regarding all laws and regulations, which is a direct result of differing unique perceptual permutations.

I have heard it said before that the human male is inherently either barbaric or effeminate in nature. I vehemently disagree, for both of these personality traits must first be learned through perception, and furthermore either one of these traits are a direct result of the perceptual spatial proximity in which a particular human male has been predominately subjected to. However, the state of barbarism is certainly easier to attain simply because of its inherent simplicity. The act of living in a state of consciousness that need not conform to any rules or laws that demand civil behavior is much simpler than consciously conducting oneself in a manner consistent with learned, established rules of conduct.

Therefore, in the very beginning of humankind, our species lacked the education and knowledge associated with being barbaric or effeminate, but through the process of crude perceptions quickly developed the ability to barbarically sustain itself. It was not until many years later that the human species, after many years of perceiving and learning developed the capabilities to civilize themselves in a manner that would induce such qualities as effeminate behavior among males and females alike. It is only because of this learning through perceptions and subsequently conceptualizing what is perceived specifically in terms of self-preservation, that indeed has sustained the human species. However, while the predominant members of the human species have now obtained a state of civilization, the constant regression to conceptualizations of original perceptions can never be overstated. Wars, skirmishes, terrorism, and crime are enigmatic perpetual reminders of the human species’ capacity for barbarism, all in the name of self-preservation.

Therefore, while modern day humankind has come to realize over many years that civilization holds the true path to sustaining itself, it often times equally recognizes the need for barbarism as being an essential ingredient to that self-preservation. The Neanderthal man in the above example learned the state or feeling of happiness through his perceptions that were brought into focus due to his need to satisfy two pre-existing conditions, self-preservation and sexual desire. These two inherent desires were both initially satisfied by humankind in a barbaric manner, simply because it had not perceived, and therefore could not conceptualize any other manner in which to satisfy these desires. Thus, a man in this condition would, after perceiving and conceptualizing such an idea, satisfy his sexual desires by simply having sex with a woman whenever he desired to, with or without the consent of the woman. In our civilized world, this is known as rape, which has furthermore been marked by humankind as a crime against humanity and therefore punishable by humanity, in an attempt to self-preserve itself.

Though rape is now a crime punishable to the one who commits it, it nevertheless remains a constant problem in modern day civilized societies. This is due to the fact that many human males still perceive the necessity to satisfy their sexual desires in a barbaric and thus inhumane manner, which results from flawed or otherwise inhumane perceptions in other areas as well concerning the human species. Many people will tell you that pornography itself is a form of barbaric sexual desire, but this potential fact too is argumentative and furthermore based on the perceptions of others. After all, a female must actually perform the act of pornography voluntarily before the presupposed barbaric male can perceive it, conceive it, and thus enjoy it. This can also be perceived as the female participating voluntarily in a barbaric act of sex called pornography in order to assist in her own self-preservation through the process of being rewarded for such acts with money, the basic component of survival in civil societies. Therefore, while sexual desire is inherent in every human, and the satisfaction of that desire leads to happiness that in turn aids in the pursuit of self-preservation, the knowledge pertaining to the appropriate manner in which to satisfy this desire is not.

This then tells us that the manner in which both human males and females conduct themselves in their perpetual pursuit of self-preservation and sexual satisfaction, be it barbaric or effeminate is thus dependent on their individual perceptions. This would also explain the many differing opinions regarding the decision for a nation to commit an act of war or military aggression. What instigates such barbaric mentality within one individual may in fact not be sufficient to create that same mentality concerning that very same issue within another individual. Simply put, the hastiness to act barbarically in the name of self-preservation, or the reluctance to act therein is necessarily dependent on individual perceptions.

Furthermore, we as humans at least subconsciously understand this fact. This is evident by the need for some to enter particular religious beliefs into the realm of politics or the governing body of individual states. This is done in an effort to accomplish the enactment of rules and laws to govern a mass of people in such a way as to create a particular type of perceptual spatial proximity. This thus creates the consequential conceptualization of that particular religion’s mandated code of behavior within that mass of people through the appropriate and coincidental perceptions created by such laws. We see this type of political behavior time and time again, and the current need for some to create an amendment to the constitution of the United States to ban gay marriages is a glaring example of this. The ultimate idea is to force certain perceptions upon individuals in an attempt to control exactly what they conceive and the manner in which they conceive it. The act of conceptualizing perceptions in a manner in which one so chooses is freedom, however the act of forcing certain perceptions upon individuals in an attempt to control the conceptualizations of individuals is tyranny, and is furthermore a trademark of Hitler himself.

Therefore, if it is in fact the desire of religious communities, individuals, political parties or any other organizations to maintain civil order within societies to sustain self-preservation by eliminating barbarism through the preconceived notion of preplanned perceptual spatial proximities, this necessarily constitutes tyranny. While barbarism is certainly capable of sustaining the self-preservation of one or a few, it is by its mere definition, incapable of sustaining the self-preservation of many. This statement would effectively rule out anarchy as a viable option for any civilized society whose main goal is the safety and thus self-preservation of its occupants. Therefore, in order to maintain the sustenance of any large number of people, it becomes necessary to in fact create a designed perceptual spatial proximity based upon conceptions of previous perceptions wherein its occupants are subjected to similar objects and events, and therefore are quite capable of perceiving these objects or events in similar ways. In fact, as mentioned earlier, the more a perceptual spatial proximity is condensed in respect to space and time, the higher the probability will be that the PSP does in fact create a predominate number of similar perceptions regarding its occupants. The very act of creating a preplanned perceptual spatial proximity however, constitutes tyranny.

Given the fact that any civilized society has developed as such through the attempts of creating a controlled perceptual spatial proximity through the enactment of rules and regulations that are based upon previous perceptions, we all live under some form of involuntary tyranny. However, we do not need to study the act of perceiving or even the concept of perceptual spatial proximities to recognize this fact. Involuntary tyranny exists merely because of the existence of laws and regulations that we do not agree with, however we are coerced nevertheless through the threat of punishment to abide by them, though many of these laws do not violate the safety or rights of others. Such laws are enacted by those placed in governmental power to enact such laws that are based on their own conceptualizations of previous perceptions. The very need for humans to create preplanned perceptual spatial proximities illustrates the true power of perception.

Since any civilized society must diligently attempt creating a preconceived perceptual spatial proximity through the enactment of laws and regulations that emanate perceptions conducive to that perceptual spatial proximity, tyranny must exist within any civilized society. The fact that very free societies therefore constitute a form of tyranny, admits tyranny itself in certain cases into the realm of humane appropriateness. Simply put, many nations create laws and regulations based upon a certain perceptual spatial proximity that are in fact humane in nature and serve to protect the very people these same laws are designed to govern, while still allowing the people of those nations a maximum amount of freedom in areas that are not in violation of the rights of others. In contrast to this, are forms of tyranny that evolve from the doomed perceptual permutations of several individuals contained within a perceptual spatial proximity that attempts to create yet another perceptual spatial proximity that imposes strict laws that in fact curtail the rights and freedoms of the very people those laws are designed to govern, the Third Reich not the least of which. In fact, not only can this sort of PSP create freedom curtailing laws and regulations, but it is also quite capable of formulating very harsh and inhumane treatment of law violators. This is the form of tyranny that most people associate with the term tyranny, though in fact tyranny can be associated with any governmental structure that resides over a group of people wherein that group of people are obligated to comply with the laws and regulations set forth by that governing body.

The term tyranny itself can likewise be extended to cover the realm of religious beliefs. In nearly every case, the fact that someone obligates themselves to living their life mandated by a particular belief and the corresponding ideology contained therein, is strictly voluntary. However, if any one religion imposes punishment for nonbelievers or those who refuse to accept it, regardless of how vehemently it advocates freedom of choice, that religious belief is a form of tyranny. The very fact that it threatens nonbelievers with a source of punishment for non-acceptance makes it necessarily coercive in nature, regardless of the presupposed benefits contained within the religion for actual believers. Again, this does not make any particular religion that fits into this realm of tyranny necessarily bad, for the benefits of becoming a believer or member of its realm may greatly aid the fulfillment of the life of an individual. However, it is still considered tyranny, and the preconceived perceptual spatial proximity that it attempts to create is a testament to that fact whether that tyranny is good or bad.

The only manner in which to escape tyranny is in fact to maintain a state of anarchy and chaos, simply due to the fact that no preconceived perceptual spatial proximity has been forced upon any group of people in such a state. Such a state however will never exist among humans who naturally surrender to their inherent desires to self-preserve themselves, and this state of mind will always exist within the human species. Anarchy and chaos will most certainly lead to human destruction in its eventuality. In such a state its members are free to rape, pillage, murder, loot, and primarily be barbaric and unproductive. Without a productive society, society itself cannot and will not progress, but rather accomplish the opposite and that is to regress. I have always been taught by those who know, that there are only two types of reasoning regardless of any perceptual permutation, and those two are inductive and deductive reasoning. Since self-preservation is a generalized inductive learning experience, it cannot be accomplished through the deductive effects of regression. Mathematically, regression analysis refers to the act of taking general data and deducing that data into a reasonably fashionable representation of that data, usually in the form of an equation. However, we as humans are born with a simple inherent desire called self-preservation, and from that simple desire we must perceive and learn in one unique order ways to inductively learn the proper methods in which to accomplish that desire. That cannot be accomplished through the deductive reasoning of anarchy that will most assuredly exist without some form of preconceived perceptual spatial proximity, or tyranny that is either good or bad.

To end this essay, I could not restrain myself from commenting about a particular dilemma here in the United States pertaining to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages that is occurring during the very writing of this book. The fact that two people of the same sex desire to marry one another is a fact that I completely abhor, but nevertheless it theoretically arises from the unique perceptual permutations of two individuals that compel them to be attracted to members of the same sex. They are not inherently born with this particular desire, for like the Neanderthal type human in the example earlier in this chapter, they are simply unaware that such a means of satisfying their inherent need for sexual satisfaction exists. Therefore, in my mind I cannot consider this a civil liberties issue merely because unlike people of a particular race who are inherently born that way, these people must acquire such a sexual desire for the same sex through their own perceptions. Having said that however, I do not believe such a desire is entirely the participants fault since they most likely had no control over the perceptual permutation, produced through the participation of a perceptual spatial proximity created by others, that led them to this state of mind. In this sense, one may conclude that this is in fact a civil liberties issue.

However, it would be beyond colossal naivety for me to resign myself to the belief that this entire issue has anything at all to do with civil liberties, but rather with the conformance with a set of moral ideals held by others. Many in this country feel that the entire institution of marriage would be destroyed if these same sex marriages were afforded the same civil rights as conventional marriages. Others proclaim that it is sinful and otherwise Unchristian like to even have such a state of mind, needless to say to actually engage in such conduct. Still others like myself simply view the entire event of same sex marriages as utterly reprehensible. While still others simply could care less about the entire issue of same sex marriages, including the eventuality of the legal process concerning the issue. However, regardless of how you feel about same sex marriages, that feeling or conceptualization is nevertheless a result of your own unique perceptual permutation, and furthermore, the fact that there is such widespread disagreement over the issue infers that the perceptual spatial proximity contained within this same sex marriage environment is very large. However, this very fact compels many who oppose such marriages to push for a constitutional amendment banning such marriages, or attempting to influence a very general perceptual spatial proximity.

As far as the conventional institution of marriage is concerned, could anything be in higher disarray then that? From the astronomical divorce rate, to the impossible high pace demand of newlyweds and their families, to the fact that marriage arrangements now have become primarily money agreements. There is even a contract known as a prenuptial agreement, how sacred and based upon pure love can that be? Do two people actually need contracts to proclaim their love for each other? Is conventional marriage nothing more than a convenient money arrangement or business deal? The most common reason for failed marriages today is due to economic or financial difficulties. In many cases, the green of money runs much deeper than presupposed love. If marriage is as sacred as some choose to proclaim, why do we need a legal document reminiscent of a business contract to enforce it? Certainly, all families need money to survive, but should not love that is proclaimed through such a presupposed sacred institute such as marriage prevail over such matters as financial difficulties? Yes, it should, unless those financial difficulties threaten the very preservation of those involved, which rarely happens. But love does so only rarely, and therefore I proclaim that the manner in which we in the US look upon marriage is no more sacred than the idea of gay marriages. Therefore, before we can denounce something considered unconventional as despicable, we must first ensure that adjective does not apply to the conventional form.

To be honest with you, the correct decision regarding this issue can only be answered with yet another question, regardless of any perceptual permutations. Does the act of disallowing same sex marriages infringe inappropriately on the freedoms of these individuals, particularly the freedom of expression as set forth in the first amendment, without just cause? What is just cause? Just cause would entail protecting the rights of others such actions as same sex marriages would potentially violate. The next logical step therefore would be to determine if in fact same sex marriages actually infringe or otherwise violate the rights of others. Does it? I leave it to you; what do you say? Whatever you say, it cannot be based solely upon an individual or group ideological or religious belief to include Christianity, because if you attempt blocking such a right via this course you are practicing faith-based politics, which is something not only Hitler did, but furthermore something Jesus specifically said not to do. Nor would it be fair of you to invent rights violations to be used to secure an amendment against gay marriages to further an ideological or faith-based belief, which again is something that Hitler made common usage of.

The only democratic and purely constitutional manner in which to block gay marriages is to without doubt prove that such marriages violate any one right contained in the constitution of any one opponent of such marriages. Since conventional marriages are secured, as mentioned above by contracts, so too will unconventional marriages, which in my mind the necessity of such contracts makes the entire institute of marriage, conventional or unconventional, definetly unsacred. What is sacred is two individuals spending the majority of their lives together, under one roof, which would happen with or without a contract, with or without financial difficulties. This is truly sacred and should be what defines marriage, and I can speak from experience, it truly does take a tremendous amount of love and that once perceived, true love finds a way to self-preserve its participants through thick and thin, and in that essence, love truly does conquer all.